The Renamed Not Superfun Split Mike Richards Thread

[sekkes85]

This thread has not been superfun... I demand an admin to change the title.

[sekkes85]

Well played sir... well played indeed.

[NRH]

@NRH  Easy to point out that Richards totaled 2 pts in the finals. What you are conveniently doing though, is leaving out the proper context that lead to the finals slump. Mike played the whole 2010 season with badly injured left AND right shoulders. In fact, as soon as the finals were over, he had surgery on both bad shoulders. It was a heroic effort, the ENTIRE 2010 playoffs. To suggest anything else is wrong. To pile on the guy once his body finally gave out....and point a finger towards his 2 pt final, when he carried the team from the start of those playoffs, that's being more than nit-picky. You are tying to distort what really happened to fit your argument that he does not produce in the playoffs, and for me, that's offbase.

 

  Even discounting the BADLY inured shoulders, he was outplayed by Toews....and there is no shame in that. Toews was healthy and on top of his game, and when he is in that groove, there is no player that can stop him.

 

 

Fair enough, He did manage 5 points against the NJD the following year in (5) games? 

 

He seems awfully fragile for a 1st line center as well which could have been another factor in trying to shed him to another team, he was also hurt in these most recent play-offs missing most of the Blackhawk games.

[sarsippius]

@Flyskippy  That Carter miss on the glaring open net haunts me to this day.

 

You're not kidding jammer. That net yawned for what seemed like ten minutes, I was just waiting for the goal light to go on. Coitus interruptus on that celebration.

[yave1964]

Personally, I would take Richards in my top six any day of the week. Is he overpaid? Sure. Does he have holes in his game? You bet. I don't care. He is a quality top six forward who can flat out play.

Carter? Meh, I don't know. He whined and pouted his way out of Columbus, yeah he can pay but I don't know what he brings to the clubhouse. Fifty fifty at best I would want him.

[doom88]

Pair Richards with a sniper and you'll get top line production that can handle its own in the defensive zone too. His style of play and unlimited effort coupled with a physically limited frame does lead to injury issues though.

I'd like him back in a second.

[Flyskippy]

@Flyskippy  That Carter miss on the glaring open net haunts me to this day. Things could have been so different had he buried that. Regarding Jeff, I slowly evolved from basic hero worship, to indifference... to just wanting him gone. He did not play "Flyers hockey" in my estimation. There was never much of a element of desperation to his game. He tried to get by on his scoring prowess, but I always wanted more effort from Jeff, especially on the forecheck. He always seemed to do just enough to not get vilified, just enough positioning on defense so it could be said he cared, but in the end, it was the bare minimum he needed, he gave the illusion of caring, without really getting his nose dirty.

 

 I've always said, money players, they bury that missed shot. The fact he missed, and the way he did it, it kinda broke the camels back for me.

"Look, we want you to express yourself, ok? If you think the bare minimum is enough, then ok. But some people choose to wear more and we encourage that, ok? You do want to express yourself, don't you?"

 

*sees Jeff Carter shot in Game 6*

 

[King Knut]

Stop digging yourself deeper. You'll just sound more foolish.

I'm sure the fans of LA kings hockey regret acquiring them both... They must be drying their years with the Stanley cup banner.

How many of those points are in the finals?

I'm not saying .79 PPG isn't a good contribution, but during his finals with us he scored 1 goal and another assist.

Including those finals and moving beyond it? 6 points in 12 games.

So yea, Both of them may be solid, but they often flame out in the finals and if it wasn't for the supporting cast, LAK wouldn't have been quite as dominate as they were that year.

[King Knut]

I'll always hate him a little for that, but usually what eventually happens is that soon I remember that he was skating on two broken feet and still having to answer questions about being lazy and If he was lazy because of his drug and alcohol usage and sex with temple chicks.

He blew a shot that could have sent it to game 7... But he wasn't treated fairly and now he scored a crap load of goals for someone else.

Now he can not score the big goal for the kings in the cup finals or conference finals... Instead of not scoring it for the flyers... Who missed the playoffs.

Lets come to our senses and be honest... Which would you rather have?

Most of us are still optimistic, so at best unloading these two worked out for everyone. What's the goal of criticizing them now? At best it seems unrealistic and at worse it just seems petty.

@Flyskippy That Carter miss on the glaring open net haunts me to this day. Things could have been so different had he buried that. Regarding Jeff, I slowly evolved from basic hero worship, to indifference... to just wanting him gone. He did not play "Flyers hockey" in my estimation. There was never much of a element of desperation to his game. He tried to get by on his scoring prowess, but I always wanted more effort from Jeff, especially on the forecheck. He always seemed to do just enough to not get vilified, just enough positioning on defense so it could be said he cared, but in the end, it was the bare minimum he needed, he gave the illusion of caring, without really getting his nose dirty.

I've always said, money players, they bury that missed shot. The fact he missed, and the way he did it, it kinda broke the camels back for me.

[fanaticV3.0]

Why? Did they pick Esche, Niittymaki, Biron, Backlund, Boucher, Leighton, Bobrovsky, Bryzgalov, Mason and Emery and decide to keep all of them except the one that won the Vezina?

 

Of course, there are a whole lot of coaches and scouts that get fired every season.

 

GMs, too.

 

Because there's a whole lot of other GMs who don't put together teams who are good enough to win it all year-after-year? It's sort of not just Flyers problem.

