Congrats Preds and Lavvy!

[radoran]

1 minute ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

I guess they could have they just gave it to the guy who had been a Captain for 5 year instead of the guy who had only been one for one year. The beauty of hindsight. However i don't think anyone expected Smith to break down as fast as he did.

 

If my posts on philly.com still existed you'd see it isn't "hindsight."

 

 

And the reason Smith wasn't captain longer wasn't because he "broke down" - he didn't re-sign with the Flyers and left for Ottawa.

[King Knut]

2 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

Eric Lindros says "hello"

 

And Richards didn't get there without Pronger - which was almost certainly on the minds of the "leadership" that canned Richards a year after he got as far as Poulin, Clarke and Lindros.

 

The "plan" (IMO) in giving the C to Smith was to encourage Smith to re-sign and give Richards a few more years before they gave him the C and not have it locked up on a player that was still on the roster.

 

The franchise effectively was pushing the C onto Mike "The Next Bobby Clarke" Richards when he was still in Kitchener.

 

Lindros got them to the finals where he was swallowed up by the Redwings clutch and grab defense and Rod was the only one who could find the net, and the Flyers were swept in shameful due course.  Richards at least won two games in the finals.  

 

I'm really not sure what problems resulted from giving Richards the Captaincy when they did.  The team did well.  Better than they had been doing the previous 3 seasons since Primeau got hurt and better than they've done since.  

[OccamsRazor]

18 minutes ago, King Knut said:

I'm not sure how you get much better goaltending than that from Boosh.

 

 

Um let's see i guess get a better named goalie besides a journeyman/AHL type guy to begin with...a real goaltender!!! Not just a career backup basically is what i meant. Which is what lead to Bryz coming to town. They had the right intentions just picked the wrong guy.

[radoran]

Just now, King Knut said:

I'm really not sure what problems resulted from giving Richards the Captaincy when they did.  The team did well.  Better than they had been doing the previous 3 seasons since Primeau got hurt and better than they've done since.  

 

The "problems" were the "problems" that led the franchise to trade away their home grown core and blow up the team a year after making it "farther than anyone but Poulin and Clarke."

[OccamsRazor]

4 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

If my posts on philly.com still existed you'd see it isn't "hindsight."

 

 

And the reason Smith wasn't captain longer wasn't because he "broke down" - he didn't re-sign with the Flyers and left for Ottawa.

 

 

Yeah but his body was abused and battered form his style of play and just because he played in many games because he was a warrior there were many games he shoudn't have played in.

[King Knut]

3 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

If my posts on philly.com still existed you'd see it isn't "hindsight."

 

 

And the reason Smith wasn't captain longer wasn't because he "broke down" - he didn't re-sign with the Flyers and left for Ottawa.

 

I think one of the reasons he didn't resign was because the Flyers were worried about his injuries (and who could blame them after Hatcher's knees) and because Richards had shown so much promise in the previous two seasons and in the AHL, so they probably felt like he was ready.   They weren't wrong.  Smith didn't play a full season with the Senators and then retired.  

 

All this talk seems to be pretending Richards was a 19 year old Rookie.  He was almost 24 when they gave him the captaincy and he'd been a leader and won at every level up to that point and had shown himself to be a capable player and leader over 3 NHL seasons in which he played at even strength, the power play and the penalty kill and over which he'd scored 141 points in 211 games.  

 

Richards was a hell of a player.  His growth and acheivements were what made letting Ottawa sign UFA Smith acceptable to the Flyers.  

[OccamsRazor]

17 minutes ago, King Knut said:

Really?  How did Pronger do just that?

 

 

Not sure what you are asking.

 

Pronger played with him roughly just two years.

 

Hardly enough time to show him what was intended.

 

Besides the ass grabbing was when he was gone (his last year was 2012 he grabbed ass in 2014)....maybe you should ask that question to Rad's Captain Kimmo and what kind of example he set.

