Why are you a flyers fan?

[OccamsRazor]

2 minutes ago, Poulin20 said:

As a Flyers fan who was mercilessly persecuted by Sabres fans during my grad school days in Buffalo anyone who became a Flyers fan due to opposing the Sabres and pissing of their fans is A-OK in my book!

 

Regarding the Lindros era...I can never forgive the NHL for how they allowed Lindros and that generation of Flyers to be hooked and held, clutched, and grabbed by the likes of the Devils and even the Sabres.  Then when he is gone and Cindy comes on the scene they institute the new ticky tack penalty rules where you get a penalty for breathing on the "Face of the NHL".  Lindros could have been so much more had he played in the era they play in now.  I feel that he was a victim of the times and we never saw close to his full potential realized. 

 

 

Yes if the the league had the rules they had now the Devils would have no Cups too...it also would have been nice if the Flyers front office had placed some value of having a elite or even just good to great goaltender in net. All those early year i watched and they never had any good goaltending...sad. Hextall and Snow were the meaning of meh.

 

Then they had a chance and for ever reason took Gezzer instead of Cujo...it would also had been nice if they could have found a stud Dman or two. Hell the only one they seemed to find they lost in a tragic boating accident.

 

There was a glimmer of Boosh...but BIG E coming back in the conference finals and getting KO'd derailed that.

[Phlyer1]

I am a Flyer
Fan was summed up pretty good by Jimmy Watson last night.

[sarsippius]

19 hours ago, icehole said:

I guess a better question would be would you have been a bigger fan if Wayne Gretzky wore 16 for the orange and black instead?

Not a chance. The reason Clarke made me a Flyers fan was what he had to overcome to be who he was as a player. As a 6 year old I can remember my dad pointing him out as an example of the value of hard work and overcoming obstacles. In the early 70s guys with diabetes that required multiple daily insulin shots daily didn't play sports, not at that level. His personality defined what we like to wax poetically about as being what it means to be a Flyer, whether it's true now is up for debate but Clarke is the person most responsible for that mythology. And he was the dirtiest bastard every to play. Gretzky was the greatest player of my lifetime, but I could not have identified with him the way I identified with #16.

 

When Clarke scored NHL point #1,000, he did it with a bloody sweater and cut on his head that was still oozing slightly. One of the most appropriate pictures of a milestone achievement you'll ever see

[King Knut]

22 hours ago, icehole said:

I seem to be getting into more arguments than usual lately and I think it might be because I like a different style of hockey than most people on here.  For a lack of better words, I like "Flyers" hockey.  That makes sense to me.  I like the Flyers for the style they are known for/the style they played for 45 years.

I'm semi-local (Lehigh valley) but I'm not much of a Philly guy.  Actually I don't really enjoy much about philly at all.  My dad followed all philly sports which led me to watching, but I gravitated to the flyers hockey for some reason.  I'm passionate about the flyers because they have always been "badass".

When the flyers have been good I feel like they will beat you physically and skillfully.  When the flyers have been bad, they'll still beat you physically.  They've always been hard working, beer drinking, cigarette smoking, partying badasses.  That's the type of guy I was at their age.

Now I know the heavy partying days are over, but that doesn't mean the team has to be a bunch of homework doing, smoothie drinking nancies.

I feel like people want to get rid of the badass stigma.  Some people say that they've had to endure this pain for decades.  My question is why are they flyers fans?  Is it just because they're local to you?  You could have chose a softer team to follow.

 

I don't mind "Flyers Hockey" but ever since Lindros, I've come to the conclusion that it's a dead albatross around our collective necks. 

 

It it works against us in most cases. For a long time we'd rather have a guy who was tough as nails instead of a guy who was good.   A buddy of mine called it "The Rocky Complex". We wanted a tough, tenacious guy who had no talent toughing it out on his way to almost but not quite winning instead of a dude who was just plain good.  I'm sick of it.  I want someone good for a change. 

 

Now now that said, IMHO the teams that defined "Flyers Hockey" in history were both of these things.  The cup teams Of the 70's and the 80's "almost" teams were both tough, tenacious AND good. The Oilers and Isles were just better (and had a little help from time to time). 

