As I said, that (G/60) was but one fact of many different points I cited that support my opinion. It wasn't used as a primary determinant, or a main factor in forming my view. Of course, everyone else gets it, but you have to latch onto any little something to try and counter my view because it serves your personal agenda. You say "Career potential is best judged over the long haul"...ok, so how many years do we wait to see what MAB's career potential will be? 3...5...7? If one waits until the player already proves/fulfills his potential, well, that kind of defeats the purpose of making a projection in the first place...talk about foolish.

I've noticed you tend to only give credit to a player for what you think he is now and not what his skills and attributes indicate he can be in the future. Like when I said Giroux had elite passing skills and you wouldn't give him that credit, citing assist numbers at the time as your primary basis. Turns out I was right and G has parlayed his elite passing (and other) skills into becoming a rising superstar in the league. I remember back then, you also saying you would trade Giroux for Jordan Staal, which is the kind of danger you face if you wait "over the long haul" to project a player's value/potential.
- phantasm

There is no personal agenda. There's really only simple knowledge of the game. You've noticed that huh? You can make all these statements you want. I'll refer you to recent conversations about Brayden Schenn where I've said that I think he is going to be a big time player in the future. Or recent conversations about Sean Couturier, where I said I think he has the potential to be the next Jonathon Toews, as a top 2 way player in the NHL. So your premise that I only give credit to a player for what you think he is now and not what his skills and attributes indicate he can be in the future, is woefully and sadly incorrect. And is just you trying to serve your own personal agenda. Or even before it was announced that Meszaros was injured, that he could step up and be counted on fro more offensive play and help offset the loss of Carle. That he has the skill and ability. I could go on and on.

I'll reiterate my opinion, since your having trouble grasping it. 46 games is a small sample size. As an example, when Ryan Parent first came to the Flyers, many saw him as a future first pairing shutdown defensive defenseman. What happened? Over the long haul, due to many factors including a back injury, he flamed out as a player. That is just one of many examples, of how judging a player based on a handful of games is foolish. And that's clearly what you've done in labeling Bourdon a potential top 4 NHL defenseman. And that's very foolish.Can you find any legitimate talent evaluator or source of covering players in the NHL that agrees with you assessment of Bourdon as a player?

And your right, I never expected Claude Giroux to become an NHL superstar, I thought he would be a very good player. But I did not think he would become one of the top players in the game. And I'm not alone on that thinking. Or he would have been drafted higher then 22nd in the first round. And Back then I would have traded Giroux for Staal. In due part to what I know Jordan Staal to be and the respect I have for his game. And that would have been a mistake. But not a collossal one. Now that Staal is going to get more offensive responsibility in Carolina. He will cement himself as one of the top 2 way players in the League.

But lets get back to defenseman, since were bringing up old conversations. Which you tend to do, to again serve your personal agenda. Otherwise why move the conversation off of the topic of Bourdon and his potential? One thing I do know and recognize. Is the very basic fundamentals of defensive play. I know and recognize basic D to D play and what a D to D breakout is. I really don't know how someone can assess a defenseman's play, when he doesn't even know and recognize the very most basics of defensive zone play. Someone couldn't possibly be capable of accurately rating a players potential as a defenseman, when they can't recognize such a simple aspect of defensive zone play, and breakout schemes.


And as a final thought, I'm flattered that you remember things I've said a number of years ago. I'll take that as a compliment

I don't think anyone is saying MAB should be slotted in the top 4 this year...the discussion is/was about what he can be once he's more developed and experienced down the road. The Flyers lose Timonen next year, then Mez the year after. With the money freed up they should be able to land a #1 D man IF one is available, but it's likely we'll need another second pairing type in the mix. MAB might be that guy. Maybe not. We'll see.
- phantasm

Bourdon is not likely to ever be a top 4 NHL defenseman in this League. You never know, it's possible. But not likely.

So I'm done with this, and I'll just let it play out and see what happens. I hope I'm wrong and your right about Bourdon. Again I like him as a player. But at the same time I'm realistic about him.

Bourdon is not likely to ever be a top 4 NHL defenseman in this League. You never know, it's possible. But not likely.

So I'm done with this, and I'll just let it play out and see what happens. I hope I'm wrong and your right about Bourdon. Again I like him as a player. But at the same time I'm realistic about him.
- MJL

thoughts on Bynum?

thoughts on Bynum?
- Crimsoninja

Sixers? Don't know a whole lot about him, as I don't really follow the NBA. But everything I've read and heard is that he is a really good player. I've read that he's viewed as the 2nd best Center in the League. He has strong numbers, so hopefully, it gets the Sixers closer.

