Coots is a stud. hayes is really good too. but neither are going to consistently be "that guy" to drive offense as needed to continue along with this comparison. that being said, i dont think you need someone quite up to that level if the rest of your team is solid. I do however think there needs to be a higher level offensive piece added at some point to make that true leap, and im not quite sure it can be found through internal development. - stayinthefnnet
I think you’re correct. Best example I can give is when we have briere. Especially in the playoffs he was deadly on the pp, and always seemed to score big goals when needed. We don’t have that now and the lack of a pp obviously killed us in the second round this year.
Having said that, these guys don’t grow on trees. I expect we’ll have to get on me in a treads or overpay a ufa. I expect that while we made progress, fletch doesn’t see this as being go time yet to make a true run.
As well, with the current roster having lost a top pairing d and not having a replacement, I expect a step backward this year although I hope I’m wrong. A lot will have to go right for this roster to achieve what they did last year.
If we take a step back, most likely fletch will be aggressive in filling some of the holes next offseason. I feel like they have a plan of when they want to go for it all and it’s not now.
And would need to have a brain to know what it is to have it washed.
Its a delightful sensation, really.
- PT21
You know what you are . You inject yourself into every conversation. I know I’m not the smartest egg in the box. I don’t pretend to be. But to sit next to you in a bar type situation I think would be the worst experience in my life and I’ve done a lot. The words that come to mind to describe you would be boring, lonely, and attention seeking . I’ll guarantee you Cliffy , everybody talks about you. Behind your back.
Location: Not protected by the Mods...I mean Mob. Take your best shot! Joined: 09.01.2012
Nov 12 @ 8:23 AM ET
I think you’re correct. Best example I can give is when we have briere. Especially in the playoffs he was deadly on the pp, and always seemed to score big goals when needed. We don’t have that now and the lack of a pp obviously killed us in the second round this year.
Having said that, these guys don’t grow on trees. I expect we’ll have to get on me in a treads or overpay a ufa. I expect that while we made progress, fletch doesn’t see this as being go time yet to make a true run.
As well, with the current roster having lost a top pairing d and not having a replacement, I expect a step backward this year although I hope I’m wrong. A lot will have to go right for this roster to achieve what they did last year.
If we take a step back, most likely fletch will be aggressive in filling some of the holes next offseason. I feel like they have a plan of when they want to go for it all and it’s not now. - Hextall271
If Giroux were 24, 25, 26, we’re probably a contender with this current cast. We’re just missing that franchise player.
If Giroux were 24, 25, 26, we’re probably a contender with this current cast. We’re just missing that franchise player. - SuperSchennBros
I agree. For quite a few years we could see that the play of our vets and young developing core would not synch up correctly. I think that’s where we’re at. Once provy tk Myers Hart et al are at peak productivity Jake and g will likely be hangers on. It’s not an easy problem to fix as I can’t see someone taking say Jake and jvr off our hands. As you know, we can’t have 7 or 8 mil dollar players on the 3rd line. They have to be our best players for this to work. Playoffs last year showed me a lot unfortunately.
I agree. For quite a few years we could see that the play of our vets and young developing core would not synch up correctly. I think that’s where we’re at. Once provy tk Myers Hart et al are at peak productivity Jake and g will likely be hangers on. It’s not an easy problem to fix as I can’t see someone taking say Jake and jvr off our hands. As you know, we can’t have 7 or 8 mil dollar players on the 3rd line. They have to be our best players for this to work. Playoffs last year showed me a lot unfortunately. - Hextall271
We can't lose sight of what it was always going to be about with this team moving forward. It was no longer going to be about Giroux. I believe he can be a good NHL player for another 3-5 years. It was always going to be about the young players growing and developing. Nothing has changed in that regard. So does looking at how established players and young player are synced, really matter? Look at recent Cup teams and see how long players such as Hedman, Kucherov, Tarasenko and Pietrangelo have been in the league before breaking through. It takes time. If this team is going to win a Cup in the future, it's going to be because of Provorov, Sanheim, Konecny, Hart, Farabee, Frost,Myers, etc. Not Giroux, Voracek and JVR. I would not place as much weight on last years playoffs as I think you are placing.
