Every player is different, has different skill levels, and develops at different paces - thank you for clarifying that. I never said Sanheim was ready at 19 like Provorov. My analysis is based on how the player is playing in whatever league they're in before the NHL. Sanheim had demonstrated he had progressed passed the AHL. Lindblom spent multiple seasons playing against grown men in Sweden and played at high-level. How is this analysis flawed? Oh, because you said so --- night bud...
- flyers20032002

The determining factor is how a player's game translates to the NHL and what is the best place for a young player to develop. Even if a player has progressed past the AHL if he has areas of his game that need improvement to be most effective at the NHL level, the AHL may still be the best place for that player to be. Simply because he gets more ice time and plays in better situations than a possible limited role in the NHL. Some players may be better off working on their weaknesses and developing at the NHL level.

A players level of play in the AHL or any other professional league other than the NHL does not automatically transfer to the NHL. As I've said previously, Brandon Manning was a two time all star at the AHL level. He is a 6/7 depth defenseman in the NHL.

This will be the WORST Mania in the history of Manias

God damn it! No one helped us tonight. Cbj won and Florida winning.
- Hextall271

Watched the Bs/Jackets game. 2 breakaways in OT by the Bruins where a Jackets defender wrapped sticks and arms around the player in the clear and no calls. The one on Marchand was laughable. Sure enough Jackets win it in OT.

You said you didn't understand and based on this post you seemingly still don't. The determining factor is how a player's game translates to the NHL and what is the best place for a young player to develop. Even if a player has progressed past the AHL if he has areas of his game that need improvement to be most effective at the NHL level, the AHL may still be the best place for that player to be. Simply because he gets more ice time and plays in better situations than a possible limited role in the NHL. Some players may be better off working on their weaknesses and developing at the NHL level.

A players level of play in the AHL or any other professional league other than the NHL does not automatically transfer to the NHL. As I've said previously, Brandon Manning was a two time all star at the AHL level. He is a 6/7 depth defenseman in the NHL.
- MJL

lol... I think Sanheim has nothing left to work on in the AHL. He's only going to improve his skills at the NHL level. Let's avoid being petty about my understanding and yours. You don't work for the Flyers, so no one really understands fully how they're conducting evaluations. These are opinions. Not sure how you haven't been banned yet.

Watched the Bs/Jackets game. 2 breakaways in OT by the Bruins where a Jackets defender wrapped sticks and arms around the player in the clear and no calls. The one on Marchand was laughable. Sure enough Jackets win it in OT.
- Pixote Andolini

Man the reffing lately has been crap in several different games I've watched. Blown icing calls, letting ridiculous interference and holding go, elbows to heads etc. It's wild.

lol... I think Sanheim has nothing left to work on in the AHL. He's only going to improve his skills at the NHL level. Let's avoid being petty about my understanding and yours. You don't work for the Flyers, so no one really understands fully how they're conducting evaluations. These are opinions. Not sure how you haven't been banned yet.
- flyers20032002

There is plenty of evidence on how the Flyers conduct player evaluations and what their core philosophy is on player development. Sanheim had one very important area to work on when he went back to the AHL and that was his confidence level as well as further refining his play away from the puck. What would I be banned for, refuting your opinions effectively?

Man the reffing lately has been crap in several different games I've watched. Blown icing calls, letting ridiculous interference and holding go, elbows to heads etc. It's wild.
- Hextall271

Speaking of elbows to heads:


How many games you think a current NHL superstar would get for this play? Say a Malkin/Stamkos/Laine landing one of these on a 6/7 defenseman like an Englland or Manning?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spu2WMEEo-c

LOUD NOISES

Speaking of elbows to heads:


How many games you think a current NHL superstar would get for this play? Say a Malkin/Stamkos/Laine landing one of these on a 6/7 defenseman like an Englland or Manning?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spu2WMEEo-c
- Pixote Andolini

how injured does the defenseman get? its one of the main variables the NHL laughably considers

Speaking of elbows to heads:


How many games you think a current NHL superstar would get for this play? Say a Malkin/Stamkos/Laine landing one of these on a 6/7 defenseman like an Englland or Manning?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spu2WMEEo-c
- Pixote Andolini

My god. That's crazy.

God damn it! No one helped us tonight. Cbj won and Florida winning.
- Hextall271

Just more reasons to hate the Bruins. I hate that (frank)ing team.

i was also still right the entire time

ty

i was also still right the entire time

ty
- Mordecai

No you weren't

Speaking of elbows to heads:


How many games you think a current NHL superstar would get for this play? Say a Malkin/Stamkos/Laine landing one of these on a 6/7 defenseman like an Englland or Manning?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spu2WMEEo-c
- Pixote Andolini

Glad they are working to get rid of these hits.

Completely unnecessary and sadly, these kinds of hits got some players Hall of Fame recognition (*looks at Scott Stevens*).

