He was 1C on their depth chart and in practices. ROR was not.

Lineups can be found in many places, such as this (scroll down):

https://www.nbcsports.com...gs-bruins-vs-blues-game-1
- PT21

he wasnt

The young guy on the other team you are trading for has projections too, no? They exceed that of your own young guy. The other guy also has a past that exceeds that of your guy. These things need to be based on rationality.

I recall our friend had a statement: Toronto "would kill to have our young defense".

Fast forward to now, just 14 months later. Of that young defense: Ghost+Hagg+Sanheim+Myers+Friedman would not collectively bring back WN today, who btw, has been their best forward in 2 successive playoffs now.

On a more general note: there is a tendency I notice among Flyers fans which I do not see among say Eagles fans. A feeling that we have outsmarted the market with trades/picks.

Consider:

Dopita: best player not in NHL right now. We got a steal.
Schenn: Best prospect in NHL right now. We got a steal.
Ghost: future Eric Karlsson: We got a steal.
Myers: Cannot believe he was undrafted. Future 1RHD. Steal
Laughton: If there was a redraft, he would go top 10. Steal
Frost: Future Giroux. Steal
Hart: Future Vezina. Steal in the 3rd round
Couts: Top 10 1c. Indispensable.

Meanwhile, you notice that the external world has a somewhat different opinion. That's ok but what is galling is that they are right much more often than we are.
To paraphrase Gloria Swanson: Its not the players who turned to be too small. Its the picture that was always too big for them.
- PT21

You seem to not understand what being a fan is about. You've posted a bunch of hyperbole here and really it's more about another attempt to insult people and to try and show that you are smarter.
Dopita was labeled the best player not in the NHL not by the fans, but by the hockey community. Who are we to disagree with the external world.
Same with Schenn. At the time the Flyers acquired him he was considered the best prospect not playing in the NHL. Again, who are we to question the external world.
Gostisbehere as the nest Karlsson? That's hyperbole on your part. Gostisbehere was dynamic when he first came up and had a 65 point season as a defenseman. He couldn't play here but is doing pretty good on an even worse team than the Flyers in Arizona.
Myers was a strong prospect and was improving at every level as an undrafted UFA.
If I recall with Laughton, there was an actual redraft where Laughton was moved up higher. So it wasn't the fans saying that.
Nobody that I recall or am aware of has said that Frost is a future Giroux. More hyperbole on your part.
Hart is just 23 years old and is no where near his prime. He still has a bunch of potential. Getting a potential franchise goaltender in the 3rd round is a steal and a very good draft pick.
Couturier is a very underrated player and at his best is a Selke level 30 goal 70 point center and is one of the top two way centers in the league. That's just a fact.

What's galling is not what Gloria Swanson says. What's galling is the attempted insult, the hyperbole and the inaccuracies in your post.

yall mother (frank)ers are still female dogin?

he wasnt
- THE BLACK HAND

Depends on your definition of 1C. If those line combinaitons and depth charts don't do it for you, look at who spent what time with their undisputed 1st line wingers (Schwartz and Taresenko) in playoffs.

ROR centered Schwartz and Tarasenko 8% of the time.

Schenn centered them 40% of the time

He was 1C on their depth chart and in practices. ROR was not.

Lineups can be found in many places, such as this (scroll down):

https://www.nbcsports.com...gs-bruins-vs-blues-game-1
- PT21

How do you not understand amigo that posted depth charts and line combos don't determine who the #1 center is.

This does

http://www.nhl.com/stats/...eOnIce&page=0&pageSize=50

That's just the thing: On the contrary, those guys performed exactly where their NHL draft positions indicated they would. Not a single one under-performed. NP did, sure but not on defense. Everyone of them met or surpassed historical averages for their draft position.

It wasn't the players. It was the hype surrounding them.
- PT21

Historical averages don't mean squat. Nothing but noise. The scouting report on Sanheim that you yourself posted clearly shows that to this point, due to his inconsistency, Sanheim has underachieved.

Depends on your definition of 1C. If those line combinaitons and depth charts don't do it for you, look at who spent what time with their undisputed 1st line wingers (Schwartz and Taresenko) in playoffs.

ROR centered Schwartz and Tarasenko 8% of the time.

Schenn centered them 40% of the time
- PT21

He played with Swartz and Tarasenko. ROR amassed more icetime each game. Schenn played well but his numbers for the run werent great. But they won the Cup so who gives a (frank)

He played with Swartz and Tarasenko. ROR amassed more icetime each game. Schenn played well but his numbers for the run werent great. But they won the Cup so who gives a (frank)
- THE BLACK HAND

O'Reilly played more total ice time, more EV icetime, more PP icetime and more shorthanded icetime per game. O'Reilly was the Blues 1C in that playoff run.

