I don't know, he strikes me as, at best, a #4... far more likely to be a 5-6 guy or worse. Would have been nice to see him get some more ice time in the beginning of this season and see if we could figure out what we had.
By third pairing that is technically what I meant.....the 5th or 6th guy.
By third pairing that is technically what I meant.....the 5th or 6th guy.
Right, but when you're talking about that range... you're talking questionable on the NHL skill-level scale to begin with, which is the point I was making about the comparison to those other guys.
I love this type of criticism. Homer deserves no credit for everything and all the blame for everything (even things that are of no issue). He gets no credit for turning around the team because when he took over he "had all the pieces" and the moves he made "were obvious." Now he makes moves and he gets no credit because he got "lucky." I guess that makes sense. Results don't matter, only if he makes deals that make sense to you will he be a quality GM.
I love the specious claims that Holmgren gets zero credit, personally. They're always fun.
Every time i get on here and read about Holmgren its constant criticism.
He's done a lot of frustrating crap the last couple of years.
Do you see people criticizing him for acquiring Leino, however? How about Bob?
The critique of the Bob signing isn't that it was a bad signing, but simply pointing out that Holmgren didn't come into this year expecting Bob to be on the Flyers' roster.
The problem for the folks that rely on the "Holmgren doesn't get any credit" argument is that the fault usually lies in their inability to read and accurately digest contextual critical analysis.
EDIT: Just thinking back to last year, lots of people liked both the Leino move (worth a shot) and the Legein acquisition. Hell, I'm a "Holmgren hater" and I'm up in the Versteeg thread saying it wasn't a terrible move (even though I loathe to continuously give up 1sts).
I love the specious claims that Holmgren gets zero credit, personally. They're always fun.
Ok he doesn't get zero credit because there are a few people that give him credit when due. But a pretty sizable majority of the time a pretty sizable portion of the posters on here do nothing but blame him for anything/everything. If this is not the case, please direct me to threads and comments otherwise and explain the multitude of threads, comments, usernames, avatars, etc that support my claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sm0ka47
It seems that way.
Every time i get on here and read about Holmgren its constant criticism.
So Z smiling means I would think he and his agent know that a team of his liking will claim him and him being a **** head lately was prob all part of their plan. As long as Boston or Pittsburgh don't claim him,
I love this type of criticism. Homer deserves no credit for everything and all the blame for everything (even things that are of no issue). He gets no credit for turning around the team because when he took over he "had all the pieces" and the moves he made "were obvious." Now he makes moves and he gets no credit because he got "lucky." I guess that makes sense. Results don't matter, only if he makes deals that make sense to you will he be a quality GM.
What part of the fact that basically 4 of the 6 of his moves didn't pan out? Fact.....I'm giving him credit for making the team as deep as possible and thus containing/mitigating the RISK he took with those 4 players but they were still very risky and not exactly prudent moves..FACT..the end result shows it. Nobody really liked those signings and they were unnecessary because of the amount of risk that was involved. You can gamble on one player maybe but 4 is a bit much...Shelley serves a purpose so he gets somewhat of a pass however that pass will be neutralized come playoffs (also def overpaid still..thus inhibits the cap)
There is no doubt Homgren could have been much more effective with his offseason moves given what has unravelled and again the season is NOT over so let's not claim MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. Some of this stuff could rear itself still but again luckily Bob and Boosh have tempered things along with OD and Mesz...I give him credit for those moves helping offset things but not out of the woods...
He's done a lot of frustrating crap the last couple of years.
Do you see people criticizing him for acquiring Leino, however? How about Bob?
The critique of the Bob signing isn't that it was a bad signing, but simply pointing out that Holmgren didn't come into this year expecting Bob to be on the Flyers' roster.
The problem for the folks that rely on the "Holmgren doesn't get any credit" argument is that the fault usually lies in their inability to read and accurately digest contextual critical analysis.
You don't see people criticizing Leino or Bob signings. If they are they don't know **** about hockey.
