The decline of Giroux & the wrench in Hexy's plan

[flyercanuck]

On 8/17/2016 at 2:24 PM, icehole said:

I'm not really sure who's dog it is.  He posted it on his Twitter so I assumed it was his.

It's just how I feel.  There's people that command my respect as a leader, and I just don't get that feeling from him.

Does Giroux win the cup with that group of scrubs that won this year?  I don't think so.  Certain players can change an entire culture of a team.

This reason is admittedly stupid, but it's just who I am.  I remember watching a good night of playoff hockey this spring.  I woke up the next morning, looked at twitter, and Giroux posted a few tweets about the NBA playoffs the night before.  I hate the NBA so it rubbed me the wrong way, but does that say something about someone's passion for his sport?  Some players look at it as a job and they succeed at doing their job.  Some players live it 24/7 and have a better chance at succeeding.  I want someone who's as passionate as I am for the NHL.

 

That's some passion you have watching the NHL.....meanwhile, Giroux was told he was too small to play in the OHL. So he went to camp in the Q, made the team and became his teams best player. Then he fell in the NHL draft because he was too small. Now he's captain of his team. If you think you have more passion than Claude Giroux does for hockey...I'm sorry, and no offence intended...but you're wrong.

[icehole]

7 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

 

That's some passion you have watching the NHL.....meanwhile, Giroux was told he was too small to play in the OHL. So he went to camp in the Q, made the team and became his teams best player. Then he fell in the NHL draft because he was too small. Now he's captain of his team. If you think you have more passion than Claude Giroux does for hockey...I'm sorry, and no offence intended...but you're wrong.

Or, just maybe, he was passionate about making the NHL to make lots of money.

I love when people say an opinion is wrong...makes them look like a regular einstein.

[JR Ewing]

2 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

 

That's some passion you have watching the NHL.....meanwhile, Giroux was told he was too small to play in the OHL. So he went to camp in the Q, made the team and became his teams best player. Then he fell in the NHL draft because he was too small. Now he's captain of his team. If you think you have more passion than Claude Giroux does for hockey...I'm sorry, and no offence intended...but you're wrong.

 

For my part, I would never want to infer too much about what to expect from a player based on his twitter account, partly because you should be an analyst for the NSA if you can see a post and know about his character, and partly because it's quite possible that the player isn't even the person doing the updates.

 

[OccamsRazor]

1 hour ago, icehole said:

Or, just maybe, he was passionate about making the NHL to make lots of money.

I love when people say an opinion is wrong...makes them look like a regular einstein.

 

 

Wow bro what is going on. Last summer it was Coots who was your whipping boy now i guess this year it's Giorux. Whip away i guess......

[icehole]

1 hour ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

 

Wow bro what is going on. Last summer it was Coots who was your whipping boy now i guess this year it's Giorux. Whip away i guess......

I like Giroux.  I still think he is a top tier player.  I want him on my team because I think he's an exiting player.  I don't think he leads you to a cup though (seems to be the only thing anyone wants) and I'm trying to explain why I think that.

Don't you worry...coots is still my whipping boy.  I'm looking forward to another 39 point "breakout" season in year 6!

[King Knut]

5 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

 

It can be his name is Ivan Provorov......leave Del Zotto and Ghost on the 1st and let Streit and Ivan run the 2nd...instantly better and this is how i think he will make the team.

 

Make it so!  And get Schenn clicking up front!

[flyercanuck]

18 hours ago, icehole said:

Or, just maybe, he was passionate about making the NHL to make lots of money.

I love when people say an opinion is wrong...makes them look like a regular einstein.

 

Well....I'm certainly regular.

[jammer2]

 One of the most thought provoking threads of the summer. I never doubt the compete level or passion that Grioux puts out. I do think he has played hurt in the past. Not making excuses, just saying...a few times his play dropped off was probably due to playing through injuries. For example, we know he played with a broken wrist in the playoffs a few years back. A topic for another day, but playing your best offensive weapon hurt does not really feed into a team looking at the long term, does it? Personally, I'd like to see him sit out a few weeks than risk making it worse.

