Jump to content

Flyers claim Pickard


sekkes85

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, brelic said:

I mean, how can your goalies ever get NHL experience if you never let them get NHL experience

 

 

This is where i am at. And were i was at with Martel.

 

Give him a long look and by that i mean more than the 4 games Martel got or 7 Stolie has gotten.

 

Good lord we keep giving Laughton and Leier countless opportunities yet these guys don't get that chance.

 

Cut bait and maybe these guys get their chance somewhere else.

 

You look stupid if Stolie makes it somewhere else and here you were in need of a goalie so bad and he was under your nose the whole time.

 

At the end of the day you can only project so much. At some point STOP GUESSING!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Charlie O'Connor made this statement in his article in the Athletic.   And when one thinks about it...it all starts to make sense as to why he wanted Pickard.

 

"Finally, Hextall almost certainly likes Pickard the player. He chose the netminder for Team Canada at the World Championships in 2017 when he was general manager of the national team, and Pickard rewarded the selection by stopping nearly 94 percent of the shots sent his way over seven contests. Combine the desire for a more trustworthy, proven option as No. 2 at the NHL level to begin a pivotal season with Hextall’s positive feelings toward Pickard, and it’s not hard to see why the Flyers chose to go this route."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

 

Sorry crazy?? Hell yes.

 

But dude stopped the damn puck.

 

Was erratic and spastic doing it yes. But so was Hasek.

 

He put up awesome numbers we would kill for today.

 

But he got zero goal support back in the day.

 

I love this debate because I still feel as adamantly about it today as I did then and everyone thought I was crazy then because Roman was just so darn much fun to watch. 

Long story short is I would take our situation now over Roman any day of the week and twice on Thursday.  I hated Roman and I still do and I believe he was an awful goalie for any NHL team.  Fun for the Olympics or something maybe, but a terrible every day NHL goalie. 

 

You're right, he got zero goal support and that was partially because of Hitchcock's approach to the game and partially because of the way the game was being played then, but also partially because of Roman and his floppy divey antics in his own net.

 

The fact of the matter was that because of his inability to track the puck and make easy saves easily, he coughed up a TON more rebounds and was usually out of position for them which meant his second and third saves had to be that much more acrobatic.  It looked amazing and had so much drama to it and he managed to keep the puck out of the net, but it created absolute chaos in his own zone and his defense couldn't get control of the puck cleanly in their own zone which made all of their outlets rushed and forced which meant if they even got it out of their own zone, they would almost never control it through the neutral zone.  

 

A goalie who is objectively less acrobatic, but who can control a rebound and send it to the corners where his D men know to go is objectively better than a guy like Roman who may be more impressive... but then again he looks that way because he has to.

 

Think about it.  Essentially the same team got farther with Robert friggin' Esche than with Roman.  

 

To this day, I still believe that if they'd just let Boucher keep that #1 spot in 2002 when he came back from being hurt, the team would have faired much better over the next three years or so.  

 

Elliott's interesting to me because essentially he's got terrible form technically and he's almost never square to the shooter and he almost never controls the rebound... and yet somehow it kind of works out for him.  There isn't as much chaos in his own end as i would have thought.  The Flyers gave up bad goals when guys were left wide open (often right in front of the net) or when Mac or someone fell over or coughed up the puck into an odd man rush, and occasionally, Elliott or Neuvy would just kinda not make a save they should, but for the most part, despite Elliott's more chaotic approach, I don't see the same chaos that I did with Roman...  I did with Mrazek though, that's for sure.

 

This is what gives me a little bit of pause about Sandstrom.  Supposedly he's a bit more on the chaotic end of things.  

This is why I LOVE what i've seen from Hart so far.  Tracks the puck amazingly well and uses as little movement as he can to make the save so he doesn't fall out of position.  The defense controlling the rebounds is a little hard to tell in preseason because there are so many crappy players trying hard to make an impression, but trying hard doesn't always mean playing well.

 

Long story short, I would probably give up watching Hockey if the Flyers had a Roman type goalie right now.  He stopped the puck, sure... but he stopped it way more than he should have had to.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

This is where i am at. And were i was at with Martel.

 

Give him a long look and by that i mean more than the 4 games Martel got or 7 Stolie has gotten.

 

Good lord we keep giving Laughton and Leier countless opportunities yet these guys don't get that chance.

 

Cut bait and maybe these guys get their chance somewhere else.

 

You look stupid if Stolie makes it somewhere else and here you were in need of a goalie so bad and he was under your nose the whole time.

 

At the end of the day you can only project so much. At some point STOP GUESSING!

 

I agree on Martel.  I'm not sold on him as an NHL player, but there's no way having him in the roster is going to hurt the team more than Lehtera or Weise and likely Leier.  He's small, but that doesn't mean he can't control the puck, drive play and get a few troublesome shots off.  

 

And I totally agree about getting the goalies experience.  Especially Stolarz who's numbers in the NHL (granted in limited exposure and usually against weaker teams) were ridiculous.  Doesn't mean he's going to be a great starter, but backups only tend to play in limited exposure and usually against your weaker opponents.  He's almost a perfect backup if he's healthy.  

 

Lyon got four more NHL games, but his save % was 23 points lower and his GAA was .68 higher.  Stolarz was technically excellent, tall and calm in his crease and generated comfortable rebounds.   The only reason to not be all in on him as your backup is the injury, which who knows what's really going on with that.  

 

Your point about looking stupid is well taken... because let's face it.  We've been there and done that and I don't really want to go through it again.  I have no reason to think Stolie will be a multiple vezina winning goalie someplace else, but I do think if he's healthy, he'll be decent.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, King Knut said:

I hated Roman and I still do and I believe he was an awful goalie for any NHL team.