But i damn sure don't see people giving him credit for the good moves. You take the bad with the good. Homer is the whipping boy around here. You can't sit here and tell me the bad moves don't get over magnified on here. You would be lying if you said no.
Don't try to sit here and say i don't read whats going on around here. I've criticized Homer myself. I have defended him at times too. I remember a poster flat out responded to my defense of Holmgren and said he got "Lucky".
I'm not saying you are one of those people. They are on this board though.
Ok he doesn't get zero credit because there are a few people that give him credit when due. But a pretty sizable majority of the time a pretty sizable portion of the posters on here do nothing but blame him for anything/everything. If this is not the case, please direct me to threads and comments otherwise and explain the multitude of threads, comments, usernames, avatars, etc that support my claim.
Yep. Gotta blame someone!
I think Jester, myself, infidelappel, and perhaps Hovercraft? might be the biggest "Homer haters" on these boards and give him plenty of credit for the moves that deserve them. We also tend to sometimes not give as much as credit as others for some things, but that doesn't mean he doesn't get credit. It doesn't need to be love or hate. It can be in between.
I've given him so credit in this very thread:
OD
Meszaros (despite big time initial reservations, and still some concerns about long term cost)
Even Zherdev
Ok he doesn't get zero credit because there are a few people that give him credit when due. But a pretty sizable majority of the time a pretty sizable portion of the posters on here do nothing but blame him for anything/everything. If this is not the case, please direct me to threads and comments otherwise and explain the multitude of threads, comments, usernames, avatars, etc that support my claim.
Yep. Gotta blame someone!
Dude, come off it. Don't even bring that whole stupid argument in here.
Nobody thinks Homer is a bad GM. People just think Homer is bad at important parts of his job. Everyone gives him credit for the things he pulls off correctly. Just because people point out his mistakes doesn't mean he gets no credit. It's just about viewing him accurately instead of with rose tinted glasses.
Pointing out flaws isn't a bad thing. It doesn't mean we are grateful or that we don't care about the results he's gotten. But just being first in the league right now really doesn't absolve all the mistakes. Or even mean anything, really.
Holmgren has made some good moves, the most impactful of which were - at times - plainly obvious (and therefore he gets no special merit for just doing his job adequately). He has also made some really bad ones. No body can doubt that he has built a good team, but I think the common knock is that the way he has done it has hampered this organization at the same time - the teams could be better, and we could be in a better position moving forward. It's legitimate criticism, not hate.
Ok he doesn't get zero credit because there are a few people that give him credit when due. But a pretty sizable majority of the time a pretty sizable portion of the posters on here do nothing but blame him for anything/everything. If this is not the case, please direct me to threads and comments otherwise and explain the multitude of threads, comments, usernames, avatars, etc that support my claim.
He's the *ing GM of the team, do you not expect him to be involved in discussions? The last few years his cap management of the roster has been an unmitigated train wreck (there is, literally, no debating this point... Paul Holmgren even admitted he *ed up two years ago). Last year we rolled into the playoff with your boy Michael Leighton, which aggravated no small number of us, and proved to be the team's undoing in the end.
This past offseason, as noted, his major acquisitions have largely come up empty (some like Leighton and Walker with ramifications that will bleed into next year). Moreover, as noted, most of Holmgren's arch-defenders (look in the mirror) are incapable of actually engaging on the points that people are making. No one denied that Meszaros was an improvement over what we had on the third pairing last year, they questioned his cap hit (I still do) and the overall cap distribution of this roster. Everyone liked the OD signing, solid vet on a cheap one year deal.
There are almost no Holmgren critics on this site that argue he is "all bad." The criticism of Holmgren is largely nuanced with acknowledgements of both good and bad features to his administration. Criticisms revolve around cap management, and his asset management with draft picks and the like (look no further than the current state of the Phantoms to see the fruits of his labor there). At the same time, he clearly has a strong scouting eye.
You don't see people criticizing Leino or Bob signings. If they are they don't know **** about hockey.
But i damn sure don't see people giving him credit for the good moves. You take the bad with the good. Homer is the whipping boy around here. You can't sit here and tell me the bad moves don't get over magnified on here. You would be lying if you said no.