[radoran]

Not sure where my previous post went - it seems I was trying to paste a Rabbit Hole graphic that's not being friendly.

 

They traded Richards three years after making "The Next Bobby Clarke" captain.

 

I'm not questioning him as a player for the Flyers. I'm questioning the way the Flyers handled him.

 

And I've done that for, oh, about a decade now...

[King Knut]

1 hour ago, OccamsRazor said:

Um let's see i guess get a better named goalie besides a journeyman/AHL type guy to begin with...a real goaltender!!! Not just a career backup basically is what i meant. Which is what lead to Bryz coming to town. They had the right intentions just picked the wrong guy.

 

Yeah, but I'm talking about reality.  

 

And did they have the right intentions?  What were those intentions?  Was there a goalie in the league at that time they could have brought in that would have gotten them a cup with that roster?  

 

They brought in the likes of Esche and Hackett and Biron and Emery because the young goalies in their system hadn't worked out.  And the fans were antsy that they never got a "real #1" in all that time.  NOW they finally had a goalie in their system with some serious promise.  THAT is the time to bring in a journeyman for a couple of years for your prospect to take over from in that time as he develops.   It's not far off from the situation they're faced with now.  Back then though, they trashed the kid with the talent and doubled down spending way more money than they should have on a complete nut case that I think one pre-contract cup of coffee with would have sent any sane GM running for the hills.   

 

More to the point, what I'm saying is that in that particular series Brian Boucher outplayed Ryan Miller.  He played extremely well.  There was no need to Yo Yo between three different goalies and by starting Bob they screwed themselves on the next season and it directly lead to having to trade him for squat.  

 

Sure, it would have been nice if they'd have had a young Lundqvist to start, but I'm talking about reality here.  They had Boucher, Leighton and Bob.  Bob was clearly the future.  By playing him, they brokered the future and lost a Vezina winner for a pick that turned into Stolarz.  Homer displayed a glaring lack of comprehension regarding the cap and the cap rules and then displayed a glaring lack of judgement when he bet on Bryzgalov in the off season, and secured his place in the GM hall of shame a year later by doubling down on Bryz, and trading Bob for a pick that eventually turned into Stolarz rather than just making some damn cap room somewhere else.

 

It was stupid.  Followed by stupid.  Compounded by stupid.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[King Knut]

1 hour ago, radoran said:

Not sure where my previous post went - it seems I was trying to paste a Rabbit Hole graphic that's not being friendly.

 

They traded Richards three years after making "The Next Bobby Clarke" captain.

 

I'm not questioning him as a player for the Flyers. I'm questioning the way the Flyers handled him.

 

And I've done that for, oh, about a decade now...

 

I'm just wondering what should have been done differently and how much it would have changed things?  

Was that team winning a cup in 2009 or 2010 or 2011 if Richards wasn't the captain?  How many other teams would decide a player was a failure as a captain at 27 after 3 seasons, 7 playoff rounds and a finals appearance (without an NHL level starting goalie)?  

 

I'm just not convinced it was the mistake many (including you apparently) believe it was, because I'm not sure what went so wrong with it.  

 

Now if you want to talk about how they handled Richards after naming him captain, I'm all about that.  Let's jump in.  But naming him captain?  Don't see it as a problem.  

 

It followed Crosby and Toews being named captains who were both younger than him.  

 

 

[OccamsRazor]

19 minutes ago, King Knut said:

It was stupid.  Followed by stupid.  Compounded by stupid.

 

yes

 

[King Knut]

2 hours ago, radoran said:

 

The "problems" were the "problems" that led the franchise to trade away their home grown core and blow up the team a year after making it "farther than anyone but Poulin and Clarke."

 

So the problems were that the GM was an immature and irresponsible buffoon who couldn't understand either basic math or the idea that players who were better than he'd ever dreamed of being might have to actually be dealt with on a personal level instead of simply being dealt away?

 

Sounds about right to me for this organization.  

