monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"
Confirmed with Link: - Attard Traded to Edmonton for Ben Gleason | Page 3 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
  • Xenforo Cloud upgraded our forum to XenForo version 2.3.4. This update has created styling issues to our current templates, this is just a temporary look. We will continue to work on clearing up these issues for the next few days and restore the site to it's more familiar look, but please report any other issues you may experience so we can look into. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

Confirmed with Link: Attard Traded to Edmonton for Ben Gleason

No. People demand yes or no because they're being snarky.
Few things in life are binary except for stupid people, and I don't think most people here are stupid.
Well first off I post here and I'm stupid, so jot that down. You could argue anyone who subjects themselves to this team to the degree they post on a message board dedicated to the Flyers has something wrong with them at some level.

People who actually ask why I think a certain way I try to respectfully answer.
You're usually pretty good at replying, credit where credit is due. But it does definitely seem like you avoid particular questions you don't want to answer sometimes, though maybe that is just my biased view of the events.

I don't have an example of the top of my head, just a casual observation.
 
So the eyeball test doesn't matter? Just metrics?
On those grounds, Myers is a top 4 D-man.
Whose eyeballs though? The ones that saw Robert Hagg, a minor leaguer before turning 30, play hockey and thought it was a good idea to play him for 250 games and in high leverage situations at that? Why because he always went on sustainable PDO heaters at the start of a season and padded non-impact stats like hits and blocked shots because he couldn't get out of his own zone? How about the eyeballs of the person that defended that decision countless times?

Or how bout the person that proclaimed Myers a "Unicorn" and better than Sanheim? I seem to recall certain eyeballs point out Myers' flaws and suggest he was lacking in certain areas for that to be the case...🤔

Perhaps Attard stinks. But we have another example of a fringe NHLer that we don't know for sure is terrible, out of the origination. For what? Erik Johnson's presence? Even if you think the results were fluky, shouldn't you want to know for sure?

Just consider this the next time you are hyping up a fringe prospect when they have their (older) 4th line already locked up with term. 4th line forwards and 3rd pair defensemen should be flexible spots so that you can churn and exhaust through all options - waivers, minors, Euro UDFAs, etc.. This is the bucket that ~90% of prospects will likely fall under. It's team building 101.
 
There is that. Getting rid of Fletcher guys. Might be the main reason. Otherwise it's nothing for nothing. Get rid of one guy you've given up on and bring in a different guy maybe you think you can make into what you thought the other guy was. But likely nothing for nothing.
 
Remove the 1st rd picks what are you left with? Naming Gill and Bonk is comical at this point. Are you really impressed by that list?
So what team does well outside the 1st rd?
There's a reason 1st rd picks (I'd say top 40) are valued much higher than later picks.
 
Whose eyeballs though? The ones that saw Robert Hagg, a minor leaguer before turning 30, play hockey and thought it was a good idea to play him for 250 games and in high leverage situations at that? Why because he always went on sustainable PDO heaters at the start of a season and padded non-impact stats like hits and blocked shots because he couldn't get out of his own zone? How about the eyeballs of the person that defended that decision countless times?

Or how bout the person that proclaimed Myers a "Unicorn" and better than Sanheim? I seem to recall certain eyeballs point out Myers' flaws and suggest he was lacking in certain areas for that to be the case...🤔

Perhaps Attard stinks. But we have another example of a fringe NHLer that we don't know for sure is terrible, out of the origination. For what? Erik Johnson's presence? Even if you think the results were fluky, shouldn't you want to know for sure?

Just consider this the next time you are hyping up a fringe prospect when they have their (older) 4th line already locked up with term. 4th line forwards and 3rd pair defensemen should be flexible spots so that you can churn and exhaust through all options - waivers, minors, Euro UDFAs, etc.. This is the bucket that ~90% of prospects will likely fall under. It's team building 101.
1730841210075.png
 
Whose eyeballs though? The ones that saw Robert Hagg, a minor leaguer before turning 30, play hockey and thought it was a good idea to play him for 250 games and in high leverage situations at that? Why because he always went on sustainable PDO heaters at the start of a season and padded non-impact stats like hits and blocked shots because he couldn't get out of his own zone? How about the eyeballs of the person that defended that decision countless times?

Or how bout the person that proclaimed Myers a "Unicorn" and better than Sanheim? I seem to recall certain eyeballs point out Myers' flaws and suggest he was lacking in certain areas for that to be the case...🤔

Perhaps Attard stinks. But we have another example of a fringe NHLer that we don't know for sure is terrible, out of the origination. For what? Erik Johnson's presence? Even if you think the results were fluky, shouldn't you want to know for sure?