Don't try to sit here and say i don't read whats going on around here. I've criticized Homer myself. I have defended him at times too. I remember a poster flat out responded to my defense of Holmgren and said he got "Lucky".
I'm not saying you are one of those people. They are on this board though.
If 99% of the board thinks a certain move was good (Leino, Bob, Coburn, OD, etc) it doesn't really lead to any discussion does it? Thus why you may not see it around
Dude, come off it. Don't even bring that whole stupid argument in here.
Nobody thinks Homer is a bad GM. People just think Homer is bad at important parts of his job. Everyone gives him credit for the things he pulls off correctly. Just because people point out his mistakes doesn't mean he gets no credit. It's just about viewing him accurately instead of with rose tinted glasses.
Pointing out flaws isn't a bad thing. It doesn't mean we are grateful or that we don't care about the results he's gotten. But just being first in the league right now really doesn't absolve all the mistakes. Or even mean anything, really.
Holmgren has made some good moves, the most impactful of which were - at times - plainly obvious (and therefore he gets no special merit for just doing his job adequately). He has also made some really bad ones. No body can doubt that he has built a good team, but I think the common knock is that the way he has done it has hampered this organization at the same time - the teams could be better, and we could be in a better position moving forward. It's legitimate criticism, not hate.
Red herrings arguments based on specious claims of HATE are always fun. What is also funny is that players, GM's, owners always rave about Philly fans being knowledgeable and demanding..they respect it. They appreciate rose colored glasses fans because they keep the revenue coming in but they respect those that keep them honest. Apparently for some its just all blasphemy and not constructive criticism..or worse its about ALL hate nothing in between. CRAP!
If 99% of the board thinks a certain move was good (Leino, Bob, Coburn, OD, etc) it doesn't really lead to any discussion does it? Thus why you may not see it around
Everything is contested on here.
Hell BobbyClarkeFan16 and a couple others posters hate the Versteeg trade.
You don't see people criticizing Leino or Bob signings. If they are they don't know **** about hockey.
But i damn sure don't see people giving him credit for the good moves. You take the bad with the good. Homer is the whipping boy around here. You can't sit here and tell me the bad moves don't get over magnified on here. You would be lying if you said no.
Don't try to sit here and say i don't read whats going on around here. I've criticized Homer myself. I have defended him at times too. I remember a poster flat out responded to my defense of Holmgren and said he got "Lucky".
I'm not saying you are one of those people. They are on this board though.
Probably was me, and Holmgren has been lucky as a GM. He inherited a team with a wealth of talent on the roster and in the system, a high draft pick coming, and a lot of cap space. Most GMs do not have that going for them. That's luck. He was lucky in his timing with the organization he was taking control over. Many people (in all walks of life) get put in a position where they're taking over sinking ships and that then reflects poorly on the job they are doing.
It's like the President and the economy. US presidents have very little actual control over the economy, but they get a lot of heat or praise based on whether the economy is doing well. They have some influence, but it's minimal. Clinton didn't "make" the economy boom in the 90s, just like Bush wasn't entirely responsible for the bubble bursting (though, de-regulation wasn't as great an idea as many folks assumed on his side of the spectrum). In both cases they took over their jobs with a set of parameters largely outside of their control.
Holmgren took over a job with positive parameters that were outside of his control. If Colin Campbell had taken the job he would have had developing players in Richards and Carter on the roster, and Giroux coming along.
And, yes, Holmgren is lucky this year that Bob turned out to be as good as he's been. He didn't plan for that.
Hell BobbyClarkeFan16 and a couple others posters hate the Versteeg trade.
Everything should be contested and analyzed. That's called being critical.
Being critical of the GM's moves is not a bad thing. Sometimes the arguments people produce are stupid (panning Versteeg after only a few games, for example, is stupid. Questioning if we overpaid for a player is not necessarily a bad thing if people are being reasonable, which not all are).
There's nothing necessarily wrong with raising a point of discussion if there is reasoning behind it - and yes, often times there is not. Welcome to the internet.