 

 

[radoran]

6 minutes ago, King Knut said:

It followed Crosby and Toews being named captains who were both younger than him. 

 

I'm not against the concept of naming a young captain (FWIW, the flip side of your argument is playing out in Colorado and Tavares still hasn't "won anything" on the Island).

 

It goes back to what I said about them effectively declaring Richards the captain before he left Kitchener (where he played for two more seasons after being drafted). From the moment he was drafted he was the captain of the future - "The Next Bobby Clarke."

 

That's a lot of expectations to put on a player. I don't recall Pittsburgh, for example, insisting that Crosby was "the next Lemieux" - he was much more seen as his own guy (and Lemiuex, as owner, IMO encouraged that opinion) even though he was actually immediately following Lemieux. And there's no real obvious precursor for Toews (the Blackhawks' last Cup coming in 1960-61 and I would be very much surprised if anyone in Chicago was harkening back to captain Dirk Graham's run to the Final in 91-92). Meanwhile, Landeskog labors under the pretty intense shadow of Joe Sakic who - like Clarke - wields a pretty big influence on that club to this day.

 

I get your point that he was in his fourth season when they made him captain and that he was 24. They are good and valid points.

 

But I see them naming him the captain as part and parcel of how they treated him as captain. He was presumed to be "the Next Bobby Clarke" and they treated him as if he was Bobby Clarke before he had actually done much. Yes, he potted 28 the year before he was named, but he had 21 total goals in the two seasons before that. Bob Clarke scored 15 in his first year, 27 the next and 35 in his third season. (It's really hard to compare the two eras...). Clarke also still had the previous captain - Ed van Impe - still on the roster in 73, 74 and 75 (he was traded in 76).

 

I also see them reacting to their cross-state rivals having Crosby as captain in 07-08 (I find the Flyers to be a very reactionary franchise).

 

I just don't think Richards was mentally "ready" to be an NHL team leader and focal point - and that played out over his three seasons with the C and, I think, in how his career trajectory went.

 

If the team didn't "know" about the "potential problems" that were apparently so problematic that in just three years he went from "The Next Bobby Clarke" and face of the franchise to yesterday's news and "good riddance"  then they were grossly incompetent. IMO, they did but were hoping that putting him into the position would cause him to "straighten up a fly straight." (the Flyers in my experience tend to "hope" things will go "as they want them to" and often force square pegs into round holes (imagine, for example, Brind'amour as captain instead of Lindros... many other factors to consider, but still...)).

 

That "straightening up" evidently didn't happen. Richards was clearly unhappy dealing with the media, especially a group that was alluding to some of the behind the scenes shenanigans that apparently eventually contributed to his trade.

 

In the end, I'm not saying they "would have won a Cup" in 09, 10 or 11 with a different captain (it was obviously possible), but I think a transitional captain that gave way to a 28 year old Richards who had the chance to grow and mature without as much of the glare of the spotlight upon him might have helped him as a player and a person (and I think Timonen, like Desjardins, would have happily given up the position when the time was right).

 

It also just might have meant that they didn't see a "need" to trade away three first rounders for Pronger to kick Richards in the tuckus and that all of those things could have contributed to a different long term outcome for all concerned.

 

I appreciate your position that it was plausibly the "right time" to give him the C. I just believe it's equally, if not more, plausible that it wasn't. And that's not something I say with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight - it's something I felt at the time.

[radoran]

1 minute ago, King Knut said:

 

So the problems were that the GM was an immature and irresponsible buffoon who couldn't understand either basic math or the idea that players who were better than he'd ever dreamed of being might have to actually be dealt with on a personal level instead of simply being dealt away?

 

Sounds about right to me for this organization. 

 

For many years I would post about "this organization, a term I use loosely"...

 

And yet I've got an orange kitchen with the retired numbers on the wall, wear a Flyers hat and orange and black glasses every day and was a partial season ticket holder last year.

 

Go figure.