Historical averages don't mean squat. Nothing but noise. The scouting report on Sanheim that you yourself posted clearly shows that to this point, due to his inconsistency, Sanheim has underachieved.
- MJL

Normal reasoning + normal luck = reality

MJL reasoning + MJL luck = same reality.

Can I be polite and simply mention that MJL luck is much bigger than normal luck and leave you to draw the remaining inference?.

O'Reilly played more total ice time, more EV icetime, more PP icetime and more shorthanded icetime per game. O'Reilly was the Blues 1C in that playoff run.
- MJL

I know, theres no need for me to draw it out

I know, theres no need for me to draw it out
- THE BLACK HAND

I mean maybe we have to look at historical averages. Maybe throw in a few insults.

He played with Swartz and Tarasenko. ROR amassed more icetime each game. Schenn played well but his numbers for the run werent great. But they won the Cup so who gives a (frank)
- THE BLACK HAND

That is because ROR was used hugely as checking line center in the playoffs. That's why his on ice time is so much higher.

I would call my 1C the guy who lines up with my 1st line wingers.

That is because ROR was used hugely as checking line center in the playoffs. That's why his on ice time is so much higher.

I would call my 1C the guy who lines up with my 1st line wingers.
- PT21

does the oilers dropping mcdavid to the second line right now make him a second line player? its a lot of semantics and more than a dash of relativity.

does the oilers dropping mcdavid to the second line right now make him a second line player? its a lot of semantics and more than a dash of relativity.
- stayinthefnnet

Didn't Staal come pretty close to matching Crosby/Malkin ES TOI in playoffs when he was on the Pens?

I agree though: it is semantics, the kind that we argue over and get lost in. The original point was: Schenn has not underachieved (Being the 2C in a cup winning team is hardly underachieving) and we don't under-develop players any more than other teams on average.

That is because ROR was used hugely as checking line center in the playoffs. That's why his on ice time is so much higher.

I would call my 1C the guy who lines up with my 1st line wingers.
- PT21

Nice spin but this is not 1985. Checking line centers don't lead their entire forward core in ice time. O'Reilly played a total of 59.72 of ice time more than Schenn did. That's almost an entire regulation game of ice time. O'Reilly led the Blues in scoring in that playoff. He played with Perron, who also outscored Schenn in that playoff. If the Bruins decide to split up the top line in the playoffs and play Pasternak on the 2nd line, does that mean that Pasternak is no longer a 1st line winger? Calling Schenn the Blues 1st line center in that playoff is illogical by any standard.

Didn't Staal come pretty close to matching Crosby/Malkin ES TOI in playoffs when he was on the Pens?

I agree though: it is semantics, the kind that we argue over and get lost in. The original point was: Schenn has not underachieved (Being the 2C in a cup winning team is hardly underachieving) and we don't under-develop players any more than other teams on average.
- PT21

The original point was about players on the Flyers. Schenn is actually a very good example of a young player that the Flyers didn't handle well.

Fighting? Really? This what you're using as the barometer for the team? How about bad starts? Lack of scoring? Poor defense? Inability to hold a lead? Going 0-16 on the shootout?
- Dkos

Had a debate here last year regarding our lack of toughness and cited Chara as an example of a HoF player willing to do get physical at 43 vs Hagg and Myers and Sanheim and their relative softiness. I believe he was with Caps.
You are correct, team has many flaws but being too physical is not one of them.

Didn't Staal come pretty close to matching Crosby/Malkin ES TOI in playoffs when he was on the Pens?

I agree though: it is semantics, the kind that we argue over and get lost in. The original point was: Schenn has not underachieved (Being the 2C in a cup winning team is hardly underachieving) and we don't under-develop players any more than other teams on average.
- PT21

Even strength? yeah often so. but the pens would try to roll those lines as evenly as possible (not to mention giving him the odd shift with malkin and virtually no PP time)

especially as the game progresses, i think less and less importance should be placed on line placement insofar as correlation to value. its more top 9 than top 6 these days, and teams try to spread wealth/look for chemistry matchups.

would anyone suggest that panarin isnt a first line player? looking at the depth chart without any other context could lead to that assumption.

Nice spin but this is not 1985. Checking line centers don't lead their entire forward core in ice time. O'Reilly played a total of 59.72 of ice time more than Schenn did. That's almost an entire regulation game of ice time. O'Reilly led the Blues in scoring in that playoff. He played with Perron, who also outscored Schenn in that playoff. If the Bruins decide to split up the top line in the playoffs and play Pasternak on the 2nd line, does that mean that Pasternak is no longer a 1st line winger? Calling Schenn the Blues 1st line center in that playoff is illogical by any standard.
- MJL

I just checked. Staal actually had almost the same icetime as Crosby Malkin. Half a shift a game less.