Just consider this the next time you are hyping up a fringe prospect when they have their (older) 4th line already locked up with term. 4th line forwards and 3rd pair defensemen should be flexible spots so that you can churn and exhaust through all options - waivers, minors, Euro UDFAs, etc.. This is the bucket that ~90% of prospects will likely fall under. It's team building 101.
The difference between a 22-23 year old player and a 25-26 year old player is potential upside.

By 22-23 players are physically mature, but some improve with a couple years of experience.
By 25-26, it's rare for a player to make a significant jump.

So it's one thing to be hopeful that a young player can improve, but the older prospect is likely the player you're looking at right now. What is acceptable in a prospect with a runway ahead of them is not enough for a guy at an age where potential becomes a dirty word.

Attard flashed potential a couple years ago, size, above average shot, good burst in the O-zone, the same way Myers flashed potential. Both failed to build upon it. Both flatlined.

Some players are able to improve with experience and hard work in the film room. Others either lack the mental capacity or aren't willing to work that hard. This holds in any sport.

It's easy to recognize the great athlete or the guy with great instincts (the puck follows them). It's harder to identify the ones who have just enough IQ/physical talent to be marginal prospects but also have the work ethic, motor and competitiveness to rise above their raw talent package.
 
The balls on an individual to get a fake Brandon Manning jersey signed.

The difference between a 22-23 year old player and a 25-26 year old player is potential upside.

By 22-23 players are physically mature, but some improve with a couple years of experience.
By 25-26, it's rare for a player to make a significant jump.

Literally three days ago...
Generally, the prime for most athletes is 25-30.
Top players are more 23-32, elite players 20-35.

So when "rebuilding," you want a core of players who are between 23-28

This is why no one takes anything you write seriously.
 
By 22-23 players are physically mature, but some improve with a couple years of experience.
By 25-26, it's rare for a player to make a significant jump.
That is bad news for Tippet (26 in February) and Farabee (25 in February), seeing as both are signed long term and each has barely cracked 50 points exactly once.
 
The balls on an individual to get a fake Brandon Manning jersey signed.



Literally three days ago...


This is why no one takes anything you write seriously.
If your prime is 25-30, then by 25 you "are what you are." Which is what I said.

With top players, they're top players b/c they arrive early and stay late, that is, have longer careers at a high level of play.

But even then, if you look at the scoring leaders and the year they hit their peak production, it was generally around 24-26. It's just that they're good enough to start at a young age and still be better than most players.
 
Attard is a good example not to take SSS heaters seriously (Lesson to self).
He flashed his skills, he is a very good goal scorer for a defenseman, he's got size.
But the longer he played, the more his defensive and skating deficiencies were revealed.
And after three years, they probably have a good idea if he'll ever compensate for them.

Same applies to Andrae right now, he looks smooth out there, but the league will challenge him in the D-zone physically, hoping to panic him into mistakes. We'll see if he is exposed or rises to the challenge and keeps improving.

There's an interview with Middleton and he's got a great story that applies to any pro sport, about the need for players to adjust:

In 2010, we’re playing the Rockies out in Denver. Roy Halladay is pitching one of those days. His father lives about an hour away. And his father and I are sitting there watching Doc mow them down. I turned to his father and say, “I understand that you were Doc’s first pitching coach.” He said, “That’s right.” I said, “How many of his pitches that he uses today did you teach him?” And he said, “None.” None? “None.” Not even a fastball? “No.” He said when (Roy) was sent back down to the low minors, he jettisoned every pitch and he learned five new pitches. He said, “I’m not going to be successful (in the majors) if I don’t change.” So I said, “Oh, he’s using those pitches?” No. Over time, he was afraid he was too predictable. People knew his pitches. He either completely changed or materially altered every single pitch.

So I’m kind of incredulous about this whole thing. Two weeks later, I’m sitting with Mike Schmidt at a game. I relate this story about Doc’s father. And Mike just looks at me and he goes, “Yeah, I can understand that.” I said, “Really? All that change?” He goes, “John, in my career, I had three completely different swings. Every one of those three swings, I made a significant adjustment to the swing about halfway through. People adjust to you. You have to adjust to them.”

I am going to hold you to the bolded.
 
That is bad news for Tippet (26 in February) and Farabee (25 in February), seeing as both are signed long term and each has barely cracked 50 points exactly once.
Tippett has 55 goals the last two seasons, 62nd in the NHL.
TK has 66, 44th in the NHL.
Imagine playing with better centers and a real power play.

Tippett might be able to make some incremental improvements, but nothing drastic.
Any real improvements with these two will come from better players around them.