 

[OccamsRazor]

15 minutes ago, radoran said:

they were grossly incompetent

 

I won't defend this because this was the case on many levels in different aspects of the club no doubt.

 

However it was his 4th season before he was bestowed the C.  

 

Dustin Brown was in his 4th season as well.

 

Claude his 4th as well.

 

Tavares his 5th.

 

Landeskog his 2nd.

 

So it really depends on the individual really and if he can carry the burden. Only two on the list above were never Captain in juniors and that was Brown and Giroux.

 

So i don't there is any clear way to do it. It more relies on the front office KNOWING the kid can handle it.

 

This is where the Flyers failed. Not sure if they knew about their drug problem but i know they knew about their parting ways.

 

My point??? Hell i'm not even sure except the Flyers have issue know who, when and where to do this.....

[King Knut]

18 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

I'm not against the concept of naming a young captain (FWIW, the flip side of your argument is playing out in Colorado and Tavares still hasn't "won anything" on the Island).

 

It goes back to what I said about them effectively declaring Richards the captain before he left Kitchener (where he played for two more seasons after being drafted). From the moment he was drafted he was the captain of the future - "The Next Bobby Clarke."

 

That's a lot of expectations to put on a player. I don't recall Pittsburgh, for example, insisting that Crosby was "the next Lemieux" - he was much more seen as his own guy (and Lemiuex, as owner, IMO encouraged that opinion) even though he was actually immediately following Lemieux. And there's no real obvious precursor for Toews (the Blackhawks' last Cup coming in 1960-61 and I would be very much surprised if anyone in Chicago was harkening back to captain Dirk Graham's run to the Final in 91-92). Meanwhile, Landeskog labors under the pretty intense shadow of Joe Sakic who - like Clarke - wields a pretty big influence on that club to this day.

 

I get your point that he was in his fourth season when they made him captain and that he was 24. They are good and valid points.

 

But I see them naming him the captain as part and parcel of how they treated him as captain. He was presumed to be "the Next Bobby Clarke" and they treated him as if he was Bobby Clarke before he had actually done much. Yes, he potted 28 the year before he was named, but he had 21 total goals in the two seasons before that. Bob Clarke scored 15 in his first year, 27 the next and 35 in his third season. (It's really hard to compare the two eras...). Clarke also still had the previous captain - Ed van Impe - still on the roster in 73, 74 and 75 (he was traded in 76).

 

I also see them reacting to their cross-state rivals having Crosby as captain in 07-08 (I find the Flyers to be a very reactionary franchise).

 

I just don't think Richards was mentally "ready" to be an NHL team leader and focal point - and that played out over his three seasons with the C and, I think, in how his career trajectory went.

 

If the team didn't "know" about the "potential problems" that were apparently so problematic that in just three years he went from "The Next Bobby Clarke" and face of the franchise to yesterday's news and "good riddance"  then they were grossly incompetent. IMO, they did but were hoping that putting him into the position would cause him to "straighten up a fly straight." (the Flyers in my experience tend to "hope" things will go "as they want them to" and often force square pegs into round holes (imagine, for example, Brind'amour as captain instead of Lindros... many other factors to consider, but still...)).

 

That "straightening up" evidently didn't happen. Richards was clearly unhappy dealing with the media, especially a group that was alluding to some of the behind the scenes shenanigans that apparently eventually contributed to his trade.

 

In the end, I'm not saying they "would have won a Cup" in 09, 10 or 11 with a different captain (it was obviously possible), but I think a transitional captain that gave way to a 28 year old Richards who had the chance to grow and mature without as much of the glare of the spotlight upon him might have helped him as a player and a person (and I think Timonen, like Desjardins, would have happily given up the position when the time was right).

 

It also just might have meant that they didn't see a "need" to trade away three first rounders for Pronger to kick Richards in the tuckus and that all of those things could have contributed to a different long term outcome for all concerned.