 

 Is Giroux elite, probably not, but it's a razor thin line. The thing that makes me doubt his elite status is his 5/5 scoring....an awful lot of his pts come from having an extra man. I do think he may have started his decline a few years back...but *if* Vorachek can avoid 2 month cold streak to start the year...and *if* someone other than Raffl is on the top line wing, he can be a 90 pt guy again...maybe, one  last time...2 is possible but really stretching it out.

 

I said back when Hexy started, the shift to drafting d-men and emphasizing a strong mobile break out game is a great idea, but it really counts on G being able to play at a great level for the next 3-4 years, while the kids on defense get used to the nhl game. WIll G be a factor when all the kids are ready?  I say the odds are against it. One thing that has not been discussed is G's skating....what will it be like in 3-4 years from now? If his skating slips even a decent amount, how effective can he be in a 7 game war? This is one smart dude we are talking about....and his passing and vision can be done almost stationary, but he does count on his wheels getting him to where he needs to be on offense....a good chance he has enough vision to compensate for the lack of foot speed that may be coming...but it will most certainly take him right out of "elite" status.

 

In many ways, they might have picked their best guy overall last year, but you can also see Rubstov being the heir apparent, and if G slips early on, perhaps the #1 center in a few years from now....a alternate plan of action if you will, who has the possibility of taking over should G stop producing at a 1A level.

[hf101]

On 8/18/2016 at 1:15 PM, murraycraven said:

So if Couts does not put up the offensive numbers then he falls back to the 3C in a shutdown roll that he can play just about as good as anyone in the league.  I still dont see an issue with having a center that is such a good defensive player.   Am I wrong with this thinking?  I dont think anyone thought he was going to be anything more than a 20 goal type player

 

 

On 8/18/2016 at 1:36 PM, murraycraven said:

absolutely leaves a hole but I don't think for a minute that if he ends up being a 3C that it is a failure.   People love to point out his offensive deficiencies but compare him and a guy like Laughton who was also another 1st round pick one year later than Couts.  This guy is still an unknown and fighting to stay with the big club.  Couts brings and element to his game that most players don't have and that is great defense.   Last I checked Couts has been in the league longer, has more points and is a heck of a lot more important to this club than Laughton.

 

 

Considering that Couturier was a #8 pick of the draft and at the time many thought he would have been a top 5 pick -- if his ceiling is to be a 3rd line center then yeah I have to say that is a failure.  Schiefele was chosen at #7 and well is now the #1 C for the Jets.  I do really hope Couturier can become more aggressive offensively and put up 20 - 25 goals with 35 assists, it is what this team needs to take the pressure off of the Giroux and his line.  As a 6'4" top 10 pick of the draft why would anyone be satisfied with less than a 20 goal season for a player who all ready has 5 years in the NHL?  I don't hate Couturier, but he really needs to become a dominant #2 C in the NHL, and I do think the Flyers are dependent on that.  He's got the defensive goods he just now needs to attack the net and put points on the scoreboard on a more consistent basis.

 

As far as Laughton goes, I totally agree with you that he needs to step up to expectations too. Cousins outplayed him last spring and took over the #3 C role moving Laughton to LW.  I thought Laughton was more effective there and you know he could be following a role similar to B. Schenn.  I'd like to see  Cousins at center with Laughton on his wing to start the season as I too expect more scoring from this line. 

[BobbyClarkeFan16]

I think people are writing Laughton off too quickly. I still think he was grossly mishandled his rookie year by the Flyers. In all honesty, he should have NEVER been called up and should have been left in the AHL to continue working on his offensive game. Instead, Hextall and Berube made the call to bring him up last year when it was clear his offensive game was grossly lacking. 

 

I expect a different Laughton this year. He even said so that this off season was going to be the most important off season of his career and that he was coming into camp to prove everyone wrong and that he can be a player in the NHL. If there's one thing that he doesn't lack, it's motivation and work ethic and I expect Laughton to be a 20+goal and 45+ point player this year. Maybe it's just me, but I think he locks down the second line left wing position and Weise solidifies the third line with Cousins and Read. 

