Proposal: New Blood

[Embiid]

It seems like a broken record with the Flyers...they need to do a better job of complementing their skilled players. I mean Briere wasn't exactly complemented well until Leino came and we saw that storied duo in 2010 make a huge impact but not enough to outscore our AHL goalie...

Also, remember how we basically ran Mark Howe (after McCrimmon) as well as Desjardins into the ground for years as our sole primary anchors on D. Timmonen had better complementary support but even he was given way too much mileage. I think Provorov should have a much better supporting cast to lessen the load...

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

It seems like a broken record with the Flyers...they need to do a better job of complementing their skilled players. I mean Briere wasn't exactly complemented well until Leino came and we saw that storied duo in 2010 make a huge impact but not enough to outscore our AHL goalie...

Also, remember how we basically ran Mark Howe (after McCrimmon) as well as Desjardins into the ground for years as our sole primary anchors on D. Timmonen had better complementary support but even he was given way too much mileage. I think Provorov should have a much better supporting cast to lessen the load...

I 'member.

The great thing about the way this prospect pool is coming together is that we really don't have any holes, or at least I suspect we won't after this draft, where we grab some centers. We were always chasing pieces before, like you said - and obviously, goaltender was the main piece that kept eluding us - but it feels like we are filling up nicely now. But I guess that's what happens when you have good scouts and make good decisions at the draft table and on the phone (i.e., when, where and how to use mobility with your picks). It will be interesting to watch what Hexy does to add goals to the mix - if he tries to nab a boom/bust sniper or two in the draft, if he trades for him/them, if our prospects develop this naturally, etc.

 

[daa5250]

We have Greg Carey.

lol.

 

[daa5250]

Incorrect again. This is the third time in a row you've misquoted something I said.
I'd recommend actually reading what I posted before replying, since you obviously haven't done so.

And it wasn't "horrendous all season", as Appleyard just explained as well. But hey, if you'd rather use hyperbole instead of being accurate, go for it, but waste someone else's time.

Here are some of your quotes from this thread:

It was a bad slump where nothing seemed to go right, so he tried too hard and forced things, which just made everything worse. Frustration, lack of confidence, and other mental issues that made it last a long time. But physically, there was no difference. Was he flying around the ice? No, but that was more about the teams lack of accurate/quick puck movement and the fact that he decided to dump the puck in to be safe (because the alternative was likely a failed zone entry and the puck going the other way), instead of dangling around defenders and skating it in. There were times when he did show his same usual speed though, so obviously it was still there. You may not remember it, but I do.

Physically there was no difference? Yeah that was proven otherwise mate.

There were times this year when lots of players played poorly and didn't play with the same speed as usual, but that doesn't mean their body prevented it and they lost their speed.

Except Giroux has stated multiple times now his body did prevent him from playing at his usual level and from making plays he used to make. Not sure how could attempt to claim you werent wrong in this regard.

Another quote:

Physically, he's the same as he's always been. You're looking in the wrong spot to explain this production.

... physically he's the same he's always been and that didnt effect his poor production? That was proven false according to Giroux himself.

There are more but you get the point. I had forgotten about this but you claiming i misquoted you 3 times is unequivocally false. Here are the quotes im referring to. The fact that you refuse to admit you underestimated the impact his physical condition had on his slump and play this year is very bizarre.

But continue sticking to the straw man argument that you merely meant you didnt think he was declining due to purely age which isnt what you said on a number of occasions ...

 

[Rebels57]

But continue sticking to the straw man argument that you merely meant you didnt think he was declining due to purely age which isnt what you said on a number of occasions ...

 

[hatcher]

Here are some of your quotes from this thread:



Physically there was no difference? Yeah that was proven otherwise mate.



Except Giroux has stated multiple times now his body did prevent him from playing at his usual level and from making plays he used to make. Not sure how could attempt to claim you werent wrong in this regard.

Another quote:



... physically he's the same he's always been and that didnt effect his poor production? That was proven false according to Giroux himself.