 

I appreciate your position that it was plausibly the "right time" to give him the C. I just believe it's equally, if not more, plausible that it wasn't. And that's not something I say with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight - it's something I felt at the time.

 

 

I'd be curious to research what the actual "Bobby Clarke" quote was regarding Richards.

 

But the dude Captained his juniors team and won a championship there, he captain the world juniors and won that for Canada for the first time in almost 10 years, he captained the Phantoms to the Calder Cup...  I think it was safe to assume he was going to be a good NHL captain.  More so than Crosby or Toews who had each had no such creds on their resumes.  

 

And Crosby wasn't hailed as the next Lemieux, he was hailed as the next Gretzky.  He wasn't going to be the best Penguin, he was going to be the best player in the world.  I don't think the Flyers were reacting to other teams as much as they were dealing with what they had.  

 

I think Richards would done just as much partying as he did without being Captain.  Timmonen or Smith or anyone else as captain wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference. 

 

If that's what you're referring to as "maturing".  On the ice, Richards couldn't have given more and the team was very good while he was it's captain.  They lost to the Penguins in the first round... without a goalie.  They lost to the Blackhawks in the finals... without a goalie.  And they lost to the Bruins in the second round... without a goalie.  Not a Mason or Neuvirth type.  With Boucher and Leighton. 

 

There's this perception that Richards was a failure because he was caught at a few parties and 5 years later stopped at the border without a prescription for a med that is notoriously given out to professional athletes playing through pain and notoriously addictive.  

 

Yet the success of the team while he was here can't really be ignored.  

 

If what you're saying is that making someone else captain could have stopped him partying and made him even better than he was, then I would say to you that IMHO that's the job of the coach (who can bench him) or the GM who can suspend and fine him for breaking team rules.    

 

If his immaturity was such a problem, why didn't they step in?  Because with the hindsight of historical perspective, I sure don't see the immaturity being a problem on the ice.  

[radoran]

1 minute ago, OccamsRazor said:

So i don't there is any clear way to do it. It more relies on the front office KNOWING the kid can handle it.

 

This is where the Flyers failed. Not sure if they knew about their drug problem but i know they knew about their parting ways.

 

I'm not sold on the idea that Richards has "a drug problem". Taking prescription pain killers in an industry that basically expects you to "play injured" isn't a surprising thing.

 

1 minute ago, King Knut said:

If his immaturity was such a problem, why didn't they step in?  Because with the hindsight of historical perspective, I sure don't see the immaturity being a problem on the ice.  

 

The issue here is that being "captain" isn't just "what you do on the ice" and that you have a lot of responsibility off the ice as well.

 

My point is that allowing Richards to let his "on the ice" play define him over a longer period than one breakout year could have been beneficial to all concerned.

 

"Why didn't they step in?"

 

Well, that's the $69 Million question, isn't it?

 

Again, I understand and appreciate your position. None of it is "knowable."

 

We we do know is that he was captain for all of three seasons in Philadelphia. Why was that? Again, opinions vary...

[King Knut]

36 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

I'm not sold on the idea that Richards has "a drug problem". Taking prescription pain killers in an industry that basically expects you to "play injured" isn't a surprising thing.

 

 

I'm completely with you on this.  I feel as though it's HIGHLY likely that the Flyers staff bears some responsibility in whatever addiction problem Richards may have had.  At the end of the day, we REALLY don't know.  I got stopped at the border and had my whole car searched because I forgot I had a couple of generic tylenol in my breast pocket.  We have these visions of a trunk full of Oxy, but it was probably a lot simpler than that seeing as how he didn't serve any time or anything.

 

Additionally, Oxy isn't a party drug.  It's a drug that helps people in chronic pain and then they get addicted to it and start to suffer whenever they don't have it.  It's not like ecstasy or uppers or ludes or something like that.  It helps manage pain.  

 

36 minutes ago, radoran said:

The issue here is that being "captain" isn't just "what you do on the ice" and that you have a lot of responsibility off the ice as well.

