HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Back to the Future - Leighton to dress for game 3

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-25-2011, 12:39 PM
  #301
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 48,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
OMG everyone on a message board was in disagreement with me? I must have been wrong. Just like everyone who was certain we would lose last night, especially after Leighton let in those two goals. I should have quickly changed my mind because everyone else thought that we were dommed! Same thing with the Bruins series last year. What am I thinking here? I better just agree with everyone.
Yeah, you were.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 12:57 PM
  #302
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,889
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Dude... you gotta stop drinking before noon.
This is an excellent argument. Much better than my "rhetorical flailing and misdirection."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
This right here is a prime example of rhetorical flailing and misdirection.
Yes, the use or logic and reason is never as good an argument as whatever you are talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyersfan333 View Post
I'm really sick of everyone bringing up the Bruins from 2010... IT'S 2011 PEOPLE!

I love that series as much as the next person, but RIGHT NOW Leighton just gave up 3 super soft goals in 20 mins of hockey. If it wasn't for our defense, he would have lost us Game 5 in regulation.
I was talking about to show that people on this board freak out over everything and just because everyone on HF boards thinks something is going to happen doesn't mean it will. It had nothing to do with how good Leighton was or anything like that. The poster said that everyone on HF knew Leighton was a bad signing so I should have known too. I was pointing out that things like last night's game (where everyone was sure we would lose) and the Bruins series (where everyone was sure we would lose) are times when I though, hey we can do this, despite the fact that OMG everyone HF boards didn't agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Blaine View Post
It's really hard to take you seriously with stuff like this when your current avatar is "Better Leight than Never."

Which, ironically, didn't hold up yesterday. Would been better never than Leight, winning at least 4-1. Weird.
Haha, yeah. But if you read my posts you'll see that I never said Leighton was anything better than solid for the Flyers last year and that the good signing wasn't because he was going to be a savior but because the other options were a lateral move and the goalies that were better had already turned them down.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 01:03 PM
  #303
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
This is an excellent argument. Much better than my "rhetorical flailing and misdirection."
It's better than the alternative... that what you wrote was a sober and reasoned analysis.

Quote:
Yes, the use or logic and reason is never as good an argument as whatever you are talking about.
Yeah, you didn't use any "logic" or "reason" in this post:

Quote:
OMG everyone on a message board was in disagreement with me? I must have been wrong. Just like everyone who was certain we would lose last night, especially after Leighton let in those two goals. I should have quickly changed my mind because everyone else thought that we were dommed! Same thing with the Bruins series last year. What am I thinking here? I better just agree with everyone.
The use of "OMG" give me a flash of...


Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 01:05 PM
  #304
El Emperor
Registered User
 
El Emperor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Woodstown, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I was talking about to show that people on this board freak out over everything and just because everyone on HF boards thinks something is going to happen doesn't mean it will. It had nothing to do with how good Leighton was or anything like that. The poster said that everyone on HF knew Leighton was a bad signing so I should have known too. I was pointing out that things like last night's game (where everyone was sure we would lose) and the Bruins series (where everyone was sure we would lose) are times when I though, hey we can do this, despite the fact that OMG everyone HF boards didn't agree.
Ummm.. but in terms of the subject of this thread, we are all right on the money. Are we all here saying we thought we lost the game after the 1st period? Not at all. We are talking about Michael Leighton and how typical his Game 6 performance was. Sorry, but all the goalies available in the last off-season that in the end were all signed for around 2 million, Holmgren hit the panic button on Leighton when he couldn't sign Nabokov to a low-balled salary offer. EVERYONE on these boards said it was a horrible re-signing when there were so many options out there.

Where's the hindsight in all of this?

El Emperor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 01:15 PM
  #305
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,889
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
It's better than the alternative... that what you wrote was a sober and reasoned analysis.
Obviously

Quote:
Yeah, you didn't use any "logic" or "reason" in this post:
I apologize for using OMG to mock the poster. That really changed the argument that because I sometimes don't agree with the majority of doom and gloom on here that it doesn't make me wrong because of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyersfan333 View Post
Ummm.. but in terms of the subject of this thread, we are all right on the money. Are we all here saying we thought we lost the game after the 1st period? Not at all. We are talking about Michael Leighton and how typical his Game 6 performance was. Sorry, but all the goalies available in the last off-season that in the end were all signed for around 2 million, Holmgren hit the panic button on Leighton when he couldn't sign Nabokov to a low-balled salary offer. EVERYONE on these boards said it was a horrible re-signing when there were so many options out there.

