So: I thought we were talking about the forward core of Roo+Couts+Voracek.

If you truly believe this is the core of a contending team, you expect them to show that against a superior team. Check out the stats of the Tampa core of Stamkos+Kucherov+the Palat/Johnson/Killorn line (weren't they called 3 musketeers or something like that?) prior to their debacle against CBJ. You will see that through those disappointing defeats, those guys collectively largely kept up their end of the billing.

Strongly disagree Rangers/Mason etc. I remember that series vividly. I remember individual assists of that game you reference, like that amazing bank pass Roo made to Simmer to hit him in stride and paced just right to not draw him offsides.

That series should have been over in 5-6 games.
- PT21

You need to check Mason's stats in that series. He was outstanding in the four games he played. In the end, the better team won in '12, '14 and '16. Not sure how that is G-Voracek and Coot's fault.

Also, so as long as you put up points and lose you are cool with it? At least when judging TBL that is ok?

Also, was 2014 a mismatch or was it Giroux coming up short? You listed the series as an absolute mismatch yet it went seven games. So which is it?
- mickel25

Both really.

In games like hockey/soccer, where goals scoring plays occur in a total of say, 1 minute out of 60 (or 90 as in soccer), and in small samples like 7 games series, you can have the flow of play not match the stat sheet. You just need 2-3 mins in that series to skew the results. Remember, the difference between a 4-2 ("one sided?) series and 4-3 ("very close"?) series is just 1 game, which could be just 1 goal, which could be 20 seconds of aberrant action.

Same is not true for NBA say, where the volume of baskets in a game make such aberrations unlikely (one sided pattern of play is likely to result in 1 sided series results).

If the flyers put sanheim on the market at the trade deadline and offer salary retention he could bring a haul
- Just5

Your definition of a haul??..He would be a 3rd pair D man on most [playoff teams

You need to check Mason's stats in that series. He was outstanding in the four games he played. In the end, the better team won in '12, '14 and '16. Not sure how that is G-Voracek and Coot's fault.

Also, so as long as you put up points and lose you are cool with it? At least when judging TBL that is ok?
- mickel25

Where did I say its their fault they lost? I said they were, to me at least, clearly outplayed when they were on the ice and that is not what I look for from a forward core of a contending team. I don't think they looked dominant even in a period, let alone a game, except for Couts during the 2018 hat trick game.

As an example of what I have in mind, other than the Tavares/Hall/Bolts examples I cited, I think back to Barzal against Bolts last year. With the corpse of Uncle Leo on his left, no Anders Lee, Barzal single-handedly gave the Bolts defense fits every time he took the ice. Their play was so noticeably different when he was there (skittish) versus when he was not (easily handled the rest).

Both really.

In games like hockey/soccer, where goals scoring plays occur in a total of say, 1 minute out of 60 (or 90 as in soccer), and in small samples like 7 games series, you can have the flow of play not match the stat sheet. You just need 2-3 mins in that series to skew the results. Remember, the difference between a 4-2 ("one sided?) series and 4-3 ("very close"?) series is just 1 game, which could be just 1 goal, which could be 20 seconds of aberrant action.

Same is not true for NBA say, where the volume of baskets in a game make such aberrations unlikely (one sided pattern of play is likely to result in 1 sided series results).
- PT21

So the better team won? Despite the best efforts of the losing team's best player(s)? Maybe the Flyers just needed a better all around team and not just a better core.

If the flyers really want to aggressively retool (whatever that means) and they have a lot of chips to deal, why not make a play for Chychrun? Years left on a good cap friendly deal. A top level talent. Already established so better than most first round draft picks. Been reading the asking price is a first rounder, prospect and nhl player… certainly the flyers could be in on that. Would Sanheim and Frost be too much or not enough in such a deal? Especially if you move G and send the playoff teams 1st rounder? Just spitballing but that would be an aggressive retool. Could have something like Chychrun and a healthy Ellis along with Provorov and York as top 4 next year?
- mikeyo27

Add a 1st rounder and you are in the hunt. would have to get a 1st in a G trade...would certainly do that

Where did I say its their fault they lost? I said they were, to me at least, clearly outplayed when they were on the ice and that is not what I look for from a forward core of a contending team. I don't think they looked dominant even in a period, let alone a game, except for Couts during the 2018 hat trick game.

As an example of what I have in mind, other than the Tavares/Hall/Bolts examples I cited, I think back to Barzal against Bolts last year. With the corpse of Uncle Leo on his left, no Anders Lee, Barzal single-handedly gave the Bolts defense fits every time he took the ice. Their play was so noticeably different when he was there (skittish) versus when he was not (easily handled the rest).
- PT21

So Barzal looked pretty when they lost and that is somehow better? He was transcendent in that series as well! 3 goals and 2 assists will never be duplicated.

For the first time in a few weeks, I finally looked at the standings today. Hey, we are trending towards a bottom 5/6 finish and good odds on the lotto balls. The bright side, right.