 

Really, since the collapse of the early 90's and the loss to the Habs in the conference finals (Chelios is still a Dbag) the Flyers have had grit and occasionally skill, but what they haven't had is a coherently constructed team or system.   They've been a hodgepodge.  

 

In the 90's they put in pieces around Lindros, but never built a team from the ground up.  There was never a plan other than "This guy's big and that guy scored 30 goals once".  They kinda got lucky with LeClair, and Rico should have been the focal point of a D squad, but they then just kept taking random swings for the fences instead of filling in missing pieces. 

 

Since '00 they did a lot of trying to replace Lindros, but never worked out how to build a team. 

 

Richards and Carter could have been the start of something, adding Briere, Timmo and Coburn looked really good... But it kind of fell apart after that.  Adding Pronger was almost enough to spackle over the cracks, but ultimAtely Homer was still just throwing puzzle pieces into a stew and hoping to get a complete picture and that lead us to the great cap disasters since 2012.

 

Now I believe Hextall learned a great deal from Lombardi and I'm hoping (and we seem to have evidence that it's true) that he's smarter. 

 

I think the crew that's starting to coalesce seems to be a cohesive group.  By the time Homer's stink finally starts to wash off and there's enough skill on it, the core will have been together and will have played under a smarter coach for a while.  

 

So no, I don't love "Flyers Hockey".  I think it actually hurts the team. I liked the games of 80's teams, and now I much prefer Kings Hockey or Blackhawks Hockey to mucking and grinding Flyers Hockey. 

 

Those teams play balls to the wall fast and hard, but with skill to back it up.  Having a great work ethic and being able to dig in the corners and throw a hit is key for all their lines, but they all need to be able to shoot and pass too. 

 

When am I think "Flyers Hockey" I do not think of shooting and passing well. I don't think anyone does. In fact, "flyers hockey" usually means having at least two lines without a clue on shooting or passing. In the 70's and 80's you were lucky to get a whole line that could play a complete game.  The Oilers were an embarrassment of Riches. 

 

Now, the good teams have 4 lines that can literally do everything to varying degrees.  The top lines may not be as dominant as Gretsky and Kurri or Lindros and LeClair, but the bottom lines are infinitely better than than what they used to be. 

 

The Flyers are starting to get it but still have too much Homer era dead weight with stone hands and cement in their boots. 

 

That needs to change if they're ever going to win again.  

 

[jackhole]

Because I don't hate myself enough in my every day life 

[icehole]

21 minutes ago, sarsippius said:

Not a chance. The reason Clarke made me a Flyers fan was what he had to overcome to be who he was as a player. As a 6 year old I can remember my dad pointing him out as an example of the value of hard work and overcoming obstacles. In the early 70s guys with diabetes that required multiple daily insulin shots daily didn't play sports, not at that level. His personality defined what we like to wax poetically about as being what it means to be a Flyer, whether it's true now is up for debate but Clarke is the person most responsible for that mythology. And he was the dirtiest bastard every to play. Gretzky was the greatest player of my lifetime, but I could not have identified with him the way I identified with #16.

 

When Clarke scored NHL point #1,000, he did it with a bloody sweater and cut on his head that was still oozing slightly. One of the most appropriate pictures of a milestone achievement you'll ever see

Good stuff.  That's why I'm trying to get to the bottom of this.  I want a team full of Bobby clarkes but it seems like everyone else would rather have a team of gretzkeys.  The team of Gretzkys MIGHT be better but that would be sacrificing the uniqueness of the franchise.  For what...a championship?  Will a championship get you a raise at your job?  Will it score you a hot chick?  Will it make you unit bigger?

It seems like each flyer GM has been searching for the same type of player and that's frowned upon by today's flyers fan.  They would have you believe that every flyers team is just muckers and grinders.  The team usually has a good balance of skill and toughness.  I think it's pretty cool that they stay true to the franchise and not sell out because of the trends.  I think that comes from the top.  This year, they have some top skill and the bottom six is more like bottom 3 mixed with AHLers. 

Will I be happy if the team wins a cup with the couturiers of the league...sure I will.  But my entire heart wouldn't be in it like it was in 97, 2004, and 2010.

