Jeff Carter Vs Dustin Brown

[MojoJojo]

Let's hear some examples of Bobby Clarke negatively impacting some of his young player's careers. Eric Lindros is not sufficient evidence, either.

I'm really interested in who has been affected by the "Bobby Clarke" "affect."

I agree. We in Philly are usually upset the Clarke doesnt generally sign 18 year olds hot off the draft, and usually them develop more slowly in the AHL. Of course, we also havent ruined any prospects by exposing their bodies to too much physical punishment too early, and they get good minutes on the Phantoms. If Carter were to have been signed last season, he would have likely gotten 10 minutes a night tops with the Flyers due to our depth.

 

[Toonces]

I'm really interested in who has been affected by the "Bobby Clarke" "affect."

I've never heard of this either, he's gotta be more specific.

Zubrus? He wasn't ruined, he just simply was way overhyped.

 

[Reaper45]

Well since I'm a Kings fan my natural reaction is to go with Brown. Carter is a great talent and all, has a far better upside then Brown, but he is still in Juniors. Once Carter is in the NHL, then it's a different story, too tough to gauge at the moment I'd say, but if I had to pick one, I'd go with Brown.

 

[Form and Substance]

hmm, something tells me I should stick with Brown, for the record I don't think he'll be a first liner, the Deadmarsh comparison seems fairly accurate. Anyway, he's posting great numbers and playing consistently in a League that is like a tier II NHL, so I'd side with him today...but since I gamble a lot (motorhead style!) I say Carter.

 

[Winston Wolf]

I agree. We in Philly are usually upset the Clarke doesnt generally sign 18 year olds hot off the draft, and usually them develop more slowly in the AHL. Of course, we also havent ruined any prospects by exposing their bodies to too much physical punishment too early, and they get good minutes on the Phantoms. If Carter were to have been signed last season, he would have likely gotten 10 minutes a night tops with the Flyers due to our depth.

I agree with what you're saying, as most Philly fans are very impatient. If the poster would have said something regarding the decision to leave him in the OHL and that it would affect him negatively, I would've been okay with that because there would at least be reasoning behind his opinion. However, his reasoning was merely the "Bobby Clarke" "affect" which is b.s.

've never heard of this either, he's gotta be more specific.

Zubrus? He wasn't ruined, he just simply was way overhyped.

It was either an easy excuse to take Brown over Carter or just the widespread regurgitation that Clarke somehow ruins all young players, which I've heard from quite a few people. If he'd rather have Brown and states that, that's cool with me and I'll respect his opinion. However, when he talks about how Carter was great in the last WJC, but then says he'll take Brown just because he thinks Clarke and the Flyers will mishandle Carter, I really can't take that seriously. This all sprouted from the Eric Lindros saga (who was developed fine from what I saw) and now everybody talks about Clarke like he's horrible to young players, which is not the case. Besides, how would Clarke screw up one of his player's development? As the GM he's responsible for very little on-ice stuff within the team itself; Hitchcock will be the one developing him, not Clarke. As long as you don't go to the media talking **** about the team, you're very unlikely to have personal problems with Clarke.

 

[Legionnaire]

To be fair, I can see how someone would think that Clarke ruins young players. Take Gagne for example: from the outside, you at Gagne's early production, and point to the major dropoff. However, if you are familiar with the Flyers, you would see that while his numbers have gone down, he has become an excellent two-way player.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

To be fair, I can see how someone would think that Clarke ruins young players. Take Gagne for example: from the outside, you at Gagne's early production, and point to the major dropoff. However, if you are familiar with the Flyers, you would see that while his numbers have gone down, he has become an excellent two-way player.

I'm sure that if you really tired it would be possible to blame the war in Iraq on Bobby Clarke.

Clarke is a lightning rod, and instead of choosing to think it's easier to just blame Clarke.

 

[Brock]

I'm sure that if you really tired it would be possible to blame the war in Iraq on Bobby Clarke.

Clarke is a lightning rod, and instead of choosing to think it's easier to just blame Clarke.

Maybe it's a no front teeth thing.

Look at Dany Heatley and his troubles.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Let's hear some examples of Bobby Clarke negatively impacting some of his young player's careers. Eric Lindros is not sufficient evidence, either.

I'm really interested in who has been affected by the "Bobby Clarke" "affect."