 

As for those who say Couturier becoming a 3C while being drafted 8th overall is a disappointment, Keith Primeau was drafted 5th overall and he became a 3C and he played perhaps the best hockey of his career in that role. Let's not forget that Primeau was also a high scoring forward in junior with Niagara Falls and he played an offensively prominent role on teams in Detroit, Carolina and Philadelphia. He just seemed better suited to the 3C role and much like Couturier, was dominant in that role.

 

I'm perfectly fine if Couturier never becomes a 50 - 60 point player. People also forget he's 23 years old - there's lots of hockey ahead for Couturier. Right now, he plays an incredibly important role and perhaps the issue with Couturier not being a 50 to 60 point player is that he's selfless to a fault and he's a team guy willing to do anything to win. You win championships with those kind of players. 

 

If Couturier does get bumped to the 3C role, then I see the Flyers elevating Nick Cousins. Here's a guy who has worked his backside off since being drafted and has improved his overall game and skating ability immensely, while shutting his mouth and playing good hockey. He's another guy who is putting in some serious training this off season and he's ready to to play a more prominent role. He could very easily become the 2C. 

 

Either way, the C position in Philadelphia shouldn't give anyone cause for concern. 

[flyercanuck]

The way Schiefele has developed compared to Couturier and Laughton is yet another example of why you don't rush teenagers into the NHL. Very few are ready for it. Holmgren saw Couturier could play solid D so he kept him up...great foresight. Is that what you wanted out of him? 

[JR Ewing]

16 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

The way Schiefele has developed compared to Couturier and Laughton is yet another example of why you don't rush teenagers into the NHL. Very few are ready for it. Holmgren saw Couturier could play solid D so he kept him up...great foresight. Is that what you wanted out of him? 

 

The Oilers did something similar with Anton Lander. At 19, he could play a good NHL defensive game, so they kept him up after camp so he could play 4th line minutes with Lennart Petrell. The team was then completely stumped as to why he wasn't producing any offense.

 

[murraycraven]

On 8/21/2016 at 9:19 AM, hf101 said:

Considering that Couturier was a #8 pick of the draft and at the time many thought he would have been a top 5 pick -- if his ceiling is to be a 3rd line center then yeah I have to say that is a failure.

 

I see your point and agree to a point but  having a defensive specialist of his caliber is something every Coach in the league would want on his Team.   As for the his development maybe it is Homer to blame for bringing him in as an 18 year old kid.   

[radoran]

The year before Couturier, Burmistrov was taken #8 overall - 79 points in 275 games (Couturier 157 in 350).

 

There's one person in the entire 2011 draft that has played more games than Couturier (Landeskog - 356) and just five from the year before. I don't think there's anyone taken after Couturier that would have been an obviously better fit (perhaps Dougie Hamilton at 9 - the only player taken after Couturier in the first round with a higher points-per-game (.48 for Hamilton .45 for Couturier))

 

You want "failures" at #8? Scott Glennie in 2009 (1 game played, 0 points) and Zach Hamil in 2007 (4 points in 20 games) come to mind.

 

But going back over the past 15 years, there's no huge star that really comes in at #8 overall and if you get a solid, contributing player it's anything but a "failure."

 

If he comes out and plays next season like he played the last 50 games of last season then it's even better value.

 

In the end, he's more an example of the tyranny of high expectations than a "failure."

[hf101]

1 hour ago, radoran said:

The year before Couturier, Burmistrov was taken #8 overall - 79 points in 275 games (Couturier 157 in 350).

 

There's one person in the entire 2011 draft that has played more games than Couturier (Landeskog - 356) and just five from the year before. I don't think there's anyone taken after Couturier that would have been an obviously better fit (perhaps Dougie Hamilton at 9 - the only player taken after Couturier in the first round with a higher points-per-game (.48 for Hamilton .45 for Couturier))

 

You want "failures" at #8? Scott Glennie in 2009 (1 game played, 0 points) and Zach Hamil in 2007 (4 points in 20 games) come to mind.

