ruxpin

Hi Doom, Hard to tell on here sometimes. Was that to me? Don't give up developing Bob, but he's a career backup. We need to work on getting a starter if Bryz isn't going to be it, because Bob won't be.

If you're in a fantasy league that rewards penalty minutes as well as scoring, Hartnell is gold.

Bob is a backup = Nitty. That is all.

Not sure, doom. But the PK sucks, too, so...

No. He is not. It's as dumb as hiring an offensive line coach as your defensive coordinator. It's just plain stupid. As for the team, I think we're seeing from the team quite a bit better than what should have realistically been expected coming into the season. Unfortunately, some of our weaknesses were supposed to be covered by a #1 goalie and a #1 defenseman. One forgot how to play and the other is hurt.

I know some of the offseason moves made it seem as if they were in "win now" mode, but I think with all the rookies on the team that thought was a little foolish.

I read the Timonen thing that Sheridan wrote ( http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/flyers/20120212_Phil_Sheridan__After_loss_to_Rangers__Timonen_offers_harsh_assessment_of_Flyers.html ) Interesting that he mentions system...as noted on this site...but I also find it stunning that he seems to call out the goaltending by being so complimentary of the Rags' goalie. Consistency. Consistency. Consistency. To be honest, I don't share the criticism about lack of effort. Not in the way I saw it the past few seasons, anyway. I just see a team with a bunch of young kids who ARE going to be inconsistent, especially as the season progresses and the exhaustion sets in. I think Holmgren HAD to expect this a little but thought he was covered by his goalie signing and Pronger/Timonen on the back end. Best laid plans, and all that. Some of the very things that have made them competitive (some really successful rookie years) are the same things that on the flip side are weaknesses (too many rookies). The Flyers just don't have some of the tools right now to cover up glaring weaknesses.

LOL Exactly who I had in mind while raising my concern (not sure it's "concern") about Columbus.

Fair points. Agreed. Just trying to give Columbus the benefit of the doubt (the city, not the franchise).

LOL @ "Hartnell Down!"

Completely agree that will be the sum reality of it (a chance to cheer again, and then back to slush). But my point--fear?--is it's not "completely aside from that" from the league office point of view (I agree that in reality it is completely as you describe). It's an attempt by the league office to keep hockey relevant in an area in which it will become less and less so due to management/ownership incompetence. It's a shame, too, because hockey could actually do well there if it wasn't run by Larry, Curly, and Moe. I don't know how I feel in theory about the league simply taking over an organization that has proven itself horribly incompetent. Who defines that and what's the criteria? But it just seems like Columbus would be a good case.

Interesting topic. Keep it the way it is. I suppose I haven't seen a large enough sampling, but I don't recall seeing many concussions that had anything whatsoever to do with stretch passes or a lack of a red line. I see a lot of hits from blind sides in the high slot or elsewhere in one of the defensive zones. There are some in the neutral zone, but again, I don't think very many have anything to do with the lack of a red line. Doom88 and others are correct about better helmets, etc., but I think as they learn more they'll realize this is about the neck and not specifically the head. (obviously, the resulting concussion is in the head, but I'm betting they find that the root cause is from the neck/spinal cord). They need to figure out a way to support the neck better, and I'm not sure how they do that and not restrict peripheral vision (which may actually end up causing more injury.

Just clarify...my slam wasn't on Columbus. Hockey could very well work there. It won't with the current ownership and management of the Blue Jackets. And now the league will try to artificially pump it up rather than making sure the product is good.

And so the league push to try to save a sh!tty organization in Columbus begins. Want to save the franchise? Take it from the owners and sell it.

Tell me you're not serious. If you are, I have only one question: exactly how hard did you hit your head? In a list that includes Jeff Hackett, Leighton is the worst goalie to ever wear a Flyer uniform. I want nothing to do with him.

It's interesting that for always being in our division that the Isles make no one's list. They don't make mine, either. 30 years ago, yeah, but not now. For me: 1. Pittsburgh 2. New York Rangers 3. New Jersey Devils 4. Washington Capitals 5. Boston Bruins It's funny. Without the nonsense on the silly.com board, I wouldn't even think twice about Buffalo or Toronto. Sure, we have (Buffalo) or had (Toronto) some playoff history against both, but I just don't circle the calendar for games with them like I do for the other five. None of the other teams in the league come close to that list for me.

Thanks for the room, Mario. oh, did I get it all?

I would not trade for Staal. The Leafs can have him.

