Yeah I've seen him point that out in the past too. Weird. I just chalked it up to being positive about a guy he has to look in the eye after every home game and practice.I had this discussion with COC in the Athletic comments section a while back, although it was in regard to Gostisbehere. I was disheartened to hear he doesn't agree and that Gostisbehere producing means he was developed well. I believe the phrasing he used was along the lines of, "I guess he could have been developed better, but he still turned out fine so no damage!"
I remain mystified.
Travis Sanheim = Matt Carle. Good Lord. almighty. Travis isnt even close to hitting his peak. I would take Sanhiem now over a “prime” Matt Carle. 100 times out of 100
I like Charlie a lot, he's kinda coming across as a tool at times. I too am an Athletic subscriber, and am miffed at some of his comment section responses.I had this discussion with COC in the Athletic comments section a while back, although it was in regard to Gostisbehere. I was disheartened to hear he doesn't agree and that Gostisbehere producing means he was developed well. I believe the phrasing he used was along the lines of, "I guess he could have been developed better, but he still turned out fine so no damage!"
I remain mystified.
I've said this on this board multiple times. It's not close.
Carle led the Flyers in ES minutes his last three years here, and TB his first two years there, so he was a legitimate 1st pair defenseman for both teams.
He also lead the Flyers in ES playoff minutes 2 of 3 years (2nd to Coburn his last season here), and TB in 2013-14.
At 30, he finally got moved down as Stralman and Hedman emerged as the 1st pair in TB and Carle was hobbled by injuries.
The two coaches who thought Carle was a 1st pair D-man? Lavi and Jon Cooper.
To be honest, I was surprised when I looked this up, for all the criticism he got from fans, seems his coaches loved him.
Yes, right now Carle >> Sanheim.
When Sanheim is a 1st pair defenseman on a SC Finals team, get back to me.
Carle was twice.
For whatever reason, coaches loved hamstringing themselves with the guy.
Yes, right now Carle >> Sanheim.
When Sanheim is a 1st pair defenseman on a SC Finals team, get back to me.
Carle was twice.
Koolaid baby koolaid. Sanheim is a nothing right now but lets hope. Very bland and scared of the game.Sanheim has done squat so far, and Carle at his peak was a 40 point scorer who played 22-23 minutes a night as the first or second pair defensemen on two teams that went to the SC finals. He broke down physically at 30, but in his 20s was a solid offensive defenseman (soft, but so is Sanheim).
I'd be overjoyed if Sanheim could have a career like that.
Sanheim is already more well rounded than Carle was at his peak. Additionally, he wasn't used as a first pair dman, we had a couple other guys named Timonen and Coburn who did that. He took the easier competition. He wasn't anything great against them. The guy was made to look better by Pronger, but the reality is that he was a muffin.
.
Carle was a first pair defenseman like hagg is. You say this forgetting we had kimmo and pronger. And even colburn was better.Yes, right now Carle >> Sanheim.
When Sanheim is a 1st pair defenseman on a SC Finals team, get back to me.
Carle was twice.
The biggest problem with the eye test is that almost everyone's eyes are utterly incompetent.
So is Sanheim, a soft D-man who looks good in open ice but doesn't handle contact well.
My biggest disappointment in TC was seeing Sanheim obviously do nothing over the summer to add strength, either he didn't put the work in or he lacks the genes, but he's a tall D-man with a high center of gravity who lacks mass and strength and loses board battles and can't clear the crease.
As a mobile offensive defenseman Sanheim is good at carrying the puck through the neutral zone but has yet to show top flight offensive skills.
In 65 games Sanheim has 2 goals and 12 assists at ES.
Ghost, he ain't, and may never be. I don't see great playmaking instincts right now.
So yes, I'm damning Sanheim by comparing him to Carle, because I think if Sanheim played 20 minutes a night against top competition, you'd hear the same complaints about him. He's been sheltered, which makes him look better.
The question is whether Sanheim can develop into a reliable top 4 D-man who can play a two way game, because his offense isn't good enough for the role if he doesn't step up defensively.
Of course, if Myers turns out to be Pronger II, we can put Sanheim with him and protect him.
easily really.Yes, right now Carle >> Sanheim.
When Sanheim is a 1st pair defenseman on a SC Finals team, get back to me.
Carle was twice.
Sheltered playing with Pronger against some of the best teams and damn near winning it all and playing f***in solid to. You have to hold your own no matter what position you play. Carle played well in SJ also but as this team went down hill so did he.Amazing that you ignore everything that proves you wrong in order to focus on one thing. More dishonest cherrypicking.
When the only way to sustain your assertions is through rampant dishonesty you need to maybe not make those assertions.
-Please, PROVE he didn't try to add strength. Were you in the gym, or are you lying again?
-When Sanheim is on the ice, the team produces more, in large part because of smart pinches and playmaking, which Carle lacked.
-If you don't see playmaking skills it's because you're being willingly blind.
-Carle was sheltered.
Good grief. Give it up already.