Lindbergh31 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 @azizHe may not have had the team on his back, but I wouldn't call him absent. Considering he was one of the teams best defensive forwards, he ended up tied for 3rd in points in the playoffs. There were a lot of guys who were a heck of a lot more absent than that.I don't know if it was mentioned on this thread or another but most Flyers fans agree that Richards should never been named captain at a young age. The Flyers management should have given it to Timonen instead and let Richards grow into the leadership role slowly. I've watched him since junior and always liked his game and I hope the LA Kings win the cup because I can't stand the Rangers, Capitals, Devils or Coyotes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH1FlyersFan Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 During the season? Simmonds & Schenn >>> RichardsDuring the Playoffs? Richards >>> Simmonds & SchennJust saying.But look at the experience that Richards has in the playoffs over these two. Give Schenn and Simmonds two or three postseasons and they will be greater than Richards. By double. If we can hold them that long. So, my opinion echoes some of those already posted. Maybe the trade favors LA in the short term (and Richards is getting a lot of help from Quick) but, in the long term, we get the better of the deal. And, the intangible is with Richards out of the locker room, the atmoshpere and demeanor of the team has greatly improved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orange_crush Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 much like we could have really used him last year in the playoffs, when he was also absent.are you guys like goldfish, and this stuff just vanishes from your head moments after it happens?edit, blasts from the past:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From:Orange_Crush To: MadDog4 PostedApril 7, 2011 10:26 am Msg 21 of 272the sad part, the 2 guys that are the core of the issue (Richards,Carter) were signed to monster contracts by Homer and are now untradeableSo really it's Homer's fault for over valueing Richards/Carter leadership abilities-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From:Orange_Crush To: aziz PostedApril 7, 2011 10:40 am Msg 30 of 272.< that's gotta come from the guys wearing the ties behind the bench. and recently, it hasn't been.>this is not Lavy's fault. We have had 2 Stanley Cup winning coaches (Hitch and Lavy) and both lost the room, why?common denominator Richards and Carter, the core leadership of this team is rotten and is time for a change. One or both of them have to go to get to the next level-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------as I said before RIchards was not a great leader..he is a great player...you still need good players to win.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 But look at the experience that Richards has in the playoffs over these two. Give Schenn and Simmonds two or three postseasons and they will be greater than Richards. By double. If we can hold them that long. So, my opinion echoes some of those already posted. Maybe the trade favors LA in the short term (and Richards is getting a lot of help from Quick) but, in the long term, we get the better of the deal. And, the intangible is with Richards out of the locker room, the atmoshpere and demeanor of the team has greatly improved. The funny thing is in the Jersey series the team looked like they cared about winning as much as last year when Richards was a "cancer". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 The funny thing is in the Jersey series the team looked like they cared about winning as much as last year when Richards was a "cancer".I don't buy the whole "cancer" argument, but I do think he was out of his depth as captain at that point in his career.I can buy into the argument that the team would have benefitted from a big C in the room during the Devils' series, but the only guy who could fill that role wasn't able to due to injury and you don't make that sort of guy by simply sticking a letter on his jersey. By all accounts it was Pronger who was the effective C during the last-day-in-to-Cup-Final run. That was clearly missing here.But just imagine the disaster naming G captain during the break between series - as was suggested - would have been. I think you need to handle adversity to be a good captain. Handle it without the microscope of the C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 @radoran I don't even want them to give Giroux the C....ever! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinorama Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 @radoranI don't even want them to give Giroux the C....ever!I wonder what the value of having one guy wearing the C on his sweater is? Does it really matter? If ya threw a couple A's on some guys and called it a day, what really is the downfall?Genuine leaders are leaders regardless of having an official designation from management. I can't picture a locker room where a player might be trying to talk to his team and then one guy says "who do you think you are? our captain? Unless you have a C on your sweater you can take your opinion and shove it up your @$$" and then the peanut gallery chimes in "yeah! talk to us when you have a C on your sweater!" it sounds ridiculous because it is. Leaders step up regardless.I cringe just thinking about the Captain topic anymore as it seems more of a distraction than anything beneficial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I wonder what the value of having one guy wearing the C on his sweater is? Does it really matter? If ya threw a couple A's on some guys and called it a day, what really is the downfall?Genuine leaders are leaders regardless of having an official designation from management. I can't picture a locker room where a player might be trying to talk to his team and then one guy says "who do you think you are? our captain? Unless you have a C on your sweater you can take your opinion and shove it up your @$$" and then the peanut gallery chimes in "yeah! talk to us when you have a C on your sweater!" it sounds ridiculous because it is. Leaders step up regardless.I cringe just thinking about the Captain topic anymore as it seems more of a distraction than anything beneficial.Well this is part of my point - especially with Pronger/Richards. It was clear that Pronger was the "leader" wearing the A despite the team having declared Richards to be, giving him the C.For me, "captains" make themselves - you don't make them by slapping a C on their jersey and declaring that they are it. And the players effectively choose them, regardless of who management pins the letter on. Which is why I hate the entire concept of management telling the players who among them they will follow.There are big values in having many leaders who step up when needed. But, for me, there are also intangibles with having a Joe Sakic or a Mark Messier wearing your C that go beyond their individual ability. Having a Keith Primeau moment, for example. Rod Brind'Amour. Dave Andreychuk.And there are things that some players may not feel comfortable doing if they're not the ones with the letter.It can also certainly be a distraction - the Jagr/Lemieux "problem" with who wore the letter after Mario came back, for example, that sent Jaromir on his wandering way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orange_crush Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 @radoranI don't even want them to give Giroux the C....ever!Give Talbot the C, let Giroux continue to develop..yes he' already an elite player but he still has even more development yet.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH1FlyersFan Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 The funny thing is in the Jersey series the team looked like they cared about winning as much as last year when Richards was a "cancer".I'd agree with that. They certainly didn't look like they cared. But this time I think it was because they were just so completely wasted, drained emotionally and physically from the previous series. They were like zombies on the ice against the Devils. But I don't attribute that to a cancer in the locker room this season. To me, all that means is they need to work on conditioning, not chemistry. I think we saw the chemistry, the good kind, was there all season. And it was better than last season. I have no reason to believe that would have changed so suddenly in the Devils series. That's why I attribute there looking like they didn't care to just being totally gassed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.