Flyers send Vorobyev to LHV; recall NAK and Goulbourne

[OccamsRazor]

51 minutes ago, vis said:

A lot of folks were pumping Vorobyev's tires, but he's done nothing.

 

Because he stood out during preseason and and actually earned it.

 

And for whatever reason he stopped playing that way...only he and maybe the coaching staff no why.

 

Maybe it was the big lights who knows but if he want to get back he needs to find that play.

 

In all honesty i wish the would waive a few vets on the club be we all know Hak doesn't hold vets accountable only kids.

 

I am ok with the kids getting a look.

 

Goulbourne can help this lifeless PK maybe and he brings some more physicality to the team.

 

Flyers can use some more of this...

 

 

...someone who can put the opposition on their ass!!!

[ruxpin]

1 hour ago, OccamsRazor said:

And for whatever reason he stopped playing that way...only he and maybe the coaching staff no why.

 

You know who else stopped playing the way they were?  Every Flyer centerman.  There is something they are being asked to do that is screwing with every single one of them.  Coots and Patrick don't look like they were, either.

 

1 hour ago, OccamsRazor said:

Goulbourne can help this lifeless PK maybe and he brings some more physicality to the team.

 

He won't.  I'm telling you right now, he's going to be molded into whatever crapshow Lappy and Hakstump are insisting on and drain any kind of physicality and aggressiveness he has right out of him.

[brelic]

9 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

Because he stood out during preseason and and actually earned it.

 

And for whatever reason he stopped playing that way...only he and maybe the coaching staff no why.

 

In Vorobyev's case, I don't think he just 'stopped playing that way'. He looked great in preseason, and looked just ok once the games started counting. IIRC, one knock on Vorobyev is his consistency / compete level. 

 

It's too bad because he really did look great in preseason. But so do a lot of players.

 

9 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

In all honesty i wish the would waive a few vets on the club be we all know Hak doesn't hold vets accountable only kids.

 

Who would you waive? 

 

 

[flyerrod]

5 hours ago, brelic said:

Who would you waive? 

MacDud/Folin/Pickard/Elliott/Weise(even though he actually looked ok this year so far as a 4th liner). Lindblom has been suffering from brain fart after brain fart but at least he is trying. I would put Patrick/Simmonds/Konecny  together and see if they can find some of the chemistry they showed last year. I would also put Vorachek/Girioux/Lindblom (he does have potential) but balance the time between those two lines fairly even. Laughton/Weal/Couturier 3rd line and Lehtera/NAK/goulborne on the 4th.

[OccamsRazor]

7 hours ago, brelic said:

 

In Vorobyev's case, I don't think he just 'stopped playing that way'. He looked great in preseason, and looked just ok once the games started counting. IIRC, one knock on Vorobyev is his consistency / compete level. 

 

It's too bad because he really did look great in preseason. But so do a lot of players.

 

 

Who would you waive? 

 

 

 

Dale Weise start with.......then i would make Mcdud the next one.

[PuckMeister]

Rux,

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner and thanks for the reply.  Been mulling this over in my mind regarding the coaching staff. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the LV staff supposed to be teaching and implementing the major league team system?  It should make for a seamless transition when they move up to the Flyers.  I don't see the seamless part of this but I read how lost they seem on arrival.  Begs the question if Gordon would be any better than the present group.

 

Agree with you re bringing back Stevens.  There just has to be some hot shot minor league coach who is well thought of in another organization that we could explore the virtue of their talents. And for God's sake not Hitch!

[OccamsRazor]

41 minutes ago, PuckMeister said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the LV staff supposed to be teaching and implementing the major league team system?  It should make for a seamless transition when they move up to the Flyers. 

 

 

Yes they are not sure if you have been paying attention but they too are struggling on the PK and PP.

 

Got to teach them young!!!!!!!!!

[mojo1917]

On 10/29/2018 at 12:07 AM, ruxpin said:

you know who else stopped playing the way they were?  Every Flyer centerman.  There is something they are being asked to do that is screwing with every single one of them.  Coots and Patrick don't look like they were, either.

this.