Clarke had the chance to sign Carter and get him into the AHL so that he could play against a higher level of competition and didn't do it. If the plan is to put Carter into the Flyers' lineup next season that is a huge step and some players can handle it, but many can't.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Clarke had the chance to sign Carter and get him into the AHL so that he could play against a higher level of competition and didn't do it. If the plan is to put Carter into the Flyers' lineup next season that is a huge step and some players can handle it, but many can't.

No he couldn't. Even if he as signed he would have had to play in the OHL this year. Only those like Bergeron that were NHLers last year could play in the AHL.

Players like Carter, Richards, Getzlaf, Phaeuf etc. had to go back to Jr.'s.

 

[Roger's Pancreas*]

I promise you that if, a huge if, he plays int he NHL next year he would be on in very small intervals. Flyers ease their prospects into the team instead of over loading the youngens and ruining their confidence. Joni didn't play throughout the entire playoff series, he was benched for a couple of games. If you want a safe bet, count on Richards and Carter getting signed and then playing in the minors for a season or two w/ some extra time on the parent club.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

If you want a safe bet, count on Richards and Carter getting signed and then playing in the minors for a season or two w/ some extra time on the parent club.

I'm not so sure about that. At least one of them will play full-time on the Flyers in 2005-06 if we have a season.

Chances are they won't be playing a crucial role, or getting 20 minutes a night, but even Hitchcock has stated that they are NHL ready players.

 

[Roger's Pancreas*]

Is there an article where I can read that? I just always thought that Hitch has a personal preference for veterans instead of rookies. But after this point, watching our players drop like flies during the playoffs probably turned him off to that.

 

[The Gabe Blade]

I promise you that if, a huge if, he plays int he NHL next year he would be on in very small intervals. Flyers ease their prospects into the team instead of over loading the youngens and ruining their confidence. Joni didn't play throughout the entire playoff series, he was benched for a couple of games. If you want a safe bet, count on Richards and Carter getting signed and then playing in the minors for a season or two w/ some extra time on the parent club.

Didnt Joni get injured with a concussion though?

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Is there an article where I can read that? I just always thought that Hitch has a personal preference for veterans instead of rookies. But after this point, watching our players drop like flies during the playoffs probably turned him off to that.

Ohhh Hitch certainly prefer his vets, especially come playoff time.


http://www.philadelphiaflyers.com/pressbox/archive/1685.asp
As far as prospects that could make their way into the orange and black uniform next season, Hitchcock thinks that Carter and Richards could easily challenge for a roster spot.

“They are very elite players,†said Hitchcock. “As disappointed as the [NHL] players would be if there happened to be a lockout, players like Carter and Richards would be equally disappointed because I’m sure they would like to compete against the big boys.â€

That was speaking about this current season. There were other articles that had more comments, likely in the Daily News and/or Inquirer sometime in late July/August.

 

[Roger's Pancreas*]

Yes he did, when he was sandwiched between Tim Taylor and another Lightning. Roenick was also fighting through his concussion, sustained during the slapshot incicdent. Primeau was still recovering from his as well. I'm sure there were more...

 

[adurn]

Actually Pitkanen's concussion came from an elbow from Taylor up against the boards behind the net.

The reason Carter isn't in the AHL is that hes a 19 year old Canadian. Vanek is Austrian, Suter and Parise are American. There's rules preventing Canadians under 20 (I think) from leaving the CHL. It's so the league doesn't lose all its big players.

 

[mooseOAK*]

No he couldn't. Even if he as signed he would have had to play in the OHL this year. Only those like Bergeron that were NHLers last year could play in the AHL.

Players like Carter, Richards, Getzlaf, Phaeuf etc. had to go back to Jr.'s.

Still could have happened, everyone knew that a lockout was very likely.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Still could have happened, everyone knew that a lockout was very likely.

To do that they would have had to play them in the NHL last season. The Flyers didn't need them last season, as we were loaded down the middle and they would hav struggled to get ice time with the Flyers.

 

[Winston Wolf]

To be fair, I can see how someone would think that Clarke ruins young players. Take Gagne for example: from the outside, you at Gagne's early production, and point to the major dropoff. However, if you are familiar with the Flyers, you would see that while his numbers have gone down, he has become an excellent two-way player.

