personally think that Philly would be better off splitting up Giroux and Couturier to even out the offense. and Johansson would be better off served as a winger.

Johansson-Couturier-Voracek
JVR-Giroux-Konecny
Lindblom-Patrick-Donskoi

Giroux has publicly stated that he prefers to play wing from now on. Splitting up the best line to even out the offense is a strategy that only works if a team has a tremendous amount of forward depth. The Flyers don’t, so It’d turn a great line into multiple good/okay lines.

I hadn't heard about Giroux saying that. But IMO the main reason he was moved to wing was severe defensive deficiency. Which is why Coururier is a perfect match for him at center. And also why splitting up G and Coots (and moving G back to center) is a bad idea in my opinion.

I really hope we don't sign Karlsson. I also think he'll get more than that projection you used. Is that the Evolving Hockey projection?

“Severe defensive deficiency.” This phrase uttered on its own without any specific examples to bolster the point doesn’t mean much. What specifically leads you to this conclusion that Giroux has a severe defensive deficiency?


Let me guess: You think that Karlsson is bad at defense because he’s good offensively? Even though, those two things are in no way mutually exclusive.

Giroux is one of the best 200 foot players in the league, is always on the PK in important times, and only moved to the wing to focus more on offense. Something this team needed desperately when the change was made. Now that you have a player who has averaged 90 points in the two years since he has moved, you don't move him back. How many 90 point guys are there in the league, how many 100 point guys? If you have a hole in a spot vacated by one of these players, you go find another to "try" and replace him.

I love Giroux and everything he's done for the Flyers. But he is far from good defensively. The past two years he's made a notable effort to improve and he has gotten at least a little better defensively, (which is much easier to do on the wing). He will never be "one of the best 200 ft players in the league" though. That just isn't what he is.

Dude thats exactly what he is, who are you watching? You may be confusing Giroux with someone else, but he is viewed not only on the team but around the league, a complete player. He plays in all situations, I can't for one second think of a time where someone called out his defense, his lack of hustle, bad positioning, not gripping a system even though he's played in like 6 different ones. For you to say he is far from good defensively makes me believe you do not watch hockey one bit, and just slap "random insult here" on Giroux. Im telling you, you couldnt be more wrong. Check the stats, advanced stats, game tape, please point out to me where he is a liability defensively.

Never watched a hockey game in my life. You nailed it!

You're obviously a Flyers homer, and that is awesome. Love ya for that.

You still haven’t pointed out why specifically he is bad defensively. Just saying something doesn't make it true. If you can make a strong argument for why he is bad defensively, I’m all ears.

Thank you

Still waiting....

Why do you think he was passed over for the Olympics a few years back? (when Yzerman selected the team). If you can't see his defensive deficiencies when you watch him play there isn't much I can do to help you see it. Show me one example of any player, coach, or analyst who says Giroux plays a solid 200 ft game.

Getting passed over for the Olympics≠bad at defense

Olympic team’s make those kinds of decisions for a variety of reasons. You’re making an assumption there.

Still didn’t answer the question. Just some condescension mixed in with some know-it-all smarminess.

If you can’t articulate the specifics, that’s fine. It’s just real odd that you haven’t yet. Again, I’m all ears. Unless I’m being deemed too dumb to understand...and if that’s the case...good stuff bud.

Here's one:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/593814-philadelphia-flyers-claude-giroux-is-the-new-bobby-clarke#slide1

Oh and here's another:

https://www.mcall.com/sports/phantoms-flyers/mc-spt-flyers-jvr-20190116-story.html

Now this took all of 2 seconds to find, however, you can believe that it has been said ad-naseum on Flyers broadcasts, on NHL network, on those little candid interviews they do with other players, etc. etc. etc. You're opinion may be that he is a burden defensively, and thats fine, but when you say no one thinks he is a 200 foot player, you're 100% wrong.

Yeah you reached pretty deep for these. And neither one says anything at all about G being good defensively. The first one, which looks to be from his rookie year, makes a brief mention of giving effort on all 200 ft of the ice. The 2nd one is about JVR and how G helped him get going. Not even any remote mention of defense. I watch NHL Network all the time, and no one I've seen has ever called Giroux a good defensive player. Over the past couple of years he has certainly made a visible effort to get better defensively. He has gotten a little better, but he still just is not good at it. And yes, whenever he makes a good play the Flyers broadcast team will highlight it. They are a homer broadcast team, and that's fine, I like it like that. I've watched nearly every game of Giroux's career. At most I've missed maybe a handful of his games. And I'm telling you, he's a great player and I love the guy, but he is far from good defensively. It's hard to find stats that say that. There are advanced stats out there, which I am not a big fan of. Any stat that attempts to measure defensive ability relies to some degree on non individual factors. And commentators on NHL Network and such are reluctant to criticize players and would prefer to just talk more about what they are good at. Especially star players. You can believe what you want to believe, but I'm extremely confident in my observation that Giroux is a sub par defensive player.

So if say, Giroux had multiple years where he has gotten Selke votes, would that also speak to this deficiencies on defense, or would that just prove you ever further out of your element? Bro, Im not saying Giroux is a top 10 defensive forward, what I am saying is that he is not a burden, he is not a liability, he is not deficient on defense. His advanced stats speak to it, but also his peers giving him votes for the best defensive forward award in the NHL, multiple years in a row no less!, say this. here are some links for your perusal:

https://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/voting-2016.html
https://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/voting-2017.html
https://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/voting-2018.html


Top 30 every single year for the last 3 years in a row, including number 16 in terms of Selke votes the year he switched to wing, sounds like I was spot on with my assessment of Giroux's defensive skills.

Lol. Not voted on by "his peers". Voted on by the Professional Hockey Writers Association. He got 4 total votes over those 3 years (probably from the same 1 or 2 writers). The year he finished 16th he got 1 vote for 4th place. Also, he did not finish in the top 30 all 3 years.

But still, you win. Personally I think this only means there is one, maybe two lunatic hockey writers out there. But you provided tangible evidence to support your argument, and I can not. So you win. I give up.

Yes, admittedly tried to remind myself to change peers but to boil it down, meant people who are involved in hockey. Conversely, there are players out there who didn't get any votes at all, so the fact he received some shows that people outside of Philadelphia consider him to be an above average defensive forward, almost more impressive is that these were the last 3 years and not when he was younger, although he did garner votes when he was younger as well.

Win or lose, your opinion is yours, thats not wrong or right, I just think you're being a little harsh on him, that's all. Fine argument though, take care. Good fight, good night