Obviously Carter and Richards didn't win a cup on their own. However they were big reasons why they did.

I know Philly didn't trade him to LA either, but he won there. Something Homer was convinced couldn't happen with them in Philly. Which is fine if Philly eventually wins with this current core
- sbroads24

They were not "BIG" reasons why LA won the cup. Quick was the BIG reason why La won the cup. Also Both Richards and Carter haven't even come close to being the productive players they were in philly being in LA. Both of the goal totals and point totals significantly dropped. No matter what, the Flyers made out in the end.

No it gives you points per average ice time in a game. Which is nothing.
- FlyersSteve118

Yes - the bad concept part of the calculation.

They were not "BIG" reasons why LA won the cup. Quick was the BIG reason why La won the cup. Also Both Richards and Carter haven't even come close to being the productive players they were in philly being in LA. Both of the goal totals and point totals significantly dropped. No matter what, the Flyers made out in the end.
- Daveflyers36

Yes they were in fact big reasons they won. Saying they weren't is nothing more than sour grapes.

Every team that wins a cup has a goalie that is on the top of their game. You still need to score goals, which Richards and Carter combined for 14 of

Yes they were in fact big reasons they won. Saying they weren't is nothing more than sour grapes.

Every team that wins a cup has a goalie that is on the top of their game. You still need to score goals, which Richards and Carter combined for 14 of
- sbroads24

Jonathan Quick's stats for that playoff season. 20 games 16 win 4 losses GAA 1.41 and a .946 save %. That is why the Kings won the cup.

One stat you left out on both Carter and Richards. They were a combined +1. Kopitar and Brown were a +16 and Doughty was a +11. The Kings as a whole allowed only 29 goals. Seems to me that Richards and Carter were on the ice the majority of the time the other teams were scoring.

Kesler for Simmonds, Couturier + 1st.
- Scooby_Doo

You so crazy.

I'm no math expert, but if Crosby averages one point for ever 4.36 minutes played then he would have around 353 points this season. He's played almost 22 mins a game, for 70 games, that's over 1500 minutes for the year, divide that by this magical 4.36 and you have over 350 points.

Simmonds has played over 1150 minutes in 70 games, meaning he should have 354 points this year if he gets a point ever 3.29 minutes. So yes, based on those numbers, it's true that Simmonds is a female genitalia hair above Sid in the points-per-ice-time department, but those numbers are (frank)ed and clearly wrong.

Jonathan Quick's stats for that playoff season. 20 games 16 win 4 losses GAA 1.41 and a .946 save %. That is why the Kings won the cup.

One stat you left out on both Carter and Richards. They were a combined +1. Kopitar and Brown were a +16 and Doughty was a +11. The Kings as a whole allowed only 29 goals. Seems to me that Richards and Carter were on the ice the majority of the time the other teams were scoring.
- Daveflyers36

You are grasping at straws.

You are grasping at straws.
- sbroads24

No you just can't back up your lame arguement.

So I take it that you were in the press box before the game emptying the garbage?

No you just can't back up your lame arguement.
- Daveflyers36

You are trying to use +/- as your argument. I'm not the lame one

You are trying to use +/- as your argument. I'm not the lame one
- sbroads24

Snap

I cannot stress enough how much quality of competition ruins this entire argument. When you're on the first line, you're playing (generally speaking) the toughest opponents.

You are trying to use +/- as your argument. I'm not the lame one
- sbroads24

No I was using Quick's stats as my arguement on why the Kings won the cup. Something you keep dismissing. That is what makes you lame.

No I was using Quick's stats as my arguement on why the Kings won the cup. Something you keep dismissing. That is what makes you lame.
- Daveflyers36

And what you are dismissing is that regardless of go great Quick was, you still need to put the puck in the other teams net, which Richards and Carter did regularly in the playoffs that year. Carter was tied for 1st on the team and Richards was 3rd. You keep dismissing this, which makes you the bitter ex-girlfriend

C'mon Wichita St.

And what you are dismissing is that regardless of go great Quick was, you still need to put the puck in the other teams net, which Richards and Carter did regularly in the playoffs that year. Carter was tied for 1st on the team and Richards was 3rd. You keep dismissing this, which makes you the bitter ex-girlfriend
- sbroads24

It doesn't make us the bitter anything because those two ARE NOT MISSED here in Philly. A combined 12 goals for two supposed star players is not a glaring stat. I'm glad you are impressed but not many are.

And what you are dismissing is that regardless of go great Quick was, you still need to put the puck in the other teams net, which Richards and Carter did regularly in the playoffs that year. Carter was tied for 1st on the team and Richards was 3rd. You keep dismissing this, which makes you the bitter ex-girlfriend
- sbroads24

http://www.nhl.com/ice/pl...&status=&viewName=summary

It doesn't make us the bitter anything because those two ARE NOT MISSED here in Philly. A combined 12 goals for two supposed star players is not a glaring stat. I'm glad you are impressed but not many are.
- Daveflyers36

I never said they were or should be missed. I merely pointed out that they were important parts to a Stanley Cup team, one year after being traded because they weren't viewed that way in Philly.

C'mon Wichita St.
- SotaPopinski

Don't pretend like your bracket isn't already (frank)ed anyway

It doesn't make us the bitter anything because those two ARE NOT MISSED here in Philly. A combined 12 goals for two supposed star players is not a glaring stat. I'm glad you are impressed but not many are.
- Daveflyers36

yes they are. the flyers would be better with them.

yes they are. the flyers would be better with them.
- prock

Better with them and not Voracek, Simmonds, B Schenn and Couts?

I never said they were or should be missed. I merely pointed out that they were important parts to a Stanley Cup team, one year after being traded because they weren't viewed that way in Philly.
- sbroads24

They were definitely important parts to the Kings winning the cup, no doubt, but that's where I'd leave it.

yes they are. the flyers would be better with them.
- prock

We are better with the players we got for them. If we added them to our team then yes but not if the trade was taken back.

Don't pretend like your bracket isn't already (frank)ed anyway
- FinAddict

I could have done a better bracket in my sleep than the one I got now

yes they are. the flyers would be better with them.
- prock