We can't lose sight of what it was always going to be about with this team moving forward. It was no longer going to be about Giroux. I believe he can be a good NHL player for another 3-5 years. It was always going to be about the young players growing and developing. Nothing has changed in that regard. So does looking at how established players and young player are synced, really matter? Look at recent Cup teams and see how long players such as Hedman, Kucherov, Tarasenko and Pietrangelo have been in the league before breaking through. It takes time. If this team is going to win a Cup in the future, it's going to be because of Provorov, Sanheim, Konecny, Hart, Farabee, Frost,Myers, etc. Not Giroux, Voracek and JVR. I would not place as much weight on last years playoffs as I think you are placing. - MJL
The young players will be the key to our success, but the lack of production in the playoffs from g Jake worries me as I think it may show that 3 to 5 years left of good production may be optimistic.
Having said that, you need to make the playoffs first and they certainly contributed to that end. Some of the vets had a harder time recovering from the layoff it seems, so maybe that’s why they struggled. WelL see if we ever get back to normal.
The young players will be the key to our success, but the lack of production in the playoffs from g Jake worries me as I think it may show that 3 to 5 years left of good production may be optimistic.
Having said that, you need to make the playoffs first and they certainly contributed to that end. Some of the vets had a harder time recovering from the layoff it seems, so maybe that’s why they struggled. WelL see if we ever get back to normal. - Hextall271
I would put more credence to this theory if they had not struggled in exactly the same way they have struggled in 2018 and 2016 and 2014 and 2012 Devils.
During playoffs, teams really clamp down on their D. That's the single biggest change from regular season hockey. The structure is tighter, and there is more backchecking and so on.
Based on what I have seen, Giroux/Voracek/Couturier simply do not have what it takes to break through in such a situation. They can surely be complementary players, and very good ones at that. But they cannot lead the charge.
The question then is, who will? TK, as the playoffs showed has some way to go. Frost, Patrick and Bee are, at best, 50-50 to be playoff caliber stars and that is being very generous.
I don't believe I am being a Negative Nancy. To the best of my reading, this seems to be a realistic assessment of the situation.
You know what you are . You inject yourself into every conversation. I know I’m not the smartest egg in the box. I don’t pretend to be. But to sit next to you in a bar type situation I think would be the worst experience in my life and I’ve done a lot. The words that come to mind to describe you would be boring, lonely, and attention seeking . I’ll guarantee you Cliffy , everybody talks about you. Behind your back. - Angus4444
Thank you for those very kind words, Sir. They truly mean a lot to me.
As for the situation you fear, be rest assured it is unlikely to make a move from your imagination to reality.
As for your assessment of my social skills, I assure you that you are incorrect, as you are about most things.
The young players will be the key to our success, but the lack of production in the playoffs from g Jake worries me as I think it may show that 3 to 5 years left of good production may be optimistic.
Having said that, you need to make the playoffs first and they certainly contributed to that end. Some of the vets had a harder time recovering from the layoff it seems, so maybe that’s why they struggled. WelL see if we ever get back to normal. - Hextall271
Really hope jake and giroux are not here 3-5 years from now. Can possibly live with Giroux depending on how he plays the next few years.
I would put more credence to this theory if they had not struggled in exactly the same way they have struggled in 2018 and 2016 and 2014 and 2012 Devils.
During playoffs, teams really clamp down on their D. That's the single biggest change from regular season hockey. The structure is tighter, and there is more backchecking and so on.
Based on what I have seen, Giroux/Voracek/Couturier simply do not have what it takes to break through in such a situation. They can surely be complementary players, and very good ones at that. But they cannot lead the charge.
The question then is, who will? TK, as the playoffs showed has some way to go. Frost, Patrick and Bee are, at best, 50-50 to be playoff caliber stars and that is being very generous.
I don't believe I am being a Negative Nancy. To the best of my reading, this seems to be a realistic assessment of the situation. - PT21
It’s a concern in my view. Certainly we know what the playoffs entail and I think av is keenly aware of what it takes.
wcorvette Season Ticket Holder Philadelphia Flyers
Location: Boynton Beach, FL Joined: 10.03.2010
Nov 12 @ 10:09 AM ET
The young players will be the key to our success, but the lack of production in the playoffs from g Jake worries me as I think it may show that 3 to 5 years left of good production may be optimistic.