[jackhole]

In college, lived in a house full of hockey nuts.  Never paid much attention to nhl, but hockey was on TV every day.  All rangers fans and it was 97 playoffs.  So, being the contrarian MFer that I am, I went with the flyers.   And because...F the Rangers! 

 

Partial to the color orange...it looks good, you know 

[icehole]

33 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

I don't mind "Flyers Hockey" but ever since Lindros, I've come to the conclusion that it's a dead albatross around our collective necks. 

 

It it works against us in most cases. For a long time we'd rather have a guy who was tough as nails instead of a guy who was good.   A buddy of mine called it "The Rocky Complex". We wanted a tough, tenacious guy who had no talent toughing it out on his way to almost but not quite winning instead of a dude who was just plain good.  I'm sick of it.  I want someone good for a change. 

 

Now now that said, IMHO the teams that defined "Flyers Hockey" in history were both of these things.  The cup teams Of the 70's and the 80's "almost" teams were both tough, tenacious AND good. The Oilers and Isles were just better (and had a little help from time to time). 

 

Really, since the collapse of the early 90's and the loss to the Habs in the conference finals (Chelios is still a Dbag) the Flyers have had grit and occasionally skill, but what they haven't had is a coherently constructed team or system.   They've been a hodgepodge.  

 

In the 90's they put in pieces around Lindros, but never built a team from the ground up.  There was never a plan other than "This guy's big and that guy scored 30 goals once".  They kinda got lucky with LeClair, and Rico should have been the focal point of a D squad, but they then just kept taking random swings for the fences instead of filling in missing pieces. 

 

Since '00 they did a lot of trying to replace Lindros, but never worked out how to build a team. 

 

Richards and Carter could have been the start of something, adding Briere, Timmo and Coburn looked really good... But it kind of fell apart after that.  Adding Pronger was almost enough to spackle over the cracks, but ultimAtely Homer was still just throwing puzzle pieces into a stew and hoping to get a complete picture and that lead us to the great cap disasters since 2012.

 

Now I believe Hextall learned a great deal from Lombardi and I'm hoping (and we seem to have evidence that it's true) that he's smarter. 

 

I think the crew that's starting to coalesce seems to be a cohesive group.  By the time Homer's stink finally starts to wash off and there's enough skill on it, the core will have been together and will have played under a smarter coach for a while.  

 

So no, I don't love "Flyers Hockey".  I think it actually hurts the team. I liked the games of 80's teams, and now I much prefer Kings Hockey or Blackhawks Hockey to mucking and grinding Flyers Hockey. 

 

Those teams play balls to the wall fast and hard, but with skill to back it up.  Having a great work ethic and being able to dig in the corners and throw a hit is key for all their lines, but they all need to be able to shoot and pass too. 

 

When am I think "Flyers Hockey" I do not think of shooting and passing well. I don't think anyone does. In fact, "flyers hockey" usually means having at least two lines without a clue on shooting or passing. In the 70's and 80's you were lucky to get a whole line that could play a complete game.  The Oilers were an embarrassment of Riches. 

 

Now, the good teams have 4 lines that can literally do everything to varying degrees.  The top lines may not be as dominant as Gretsky and Kurri or Lindros and LeClair, but the bottom lines are infinitely better than than what they used to be. 

 

The Flyers are starting to get it but still have too much Homer era dead weight with stone hands and cement in their boots. 

 

That needs to change if they're ever going to win again.  

 

I think everything you said is true but I think you're under appreciating the strength of some of those teams.  I only go back to 97, but the feeling around the fan base seems to be that the team is always just muckers and grinders.  There's been a lot of skill on these teams but they always seem to be missing a piece of two.  I wouldn't completely change the philosophy that got the franchise to 2nd best winning % in history just because your missing a couple of pieces to win a cup.

I think it's funny how Hextall learned in the LA system yet the Flyers are basically the opposite of LA right now.  I wouldn't mind being LA.  They're big and tough with a ton of skill.

[eleven24]

On March 1, 2016 at 10:04 PM, icehole said:

What kind of game did Bobby Clarke play?  Was he physical?  Did he have skill at his position?