Happy to hear Ratliffe getting his debut this Saturday. Makes sense because he is a natural LW as opposed to Sandin who is a RW. I hope he has fun, his best game and pots a goal. However, I do wonder if giving the kids an opportunity should involve more than limited minutes in a single game. Is one game really enough to see where they are truly and judge potential? This is a serious question because I would not think so. The rest of the season is mostly about the kids. How about using at least 10 game samples.

So Barzal looked pretty when they lost and that is somehow better? He was transcendent in that series as well! 3 goals and 2 assists will never be duplicated.
- mickel25

Its funny how you, who argues against stats in general , are suddenly vehement on stats being the be all and end all of all perspectives. That too series stats!



My vision is pretty subjective. It has nothing to do with series results. It is the validity of the premise that Bill mentioned earlier, that we were supplementary players short of contention. To me, our core was not good enough. To me, cores of future contending teams have studs who will be dangerous even when they are embedded in teams that are inferior.

My first clue that Richards +Carter +Umberger (didn't the last 2 have 20 goal reg seasons that year) were not going to be good enough for a forward core of contending team came when they essentially vanished against Buffalo in that Forsberg series. Umberger did get knocked out (forget the name of Buf guy who kncoked him out), then come back and fight him, and I think score a goal(?).

But Carter+Richie= Nopa in that series.

Kingston tonight against Peterborough on OHL network….3 Flyer draft picks playing, Avon, Zanetti and Wisdom…

Its funny how you, who argues against stats in general , are suddenly vehement on stats being the be all and end all of all perspectives. That too series stats!



My vision is pretty subjective. It has nothing to do with series results. It is the validity of the premise that Bill mentioned earlier, that we were supplementary players short of contention. To me, our core was not good enough. To me, cores of future contending teams have studs who will be dangerous even when they are embedded in teams that are inferior.

My first clue that Richards +Carter +Umberger (didn't the last 2 have 20 goal reg seasons that year) were not going to be good enough for a forward core of contending team came when they essentially vanished against Buffalo in that Forsberg series. Umberger did get knocked out (forget the name of Buf guy who kncoked him out), then come back and fight him, and I think score a goal(?).

But Carter+Richie= Nopa in that series.
- PT21

I was at the Game Buffalo when Umberger got lit up. That’s one hit I’ll never forget. I took one like that once, wasn’t knocked out, but similar result.

Its funny how you, who argues against stats in general , are suddenly vehement on stats being the be all and end all of all perspectives. That too series stats!



My vision is pretty subjective. It has nothing to do with series results. It is the validity of the premise that Bill mentioned earlier, that we were supplementary players short of contention. To me, our core was not good enough. To me, cores of future contending teams have studs who will be dangerous even when they are embedded in teams that are inferior.

My first clue that Richards +Carter +Umberger (didn't the last 2 have 20 goal reg seasons that year) were not going to be good enough for a forward core of contending team came when they essentially vanished against Buffalo in that Forsberg series. Umberger did get knocked out (forget the name of Buf guy who kncoked him out), then come back and fight him, and I think score a goal(?).

But Carter+Richie= Nopa in that series.
- PT21

Do you mean when they were rookies and again ran up against a superior team? The Flyers went to the conference finals and stanley cup finals with Richards and Carter as the team leaders. Umberger was also the leading playoff scorer in 2008. Did you know then too?

I was at the Game Buffalo when Umberger got lit up. That’s one hit I’ll never forget. I took one like that once, wasn’t knocked out, but similar result.
- landros 2

Yeah Campbell caught him pretty good.

So, I have been peddling the $ angle relevance to cup contention for some time now, without much traction here, and so I thought I would draw a crude sketch to illustrate what I had in mind.



Pic is pretty self-explanatory. The red line is dome shaped because if team tanks in "previous 5 years", then owners do not make up revenue foregone when team becomes a contender in "next 5 years". However expected standings in the next 5 years is directly related to how high team drafted in the previous 5. Thus there is an inherent tension between expectations of fans, who want team to win it all, and owners, who want the team to stay at bubble level.

Consider for example the fortunes of the 76ers, also owned by Comcast prior to Harris. Before sale and tank, after the 2001 cup final run, team made playoffs in 7 of 11 seasons, winning 2 first round series. Pretty similar to Flyers post 2010.

EDIT: pic corrected.

Do you mean when they were rookies and again ran up against a superior team? The Flyers went to the conference finals and stanley cup finals with Richards and Carter as the team leaders. Umberger was also the leading playoff scorer in 2008. Did you know then too?
- mickel25

Why do you keep saying this? When I keep saying that I am not talking about series results but the shine of future diamonds to shine through the darkness of then mismatch?

They went indeed. How did the Richards-Carter line do against Chicago in that SCF, I wonder? Do you remember the post-game presser of a crying #18, who said Chicago roleld 4 lines, we rolled only 1 (and not his)?