Having said that, you need to make the playoffs first and they certainly contributed to that end. Some of the vets had a harder time recovering from the layoff it seems, so maybe that’s why they struggled. WelL see if we ever get back to normal. - Hextall271
what could change that is match ups. If you have Coots, TK, Hayes, Patrick, Frost and the Farabee's of the team playing in the top 6 and you have G and Jake playing 3rd line then G and Jake have the skill to feast on their competition. Reality they need luck with Patrick and Frost this season, if they play and play well the matchups will take care of themselves.
G and Jake will have a good season, I think we are overestimating their decline.
So you chose an opinion piece as facts?? - BadCowboyDan
That's a fair objection that deserves a thorough answer. I should have been clearer which parts of the article I was directing attention to. I chose a website that is apolitical and an article that had a lot of facts in one place, and I should have pointed out attention to the facts and asked readers to not worry about the interpretation/opinion.
I will do better this time and be more thorough, since you are a trader. Here are the facts I was referring to.
Specifically:
1. That the trend of job growth was roughly the same under Trump (it was actually slightly slower but nvm that difference) compared to the last 3 years of Obama (before Covid, Trump had spent 3 years in office, so that is why people look at that 3 year window).
This is of course a matter of common knowledge. There is one agency that publishes such stats, the BLS and that piece of data is everywhere. You can judge for yourself:
2. That GDP growth was at about the same rate again as the previous 3 years before Trump (slightly faster actually, but again very slightly and nvm that difference) and this rate was certainly nothing remotely close to the #s Trump promised.
Again, this is an apolitical reality. You can check it by looking at the graph of GDP from the Federal Reserve in St. Louis. The picture will tell the story.
3. That the stock market however boomed faster than previous trends, after the Trump corporate tax cuts. Here is a nice chart from Fox Business that illustrates:
4. That the stock market boom was right after the huge cuts in corporate taxes in the 2017 act. This is of course also the previous graph because Trump signed that bill right after he came into office.
5. That something unusual happened during the Trump years. For the first time in the last 70 years, debt as a fraction of GDP rose when there was no recession.
You can see this for yourself just by checking on this graph from Forbes (again a apolitical, business site)
Generally speaking, economies lower the debt as a fraction of GDP when times are good and the reverse when times are bad. (For the same reason as families save or pay down debt when earning in productive years for rainy days/retirement ahead).
A. Trump's rate of job growth for his 1st 3 years was largely the same as the previous 3 years.
B. Trump's rate of GDP growth for his 1st 3 years was largely the same as the previous 3 years.
C. Trump's rate of Stock Market growth for his 1st 3 years was largely twice as fast as the previous 3 years.
D. This stock market growth was deficit fueled, and the deficit grew at a faster rate than at any time in recent US economic history when the economy was growing (as it was when Trump took office (see B above).
Why did I bring up these facts yesterday? Because it was in connection to the article about the military.
Trump gets a lot of credit among his followers for a "booming economy" and so on - but the facts are different, as the above analysis shows. Mostly he continued trends already well in place by the time he took office.
I do get that Trump is far more of a cultural and ethnic phenomenon than a political and economic one, but at least in the ranks of the military, who benefited the most under Trump than any group of salaried people in the economy (because of both pay rises and their 401K) - they do not appear to have been taken in by their personal circumstances as so many others have.
A. Trump's rate of job growth for his 1st 3 years was largely the same as the previous 3 years.
B. Trump's rate of GDP growth for his 1st 3 years was largely the same as the previous 3 years.
C. Trump's rate of Stock Market growth for his 1st 3 years was largely twice as fast as the previous 3 years.
D. This stock market growth was deficit fueled, and the deficit grew at a faster rate than at any time in recent US economic history when the economy was growing (as it was when Trump took office (see B above).
Why did I bring up these facts yesterday? Because it was in connection to the article about the military.
Trump gets a lot of credit among his followers for a "booming economy" and so on - but the facts are different, as the above analysis shows. Mostly he continued trends already well in place by the time he took office.
I do get that Trump is far more of a cultural and ethnic phenomenon than a political and economic one, but at least in the ranks of the military, who benefited the most under Trump than any group of salaried people in the economy (because of both pay rises and their 401K) - they do not appear to have been taken in by their personal circumstances as so many others have. - PT21
I would put more credence to this theory if they had not struggled in exactly the same way they have struggled in 2018 and 2016 and 2014 and 2012 Devils.
