Claude (the one year wonder) Giroux

[radoran]

Now THAT was a heckuva goal.

 

That's the type of thing - and greeting everyone at the door - that can make a season. 

 

HUGE goal there.

[doom88]

Now THAT was a heckuva goal.

That's the type of thing - and greeting everyone at the door - that can make a season.

HUGE goal there.

QFT

[flyercanuck]

Now THAT was a heckuva goal.

 

That's the type of thing - and greeting everyone at the door - that can make a season. 

 

HUGE goal there.

 

 Greeting? Missed that...ESPN2 went straight off the game the second it ended. I wasn't even sure where Girouxs shot went in until I saw the highlights about a half an hour later. That thing was a rocket.

[radoran]

 Greeting? Missed that...ESPN2 went straight off the game the second it ended. I wasn't even sure where Girouxs shot went in until I saw the highlights about a half an hour later. That thing was a rocket.

 

Yeah, Giroux stood at the gate and the whole team came by him going down the chute. Then he went in briefly and came back out to talk with Coatsey.

 

I was wondering initially if it went in on initial shot or on the rebound off Raanta's back. He essentially scored twice there

[flyercanuck]

@radoran

 

 I saw it go in the second time, but had no idea where it went on the intitial shot. What a rocket of a wrister.

 

 And then they switch off right away and I'm like WTF????

[fanaticV3.0]

I disagree with this notion that a player shouldn't be out there if he's not 100%.

 

Especially at the start of the season.  If you're injured and still better than other guys, AND you're not going to make things worse by playing, then you play.

 

If you'll make a minor injury a major injury by shooting yourself up with Cortisone that sucks calcium out of your bones and causes catastrophic hip bone failure (looking at you Rayzor) then it might have been better to let your leg heal through rest.  Hell you might have been healthy by the finals and we might have won a cup... but I digress.

 

Claude maybe had some issues to start, sure but if playing wasn't going to cause a more serious injury or slow his recovery, then how's playing him a bad thing? Because he's not a superstar and just a great player?  Meh.  Was playng McGinn over Giroux because G's finger wasn't better yet really the way to go?

 

I doubt it.  Even then I would have said so.  When I called for stripping his C it was because I was dumb enough to think the responsibilities and pressure of being a captain were distracting him from being a play maker.  Boy was I wrong.

 

I'm not sure if that is what anyone is saying? I know that's not how I meant it. You don't have to be 100%, but if you aren't healthy enough to make an impact, you shouldn't be playing. If your play is negatively affected by the injury, by all means heal up.

[fanaticV3.0]

Bah, I was just piggy backing on your thoughts.

Not the greatest emoticons, huh? I wonder how difficult it is to get a bunch more added in.

 

I don't know, but the issue needs to be looked into. That wink is not nearly as playful and friendly looking as it needs to be. It looks like it's up to something.

[radoran]

I'm not sure if that is what anyone is saying? I know that's not how I meant it. You don't have to be 100%, but if you aren't healthy enough to make an impact, you shouldn't be playing. If your play is negatively affected by the injury, by all means heal up.

 

Putting this into the context of this season - if Giroux's injury was a contributing factor to his bad start and his bad start was part and parcel of the team's bad start - what's lost by having him sit and heal? They go 0-8 instead of 1-7? If the team is expecting "G to be G" and G can't "be G" - there is a possibility that the team could step up and play harder to make up for the temporary absence of Giroux. They might have done better. Again, just two more wins over that stretch and the team is in a Much Different playoff position - they would be, effectively, third in the Conference (84 points).

 

I think @Polaris922 has a great point about conditioning being an issue with this team under Laviolette (whether directly Lavy's fault or not). I think a lot of guys sort of took the lost half of last season off and never really got back to playing shape.

 

And subpar conditioning coupled with injury recovery simply compounds the problem.

 

Obviously, teams when they hit the playoffs are going to have a LOT of guys who probably aren't "100%" but are going to be out on the ice. I think that's fundamentally different than a player who might need an extra week or two during the season to really get back to top playing form.

[fanaticV3.0]

while it is odd that a guy that had never been a captain as a hockey player was given the opportunity at the game's highest level, i disagree that it was without merit.

 

He (Giroux) was the guy that lifted his teammates 2 years ago, not Timmonen , not Briere, not Jagr.... Giroux was the guy that snapped his stick over the cross bar at the end of the game 5 vs Pgh and provided the spark that everyone in the building fed off of during the game 6 rout.  The fans ate it up and i bet the old man did too.

 

There might have been more "deserving " guys in the locker room to be named captain with the Pronger injury but the team clearly responded to Claude His compete level and his play that season in a tangible & visceral way. 

