fanaticV3.0

@Hexy27

@yave1964

I don't think it painted the 40 year old in the most positive light, there were some funny moments, but the self inflicted conflict and failure to grow up are things that I couldn't relate too... those characters were emotional teenagers and I know no one my age that acts like that and has their own successful business and/or moderately successful business. the movie was disjointed at best, the scene that was the movie in microcasm for me was the gilrs listening to fun pop music and having fun then the dad joins the party with AIC and ruining the fun for them so he could make a point about "good music".

Disjointed is exactly how I'd describe it. There were some parts that made me laugh, but others that didn't. There were some parts where the characters seemed relatable, other parts where they didn't (both being business owners for example). Yeah, two semi-wealthy entrepreneurs, who are whiny white people. Real relatable Apatow.

Captaining the Russian Olympic team in Sochi plays a huge factor here as well.

I wouldn't want that guy as the captain of my team regardless of his family situation. I wouldn't make him captain even if I was the owner of a team and we were paying for his family's room and board, his kids tuition, etc.

It's more Seravalli's entire tone during the whole article. Purported to be a "news" story about a former Flyer goaltender, it is rife with his personal innuendo and exhibits a triumphalism which is at best unbecoming of a "journalist."

Mind you, he would never aim the same fire at the guy(s) who signed Bryz as essential to the future of the organization.

But I'll wager he will happily join in on attacking and sabotaging any other player he doesn't like.

Who's next?

(To be clear, in the shoutbox I asked if Tommy Walker was the GM in Vladivostok - the deaf, dumb and blind kid from Tommy)

Dude, this is the same town that still obsessed over McNabb and what a "horrible" guy he was here. It's astounding just how much some of the radio show hosts talk about him.

Yes, he is. More than double. That'll make you miss your family more, won't it?

Just because he's making more money in the new gig doesn't mean he really didn't want to be closer to his family.

Briere will never be forgot in the city of Philadelphia, that's special considering he never won a cup here. I wish he could have retired here... That's the downside of inflated contracts

Or guys that don't meet them. I don't hate Briere, but I don't get the love affair some had with him, especially towards the end of his career here. He cost a lot of money for what he produced.

@fanaticV3.0

I don't either. If that is his reasoning.

I think theres 20 million a year of other reasons he's going back though.

Is he getting more money in Russia than his NHL contract would have paid him?

Well I don't think anyone put a gun to his head when he signed that contract to, play for the Devils. It's all about the money.

People are entitled to change their mind, espcially if it comes to putting your personal life before your professional one. I'm not a career man and never will be. I just don't care that much. If he truly wanted to be closer to his family, I have no problem with his decision.

If he really just wanted to be closer to his family, I can't really take issue with that. If he simply didn't want to play for the Devils, well I can't fault him for that either? Who would? ZING!

Five years (or whatever it is) later, it's still comical that YOU got bozoed simply for putting his idiotic quote in your signature.

Yeah, that **** was pretty funny. Still makes me laugh now that you bring it back up.

That's funny! Good to see you, btw. Hope all is well.

Even funnier was that for a while, I was posting on the Flyers official board on their team site. I forget if that was after I "left" philly.com or PTPITN, but either way, I was hanging out there for a while. There was another guy who was a lot like Superfan and actually did turn out to be that coworker who I originally suspected of being Superfan before. I realized it because he posted a pic on his profile. I was cracking up. This guy was a major whacko. It was common knowledge he was boning his half sister. They discovered one another for the first time ever and she was stopping by like every day. She'd sit by his desk and they'd have these conversations/staring contests that looked like love struck teenagers. Thanks, I'll be around more often. I actually forgot my login information and that was why I was MIA for a while. That and I hated hocked this past year (but I would have come around to complain anyway). I'm doing pretty good. I just landed a new job not that long ago. I had a pretty bad situation in my old place, but I am glad to be out of there now.

@Quint

The "tree" was the board before the board before the current one. It's difficult to explain without pictures, but rather than having a thread set up like this, you'd have a post then if someone responded, that response would be indented underneath and you'd click on it to see the actual content. After that, it got more confusing. If someone responded to the second post, it would be indented under it, but if someone else responded directly to the first post, it would have the middle indent. Confusing? Yes. It was something like this:

This is a confusing post--ruxpin

re: This is a confusing post -- superfan88

re: You're an idiot supefan88--fanatic

re: Incest is acceptible in some circumstances--superfan88

re: Wait, I'm not done with your sister yet--fanatic

re: This is a confusing post--ruxpin

My source says...--themaker03

re: Screw your source--fanatic

re: Already doing that--themaker03

re: you're a ho bag--fanatic

re: when you do it doggy, which one is behind?--ruxpin

re: If they're related, that's okay--superfan88

When he made the incest comment, there was a time I was convinced he was someone I used to work with. He had the same exact views on the topic, ahd ironically, had just met a half sister for the first time in his life.

