radoran

If the "difference" is between "what Bryz would have done" and "what Bob did" then, no. No difference. (in my humble opinion) Was the second "bad" goal and then the defensive lapse leaving Richards alone near the dot for the game winner the difference in the game? Yes. Ergo, the "goalie change" didn't really change anything. Q.E.D. Clear(er)?

I'm not saying Bryz "is" or "is not" a good teammate. My point is that if I'm going to listen to anybody about it, Derek Morris and Adrian Aucoin aren't at the top of that list. Boston unloaded Morris in the March before what was going to be a serious Cup run before the Flyers derailed it in historic fashion. If Morris is such a "great teammate" why did the Bruins decide they'd rather have a conditional 4th on the bench with them instead of him? And we'll just let Aucoin polish that Babe Pratt trophy a little longer. Guy hasn't been on a winning team. Ever. Signed a four year deal with Chicago and this "great team guy" was shipped off to Calgary after two years for a guy who played the grand sum of a half a season in Chicago. Two pieces of sh!t swirling in the bowl as it empties... Bryz is gone from Phoenix because the Coyotes dont have an owner who can make serious personnel decisions and the Flyers offered a) value for an asset that was about to leave anyway and B) a contract that Phoenix wasn't going to (in fact "couldn't") match. And I refuse to make "good/bad teammate" judgements based on how HBO edits a show together for entertainment value. This isn't a "documentary" - this is a "reality show." If it's not entertaining, people don't watch. Hell, HBO focused on Avery for the Rangers early on. That should tell you enough about how "real" the 24/7 is...

What have Derek Morris and Adrian Aucoin ever won? Oh, right. Nothing. Moving along... Oh, wait, I'm sorry. That's right. Aucoin won the Babe Pratt Trophy as the best defenseman on the (23-47-12) 1998-99 Vancouver Canucks. Well, he's got that going for him.

I can fault them for thinking "whoever is the bext UFA goalie available rightnow" is automatically "the answer to our decades-long goalie problem." The universe - no matter how big it really is - doesn't alter itself to fix whatever problems the Flyers want to address "rightnow." Again, they need a PLAN to address their situation in goal. It's not a problem a "quick fix" will solve. And Bryz was the quick and easy answer. How's that working out for them?

I don't mean to harp on Giroux, but in the last two games I saw (missed most of Pittsburgh) I've seen two Giroux defensive lapses lead DIRECTLY to opposing goals. Both of which just happened to be game-winners... I like G and he's a great player with good hockey sense, but he NEEDS to play better defense in his own zone, especially if he's going to be given players like Stamkos and Richards to cover. On the Richards goal, he's sitting at the side of the net watching play as Richards moves into scoring position, gets the puck and scores the winning goal. Yes, Giroux makes other players look foolish - how many of them are also All-Stars? And ANY goalie needs to stop that second Rupp goal. After being "outplayed" by Mathieu Garon of all people, can we at least begin to acknowledge that the Flyers have problems in addition to "who's in net"?

Flyers: 1) Still would have needed four to win 2) Gave up two momentum-shifting goals - one 30 seconds after taking a commanding 2-0 lead 3) Still left Brad Richards wide open for the GWG (that would be Giroux's man on that play) In the end, "Bob" didn't make a damn bit of difference. If the Flyers don't cover their men and leave all-stars open for wide open shots, it doesn't matter who's in goal. Also, "Brodeur" isn't "in the heads" of any of these Flyers - they don't have that history with the Devils. None of them. "Brodeur" - and "Lundqvist is the new Brodeur" - is in the heads of fans. Henrik is a great goalie. No question. He can be beat. Go beat him.

The question is how do you handle the "grossly overpaid it's sickening" guy? Considering he's the one who happens to be under contract for eight more seasons with a NMC? Without resorting to "ifs" and "mights" ("In a new CBA there might be a buyout clause and if so then...") - what's the best course of action? Throw him under the bus. Then reverse over him and drive forward a few times? I don't see them seriously buying him out until after next season at best - CBA notwithstanding. Thoughts?

I expect it from you. I'm sick of SEEING it. Which is why all of this rearranging of deck chairs on the Titanic seems like so much of a waste of time.

I posted and you edited at 12:08 PM. Sometimes stats are misleading, but not this time :-)

After the past few weeks of play from both? Start Bob.

so did you :-) http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+minutiae&qpvt=minutae&FORM=DTPDIA

But the team's philosophy is "Win Now" It's pretty much been their philosophy since 1975. How's that working out for them?

