I agree with others that this increasing obsession with numberone D numberone D numberone D is starting to get stupid.
Just the basic idea that there's a specific formula required for success is the worst example of armchair GM'ing.
Parise would have been a huge plus to this team and he's not even a defenseman. With a Zach Parise we could be taking a run similar to Chicago's.
So while a #1D is always nice, it's hardly the be all end all. You try for one, and if you don't get one (like most teams in any given offseason), then you get the next best thing.
They had a pretty nice d group back then. Letang, Scuderi, Gill, and Gonchar IIRC.
How could you forget Mark Eaton from that group... the pride of Wilmington, Delaware. I still have no idea how he pulled off that ridiculous goal in 2009.
Who did the Bruins suck to get? Only Seguin was a really high pick and he wasn't exactly a superstar the year they won the Cup. Even with the Ducks- Perry and Getzlaf were picked in the second of the first round. Lupul and Smid were high picks that went in the Pronger trade but they weren't that high. Point is, you don't need to completely suck to get the backbone of a Cup champion, though it helps.
Boston picked Phil Kessel at #5 in 2006 and Zach Hamill at #8 in 2007. Those two players didn't help win the cup but Seguin did play a roll, though not crucial, and he was had with a trade of Kessel. That example might be stretching it. Lupul was 7th overall and Smid was 9th overall. It's true you don't have to completely suck, but it helps to acquire either the star player or trading chips to get a star player in his prime. If the Flyers system was a little more robust, they could of probably pulled off the Weber trade.
It's not that it's a necessity to have a number one d it's that a championship roster can't have many glaring weaknesses. As lacking a number one d is a glaring weakness. As is our core being too young. As is us lacking wingers. As is us lacking offensively gifted d.
Maybe I am drinking the cool aid but is Timmonen Coburn Schenn Grossman and Mezzaros that much worst?
You're not, and it's not. The Pens didn't win the Cup in 2009 because they put in the best defensive effort. They won because they had the two best players in the world and Fleury played the best hockey of his career that year.
Last edited by flyershockey: 01-31-2013 at 02:53 PM.
your right and it's not matter of having the best defensemen in world, it's matter of what the defensemen can do for your team besides play defense, pronger made this team better not because of defense but he was an offensive threat, which the flyers dont have, which is hurting the offense right now.
Maybe I am drinking the cool aid but is Timmonen Coburn Schenn Grossman and Mezzaros that much worst?
Yes. All of those guys except Timonen don't have a big offensive game and their stat history backs that up. Timonen was a pretty serviceable guy at that aspect of the game not long ago but age is catching up to him as is a lack of support.
Maybe I am drinking the cool aid but is Timmonen Coburn Schenn Grossman and Mezzaros that much worst?
To bring it back to fun and not arguing, that's an interesting comparison.
Gonchar >> Timonen
Gill = Coburn (Gill had more lug-gishness but less smarts)
Letang > Schenn (both young and underdeveloped, vastly different styles, but I'd take 2009 Letang over 2013 Schenn)
I just don't know how to rank Meszaros and Grossman anymore. Lots of flashes of brilliance, lots of holes. If either of them were up for a contract this week they'd be an agent's dream and a GM's nightmare.
You guys are ridiculous. Not like Gonchar put up multiple 50+ point seasons in Washington or multiple 60+ point seasons in his career. I'm sure Crosby and Malkin were responsible for all of them even when he wasn't playing with them. I'm also sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation why there hasn't been a d-man in Pittsburgh as good as Gonchar since he left.
You guys are ridiculous. Not like Gonchar put up multiple 50+ point seasons in Washington or multiple 60+ point seasons in his career. I'm sure Crosby and Malkin were responsible for all of them even when he wasn't playing with them. I'm also sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation why there hasn't been a d-man in Pittsburgh as good as Gonchar since he left.
Ridiculous.
Did somebody strike a nerve? Nobody is trying to discredit Gonchar, but most people know he didn't strap that team on his back and carry them to victory in 2009.
Also, Letang at his best is close to what Gonchar was in 2009. He's not nearly as good offensively, but he is much better in the defensive zone.
Did somebody strike a nerve? Nobody is trying to discredit Gonchar, but most people know he didn't strap that team on his back and carry them to victory in 2009.
Also, Letang at his best is close to what Gonchar was in 2009. He's not nearly as good offensively, but he is much better in the defensive zone.
I just hate idiotic statements. If you don't think people were discrediting him then you didn't see the several posts saying all he had to do was "shoot the puck hard" and crediting all his success to Crosby and Malkin.
I just hate idiotic statements. If you don't think people were discrediting him then you didn't see the several posts saying all he had to do was "shoot the puck hard" and crediting all his success to Crosby and Malkin.
Agree to disagree then. Gonchar certainly put up some points that year, but it helped that he got a ton of room on the powerplay because of Crosby and Malkin. He didn't have near the impact that Keith had in 2010, Chara had in 2011, or even Doughty had this past season. And those teams didn't have near the game breaking forwards that the 2009 Pens did.
I just hate idiotic statements. If you don't think people were discrediting him then you didn't see the several posts saying all he had to do was "shoot the puck hard" and crediting all his success to Crosby and Malkin.
Yeah I agree there. Gonchar was on that year and it's not disputable. The context of this discussion is pieces you'd want in place at the beginning of a season (or at a trade deadline) to build a team, moreso than the intricate specifics of historic events.
Gonchar was pimpin at that time and everyone you asked would agree.
Yeah I agree there. Gonchar was on that year and it's not disputable. The context of this discussion is pieces you'd want in place at the beginning of a season (or at a trade deadline) to build a team, moreso than the intricate specifics of historic events.
Gonchar was pimpin at that time and everyone you asked would agree.
Exactly. All of our d are miles away from where Gonchar was at that point.
Maybe I am drinking the cool aid but is Timmonen Coburn Schenn Grossman and Mezzaros that much worst?
With Timonen nearing the end of his career, I'd say yes. I do think we have talent on the blueline but most of those guys are limited on the offensive end. I think it's a problem that Schenn, Grosmann, Mez and Coburn are all similar styles- you need a different look back there sometimes.
But, just like we need our D to contribute some on offense, we need our forwards to help the d-men in our own zone. That was lacking last season and, at times, this year too.
I don't get the desire to fire Lavi. Is it him? Or the forwards? Or the defense?
Is it him? - He has shown in his career that if he has the talent, his teams will put pucks in the net.
Forwards? - Slumping. PK needs fixing. No preseason. A lot of youth. Again, beginning of the season and Lavi may find a way to fix this. Fire worthy? Certainly not yet.
Defense? - Too many of these statements about defense are based on the fallacy that defense has a lot to do with netminder performance. Bryz is posting .924 (Bryz stat) and 2.11 GAA (which is the true stat for defense). It would be a little concerned about allowing 28 shots against per game. That could come down.
If you wipe out Leighton's nonsense, the Flyers have allowed just 13 goals in 6 games.