There are more but you get the point. I had forgotten about this but you claiming i misquoted you 3 times is unequivocally false. Here are the quotes im referring to. The fact that you refuse to admit you underestimated the impact his physical condition had on his slump and play this year is very bizarre.

But continue sticking to the straw man argument that you merely meant you didnt think he was declining due to purely age which isnt what you said on a number of occasions ...

he loves g and it hurts he's flopping and only gonna get worse.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

 

[Striiker]

Here are some of your quotes from this thread:



Physically there was no difference? Yeah that was proven otherwise mate.



Except Giroux has stated multiple times now his body did prevent him from playing at his usual level and from making plays he used to make. Not sure how could attempt to claim you werent wrong in this regard.

Another quote:



... physically he's the same he's always been and that didnt effect his poor production? That was proven false according to Giroux himself.

There are more but you get the point. I had forgotten about this but you claiming i misquoted you 3 times is unequivocally false. Here are the quotes im referring to. The fact that you refuse to admit you underestimated the impact his physical condition had on his slump and play this year is very bizarre.

But continue sticking to the straw man argument that you merely meant you didnt think he was declining due to purely age which isnt what you said on a number of occasions ...

OK, so you believe that his production this year is due to injury... Despite the fact that he was producing like normal for the first three months, despite the fact that he only played bad for a two month stretch (which is what killed his point total), and despite the fact that he looked back to normal again for the last two months? That makes sense to you? Really?

It wasn't a physical decline due to age, like quite a few people on here thought, it was a slump. It's obvious if you take even half a second to think about it... Unless you really believe that he was hurt the entire season and it only made difference for 2 out of 7 months? And if you believe it was because of the offseason surgery then why did it suddenly get bad for 2 months and then improve later? What's the logic here?

Plus


So at the end of the year he was "totally healthy" and until New Years he looked even better than he did in the last two months.

 

[hatcher]

OK, so you believe that his production this year is due to injury... Despite the fact that he was producing like normal for the first three months, despite the fact that he only played bad for a two month stretch (which is what killed his point total), and despite the fact that he looked back to normal again for the last two months? That makes sense to you? Really?

It wasn't a physical decline due to age, like quite a few people on here thought, it was a slump. It's obvious if you take even half a second to think about it... Unless you really believe that he was hurt the entire season and it only made difference for 2 out of 7 months? And if you believe it was because of the offseason surgery then why did it suddenly get bad for 2 months and then improve later? What's the logic here?

Plus


So at the end of the year he was "totally healthy" and until New Years he looked even better than he did in the last two months.

if he was healthy were ****ed. He killed simmonds and weal and v this year with his half assed play.

 

[deadhead]

It was obvious he wasn't healthy.

There's nothing unusual about a player with a core injury starting strong, then struggling as long season fatigue sets in, and rebounding as the muscles surrounding the hip finally return to 100%.

It was obvious that neither Giroux or Ghost were themselves until late in the season. At least to anyone who watched the games.

Giroux should be better this year, but he's never going to be an elite center again, it's not just that he's aged, it's that the game has gradually become faster the last decade, which makes it tougher for smaller players without great speed (he had great quickness and agility, but not pure speed) because the ice has gotten smaller.

Given the right linemates, he can still be highly productive, but if his production depends on his linemates, by definition, he's not an elite player (elite players make their linemates better, see Crosby).

 

[Striiker]

So much of that post is pulled straight out of your ass.

Not even gonna waste my time.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

It was obvious he wasn't healthy.

There's nothing unusual about a player with a core injury starting strong, then struggling as long season fatigue sets in, and rebounding as the muscles surrounding the hip finally return to 100%.

It was obvious that neither Giroux or Ghost were themselves until late in the season. At least to anyone who watched the games.

Giroux should be better this year, but he's never going to be an elite center again, it's not just that he's aged, it's that the game has gradually become faster the last decade, which makes it tougher for smaller players without great speed (he had great quickness and agility, but not pure speed) because the ice has gotten smaller.