 

 

Meh... I don't think I really believe the Penguins followed a 19 year old Crosby's lead off the ice or the blackhawks followed a 20 year old Toews' lead off the ice.  I also believe both those organziation kept a pretty tight leash on their young stars and in the case of Crosby, the entire damn league did it.  Look at Kane.  He wasn't even captain, but after the Cabbie incident and the date rape incident, that team locked him DOWN.  If Richards got into half the trouble people here think he did, Homer should have shut him down, stripped him of the C and suspended him, or made him enter the league substance abuse system right then.  I think that's just what you do when you invest in a kid like that.  

 

I might be inclined to feel differently, but watching the way the organization hung Lindros out to dry like a dead racoon has probably tainted my perspective.  I just think Clarke had this perception that he was a god and that he did it all on his own and that no one protected him or guided him at all and that's what he expected of Lindros and subsequently what Homer expected of Richards.  It's kind of dumb.  

 

36 minutes ago, radoran said:

Why didn't they step in?"

 

Well, that's the $69 Million question, isn't it?

 

$69 Million and 2 cups for the Kings.  It. Was. Dumb.  

 

[OccamsRazor]

48 minutes ago, radoran said:

"a drug problem"

 

I can't say. But from the arrest it would seem he does. Unless he is the dealer. Then i could see yeah ok he doesn't maybe.

 

Painkillers ain't no joke. They have taken down many. If he still has a dependency then i guess only he knows. But i concur the sport and that goes for all of them where athletes are getting paid to perform (even if injured) is a widespread problem.

[radoran]

8 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

I can't say. But from the arrest it would seem he does. Unless he is the dealer. Then i could see yeah ok he doesn't maybe.

 

Painkillers ain't no joke. They have taken down many. If he still has a dependency then i guess only he knows. But i concur the sport and that goes for all of them where athletes are getting paid to perform (even if injured) is a widespread problem.

 

He was arrested, the charge was stayed and if the one year account is correct has been dropped altogether.

 

Not exactly the stuff of drug kingpins.

 

IIRC, he had a personal supply when crossing the border which has stricter laws in Canada.

 

Just saying it's not like a Diego Maradona situation.

 

I'm not saying he didn't/doesn't have a dependency or problem, but he's not snuffling up the Peruvian Marching Powder.

[OccamsRazor]

1 minute ago, radoran said:

he's not snuffling up the Peruvian Marching Powder

 

That we know of.....

 

[radoran]

21 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

I'm completely with you on this.  I feel as though it's HIGHLY likely that the Flyers staff bears some responsibility in whatever addiction problem Richards may have had.  At the end of the day, we REALLY don't know.  I got stopped at the border and had my whole car searched because I forgot I had a couple of generic tylenol in my breast pocket.  We have these visions of a trunk full of Oxy, but it was probably a lot simpler than that seeing as how he didn't serve any time or anything.

 

Additionally, Oxy isn't a party drug.  It's a drug that helps people in chronic pain and then they get addicted to it and start to suffer whenever they don't have it.  It's not like ecstasy or uppers or ludes or something like that.  It helps manage pain.  

 

 

Meh... I don't think I really believe the Penguins followed a 19 year old Crosby's lead off the ice or the blackhawks followed a 20 year old Toews' lead off the ice.  I also believe both those organziation kept a pretty tight leash on their young stars and in the case of Crosby, the entire damn league did it.  Look at Kane.  He wasn't even captain, but after the Cabbie incident and the date rape incident, that team locked him DOWN.  If Richards got into half the trouble people here think he did, Homer should have shut him down, stripped him of the C and suspended him, or made him enter the league substance abuse system right then.  I think that's just what you do when you invest in a kid like that.  

 

I might be inclined to feel differently, but watching the way the organization hung Lindros out to dry like a dead racoon has probably tainted my perspective.  I just think Clarke had this perception that he was a god and that he did it all on his own and that no one protected him or guided him at all and that's what he expected of Lindros and subsequently what Homer expected of Richards.  It's kind of dumb.  

