whom had enough of watching these Flyers?

[RonJeremy]

2 hours ago, flyercanuck said:

 

You think if we took Werenski he'd be the better player right now? Cause I highly doubt it. 

No,  almost everyone on the Flyers is either injured or an underachiever. There seems to be a black cloud over the franchise. I think aside from Shmuck ,the entire coaching, management and training staff has to go. It’s a swamp as bad as the US government.

[RonJeremy]

23 minutes ago, aziz said:

 

Is that Cole Caufield?  on pace for 65 points and a -18 in his 3rd NHL season, at the age of 22?  My gut-reaction hatred based on his last name notwithstanding, is that what stars look like in their 3rd year?  Is kind of a low bar for the title, no?  Especially as a tiny tiny guy that isn't going to bring much more than his point totals?

 

 

.

I don’t look much into  a young goal scorer being a minus player on a crappy team . When I say he’s looking like a star, I mean in terms of his skill level, his speed, shot and exciting offensive style. Sure he’s one dimensional but plenty of pure goal scorers are. Reggie Leach was one dimensional. As I said in my previous posts, the Flyers always prefer the two way player. We really haven’t had too many exciting players or snipers in a long time and as long as you have a play maker and a another guy who can work the boards it’s nice to have a sniper on the wing like Caufiled. Remember the scouting report on Mike Bossy…all he does is score goals and not much else.  I’m not saying Caufiled is another Bossy but at least he’s exciting to watch where up until the past few games the Flyers are a bore.

[aziz]

17 minutes ago, RonJeremy said:

Sure he’s one dimensional but plenty of pure goal scorers are. Reggie Leach was one dimensional. As I said in my previous posts, the Flyers always prefer the two way player. We really haven’t had too many exciting players or snipers in a long time and as long as you have a play maker and a another guy who can work the boards it’s nice to have a sniper on the wing like Caufiled. Remember the scouting report on Mike Bossy…all he does is score goals and not much else.

 

Ok.  I see where you are coming from.  Myself, I also hate one way players, but that's my own bias.  Points scored means points scored, and that's the ultimate point of the game, so fair enough.

 

But.  Let's talk about one way players.  You are suggesting the Flyers should go in for them more readily.  That the team needs players that put up points as their one and only thing, and their defensive contributions are secondary, if worthy of consideration at all.  Bad defensively is fine, so long as you are getting it done at the other end of the ice.  The old Penguins' approach in the late 80's.

 

How do you feel about Kevin Hayes?  More points than Caufield, and in less games played (because he's been scratched, as Philly won't accept defensive liabilities in exchange for flash).

 

Are you a fan of Hayes?  Should Torts back off, and let the guy do what he does?  The insistence on two way players being limiting and bad, as you suggest.  Or, does playing a complete game actually matter, and a player like Caufield would (also) be eaten alive by you and the rest of the fan base if they had to watch him night in/night out?

 

Edit:  I want to add, while +/- is generally a stat to be taken with a grain of salt, when looked at carefully, you can find wisdom in it.  For a player to be a minus, their offensive contribution has to be less than the opponents they skate against, at even strength.  Blow it off to a bad team, or a young player, or whatever, but a distinct minus player is one that tends to be involved in more goals-against than goals-for.  Just definitionally.  If you see an offensive phenom with a big minus rating, something isn't right.  It means that when he steps on the ice, it is more likely his team is scored against than his team scores.  So, all of his offensive phenom-ness is completely overwritten by the offensive opportunities other teams realize while he is skating.  A dude can score a goal every 4th shift, but if the bad guys score every 2nd shift he takes, is that a trade off that makes sense?

Edited January 9, 2023 by aziz

[CoachX]

7 minutes ago, aziz said:

 

But.  Let's talk about one way players.  You are suggesting the Flyers should go in for them more readily.  That the team needs players that put up points

 

8 minutes ago, aziz said:

How do you feel about Kevin Hayes?  More points than Caufield, and in less games played (because he's been scratched, as Philly won't accept defensive liabilities in exchange for flash)

I think what's being hinted at is, Flyers need a superstar.  Most team have one. You know, that player that a fan can brag about even when the team sucks

 

Hayes isn't a superstar, so he doesn't fit the bill. You can't have beers with a buddy who is a Capitals fan, if all your armed with is Kevin Hayes

 

Oh, and said superstar has to be a good guy, humanitarian who always says the right things,  loves the city and fans, and plays for contracts that always benefit the franchise