Given the right linemates, he can still be highly productive, but if his production depends on his linemates, by definition, he's not an elite player (elite players make their linemates better, see Crosby).

The great thing is that his grandchildren will enjoy watching the end of his career over the next year or two before he retires.

 

[kelmitchell]

The great thing is that his grandchildren will enjoy watching the end of his career over the next year or two before he retires.

this literally made me choke on my coffee hahaha that was great, kudos my good man

 

[daa5250]

OK, so you believe that his production this year is due to injury... Despite the fact that he was producing like normal for the first three months, despite the fact that he only played bad for a two month stretch (which is what killed his point total), and despite the fact that he looked back to normal again for the last two months? That makes sense to you? Really?

It wasn't a physical decline due to age, like quite a few people on here thought, it was a slump. It's obvious if you take even half a second to think about it... Unless you really believe that he was hurt the entire season and it only made difference for 2 out of 7 months? And if you believe it was because of the offseason surgery then why did it suddenly get bad for 2 months and then improve later? What's the logic here?

Plus


So at the end of the year he was "totally healthy" and until New Years he looked even better than he did in the last two months.

His 5v5 scoring was mediocre to bad for the entire year ... ive literally responded with that in every comment that you of course choose to ignore every time. His 5v5 play was where his play and numbers fell off. Not his PP points.

Giroux had 18 5v5 points the entire season including just 7 in the last 30 games which you claimed he looked so much better in. Giroux's early point totals were almost entirely from the PP when the team's PP was top 2 in league.

You claim Giroux was producing like he always had in 1st 3 months of season. So lets look at his 5v5 scoring from 1st game (10/14) to 1/14 then. In those 45 games Giroux had just 13 5v5 points ... that 5v5 scoring rate would equate to 23 over 82 games. 23 5v5 points this season would rank him tied for 187th in the league in that stat with players like Roussel, Shore, Reider, Beagle etc.

His 5v5 play is what was awful and difference in his play and total numbers this year. I keep repeating this but you just ignore it and use his padded PP stats to start the year to claim he was doing well to start when in reality he was still mediocre at 5v5 but just not as bad as he was after the New Year.

Im sure you will find a way ignore my actual points backed by stats and find some semantics to stick to in order to desperately claim you werent wrong.

 

[Striiker]

His 5v5 scoring was mediocre to bad for the entire year ... ive literally responded with that in every comment that you of course choose to ignore every time. His 5v5 play was where his play and numbers fell off. Not his PP points.

Giroux had 18 5v5 points the entire season including just 7 in the last 30 games which you claimed he looked so much better in. Giroux's early point totals were almost entirely from the PP when the team's PP was top 2 in league.

You claim Giroux was producing like he always had in 1st 3 months of season. So lets look at his 5v5 scoring from 1st game (10/14) to 1/14 then. In those 45 games Giroux had just 13 5v5 points ... that 5v5 scoring rate would equate to 23 over 82 games. 23 5v5 points this season would rank him tied for 187th in the league in that stat with players like Roussel, Shore, Reider, Beagle etc.

His 5v5 play is what was awful and difference in his play and total numbers this year. I keep repeating this but you just ignore it and use his padded PP stats to start the year to claim he was doing well to start when in reality he was still mediocre at 5v5 but just not as bad as he was after the New Year.

Im sure you will find a way ignore my actual points backed by stats and find some semantics to stick to in order to desperately claim you werent wrong.

It takes you weeks to respond and, when you eventually do, it doesn't seem like you even know what's even being argued.

Are we suddenly talking about Giroux vs other players at 5v5? Pretty sure it was about whether or not his injury/surgery was what caused his lower scoring this year.

As Appleyard posted in another thread...

He was pacing for ~75 points and was 11th in NHL scoring just before Xmas... and was scoring at the same 5v5 pace as last season where he was top 100 in 5v5 P/60 in the NHL.

So, as I said, he was producing as normal up until that point and his scoring (statistically speaking) didn't appear to have been hurt by the injury/surgery. Unless you think he was producing at the same rate at 5v5 during the 2015-2016 season because of the surgery that didn't happen until AFTER the season ended?

