B21 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 um, nope... that has and always will belong to the Eagles. 100% correct. The NFL is a whole other animal. That comparison is apples and cumquats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 100% correct. The NFL is a whole other animal. That comparison is apples and cumquats. you said "cumquat"... hehe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted December 4, 2014 Author Share Posted December 4, 2014 They don't count!If the flyers only played 8 home games a year they'd all sell out too!um, nope... that has and always will belong to the Eagles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 They don't count!If the flyers only played 8 home games a year they'd all sell out too! I could care less about this honestly... so if they are the sellout "kings" who are the selling out over? move onto how the Pens were "forced" by the league to change... i am anxious w/ anticipation of this analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Personally, I'll see maybe 2-3 games each year at CONSOL. Usually free tickets via work or a Christmas or birthday gift. I'd rather watch the game (especially winter sports of hockey and baseball) in the comfort and warmth of my own home in front of 50" of sheet technological joy. No lines for the bathrooms, either. Beer at cost. Free parking. Better food. I really find hockey to be a "different" game live than on teevee. My dear, departed dad never liked the game on teevee, but enjoyed it live. Opposite, really, of football, which is interminably boring in person, but great at home on the couch 2-3 years of missing the playoffs would do exactly the same to the WFCI feel like it already has. The Flyers used to be the sellout kings in Philly. They were the ones who would always sell out and getting a ticket wasn't necessarily easy. Can't remember when that started to change exactly. It's been a while now. Flyers have been 101.3% sold this seasonhttp://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance101.5% last year101.3% in 12-13107.4% in 11-12101.1% in 10-11100.2% in 09-10 Essentially, the Flyers are still "selling out". The difference is whether or not people are actually using the tickets, or trying to re-sell them on StubHub. For example, I got a great seat (HockeyFan's old seat, actually) 5th row, second level, center ice for the 10/88 day two hours before gametime for half the face value of the ticket. And, I think if you go back to the 89-94 "did not qualify" era you'll still find pretty strong fan support was maintained despite the five seasons of ineptitude.http://www.flyershistory.net/cgi-bin/attend.cgi The fans always give more than 100% effort Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted December 4, 2014 Author Share Posted December 4, 2014 I simply mean they would sell out games more often than the Phillies or 76ers.That's all "Sell out Kings" meant. Just that they sold out more often amongst the local teams.I didn't count the Eagles because when you play only 8 home games a year, you have a much better chance of selling those games out. so if they are the sellout "kings" who are the selling out over? As far as your other question, you must not have watched the Penguins much between 2007-20012.The tactic stopped working for them with consistency in the 2011-2012 season, but that didn't stop the league from changing the rules for this season to help prevent it from taking hold again and to discourage others from deciding it was a good idea. And you all know what I'm talking about and if you don't you just have short memories or blinders of your own. And for those who would assume it's just my prejudices talking, why is it that my prejudices are only limited to a certain number of seasons and I can tell you when it stopped being as effective for them? If I'm just prejudiced against the penguins, wouldn't that prejudice hold up still? If I just flat out hate the penguins, why would I hate them less now? Why would I enjoy them in years past? If I'm prejudiced, for no good reason, why would that change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 I simply mean they would sell out games more often than the Phillies or 76ers.That's all "Sell out Kings" meant. Just that they sold out more often amongst the local teams.I didn't count the Eagles because when you play only 8 home games a year, you have a much better chance of selling those games out. As far as your other question, you must not have watched the Penguins much between 2007-20012.The tactic stopped working for them with consistency in the 2011-2012 season, but that didn't stop the league from changing the rules for this season to help prevent it from taking hold again and to discourage others from deciding it was a good idea. The tactic stopped working. And for those who would assume it's just my prejudices talking, why is it that my prejudices are only limited to a certain number of seasons and I can tell you when it stopped being as effective for them? If I'm just prejudiced against the penguins, wouldn't that prejudice hold up still? If I just flat out hate the penguins, why would I hate them less now? Why would I enjoy them in years past? If I'm prejudiced, for no good reason, why would that change? what is with speaking in general? "The tactic stopped working" "The tactic stopped working. And for those who would assume it's just my prejudices talking," What the hell are you trying to say? I might agree but I dont have my King Knut Magic 8 Ball handy today... what did the league do to force the Pens to change? What?