 

When he was going poorly no one stepped in  and picked up the slack on the ice, he's the straw that stirs the drink . He needed to learn that and then apply it to how he plays, it took a while but it seems as though if he's healthy he'll be the player we hoped he would be.

 

There is no tangible proof in a hot spell though. No matter how good a player is during that streak, it's still a very small span of time. It's like a fighter who beats a high quality opponent (and sometimes even wins a belt) and is never that good ever again. What Giroux is is still very up in the air imo. He's clearly a good player, but how good? Looks great now, looked great a few years back, but had a long stint in between where while not bad, definitely not "other level".

[mojo1917]

@fanaticV3.0

 

I immediately thought of Buster Douglas beating the hell out of " little" Mike Tyson when I read your post.

And while I did mention Giroux's play that wasn't really the point of my post.  I was addressing your comment about  28 being named captain as not being merit based. ( clearly i'm paraphrasing ) .

 

 

Guys follow his lead and would whether or not he has a letter sewn on his sweater.  He is a guy that can lift a team to follow his example but effort alone doesn't get it done he needs to be an effective player on the score sheet to get the full effect.

Early in the season he wasn't playing well, and no one else was either, there was a lot going on with people and the team that we'll never really know. How bad was his injury , how out of skating shape were they, was there a mutiny against Laviolette ? Was 28 comfortable in his role ?  a ton of stuff.,

 

the criticism of his play was warranted no question.

Like it or not, he was the leader of the team once Pronger was LITR'd.  Watch the 24/7 vs the Rangers and it becomes even more clear.  

[JackStraw]

Putting this into the context of this season - if Giroux's injury was a contributing factor to his bad start and his bad start was part and parcel of the team's bad start - what's lost by having him sit and heal? They go 0-8 instead of 1-7? If the team is expecting "G to be G" and G can't "be G" - there is a possibility that the team could step up and play harder to make up for the temporary absence of Giroux. They might have done better. Again, just two more wins over that stretch and the team is in a Much Different playoff position - they would be, effectively, third in the Conference (84 points).

 

It's a lot easier to think this way as fan, and in hindsight, than as a coach. If there is no (or at least negligible) risk of re-injury then no coach is going to sit Giroux in that situation. Giroux at 80% is still better than any other option the Flyers have. And why would anyone think that the team's poor start was solely due to Giroux's injury, when the same team sucked last year and was in general playing really, really, bad hockey?

 

Players play through injuries all the time, in every sport. That's not going to change. If every player who was playing through an injury that to some extent impaired his ability we'd all be watching teams made up of 50% AHL players. And almost no NFL starters would be playing after a few weeks into the season.

[radoran]

It's a lot easier to think this way as fan, and in hindsight, than as a coach. If there is no (or at least negligible) risk of re-injury then no coach is going to sit Giroux in that situation. Giroux at 80% is still better than any other option the Flyers have. And why would anyone think that the team's poor start was solely due to Giroux's injury, when the same team sucked last year and was in general playing really, really, bad hockey?

 

Players play through injuries all the time, in every sport. That's not going to change. If every player who was playing through an injury that to some extent impaired his ability we'd all be watching teams made up of 50% AHL players. And almost no NFL starters would be playing after a few weeks into the season.

 

Well, the bolded above (that the injury was "the reason") has been asserted more than a few times in this thread. I don't believe it - it's exactly "hindsight." Just for the record, I believe we can find examples of my saying the same thing at the time.

 

Like I said a few posts ago, middle/end of season/playoffs is a much different situation than delaying the start of the season for a player. An example could be Cole Hamels, assuming you follow the Phillies. Hamels at 80% in April isn't as important to the team as Hamels at, say, 90% in August.

 

Part of my point here is the big IF the injury WAS the case, then WHY was he playing? I agree that G at 80% has some substantial value, but if the team is thinking he's at 95-100% and expecting him to play at that level that could be a problem.

 

If you take G out of the equation, is there an effect on the rest of the team to "step up" in his temporary absence? Arguable, but impossible to really know. But you certainly wouldn't have anyone even in the backs of their minds waiting for "G to be G".

 

And Giroux c/would still be the fourth highest scoring player in the league and with the most points since early Advent.

[JackStraw]

Well, the bolded above (that the injury was "the reason") has been asserted more than a few times in this thread. I don't believe it - it's exactly "hindsight." Just for the record, I believe we can find examples of my saying the same thing at the time.

 

I think "the reason" had a lot more to do with the previous coach than it did with any one player, injured star or not. There were other players that I thought looked really bad early on, I recall thinking that about Timonen and Couturier in particular. Now they both look great again, and I don't think it has much if anything to do with Giroux.

