icehole

I don't know how to appraise this team. I think they played better than we thought, but there's a reason we thought they'd be worse...they're not that good. They got where they got to because of the coach and his structure, and they should've made the playoffs. But I think the ceiling for a good coach with average players is a playoff bubble team to a first round exit. They just need better players.

As for the organization moving forward as a whole, was this season a step in the right direction? I don't think so.  Before the season started, we had Hart in goal with Errson as a promising backup. We had Couturier and Atkison coming off injury and thought they could make the team better. We had Walker but didn't know he would do anything. We hoped Farabee and Frost would take that next step.

We ended up with Hart being detained and may never play in the NHL again. Errson was OK but showed his weaknesses. Fedotov came over (didn't expect that) and seemed like he didn't know how to play the position. Couturier and Atkison look like they are cooked. Walker played really well then got traded for a first round pick. Farabee wasn't very good but I thought Frost improved a little. Oh, and I almost forgot, the first key piece of the "future", the one we were all watching closely, the one who is probably the number one or two prospect in the NHL refuses to play for the team, and is traded before ever playing a game for us.

Some positives are

TK is a star (not a superstar or elite)

Tippet can dazzle

Cam York improved

Seeler was better than expected.

Poeling was better than expected.

Drysdale looks like he can play although he looked lost sometimes and got injured.

So overall, I don't think it was a good step in the right direction. I think they should be willing to sell just about anyone, and try to get assets for the draft. The rebuild started this season, but they didn't get too far.

On 4/11/2024 at 5:13 PM, flyercanuck said:

 

Erik Johnson 15:37 per game Morgan Frost 13:20

Marc Staal  12:48 per game     Bobby Brink 11:42 

 

Which two of these guys do you think should be given more ice team when "rebuilding"? Two of them are completely washed up and can barely skate...the other two show potential to be something going forward.

 

You're putting two forwards up against to defenseman. That's not an even comparison. Defensmen typically get more ice time.  Plus the Flyers are depleted on defense and they don't have any proven young Defensmen to play ahead of those guys. Maybe Ginning or Attard could play in place of them, but do they make the team better?

Staal is often scratched, which he should be. Johnson doesn't impress me, but it's what they have.

3 hours ago, flyercanuck said:

But he loves washed up vets and seems to dislike offensively gifted players.

Are you talking about the Flyers here? I can't think of any washed up vets replacing offensively gifted players on the Flyers since he's been here. In fact, he replaces washed up vets, even if they were just named captain a few weeks prior.

Like I said, I don't know what these guys do once they've been "promoted" to a front office position. I still think he can add something, and in the end, you would think Danny and Jonesy get final say.

15 hours ago, jammer2 said:

Apparently, Torts wanted to move into the upper management in Columbus and their GM wanted no part of it. Pure conjecture, but I believe he was hired with the promise a cushy Bob Clarke advisor role in the near future. 

 

 That future may come quicker than anticipated. It kinda looks like the team has quit on him....or maybe they are just crap...or maybe a combination. 

 

 Some more pure conjecture, have not read this anywhere...my own thoughts...but benching Coots, who is a very popular Captain and teammate may have pissed off players who are loyal to Coots and we are seeing the backlash in actual games....just a theory. 

I just saw an article from the Athletic on this. I don't know what everyone does up in that office, but I'm not opposed to this. As I said, I'm leaning toward Torts not being the right coach, but I still like him and think he has a good hockey mind.

I can't see them firing him at this point, but if they could move him upstairs and bring in a younger, new age, older brother type coach, I think that could happen.

3 hours ago, radoran said:

 

I don't think it's "the players" or "the coach" - I don't think he's a good enough coach to take a team with "good to great" talent to the next level. And the Flyers are no where near "good to great."

 

He had two legit Hall of Fame scorers (VLC/MSL) and a probable HOFer in net in Khabibulin when he won in Tampa. I gave you his results since.

 

He will not, at this rate, have similar talent in Philadelphia.

 

His coaching style asks too much for too long from too many players. It leaves them drained before the playoffs even start. This isn't the first time this has happened. It's a good reason why he has been out of the first round once in the past 10+ years and no further.

 

This isn't "a surprise" and I'm not "piling on" after they flamed out. It's been said about him by me and many others.

 

If you want your middling bubble playoff team to be the best middling bubble playoff team out there, he's your guy. I don't believe he - or virtually anyone else for that matter - could win four seven game series against superior talent with hard work, grit, and determination.

 

I'm starting to lean towards him not being the guy. I think that if he had that core of players that were stars and have been in the league 10 years, maybe he can be that guy. But he won't last that long to find out.

