deluca67 Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 There was so much talk about Coutourier going to the Sabres until Philly jumped past our reach with the Carter trade. I wonder if we make the Kassian-Hosgson trade had he become Sabre. Strange to think what might have been. If the Sabres were serious about Coutourier they should have moved up to get him. Looking back at a couple of mock drafts, there was no way Coutourier was falling to the Sabres at #16. It was a huge upset he fell to the Flyers at #8.
TheMatrix31 Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 :lol: Well played. By the way, how often do you get a chance to score two playoff goal and still be a -5? Chris Kunitz. That's gotta be one of the strangest postseason boxscore lines in a while. That's why I'm not a fan of this whole +/- thing. As for the series, man its entertaining as hell. Hopefully Pittsburgh can battle back, because I can't stand to see Philly advance.
carpandean Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 If the Sabres were serious about Coutourier they should have moved up to get him. Looking back at a couple of mock drafts, there was no way Coutourier was falling to the Sabres at #16. It was a huge upset he fell to the Flyers at #8. Darcy talked pre-draft about there being a center that might look to move up for. Most signs pointed to Couturier and the likely trade partners were Atlanta or Columbus. Once Atlanta became Winnipeg, it seemed unlikely that they would give up their first pick as a franchise. Columbus' pick went to the Flyers in the Carter trade. Who knows, maybe Darcy was talking to Columbus about a trade for Roy when they found out Carter was available.
nucci Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 I hope that's sarcasm. Only a hand full of teams have come back from being 3 down in a best of 7 series. An almost do or die game for the Penguins in game 3. Yes it was sarcasm. Just making fun of your obvious statement. No harm intended.
CallawaySabres Posted April 15, 2012 Author Report Posted April 15, 2012 How can you not LOVE the Flyers even if you hate them!
Punch Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 If the Sabres were serious about Coutourier they should have moved up to get him. Looking back at a couple of mock drafts, there was no way Coutourier was falling to the Sabres at #16. It was a huge upset he fell to the Flyers at #8. As carp said, I was basing that on rumors that the Sabres were going to move up to get him. The fact remains, the Flyers were willing to make a big trade to move into position to take Coutourier--- arguably, the Sabres did not have anywhere near the assets to match what the Flyers moved out. I wish they did, and regardless it's the kind of bold move I'd like to see the Sabres make. How can you not LOVE the Flyers even if you hate them! I like a lot of their players and even admire their coach... but ###### the Flyers.
TheMatrix31 Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 How can you not LOVE the Flyers even if you hate them! Very, VERY easily.
X. Benedict Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 If the Sabres were serious about Coutourier they should have moved up to get him. Looking back at a couple of mock drafts, there was no way Coutourier was falling to the Sabres at #16. It was a huge upset he fell to the Flyers at #8. That was an expensive move however, Jeff Carter ain't exactly chump change.
Robviously Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 That was an expensive move however, Jeff Carter ain't exactly chump change. The fact that they won a playoff series last year, then completely overhauled their roster last summer, and are now on the verge of sweeping the Penguins (everyone's favorite for the Cup this year) out of the playoffs is a serious testament to how well-run that franchise is. Note to the Sabres: "Significant changes" is what the Flyers did last year. It's not trading Chris Butler and resisting your urge to re-sign Tim Connolly.
fan2456 Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 The most obvious things to me is that the Flyers have more than one forward (like Foligno) who can control play down low in the offensive zone. The Penguins defend each other, unlike than when Connolly got drilled from behind in game six last year, Oh, and neither of thes teams can advance to a cup with the current goaltending display. The guin's goaltender is worse than the Flyer's. Both these teams would manhandle us physically imo, and one is down 3-0. UGH!!!!!
Trettioåtta Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 The fact that they won a playoff series last year, then completely overhauled their roster last summer, and are now on the verge of sweeping the Penguins (everyone's favorite for the Cup this year) out of the playoffs is a serious testament to how well-run that franchise is. Note to the Sabres: "Significant changes" is what the Flyers did last year. It's not trading Chris Butler and resisting your urge to re-sign Tim Connolly. Yeah, i'm sure Giroux has very little to do with it... Their moves didn't really work as they have up more goals this year comapred to last year. The reason that they are playing well is Giroux, Jagr and Simmonds. Simmons has played better than anyone in the league (including their GM in my opinion) could have thought, getting Jagr had less to do with them - he chose them afterall and Giroux had an amazing season. Yes management drafted giroux, but i maintain that the GM only has a level of control in its outcomes. The moves they made were to become more defensive and they did not do that. Oh and i forgot Hartnell's amazing season. So basically, my point is, yes they did well but having three players all have breakout years at the same time and having a hall of famer join your team helps. Imagine if Coho, Ennis, Myers and Vanek combined for over 200 points.... Plus all the rumours about Carter and Richards being shipped out because of attitude makes me suspect that these bold moves were not necessarily hockey related.