Once again, you've completely missed the point and responded with irrelevant information. In a few weeks I'm sure you'll respond with another edgy off-topic post, but before you do just know that you're wasting both of our time. We're done here.

If you want to argue about his career 5v5 scoring vs his peers, as you apparently do based on this random post, then feel free to do it with someone else.

 

[daa5250]

It takes you weeks to respond and, when you eventually do, it doesn't seem like you even know what's even being argued.

Are we suddenly talking about Giroux vs other players at 5v5? Pretty sure it was about whether or not his injury/surgery was what caused his lower scoring this year.

As Appleyard posted in another thread...


So, as I said, he was producing as normal up until that point and his scoring (statistically speaking) didn't appear to have been hurt by the injury/surgery. Unless you think he was producing at the same rate at 5v5 during the 2015-2016 season because of the surgery that didn't happen until AFTER the season ended?

Once again, you've completely missed the point and responded with irrelevant information. In a few weeks I'm sure you'll respond with another edgy off-topic post, but before you do just know that you're wasting both of our time. We're done here.

If you want to argue about his career 5v5 scoring vs his peers, as you apparently do based on this random post, then feel free to do it with someone else.

I apologize that I do not come here every day like you ...

You claimed he was producing as he always has in the 1st 3 months in order to defend your claim that the surgery and wear an tear had zero impact on his play and lack of scoring (even though Giroux himself has said otherwise. It's beyond bizarre that you refuse to concede this point even with Giroux saying you were flat out wrong). Delving into his numbers and play in those 1st 3 months is absolutely relevant.

Let's reiterate what has happened here. You claimed Giroux's dip in production and play had nothing to do with his body and that physically he was 100% and the same as he always was.

Giroux himself then literally says in multiple interviews that he has not been 100% and the surgery and body have been preventing him from making plays he used to be able to make which is the reason for his season struggles.

Incredibly you then refuse to admit you were wrong about his body hindering his play and instead cling to points like Hextall saying Giroux is healthy after the season and like 2 week spurts of 5v5 production in October and December (had only 1 5v5 point in 14 November games) to desperately defend your claim that Giroux himself already said was wrong.

 

[Striiker]

This guy can't read, can he?

 

[Gsus]

You don't get into a bed with a girl immediately, you have to work for it. If you try to push it, it doesn't work. You have to be patient. Sometimes when you drink (trade) you get lucky immediately but generally that's nothing long term.

 

[Prongo]

You don't get into a bed with a girl immediately, you have to work for it. If you try to push it, it doesn't work. You have to be patient. Sometimes when you drink (trade) you get lucky immediately but generally that's nothing long term.

Didn't read any of these posts on this page but this one is the winner.

No clue what's going on here but you mentioned lady friends and drinking. Two of my all time favs.

 

[deadhead]

Giroux was either injured or in serious decline, because that was a heck of a "slump."

ES
1st half 38g 6-10 16 PP 4-11 15
2nd half 44g 3-7 10 PP 1-16 17
Jan-Feb 24g 1-2 2 PP 1-8 9
March+ 20g 2-5 7 PP 0-8 8

What is interesting is his PP production didn't change much, but his ES production fell off the 2nd half. Giroux doesn't skate much on the PP, and has more room to work. He rebounded in March, when he said he was finally feeling close to 100% again.

Take out those two terrible months and he had a good, but not great, season
Prorate 82g 11-21 32 PP 6-27 33 Total 17-48 65
That's pretty similar to the previous two seasons.
Giroux peaked at age 26, he'll now be 30, going forward the next few years he's probably a 60-65 point a year player.
After that, he's going to be a salary cap albatross.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

Giroux was either injured or in serious decline, because that was a heck of a "slump."

ES
1st half 38g 6-10 16 PP 4-11 15
2nd half 44g 3-7 10 PP 1-16 17
Jan-Feb 24g 1-2 2 PP 1-8 9
March+ 20g 2-5 7 PP 0-8 8

What is interesting is his PP production didn't change much, but his ES production fell off the 2nd half. Giroux doesn't skate much on the PP, and has more room to work. He rebounded in March, when he said he was finally feeling close to 100% again.