NTTAWWT

Haven't tried attaching a photo here before directly from my computer, so see how this flies. Flyerrod: Best I could do on short notice.

Okay, I know I'm going from ridiculous to sublime here (and I hate when people do this, but I'm going to do it anyway. Don't worry, this won't become a discussion of the pros and cons of incest): I don't buy the intent thing as the basis of suspension...unless you or someone can say there is an "intent" clause somewhere in the rule book. Say Hartnell deliberately intends to trip Malkin while he's on a breakaway and Malkin, in the act of falling, tears his ACL. There will likely be a penalty shot (although obviously Malkin won't be taking it at this point). Potentially you could have a minor for tripping. But just because Hartnell INTENDED to trip (clearly "against the rules"), the intent doesn't make a suspendable offense (the fact Malkin is a Penguin is what will garner the suspension--kidding). In this case, even if we assume Lucic intended to hit him...and I do think it was at worst a last second decision...I don't think he was intending to hurt him (at least I have no proof or indication). "Intent to injure" yes, then maybe we can talk about a game or two. Intent to hit someone NOT in the head a second after the puck left...that would be a horrible excuse for a suspension. Now if it had been Fleury, he'd probably still be sitting.

I hope he does get traded. He's on my fantasy team and is no-cut. He's worthless to me on the BlueJackets. Come to think of it, the Blue Jackets are worthless on the BlueJackets. You talk about a team that needs to be contracted, moved, or at least sold to an ownership group that has the foggiest idea what they're doing. What a pathetic idea and experiment Columbus has been. As for Carter specifically, he is not the type of player that's going to do a thing for himself or by himself. He can win you draws, but if there's no one else on the ice that can make a play, winning the draw only changes the timing of when the puck is turned over. I don't watch Columbus hockey (no one does) so maybe it's already started, but he will become quickly frustrated and just start shooting from all over. We know he has about a 0.2% shot accuracy from borderline areas, but it's only going to get worse. And that will cause issues the other way. I don't know what Columbus does here because they are not going to get value in the way of a player coming back. They could go for draft picks, but they don't seem to know how to draft. But Carter's career will be **** as long as he's in Ohio (more than if he was elsewhere). He needs a play making winger and possibly some testosterone shots.

I'm on your side of this discussion, but the "not protecting yourself" in order to get a man advantage is common-place, and not just among goalies. Since it has been illegal to hit a guy from behind along the boards, it's quite common to see a player do something they would long have thought twice about: turn your back to the opponent and face the boards from 3 feet away. Utterly stupid and puts yourself in a bad position and risks serious injury. But then that player gets his team a 5 minute major and gets to cry to the media about the atrocity the opponent committed...instead of taking responsibility for acting irresponsibly in terms of his own safety. I don't view what Miller did as any different. I think he made the correct choice going for the puck as he did. The percentages were higher in stopping control and the shot attempt before it happened than in waiting for Lucic to collect the puck and come in with a shot opportunity. I have no problem with that part. He probably assumed the oncoming player would slow or curl. But they DID reach the play in close enough time that it increased the possiblity of getting hit. And he did. For Miller's part, you make a decision, then live with the consequences of it. At the very least, I have no respect for Miller's response to it.

Seriously asking here, not trying to be stupid (see how easily I do it without trying?). I have no idea what a suspension would be based on. Assume for a moment he intentionally hit him. There's a difference between intentionally hitting a goalie and intent to injure. Outside of that, it wasn't against the boards; it wasn't a hit to the head; it wasn't from behind; and we're talking maybe a second late. I guess I understand the charge, although a better argument would have been for interference since the puck WAS gone. But I really don't understand what a suspension would be based on...under the rules. I haven't looked for this specifically so if you or someone knows, that's why I'm asking. I'm just not off-handedly aware of it.

Well thanks. And I understand and respect yours as well. Aziz makes good points too. And yeah, I suppose I am talking about what they should be rather than how they are. On the other hand, if the goalies are going to be protected no matter how dumb their decision or no matter where they are on the ice, they ought to save money on the paint or whatever and get rid of the crease. Because if we're not going to have the skate in the crease rule (you know, the one that didn't apply to Brett Hull), then I'm not quite sure I understand the point to the crease if the goalie's being in it or out of it makes no consequential difference. Again, talking "should be" rather than "is," but just saying the "is" doesn't really make much logical sense to me. (ha! ruxpin is talking like he would recognize logic!). So I guess penalty, yeah, but I'm glad they didn't suspend.