 

But going back over the past 15 years, there's no huge star that really comes in at #8 overall and if you get a solid, contributing player it's anything but a "failure."

 

If he comes out and plays next season like he played the last 50 games of last season then it's even better value.

 

In the end, he's more an example of the tyranny of high expectations than a "failure."

 

You do have to take into consideration Homer traded away Jeff Carter who by all standards is still solid 2-way 2nd line center for Couturier. 

[flyercanuck]

11 minutes ago, hf101 said:

 

You do have to take into consideration Homer traded away Jeff Carter who by all standards is still solid 2-way 2nd line center for Couturier. 

 

And Voracek. Who's not bad.

[radoran]

Just now, hf101 said:

 

You do have to take into consideration Homer traded away Jeff Carter who by all standards is still solid 2-way 2nd line center for Couturier. 

 

Oh, I'll put Homer into the "failure" slot in a heartbeat, but it was Crater for Couturier AND Voracek. As you know, I'm not a big fan of "won the trades" but that's not a Bad Trade in and of itself.

 

And, again, it comes back to the tyranny of the high expectations that came with blowing up a core that had made a Final.

 

That said, what would you rather have in 2021-22? A 29-year-old Couturier making $4.3M or a 37-year-old Crater making $5.27M?

 

I'm just not at all seeing where Couturier is a "failure".

[murraycraven]

1 hour ago, hf101 said:

 

You do have to take into consideration Homer traded away Jeff Carter who by all standards is still solid 2-way 2nd line center for Couturier. 

 

 

I was gonna put a big "HUH?" but i think rad and fc have my response covered.

 

I understand... some players will never be adequate in the eyes of some fans.  It is okay but I really don't agree one bit on Couts being a failure.

[pilldoc]

I see everyone's POV here.  I think what some fans see is that Coots had back to back seasons of 96 points in his last 2 years with Drummondville.  So naturally being taken at #8, I can understand why some fans "expect" more offensive production from Coots.  Obviously the Coots we have now is not that Coots from Juniors.  Maybe it was best for him to have gone back to Juniors for 1 more year...we will never know.

 

In 2012-13 "he did have" 28 pt in 31 games with the Phantoms (10G, 18A), that is almost a point per game.  He also struggled that year with the Flyers.  I can't remember if he started out with the Phantoms or was sent down. Maybe he should have played a whole year with the Phantoms.  A lot of should of, could of, would of here.  Is he the offensive juggernaut that many thought we were getting  at #8...no.  However he has become a very good shut down defensive specialist who plays a lot of tough minutes against the other teams better players.  In this regard alone I don't see Coots as a failure.  Is that type of player worth drafting at #8....probably not. For a myriad of reasons he just has not become the offensive threat that he seemed to be coming out of Juniors.

 

38 minutes ago, murraycraven said:

I understand... some players will never be adequate in the eyes of some fans.

 

   This is spot on and I totally agree!

 

I do think that many of us can agree that his development as an offensive player has been hindered by the lack of coaching that he has had to undergo during his brief career.

 

 

[radoran]

7 minutes ago, pilldoc said:

Is that type of player worth drafting at #8....probably not

 

Who would you have drafted instead?

 

What player in 2011 is "more worth" drafting at #8?

 

I might go with Dougie Hamilton - and that was part of the debate at the time - but you'd be hard-pressed even with 20/20 hindsight to find better and for the vast majority of them, the Flyers passed multiple times on picking the "better" player.

 

Namestnikov? 18 teams passed on him after the Flyers picked.

J.T. Miller?

Boone Jenner? 37th overall

Brandon Saad? 43rd

Kucherov? 58th

Andrew Shaw? 139th

Palat? 209th

 

As for the whole "hasn't produced as a #2 center" - he's effectively been the titular #2 center for one year playing in a new system with a new coach. Before we finally evaluate Couturier, perhaps we should see what he actually does in the role (as noted, he did play at a "59-point-pace" over the last 50 games of the season).