No one looks confident playing hockey for this club right now.

 

[mojo1917]

19 hours ago, flyerrod said:

Lindblom has been suffering from brain fart after brain fart but at least he is trying.

I think LIndblom just needs a little luck.  He is not stupid, he's good with the puck in his skates, he sees the ice well. I think he just needs a couple of bounces to get some confidence that he can get on the score sheet in this league.  Matt Read, whose game is not remotely similar had a similar justthisclose vibe before he found his shot and was pretty decent for a couple of seasons, Lindblom looks to be at that place.

I never watch him and think "boy, that was stupid". 

@ruxpin

It's like the centermen aren't allowed to take the puck between the dots because then they'll "be on the wrong side"...14 has "dipsy-dooed" out of the high % area a lot this season, same with 19. That is a good observation.

[brelic]

7 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

this.

No one looks confident playing hockey for this club right now.

 

 

Fixed it.

[brelic]

Just now, mojo1917 said:

I think LIndblom just needs a little luck.  He is not stupid, he's good with the puck in his skates, he sees the ice well. I think he just needs a couple of bounces to get some confidence that he can get on the score sheet in this league.  Matt Read, whose game is not remotely similar had a similar justthisclose vibe before he found his shot and was pretty decent for a couple of seasons, Lindblom looks to be at that place.

I never watch him and think "boy, that was stupid". 

@ruxpin

It's like the centermen aren't allowed to take the puck between the dots because then they'll "be on the wrong side"...14 has "dipsy-dooed" out of the high % area a lot this season, same with 19. That is a good observation.

 

I think part of the challenge of building a team through the draft is this.

 

How long do you wait for prospects to pan out before you decide you've seen enough? We as fans tend to get too attached to prospects and believe it's just a matter of 'time' before they 'get it' and contribute. 

But the harsh reality is that the overwhelming majority of our picks will not pan out. That's just how drafting odds work. 

 

So how do you know when to move on and stop wasting time/investing resources in a kid you don't think has it, and move to someone who does? 

 

There's MORE chance that Lindblom (5th round), NAK (2nd), and Vorobyev (4th) are dime-a-dozen prospects that shined at lower levels, than them becoming solid, consistent top 9 contributors. 

 

It's definitely easy and common for fans to overvalue them. 

[murraycraven]

25 minutes ago, brelic said:

 

I think part of the challenge of building a team through the draft is this.

 

How long do you wait for prospects to pan out before you decide you've seen enough? We as fans tend to get too attached to prospects and believe it's just a matter of 'time' before they 'get it' and contribute. 

But the harsh reality is that the overwhelming majority of our picks will not pan out. That's just how drafting odds work. 

 

So how do you know when to move on and stop wasting time/investing resources in a kid you don't think has it, and move to someone who does? 

 

There's MORE chance that Lindblom (5th round), NAK (2nd), and Vorobyev (4th) are dime-a-dozen prospects that shined at lower levels, than them becoming solid, consistent top 9 contributors. 

 

It's definitely easy and common for fans to overvalue them. 

 

 

This.

 

It is a fine line and hopefully the powers at be know more than we do since they see them daily.  Lindy is a smart player and I think he just needs a little puck luck.  His skating is never going to be great but I think his hockey sense is very good on both sides of the puck.  I keep waiting for him to be a more consistent player but prospects take time when they come into the NHL.

 

You did a pretty good job of summing up my argument on Hextall's plan in a sense.  Just b/c Frost and Hart may be here in 2 years does not make the team immediately better.   They certainly will have more skill but outside of generational talents prospects are not likely to come into year 1 or 2 making a huge impact.   

[brelic]

28 minutes ago, murraycraven said:

 

 

This.

 

It is a fine line and hopefully the powers at be know more than we do since they see them daily.  Lindy is a smart player and I think he just needs a little puck luck.  His skating is never going to be great but I think his hockey sense is very good on both sides of the puck.  I keep waiting for him to be a more consistent player but prospects take time when they come into the NHL.