It's a shame though. He's my favorite coach since Lavi, and probably my second favorite flyers coach of all time behind Lavi. Flyers have had some unlikeable coaches. Speaking of Lavi, I don't know if he can make it to the end either. He has a good start on teams but flames out quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if the Rangers flame out early this year.

3 hours ago, radoran said:

 

Is he, though?

Maybe "great" is too much. But I think his coaching has been better than the result. I think if he had the right mix of players, things would be different.  Instead, it seems like he has some babies playing for him. Babies that become captain, play like garbage, get benched, and then complain about how they are treated.

But that's the point of my thread. Maybe it's too much to ask to get the right mix of players that will buy into his coaching style. Maybe that style worked in 2004 but not in 2024. There's already a star that wouldn't play here, and Michkov doesn't seem like a kid that will take hard criticism too well. I could be wrong.

4 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

This is not an accurate statement. 

 

True story he went to the bosses and said, I want more offensive responsibility and 2 years later he won a Selke trophy.

Before he had the back injuries he was a stud.

His skating was not great, but he scored, made his linemates better and when he was on the ice the Flyers had the puck and were creating scoring chances. 

Had his back injuries not happened, he would definitely be a valuable asset to jump start a rebuild. 

That's not where we are though.

 

I know I'm in the minority here, but his career has always been somewhat of a disappointment to me. And that's not a thing with numbers, but more of a feel. He had a good rookie season, a few not so great seasons, then in about a 3-5 year period he started producing and won the selkie. Then he started to decline, got injured, and we are where we are today.

So I feel like the majority of his career has been a disappointment and I don't want him leading my team. And since he's not going to get better, my disdain for him grows, and I (maybe unfairly) put a lot of blame on him. I wish he would just go away.

And to be clear, I'm not advocating firing him, I'm just wondering if he was the right hire in the first place. I'm blame the players 100%, but you can't push them too hard these days...they have too much control.

3 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

He is signed for 7 more years at 7+m .aav, he has injury concerns and wore down in his first full season back from those injuries. 

 

Who would take that contract?

That's why he's a keeper. 

Maybe we should call him a nobody wants-er?

On a non-Fletchered team he would be a "first to go". 

That's fair, but I wouldn't consider that a keeper. I look at that more like we're stuck with a guy with a big contract who stunts this team's progress. So yes, let's put him under the "nobody want-ers" list instead the keeper list. I'm listening to any offers and maybe even throwing his name out there though if I'm Danny.

I love Torts, but is he the right guy right now?  I think he got this team further than most other coaches would have.  But can a young team keep up with his style of coaching? Is Gauthier still in the flyers system if he isn't coach? Would the flyers be bigger sellers at the deadline?

I feel like if they hired some young players coach, they would probably be irresponsible out on the ice, but these younger players would play looser and blossom. Coots could be captain out of training camp and everyone would love and respect his two way game. They'd be a bottom 10 team, have a few more assets from trades throughout the season, and maybe Gauthier would still be here.

Torts is a great coach who younger softer players can't or won't play for in 2024.

I'm sorry, but why is everyone "keeping" Couturier? To me, he seems like the best example of getting rid of a big name player, and the team plays better without him. I don't think he should be captain and I don't think he's been a leader at all. I think he gets respect (and probably too much of it) for playing a two way game. Not many do that, so they make a big deal of it when someone does.  If he had more skill and aggression on the offensive side, he wouldn't have to worry so much about playing a two way game.

The only way I keep him is if I can't get anything for him. First through third round pick, and we don't retain salary or anything like that, I would send him away.

This isn't a team that has any "must keep" players, so you listen to any offers. I'd be hesitant on trading Forster, Tippett, and Drysdale, but that's about it.

29 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

 

He's the General Manager's direct boss. It's basically a catch-all management position, and the exact job details can vary from team to team, but all on staff answer to him. POHO meets with the GM, coaches, scouts, etc, and helps guide the principles/goals the team has in mind. He'll often attend his own team's games, sometimes do some scouting. It's usually a job for people with a long and rich history in all of those positions listed above.

 

A career arc of player to broadcaster to President of Hockey Operations is an absolutely strange and bizarre thing.

 

Ok. Next question - who hires him? I thought the GM would hire him, but if he's Danny's boss, Danny didn't hire him. Dave Scott left, so who makes that hire.

Again, I like Keith Jones, but this seems very odd.  One day they'll do something like this, it will work, and they'll be the gold standard of the league.

What does president of hockey ops do? Does he get involved with scouting, drafting, and development? Who is his boss and who is he the boss of.

I like Jonesy and I think he's very smart. I just don't know what he will add.

3 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

Your point saying high end talent is needed to win in the league today is spot on. 

I don't think I'm proving anything to be fair.