 

 

I don't know it sounds personal.

 

Sure he gave up some suspect stuff his first year in the playoffs.

 

But the year vs. the Sens it was not the case.

 

In 5 games the Flyers scored 2 friggin goal one of which the first one they won 1-0.

 

They went on to score 1 goal in 4 more games.

 

Which the next goal they scored was in game 5 the elimination game which went to OT.

 

So i don't care if Roman was smoking a cigar drinking a beer and watching  TV while manning the crease ain't no way in hell you can put that on him.

 

In 3 years he is 5th all time in wins with 92.

 

Behind Ron, Bernie, Mason and Stephenson.

 

And tops in regular season at 923%. 2nd in shutouts with 20 behind only Bernie.

 

So yeah i get it you don't like Roman. But there were different issues with those team than just Roman.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

 

I don't know it sounds personal.

 

Sure he gave up some suspect stuff his first year in the playoffs.

 

But the year vs. the Sens it was not the case.

 

In 5 games the Flyers scored 2 friggin goal one of which the first one they won 1-0.

 

They went on to score 1 goal in 4 more games.

 

Which the next goal they scored was in game 5 the elimination game which went to OT.

 

So i don't care if Roman was smoking a cigar drinking a beer and watching  TV while manning the crease ain't no way in hell you can put that on him.

 

In 3 years he is 5th all time in wins with 92.

 

Behind Ron, Bernie, Mason and Stephenson.

 

And tops in regular season at 923%. 2nd in shutouts with 20 behind only Bernie.

 

So yeah i get it you don't like Roman. But there were different issues with those team than just Roman.

 

 

 

It is personal.  He ruined several perfectly good teams.

 

 

Do you mean the Ottawa series in '02 or the one in '03?

 

In 2003 against the Senators, until the last two games in which Roman gave up a ton of goals in each game, the goal differential was dead even.  

 

Lalime faced an average of 21  shots per 60mins, but Roman faced an average of over 27 shots per 60mins.  I don't know where to find this stuff for that series, now but at the time, the "attack zone" time was heavily in favor of the Senators.  

 

In 2002 it was even worse with Roman facing an average of 30 shots/60 and Lalime facing 27.5 / 60.

But in case we're wondering if it was just that the Flyers were outmatched, Boucher only faced an Average of 18 shots / 60 in his two appearances.  

 

If Roman had been drinking a beer or two he might have been better for the team.  Goalies are a tricky business and save% and goals against averages are tricky stats.  

 

With forwards and D men you can kind of combine a whole bunch of stats to get a clear picture o the player, but with Goalies, it's much harder to tell because some of them make the saves easy and make getting puck control and exiting the zone easier, and some of them make it harder.

 

It makes sense that his save % was so high because he likely faced more shots because he couldn't direct or control a rebound to save his life.  Those teams he played behind were GOOD teams and should have done better.  He was a large reason why they did not.  

 

Think about it, when you think of Roman, what do you think of?  Amazing saves.  Acrobatic Saves.  Diving saves, right?  That was because he literally HAD TO DIVE TO MAKE SAVES BECAUSE HE WAS OUT OF POSITION. 

 

NOW,  When you think about Robert Esche, Brian Boucher, marty Biron or Michael Leighton what do you think of?  Weak goals?  Probably not amazing acrobatic saves (unless you're thinking of that save Boosh had on Elias in '00 which was nuts).  

 

Esche, Boosh, Leighton and Biron all got the the ECFs.  Boosh and Leighton made it to the finals as a tandem.  Roman never made it out of the second round.  

 

Was the '04 that much better than the '02 or '03 teams?  No.  It was not.  What about '00 (without Lindros) or '08 or '10?  

 

As long as he's not atrocious, I'll take a weaker, but more technically correct goalie over an acrobatic one EVERY SINGLE TIME.  

 

The same was True of Hasek, but let's look at Hasek...  How many times in all of his years and with all of those vezina trophies did the Dominator make it deep into the playoffs?  He made it out of the 2nd round exactly twice with the Sabres and then three times with the Redwings (literally one of the best teams of all time) but didn't play much at all in one of those runs.

 

During roughly the same years as Hasek was dominating, look at a goalie like Brodeur... who was far more boring, far less acrobatic (though he could move when he had to) but much more of a positional, square to shooter, puck tracking, control or direct rebounds to your D men type goalie.  He's one of the best of all time (I say begrudgingly because he whooped our butts so often) but he wasn't nearly the acrobat or head stander onner that Hasek (or Roman) was.  But he was objectively much much more successful. 

 

Boring but good is almost always better in net.  You want a guy who can make the amazing save when he really has to, but really you want the guy who has to make the least amount of amazing saves and makes winning a ton of games and in the playoffs look easy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, King Knut said:

It is personal.

 

Ain't nothing wrong with that.

 

3 minutes ago, King Knut said:

Do you mean the Ottawa series in '02 or the one in '03?

 

The one in 2001-02.

 

From what i remember about the 2002-03 playoffs the whole team was displaying issues.

 

And the 2nd round vs. the Sens the whole team didn't perform well.

 

It is hard to remember when it brings back bad memories and i tried to block it out.

 

I will say this you're entitled to your opinion and i have put it behind me for good reasons.

 

So i am done talking about it. Those years i will say the whole group was dysfunctional.

 

Barber and all.

 

I am glad this organization has seemed to changed it's philosophy.

 

Now let's see if this change brings results because at the end of the day that is all that matters. The Cup.

 

Can't believe i have seen some of the teams win it before my beloved Flyers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...