 

And his lack of skating and maybe overall vanilla game are probably why he went in the 5th round. There is a reason he was drafted so late. He might turn out great for a 5th rounder, and find a solid role in the middle 6. I would be supper happy with that.

 

Or, more likely, he will struggle to adjust and find a consistent role with consistent production in the NHL, being shuffled in and out of the lineup.

 

I just feel like so often, the coach gets blamed for 'stunting' a young player's growth. "If only they played more, or if the coach trusted them more, or if the coach used them right, or, or, or..."

 

What about Occam's Razor? No, not the poster lol, but the axiom. "The simplest explanation is usually the correct one."

 

The likelihood is that it's not the coach's fault. It's that the player simply isn't an NHL player - and that, for many including myself, means having to drop the 'expectation' to have Player X come in, contribute, and be a solid guy. 

 

It sucks when you spend years waiting for some player to develop, and in the end, it doesn't materialize. 

 

 

28 minutes ago, murraycraven said:

 

You did a pretty good job of summing up my argument on Hextall's plan in a sense.  Just b/c Frost and Hart may be here in 2 years does not make the team immediately better.   They certainly will have more skill but outside of generational talents prospects are not likely to come into year 1 or 2 making a huge impact.   

 

Exactly. And it's not a smart 'plan' to bank on Hart being the starter in 2 years. He might never be an NHL starter. Or a very poor one. 

 

Plan for the NHL team while still leaving some wiggle room. In other words, having NO competent goalies under contract while you 'wait for the saviour' is just as bad as having ONE incompetent goalie under contract for 9 years while you toss away the 'saviour' you had all along.

 

[mojo1917]

1 hour ago, brelic said:

There's MORE chance that Lindblom (5th round), NAK (2nd), and Vorobyev (4th) are dime-a-dozen prospects that shined at lower levels, than them becoming solid, consistent top 9 contributors. 

I guess we have to define successful, first. 

I have a different take on Lindblom because he was very good as a boy vs men in the SHL.

That's arguably the 2nd best league in the world. He was good in that league, and that is what makes me think he has a good shot to be successful in the NHL.  He's still young, this is realistically his first crack at being an NHL regular, I'm not expecting superstardom, I don't think 45pt player is beyond his skill/ability level. I think that is good value for a 5th round pick.

I don't know when the cut off is with developing players...I know this club has jettisoned guys too soon more often than hung on too long. 

I know that development is often not linear, Lindblom's skating is fine, it's not worse than our #1 centerman's.

[brelic]

31 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

I guess we have to define successful, first. 

 

Fair enough, but hard to do! 

 

I would say that ANY 5th rounder that makes it to the NHL as a regular should be seen as a successful draft pick, regardless of role. 

 

According to TSN's analysis of draft picks, there's a

- 13% chance Oskar plays 100 games in the NHL;

- 3% chance he ends up as a legit top 6;

- 94% chance  he ends up as a 4th liner or worse (which they define as AHL tweener or fringe player).

 

Oskar's played 34 games, and could end up being part of the 13%. That would be successful, in my view.

 

31 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

I have a different take on Lindblom because he was very good as a boy vs men in the SHL.

That's arguably the 2nd best league in the world. He was good in that league, and that is what makes me think he has a good shot to be successful in the NHL.  He's still young, this is realistically his first crack at being an NHL regular, I'm not expecting superstardom, I don't think 45pt player is beyond his skill/ability level. I think that is good value for a 5th round pick.

I don't know when the cut off is with developing players...I know this club has jettisoned guys too soon more often than hung on too long. 

I know that development is often not linear, Lindblom's skating is fine, it's not worse than our #1 centerman's.

 

 

Absolutely. He excelled in a very tough league against men as a teenager. He has the ability.

 

But you can already see the leap between the SHL and the NHL is not incremental. It's a pretty giant chasm if you compare his performance over there to here so far. 