Couturier is a #8, Provorov a #7, TK a #24

 

Engaged Travis Konecny outperforms his draft position by quite a bit. Other Travis Konecny is *fine. 

The difference in talent between top 10 and top 20 draft positions varies by year (obviously) but the talent gap is usually pretty significant. Top 10s are can't miss guys, top 20s have some flaws.

 

I took your comment on Laughton to mean he was hyped to be something he's not, I don't think that's accurate.

I don't think anyone thought Laughton was going to be as good as Couturier. 

#7 picks win championships, see Kadri, Nazim.  

 

When I watch the teams that are left, the Flyers have a long way to go and need to look for guys with great puck skills and skating.

The power play and pk units of these teams are a pleasure to watch.

The Flyers have like 2 guys that have the mitts 2 guys with the footspeed and no guys with footspeed and mitts, compared to say the Oil's top 5 PP skaters. 

 

 

 

I see Kadri, Nazim playing with Mackinnon (1), Gabe Landekog (2), and Cal Makar (4).

So I did the research and found that Stl in 2019 only had Schenn who was a number 5 pick and he was on his 3rd team. They were also a lightning in a bottle team. Tampa had Stamkos (1) and Headman (2). Washington had Ovie (1). Pitt had Crosby (1) and Malkin (2) and other higher than 5 picks. Chicago had Kane (1) and Toews (3). LA had Doughty (2). Boston had Seguin (2). Detroit in 08 didn't have any top 5s. Anaheim had Neidemeir (3) and Perry (2). Carolina had Staal (2). Tampa had VLC (1). 

Those are the last 20 cup winners. Only 2 teams had players that were picked higher than 2nd.

2 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

You might be right but also it doesn't mean you will either if you do get those top picks see the Oilers and Sabres of the last 15 years...but it takes some good damn drafting combined with the right mix of vets....and some luck too.

I think the oilers are getting closer. The Sabres were never able to pick the right guys...sort of like the flyers.

I told my brother about 3/4 through the season that the Bruins will not make the finals. I knew this because they don't have the right formula. I was second guessing myself after 130 points, but it played out even better than I thought.

If you could trade the 2023 flyers for any 2023 NHL team, would you choose the bruins or the Blackhawks. I would choose the Hawks. I believe the excitement of a generational talent plus building a team from the ground up is more exciting than having Bergeron and Marchand and Hall. I like Pasta but I don't think they can build around him like teams build around McDavid or Matthews or Crosby or Ovie or Kane.

37 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

Laughton was picked 20th and has played in the league for nearly 8 years. 

 

He's been fine for where he was picked and what he's become. 

This year he will be on team Canada at the worlds...he's not the comparison you want to make. 

At least he's playing in the league for the Flyers, unlike other first picks.

I love Laughton, but you're proving my point. He's a fine player for where he was picked. So is TK and Provorov and Couturier. They don't win cups though.

37 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Well it certainly won't all be on that pick - it will take a series of moves and drafts to reshape this thing so if you are expecting a quick turn around you are going to be disappointed.

 

They are 3 years away from being 3 years away i know it is a running joke here but as of right now so much up in the air it is so true right now so ask us that question in 3 years...

I'm not looking for a quick turnaround. I actually don't even think Chicago will have a quick turnaround. This is what I see as the best scenario.

It looks like they hit on the #5 pick. Let's say they hit on the #7 pick. They have a few young stars on the team already. So logic tells us they'll be slightly better next year. So let's say they hit on the 12th pick next draft.

The year after that, they're making the playoffs. Their ceiling is winning one or two rounds. At that point, the teams with the first second or third picks will pass them.

You CANT win a cup without a top 3 player. I'm too lazy to look it up, so I hope someone can tell me the last time a team won a cup without a top 3 pick.

I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but does anyone believe the flyers will compete for a cup again if 7th is the highest they'll draft for a while? Why should we believe it? What was the last team to win a cup with a 5th pick being their highest pick? I'm guessing it's been at least 20 years. It just doesn't happen.

I can't wait to hear JJ hype this kid up, only to have him top out as Scott Laughton.

I just saw something about Danny saying they flyers can't play the brand of hockey they're known for anymore, which is rough and tough, "Broad street Bullies" hockey. See this is what I don't agree with.

I want a team that can kick your a$$ and skate circles around you. All I ever hear anymore is about how the flyers need to lose the mentality to beat people up. Nobody seems to realize they lost that mentality a while ago...and I believe it has made them worse. Just because they sign Risto doesn't mean their tough. That guy is soft. Just because they sign Hayes doesn't mean their big. That guy is lazy and doesn't intimidate anyone. Nick D is just a show fighter...he doesn't put fear in anyone.