 

Bobby Clarke.  Honestly, there really aren't many ways to describe his game.  He was dirty.  He was clutch.  He held teammates accountable.  He would do anything it took to win a game.  On the ice, he wasn't the fastest, didn't have the best hands, nor the hardest shot.  Don't get me wrong, he had incredible skill - but what he had more was that he wanted it more than the other guy.  He had heart.  That is what separated him from everyone else.  His desire is what made his skill set more than it was.

 

It's the reason Clarke was at odds with a guy like Lindros.  88 had world class, once in a generation type of skill.  Big, fast, great vision, hands, and a shot.  Perhaps the most skilled player to wear the O&B.  But he didn't have that burning desire that Clarke had.  He wouldn't do whatever it took to win.

 

Blood rushing down his head after getting clubbed in the noggin... Clarke's not done for the game.  He's still out there playing, and scoring the big goal.  Lindros gets hit with a puck near the eye in practice, and he's out for a few weeks.  Clarke expected everyone to put the team first, just as he had.  Lindros, in Clarke's eyes, didn't do that.  IF this is what Clarke did as a front office guy, imagine the glare he'd give a teammate as a captain.  

 

Clarke imposed his will on his teammates.  He made all of them play better than their skill set would have normally allowed them to.  In essence, the Flyers would've never been the Broad Street Bullies without Bobby Clarke.  The Flyers would've never been, as you put "bad ass" without having a kid from Flin Flon once pull their jersey over his head.

 

Bobby Clarke defined what it means to be a Philadelphia Flyer.  That definition isn't of a partying, bad ass, group of players.  It's not a group of all stars either.  Being a Flyer means doing whatever it takes to win.  At all costs.

 

That is what Clarke meant to the Flyers.  He defined the entire franchise.

[Lindbergh31]

On ‎3‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 7:55 PM, icehole said:

I seem to be getting into more arguments than usual lately and I think it might be because I like a different style of hockey than most people on here.  For a lack of better words, I like "Flyers" hockey.  That makes sense to me.  I like the Flyers for the style they are known for/the style they played for 45 years.

I'm semi-local (Lehigh valley) but I'm not much of a Philly guy.  Actually I don't really enjoy much about philly at all.  My dad followed all philly sports which led me to watching, but I gravitated to the flyers hockey for some reason.  I'm passionate about the flyers because they have always been "badass".

When the flyers have been good I feel like they will beat you physically and skillfully.  When the flyers have been bad, they'll still beat you physically.  They've always been hard working, beer drinking, cigarette smoking, partying badasses.  That's the type of guy I was at their age.

Now I know the heavy partying days are over, but that doesn't mean the team has to be a bunch of homework doing, smoothie drinking nancies.

I feel like people want to get rid of the badass stigma.  Some people say that they've had to endure this pain for decades.  My question is why are they flyers fans?  Is it just because they're local to you?  You could have chose a softer team to follow.

Played goalie as a kid in the 70's and my idol was Bernie Parent so I started cheering for the Flyers or the Broad Street Bullies as they were known back then and have followed them ever since. Growing up in Ontario, Canada in the 70's you either cheered for the Habs or Leafs and I couldn't stand either team and still don't like either of them today. I got to meet Bernie Parent when my brother and I made a trip in '93 to the Spectrum when they played the Penguins (the night where the Flyers fans gave an opposing player (Mario Lemieux) a five minute standing ovation when they announced his name for the starting lineup. I think it was the first game back from his treatments and I believe the only time Flyers fans ever did that for an opposing player. Eventhough I wasn't that old I remember the two cup victories but would love to see a couple more before I die.

[Lindbergh31]

23 hours ago, Poulin20 said:

As a Flyers fan who was mercilessly persecuted by Sabres fans during my grad school days in Buffalo anyone who became a Flyers fan due to opposing the Sabres and pissing of their fans is A-OK in my book!

 

Regarding the Lindros era...I can never forgive the NHL for how they allowed Lindros and that generation of Flyers to be hooked and held, clutched, and grabbed by the likes of the Devils and even the Sabres.  Then when he is gone and Cindy comes on the scene they institute the new ticky tack penalty rules where you get a penalty for breathing on the "Face of the NHL".  Lindros could have been so much more had he played in the era they play in now.  I feel that he was a victim of the times and we never saw close to his full potential realized. 