TrueBlueGED Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 The most obvious things to me is that the Flyers have more than one forward (like Foligno) who can control play down low in the offensive zone. The Penguins defend each other, unlike than when Connolly got drilled from behind in game six last year, Oh, and neither of thes teams can advance to a cup with the current goaltending display. The guin's goaltender is worse than the Flyer's. Both these teams would manhandle us physically imo, and one is down 3-0. UGH!!!!! That pretty much nails it for me. As impressive as the Flyers have been, if Bryzgalov doesn't play better they're not winning the Cup. In fact, possibly sweeping the Pens may inflate their value in the eyes of most pundits and the general public above what it should be. I bet you hear a lot of "the Flyers are the team to beat" if they wrap this up in 4 or 5, which I think is an overreaction. I don't think they can count on every goaltender they face imploding like Fleury, and every defense they face giving up scoring chances like the Sabres in the middle of the season.
Weave Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 Yeah, i'm sure Giroux has very little to do with it... Their moves didn't really work as they have up more goals this year comapred to last year. The reason that they are playing well is Giroux, Jagr and Simmonds. Simmons has played better than anyone in the league (including their GM in my opinion) could have thought, getting Jagr had less to do with them - he chose them afterall and Giroux had an amazing season. Yes management drafted giroux, but i maintain that the GM only has a level of control in its outcomes. The moves they made were to become more defensive and they did not do that. Oh and i forgot Hartnell's amazing season. So basically, my point is, yes they did well but having three players all have breakout years at the same time and having a hall of famer join your team helps. Imagine if Coho, Ennis, Myers and Vanek combined for over 200 points.... Plus all the rumours about Carter and Richards being shipped out because of attitude makes me suspect that these bold moves were not necessarily hockey related. You may be reversing cause and effect for the bolded part. I think it can be well argued that the changes made in the offseason have a great amount to do with those 3 players having career years. The Flyers did an amazing job of reworking that team in the offseason and I think three career years are proof positive of the success of those changes.
X. Benedict Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 The fact that they won a playoff series last year, then completely overhauled their roster last summer, and are now on the verge of sweeping the Penguins (everyone's favorite for the Cup this year) out of the playoffs is a serious testament to how well-run that franchise is. Note to the Sabres: "Significant changes" is what the Flyers did last year. It's not trading Chris Butler and resisting your urge to re-sign Tim Connolly. :lol: The thing is that Philly had centers to trade. Buffalo in the off-season had approximately none.....(.or Roy with a torn quad ) Or conceivably Gaustad... but that wasn't going to bring back Schenn or Courtier.
Trettioåtta Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 You may be reversing cause and effect for the bolded part. I think it can be well argued that the changes made in the offseason have a great amount to do with those 3 players having career years. The Flyers did an amazing job of reworking that team in the offseason and I think three career years are proof positive of the success of those changes. True - especially in Giroux's case. Although i think it is rare that a team happens upon 3 number 1/2 centres and as a result it gives a lot of bargaining power, but then on the other hand, they use it well. It has amazed me that the pens have never traded Staal, he could fetch a solid top winger and there are plenty of cheaper more defensive forwards - it is less of an issue now they have Neal, but a couple of years ago they could have really done with help on their wings
Robviously Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 Their moves didn't really work as they have up more goals this year comapred to last year. You're saying their goal was to score less goals this year than last year? The reason that they are playing well is Giroux, Jagr and Simmonds. Simmons has played better than anyone in the league (including their GM in my opinion) could have thought, getting Jagr had less to do with them - he chose them afterall and Giroux had an amazing season. Yes management drafted giroux, but i maintain that the GM only has a level of control in its outcomes. The moves they made were to become more defensive and they did not do that. Oh and i forgot Hartnell's amazing season. So basically, my point is, yes they did well but having three players all have breakout years at the same time and having a hall of famer join your team helps. So your point is that even though the GM purposefully acquired all of these players, he shouldn't get credit for their high level of play because each is playing better than anyone would have thought. Here's the problem with that: In this case "anyone" just means you. You didn't think these guys could play this well. Obviously the Flyers GM disagreed and that's why he drafted or acquired them. You can't belittle his accomplishments because he rated the players higher (and more accurately, it turns out) than you did and you don't think that's fair. Also, Jagr didn't just "join" the team. They went out and got him. It's not like he just showed up for training camp and they just decided it would be easier to let him play for the team. Imagine if Coho, Ennis, Myers and Vanek combined for over 200 points.... This better be the plan. If the plan is to assemble this team and have them score the same points that they did this year forever, then that's a horrible plan. Plus all the rumours about Carter and Richards being shipped out because of attitude makes me suspect that these bold moves were not necessarily hockey related. Player attitudes are very clearly "hockey related." :lol: The thing is that Philly had centers to trade. Buffalo in the off-season had approximately none.....(.or Roy with a torn quad ) Or conceivably Gaustad... but that wasn't going to bring back Schenn or Courtier. Well, history didn't begin last summer. They had guys to trade because they'd been building a better team for years. They whooped our ass in the playoffs (which was only close because Miller stole 2 games and they went through 3 awful goalies) and decided they could still do even better.