Sixers? Don't know a whole lot about him, as I don't really follow the NBA. But everything I've read and heard is that he is a really good player. I've read that he's viewed as the 2nd best Center in the League. He has strong numbers, so hopefully, it gets the Sixers closer.
- MJL

beast

beast
- Crimsoninja

Bit of a hot head head though?

There is no personal agenda. There's really only simple knowledge of the game.
- MJL

Precisely...

You can make all these statements you want. I'll refer you to recent conversations about Brayden Schenn where I've said that I think he is going to be a big time player in the future. Or recent conversations about Sean Couturier, where I said I think he has the potential to be the next Jonathon Toews, as a top 2 way player in the NHL. So your premise that I only give credit to a player for what you think he is now and not what his skills and attributes indicate he can be in the future, is woefully and sadly incorrect.
- MJL

The book on those players is well known. It takes little insight or knowledge to merely regurgitate the prevailing view that's out there regarding those players. What shows insight and adds value is going out on that limb to make a projection that differs from the prevailing view. Let's see you do that.

Or even before it was announced that Meszaros was injured, that he could step up and be counted on fro more offensive play and help offset the loss of Carle. That he has the skill and ability.
- MJL

Again, that isn't adding anything of value. Mez played 20+ minutes in the majority of his games last season, and did fairly well in them. It's obvious to even casual observers that with Pronger done and Carle gone that Mez would be looked to for more.

I'll reiterate my opinion, since your having trouble grasping it. 46 games is a small sample size. As an example, when Ryan Parent first came to the Flyers, many saw him as a future first pairing shutdown defensive defenseman. What happened? Over the long haul, due to many factors including a back injury, he flamed out as a player. That is just one of many examples, of how judging a player based on a handful of games is foolish. And that's clearly what you've done in labeling Bourdon a potential top 4 NHL defenseman. And that's very foolish.Can you find any legitimate talent evaluator or source of covering players in the NHL that agrees with you assessment of Bourdon as a player?
- MJL

I think it's obviously you who aren't grasping it. You picked one of maybe 12 different things I cited about Bourdon, took it out of context to make it appear as if I was using G/60 as the sole reason for making a case for him having top 4 potential, which I clearly wasn't doing. I went into detail about different elements of his game that impressed me. His G/60 was merely one supporting fact of many I used in forming my opinion. Are you really that thick that you can't understand that?

And your right, I never expected Claude Giroux to become an NHL superstar, I thought he would be a very good player. But I did not think he would become one of the top players in the game. And I'm not alone on that thinking. Or he would have been drafted higher then 22nd in the first round.
- MJL

Case in point. I was not in agreement with you or the others who underrated Giroux's potential back then. Rather, I was able to observe and analyze the different aspects of his game and project him accurately. You can stick with published (and aging) scouting reports on Bourdon if you want, but I'm using the same eye that I used then to project Giroux's potential to project Bourdon's now.

And Back then I would have traded Giroux for Staal. In due part to what I know Jordan Staal to be and the respect I have for his game. And that would have been a mistake. But not a collossal one. Now that Staal is going to get more offensive responsibility in Carolina. He will cement himself as one of the top 2 way players in the League.
- MJL

Agreed.

But lets get back to defenseman, since were bringing up old conversations. Which you tend to do, to again serve your personal agenda. Otherwise why move the conversation off of the topic of Bourdon and his potential?
- MJL

I bring in different points as needed. I recalled examples of your self-professed correct methods of player analysis falling short...I thought it was relevant to bring that up given we were debating htings related to methods of player analysis.

One thing I do know and recognize. Is the very basic fundamentals of defensive play. I know and recognize basic D to D play and what a D to D breakout is. I really don't know how someone can assess a defenseman's play, when he doesn't even know and recognize the very most basics of defensive zone play. Someone couldn't possibly be capable of accurately rating a players potential as a defenseman, when they can't recognize such a simple aspect of defensive zone play, and breakout schemes.
- MJL

Please show me where I didn't recognize these "basic" things. I think you likely did your thing and latched onto one aspect of my criticism of Carle's play and took it out of context to imply I simply didn't know about these things (D to D passes etc.). This couldn't be further from the truth. I am well aware of these things. What I was saying is that I believe people overrate Carle as a puck mover because in many cases he stays static, deep in the zone, often employing the D to D pass, where his partner actually makes the play out of the zone or he does the (more risky) stretch pass...this over moving his feet and skating the puck up the ice like the more elite puck moving guys can do with aplomb. Staying so deep in the zone leaves him and the team vulnerable to opposing forecheckers, whom we've seen burn Carle in the past. I think being able to make this distinction in terms of differentiating the type of breakouts that certain D men tend to employ and pointing out the pros and cons, shows a deep understanding of breakouts rather than a total lack thereof as you allege.