I feel a bit guility for supporting the tools that run our fine game, but to be honest, again....when they took the game away, I watched more games and more often. When they take it away, I find I submerge myself into it deeper, the phrase "absence makes the heart grow fonder" was certainly at work here.

It wasn't for me. After 4 lockouts, I wasn't even angry, I just didn't care anymore.

I'm like fanatic and sarsippius. The lockouts have left me with diminished interest in the NHL. I'll watch some games, but I no longer get as much enjoyment out of them.

I still get up for minor, prep, college hockey and juniors, but the NHL could fold tomorrow and I wouldn't lose much sleep.

I'm curious to see what my reaction is next year. Will a clean slate spark my interest again or will I continue barely giving a ****?

@fanaticV3.0

I felt the same way this year. In fact, in our disgust Dad and I gave up the season tix in December out of sheer disgust. I'm always a hockey fan, and I'm always a Flyers fan, but we just decided these priks didn't deserve our STH money last year....and this year is still in question.

I was just so annoyed. I hate shortened seasons, plus the whole greed of both sides, it being the umpteenth lockout in my lifetime, and when I did tune in, there were a bunch of nobodys on the team.

Why is this a "stupid ****"??

What is one supposed to do to project the player's production for a full season if only half of games were played of what would typically be played? The last season was an abbreviated season. What is so crazy about looking at how many points a player scored in 48 games and projecting what this equates to 82 games?

I have this wild and crazy idea. One might even call it revolutionary thinking. Look at his career. There are plenty of other seasons to get a sampling from The guy's been around for a while, it's not too hard to tell what he's capable of. No need to use tarrot cards, crystal balls, or whatever else it is this aziz fella subscribes to.

Aside from when I was a young kid, most of my time as a fan has taken place during rough times for the sport of hockey. There's been two lockouts and when there isn't one there's always buzz about how another one is coming.

Most of my time as a fan has also taken place in which the league has done a ton of differe things - most of which have failed - to generate more interest in the sport. Whether it's new teams in new markets, a change in the game to increase offense, or something along those lines, there's always talk about what the sport can do to generate more interest.

I forget exact when, but I've actually seen it stated that hockey was no longer a top 4 sport. That was several years ago now and I jus thave to wonder at what point does the sport just not have the ability to bounce back from another problem? It's already lost popularity and another lockout is the last thing an unpopular sport needs. Even as someone who is a fan, I can say my tolerance is pretty low for this kind of stuff. I don't think I'm really in the mindset that I can say I'll miss the game if there is a stoppage, but more likely be annoyed it's happening yet again.

Maybe it's just for me personally, but I don't think the NHL can handle much more of this.

I been thinking about this post a lot lately. Does anyone know what the league's TV ratings and attendance numbers were this past "season"?

I don't know if it's just me, but I really did not give a **** this past season. I barely paid attention. I have almost no tolerance for millionaires and billionaires arguing over how much money the other gets. I was turned off before the season even started. Once it started, I had trouble watching, and that was before the Flyers sucked. When I did occasionally tune in, I found myself saying, "Who the **** is that?" more than a few times.

I was at a party a few weeks ago and talking to some girl who is a friend of my wife's. She said when hockey came back, her and her dad were hooked. They watched every second of every game, and more non-Flyer games than ever. The lockout made her want to watch more. I didn't do that for me, I was just angry.

so, let me get this straight. you refuse to use projected totals that account for missed games, but will live and die by totals that don't account for anything at all. Crosby only scored 37 points in 11-12, and you think it most useful to judge his performance based on that naked fact, rather than account for the reality that he did so in only 22 games. is that correct?

me, I look at that and say, "damn, that projects to 137 points had he played a full season. that was monstrous production." you look at that and say, "damn, he wasn't even a 40 point scorer. what's all the hype about?" are you for real?

you know what is really fun here? Crosby himself hasn't broken 70 points since 09-10, the same season lecavalier last hit that mark. both continued to produce at a 68+ point pace, but both missed time and so haven't actually hit that overall production level. so...neither is a 70 point scorer anymore?

if you break a player's production down to a points per game basis, you can actually use it to figure what kind of impact he had in the games he played, and what kind of impact he is likely to have in future games. lecavalier has produced at a .80 points per game rate over the last three years. .84 points per game for his career. whether you want to project that over an 82 game season or not is your call. the bottom line, the most relevant fact (because that is what wins games and championship, as you say) is that he is still producing at that rate. any given game, .80 points. 4 points per 5 games.

