Phightins

The Phillies are Flyers fans!! http://www.thefightins.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Jayson-Werth-Flyers.png http://www.thefightins.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Ryan-Madson-Flyers.png

He was also asked about what he thought of Burish saying he'd "punch him" if he sees him again, and he said "where will that be, in the minors?".

No, because I realize that constantly changing my points and sounding like an overall condescending douchebag is not the best way to win an argument. But, in this instance, if it gives you the satisfaction of thinking that you won a debate, then I am happy for you. I have things to do though, have spent enough time for one morning fighting a pointless battle. No matter what I say, you will find a way to spin it and say "bow down to me, my wealth of hockey knowledge should be worshiped".

Whatever. I'm done here.

And as I just said, the Flyers top defensive pair was not as good as usual this series, especially from the 2nd half of game 4 on (one would assume they wore down as a result of playing a ridiculous amount of minutes, but I suppose that's just speculation). Do you really think it's a coincidence that the Flyers start allowing a bunch of goals when their defensemen start playing poorly? I think that proves the point I (and you actually) have been trying to make all along. This Flyers team goes as their top defensemen go.

Matchups for Red Sox series... Tonight: Jamie Moyer @ John Lackey Tomorrow: Joe Blanton @ Daisuke Matsuzaka Sunday: Cole Hamels @ Tim Wakefield Facing the same 3 guys we faced a couple weeks ago. Coincidentally, Matsuzaka and Wakefield are the ones who sent us into the terrible tailspin.

Please point out to me where I have overrated Michael Leighton? I believe all along I have referred to him all along as the product of a great defense? To quote you, "I don't get why you can't read that?". Also, I am laughing at you mentioning Finals GAA. Weren't you saying earlier that the Flyers GAA was a result of their defense? Oh wait, you did! Exactly. So, now all of a sudden you want to heap the poor Finals GAA solely on Leighton? Coincidentally, Leighton's Finals GAA went through the roof in game 5 when he was pulled after a period for allowing 3 goals. You know what else happened in game 5? The Flyers top defensive pairing (Chris Pronger and Matt Carle) was a combined -8. So yeah, you can't have it both ways.

Alright, so let me try to straighten a few things out here. Here is the initial point that I was attacked for: Universe replies with: I apologize if I didn't make it clear enough that I was referring to the 2008 and 2009 Red Wings teams that won the Western Conference. I really thought it would be obvious to you, since, you know, we were discussing teams with mediocre goaltending and world class defense playing well in the postseason. And yes, at this stage in his career, Chris Osgood is a mediocre goaltender. In fact, right now he is even worse than that (have you seen him play at all recently?). The last 2 regular seasons, he has had a GAA over 3 and a SV% under .900 (and it's even uglier if you actually watch him play now-a-days, the guy is flat-out done). I am not comparing Brian Boucher and/or Michael Leighton to Chris Osgood as far as an entire body of work for a career goes. If you would have actually read my post and not just picked through it for select words, you'd probably have realized this without me having to point it out to you right here. But for some reason, you skipped right over that. Not sure if it's just carelessness on your part, or if you legitimately could not understand a very obvious point I was making. Anyway, Universe goes on to say... YES! EXACTLY! The entire argument is about comparing Michael Leighton/Brian Boucher NOW to Chris Osgood NOW. First, you bring up his entirely irrelevant career totals, and now you prove to me that you have not read a single word I have posted. Who cares if he is on the downfall of his career right now? If anything that proves my point even farther,that right now he is a [expletive]ty goaltender. Period. A [expletive]ty goaltender that has guided a team through the postseason 2 of the past 3 years due to superb play from his defenseman. (Does this sound familiar? Yeah it kind of reminded me to the 2010 Flyers too). You would? Really? Chris Osgood in his prime, no doubt. Chris Osgood now? I hope you are joking. This is the line that really got me. I "don't seem to understand how good the Flyers defense is"? What have I been using as evidence for why the Flyers made the right decision by not trading Giroux for Halak? Lets check the archives: That is exactly my point. Look how far this team got with mediocre goaltending. Why trade one of their great forwards for a guy who is definitely a better goalie than what they had, but would cause them to shake up the foundation of the team? Was not worth it Like, really? I don't understand how good the Flyers defense is? Why on earth else would I be alright with having a mediocre goaltender like Michael Leighton? You said it yourself, Leighton gets lit up on a team like Montreal. But, you know, there HAS to be some reason I was OK with keeping him on the Flyers, right? Maybe it's because I realize that the Flyers have one of the best set of top 4 defensemen in the league? I make it even more obvious by clearly saying "that is exactly my point" when Fly3rs says how good the Flyers defensemen are. But like everything else, I am assuming you skipped right over that too. Come on man, read. Hope that straightens a few things out.