Where's the hindsight in all of this?
I was responding to a different post. My response to OP was that he will likely be given a shot in camp and if he blows he won't be seen in Philly ever again. My response involving the Bruins was about something that was posted elsewhere in the thread.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 01:22 PM
  #306
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I apologize for using OMG to mock the poster. That really changed the argument that because I sometimes don't agree with the majority of doom and gloom on here that it doesn't make me wrong because of that.
No, you tend to disagree with anything that represents a critical analysis that isn't praising Holmgren. Stating that Leighton isn't good and it was a terrible signing is not "doom and gloom."

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 01:24 PM
  #307
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
How anyone can claim Leighton is even comparable to the other UFA goalies from last year is beyond me. They are/were all legitimate NHL goalies. Leighton is not. Whether or not they are a good starter, a bad starter, or an average backup; they are clearly NHL caliber (and have proven so over a number of years). Leighton spent the entire year in the AHL, and even if you want to claim it was a strange circumstance due to Bob/Boosh, it doesn't explain why anyone wouldn't want him at 800k. The alternatives to signing Leighton WERE better and ARE better.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 01:29 PM
  #308
El Emperor
Registered User
 
El Emperor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Woodstown, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
How anyone can claim Leighton is even comparable to the other UFA goalies from last year is beyond me. They are/were all legitimate NHL goalies. Leighton is not. Whether or not they are a good starter, a bad starter, or an average backup; they are clearly NHL caliber (and have proven so over a number of years). Leighton spent the entire year in the AHL, and even if you want to claim it was a strange circumstance due to Bob/Boosh, it doesn't explain why anyone wouldn't want him at 800k. The alternatives to signing Leighton WERE better and ARE better.
Seriously! Does anyone think Chris Mason would have preferred Atlanta over Philly if Leighton wasn't re-signed giving that false sense that there was not open spot for a #1?

El Emperor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 01:38 PM
  #309
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,889
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
No, you tend to disagree with anything that represents a critical analysis that isn't praising Holmgren. Stating that Leighton isn't good and it was a terrible signing is not "doom and gloom."
I have no problem criticizing Homer, but not just for the sake of doing so. We've had this discussion before. You seem to think that the fact that everyone (meaning fans and the media) knew that the goalie market was going to be very cheap and thin. The two best goalies and their agents didn't know this. A GM of a top team didn't know this. But you did because you read it on TSN.

It doesn't matter that maybe other teams were interested in Leighton and the other goalies out there. It doesn't matter that the two best goalies turned down contracts. Because you knew that the Flyers definitely could have had any of the other goalies because you knew (like Homer should have) that the Flyers would top any offer to the other goalies and those goalies would prefer to come here. Yup. That makes sense. It would have been better to roll the dice and either wind up with Dan Ellis or Chris Mason instead of Leighton, which would have been just as good. Or wind up with Boosh and Backlund as the goalies coming into camp.

The way it turned out wasn't good, but at the time, there were little other options and the way Leighton played for the Flyers the season before justified the signing. I know he didn't play well in the finals, but aside from those six games (really only three or four of the six were bad) he was fine. He wasn't great, but he was good enough.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 01:39 PM
  #310
hXc Chris
Registered User
 
hXc Chris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Chester
Posts: 147
vCash: 500
I say it every season...its about time the Flyers go out and get a legit goalie. All these failed experiments are just becoming a joke. Its time to find someone that isnt going to spot the competition a 3 goal lead every game.

hXc Chris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 01:44 PM
  #311
hXc Chris
Registered User
 
hXc Chris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Chester
Posts: 147
vCash: 500
Whats the difference between Leighton and Boucher? As far as i'm concerned they're both garbage that wont get the job done. The Bob gave us the best shot, but we buried him after 2 powerplay goals and one sloppy goal. Theres your mistake right there.

hXc Chris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 01:48 PM
  #312
El Emperor
Registered User
 
El Emperor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Woodstown, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I have no problem criticizing Homer, but not just for the sake of doing so. We've had this discussion before. You seem to think that the fact that everyone (meaning fans and the media) knew that the goalie market was going to be very cheap and thin. The two best goalies and their agents didn't know this. A GM of a top team didn't know this. But you did because you read it on TSN.