 

45pts for a 5th rounder is beyond good value. It's excellent value, if you consider the probabilities above. 

 

I'd be happy with a 30-35pt responsible 3rd liner. 

 

But even if he ends up as a great 4th liner, it's still a success where Lindblom is concerned.

 

[OccamsRazor]

5 hours ago, brelic said:

 

How long do you wait for prospects to pan out before you decide you've seen enough?

 

Well let's use Patrick Sharp as a perfect example of when to give upon him.

 

He played 66 NHL games for the Flyers over 3 seasons before he was moved to Chicago.

 

Where he went on and played 50 more games the same season he was traded.

 

Then his first full season he put up 20 and 15 assist on not so great Hawks team yet.

 

Then a 36 goal 62 point season.

 

Basically scoring 4 season of 33+ goals.

 

In 749 games he scored 249 goals and 283 assist for 532 points. I think the Flyers could have used his 532 points.

 

And a key contributor to the Hawks winning 3 Cups.

 

So everyone id different and develops at different rates.

 

So was it worth it trading Matt Ellison and a 3rd round pick to the Hawks?? I'm sure they will say hell yeah??

 

So when do we give up on kids....he was drafted in 2001 and traded in 2005-06 season??

 

[OccamsRazor]

6 hours ago, brelic said:

So how do you know when to move on and stop wasting time/investing resources in a kid you don't think has it, and move to someone who does? 

 

 

Honestly it isn't an exact science...but if this was easy to answer we would never see teams miss and move guys and them finally come around.

 

JVR is another example i think that was given up on early.

 

However i think a trade like this wakes guys up and maybe serves as the motivation they needed/lacked staying put where they were.

 

It is really one of the questions we will know and will always second guess with hindsight.

 

Joni Pitkanen is one i think the Flyers moved after given up and it to me atleast looked like the right move.

 

And they got a decent return for him Jason Smith (eventually Captain) and Joffrey Lupul for him.

 

Even though Lupul didn't stay long he played while here. Putting up a 20and 25 goal season helping them win some games and i remember him scoring some big goals in the playoffs in 2007-08.

[brelic]

5 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

 

Honestly it isn't an exact science...but if this was easy to answer we would never see teams miss and move guys and them finally come around.

 

JVR is another example i think that was given up on early.

 

However i think a trade like this wakes guys up and maybe serves as the motivation they needed/lacked staying put where they were.

 

It is really one of the questions we will know and will always second guess with hindsight.

 

Joni Pitkanen is one i think the Flyers moved after given up and it to me atleast looked like the right move.

 

And they got a decent return for him Jason Smith (eventually Captain) and Joffrey Lupul for him.

 

Even though Lupul didn't stay long he played while here. Putting up a 20and 25 goal season helping them win some games and i remember him scoring some big goals in the playoffs in 2007-08.

 

Seidenberg is another example. Ended up winning a Cup (or two?) and playing 859 games as a 6th rounder. 

 

 

[OccamsRazor]

1 hour ago, brelic said:

 

Seidenberg is another example. Ended up winning a Cup (or two?) and playing 859 games as a 6th rounder. 

 

 

 

Yeah a good example.

 

And he only won one with Boston.

 

Still more than what I have ever witnessed.

 

[darthbal]

So they bring NAK up put him in the lineup for the Ducks game, and only play him 5 min and 44 sec?!?!?!

 

With that kind of minute, no one can really help a team... Why even bother, playing him at all? He would have been more beneficial for him to stay in the AHL and get more ice time.

 

Just my thought

[flyercanuck]

1 hour ago, darthbal said:

So they bring NAK up put him in the lineup for the Ducks game, and only play him 5 min and 44 sec?!?!?!

 

With that kind of minute, no one can really help a team... Why even bother, playing him at all? He would have been more beneficial for him to stay in the AHL and get more ice time.

 

Just my thought

 

Nothing wrong with doing that for one game. Show him the difference in speed and skill between the two leagues. Give him a whiff of where he wants to be.