 

So he must be a hero and a superstar

[aziz]

40 minutes ago, CoachX said:

I think what's being hinted at is, Flyers need a superstar.  Most team have one. You know, that player that a fan can brag about even when the team sucks

 

Hayes isn't a superstar, so he doesn't fit the bill. You can't have beers with a buddy who is a Capitals fan, if all your armed with is Kevin Hayes

 

Oh, and said superstar has to be a good guy, humanitarian who always says the right things,  loves the city and fans, and plays for contracts that always benefit the franchise

 

So he must be a hero and a superstar

 

Oh, totally, and is good to kittens, and mows his neighbor's yard sometimes.  I get it.  I want that, too.  The flyers haven't had that since Lindros.  They tried to import it with Primeau, Lecavalier, Jagr.  They came close to developing it with Carter, Richards, Giroux, JVR, Patrick.  None of them really fit the bill.  And some collapsed entirely.

 

And it's a big deal.  That uber talent, that can not only dominate opposition and impose his will, but can become the spiritual center of the team and the fan base can move a team forward in amazing ways.  Imagine Caps fans if Ovechkin been drafted by, say, Boston.  I think they'd all be dead by now.  As opposed to what Pittsburgh became when Mario showed up.  And again when Crosby and Malkin arrived.  All amazing players, but their impact for the team was way bigger than their impact on the ice.

 

Cole Caufield isn't that, from what I can see.  Looks like a solid first line player, who needs some work.  A really strong player, but it isn't like he is taking charge of a team and driving it forward the way a Lemieux or Lindros or Ovechkin or Crosby or Kane or McDavid can do.  And before anyone points out those are all top-2 picks, Zetterberg and Datsyuk and Brett Hull and even a Rick Tocchet had that kind of power (Hull and Tocchet might be me fluffing the numbers a bit, they weren't world beaters, but still were huge for their teams).

 

The Flyers do need that.  And, I would suggest, it would solve a lot of problems.  If you can find that guy, you have a devastating top line, out of the box.  AND, you automatically make your team a destination for lesser (but still valuable) FAs.  You can build from that one-person core, hypothetically.  The grain of sand becomes a pearl.

 

I just don't think any GM can make that happen intentionally.  If they have the #1 pick in a draft with a generational talent, then hey, good job?  Or, if they pick some random dude in the 6th round that becomes that magic guy, then...good job?

 

The drafting ship has no rudder.  The higher you pick, the better your odds, broadly, but that's it:  better odds.  Pick a guy in the 8 slot, who knows?  Pick a guy in the 121st slot, who knows (Tocchet was the 121st pick in 83, Hull the 117th pick in 84, Zetterberg the 210th and Datsyuck the 171st)? 

 

GMs should not plan their teams' futures on specifics of the draft, nor should fans judge GMs on the draft.  Unless the GM is Mike Milbury.  Then judge the crap out of him.  Because OMG.

Edited January 9, 2023 by aziz

[flyercanuck]

6 hours ago, aziz said:

 

Edit:  I want to add, while +/- is generally a stat to be taken with a grain of salt, when looked at carefully, you can find wisdom in it.  For a player to be a minus, their offensive contribution has to be less than the opponents they skate against, at even strength.  Blow it off to a bad team, or a young player, or whatever, but a distinct minus player is one that tends to be involved in more goals-against than goals-for.  Just definitionally.  If you see an offensive phenom with a big minus rating, something isn't right.  It means that when he steps on the ice, it is more likely his team is scored against than his team scores.  So, all of his offensive phenom-ness is completely overwritten by the offensive opportunities other teams realize while he is skating.  A dude can score a goal every 4th shift, but if the bad guys score every 2nd shift he takes, is that a trade off that makes sense?

 

 

Speaking of Haysee, he's been a team leader (in the minus dept) ever since he came to Philly. Every year. That's where the +/- stat shows you something. Of course if you play on a bad team your +/- isn't going to be great. But when you're one of the worst on your team, year in, year out, that tells me you suck. 

 

 I'm not much of a one dimensional player lover myself. It's why I hated the Hayes signing. I would take Caufield over Hayes in a heartbeat. One just turned 22 a couple days ago, leads his team in goal scoring, has plenty of players with worse +/- than him (he's actually -9) and makes just over $800,000. He's already scored as many goals this year as he did the whole season last year, so he's improving in that dept. 