Weave Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 True - especially in Giroux's case. Although i think it is rare that a team happens upon 3 number 1/2 centres and as a result it gives a lot of bargaining power, but then on the other hand, they use it well. It has amazed me that the pens have never traded Staal, he could fetch a solid top winger and there are plenty of cheaper more defensive forwards - it is less of an issue now they have Neal, but a couple of years ago they could have really done with help on their wings Yeah. I am sure they were sweating out not have a winger for Crosby while they took two trips to the Stanley Cup finals. :P :P Kidding aside, all the supposed experts were wondering when Pitt was going to get Crosby and Malkin some talent on the wing, and Pitt went and won a cup anyway.
X. Benedict Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 It has amazed me that the pens have never traded Staal, he could fetch a solid top winger and there are plenty of cheaper more defensive forwards - it is less of an issue now they have Neal, but a couple of years ago they could have really done with help on their wings You win more games controlling center ice than the corners. I would imagine Shero would trade Neal before Staal.
matter2003 Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 It really bothers me to see Danny Briere lighting it up in the playoffs again...he is such a clutch playoff performer and it really bothers me they let him get away...those types of players are hard to find...more often players disappear when the playoffs arrive...
Robviously Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 It really bothers me to see Danny Briere lighting it up in the playoffs again...he is such a clutch playoff performer and it really bothers me they let him get away...those types of players are hard to find...more often players disappear when the playoffs arrive... The important thing is that we got those new contracts done with Kotalik and Afinogenov........
TheChimp Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 It really bothers me to see Danny Briere lighting it up in the playoffs again...he is such a clutch playoff performer and it really bothers me they let him get away...those types of players are hard to find...more often players disappear when the playoffs arrive... If I remember right, the team decided that, because they were going to build around Thomas Vanek, no matter what sort of bucket of ###### Kevin Lowe made them eat in order to accomplish that, they could only keep one of either Briere or Drury, and they picked Drury to go after and basically gave Briere the finger. And as I also recall, much of the fanbase, including me, thought going for Drury instead of Briere was the right move. Then Drury showed everybody that he never intended to stay in Buffalo in the first place, Briere signed a very expected deal with a desperate team (and an obviously better GM), and the entire city of Buffalo ended up with huge pterodactyl ###### on its face. Do I have the nuance of the situation about covered there?
fan2456 Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 If I remember right, the team decided that, because they were going to build around Thomas Vanek, no matter what sort of bucket of ###### Kevin Lowe made them eat in order to accomplish that, they could only keep one of either Briere or Drury, and they picked Drury to go after and basically gave Briere the finger. And as I also recall, much of the fanbase, including me, thought going for Drury instead of Briere was the right move. Then Drury showed everybody that he never intended to stay in Buffalo in the first place, Briere signed a very expected deal with a desperate team (and an obviously better GM), and the entire city of Buffalo ended up with huge pterodactyl ###### on its face. Do I have the nuance of the situation about covered there? I thought the Vanek offer came after the other two were gone. They decided on Drury over Briere, and then got burned when Drury used them to up his salary with the Rangers. That is my recollection of the facts in the media, and how one of the Sabres' video scouts who was leaving for Columbus described to me at the time.
TheChimp Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 I thought the Vanek offer came after the other two were gone. They decided on Drury over Briere, and then got burned when Drury used them to up his salary with the Rangers. That is my recollection of the facts in the media, and how one of the Sabres' video scouts who was leaving for Columbus described to me at the time. You could very well be right. I remember having conversations with people that we would only be able to keep one of Briere or Drury, though, and I guess I just remembered that we used Vanek's contract as the reasoning behind it.
fan2456 Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Yea, that's a few years ago, but I THOUGHT I had it right.
Weave Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Yea, that's a few years ago, but I THOUGHT I had it right. You had it right. Drury and Briere were both signed very early on July 1. Vanek didn't get an offer from Edm until days later.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.