I don't know you at all bro, so don't take this the wrong way.

1. Projected numbers have no place in sports other than evaluating future talent and maybe discussing a player's career after he retired. Discussing what a guy "would have done" from year-to-year while he's still playing and using that as some sort of justification for pumping up his stats or paying him more money is complete bull****. At the end of that day, what matters most is what happened, not what could, would, or should have.

2. If you want to form your opinion based on what could, would, or should have happened that's *****g great, but don't give me this "you refuse to use projected totals" nonsense.

his career average is 68.88 points per 82 games. he's missed 8-18 games in the last three seasons, but in those scored at a pace of 68 points per 82 games in 10-11, 62 per 82 in 11-12, and 67 per 82 in 12-13. we can argue about what those kinds of projections mean, but when he is in uniform, he scores at the rate of a 68 point scorer. any given game, his production is at that level. so, I rounded up to 70, but I think you can bear with me on that, yes?

briere, on the other hand, has scored at a rate of 57 points per 82 games in 11-12, and 38 points per 82 in 12-13. so, if you think that is the same as lecavalier, then I guess he would be a slightly cheaper briere. I also think you'd be really off base.

Projected totals? Are you for real? Games and championships are won by facts, not what a bunch of maybes and what ifs. His average points pers season in 14 seasons is 62.4. Save that projected totals for philosophy class, because I'm only interested facts. I only like my alternate realities in science fiction, not sports.

well, I mean, $4.5mil cap hit for a 70 point center with years of experience, specifically experience with very young but highly talented linemates and teammates....I kinda think that sounds pretty ok.

He hasn't had 70 points in a season since 09-10 and his career average is 62 points a season, so you can cut that "70 point center" bullshit right now. If he was a 70 point center, I'd be happy with this move. If this was 4 years ago, I'd be happy with this move.I'm hoping a change of scenary reignites his career, because right now, $4+ mil is too much for his production level at this point in his career. Right now, this is nothing than a slightly cheaper Briere imo.

Edit: I'll be nice too. If he can score 60 points and do even some of the intangible things he did during their Cup run, I'd be thrilled with this move. I truly believe they need some veterans mixed in with the youth, so I'm not against signing guys over 30. I just don't want to sign them for too much when what they bring to the team isn't worth it.

Seems to buzzing around in the rumor mill. And from my friend,which has been right a lot, days the flyers have asked about iggy. Thoughts ?

I'm not against the idea of trading Laughton for a veteran. I have no attachment to him, the team needs some experience to be honest, and since we're loaded with youth they can afford to lose some. However, I'm not sure I'm willing to discard him for a guy that age. 30? Ok. I want a guy who will be here a while.

Especially considering how they struggled so hard on offence during the regular season and then the switch flipped in the playoffs.

I totally agreed. Talented team, but they got super lucky in the POs.

Interesting. Will def provide a big body in front of the net for the dirty goals but not sure how well he can move now a days?

He won't have to move. Somebody will push his wheelchair out to the ice and he can just sit there and wait for deflections.

That and quick is showing he is mortal. It will be interesting to see how the goalie situation plays out in LA. Bernier is not getting any younger.

That's all just a part of the being exposed imo. As I originally said, they're a talented young team. They're better than we are. But that run they went on was an alignment of the stars kinda thing. It's kinda like when the boys came back against Boston. It happened, but its'a freak of nature type of situation.

It's you. Engelland actually plays pretty good D.

How many minutes a game does he play? Does he actually play a lot?

Stereotypical was the wrong word. I just mean I'm seeig some bigger guys fight more often. I'm seeing bigger guys period. For a while the trend seemed to be going after smaller faster guys, but between some of the newer guys, Buffalo's D with those two monsters they've got, and Orr, Engelland poping up (at least in what i've been watching), I thought maybe thigns were changing again.

It's you. Engelland actually plays pretty good D.

How many minutes a game does he play? Does he actually play a lot?

Stereotypical was the wrong word. I just mean I'm seeig some bigger guys fight more often. I'm seeing bigger guys period. For a while the trend seemed to be going after smaller faster guys, but between some of the newer guys, Buffalo's D with those two monsters they've got, and Orr, Engelland poping up (at least in what i've been watching), I thought maybe thigns were changing again.