And as a final thought, I'm flattered that you remember things I've said a number of years ago. I'll take that as a compliment
- MJL

I have an excellent memory. That in no way should be taken as a compliment directed at you.

Please show me where I didn't recognize these "basic" things. I think you likely did your thing and latched onto one aspect of my criticism of Carle's play and took it out of context to imply I simply didn't know about these things (D to D passes etc.). This couldn't be further from the truth. I am well aware of these things. What I was saying is that I believe people overrate Carle as a puck mover because in many cases he stays static, deep in the zone, often employing the D to D pass, where his partner actually makes the play out of the zone or he does the (more risky) stretch pass...this over moving his feet and skating the puck up the ice like the more elite puck moving guys can do with aplomb. Staying so deep in the zone leaves him and the team vulnerable to opposing forecheckers, whom we've seen burn Carle in the past. I think being able to make this distinction in terms of differentiating the type of breakouts that certain D men tend to employ and pointing out the pros and cons, shows a deep understanding of breakouts rather than a total lack thereof as you allege.



- phantasm

You just confirmed my point about your lack of basic understanding of the most fundamental basic aspects of defenseman play. There really are some good Youtube videos where you can educate yourself on the most basic fundamentals of Hockey. Your criticisms of Carle not only are unwarranted. But they're just plain pure fantasy, and invented.

You go out of your way to invent reasons to criticize a player in Carle who is an excellent puck mover, on his ability to move the puck. While coming up with ways to elevate the potential of a player like Bourdon to be a top 4 defenseman . Really enough said.

I'm done with this. Moving on!

my ability to grasp the basic understanding of the most fundamental basic aspects of defenseman play is second to none

my ability to grasp the basic understanding of the most fundamental basic aspects of defenseman play is second to none
- Crimsoninja

Can you help Phantasm then?

You just confirmed my point about your lack of basic understanding of the most fundamental basic aspects of defenseman play. There really are some good Youtube videos where you can educate yourself on the most basic fundamentals of Hockey. Your criticisms of Carle not only are unwarranted. But they're just plain pure fantasy, and invented.

You go out of your way to invent reasons to criticize a player in Carle who is an excellent puck mover, on his ability to move the puck. While coming up with ways to elevate the potential of a player like Bourdon to be a top 4 defenseman . Really enough said.

I'm done with this. Moving on!

- MJL

I just call it as I see it and given the track records here, I trust my own views on such matters a lot more than yours. Not that I need to prove it, but there are plenty of people out there that see the same things in Carle that I do, both good and bad. You seem to be preoccupied with trying to refute or deny a lot of the bad. Whatever, that's your prerogative, but it doesn't do anything to change my views on the matter. The Flyers obviously didn't thnk enough of Carle to do what they needed to to retain his services, which further bear out my view that he was overrated.

In regards to my view on Bourdon's potential, just like with Giroux, we'll see who ends up being right in the end.

my ability to grasp the basic understanding of the most fundamental basic aspects of defenseman play is second to none
- Crimsoninja

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter, sir.

I hate all of you, good conversation going on in the old thread and no one says anything! One of you guys in particular i pretty much was defending in my argument in the new thread! that's okay I see how it is! ....

And your right, I never expected Claude Giroux to become an NHL superstar, I thought he would be a very good player. But I did not think he would become one of the top players in the game. And I'm not alone on that thinking. Or he would have been drafted higher then 22nd in the first round. And Back then I would have traded Giroux for Staal. In due part to what I know Jordan Staal to be and the respect I have for his game. And that would have been a mistake. But not a collossal one. Now that Staal is going to get more offensive responsibility in Carolina. He will cement himself as one of the top 2 way players in the League.


- MJL

BTW, I went back and looked at that same infamous post about trading G for Staal, and in the same post, you also said:

"Ideally, if I could get a similar young Winger of similar potential for Giroux with size, I'd make that deal. Someone like Chris Stewart in Colorado." - MJL


This shows a lack of ability to accurately project NHL player potential. G for Stewart would have been an egregious error. Sorry, I just can't take your opinions the subject seriously. I'll stick to my own views, which have proven to be more on point.