 

And with a lineup that allows for some productive wingers and has other players to handle the heavy lifting on the defensive side.

 

 

[pilldoc]

52 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

Who would you have drafted instead?

 

What player in 2011 is "more worth" drafting at #8?

 

I might go with Dougie Hamilton - and that was part of the debate at the time - but you'd be hard-pressed even with 20/20 hindsight to find better and for the vast majority of them, the Flyers passed multiple times on picking the "better" player.

 

Namestnikov? 18 teams passed on him after the Flyers picked.

J.T. Miller?

Boone Jenner? 37th overall

Brandon Saad? 43rd

Kucherov? 58th

Andrew Shaw? 139th

Palat? 209th

 

As for the whole "hasn't produced as a #2 center" - he's effectively been the titular #2 center for one year playing in a new system with a new coach. Before we finally evaluate Couturier, perhaps we should see what he actually does in the role (as noted, he did play at a "59-point-pace" over the last 50 games of the season).

 

And with a lineup that allows for some productive wingers and has other players to handle the heavy lifting on the defensive side.

 

 

 

I'm not arguing here.  I have no idea who I would have chosen.  I was just trying to think outside the box here.  I was speaking more as a generalization.  Obviously trying to predict how a player is going to turn out is impossible.  I was just trying to convey that with the #8 overall, teams are looking for offensive players or stud defenseman.  If a player is known as as offensive defensive specialist at age 17 or 18 with a hint of offensive ability, are you picking him in top 10? 

 

I agree with your post and point of view.  I was just trying to see through the eyes of those fans who have been down on Coots. 

 

[AJgoal]

Just now, pilldoc said:

 

 

In 2012-13 "he did have" 28 pt in 31 games with the Phantoms (10G, 18A), that is almost a point per game.  He also struggled that year with the Flyers.  I can't remember if he started out with the Phantoms or was sent down. Maybe he should have played a whole year with the Phantoms. 

 

That was the lockout. He played top line minutes on the Phantoms until the NHL season started when he was relegated to 3rd line duties behind Giroux and Briere. He only "struggled" in that he produced pretty much commensurate with his role and ice time.

[pilldoc]

5 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

 

That was the lockout. He played top line minutes on the Phantoms until the NHL season started when he was relegated to 3rd line duties behind Giroux and Briere. He only "struggled" in that he produced pretty much commensurate with his role and ice time.

 

Ahh yes..the dreaded lock-out. I totally forgot.  With hind sight being 20/20 ....Would you have kept him with the Phantoms?

 

Sorry..this thread is getting off track...it started on about Giroux and is getting into a Coots debate.....

[AJgoal]

Just now, pilldoc said:

 

Ahh yes..the dreaded lock-out. I totally forgot.  With hind sight being 20/20 ....Would you have kept him with the Phantoms?

 

I'd have kept him in Juniors rather than brought him up, and played him a season or so in the AHL. I'd put Laughton in the AHL on the top line this season to work on his offense some as a winger. I'd keep Provorov in Juniors. 

[radoran]

6 hours ago, pilldoc said:

 

I'm not arguing here.  I have no idea who I would have chosen.  I was just trying to think outside the box here.  I was speaking more as a generalization.  Obviously trying to predict how a player is going to turn out is impossible.  I was just trying to convey that with the #8 overall, teams are looking for offensive players or stud defenseman.  If a player is known as as offensive defensive specialist at age 17 or 18 with a hint of offensive ability, are you picking him in top 10? 

 

I agree with your post and point of view.  I was just trying to see through the eyes of those fans who have been down on Coots. 

 

 

Except that there are really no big game changers taken 8 overall in this century. 

 

And I'm only saying that because I haven't looked past 2000.

 

It is arguable that Couturier is, in fact, the best 8 pick over the past 15 years.

 

Seriously.