It doesn't matter that maybe other teams were interested in Leighton and the other goalies out there. It doesn't matter that the two best goalies turned down contracts. Because you knew that the Flyers definitely could have had any of the other goalies because you knew (like Homer should have) that the Flyers would top any offer to the other goalies and those goalies would prefer to come here. Yup. That makes sense. It would have been better to roll the dice and either wind up with Dan Ellis or Chris Mason instead of Leighton, which would have been just as good. Or wind up with Boosh and Backlund as the goalies coming into camp.

The way it turned out wasn't good, but at the time, there were little other options and the way Leighton played for the Flyers the season before justified the signing. I know he didn't play well in the finals, but aside from those six games (really only three or four of the six were bad) he was fine. He wasn't great, but he was good enough.
Ugh, it's thinking like this that put extra pressure on Homer to pull the trigger on that last minute re-signing...

If Homer was so sure that Leighton was his guy, the deal would have been wrapped up days before free agency rather than hours.

El Emperor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 01:58 PM
  #313
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I have no problem criticizing Homer, but not just for the sake of doing so. We've had this discussion before. You seem to think that the fact that everyone (meaning fans and the media) knew that the goalie market was going to be very cheap and thin. The two best goalies and their agents didn't know this. A GM of a top team didn't know this. But you did because you read it on TSN.
No, I knew it because I observed what happened the year before and understand basic economic theory.

Moreover, I was proven right.

Quote:
It doesn't matter that maybe other teams were interested in Leighton and the other goalies out there. It doesn't matter that the two best goalies turned down contracts. Because you knew that the Flyers definitely could have had any of the other goalies because you knew (like Homer should have) that the Flyers would top any offer to the other goalies and those goalies would prefer to come here. Yup. That makes sense. It would have been better to roll the dice and either wind up with Dan Ellis or Chris Mason instead of Leighton, which would have been just as good. Or wind up with Boosh and Backlund as the goalies coming into camp.
I would have preferred Ellis and Mason to Leighton by miles...

However, what's remarkable is how... idiotic your line of reasoning is. You're attempting to reverse engineer some rebuttal because... I (and many others) were *ing right.

We were right, dude. Seriously, give up the *ing ghost.

Quote:
The way it turned out wasn't good, but at the time, there were little other options and the way Leighton played for the Flyers the season before justified the signing. I know he didn't play well in the finals, but aside from those six games (really only three or four of the six were bad) he was fine. He wasn't great, but he was good enough.
No, it didn't justify the signing... and EVERYONE that argued AT THE TIME that the signing sucked 5 day-old dead goat testicles has been proven right.

You, however, are incapable of admitting that others were right and Holmgren *ed up. So instead we get this blather.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 02:08 PM
  #314
dingbathero
No Jam? How about PB
 
dingbathero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. John's, NL
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,332
vCash: 500
Leighton fanboys... go away.

dingbathero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 02:16 PM
  #315
FreshPerspective
Ed finally concedes!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 11,744
vCash: 500
Leighton Photo



Jules if you see this please mock up a photoshop pic with this trashcan as Leighton's body..much appreciated...

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 02:21 PM
  #316
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 48,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hXc Chris View Post
Whats the difference between Leighton and Boucher? As far as i'm concerned they're both garbage that wont get the job done. The Bob gave us the best shot, but we buried him after 2 powerplay goals and one sloppy goal. Theres your mistake right there.
Boucher is much better than Leighton in terms of talent. He actually has rebound control, and he is capable of making saves that require him to move his limbs. However, I have serious doubts that he can get the job done throughout the playoffs because of his inconsistency issues, even though he has had a good year.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 02:23 PM
  #317
FreshPerspective
Ed finally concedes!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 11,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Boucher is much better than Leighton in terms of talent. He actually has rebound control, and he is capable of making saves that require him to move his limbs. However, I have serious doubts that he can get the job done throughout the playoffs because of his inconsistency issues, even though he has had a good year.
Might as well chop off Leighton's arms and legs..he's just a big stationary torso

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 02:24 PM
  #318
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 48,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoom View Post
Might as well chop off Leighton's arms and legs..he's just a big stationary torso
Maybe we can surgically attach his arms to his groin, to fix that 5-hole problem.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 02:34 PM
  #319
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,889
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
No, I knew it because I observed what happened the year before and understand basic economic theory.
What theory is that?