Part of my point here is the big IF the injury WAS the case, then WHY was he playing? I agree that G at 80% has some substantial value, but if the team is thinking he's at 95-100% and expecting him to play at that level that could be a problem.

 

Yeah, but if you're looking for a way to accurately quantify such things good luck. There's no way to measure the effect of a wrist injury other than maybe checking how much flexibility is in the joint and that won't tell you much about how the player will perform. And you can't rely on the athlete to give you a good answer because apart from wanting to play, he probably doesn't really know either. So you rely on what you see in practice and the doctors and trainers to say whether or not it's safe for the player to play. It's a guessing game. With someone like Hamels you're going to err on the side of caution because you know that letting him pitch can probably make the injury worse (or lead to a new injury).

 

If you take G out of the equation, is there an effect on the rest of the team to "step up" in his temporary absence? Arguable, but impossible to really know. But you certainly wouldn't have anyone even in the backs of their minds waiting for "G to be G".

 

Maybe someone does and maybe no one does. And even if someone does, if Giroux misses a couple/few weeks then you're going to have conditioning issues when he does get back in the lineup, so G will still not be G there.

 

The reality is, unless the coaches can see that the player can't perform in practice then assuming no further risk of injury, the player is probably going to play. It's just not an exact enough science to try to play guessing games. You go with your best guys even if some of them aren't 100%.

[AJgoal]

The other part that's being overlooked in this is that oftentimes in order to get that full range of motion back, the player has got to actually play and learn to trust his body in the game situation. It's just as likely that if the injury was causing Giroux's issues in the early season that he would have had the same problems whenever he came back until he learned to trust that his wrist was fine. Look at RGIII on Washington this year after rehabbing his knee - he was tentative until he finally learned to trust it again. You can take all the warmup shots you want when recovering from a broken wrist, or skate as hard as you want after breaking your leg, but until you are fighting off an opponent's stick or crash into the boards a few times and prove to yourself that all is 100% well, you will think about the "what ifs."

[radoran]

I think "the reason" had a lot more to do with the previous coach than it did with any one player, injured star or not. There were other players that I thought looked really bad early on, I recall thinking that about Timonen and Couturier in particular. Now they both look great again, and I don't think it has much if anything to do with Giroux.

 

Yeah, but if you're looking for a way to accurately quantify such things good luck. There's no way to measure the effect of a wrist injury other than maybe checking how much flexibility is in the joint and that won't tell you much about how the player will perform. And you can't rely on the athlete to give you a good answer because apart from wanting to play, he probably doesn't really know either. So you rely on what you see in practice and the doctors and trainers to say whether or not it's safe for the player to play. It's a guessing game. With someone like Hamels you're going to err on the side of caution because you know that letting him pitch can probably make the injury worse (or lead to a new injury)

 

Maybe someone does and maybe no one does. And even if someone does, if Giroux misses a couple/few weeks then you're going to have conditioning issues when he does get back in the lineup, so G will still not be G there.

 

The reality is, unless the coaches can see that the player can't perform in practice then assuming no further risk of injury, the player is probably going to play. It's just not an exact enough science to try to play guessing games. You go with your best guys even if some of them aren't 100%.

 

Completely agree. Laviolette had overstayed his effective welcome here - which is something the team should have known before camp, much less eight games into the season.

 

We're fairly deep into the thread and I'm just in some ways spitballing (and also reacting to other posters' assertions). There is no way to quantify much of this.

 

If the argument is that it was the injury that caused his game conditioning to be less than it sh/could have been, I don't think anyone can argue. In many ways the early part of the season was his "preseason." I just don't think it was "the injury" itself that was the issue.

 

But, to be clear, it wasn't a wrist injury, it was his index finger. Nothing was broken. It was all tendon damage. The wrists (and the infamous Crosby article) were the year before.

 

Which could certainly be related to the whole "two years in a row" slow start issue.

[Bakanekimiwa]

Everyone on this team is playing great.... dare I even say Luke Schenn!? I thought a bag of pucks was too much for him yay even a few weeks ago. Someone has seriously been working with him and whomever it is is doing a great job. 

 

No worries, though, we could yet be saying 'Trade ALL the things!!!' after the next game. Let's hope not though. 

[AJgoal]

I still think they should trade Giroux for a Messier sweater and a half a pack of Lucky's, Bak.

[JackStraw]

But, to be clear, it wasn't a wrist injury, it was his index finger. Nothing was broken. It was all tendon damage. The wrists (and the infamous Crosby article) were the year before.

 

Wait, just an index finger? In that case he IS a bum. Trade him.

[Bakanekimiwa]

I still think they should trade Giroux for a Messier sweater and a half a pack of Lucky's, Bak.