 

 Now if they kept him up for a bunch of games and only played him 5 minutes, that would be stupid. And not the least bit surprising.

[elmatus]

23 hours ago, brelic said:

There's MORE chance that Lindblom (5th round), NAK (2nd), and Vorobyev (4th) are dime-a-dozen prospects that shined at lower levels, than them becoming solid, consistent top 9 contributors. 

 

It's definitely easy and common for fans to overvalue them. 

 

I couldn't agree more. We do it on this forum all the time. And you're right, any look at stats paints a picture that frankly isn't congruent with our likelihood to overvalue. And sure we can conjure up a number of exceptions to the rule, but for every Patrick Sharp there are hundreds of not Patrick Sharps. Stats are rather more objective than any fan can hope to be.

[brelic]

24 minutes ago, elmatus said:

 

I couldn't agree more. We do it on this forum all the time. And you're right, any look at stats paints a picture that frankly isn't congruent with our likelihood to overvalue. And sure we can conjure up a number of exceptions to the rule, but for every Patrick Sharp there are hundreds of not Patrick Sharps. Stats are rather more objective than any fan can hope to be.

 

 

[mojo1917]

3 hours ago, elmatus said:

 

I couldn't agree more. We do it on this forum all the time. And you're right, any look at stats paints a picture that frankly isn't congruent with our likelihood to overvalue. And sure we can conjure up a number of exceptions to the rule, but for every Patrick Sharp there are hundreds of not Patrick Sharps. Stats are rather more objective than any fan can hope to be.

 

In LIndblom's case specifically,  I don't think he's been overvalued at all. 

He excelled in the SHL as a boy.  He played well .661 ppg in the AHL with a lot of those numbers coming after he'd been in the league for more than 35 games....which is the number of games he's been an NHL player.

So how about we give this young guy 66 games ala Patrick Sharp before we start saying he's overvalued ? yes ?

35 games is a pretty small sample size, yes ?

Good young players don't come in and light **** up right away, Oskar isn't a superstar,  hasn't been lauded as a saviour.... like Malkin Crosby & McJesus.  As a fan base we would be wise to not expect the same initial impact as those guys.

Let the kid play, know there will be some bumps, He's been very good at every stop in his career.

 

 

 

 

 

[elmatus]

1 hour ago, mojo1917 said:

 

In LIndblom's case specifically,  I don't think he's been overvalued at all. 

He excelled in the SHL as a boy.  He played well .661 ppg in the AHL with a lot of those numbers coming after he'd been in the league for more than 35 games....which is the number of games he's been an NHL player.

So how about we give this young guy 66 games ala Patrick Sharp before we start saying he's overvalued ? yes ?

35 games is a pretty small sample size, yes ?

Good young players don't come in and light **** up right away, Oskar isn't a superstar,  hasn't been lauded as a saviour.... like Malkin Crosby & McJesus.  As a fan base we would be wise to not expect the same initial impact as those guys.

Let the kid play, know there will be some bumps, He's been very good at every stop in his career.

 

I didn't mean to suggest Lindblom specifically, though I know he was mentioned specifically during the conversation. I meant this statement quite broadly in fact. We fans overvalue prospects all the time without necessarily considering the actual reality of playing in the NHL. I'm no stranger to this. I recognize my own fault in it. 

 

Hexy has been lauded for stockpiling an enviable stable of prospects. Clearly that's a very good thing, but it certainly doesn't mean all those touted prospects will be NHL players. They're all gambles. As fans, we do tend to overvalue our own prospects at times. 

 

I'm also not advocating we dismiss Lindblom or any other specific young player. I just think we often approach this subject with more wishful thinking than we realize. I think it's normal for fans to do so. I'm sure other fan boards do it for their teams all the time.

 

I also think there are many many players who make extremely solid AHLers or players in international leagues who simply cannot translate that success to the NHL (Oh, hi Jordan). Is success in other leagues a good predictor? It's the best we have really, but it doesn't mean it's always accurate.

 

Sometimes it's worth taking a step back and trying to look at the picture more objectively though.