One thing I always love about the Holmgren arguments is that if you trust in Homer you're a pawn to the team and if you disagree with him you're a hardcore pessimist. There's never any middle ground in the arguments over Homer here. And if there is a middle ground, it's No Man's Land filled with barbed wire, land mines, booby traps, and snipers perched out every 30 feet.
Anyway, if Roo has been cleared and he feels he can play he should play. He knows his body better than anyone else.
I think Holmgren is an average GM who is a solid evaluator of talent that makes his life harder by not understanding, or having a team that understands, the CBA and salary cap as well as someone like say Joe Banner.
People that love him on here feel that way because the team is successful. He is good at evaluating talent, and identifying players that should be successful (Briere vs Drury/Gomez). But his success has as much to do with the money he has to spend as it does with his ability as a GM. It's easier to ice a good team when you have an owner like Snider.
People that hate him are annoyed by the seemingly obvious mistakes that he makes, and also because of the lack of understanding the organization has of the CBA. They don't, however, give him enough credit for the players he's had a hand in drafting or signing.
People that never criticize him and always defend him, or people that think he's a moron and complain about everything he does have their own separate issues.
I think Holmgren is an average GM who is a solid evaluator of talent that makes his life harder by not understanding, or having a team that understands, the CBA and salary cap as well as someone like say Joe Banner.
There's nothing just "solid" about being the best drafting team of the last decade.
We did that despite not having all those 2nd round draft picks Holmgren gave away.
I wish people would recognize just for a second how lucky we are to have Holmgren and our scouting department.
He's done a lot through trades and free agent acquisitions as well. Bobrovsky? Read? Gustafsson? The list goes on.
He has completely retooled/rebuilt this team twice now. Meanwhile we haven't had a non-playoff team under his watch as GM (ignoring 2006-07). Our team looks amazing going forward.
Holmgren has his screw ups, but he is not just "solid" at evaluating talent. He might be at the top of the league in terms of evaluating talent and acquiring the right pieces to keep the Flyers at the height of NHL competition.
I think Holmgren is an average GM who is a solid evaluator of talent that makes his life harder by not understanding, or having a team that understands, the CBA and salary cap as well as someone like say Joe Banner.
People that love him on here feel that way because the team is successful. He is good at evaluating talent, and identifying players that should be successful (Briere vs Drury/Gomez). But his success has as much to do with the money he has to spend as it does with his ability as a GM. It's easier to ice a good team when you have an owner like Snider.
People that hate him are annoyed by the seemingly obvious mistakes that he makes, and also because of the lack of understanding the organization has of the CBA. They don't, however, give him enough credit for the players he's had a hand in drafting or signing.
People that never criticize him and always defend him, or people that think he's a moron and complain about everything he does have their own separate issues.
You analysis isn't sound when it discredits the postive moves Holmgren makes and writes it off to the ability to spend money. The top 15 teams in the league are all within $3M of each other in terms of spending. Should we discredit Shero in Pittsburgh because his team has the ability to spend money?
How about Regier in Buffalo? People thought he was such a good GM because he would ice competitive teams while having to deal with a decreased payroll. All of a sudden, his payroll is maxed out and his team is doing worse after spending money.
In the end, once the first round is over (and even IN the first round - see Giroux), that's exactly what drafting success is most dependent on...
I don't know. Luck is an obvious major factor, but this organization does a very good job of scouting players of a specific mindset, mentality, and competitiveness.
I don't know. Luck is an obvious major factor, but this organization does a very good job of scouting players of a specific mindset, mentality, and competitiveness.
Granted, we've got a nice terrible history of drafting goaltenders, but Bob is solid. Sunshine certainly has potential. Boucher and Niitty turned into quality backups. We'll see what happens to Hovinen.
Defensively we've drafted Pitkanen and Sbisa who are both solid top 4 defensemen with potential if they aren't already top 2s. Picard and Woywitka have become solid bottom pairing guys. Bourdon certainly looks solid, and Marshall had some decent playing time at 22. As far as scouting is concerned, Coburn and Meszaros are two guys we were reported to want from the beginning. We went out and got both of them later. We scouted Gustafsson, who barring long-term injury problems, should become a solid defenseman. Ryan Parent was another guy we liked, wanted, and eventually acquired, and had he not suffered career destroying back injuries, he would probably be a top 4 NHL shut-down guy right now.
Other than that we've pretty much always drafted forwards, so claiming that we've had little success on defense is a little unfair. Maybe if we had drafted defensemen when we drafted forwards we'd have a dominant future defense. Then again, is it possible we went with forwards because we felt those were the best options at the time?
It's all relative. Claiming that we historically have not drafted well at the goaltending position is fine. It's a little unfair to say we suck at developing defensemen. They just haven't been in our pool in bulk.
Granted, we've got a nice terrible history of drafting goaltenders, but Bob is solid. Sunshine certainly has potential. Boucher and Niitty turned into quality backups. We'll see what happens to Hovinen.
Defensively we've drafted Pitkanen and Sbisa who are both solid top 4 defensemen with potential if they aren't already top 2s. Picard and Woywitka have become solid bottom pairing guys. Bourdon certainly looks solid, and Marshall had some decent playing time at 22. As far as scouting is concerned, Coburn and Meszaros are two guys we were reported to want from the beginning. We went out and got both of them later. We scouted Gustafsson, who barring long-term injury problems, should become a solid defenseman. Ryan Parent was another guy we liked, wanted, and eventually acquired, and had he not suffered career destroying back injuries, he would probably be a top 4 NHL shut-down guy right now.
Other than that we've pretty much always drafted forwards, so claiming that we've had little success on defense is a little unfair. Maybe if we had drafted defensemen when we drafted forwards we'd have a dominant future defense. Then again, is it possible we went with forwards because we felt those were the best options at the time?
It's all relative. Claiming that we historically have not drafted well at the goaltending position is fine. It's a little unfair to say we suck at developing defensemen. They just haven't been in our pool in bulk.
Was there ever a chance in the Forsberg trade of getting Weber, Sutter or Franson instead of Parent? I mean, I know the injuries to Parent were unlucky, but can you imagine if we would have got Weber or Sutter especially, but were they just off limits in Nashvilles eyes? I know speculation won't change the past, was just interested if they were a possibility at the time. Completely off topic... sorry!
Was there ever a chance in the Forsberg trade of getting Weber, Sutter or Franson instead of Parent? I mean, I know the injuries to Parent were unlucky, but can you imagine if we would have got Weber or Sutter especially, but were they just off limits in Nashvilles eyes? I know speculation won't change the past, was just interested if they were a possibility at the time. Completely off topic... sorry!
Not really. Parent was definitely the extra piece is the Forsberg trade.
Weber, at that time, was just putting the finishing touches on his first 40 point season and Suter had 24 points.
At the time, both were worth more than Upshall and Parent.