It really isn't worth arguing with you. Have you read any post I have made?

Lol, well if it was just a matter of adding Halak without subtracting anything, then yes no kidding it would be a great thing. But they absolutely would have demanded Giroux++ (and I believe they did, which is why Holmgren did not pull the trigger).

Again, that just proves what I was saying earlier. No point in trading a guy like Claude Giroux for a goalie improvement when you are barely going to give up any goals in the postseason anyway, even with 2 pedestrian goalies (obviously, this is assuming I had a crystal ball at trade deadline time, but it looks like Holmgren made the right decision). But I agree, they need another top-4 caliber defenseman. That should be priority #1 this offseason, even ahead of the goalie situation.

Yeah you're right it is a problem. Chris Osgood had a regular season GAA over 3 the last time he took his team to the Finals. He was even [expletive]tier than I gave him credit for, thank you for correcting me.

Unfortunately, I think that is 99.9% impossible. Especially because the Flyers don't have any 1st or 2nd round draft picks in this upcoming draft to use as trade chips.

That is exactly my point. Look how far this team got with mediocre goaltending. Why trade one of their great forwards for a guy who is definitely a better goalie than what they had, but would cause them to shake up the foundation of the team? Was not worth it, given the way this team is constructed and the cap situation (although in the case of a Giroux-for-Halak deal, they both have relatively identical, and small cap-hits so it would have basically been a wash, but long-term when all of these guys get paid cap numbers will be an issue, which is why I could easily see them trading Carter this offseason). Again, I think the Chris Osgood-Red Wings of the mid-2000's analogy is a pretty good one. But with that said, if Paul Holmgren can spin a deal for a young "franchise" goalie in the making this winter, with a solid cap projection down the line, I am all for it. I think this is a pretty big summer for Holmgren honestly.

I am not sure if I buy that. Obviously on paper, you wouldn't think so, but they got to game 6 of the Stanley Cup Finals with these guys, with 3 of the 4 losses in the series by just 1 goal. A bounce or 2 goes differently in this series and they do win a championship with these goalies. Just look at the Red Wings with Chris Osgood. Not the ideal situation for sure, but it can be done. But with that said, the Flyers need a more stable goalie situation next year. Obviously injuries are out of anybody's control, but they can't have a situation again like they did this year where they are dressing 7 different goalies in the course of the season.

If they are going that route, I'd rather just hang onto Leighton (although he is a UFA as well). If they add a goalie, they need to make it a significant upgrade over what they currently have.

Yes, it is hard to justify trading that much, seeing as the Flyers almost took the Stanley Cup Finals to game 7 with 2 "AHL goalies" and that Halak wasn't particularly proven at the time of the trade deadline. I would not be surprised to see Jeff Carter traded for a goalie this offseason, though.

Yes, I watched every NHL postseason game. And I also disagree with you. The Flyers goalies had a better combined GAA than any other team in the postseason, so despite the fact that Leighton and Boucher are both regarded as mediocre at best, I don't see how adding in Halak and subtracting Giroux gets them any farther. I do not think they would have made the finals without Giroux, just IMO.

Well, if you can find a way to squeeze a "legitimate good goalie" into this cap situation, let Paul Holmgren know. Sure, they could have traded Giroux for Halak at the deadline (as was rumored), but without Giroux they likely do not win a Stanley Cup either.. It's a catch 22. Of course, everybody is going to remember Michael Leighton for the soft goal that ended it, but the real reason they lost was that they decided not to show up until there were 5 minutes left in the 3rd period. So, people can hate on Michael Leighton all they want, but without him being incredible yesterday they do not come close to OT. Also, stay classy Adam Burish.

Unfortunately, almost everyone who wasn't prior to the Boston comeback jumped on the bandwagon. All of us who followed this team all year (and obviously in past years) can really appreciate how incredible of a run this was. The bandwagon jumpers, not so much.

Lol @ Lou Williams being an "amazing young player".

I am very upset with how much [expletive] Michael Leighton is taking today. Very soft goal to end it, no denying that. But without him, this team probably finishes 11th or 12th in the conference, and without him yesterday specifically, they lose by 3 or 4 goals in regulation. Whatever, it was inevitable I guess. For the record, I agree that this team needs a young "franchise goalie". Too bad they don't grow on trees.

I just think that saying the NHL isn't interesting is funny coming from an NBA fan, where you can basically predict the Finals matchup pre-season and have a 50/50 shot of being right. But hey, to each his own I suppose.

Very true.... Tonight just sucked though. I was almost certain that the Flyers had it when Hartnell scored with like 4 mins left, and then when they came out flying in OT. Just goes to show how the Stanley Cup playoff OT losses are the most heartbreaking losses in all of sports. So damned sudden. Didn't really sink in until a minute or two later.

Not sure I follow, but OK.