Post-Game Talk: #15: FLYERS 5 at Coyotes 2, Monday, Nov. 5, 2018, 9:00 p.m. ET

FLYguy3911

Sanheim Lover
Oct 19, 2006
52,624
85,316
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.
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.

Sanheim is 6'4, skates like the wind, and had historic production in a league that has churned out high-end defensemen during the modern era of hockey. It's shocking he's doing well? Kid has 20 minute a night, all-around stud written all over him, and here we are year 2, and he's still the #6 and getting no special teams work again.

At least Hakstol played somewhat to Ghost's strengths by playing him on the top PP. He really had no choice *ahem* but he didn't f*** up the obvious decision. Props I guess. Sanheim's just kind of a guy he knows he has to play, but doesn't really have a defined role for him because he doesn't trust him.
 
Last edited:

Striiker

Former Flyers Fan
Jun 2, 2013
89,438
155,155
Pennsylvania
200w.gif


Everyone please wear proper safety gear to avoid being burned by the hot takes.
 

Ruck Over

When the revolution comes, pants will do you no gd
Apr 19, 2016
4,197
3,323
Philadelphia, Pa
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 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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JojoTheWhale

Beef Invictus

Revolutionary Positivity
Dec 21, 2009
127,478
164,318
Armored Train
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.


Carle wasn't hobbled by injuries, he was a crippling force from the moment he set foot on the ice in TB. Go check out the fan reactions to him. He was the exact same guy he was here, which meant that the team scored more when he was on the bench and the opposition also scored less when he was sitting, too. Freaking Coburn produced offense at a higher rate, but Carle was allowed to compile points through sheer ice time, but that ice time was less productive. For whatever reason, coaches loved hamstringing themselves with the guy.

Carle is not better than Sanheim because Carle was one dimensional. If you stepped away from your constant misuse of stats to spread lies and delved into actual truth, which you abhor, you'd notice that Carle was really only good at one thing: transition. He could pass the puck up the ice. Beyond that, he sucked. He wasn't particularly strong defensively, to the point where teams would happily dump the puck to his side and dare him to win a battle. Once settled in the offensive zone, he was an incredible liability because his shot was so harmless it crippled his options. He was also unbelievably terrible at pinching, and even when he did it was for nothing what with that all-time bad shot.

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.

This is you trying to find a new way to be a contrarian as your lust for the coach nears the inevitably terminal phase. You are going to be badly abused on this, because Carle was deeply delved into by a lot of people here for years. We know exactly what the guy was, which is why you're being laughed at for this claim. It's the height of absurdity.
 
Last edited:

Beef Invictus

Revolutionary Positivity
Dec 21, 2009
127,478
164,318
Armored Train
Yes, right now Carle >> Sanheim.
When Sanheim is a 1st pair defenseman on a SC Finals team, get back to me.
Carle was twice.


Carle was a liability both times. Pronger could've made a ham look good. The opposition strategy was to dump the puck to Carle and then take it away from him, over and over. They just dodged Pronger and pounded the weak link. In fact, we remarked all year about how Carle was routinely exploited and that his only real saving grace was that he was playing with a human force of nature. It was obvious what was going on via the eye test, and it happened to be backed up by stats throughout his tenure here.

By the way, TB's 1st pairing in the Finals was Hedman-Stralman, so maybe it's time for you to stop lying. By then Carle was pushed down to the 3rd pair.

You know we also watched those Finals, right?
 
Last edited:

TeslaCoilFan

Slightly Elite Fan
Mar 17, 2017
6,593
4,764
West of the Moon
Tampa fan here. No disrespect intended but Carle is a pretty sore spot for Lightning fans. I don't know how Carle was for the Flyers, but his play started going over a cliff pretty quickly with us. That's the majority of the reason Yzerman went so hard for a RHD during 2014 FA period, ending up with Strålman. Hedman and Strålman were immediately paired together from training camp then throughout the entire 2014-2015 season, including the playoffs and the SCF.

The only time Carle was back on the top pair after Strålman arrived was when Hedman was out for 4 weeks with a broken finger. Strålman got a lot of respect from Lightning fans as our temporary #1D for having to haul Carle around yet still being effective.

Again, this is only based on Carle's short time with the Lightning and nothing more than that. Sorry for the intrusion. :)
 

hatcher

Registered User
Sep 30, 2007
12,377
4,085
Kelowna BC
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.
Koolaid baby koolaid. Sanheim is a nothing right now but lets hope. Very bland and scared of the game.
 

deadhead

Registered User
Feb 26, 2014
49,215
21,617
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.
.

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.
 

Beef Invictus

Revolutionary Positivity
Dec 21, 2009
127,478
164,318
Armored Train
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.


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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tripod

hatcher

Registered User
Sep 30, 2007
12,377
4,085
Kelowna BC
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.
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.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->