Take out those two terrible months and he had a good, but not great, season
Prorate 82g 11-21 32 PP 6-27 33 Total 17-48 65
That's pretty similar to the previous two seasons.
Giroux peaked at age 26, he'll now be 30, going forward the next few years he's probably a 60-65 point a year player.
After that, he's going to be a salary cap albatross.

He's practically dead. RIP G.

 

[WIP CALLER]

if Giroux is ever put with an actual scorer or finisher then I don't think he'll ever be a cap albatross. he's a playmaker that has really never had a line mate that can finish the plays that he makes. voracek has skill but is more a playmaker than scorer. schenn doesn't have chemistry with g and Simmonds is more of a garbage goal guy than a finisher. then you have players like raffl that can keep possession for the line but fail to bury many of their chancds. if raffl was better offensively he would have had a 50-60 point season 2 years ago as opposed to 30 points and giroux would likely have been a ppg player. it seemed like he missed 4 out of 5 prime chances that Giroux set up. if lindblom or konecny or the number 2 pick this year can be that finisher then I see no reason G can't be a regular 60-70 point player for the vast majority of his contract if he is healthy. he still has the passing skills and creativity to be a 50 assist guy year after year if he has someone that can bury the chances he sets up. even in this down year he was close to 50.

 

[Flyotes]

A lot of gross sophist nonsense going on from the regulars regarding Giroux. The hip was an issue. Period. Whether physically or mentally.

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports...dmits_hip_has_been_a_problem_this_season.html

Read what he says directly.

You can't say "BUT BUT look at the beginning of the season!" -- If his hip surgery has a mental aspect, it may not have been as significant early on, come and go, in addition to the regular ups and downs of point production.

"Even if you don't feel good out there, you have to find the right way to be strong mentally."

Two things in that quote: Probably statement that he didn't feel good out there (in some regard) at times and a possible concession that he wasn't always mentally as engaged due to thinking about his hip.

He also stated elsewhere that his body wasn't fully responding to what his mind was asking it to do and that was difficult for him.

Even if he's 100% now, that doesn't mean he was during the season, both mentally and physically, the normal G.

 

[Rebels57]

if Giroux is ever put with an actual scorer or finisher then I don't think he'll ever be a cap albatross. he's a playmaker that has really never had a line mate that can finish the plays that he makes. voracek has skill but is more a playmaker than scorer. schenn doesn't have chemistry with g and Simmonds is more of a garbage goal guy than a finisher. then you have players like raffl that can keep possession for the line but fail to bury many of their chancds. if raffl was better offensively he would have had a 50-60 point season 2 years ago as opposed to 30 points and giroux would likely have been a ppg player. it seemed like he missed 4 out of 5 prime chances that Giroux set up. if lindblom or konecny or the number 2 pick this year can be that finisher then I see no reason G can't be a regular 60-70 point player for the vast majority of his contract if he is healthy. he still has the passing skills and creativity to be a 50 assist guy year after year if he has someone that can bury the chances he sets up. even in this down year he was close to 50.

Why this is always glossed over when discussing G is a mystery to me.

He's an elite playmaker and hasn't played with a high-quality pure shooter since Hartnell left.

And it's not just about a players shot (Schenn has a good one), it's about knowing how to find that quiet space so that you can be available for a pass to take your shot (Schenn isn't good at this at ES).

 

[deadhead]

Giroux has been matched with every good forward the last three years, at some point you have to accept he is what he is, a 60-65 point center who's limited defensively because of his size and lack of elite speed. If you have put great players on his line to get #1 production out of him he's not in the same class as the top centers in the NHL.

He's a solid #2 center now being paid like a #1. Pure and simple.

Flyers can afford his salary the next few years but the last couple years (age 33-34) on his deal may get really ugly if the cap doesn't rise by 20-30% by that time.