Well, that's definitely the result of Hitchcock's system. I see the example you're making, but I'm still not sure how one could blame decreased point production on a GM. Gagne's points may not have been up there the last few seasons, but the guy is still a member of Team Canada, so he's hardly ruined. Actually, it's probably the exact opposite with Gagne, as I just remembered the meetings Clarke had with him around the All-Star break. Gagne was underperforming offensively and Clarke challenged him to be a go-to guy on the team. The game after that, Gagne had a couple points and went on to score 9 goals in the next 14 games, scoring as many goals after the All-Star break (12 goals in 26 games) as he did in all the games before (12 goals in 54 games.) If anything, I can see only positive impacts on Gagne's game stemming directly from Clarke.

I'm seriously trying to think of a name that would fit here, but I can't think of anyone that Clarke has "ruined." John is right, people will blame Clarke for anything and everything. I've even heard people blame Clarke for the lack of scoring in today's NHL because his team didn't play a skilled game 30 years ago.

 

[Kings16]

Let's hear some examples of Bobby Clarke negatively impacting some of his young player's careers. Eric Lindros is not sufficient evidence, either.

I'm really interested in who has been affected by the "Bobby Clarke" "affect."

The Bobby Clarke effect?

1) He tends to air his (bad) feelings in the press instead of keeping it in the dressing room. eg. Cechmanek after the Ottawa-Flyers series. / Coach Neilson and the cancer thing.
2) He tends to press/rush players back from injury too quickly. eg. Lindros, Roenick
3) He tends to be impatient with players & coaches. He brings them in and out faster than anyone else in the League. eg. Justin Williams, Barber.
4) He lets his personal feelings get in the way of business.

Relax.

I'm not saying he's bad GM. I think he is a very shrewd one. He has proven to be among the best at the draft. And I recognize that he has the luxury, that most smaller markets don't have, of being able to buy players so that his draft picks can develop.

But the 4 things I've identified above make him a volatile GM. And that can't be a positive on the development of players.

 

[Winston Wolf]

Clarke had the chance to sign Carter and get him into the AHL so that he could play against a higher level of competition and didn't do it. If the plan is to put Carter into the Flyers' lineup next season that is a huge step and some players can handle it, but many can't.

You responded to the post where I asked for examples of Clarke negatively affecting young players' careers. Even if Clarke could have put him in the AHL, (which John already stated he was ineligible) but still kept him in the OHL, that still wouldn't show him negatively affecting any young player's career as Carter has yet to show any negative side effects of the "Bobby Clarke affect." If Clarke has such a bad record developing young players, I'm sure someone can find a much better example throughout his 16 years of being a GM, than Jeff Carter, who still looks like a top-notch prospect.

 

[Kings16]

... to follow up on my post.

I think the validity of the things I have mentioned on the development of players is evident when you look at key players on the Flyer's current roster:

Amonte (developed by Chicago)
Roenick (developed by Chicago)
Primeau (developed by Detroit)
Recchi (developed by Pitt)
Leclair (developed by Montreal)
Desjardins (developed by Montreal)


To his credit:
Gagne
Pitkanen

 

[Kings16]

You responded to the post where I asked for examples of Clarke negatively affecting young players' careers. Even if Clarke could have put him in the AHL, (which John already stated he was ineligible) but still kept him in the OHL, that still wouldn't show him negatively affecting any young player's career as Carter has yet to show any negative side effects of the "Bobby Clarke affect." If Clarke has such a bad record developing young players, I'm sure someone can find a much better example throughout his 16 years of being a GM, than Jeff Carter, who still looks like a top-notch prospect.

I am being misunderstood. I think that Clarke & the Flyers have handled Carter & Richards very well so far. I just wonder how the future will play out for them given Clarke's ways (thus the Clarke effect described in previous post).

 

[AJ1982]

If they both reach their potential, who whould want Carter=Sundin or Brown=Healthy Deadmarsh. I'd take Carter

I would argue that if Carter's max potential is Sundin then Brown's max potential is more like a Jeremy Roenick in his prime than a healthy Deadmarsh. The fact is Brown has about a 1% chance of reaching that max potential and the same can be said for the chance of Carter becoming a Mats Sundin. Realistically Brown is more likely to be closer to a health Deadmarsh but also relistically Carter is more likely to be poor man's Keith Primeau (consistent 45-50 point player) than a Mats Sundin.