Man the reffing lately has been crap in several different games I've watched. Blown icing calls, letting ridiculous interference and holding go, elbows to heads etc. It's wild.
- Hextall271

Even the inconsistency from period to period is crazy. I don't get how a reffing crew can see nothing in the first call everything in the 2nd and call 2 phantom calls in the third. It's like they are trying too hard to influence the game OR they are really just that awful and we need to refresh the league's refs.

You're wrong, I don't wonder why. I don't care if people don't like me. When you keep it to hockey, so will I.

You keep making this ridiculous stats argument. As if both players were playing the same minutes, against the same players, with the same players, in the same situations. They weren't.

You're also back to this asinine original thought sthick which is what you do when you don't have an effective argument.
- MJL

no stats, no substance, just the corporate line, no original thought. I see on the next page another poster pretty much saying the same thing. You accuse people of not having an effective argument, who is looking to argue? You. These are opinions, look it up, maybe it will help you. I can recall numerous occasions by multiple posters you were asked for facts to support your position, that is when you tend to move on.

I love your standard ending, you dont have an effective argument crap, just keep saying what you think Hak would say, its safe. As the other poster said, you are not there with Hak, nor are we, these are opinions. You boast about shutting posters down with your comments. I see people like you in business all the time, no original thought, the yes man, you contribute very little.

You leave a lot to be desired as a person, but you dont care what anyone thinks, so all good.

no stats, no substance, just the corporate line, no original thought. I see on the next page another poster pretty much saying the same thing. You accuse people of not having an effective argument, who is looking to argue? You. These are opinions, look it up, maybe it will help you. I can recall numerous occasions by multiple posters you were asked for facts to support your position, that is when you tend to move on.

I love your standard ending, you dont have an effective argument crap, just keep saying what you think Hak would say, its safe. As the other poster said, you are not there with Hak, nor are we, these are opinions. You boast about shutting posters down with your comments. I see people like you in business all the time, no original thought, the yes man, you contribute very little.

You leave a lot to be desired as a person, but you dont care what anyone thinks, so all good.
- wcorvette

What a huge contradiction you make here. It's embarrassing. First you claim these are opinions then you claim I need to provide stats and facts. It's hysterical. I provide tons of substance in my posts, you just choose to ignore it and label it as something different. That is your problem.

What you don't realize is that by making this kind of response, you show just how effective my responses are because you cannot refute them sticking to the subject and the topic so you have to take this line.

As far as what kind of person I am, you have no clue. You don't know me. There is not one ounce of my self worth tied up in your opinion of me as a person.

What a huge contradiction you make here. It's embarrassing. First you claim these are opinions then you claim I need to provide stats and facts. It's hysterical. I provide tons of substance in my posts, you just choose to ignore it and label it as something different. That is your problem.

What you don't realize is that by making this kind of response, you show just how effective my responses are because you cannot refute them sticking to the subject and the topic so you have to take this line.

As far as what kind of person I am, you have no clue. You don't know me. There is not one ounce of my self worth tied up in your opinion of me as a person.
- MJL

True, i can only make judgement about you from this site, while that is not good, maybe you are a super person other places

Your standard #2 response "your response shows how effective my statement was" because you lack substance.

I come to the site to give an opinion and then see what other people think, it is ok if they dont agree and hear things i didn't think of, all still just opinions.

you come to be-little people, win arguments and prove you are right, well that Hak is right.

True, i can only make judgement about you from this site, while that is not good, maybe you are a super person other places

Your standard #2 response "your response shows how effective my statement was" because you lack substance.

I come to the site to give an opinion and then see what other people think, it is ok if they dont agree and hear things i didn't think of, all still just opinions.

you come to be-little people, win arguments and prove you are right, well that Hak is right.
- wcorvette

You have every opportunity to challenge my opinions and prove them wrong with your facts and stats. I'm still waiting.

As far as your ridiculous "yes man" claim. I guess I should join the chorus of clueless Flyers fans constantly criticizing the coach and certain players while meanwhile, the Flyers are on their way to playoff berth and a 100 point season despite some of the challenges and shortcomings of the roster, all the young players are flourishing and showing strong development under Hakstol's guidance. What you miss due to your personal bias is that all the evidence supports my opinion which is why they are as they are. You're welcome to challenge and refute. You've been unsuccessful at that, hence your beef.

I have a long history here at hockeybuzz and I call it as I see it. For example at the end of the 12/13 season, I advocated for the firing of Peter Laviolette. Although he was a very good coach, I knew that his style of play was not a fit for the team. I was told I was crazy. 3 games into the next season he was fired. It has nothing to do with being a company man or a yes man and everything to do with the reality of the situation. Your claims that I tow the company line is just a weak response because you have nothing else. End of story.

You have every opportunity to challenge my opinions and prove them wrong with your facts and stats. I'm still waiting.

As far as your ridiculous "yes man" claim. I guess I should join the chorus of clueless Flyers fans constantly criticizing the coach and certain players while meanwhile, the Flyers are on their way to playoff berth and a 100 point season despite some of the challenges and shortcomings of the roster, all the young players are flourishing and showing strong development under Hakstol's guidance. What you miss due to your personal bias is that all the evidence supports my opinion which is why they are as they are. You're welcome to challenge and refute. You've been unsuccessful at that, hence your beef.