[radoran]

Because there's a whole lot of other GMs who don't put together teams who are good enough to win it all year-after-year? It's sort of not just Flyers problem.

 

Right, so - how long do you want to wait? They put Homer in charge after the worst season in the history of the franchise. They had missed the playoffs.

 

His brief when handed the job was to keep the team in the playoffs and build a Cup contender.

 

Six years later, they again miss the playoffs (for just the second time in the past 20 years - the previous time being when they fired the GM and the coach all at once).

 

They've made some questionable - at best - roster decisions and signings including what many consider to be one of the worst free agent debacles in the annals of organized sport. They made the Final, yes, three years ago - in a manner in which no other team has ever done before or will likely do again.

 

And the team they lost to has won twice and the team that they came back from 3-0 down against has also won the Cup. Both are also considered serious Cup contenders, still.

 

The Flyers, meanwhile, are hoping that if the goaltending works out that they might make the playoffs and have all of six players from that Final still on the roster - two of whom have gone and back again since.

 

If you don't at least consider making a change under these circumstances, when do you even consider making a change at GM?

[fanaticV3.0]

Right, so - how long do you want to wait? They put Homer in charge after the worst season in the history of the franchise. They had missed the playoffs.

 

His brief when handed the job was to keep the team in the playoffs and build a Cup contender.

 

Six years later, they again miss the playoffs (for just the second time in the past 20 years - the previous time being when they fired the GM and the coach all at once).

 

They've made some questionable - at best - roster decisions and signings including what many consider to be one of the worst free agent debacles in the annals of organized sport. They made the Final, yes, three years ago - in a manner in which no other team has ever done before or will likely do again.

 

And the team they lost to has won twice and the team that they came back from 3-0 down against has also won the Cup. Both are also considered serious Cup contenders, still.

 

The Flyers, meanwhile, are hoping that if the goaltending works out that they might make the playoffs and have all of six players from that Final still on the roster - two of whom have gone and back again since.

 

If you don't at least consider making a change under these circumstances, when do you even consider making a change at GM?

 

 

How long do I want to wait? Lol, I'm afraid I don't have any say in the matter.

 

Homer could be fired today and I wouldn't care, but I don't think "he has to go" immediately. As you pointed out, they've only missed the POs twice in the last 20 years and he was only GM for one of those seasons. Hardly criteria for giving a guy his walking papers.

[radoran]

How long do I want to wait? Lol, I'm afraid I don't have any say in the matter.

 

Homer could be fired today and I wouldn't care, but I don't think "he has to go" immediately. As you pointed out, they've only missed the POs twice in the last 20 years and he was only GM for one of those seasons. Hardly criteria for giving a guy his walking papers.

 

Nobody has any say in the matter. This is a place people express their opinions.

 

You clearly don't feel he should be let go. I am asking you for your criteria that would make it even among the realm of the possibly considered to make a change at GM.

 

Hardly a difficult question.

[fanaticV3.0]

Nobody has any say in the matter. This is a place people express their opinions.

 

You clearly don't feel he should be let go. I am asking you for your criteria that would make it even among the realm of the possibly considered to make a change at GM.

 

Hardly a difficult question.

 

Well considering we're talking about a guy who runs a team that missed the POs just twice in the last 20 years, only one of which he was in charge of the team, it's not exactly the open and closed case.

 

You want to talk about an easy decision? Parting ways with Andy Reid was an easy decision. Despite his record, it was time. The team had struggles after the Super Bowl run, particularly in Reid's last two years. Parting ways with Amaro or the Sixers management would be an easy decision.

 

I don't care if he's let go. I do not feel like we have to keep him, but I also don't think he "has to go" like you do. There's a difference. The fact that you think I am saying "he shouldn't be let go" shows how blinded you are in this. You can't even understand what my point is, let alone look at the man with an impartial eye.

[radoran]

I don't care if he's let go. I do not feel like we have to keep him, but I also don't think he "has to go" like you do. There's a difference. The fact that you think I am saying "he shouldn't be let go" shows how blinded you are in this. You can't even understand what my point is, let alone look at the man with an impartial eye.

 

No, it shows that I'm reacting to your assertions the other way. Again, physician, heal thyself.

Take a look at what you write, how you write it and then you might not be so confused as to the reactions you get.

 

I've put my position down and the facts behind it to back it up.

 

You haven't and, apparently, won't - and are attempting to ascend some high horse that you can ride off into the sunset.

 

The problem for you is, that high horse is a donkey.

[fanaticV3.0]

No, it shows that I'm reacting to your assertions the other way. Again, physician, heal thyself.

Take a look at what you write, how you write it and then you might not be so confused as to the reactions you get.

 

I've put my position down and the facts behind it to back it up.

 

You haven't and, apparently, won't - and are attempting to ascend some high horse that you can ride off into the sunset.

 

The problem for you is, that high horse is a donkey.

 

What you mean 1 season in which they didn't make the POs under Homer? Wow, that's a f-cking statistical evidence. Fire that man this instant.

Edited September 5, 2013 by fanaticV3.0

[RickW]

As a Kings fan, I can tell you Richards was monumental to their Stanley Cup run. All our young players were intimidated by the dominant teams in the division and Vancouver regularly ran us out of the building. Then we opened on the road in the first round against Vancouver that year and Richards was having none of it. Set the tone by dominating the game physically and Kings looked like a different team. They rolled from there. Is he going to put up big hits ever? No, Kings fans are plenty happy with him.