Jump to content

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

News Ticker
  • News Around the NHL

AJgoal

Supporting Member
  • Content count

    7,322
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    57
  • Country

    United States

AJgoal last won the day on July 18

AJgoal had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,109 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Location
    New Jersey
  • Favorite Team
    Flyers
  • 2nd Favorite Team
    Flyers

Recent Profile Visitors

6,611 profile views
  1. Because he earned it? I was just pointing out that PK time shouldn't be a consideration, since you mentioned it. And I'd argue that Weal has proven he has more skill than NAK to this point in their respective careers. Weal outscored NAK as a 21 year old, to go along with 16 5v5 goals. Was on par as a 20-year old rookie. I'll never get the "He was playing on the top PP and first line on a loaded team," argument against a player. If the team was stacked, yet he was playing on the top PP and top line, isn't that a good thing? One can make a similar argument against NAK's 18 5v5 goals - he was lower in the lineup, faced lesser competition, etc. Sure it can. But he has to prove he's better than 3 guys to even make it to the 4th line. And I don't see it in what he's done so far. Based on what? This is my whole point. What basis is there to say that he gives them the opportunity to roll a fourth line? Any more than Leier or Weal or Lehtera or Weise? So can Weal on both counts - he did play on the left alongside Giroux for a quarter of a season, and produced there. Plus, if Hextall is to be believed, he can play center (he was listed as such on Manchester). I think he's too small, but truthfully he doesn't give up too much on Giroux wrt size. My only point behind all of this is that while I hope there are better players to fill spots on the Flyers, I'm not ready to make room for someone on the hopes that they're better. Even a good camp doesn't necessarily prove anything. Many vets are taking it easy trying to get into shape, so a guy coming in and blowing away the preseason doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to succeed once opponents start trying. NAK doesn't have a track record of production at lower levels that argues for promotion. I'd rather he goes back to the AHL and come up as an injury call-up and prove he belongs then, than make room for a camp hero only to have him fall flat on his face in the regular season. Unless they're shooting Lehtera into the sun. In that case, I'm all for making room ahead of time.
  2. He played for the Phantoms, too. I'm not bringing a guy up to play on the PK. The Flyers averaged just over 4 minutes of PK time per game. I need a guy who brings something more than the ability to skate shorthanded for less than 2 minutes a game. The Flyers actually have a decent number of PK forwards. They just need to deploy them in a manner that makes sense. Maybe give Lindblom and Patrick shots. Both have good defensive awareness. Weal had 10 5v5 goals the preceding season in 30 fewer games in the AHL, which paces to 17 over the same season length. Weal's actually scored goals in the NHL, too. Sure we will. I just think he needs to prove something because his AHL career doesn't recommend him as an "upgrade". I want the team to be better, and if NAK actually does make the team better, I'm all for it. I'm just wary of penciling in someone new not because they've shown they're better than someone else, but because they're not someone else. Entirely possible. He was a good linemate for Laughton and Raffl, but he didn't do much else with his opportunity. He was abysmal on the PK, and didn't score. I could certainly see them wanting to go in another direction, but he was the 14th forward by the end of the season, so NAK beating him out doesn't move the needle in any meaningful way. Frankly, while I'm fine with Laughton as the 3C (it better not be Lehtera), I'm hoping that somehow they strengthen that position and Laughton plays the 4C role. Raffl - Laughton would be two thirds of an excellent 4th line, and then I'm not overly concerned with the 12th forward.
  3. Yes, he is. Hextall did say he'd earned a long look at camp, but that was also before the suspension. And I don't see anything in his game that points to him being better than the 13th forward on the Flyers. Both Leier and Weal outproduced him in the AHL at the same age. So with the possible exception of "filling a 4th line role," which I personally think is behind the curve thinking in the current-day NHL, there's little to recommend NAK for an opening day role right now. I'm fine with giving him a look, but I'm not seeing anything that tells me I should pencil him in over either Leier or Weal. Hakstol, of course, may think differently. But that doesn't mean he should.
  4. To start, yes. But they generally seem to try to change after every clear. They probably do get more time against the top PP unit, but it's not as pronounced as normal line matching. At least, that's my opinion. I can't find a pure stat look at it. Agreed. But between usage and a more effective system (starting with "the guy in front of the net is NOT supposed to be there." Seriously, their ignoring of the netfront guy has to be by design.) it's hard to gauge just how much is the players. Natural Stat Trick allows you to update based on a date range under the filters. Corsica probably does too, but I like NST's interface.
  5. No, but it would have had a significant effect in the following season, which happens to be the one that the Bruins swept the Flyers in en-route to Thomas winning them a Cup.
  6. He has to beat out Weal. It's certainly possible that Aube-Kubel's offense translates better to the NHL, but it's hard to look at their respective AHL bodies of work and conclude that Aube-Kubel is the better option. Now if Laughton and Weal are your bottom two centers (I think Weal at center is madness, but Hakstol), I'm certain NAK is already better than Lehtera.