I have a long history here at hockeybuzz and I call it as I see it. For example at the end of the 12/13 season, I advocated for the firing of Peter Laviolette. Although he was a very good coach, I knew that his style of play was not a fit for the team. I was told I was crazy. 3 games into the next season he was fired. It has nothing to do with being a company man or a yes man and everything to do with the reality of the situation. Your claims that I tow the company line is just a weak response because you have nothing else. End of story.
- MJL

again trying to make yourself feel better, standard response #3 "it is a weak response because you have nothing else". You miss the idea that I said you and I agree on most things, including Hak and Hex, the job they have done and the fact that the roster is limited. This started because I said there wasn't much to show Manning was any better than Sanheim, you took exception and said by your eye test it is obvious Manning was better. I countered that months ago we shared data that showed there wasn't much of a difference, you said they didn't play in the same situations, all fair comments. Notice I never said you were wrong, it was your opinion. You saying someone lacks data or proof is truly laughable. True or false, when Sanheim sat for 9 games, if they Flyers lost 3 or 4 out of 5, most likely Sanheim would have been back in the lineup? My opinion, he would, why else would they have not sent him down to the AHL? Based upon that, it is a fact manning was partly in the lineup because they were winning. Fact, the weakest D was Manning at the time, Gudas and Manning the weakest pair.

you post like we have to prove you wrong, your arrogance is how you piss people off, not me, I find you entertaining and simple.

You commented on my post, the burden of proof is on you, you supplied, just watch those games, Manning was obviously better. We exchanged last week about Oduya vs Manning, i supplied stats, then asked your opinion on how Manning would have done on the Sens? The date for them was so close, you like to say Manning VS Sanheim didn't play the same minutes , seems like you would have jumped at the chance to compare Oduya vs Manning, didn't fit your narrative so you didn't. By the way, I could be convinced Manning is better, why I put it out there, to evaluate opinions and see where I land. In both cases the data suggest it is very close, not clear cut as you want it to be.

again trying to make yourself feel better, standard response #3 "it is a weak response because you have nothing else". You miss the idea that I said you and I agree on most things, including Hak and Hex, the job they have done and the fact that the roster is limited. This started because I said there wasn't much to show Manning was any better than Sanheim, you took exception and said by your eye test it is obvious Manning was better. I countered that months ago we shared data that showed there wasn't much of a difference, you said they didn't play in the same situations, all fair comments. Notice I never said you were wrong, it was your opinion. You saying someone lacks data or proof is truly laughable. True or false, when Sanheim sat for 9 games, if they Flyers lost 3 or 4 out of 5, most likely Sanheim would have been back in the lineup? My opinion, he would, why else would they have not sent him down to the AHL? Based upon that, it is a fact manning was partly in the lineup because they were winning. Fact, the weakest D was Manning at the time, Gudas and Manning the weakest pair.

you post like we have to prove you wrong, your arrogance is how you piss people off, not me, I find you entertaining and simple.

You commented on my post, the burden of proof is on you, you supplied, just watch those games, Manning was obviously better. We exchanged last week about Oduya vs Manning, i supplied stats, then asked your opinion on how Manning would have done on the Sens? The date for them was so close, you like to say Manning VS Sanheim didn't play the same minutes , seems like you would have jumped at the chance to compare Oduya vs Manning, didn't fit your narrative so you didn't. By the way, I could be convinced Manning is better, why I put it out there, to evaluate opinions and see where I land. In both cases the data suggest it is very close, not clear cut as you want it to be.
- wcorvette

You're calling a lot of opinions, facts here. You're under the mistaken impression that stats trump all and offer proof. They don't, especially when there are countless variables that are different between two players and their situaitons. I know that Manning is better than Oduya is, and I told you why I think that. I don't think it is close.
I haven't stated that anyone lacks data or proof. That is your imagination. At least you're back to talking hockey somewhat. Do you feel better? If you want to challenge my opinions, that's fine, but you should be prepared with more than just some stats that don't state what you think they do.
I've given you and your childish rant more time than I should've. For now on any post you make to me non hockey related will be ignored.

You're calling a lot of opinions, facts here. You're under the mistaken impression that stats trump all and offer proof. They don't, especially when there are countless variables that are different between two players and their situaitons. I know that Manning is better than Oduya is, and I told you why I think that. I don't think it is close.
I haven't stated that anyone lacks data or proof. That is your imagination. At least you're back to talking hockey somewhat. Do you feel better? If you want to challenge my opinions, that's fine, but you should be prepared with more than just some stats that don't state what you think they do.
I've given you and your childish rant more time than I should've. For now on any post you make to me non hockey related will be ignored.
- MJL

As usual you got nothing, go back and read GM for dummies again. You came to my post and said it was wrong, burden of proof on you, you use ZERO facts, move on little one.