True enough, think how the "Legion of Doom" line would have played if there was no clutching or holding in the neutral zone. That line was awesome to watch.

[Lindbergh31]

2 hours ago, eleven24 said:

 

Bobby Clarke.  Honestly, there really aren't many ways to describe his game.  He was dirty.  He was clutch.  He held teammates accountable.  He would do anything it took to win a game.  On the ice, he wasn't the fastest, didn't have the best hands, nor the hardest shot.  Don't get me wrong, he had incredible skill - but what he had more was that he wanted it more than the other guy.  He had heart.  That is what separated him from everyone else.  His desire is what made his skill set more than it was.

 

It's the reason Clarke was at odds with a guy like Lindros.  88 had world class, once in a generation type of skill.  Big, fast, great vision, hands, and a shot.  Perhaps the most skilled player to wear the O&B.  But he didn't have that burning desire that Clarke had.  He wouldn't do whatever it took to win.

 

Blood rushing down his head after getting clubbed in the noggin... Clarke's not done for the game.  He's still out there playing, and scoring the big goal.  Lindros gets hit with a puck near the eye in practice, and he's out for a few weeks.  Clarke expected everyone to put the team first, just as he had.  Lindros, in Clarke's eyes, didn't do that.  IF this is what Clarke did as a front office guy, imagine the glare he'd give a teammate as a captain.  

 

Clarke imposed his will on his teammates.  He made all of them play better than their skill set would have normally allowed them to.  In essence, the Flyers would've never been the Broad Street Bullies without Bobby Clarke.  The Flyers would've never been, as you put "bad ass" without having a kid from Flin Flon once pull their jersey over his head.

 

Bobby Clarke defined what it means to be a Philadelphia Flyer.  That definition isn't of a partying, bad ass, group of players.  It's not a group of all stars either.  Being a Flyer means doing whatever it takes to win.  At all costs.

 

That is what Clarke meant to the Flyers.  He defined the entire franchise.

Eleven24, what you said is all true but reading the books on the Flyers and what they described about the 70's Flyers is Clarke wanted the whole team to do everything together on and off the ice. The players all hung out together after games at their favourite bar, they seem to have that all for one and one for all attitude. But we can't forget about Fred Shero who knew how to let these players be themselves but understand that each of them had a certain job to do to be part of the team puzzle. The Broad Street Bullies couldn't play their style unless they had the goalie they had, Parent gave them the confidence to play on the edge and know that he'd bail them out if they got in trouble. Keenan tried to do the same with the teams in the 80's when they had Pelle Lindbergh in net. We as Flyers fans expect the Flyers to play hard, and work their asses off otherwise the players will hear about it from the fans. Hexie understands this and wants to get the Flyers back to that and hopefully he does.

[King Knut]

18 hours ago, icehole said:

Good stuff.  That's why I'm trying to get to the bottom of this.  I want a team full of Bobby clarkes but it seems like everyone else would rather have a team of gretzkeys.  The team of Gretzkys MIGHT be better but that would be sacrificing the uniqueness of the franchise.  For what...a championship?  Will a championship get you a raise at your job?  Will it score you a hot chick?  Will it make you unit bigger?

It seems like each flyer GM has been searching for the same type of player and that's frowned upon by today's flyers fan.  They would have you believe that every flyers team is just muckers and grinders.  The team usually has a good balance of skill and toughness.  I think it's pretty cool that they stay true to the franchise and not sell out because of the trends.  I think that comes from the top.  This year, they have some top skill and the bottom six is more like bottom 3 mixed with AHLers. 

Will I be happy if the team wins a cup with the couturiers of the league...sure I will.  But my entire heart wouldn't be in it like it was in 97, 2004, and 2010.

 

I'm really confused by this post.  What players are you talking about that flyers fans have frowned upon?  Richards and Carter?  I have no idea why fans here hated them (other than I assume because they got laid more than most of us).  Who else have Flyers fans frowned upon?  Carcillo?  RInaldo?  Steve Downie?  

