Howie58 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Greetings: I thought Morganti's piece in the Inquirer was quite good. Maybe he looked to the board for inspiration. This is an accurate assessment. And I agree with the notion that the sum of the parts is a lot less than the whole. http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/nuf-said-morganti/Its-do-or-die-time-for-Holmgren-flawed-Flyers.html Morganti is a Comcast guy. This is a candid assessment. Best, Howie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caluso Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Greetings: I thought Morganti's piece in the Inquirer was quite good. Maybe he looked to the board for inspiration. This is an accurate assessment. And I agree with the notion that the sum of the parts is a lot less than the whole. http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/nuf-said-morganti/Its-do-or-die-time-for-Holmgren-flawed-Flyers.html Morganti is a Comcast guy. This is a candid assessment. Best, Howiea lot of what he said is spot on. interestingly, the flyers seem to play their best when they are free-wheeling, a style that doesn't work in the east against the rangers, bruins, devils, blue jackets, hurricane.... not only that, they need stupendous goaltending in order to have a shot since their team d is horrible! even during that mini hot streak, it was the outstanding goaltending that kept them afloat. when the goaltending is merely average, they have very little chance of prevailing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lespauljr2006 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Here is my takeGrossman -11, Luke -8, Coburn -6, Streit -4 on DAdam Hall -15, Vinny -13, Rinaldo -12, Read -8, Couturier -5, Rosehill -5, Vandevelde -4, Giroux -3 on O Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doom88 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Here is my takeGrossman -11, Luke -8, Coburn -6, Streit -4 on DAdam Hall -15, Vinny -13, Rinaldo -12, Read -8, Couturier -5, Rosehill -5, Vandevelde -4, Giroux -3 on OThe team had a long scoring drought early in the season. +/- isn't just a defensive stat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 The team had a long scoring drought early in the season. +/- isn't just a defensive stat. True, but Grossmann was even 10 games into the season He's -8 in the past 10 games. Schenn is -3. Coburn -4. Streit -3. It's a better point that +/- isn't all that great a stat to begin with. For example, when the team is 3-7 (3-5-2) over 10 games, many players are likely going to see minuses in their ledger. That said, I think we can agree it wasn't just a tidal effect lowering all boats, but that the play of the defense certainly didn't help that 3-5-2 stretch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howie58 Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 Greetings: This mix of players is having a tough time and without superb goaltending, they are toast. At some point the architect has to take responsibility. Whether that will happen in this environment is a different story/question. Our inbreeding in the organization may be costly. Peace,Howie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I don't disagree with his points about the team's play and their weakness, but the whole beginning of the article is about Boston, and how embarrassing it was, yada, yada, yada. Boston is a vastly superior team. There's just not getting around that. They are are much more established and proven squad. I expect this team - one which is still trying to find it's identity - to get it's ass kicked by Boston, Pitts, or Tampa. The premise that things are bad because we lost to Boston is a little off to me. Other than that, I agree with just about everything he said. They've got good individual players who seemingly have no chemistry with one another. The defense is awful. Lecalvier has looked good at times, but he also looks shot, and they're having issues where to put him. All of this is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I don't disagree with his points about the team's play and their weakness, but the whole beginning of the article is about Boston, and how embarrassing it was, yada, yada, yada. Boston is a vastly superior team. There's just not getting around that. They are are much more established and proven squad. I expect this team - one which is still trying to find it's identity - to get it's ass kicked by Boston, Pitts, or Tampa. The premise that things are bad because we lost to Boston is a little off to me. Have to agree and eluded to this in the a post i started yesterday. they simply cant play w/ the better Teams in the league. Hence, why I think this road trip is going to be a disaster. Sarting tonight against the Wings a WF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Have to agree and eluded to this in the a post i started yesterday. they simply cant play w/ the better Teams in the league. Hence, why I think this road trip is going to be a disaster. Sarting tonight against the Wings a WF. They are playing like ****, but the Wings are probably their best chance for a win in the next several games. They are not a particularly good team. I also just have to point out a pet peeve of mine. I truly hate the points system. Detroit has more losses than we do, less wins, but more points, because they have more OT losses. That is ridiculous. As far as writing the article because they lost to Boston, that's just weird to me. They are a team with flaws regardless of how they play against the 2nd best team in the conference. Boston is just better. End of story. They are not going to compete with them. Edited January 28, 2014 by fanaticV3.