Quote:
Moreover, I was proven right.
That's fine. I never said that it turned out well. All I said was at the time it was a good move.

Quote:
I would have preferred Ellis and Mason to Leighton by miles...
That's fine. Look how that turned out for them. Ellis traded and is backing up somewhere else. Mason had an atrocious season. Just as bad as Leighton. So at the time you thought that would have been a good choice?

Quote:
However, what's remarkable is how... idiotic your line of reasoning is. You're attempting to reverse engineer some rebuttal because... I (and many others) were *ing right.

We were right, dude. Seriously, give up the *ing ghost.
I'm not reverse engineering anything. I am saying that at the time it was the best move to make. We were turned down by the two best goalies. The other goalies were on the same level as Leighton. It was better to have Leighton than risk having no one. It has nothing to do with what everyone else was saying. You are the one that is saying because everyone else was saying the opposite of what I said, that makes me wrong.

Quote:
No, it didn't justify the signing... and EVERYONE that argued AT THE TIME that the signing sucked 5 day-old dead goat testicles has been proven right.

You, however, are incapable of admitting that others were right and Holmgren *ed up. So instead we get this blather.
Yup, you caught me. Damn. How did you figure me out? I should have just agreed with everyone in the first place because no one on this board ever overreacts to anything. Give me a break.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 02:37 PM
  #320
mja
Negative Creep
 
mja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
How anyone can claim Leighton is even comparable to the other UFA goalies from last year is beyond me. They are/were all legitimate NHL goalies. Leighton is not. Whether or not they are a good starter, a bad starter, or an average backup; they are clearly NHL caliber (and have proven so over a number of years). Leighton spent the entire year in the AHL, and even if you want to claim it was a strange circumstance due to Bob/Boosh, it doesn't explain why anyone wouldn't want him at 800k. The alternatives to signing Leighton WERE better and ARE better.
I'm in no way a fan of Leighton, but this is wrong. ALL of those goalies, ALL OF THEM, flamed out hard. The most redeeming option of the bunch was chased out of an inferior league and is stuck in limbo.

Then I take a look around the league and see Bryzgalov - a guy I was ready to trade a 1st for - totally flame out in Leightonesque fashion. I see Luongo just absolutely lose it (that's just a fantastic contract for Vancouver right now). I see a young stud like Schneider GIVE AWAY a game. People here are quick to point in Quick's direction, but he's embroiled in a mini goalie controversy himself. Guys like Fleury, Price, Howard, are all Jekyll & Hyde to me, capable of inspired play one moment followed by incredulous miscues the next.

Really, what's out there right now? What happened to the heady days when you could go out and get a Belfour, a Cujo or a Hasek, and you could rely on Roy or Brodeur? When guys like Kolzig & Richter were good for solid runs, year in and year out? What the hell happened?

Lundqvist is great, but has the dude ever seen the 2nd round? Miller is definitely solid if not really the difference maker you'd hope for, but at the cost of a Jeff Carter-type contract? Thomas remains a question mark. Do we really know enough about Rinne or Neuvirth, yet?

You can go cheap on the position and try to get by, or you can throw money at the position and risk having it blow up in your face. The days of of the elite back-stops seem to be over. Everybody is just meh, now.

mja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 02:42 PM
  #321
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
What theory is that?
Supply and demand, dude. It ain't complex ****.

Quote:
That's fine. I never said that it turned out well. All I said was at the time it was a good move.
It wasn't, and many made the argument that it wasn't a good move... and it has turned out not to be a good move. Yet you still defend it and act like everyone is using "hindsight".

Quote:
That's fine. Look how that turned out for them. Ellis traded and is backing up somewhere else. Mason had an atrocious season. Just as bad as Leighton. So at the time you thought that would have been a good choice?
Mason struggled in the backup role when he lost the job... big difference between what Mason did, and what Leighton did. Unless you think it's the same thing to be in the AHL as opposed to the NHL.