 

 

$69 Million and 2 cups for the Kings.  It. Was. Dumb.  

 

 

I'm talking about dealing with the media - no small thing in Philly - and other team expectations.

 

The Pens famously brought in Goering to "help" a young Crosby and Toews won the cup not at 20 but 23.

 

I agree they should have been more vigilant. They weren't. That's part of the problem and part of my point.

 

As for Kane, he had a rep coming out of Buffalo  (I know people who grew up with him) and lived with his mom the first few seasons in Chicago. They "locked him down" early and kept the lock on.

 

Also, too, the Cabbie incident and date rape things are both pretty much bull.

[King Knut]

15 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

I'm talking about dealing with the media - no small thing in Philly - and other team expectations.

 

 

I'm sorry, I think I just thought that Toews was named captain at 20.  It was his second season I believe if I have the age wrong.  And the Flyers should have done something like that with Richards if they were unhappy with how he dealt with the Press.  Pronger was clearly more aggressive and antagonistic with the press, but he was older and they were scared of him, so they all just chuckled nervously and hoped he didn't kill them.

 

15 minutes ago, radoran said:

As for Kane, he had a rep coming out of Buffalo  (I know people who grew up with him) and lived with his mom the first few seasons in Chicago. They "locked him down" early and kept the lock on.

 

 

Not a bad idea. 

 

[radoran]

18 hours ago, King Knut said:

I'm sorry, I think I just thought that Toews was named captain at 20.  It was his second season I believe if I have the age wrong.  And the Flyers should have done something like that with Richards if they were unhappy with how he dealt with the Press.

 

I don't think "the Flyers" were "unhappy" with how Richards dealt with the press. I think Richards was unhappy having to deal with them at all - especially as they brought some focus to the off-ice activities that may (or may not) have been going on.

 

Just maybe giving him the cover to work through whatever "off ice" "problems" were there could have made a difference for all concerned? The world will never know...

 

I just find it hard to draw the comparison between Richards and Toews/Crosby as both of them have captained their teams to multiple Cups while Richards made a Final once and then was a role player on L.A.'s two Cups.

 

I think the unfortunate comparison is because the Flyers pushed him into the role.

[King Knut]

42 minutes ago, radoran said:

I just find it hard to draw the comparison between Richards and Toews/Crosby as both of them have captained their teams to multiple Cups while Richards made a Final once and then was a role player on L.A.'s two Cups.

 

I think the unfortunate comparison is because the Flyers pushed him into the role.

 

I'm just not sure why he was pushed too soon and they were not.  That's the main comparison.  

 

If the Flyers had a problem with how he handled the press, the Flyers should have sat his tush down and explained to him what's expected of a Philadelphia Flyers captain and that it's harder here than in some towns because expectations are high and the press is a bunch of bored a holes typing for their livelihoods and yadda yadda.  

 

Richards was more qualified to be an NHL captain than Crosby or Toews when he was made captain. He was already a Flyers alternate captain and he'd captained successfully at several levels including the World Juniors when they won gold and he was actually Crosby's captain.

 

He wasn't pushed into anything.  Nothing would have changed had they waited a year or two.  The organization just needed to manage him better because frankly, being a Flyers captain is a different set of rules and requirements.  But Richards was going to have the same problems with the press at 26 or 27 that he did at 24.   

 

Toews might, MIGHT have been able to handle the Philly press well, but Crosby?  That kid would have fractured like a rotten egg under the same microscope and pressure and challenges.  

 

I'm sorry, there was no problem with  making Richards captain when they did and there was no problem with the on ice results with him as captain.  If they didn't like his off the ice personality or example, that was something they should have discussed and worked through then, but I think it's a bit ridiculous to condemn the guy as not being ready to be a captain when his teams did better than 80% of the NHL.