Probably was me, and Holmgren has been lucky as a GM. He inherited a team with a wealth of talent on the roster and in the system, a high draft pick coming, and a lot of cap space. Most GMs do not have that going for them. That's luck. He was lucky in his timing with the organization he was taking control over. Many people (in all walks of life) get put in a position where they're taking over sinking ships and that then reflects poorly on the job they are doing.
It's like the President and the economy. US presidents have very little actual control over the economy, but they get a lot of heat or praise based on whether the economy is doing well. They have some influence, but it's minimal. Clinton didn't "make" the economy boom in the 90s, just like Bush wasn't entirely responsible for the bubble bursting (though, de-regulation wasn't as great an idea as many folks assumed on his side of the spectrum). In both cases they took over their jobs with a set of parameters largely outside of their control.
Holmgren took over a job with positive parameters that were outside of his control. If Colin Campbell had taken the job he would have had developing players in Richards and Carter on the roster, and Giroux coming along.
And, yes, Holmgren is lucky this year that Bob turned out to be as good as he's been. He didn't plan for that.
Honestly you are a damn good poster. One of the best on here but that comparison isn't even the same.
You act as if Holmgren wasn't Clarke's assistant GM. Like he had no help and input into the organization.
I'm not saying Homer is the best GM in the league because he has flaws in a GM i hate. But damn sometimes you would think this franchise is a bottom feeder and a doomed one. Like this team isn't one of the best constructed teams in the league right now. I'm not going to keep going on about this because it will never end.
Everything should be contested and analyzed. That's called being critical.
Being critical of the GM's moves is not a bad thing. Sometimes the arguments people produce are stupid (panning Versteeg after only a few games, for example, is stupid. Questioning if we overpaid for a player is not necessarily a bad thing if people are being reasonable, which not all are).
There's nothing necessarily wrong with raising a point of discussion if there is reasoning behind it - and yes, often times there is not. Welcome to the internet.
Honestly you are a damn good poster. One of the best on here but that comparison isn't even the same.
You act as if Holmgren wasn't Clarke's assistant GM. Like he had no help and input into the organization.
I'm not saying Homer is the best GM in the league because he has flaws in a GM i hate. But damn sometimes you would think this franchise is a bottom feeder and a doomed one. Like this team isn't one of the best constructed teams in the league right now. I'm not going to keep going on about this because it will never end.
Way to personify the person who defends Holmgren by avoiding to address points.
Nothing Jester just said had anything to do with being a bottom feeder - or doomed. But the fact of the matter is that the Phantoms are depleted of promising talent (which isn't a huge deal breaker because our team has a wealth of young talent, but we will not be able to keep all of those guys locked up). Holmgren has mismanaged a lot of assets and the cap, and we may well slip back down to a 'good' team but not a 'great' team in a few years.
There are some significant issues with Holmgren's approach that may cause issues going forward; to grow as a GM and stay on top of the league, he needs to correct these issues.
Red herrings arguments based on specious claims of HATE are always fun. What is also funny is that players, GM's, owners always rave about Philly fans being knowledgeable and demanding..they respect it. They appreciate rose colored glasses fans because they keep the revenue coming in but they respect those that keep them honest. Apparently for some its just all blasphemy and not constructive criticism..or worse its about ALL hate nothing in between. CRAP!
Who are these people with ALL hate?
I'm one of his critics, I do NOT have rose colored glasses, yet I was a season ticket holder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sm0ka47
Honestly you are a damn good poster. One of the best on here but that comparison isn't even the same.
You act as if Holmgren wasn't Clarke's assistant GM. Like he had no help and input into the organization.
I'm not saying Homer is the best GM in the league because he has flaws in a GM i hate. But damn sometimes you would think this franchise is a bottom feeder and a doomed one. Like this team isn't one of the best constructed teams in the league right now. I'm not going to keep going on about this because it will never end.
This comes up a lot. Homer gets TONS of credit for being assistant GM and Director of Scouting (I believe that was it). His eye for talent is very, very good.