I was at the Game Buffalo when Umberger got lit up. That’s one hit I’ll never forget. I took one like that once, wasn’t knocked out, but similar result.
- landros 2

Yeah, Brian Campbell. Blanked on name.

Why do you keep saying this? When I keep saying that I am not talking about series results but the shine of future diamonds to shine through the darkness of then mismatch?

They went indeed. How did the Richards-Carter line do against Chicago in that SCF, I wonder? Do you remember the post-game presser of a crying #18, who said Chicago roleld 4 lines, we rolled only 1 (and not his)?
- PT21

You do realize that Richards won literally everywhere he played outside of the Flyers. Diamond doesn't get much shinier. He also won two cups after that series.

You use the Sabres series to say he was not a diamond when he clearly was. Please explain. Maybe he should have shined like Barzal against Tampa.

For the first time in a few weeks, I finally looked at the standings today. Hey, we are trending towards a bottom 5/6 finish and good odds on the lotto balls. The bright side, right.

Happy to hear Ratliffe getting his debut this Saturday. Makes sense because he is a natural LW as opposed to Sandin who is a RW. I hope he has fun, his best game and pots a goal. However, I do wonder if giving the kids an opportunity should involve more than limited minutes in a single game. Is one game really enough to see where they are truly and judge potential? This is a serious question because I would not think so. The rest of the season is mostly about the kids. How about using at least 10 game samples.
- NC Flyers Fan

Ratcliffe has no shot at being an NHL player...if you have seen him at all he cant skate. Fits right in . He is a marginal AHL player who has done nothing with Phantoms

You do realize that Richards won literally everywhere he played outside of the Flyers. Diamond doesn't get much shinier. He also won two cups after that series.

You use the Sabres series to say he was not a diamond when he clearly was. Please explain. Maybe he should have shined like Barzal against Tampa.
- mickel25

That pushockey guy explained it yesterday. The players we believed to be our core shone later because they were supplementary non-core players in those other teams. Williams, Sharp, Richards, Carter ....their sparkle was augmented by the reflected shine of brighter diamonds.

My central objection is the belief that we were set in the core, and needed guys like JVR (Hextall) and Hayes (Fletcher) to be a contending team. I disagree.

So, I have been peddling the $ angle relevance to cup contention for some time now, without much traction here, and so I thought I would draw a crude sketch to illustrate what I had in mind.



Pic is pretty self-explanatory. The red line is dome shaped because if team tanks in "previous 5 years", then owners do not make up revenue foregone when team becomes a contender in "next 5 years". However expected standings in the next 5 years is directly related to how high team drafted in the previous 5. Thus there is an inherent tension between expectations of fans, who want team to win it all, and owners, who want the team to stay at bubble level.

Consider for example the fortunes of the 76ers, also owned by Comcast prior to Harris. Before sale and tank, after the 2001 cup final run, team made playoffs in 7 of 11 seasons, winning 2 first round series. Pretty similar to Flyers post 2010.
- PT21

i extrapolated on your model

Ratcliffe has no shot at being an NHL player...if you have seen him at all he cant skate. Fits right in . He is a marginal AHL player who has done nothing with Phantoms
- hfc355

My comment isn’t just about him. They have given a few AHL players like Willman and Mayhew longer looks in consecutive games, but many call ups, it’s one and out. Some guys do better in the NHL than the AHL, and we have nothing more to lose to give them a look now.

i extrapolated on your model
- 2Real

All I was saying is that the higher you draft in previous 5 years on ave, the worse you will do in final drafting order next 5. But the further you deviate from bubble team (in either direction), the more total (10 year cumulative earnings) will fall.

$ dictates team stays bubble team in the middle, fans want teams to be at alternate extremities (because fans want team to finish at top, which means finishing at bottom years prior).

Seems just as relevant as scouting to me to explain team fortunes on the ice.

Your definition of a haul??..He would be a 3rd pair D man on most
- hfc355[playoff teams

1st rounder + a conditional pick if he resigns with the team next year or based on their playoff performance

4th liners have gotten 1sts at the deadline

That pushockey guy explained it yesterday. The players we believed to be our core shone later because they were supplementary non-core players in those other teams. Williams, Sharp, Richards, Carter ....their sparkle was augmented by the reflected shine of brighter diamonds.

My central objection is the belief that we were set in the core, and needed guys like JVR (Hextall) and Hayes (Fletcher) to be a contending team. I disagree.
- PT21

To me having a good team top to bottom makes a big difference. Imagine if we still had Sharp and Williams on that 2010 team?

During the Giroux years we had top players that were good enough. We just had nothing at the bottom end of the lineup to complete against good teams in the playoffs.

To me having a good team top to bottom makes a big difference. Imagine if we still had Sharp and Williams on that 2010 team?

During the Giroux years we had top players that were good enough. We just had nothing at the bottom end of the lineup to complete against good teams in the playoffs.
- mickel25

Good enough for what? Cup contention? I disagree strongly.