Quote:
I'm not reverse engineering anything. I am saying that at the time it was the best move to make. We were turned down by the two best goalies. The other goalies were on the same level as Leighton. It was better to have Leighton than risk having no one. It has nothing to do with what everyone else was saying. You are the one that is saying because everyone else was saying the opposite of what I said, that makes me wrong.
And many folks, not using hindsight, made the argument that it was not the best option, and it was a terrible decision on 1 July 2010. They've been proven right, and you and Holmgren have been proven wrong.

Quote:
Yup, you caught me. Damn. How did you figure me out? I should have just agreed with everyone in the first place because no one on this board ever overreacts to anything. Give me a break.
You don't have to agree with everything, but you could have the intellectual honesty to admit that the folks that called it stupid were correct and stop throwing these embarrassing Leighton schlong loving hissy-fits.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 02:54 PM
  #322
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 48,612
vCash: 500
There is no earthly, logical way to defend Leighton's signing in the offseason. It was stupid and bad at the time, and it's stupid and bad now.

Anybody who didn't think it was stupid and bad when it was inked is either completely delusional, or Michael Leighton.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 02:57 PM
  #323
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
There is no earthly, logical way to defend Leighton's signing in the offseason. It was stupid and bad at the time, and it's stupid and bad now.

Anybody who didn't think it was stupid and bad when it was inked is either completely delusional, or Michael Leighton.
Or his agent... he was laughing to the bank on the commission for that one.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 02:57 PM
  #324
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,889
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Supply and demand, dude. It ain't complex ****.
Ok, when you just say "a simple economic theory" that doesn't tell me which one it is. But in reality, you couldn't possibly have used that theory to make your argument back in July unless you knew what teams were interested in goalies, backups or starters. For all you know there were 10 teams waiting to sign Leighton as a starter or even a backup.

Quote:
It wasn't, and many made the argument that it wasn't a good move... and it has turned out not to be a good move. Yet you still defend it and act like everyone is using "hindsight".
Yes, I will defend the act. Those saying it was wrong are saying it was wrong because there were better goalies available. This may be true, however, you can't be certain that they would have signed here, and as it turns out, they weren't better. I'm saying it was a good signing because you don't want to get caught with Boosh and Backlund as your goalies. Based on the way Leighton played the season before for the Flyers, which was as good as any of the alternatives (with the exception of Turco and Nabby who turned us down).

Quote:
Mason struggled in the backup role when he lost the job... big difference between what Mason did, and what Leighton did. Unless you think it's the same thing to be in the AHL as opposed to the NHL.
Leighton was in the AHL as a victim of circumstances, not poor play. If he hadn't been injured Bob wouldn't have made the team and it would have started as Boosh and Leighton. Bob made the team and Leighton got buried in the AHL. Bob was playing out of his mind the first few months of the season and Boosh was playing pretty well too. Leighton was injured half the year. You can't really blame that on Leighton. I'm not saying he would have stayed up all year or been great, but you can't say that Mason did better than Leighton solely because he was in the NHL when Leighton was injured and a different goalie stepped up.

Quote:
And many folks, not using hindsight, made the argument that it was not the best option, and it was a terrible decision on 1 July 2010. They've been proven right, and you and Holmgren have been proven wrong.
Yes, I have been proven wrong that it didn't turn out well, but not that the signing was a bad idea. They are two different things. On July 1, I honestly thought Leighton would do well. I knew he wouldn't win any awards, but I thought he would have played average goalie and done a better job than the alternatives (excluding Turco or Nabby, whom I wanted to sign before Leighton). The fact that I was wrong about that doesn't mean I was wrong that the signing was a bad idea.

Quote:
You don't have to agree with everything, but you could have the intellectual honesty to admit that the folks that called it stupid were correct and stop throwing these embarrassing Leighton schlong loving hissy-fits.
Lol. I'm throwing a hissy fit? You're the one calling me names and cursing and bolding things. Sounds like you may be the one throwing the hissy fit.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2011, 02:59 PM
  #325
FreshPerspective
Ed finally concedes!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 11,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Maybe we can surgically attach his arms to his groin, to fix that 5-hole problem.
Now that would be a scary sight to behold but it could work since he has no b@lls to act as a barrier either...

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:47 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.