The Flyers problem is just straight up lack of talent. You can get talented guys that are tough in different ways. I want to keep the reputation of being nasty, just add more talent to go with it.

8 hours ago, aziz said:

 

this is really interesting, factoring in when-in-the-season for inter-conference games.  I'd be into someone exploring bulking inter-conference games to the middle of the season, leaving the start and end as intra-conference play.  That makes a ton of sense to me.  Have rival teams see each other early and often, and then see each other again late as they are competing against each other for standings.  The middle of the season sees a lot of cross-conference play as those teams position themselves, but then back to putting your own hands on the throats of your rivals.  No idea what logistical nightmare that might be, but a really interesting idea.  Love it.

There are a few reason the current setup bothers me.

1.  I'm old. I get up at 4am, so when 7pm rolls around, I get sleepy. 8pm rolls around, I go up and get ready for bed and to watch TV. 9:15pm, lights out. There's no way I'm watching a second of a 10pm game.

When the Flyers played Calgary the other week, the game was a Saturday at 10pm EST. Both teams played 2 or 3 nights prior, and nothing was scheduled at the arena until the game. Why couldn't they play earlier?

2.  A few years ago, I think the eagles started the season on a Monday night against the cowboys or another division rival. Everyone was amped for the season. I was excited for the flyers season, but they started against a team that had absolutely no rivalry with the flyers. Nobody cared. That just seems like bad planning. 

3. I hate the Christmas season west coast trip also. If I have some days off and want to have a few beers and watch the game, I can't because they're out west for a week or two starting at 10pm against teams I don't care about. That's bad marketing of the sport.

8 hours ago, aziz said:

 

My problem is the shootout as it currently stands is that it has everything to do with talent and skill, yes, but talents and skills that are not relevant to an actual game of hockey.  In no game ever would a shooter have 12 seconds to sweep left, then right, then left again, then right again, then deke, then go left, deke, go right, then left real quick, deke again, go right, deke, go further right, and finally put the puck in the back of an open net as the goalie has tried to track a play that cannot ever exist outside of that one scenario.

 

Make it all happen at game speed, and I suddenly have zero problem with the shootout.  It's not a good tell of the better team, so arguably shouldn't impact the standings, but I could accept it.  It's this crap that just has nothing to do with the actual game of hockey, this is crap you do in practice, and the goalie gets annoyed (and the poster calls it "dazzling", ffs):

 

 

I can agree with that. Although Kane was within the rules for that goal, it's sort of a cheat because of course he can move left to right faster than the goalie. I'm fine with improving the shootout but keeping it.

And maybe a shootout win doesn't get you an extra point, but maybe it serves as some sort of tiebreaker or playoff position at the end of the season.

17 hours ago, CoachX said:

ok. gotcha. So do you have any rule change ideas, or are ya just gonna keeping pooing on those of us who do?

I don't think I have any game play rule changes. They do have problems outside of rule changes that are killing the sport. Their scheduling and league setup (who they play and when) makes me not want to watch sometimes. Too many bad teams isn't good. 82 games is about 42 too many in my opinion.

If you want to see the flyers play Vancouver, Calgary, LA, San Jose, or any other west coast team, those games should be on Saturday or Sunday and be at 4 or 7pm EST. They should probably be in the middle third of the season also. They should try to play a lot of division rivals early and late in the season.

They need to find a way to promote these rivalries more. I would never miss a game live because there was always intensity and anger that you couldn't reproduce during a replay the next day. Since those emotions aren't there anymore, and the game is mostly just skill, I just watch that in about ten minutes on YouTube the next day.

I'm not pooing on anyone's rule changes but the shootout and 3 on 3 have been exciting to me.

I've never been one to hate the shootout. It may not show exactly who the better team is, but it does show who has more talent and skill. I'm not being a jerk when I say this, but is it a coincidence that the fans of the worst shootout team in history hate the shootout? I blame the flyers for never addressing it as if it never existed. Their lack of success in the shootout is directly associated with the lack of talent.

I also think the 3 on 3 is usually pretty exciting and I think it determines a winner more times than not.

One thing I can't support is a tie. Although it wouldn't matter all that much in the regular season, I still would feel jipped if I went to a game that ended in a tie. I think soccer is OK, but when I hear the game ended in a tie, especially on a stage such as the world cup, it just makes me never want to watch.

I'm open for some different way to get a winner but I'm not sure what that would be. So for now I'm fine with a 3 on 3 OT, and then letting skill determine it if needed.

1 minute ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

He is just the worst GM in maybe the history of the NHL not just the Flyer's history!!!! If not then who is the worst?

I can't answer that. Surely there has to be someone worse, but for a big hockey market like Philadelphia, he's most likely the worst.

That should be enough to move on from him, but who knows if his bosses think that.