It is highly unusual. The center who lines up with the 1st line wingers is almost always the center with the most ice time/GM. So, the two definitions almost always coincide.

That (ROR) was a rare exception, which allows for divergent definitions.

Btw, Stayinthenet: Draisatl is indeed leading McDavid in TOI/GM this season, so he is 1c, not McDavid. Don't equate 1c as the same as best center. I am talking positional, not quality.

Even strength? yeah often so. but the pens would try to roll those lines as evenly as possible (not to mention giving him the odd shift with malkin and virtually no PP time)



would anyone suggest that panarin isnt a first line player? looking at the depth chart without any other context could lead to that assumption.
- stayinthefnnet

Only if you equate: 1st line player in a position as best player in that position.

Last year, Rutta was listed as 1D pairing opposite Hedman. Yet the guys behind him: Cernak and Savard, were easily better players. It was just a question of spreading the wealth. Because Hedman was so good, he could carry Rutta better than McDonagh and Sergachev. Thus, Rutta became 1st pairing ahead of Cernak and Savard not because he was better but because of positional synergies.

I just checked. Staal actually had almost the same icetime as Crosby Malkin. Half a shift a game less.

It is highly unusual. The center who lines up with the 1st line wingers is almost always the center with the most ice time/GM. So, the two definitions almost always coincide.

That (ROR) was a rare exception, which allows for divergent definitions.

Btw, Stayinthenet: Draisatl is indeed leading McDavid in TOI/GM this season, so he is 1c, not McDavid. Don't equate 1c as the same as best center. I am talking positional, not quality.
- PT21

im not saying youre wrong, but what youre talking is semantics haha the divergent definitions already mean we arent talking in absolutes

Only if you equate: 1st line player in a position as best player in that position.

Last year, Rutta was listed as 1D pairing opposite Hedman. Yet the guys behind him: Cernak and Savard, were easily better players. It was just a question of spreading the wealth. Because Hedman was so good, he could carry Rutta better than McDonagh and Sergachev. Thus, Rutta became 1st pairing ahead of Cernak and Savard not because he was better but because of positional synergies.
- PT21

yep. granted, just because i view it that way doesnt make it any less of an exercise in semantics than yours, but that is exactly how i view it.

I just checked. Staal actually had almost the same icetime as Crosby Malkin. Half a shift a game less.

It is highly unusual. The center who lines up with the 1st line wingers is almost always the center with the most ice time/GM. So, the two definitions almost always coincide.

That (ROR) was a rare exception, which allows for divergent definitions.

Btw, Stayinthenet: Draisatl is indeed leading McDavid in TOI/GM this season, so he is 1c, not McDavid. Don't equate 1c as the same as best center. I am talking positional, not quality.
- PT21

More spin. McDavid and Draisatl often play together. The difference is 23 seconds per game. Hardly equal to the O'Reilly/ Schenn situation.

This is another instance where a PT21 fact is used. You state that it's a rare exception without offering any evidence to support it. You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Coaches splitting up top lines to get scoring depth through a lineup is certainly not rare. Your comments here continue to be illogical.

im not saying youre wrong, but what youre talking is semantics haha the divergent definitions already mean we arent talking in absolutes
- stayinthefnnet

Sure. But I don't think calling Schenn a 1C on that team is a travesty at all. It may not be the only definition, because ROR has a monster playoffs, but it is a valid one.

Which is all I need to say that Schenn has lived up to historic expectations for his draft position.

The young guy on the other team you are trading for has projections too, no? They exceed that of your own young guy. The other guy also has a past that exceeds that of your guy. These things need to be based on rationality.

I recall our friend had a statement: Toronto "would kill to have our young defense".

Fast forward to now, just 14 months later. Of that young defense: Ghost+Hagg+Sanheim+Myers+Friedman would not collectively bring back WN today, who btw, has been their best forward in 2 successive playoffs now.

On a more general note: there is a tendency I notice among Flyers fans which I do not see among say Eagles fans. A feeling that we have outsmarted the market with trades/picks.

Consider:

Dopita: best player not in NHL right now. We got a steal.
Schenn: Best prospect in NHL right now. We got a steal.
Ghost: future Eric Karlsson: We got a steal.
Myers: Cannot believe he was undrafted. Future 1RHD. Steal
Laughton: If there was a redraft, he would go top 10. Steal
Frost: Future Giroux. Steal
Hart: Future Vezina. Steal in the 3rd round
Couts: Top 10 1c. Indispensable.

Meanwhile, you notice that the external world has a somewhat different opinion. That's ok but what is galling is that they are right much more often than we are.
To paraphrase Gloria Swanson: Its not the players who turned to be too small. Its the picture that was always too big for them.
- PT21

The Eagles Fans had 58 years of futility to instruct them of the risks in jumping to conclusions. So, come back in 11 years and maybe everyone will be ready.