 

 Hayes is 30. He's never really improved on his first season in the NHL where he put up 17 g 28 a 45 pts and +15. He's pretty much flatlined on his production, his +/= has continually gone downhill and his paychecks have skyrocketed. Go figure. 

 

Goes to show you how nepotism can blow up in your face, when a guy like Fletcher is given a GM job solely because of his dad, in reality he should probably be managing a Walmart in Labrador.

[RonJeremy]

9 hours ago, aziz said:

 

Ok.  I see where you are coming from.  Myself, I also hate one way players, but that's my own bias.  Points scored means points scored, and that's the ultimate point of the game, so fair enough.

 

But.  Let's talk about one way players.  You are suggesting the Flyers should go in for them more readily.  That the team needs players that put up points as their one and only thing, and their defensive contributions are secondary, if worthy of consideration at all.  Bad defensively is fine, so long as you are getting it done at the other end of the ice.  The old Penguins' approach in the late 80's.

 

How do you feel about Kevin Hayes?  More points than Caufield, and in less games played (because he's been scratched, as Philly won't accept defensive liabilities in exchange for flash).

 

Are you a fan of Hayes?  Should Torts back off, and let the guy do what he does?  The insistence on two way players being limiting and bad, as you suggest.  Or, does playing a complete game actually matter, and a player like Caufield would (also) be eaten alive by you and the rest of the fan base if they had to watch him night in/night out?

 

Edit:  I want to add, while +/- is generally a stat to be taken with a grain of salt, when looked at carefully, you can find wisdom in it.  For a player to be a minus, their offensive contribution has to be less than the opponents they skate against, at even strength.  Blow it off to a bad team, or a young player, or whatever, but a distinct minus player is one that tends to be involved in more goals-against than goals-for.  Just definitionally.  If you see an offensive phenom with a big minus rating, something isn't right.  It means that when he steps on the ice, it is more likely his team is scored against than his team scores.  So, all of his offensive phenom-ness is completely overwritten by the offensive opportunities other teams realize while he is skating.  A dude can score a goal every 4th shift, but if the bad guys score every 2nd shift he takes, is that a trade off that makes sense?

Basically what I am saying is the Flyers need a finisher, of course we need alot of things but we have not had a sniper in a long time.  Konecny is actually turning into a pretty good finisher though. Among our many weaknesses is the the lack of a pure goal scorer and you can’t have a  whole team of Caufileld types but having one would be nice. We do have some guys who are potential finishers like Allison, Foerester , Tippett and Brink but they don’t have the dynamic style and speed of Caufiled but they do have good shots . Having one real sniper who can  actually score on the PP can win you a lot of close games .

[flyer4ever]

7 hours ago, flyercanuck said:

 

 

Speaking of Haysee, he's been a team leader (in the minus dept) ever since he came to Philly. Every year. That's where the +/- stat shows you something. Of course if you play on a bad team your +/- isn't going to be great. But when you're one of the worst on your team, year in, year out, that tells me you suck. 

 

 I'm not much of a one dimensional player lover myself. It's why I hated the Hayes signing. I would take Caufield over Hayes in a heartbeat. One just turned 22 a couple days ago, leads his team in goal scoring, has plenty of players with worse +/- than him (he's actually -9) and makes just over $800,000. He's already scored as many goals this year as he did the whole season last year, so he's improving in that dept. 

 

 Hayes is 30. He's never really improved on his first season in the NHL where he put up 17 g 28 a 45 pts and +15. He's pretty much flatlined on his production, his +/= has continually gone downhill and his paychecks have skyrocketed. Go figure. 

 

Goes to show you how nepotism can blow up in your face, when a guy like Fletcher is given a GM job solely because of his dad, in reality he should probably be managing a Walmart in Labrador.

Hey, what did Labrador do to deserve that? The chucktard should be working in a rehab clinic for broken down old men. He has a passion for surrounding himself with them.

[flyercanuck]

8 minutes ago, flyer4ever said:

Hey, what did Labrador do to deserve that? The chucktard should be working in a rehab clinic for broken down old men. He has a passion for surrounding himself with them.

 

I did some work there years ago....Lab City is really a town, and the Walmart is small. Perfect for Chuck.

 

He can still tell them in the interview who his dad is. 

[aziz]

13 hours ago, RonJeremy said:

Basically what I am saying is the Flyers need a finisher, of course we need alot of things but we have not had a sniper in a long time.

 

Definitely.  They need another Gagne.  Who also killed penalties at times, but I get what you are saying.