  7. I'm just looking at last year. No, I don't think he should have been used over Couturier. Over Filppula? Most definitely. Considering that PK units switch off every 15-20 seconds if they're able, I don't think QOC is likely to have too big an impact. It certainly could skew the stats some, though. I don't think they have top-5 PK personnel. But coaching alone should be able to improve the unit out of the bottom third. I've been harping on usage, here's another example. Players in order order of usage on the PK (min/gp), and where they ranked league-wide amongst players with 40+ minutes of PK time in GA/60 out of 212 players: Couturier (184th) Filppula (201st) Leier (212th) Raffl (93rd) Laughton (135th) Simmonds (89th) Giroux (127th) Lehtera (205th) They helped themselves out by taking Leier off the PK. But here's something that you don't see if you just look at the whole season: Lehtera averaged 1:09 of PK time per game over the last half of the season. Giroux, Laughton and Simmonds: 0:58, 0:30 and 0:14, respectively. Granted Simmonds was injured, but Lehtera's season-long usage is greatly skewed by the time that he wasn't killing penalties early in the season (He played less than 4 minutes total over his first 25 games). By the end, he was a go-to, while Laughton, who had been a staple early in the season, was hardly seeing the ice. Matt Read played the exact same amount of PK time as Laughton did over the second half - in 25 fewer games. Over that same time, the duo of Lehtera/Filppula was giving up over 12 goals per 60 minutes of PK time. Yet the staff kept trotting them out as if they had no other options. That's insanity. ETA: Laughton's numbers don't skew up significantly if you just look at the first half of the season, either. Season-long he's at 7.78 vs. 8.57 over the first half.
  8. Couturier 155 minutes, 25 GA Laughton 85 minutes, 11 GA. Fewer than half the goals against in more than half the time. It means nothing more than he was on the ice for fewer PK goals. Which means that maybe there should be consideration of increasing his PK usage to see if that bears out over more minutes. And as much as I like Couturier, let's not act like the Selke voting is based off of anything more than name and perception. Notice how he got very little recognition for the award when he was putting up even more solid defensive numbers. It wasn't until he started putting up points that people decided they could vote for him. He barely played, and was on the ice for 9 goals. Raffl was on the ice for 9 goals in almost twice the ice time. Again, it's a usage issue. He shouldn't have barely played. He should have played not at all. Where was I using ES stats? Everything I used was PK only. Third and fourth, after Couturier and Filppula. Deleting Filppula's usage alone should go a long way. I agree that they need outside help. Just not that it necessarily needs to be on the ice. Let's put it this way: Provorov had terrible PK stats. Does he need to be replaced?
  9. If you want a good laugh: Dale Weise was on the ice for 10 seconds of PK time last season. They gave up 2 goals in those ten seconds.
  10. Laughton averaged 1:03 of PK time per game. He gave up the fewest scoring chances among Flyers forwards/60 minutes of ice time. his GA/60 was better than Lehtera, Filppula, and Couturier, who all saw more PK ice time. Raffl had similar stats to Laughton. Slightly worse SA/60, slightly better GA/60. Increasing their PK utilization would actually be a good thing. Lehtera and Filppula gave up goals at a pace of over 11 per 60 minutes. Laughton, Raffl, and Simmonds were down below 8. It would seem that eliminating Filppula altogether and reducing Lehtera's minutes in favor of the other three would be beneficial to the PK as a whole. Funny how every goaltender has the same issue when playing on the Flyers: good 5v5 save%, piss poor PK save percentage. I wonder if maybe it isn't the goalie?
  11. It would have to be pretty valuable to risk ripping the locker room apart. Simmonds is one of the few players in the league who I believe is actually more valuable to the team than his production. If the Flyers are in playoff position and they trade Simmonds, especially if it's just for futures, there's a serious chance the players revolt. Different teams and all, but remember how the Blues players reacted to Statsny getting traded at the deadline - they felt betrayed and said as much to the media. And they were out of a playoff spot at the time. Simmonds would be much worse. It's easy for us to look at things and say it makes sense to move him from a purely value standpoint, because it absolutely does. But the Flyers also want to win something in the playoffs, even if it's just a round this coming year. I have serious doubts that they risk that over a couple of picks/prospects when it comes to Simmonds this year. I think there's still a chance he's moved in the offseason, but if he's on the opening night roster I'd be extremely surprised if he's not here for the duration.
  12. And they're not going into the season with the intention of trading Simmonds. If he's on the roster when the season opens, he's there for the duration, unless they fall hopelessly out of playoff contention.
  13. I don't think those ELCs expiring is going to be a concern at all. If they're not on the big club when they expire, they won't get big deals. If they all are in line for big raises, the Flyers are in great shape, because there certainly won't be room on the roster for them all. Rask is a tough fit. Next year you have to worry about re-signing Provorov and Konecny, and to a lesser extent Sanheim and Laughton. Then Raffl, Simmonds, Weal, and Lehtera are all pending UFAs whose spots you will need to fill, though those will all be bottom-6/specialist type players. The following year, Lindblom, Patrick, and (hopefully) Myers will be in line for new deals. At $7 million per year, Rask is a tough fit - though not impossible. Plus, it would probably be a pretty expensive trade from a Flyers perspective, and since he won't be the future, it's tough to justify the prospective cost.
  14. That's certainly an option. I'm not opposed, I just doubt both make it this year. It's just a rule regarding how many can dress on a given night. They could stick both in the AHL if they want, but I doubt they will. If both Vorobyev and Frost make it, Leier will go back down.
  15. If either Frost or Vorobyev makes the team, waive Lehtera. Hakstol won't play Weise. He will play Lehtera. Take the option away from him.: Giroux - Couturier - Konecny JVR - Patrick - Voracek Lindblom - Laughton/Frost - Simmonds Raffl - Laughton/Vorobyev - Weal Weise - Leier Provorov - Ghostisbehere Sanheim - Gudas Macdonald - Hagg Folin If Myers makes the team, Folin gets waived and Hagg sits, because MacDonald won't.

About HF.net

 We are an enthusiastic community of HockeyFans who enjoy discussing the NHL and more in our Forums.  Our members may also write their own blogs, converse in chat, post pics in our gallery, join our fantasy hockey leagues and more.  If you are looking for a friendly community to discuss hockey then register today and begin your conversation in our NET.

 

 

Contact Us

 

Recent Topics

Like what we do? Help us keep doing it!
Supporting Members help keep HockeyForums Advertisement Free
×