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 And you all know what I'm talking about and if you don't you just have short memories or blinders of your own. Add me to the list of the completely confused. While I readily admit that my memory isn't what it used to be, I have no idea what you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 I really find hockey to be a "different" game live than on teevee. My dear, departed dad never liked the game on teevee, but enjoyed it live.Opposite, really, of football, which is interminably boring in person, but great at home on the couch And, I think if you go back to the 89-94 "did not qualify" era you'll still find pretty strong fan support was maintained despite the five seasons of ineptitude.http://www.flyershis...-bin/attend.cgi Agree on hockey being better in person than "teevee". I think that's true for many sports to some varying degree. At least when it comes to seeing everything that happens on the ice/field/diamond/court. In that regard, hockey is by far the most difficult to follow if you aren't watching it live. Re: 1989-94 Flyers. Sure - you missed the playoffs - but not by much. Even the "worst" year you were only 2 points out of a playoff spot. You still had some star power with the likes of Hextall, Howe and Kerr and eventually, Lindros & Co. In our most recent lean years the season was over when the puck was dropped on opening night and our "star" power was Rico Fata and Kris Beech. Mario averaged 33 games played each of those 3 seasons. The only true horrid attendance year - when they dipped below 12,000 - was 2002-03. Mario played 10 games that year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 As far as your other question, you must not have watched the Penguins much between 2007-20012.The tactic stopped working for them with consistency in the 2011-2012 season, but that didn't stop the league from changing the rules for this season to help prevent it from taking hold again and to discourage others from deciding it was a good idea. Now I'm really curious. So what exactly were those "tactics" (assuming this term is now interchangable with "strategy" from your prior posts) and what rules were changed that forced the Pens to change their strategy/tactics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Now I'm really curious. So what exactly were those "tactics" (assuming this term is now interchangable with "strategy" from your prior posts) and what rules were changed that forced the Pens to change their strategy/tactics? The NHL has forced it strategery on the Pens so no tactics can be used! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icehole Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 if we want to tank, lets commit to that. The sixers are pathetic but their fans arent paying $75 to see a good game. They know its going to be bad and have severly cut prices. If they are selling us promise, Berube needs to go. Any possibilities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 if we want to tank, lets commit to that. The sixers are pathetic but their fans arent paying $75 to see a good game. They know its going to be bad and have severly cut prices. If they are selling us promise, Berube needs to go. Any possibilities? you could get a ticket for a Sixers game for two boxes of Mac & Cheese... true story. http://www.nj.com/sixers/index.ssf/2014/11/sixers_are_giving_away_2_tickets_to_a_gamefor_a_box_of_macaroni_and_cheese.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted December 4, 2014 Author Share Posted December 4, 2014 You guys are right. The initial strategy was innocent and hockey based enough.The tactics to capitalize on that strategy were the problem. The success of those tactics then altered and began to dictate the overall strategy. Here's an analytic for you: -The Strategy of the Bullies teams involved not letting anyone be physically intimidating to them.-The tactics involved being physically intimidating themselves.-Eventually (and this is why people outside of Philly fans hate those Bullies teams) that tactic of being physically aggressive and intimidating first resulted in them literally beating opponents into submission and capitalizing on mistakes made as a result.- Eventually opponents were more tentative going up against the Flyers because they knew no matter what happened, they were coming away hurting.- I'll totally admit that some of that aggressive and intimidating physical play bent the rules and took advantage of refs looking the other way. A lot, perhaps the majority, was good hard hitting hockey play. Some of it was downright cheap. Some of it was just illegal and the Bullies either did it in a way as to not get caught or didn't care if they got caught because they knew the intimidation was worth 2 minutes in the box, especially with Bernie in nets and the promise of more physical intimidation on the PK that was less likely to get called. A team got away with tactics that eventually became (I'll say it) downright cheap and they were rewarded for their cheapness to a degree that suggested that maybe those cheaper tactics could inform the overall strategy. That's a demonstration of the cyclical manner of how strategy can dictate tactics that can ultimate warp the original strategy into something that gets historically clouded depending on the perspective of the person remembering. The NHL has forced it strategery on the Pens so no tactics can be used! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 You guys are right. The initial strategy was innocent and hockey based enough.The tactics to capitalize on that strategy were the problem. The success of those tactics then altered and began to dictate the overall strategy. Here's an analytic for you: -The Strategy of the Bullies teams involved not letting anyone be physically intimidating to them.-The tactics involved being physically intimidating themselves.-Eventually (and this is why people outside of Philly fans hate those Bullies teams) that tactic of being physically aggressive and intimidating first resulted in them literally beating opponents into submission and capitalizing on mistakes made as a result.- Eventually opponents were more tentative going up against the Flyers because they knew no matter what happened, they were coming away hurting.- I'll totally admit that some of that aggressive and intimidating physical play bent the rules and took advantage of refs looking the other way. A lot, perhaps the majority, was good hard hitting hockey play. Some of it was downright cheap. Some of it was just illegal and the Bullies either did it in a way as to not get caught or didn't care if they got caught because they knew the intimidation was worth 2 minutes in the box, especially with Bernie in nets and the promise of more physical intimidation on the PK that was less likely to get called. A team got away with tactics that eventually became (I'll say it) downright cheap and they were rewarded for their cheapness to a degree that suggested that maybe those cheaper tactics could inform the overall strategy. That's a demonstration of the cyclical manner of how strategy can dictate tactics that can ultimate warp the original strategy into something that gets historically clouded depending on the perspective of the person remembering. Kuato... is that you??? thanks for the bullies analysis but you were talking about the Pens "strategy and/or tactics" which I still am unsure what you are talking about. Is this some big secret about the Pens that can't be typed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 @King Knut - are you claiming that the Pens in recent years played like the Broad Street Bullies back in the '70s??? Because I had season tickets back in those days and I can tell you for certain that there is no similarity between the teams. Well, other than the fact that each team had a notorious diver on the roster (Barber, Crosby)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted December 4, 2014 Author Share Posted December 4, 2014 Teach a man to fish.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method Kuato... is that you??? thanks for the bullies analysis but you were talking about the Pens "strategy and/or tactics" which I still am unsure what you are talking about. Is this some big secret about the Pens that can't be typed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Teach a man to fish.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Well, other than the fact that each team had a notorious diver on the roster (Barber, Crosby)... Well orange kinda looks like yellow, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 If they are selling us promise, Berube needs to go. Any possibilities? I hear Dan Bylsma is still looking for work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 A team got away with tactics that eventually became (I'll say it) downright cheap and they were rewarded for their cheapness to a degree that suggested that maybe those cheaper tactics could inform the overall strategy. That's a demonstration of the cyclical manner of how strategy can dictate tactics that can ultimate warp the original strategy into something that gets historically clouded depending on the perspective of the person remembering. So in essence the Pens strategy/tactics remain a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma. I bet even the shooters don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Obviously we're getting deep here. Very deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted December 4, 2014 Author Share Posted December 4, 2014 Far be it from me to spoon feed a Penguins fan. So in essence the Pens strategy/tactics remain a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma. I bet even the shooters don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icehole Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 I hear d about Bylsma. I wouldn't touch that. He (was only his team for less than 1/2 season) won the cup with an all-star team that rallied around their new, young, best buddy coach. He continued to have regular season success but underachieved in the playoffs. How do you get upset year after year with that roster? I'm thinking Guy Bouchier or Brindy. Bouchier had that new age trap system that gave team fits. It was boring to the opposing fans but it worked. Rod the Bod is a gym rat. I want a guy that holds the players accountable for their diet and workouts. Voracek is a top 3 player in the league right now after losing 10 pounds and committing to getting faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 I am so fricken lost in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.