 

I think we'd all like a team of Bobby Clarkes.  (I'd take a team of Dave Poulins for that matter).

The problem is, there was only one.  

And who on the Flyers since the 80's do you think played more like Bobby Clarke than the guys on the team now?

Giroux is the closest we've had.  Giroux is far more like Clarke than Gretzky. And he's more like Clarke than Lindros or LeClair ever was.  Give me a team of Girouxs and I'll book the parade.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[icehole]

2 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

I'm really confused by this post.  What players are you talking about that flyers fans have frowned upon?  Richards and Carter?  I have no idea why fans here hated them (other than I assume because they got laid more than most of us).  Who else have Flyers fans frowned upon?  Carcillo?  RInaldo?  Steve Downie?  

 

I think we'd all like a team of Bobby Clarkes.  (I'd take a team of Dave Poulins for that matter).

The problem is, there was only one.  

And who on the Flyers since the 80's do you think played more like Bobby Clarke than the guys on the team now?

Giroux is the closest we've had.  Giroux is far more like Clarke than Gretzky. And he's more like Clarke than Lindros or LeClair ever was.  Give me a team of Girouxs and I'll book the parade.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm talking about the makeup of the team in general...not necessarily a certain player.  If you want to talk about rinaldo, carcillo, and downie, yes, I enjoyed them on the team.  I'm not saying I was heartbroken when they left, but I think a good team needs similar players on their team.  I think those types of players are more important than bellemare, vandevelde, and white.

I know Clarke was a unique player in a different time but that's the type of player I lean towards because he represents flyer hockey.  And you are correct, Giroux is probably the closest thing the flyers have had to clarke. He's got an edge to him that I like.  Crosby is a better player but I'm glad the flyers have Giroux instead.  There's a reason for that.

So I'm not saying replace voracek with rinaldo, I'm saying replace vandevelde, bellemare, or white with someone with more toughness to make the team more feared like they used to be.

[Podein25]

25 minutes ago, King Knut said:

Giroux is the closest we've had.  Giroux is far more like Clarke than Gretzky. And he's more like Clarke than Lindros or LeClair ever was.  Give me a team of Girouxs and I'll book the parade.

 

He even wears Clarkie's #28 from the 1972 Team Canada!  

 

Giroux is more skilled (better skater by far), but not as good on faceoffs. And right handed. But I get your point.

 

[RJ8812]

Carter was a choke artist when he was here. Always coming up short when we needed a big goal. (There's a reason why he nickname here was "high and wide"). And he was a big time floater. Also, the way he whined he was out of Columbus, was a compete joke.  I was never a fan of his since day 1. However, from what I've seen, he seems to have figured it out in LA.

[Podein25]

Just now, RJ8812 said:

Carter was a choke artist when he was here. Always coming up short when we needed a big goal. And he was a big time floater.

 

I think this is more or less true, if overstated a bit. Carter became a complete hockey player only after he got to LA. He grew up a bit.

[King Knut]

30 minutes ago, icehole said:

I'm talking about the makeup of the team in general...not necessarily a certain player.  If you want to talk about rinaldo, carcillo, and downie, yes, I enjoyed them on the team.  I'm not saying I was heartbroken when they left, but I think a good team needs similar players on their team.  I think those types of players are more important than bellemare, vandevelde, and white.

I know Clarke was a unique player in a different time but that's the type of player I lean towards because he represents flyer hockey.  And you are correct, Giroux is probably the closest thing the flyers have had to clarke. He's got an edge to him that I like.  Crosby is a better player but I'm glad the flyers have Giroux instead.  There's a reason for that.

So I'm not saying replace voracek with rinaldo, I'm saying replace vandevelde, bellemare, or white with someone with more toughness to make the team more feared like they used to be.

I'll just repeat my position that like it or not, the Flyers can't get away with playin "Flyers Hockey" anymore. 

 

They at will get called for things other teams will not and the rest of the league has PP's that are too good to be on the PK that much. 

 

Flyers hockey will result in losses and I prefer winning playing hard skilled and smart to losing playing hard nosed but with a ton of effort. 