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howie58 Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 Greetings: I agree that a loss to one of the best teams in the league is important but would also note that manner of the loss (looking inept) is important. And he is saying this was a kind of defining moment for the season, which makes some sense. At some point people have to ask: "The inconsistency of this team has now run through four coaches over seven seasons. Our two deep playoff runs were unexpected (one from making the playoffs on the last day of the regular season). We are going in circles with unclear forward momentum. And our winning seasons still reflect poor performance against top teams. Something is amiss with how the team is designed." I think Homer is a good guy but I wonder if he is the GM we need. And I think Hextall may be too much of an insider as well. Howie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 They are playing like ****, but the Wings are probably their best chance for a win in the next several games. They are not a particularly good team. I also just have to point out a pet peeve of mine. I truly hate the points system. Detroit has more losses than we do, less wins, but more points, because they have more OT losses. That is ridiculous. As far as writing the article because they lost to Boston, that's just weird to me. They are a team with flaws regardless of how they play against the 2nd best team in the conference. Boston is just better. End of story. They are not going to compete with them. In some ways, I see the Boston loss as the bookend to the 7-0 mauling by Washington just before the "ship got righted" in November. I think it also has to be taken in context of the 6-3 loss in Tampa and the 5-2 loss to Columbus earlier this month. The wheels got under the car for a little while, but they've clearly come unstuck again. I think Morganti is hearing a lot of WIP callers and Twitterverse folks up in arms about the Boston loss and was trying to address that in context. The Boston loss was a symptom - and a big one - but the disease is much deeper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phlfly Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 This team doesn’t have a real leader, a real captain for decade. All Flyers hockey is gone in the past; it looks more like weak Isles team on ice. There is no Broad Street Bullies. All Flyers origination should be shame of it.Giroux is not captain at all. He is like that guy floating around score some goals but never took his game and team on next level. All remember, that hit on Sid 2 years ago and that's all he done for his career in Flyers. It was mistake to trade Richie, he is a character and he is guy. Sometime you don't need score goals but his toughness has an answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 This team doesn’t have a real leader, a real captain for decade. All Flyers hockey is gone in the past; it looks more like weak Isles team on ice. There is no Broad Street Bullies. All Flyers origination should be shame of it.Giroux is not captain at all. He is like that guy floating around score some goals but never took his game and team on next level. All remember, that hit on Sid 2 years ago and that's all he done for his career in Flyers. It was mistake to trade Richie, he is a character and he is guy. Sometime you don't need score goals but his toughness has an answer. I'm going to take this opportunity to agree with phlfly. Bizarroworld, population: us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 They are playing like ****, but the Wings are probably their best chance for a win in the next several games. They are not a particularly good team. I also just have to point out a pet peeve of mine. I truly hate the points system. Detroit has more losses than we do, less wins, but more points, because they have more OT losses. That is ridiculous. As far as writing the article because they lost to Boston, that's just weird to me. They are a team with flaws regardless of how they play against the 2nd best team in the conference. Boston is just better. End of story. They are not going to compete with them. the points system really needs to be reworked and I hate the shootout with a passion. The only reason I think they will lose tonight is b/c they have a tough beating the RWs but agree this is the most beatable team they will face in the next stretch of games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 he is a character and he is guy. yes, he was a guy! definitely not arguing his gender... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 the points system really needs to be reworked and I hate the shootout with a passion. The only reason I think they will lose tonight is b/c they have a tough beating the RWs but agree this is the most beatable team they will face in the next stretch of games.Agree with both. Hate the points system and loathe the shootout! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doom88 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 True, but Grossmann was even 10 games into the season He's -8 in the past 10 games. Schenn is -3. Coburn -4. Streit -3. It's a better point that +/- isn't all that great a stat to begin with. For example, when the team is 3-7 (3-5-2) over 10 games, many players are likely going to see minuses in their ledger. That said, I think we can agree it wasn't just a tidal effect lowering all boats, but that the play of the defense certainly didn't help that 3-5-2 stretch. I was trying to avoid sinking into a debate over statistical legitimacy of +/-, and just clip it with the aptly coined 'tital effect'. That was only one reason their +/- ratings suck, the other is their (even strength) team defense as a whole. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lespauljr2006 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 The team had a long scoring drought early in the season. +/- isn't just a defensive stat. Yes Doom88 I agree but it does say something about ok we can't score goals but we sure cannot play defense.. That is all.I am just frustrated by the lack of defense play by everyone, Like Al says, it's hockey 101. I don't get it how they can be this poor in their own end with the puck, You could have Patrick Roy is net and the results would be the same as with Mason or Emery or Anybody.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 In some ways, I see the Boston loss as the bookend to the 7-0 mauling by Washington just before the "ship got righted" in November. I think it also has to be taken in context of the 6-3 loss in Tampa and the 5-2 loss to Columbus earlier this month. The wheels got under the car for a little while, but they've clearly come unstuck again. I think Morganti is hearing a lot of WIP callers and Twitterverse folks up in arms about the Boston loss and was trying to address that in context. The Boston loss was a symptom - and a big one - but the disease is much deeper. The Morning Show listeners talking about hockey?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) the points system really needs to be reworked and I hate the shootout with a passion. The only reason I think they will lose tonight is b/c they have a tough beating the RWs but agree this is the most beatable team they will face in the next stretch of games. I hate the fact that that points system even exists. I would prefer the sport to function like every other sports and to base its standings on Ws and Ls. If teams have the same records, go to some kind of tie breaker (like record vs each other or division opponent). But since that's never going to happen, I'd simply settle for stop giving a point for a loss. I don't care that it's an "overtime loss", it's still a loss and it's f-cking embarrassing teams are rewarded for that. Told ya they'd beat the Wings! Edited January 29, 2014 by fanaticV3.0 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 The Morning Show listeners talking about hockey?! no, but I don't think that's all Al is hearing. The Morning Show is in it's annual Wing Bowl nonsense. Even more unlistenable than usual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 no, but I don't think that's all Al is hearing. The Morning Show is in it's annual Wing Bowl nonsense. Even more unlistenable than usual. Oh yeah, I know. I occasionally tune in when Preston and Steve are on commercial break. I hate commercials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Oh yeah, I know. I occasionally tune in when Preston and Steve are on commercial break. I hate commercials. Totally off topic, but I always wondered....in this day and age of the DVR, how do they set rates/prices for commercials these days?. Obviously a LOT less people are viewing them, just having their DVR set to eliminate commercials, or just plain ol fast forwarding through them. With this knowledge in hand, how in the holy hell do network execs set the going rate for commercials? The going rate *must* have lowered, due to millions of people not watching commercials anymore. Do they rely on people that don't have a DVR? I would imagine more and more households now have a DVR...this has always puzzled me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Totally off topic, but I always wondered....in this day and age of the DVR, how do they set rates/prices for commercials these days?. Obviously a LOT less people are viewing them, just having their DVR set to eliminate commercials, or just plain ol fast forwarding through them. With this knowledge in hand, how in the holy hell do network execs set the going rate for commercials? The going rate *must* have lowered, due to millions of people not watching commercials anymore. Do they rely on people that don't have a DVR? I would imagine more and more households now have a DVR...this has always puzzled me. Honestly, most people are too lazy to bother with all that. That's what the networks are counting on. "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 @radoran Rad!! Glad to see you have power!! Really.....people are to lazy to fast forward commercials?? I would have thought even a brutally lazy individual would make the effort to avoid having commercials shoved down their throats. I fast forward every damn one of them, I even stagger my programing so I'm never live, just to avoid them. 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.