During playoffs, teams really clamp down on their D. That's the single biggest change from regular season hockey. The structure is tighter, and there is more backchecking and so on.
Based on what I have seen, Giroux/Voracek/Couturier simply do not have what it takes to break through in such a situation. They can surely be complementary players, and very good ones at that. But they cannot lead the charge.
The question then is, who will? TK, as the playoffs showed has some way to go. Frost, Patrick and Bee are, at best, 50-50 to be playoff caliber stars and that is being very generous.
I don't believe I am being a Negative Nancy. To the best of my reading, this seems to be a realistic assessment of the situation. - PT21
Your assessment couldn't be factually realistic anymore or less than my could be. You are completely discounting all of the young Flyers players developing into top players. That's what you're saying here. You place zero value on player development and the talent in the Flyers system.
A. Trump's rate of job growth for his 1st 3 years was largely the same as the previous 3 years.
B. Trump's rate of GDP growth for his 1st 3 years was largely the same as the previous 3 years.
C. Trump's rate of Stock Market growth for his 1st 3 years was largely twice as fast as the previous 3 years.
D. This stock market growth was deficit fueled, and the deficit grew at a faster rate than at any time in recent US economic history when the economy was growing (as it was when Trump took office (see B above).
Why did I bring up these facts yesterday? Because it was in connection to the article about the military.
Trump gets a lot of credit among his followers for a "booming economy" and so on - but the facts are different, as the above analysis shows. Mostly he continued trends already well in place by the time he took office.
I do get that Trump is far more of a cultural and ethnic phenomenon than a political and economic one, but at least in the ranks of the military, who benefited the most under Trump than any group of salaried people in the economy (because of both pay rises and their 401K) - they do not appear to have been taken in by their personal circumstances as so many others have. - PT21
Nobody is interested in your political rhetoric. You just can't help yourself.
Thank you for those very kind words, Sir. They truly mean a lot to me.
As for the situation you fear, be rest assured it is unlikely to make a move from your imagination to reality.
As for your assessment of my social skills, I assure you that you are incorrect, as you are about most things. - PT21
Again, seeing you walk into a bar would mean everybody breathes a sigh of relief that the seats next to them are taken. Don’t have clue what you fear, probably growing old and knowing , realizing how bland and boring you turned out to be.
Yes, that is it, exactly really. But in an indirect way.
I run through some possibilities for you for the support of Trumpism.
1. It is related to economic inequality and class and lifting of wages:
But if that were the case, why would Blacks and Latinos and Native Americans vote so overwhelmingly against him? They are at the bottom of the ladder. (While a greater % of them voted for Trump this year, their vote is vastly skewed against him).
2. It is related to lifting the economy for everyone.
But if that were the case, in addition to all the groups mentioned above, Asian Indians (who have the highest income in the US), East Asian Americans (who also have much higher income than whites), and Jews (who have the highest income by religion) would have all supported him. Instead these groups voted against him by 2:1 in 2016 and 2020.
3. It is related to America First:
Again, why wouldn't everybody else in the US vote for him then?
4. It is related to college education.
In fact, the more Latinos go to College, the greater their chance of voting for Republicans/Trump. If College was such a filter, why would only white guys who did not go to College vote for him and other non-college groups vote against him?
5. It is related to political correctness (a backlash).
But if that were the case, the Latino, Black, and Asian communities are far more chauvinistic than the whites. Their social language is much less politically correct. Why would they not relate to his message?
6. It is related to social/religious conservatism, family values
Again, many ethnic groups are much more conservative than the whites. Especially Asians. Yet they vote against him.
There is only 1 group that votes for him. That is whites. Among that, there is only 1 group that votes for him overwhelmingly - that is white dudes with no college. (White women also vote for him, but in much smaller margins).
So, in conclusion, what do we learn?
That the facts tell us that it is white resentment - not economic anxiety, or class, or education that most strongly correlated with Trump support.
Most of Trump supporters are not racist. But they grew up in a time when the world was much easier for white dudes like them. Trump is a throwback, a nostalgia trip, even in the way he talks, who expresses their discomfort with their diminishing role in a world so different from the one they have grown up in. And everything he trashes is part of the world that diminished their place in it, so they are ok with its trashing.