 

Its literally taken me since 1991 to come to the conclusion that Flyers hockey is not the way to winning. Mostly because We just won't get away with it any more. But the Hawks and Kings have proven that you don't have to play like the prickguins to win in this league. 

[eleven24]

23 hours ago, Podein25 said:

 

I think this is more or less true, if overstated a bit. Carter became a complete hockey player only after he got to LA. He grew up a bit.

 

I don't think it's any coincidence that Carter started becoming a complete hockey player around the time Richards started falling apart.  Perhaps the turning point in Carter's career was easing up on party time with Richie.

[Podein25]

23 minutes ago, eleven24 said:

I don't think it's any coincidence that Carter started becoming a complete hockey player around the time Richards started falling apart.  Perhaps the turning point in Carter's career was easing up on party time with Richie.

 

No probably not. He will always be "Frosted Tips" to me though.

[King Knut]

1 hour ago, eleven24 said:

 

I don't think it's any coincidence that Carter started becoming a complete hockey player around the time Richards started falling apart.  Perhaps the turning point in Carter's career was easing up on party time with Richie.

 

I think Jeff Carter's "turning point" came when A) He wasn't playing for the Flyers anymore and the hate goggles came off a lot of people here. and B) He was playing with a distinctly more talented team in LA than he was in Columbus.  

 

The bias against Carter and Richie here never made any sense to me and the criticism against Carter particularly blew my mind.  All everyone kept saying was "Maybe if he puts it together this year" and meanwhile the dude was scoring 35-40 goals and playing a solid 2 way game.

 

He had a bad playoffs when they needed him to have a good one in 2010... because he was literally playing on 2 broken feet.  

Dude was playing on 2 broken feet (and even I could slap him for missing that open net that would have won game 6) but there he is playing on 2 broken feet and the jack asses on the message boards are saying how he needs to toughen up and work on his skating.

 

Now all we do is lament not having a sniper who can score 35-40 goals.  

Suffice to say... I never understood the Carter hate.  

[AJgoal]

I always liked Carter, but he seemed to me to be the "third wheel." You had Richards and Briere who were your top two centers. Carter never seemed to be a fit because he had too much skill to be relegated to the 3rd line center, and what we really needed (Stop me if this sounds familiar) was a scoring winger. Carter never seemed to do too well on the wing, so I thought that swapping him for a goal scoring winger would make sense.

[eleven24]

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

Now all we do is lament not having a sniper who can score 35-40 goals.  

 

In the Carter trade we acquired Voracek, Couturier and Cousins.  I'd do that trade again today in a heartbeat.

[icehole]

On 3/2/2016 at 2:02 PM, King Knut said:

I'll just repeat my position that like it or not, the Flyers can't get away with playin "Flyers Hockey" anymore. 

 

They at will get called for things other teams will not and the rest of the league has PP's that are too good to be on the PK that much. 

 

Flyers hockey will result in losses and I prefer winning playing hard skilled and smart to losing playing hard nosed but with a ton of effort. 

 

Its literally taken me since 1991 to come to the conclusion that Flyers hockey is not the way to winning. Mostly because We just won't get away with it any more. But the Hawks and Kings have proven that you don't have to play like the prickguins to win in this league. 

So is that a reason to hate Rinaldo(don't know if you do but many others do) because he got called for penalties he didn't commit, because of his reputation?  Hate the refs and the league for that...not the player.

Although some calls don't go our way, it's the same around the league.  I feel like we got off easy this season.  Gudas had some questionable hits that weren't ruled as being suspension worthy.

I know we can't go back to the days of throwing elbows to Russian heads.  I'm glad you brought up LA though.  There is a way to beat people up and also keep winning.  You don't have to play like Detroit but it seems like that's the direction they want to go.

[King Knut]

Just now, eleven24 said:

 

In the Carter trade we acquired Voracek, Couturier and Cousins.  I'd do that trade again today in a heartbeat.

 

As would I.  I wasn't questioning that.  I was questioning the mentality of always being pissed at what we have and lamenting what we don't without seeing the larger picture of how it all comes together.

I wasn't unsatisfied with Carter and I don't think we should trade anything drastic in order to get a sniper now either.