Farabee has 89 points, 154th over that period.
That includes the year coming off the neck injury.
I expected him to take a step up this season at 24, so far he's been a disappointment.
 
Last edited:
Tippett has 55 goals the last two seasons, 62nd in the NHL.
TK has 66, 44th in the NHL.
Imagine playing with better centers and a real power play.
Nikolay Zherdev had 49 goals over 2 seasons from 07-09 and also provided little else. Sometimes average players can have above average stats for a few seasons.

Averaging 27 goals a season as your peak while also giving very few assists and average to poor defence is not that impressive, especially since Tippet has gotten premium deployment. He still has a career high of 53 points, so I guess that is most likely his ceiling now. Same for Farabee at 50.

Pretty concerning to sign these players thinking they are core pieces and not the tertiary players the stats say they are, especially if you are telling us they are unlikely to improve at this age.
 
Never saw it with Attard when he got his chances. Just a big athlete with poor defensive hockey sense. Unsurprising they're moving on.
 
Perhaps Attard stinks. But we have another example of a fringe NHLer that we don't know for sure is terrible, out of the origination. For what? Erik Johnson's presence? Even if you think the results were fluky, shouldn't you want to know for sure?

Just consider this the next time you are hyping up a fringe prospect when they have their (older) 4th line already locked up with term. 4th line forwards and 3rd pair defensemen should be flexible spots so that you can churn and exhaust through all options - waivers, minors, Euro UDFAs, etc.. This is the bucket that ~90% of prospects will likely fall under. It's team building 101.
This is the process problem. They just don't give prospects a chance to find out if they can adjust to the NHL game's speed, size, lack of time and space, quality of teammates and opposition. I like Attard's offensive instincts and hands. Can he play D? Never saw enough. Do I trust the people developing him? Not at all. Good luck in Edmonton!

And I remember Ben Gleason from the Hamilton Bulldogs championship run a few years back. He's a good replacement for Andrae on the Phantoms.
 
They could see if Attard figured out to play defense in the AHL.

It's more likely that a player does well in the AHL/KHL/SHL and struggles in the NHL with the smaller windows and faster players than meh players at lower levels suddenly learns how to play.

The exception would be young players who struggle for a year or two then suddenly break out and quickly jump to the NHL. But by 23-24, that kind of jump is unlikely.
 
This is the process problem. They just don't give prospects a chance to find out if they can adjust to the NHL game's speed, size, lack of time and space, quality of teammates and opposition. I like Attard's offensive instincts and hands. Can he play D? Never saw enough. Do I trust the people developing him?
Flyers development strikes again. Attard is just another guy who flamed out in LV. Someone will say that when they flop here, that they don't succeed anywhere else. True perhaps. Maybe its once the Flyers development ruins them then they are not salvageable.
 
Flyers development strikes again. Attard is just another guy who flamed out in LV. Someone will say that when they flop here, that they don't succeed anywhere else. True perhaps. Maybe its once the Flyers development ruins them then they are not salvageable.
How come when other teams like Buffalo "ruin" players they bounce back when they're gone?
Maybe the players the "Flyers" "ruin" just weren't that good to start with.

Attard was an overage late 3rd rd pick who was a college goal scorer at rover.
They gambled they could take a big D-man who had a plus shot and decent skating and turn him into a real NHL defenseman.

Those are the gambles you should be taking at that point in the draft rather than some "safe" pick.
 
They have put way too much emphasis on size and handedness in the Holmgren, Hextal and Fletcher eras. With Briere it feels a little more balanced but still work in progress.
 
Agree to an extent. So, it is a drafting issue? As some have said I do not place much value in the Flyers develo0ment.

With all the resources they have they should be producing more NHL level players. Doesn't seem to me they hire the best.
After the top 40, drafting is a low probability event. After the top 100, a complete crapshoot.
 
So, in other words, you give the Flyers a pass.
I given everyone a pass after the 2nd rd, when you go through drafts after 2015 or so, not a lot of hits. A few impact players, more bottom six/third pair types and "cup of coffee" guys.

2016: #66 Fox, #85 Mahura, #106 Duhaime, #111 Gregory, #118 Colton, #159 Hagel, #162 Bratt
2017: #63 Zetterlund, #67 Geekie, #99 Bryson D, #103 Anderson, #117 Bernstrom, #121 Batherson, #137 Cates, #139 S Aho D, #169 Perbix D
2018: #63 McBain, #92 Dewar, #115 Cotter, #120 Kurashev, #141 Sharangovich,
2019: #91 Protas, #95 Spence D, #98 Macelli, #125 Kastelic
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top
-->->