And for this nostalgia ride, they are prepared to overlook all lapses of logic, such as the fact that the elections were not fair (73% of his followers believe it was not, even though all the judges are laughing at the cases brought in court, and there is no evidence whatsoever of fraud)
The rest of it is all a fig leaf, designed to protect themselves from facing the nature of their support.
Again, seeing you walk into a bar would mean everybody breathes a sigh of relief that the seats next to them are taken. Don’t have clue what you fear, probably growing old and knowing , realizing how bland and boring you turned out to be. - Angus4444
Good god, another bar reference. Did you get rejected for the role of an extra in Cheers or something?
I don't mind the insults at all (but be aware others might though, since 95% of your posts are that, and as you can see, they have no effect whatsoever).
But for me: could you possibly make the insults a little more clever/entertaining? Ask your grandchild for some tips.
Good god, another bar reference. Did you get rejected for the role of an extra in Cheers or something?
I don't mind the insults at all (but be aware others might though, since 95% of your posts are that, and as you can see, they have no effect whatsoever).
But for me: could you possibly make the insults a little more clever/entertaining? Ask your grandchild for some tips. - PT21
Yes, that is it, exactly really. But in an indirect way.
I run through some possibilities for you for the support of Trumpism.
1. It is related to economic inequality and class and lifting of wages:
But if that were the case, why would Blacks and Latinos and Native Americans vote so overwhelmingly against him? They are at the bottom of the ladder. (While a greater % of them voted for Trump this year, their vote is vastly skewed against him).
2. It is related to lifting the economy for everyone.
But if that were the case, in addition to all the groups mentioned above, Asian Indians (who have the highest income in the US), East Asian Americans (who also have much higher income than whites), and Jews (who have the highest income by religion) would have all supported him. Instead these groups voted against him by 2:1 in 2016 and 2020.
3. It is related to America First:
Again, why wouldn't everybody else in the US vote for him then?
4. It is related to college education.
In fact, the more Latinos go to College, the greater their chance of voting for Republicans/Trump. If College was such a filter, why would only white guys who did not go to College vote for him and other non-college groups vote against him?
5. It is related to political correctness (a backlash).
But if that were the case, the Latino, Black, and Asian communities are far more chauvinistic than the whites. Their social language is much less politically correct. Why would they not relate to his message?
6. It is related to social/religious conservatism, family values
Again, many ethnic groups are much more conservative than the whites. Especially Asians. Yet they vote against him.
There is only 1 group that votes for him. That is whites. Among that, there is only 1 group that votes for him overwhelmingly - that is white dudes with no college. (White women also vote for him, but in much smaller margins).
So, in conclusion, what do we learn?
That the facts tell us that it is white resentment - not economic anxiety, or class, or education that most strongly correlated with Trump support.
Most of Trump supporters are not racist. But they grew up in a time when the world was much easier for white dudes like them. Trump is a throwback, a nostalgia trip, even in the way he talks, who expresses their discomfort with their diminishing role in a world so different from the one they have grown up in. And everything he trashes is part of the world that diminished their place in it, so they are ok with its trashing.
And for this nostalgia ride, they are prepared to overlook all lapses of logic, such as the fact that the elections were not fair (73% of his followers believe it was not, even though all the judges are laughing at the cases brought in court, and there is no evidence whatsoever of fraud)
The rest of it is all a fig leaf, designed to protect themselves from facing the nature of their support. - PT21
I'll explain to you, the scholar and academic the very simple reasons why people supported Trump
Less taxes.
More jobs
Higher wages.
Support of law enforcement.
Stronger military.
Better foreign policy
Better trade deals
Enforcement of immigration laws. Building a wall to protect Southern border.
Or we can go with the incredibly moronic comments that you made above which is just another way of saying Trump supporters are idiots.
Again, this is just another example of your indoctrinated elitism.
Here is an example for you. The city of Philadelphia is one of the worst run cities in the entire United States. It's been run by Democrats for decades. Yet they keep voting for Democrats? Why?
I'm reminded of a comment made by a person who is much, much smarter than you are PT21. Charles Barkley said "poor black folks have been voting for Democrats for 50 years. They're still poor!"