 

His value will NEVER be higher! let's get those Lucky's!

[King Knut]

What's wrong with being corrected?

I freely states back then that I thought he shouldn't be captain because it was too much and I just wanted him to refocus in scoring.

Now the me from back then has been proven wrong. He wasn't so wrong back then in his assessment, but the assumption has not proven out over time. Like to an extraordinary degree.

I was wrong. I did not say "Claude is a great captain and this team follows his lead for good or ill and he's just not playing well right now." I said he wasn't captain material and though I wanted him to stay, someone else should wear the C.

I was dead wrong. I'm not to candy assed to admit it either. I was wrong. Most of us were wrong.

Which is why I take issue with the premise of the thread. He was playing poorly at the beginning of the year and was criticized. He is playing great now and is being praised for it. I don't have a problem with either.

If we've got nothing better to talk about than how some people's opinions of Giroux in the beginning of the year were not flattering - especially when true - we all need to get a life.

[fanaticV3.0]

Putting this into the context of this season - if Giroux's injury was a contributing factor to his bad start and his bad start was part and parcel of the team's bad start - what's lost by having him sit and heal? They go 0-8 instead of 1-7? If the team is expecting "G to be G" and G can't "be G" - there is a possibility that the team could step up and play harder to make up for the temporary absence of Giroux. They might have done better. Again, just two more wins over that stretch and the team is in a Much Different playoff position - they would be, effectively, third in the Conference (84 points).

 

I think @Polaris922 has a great point about conditioning being an issue with this team under Laviolette (whether directly Lavy's fault or not). I think a lot of guys sort of took the lost half of last season off and never really got back to playing shape.

 

And subpar conditioning coupled with injury recovery simply compounds the problem.

 

Obviously, teams when they hit the playoffs are going to have a LOT of guys who probably aren't "100%" but are going to be out on the ice. I think that's fundamentally different than a player who might need an extra week or two during the season to really get back to top playing form.

 

Completely agreed.

 

I don't remember conditioning under Lavy being a topic of discussion until just this year. I'm not saying it wasn't, I just don't remember it coming up at all. Though, I'm inclined to hold someone accountable for their own level of physical fitness. 

[fanaticV3.0]

@fanaticV3.0

 

I immediately thought of Buster Douglas beating the hell out of " little" Mike Tyson when I read your post.

And while I did mention Giroux's play that wasn't really the point of my post.  I was addressing your comment about  28 being named captain as not being merit based. ( clearly i'm paraphrasing ) .

 

 

Guys follow his lead and would whether or not he has a letter sewn on his sweater.  He is a guy that can lift a team to follow his example but effort alone doesn't get it done he needs to be an effective player on the score sheet to get the full effect.

Early in the season he wasn't playing well, and no one else was either, there was a lot going on with people and the team that we'll never really know. How bad was his injury , how out of skating shape were they, was there a mutiny against Laviolette ? Was 28 comfortable in his role ?  a ton of stuff.,

 

the criticism of his play was warranted no question.

Like it or not, he was the leader of the team once Pronger was LITR'd.  Watch the 24/7 vs the Rangers and it becomes even more clear.  

 

I know. That's exactly what I was responding to.

Edited March 20, 2014 by fanaticV3.0

[fanaticV3.0]

What's wrong with being corrected?

I freely states back then that I thought he shouldn't be captain because it was too much and I just wanted him to refocus in scoring.

Now the me from back then has been proven wrong. He wasn't so wrong back then in his assessment, but the assumption has not proven out over time. Like to an extraordinary degree.

I was wrong. I did not say "Claude is a great captain and this team follows his lead for good or ill and he's just not playing well right now." I said he wasn't captain material and though I wanted him to stay, someone else should wear the C.

I was dead wrong. I'm not to candy assed to admit it either. I was wrong. Most of us were wrong.

 

 

There's no mistake to correct here. He was playing poorly at the beginning of the season and it was the second year in a row. That is a fact and there is nothing wrong at all in pointing that out.

Edited March 20, 2014 by fanaticV3.0

[brelic]

Giroux is known as Capitaine Claude in my house. My 5 year old loves the Flyers and Giroux. 

 

When I told her the other morning that Capitaine Claude scored the winning goal in OT, she was stoked. I showed her the replay and she was cheering.

 

I said "he's a good little French hockey player".

 

She said "You used to be a good little French hockey player too, papa."

 

I just smiled and said "Yes I was." So cute. 

[King Knut]

You work for Jacoby & Meyers don't you

There's no mistake to correct here. He was playing poorly at the beginning of the season and it was the second year in a row. That is a fact and there is nothing wrong at all in pointing that out.