When Laviolette was there Snow was still playing goalie. He backed up Osgood. They also drafted DiPietro in Laviolette's last season. The 15-year deal and Snow GM didn't even enter into it at that point. They have absolutely nothing to do with Laviolette's time on the Island any more than the the decision to sign Bryzgalov to a nine-year, $51M, NMC deal had anything to do with Hitchcock or Stevens. However, you are right, it just might reflect on the abject insanity of how a front office handles things, which has been another point I've made about the Flyers... Lavy was expected to do better with the talent Wang thought Millbury was buying. After two years, he was let go. Apparently the franchise didn't see Laviolette as a "great" coach despite taking them to the playoffs two years in a row and losing in the first round. For me a "great" coach is consistent and displays consistency. I don't use the term lightly. Scotty Bowman? Missed the playoffs once in his career. One of the Very few I would call a "great coach." Herb Brooks is a personal hero of mine - coach of the greatest sports upset of All Time - and he has a pretty mediocre 219-22-66 NHL record. A "great" developmental coach? Maybe. A great NHL coach? No. This thread started with the initial poster asserting IN THE FIRST LINE that "Laviolette is a great coach" - I disagreed then. I do now.

You inferred an argument that was not implied. Here's the argument implied in the thread by several posters: Laviolette won the Cup and is therefore a great coach. Well, Cam Ward - individual game marks notwithstanding - was the CONN SMYTHE TROPHY winner as the best player in the playoffs. I didn't say that Ward was the best player in the playoffs that season - the LEAGUE did by giving him the trophy. My point here is that Laviolette didn't PICK Ward to be the goalie in that series. He was forced to play him by Gerber's implosion. Once he went to Ward he stayed with him despite some shaky starts. Again, we agree he is a "good" coach and not a "great" coach, everything else is minutae.

It's right there in black and white (or whatever your particular settings conjure) Again, Laviolette is a "good" coach. He's not a "great" coach. Yet. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp... As for the Isles, let's remember that this was 10 years ago. Yang was throwing buckets of money around. Alexi Yashin was their top center. Michael Peca was on that squad. Chris Osgood was the goalie (in front of some guy named Snow). Laviolette was there for two years, and was let go for the most part because they felt he should have been doing better with the talent he had than back to back first round losses and player disenchantment. The Islanders then... lost in the first round the next season.

Never said he wasn't a "good" coach - said he wasn't a "great" coach. Yet. And his goalie in New York? Chris Osgood. In Carolina, yes, he had a nice playoff run. Cam Ward won the Conn Smythe. Did Cam Ward start the playoffs in goal for the 'Canes? No. Martin Gerber did. Who made that pick? Laviolette. When Gerber imploded, he went with his only other option - heckuva coaching decision that one - and struck gold. Two years later he was sent packing. Good coach? Sure. Great coach? Hardly.

The Flyers have changed every player and every coach in the past two decades and STILL they choose to dump it in and chase more often than not. And they keep telling us that they want to change that up. It's bizarre. You've got to get the puck into posiiton to fire it onto the net and if the first move at the blue line it to dump it into the corner, that's not, shall we say, the best position? I think the shot totals show that this team isn't shy with shooting. They're second in the league in total goals and goals for average. Scoring hasn't been the problem. Stopping the puck going in their own net has been. In GAA, they are a full goal behind Boston (#1 in goals for) and a half a goal behind Vancouver (#1 in total goals).

It's not necessarily the D that's the problem, it's the forwards being defensively responsible. Which, quite frankly, they aren't. Good to see that quote. I'll have to watch Ep. 3. I like Lavy - especially for his passion and the way he feels the game as it's being played. It's the system, how he handles goalies and off-ice stuff that has me reluctant to say he's a "great coach." As for the Finals run, this is a team that backed into the playoffs on a shootout after being in playoff position until the stretch run and then had to come back from 3-0 in games and 3-0 in Game 7 to win. Does the coach get some credit? Sure, a little. But the players won that series and went to the Finals. Does the coach get any blame for his team's free-fall from playoff position to "win a shootout on the last day of the season to get in?" Sure. Lavy also picked Leighton to be there when Kane scored the game winner. As for the past decade - during which by some miracle there have been just three coaches - I'll take Hitchcock as comparable, if not superior to, Laviolette. He burned out his welcome here and they needed a change. And they made it. Doing the SAME thing they did when they replaced Neilson/Ramsay with Barber - promoting the Phantoms' coach, Stevens.

I'm not buying into "Laviolette is a great coach". When did he earn these accolades? He lost in the first round twice with the Islanders. Made the playoffs once in four years with Carolina and rode Cam Ward to the Cup - after first going with Gerber. In two years the Flyers went from the Finals to an ignominious departure in the Second with the team stumbling and bumbling around this year. I can't see any adjustments he's made to this situation. I can't see where he's really excelled at anything - expect well-timed time outs. But I'm ready to be enlightened as to why he's a "great coach." I've only see 1 & 2 of the 24/7 series - but I haven't heard him say much about the real problem on this team which is clearly not goal scoring and is clearly "defense." The "word is out" not just on our goalie, but our team defense. Deflections and "own goal" deflections are frequently associated with playing out of position and "bad rebounds" to open guys are frequently a result of players not covering their man (see: Stamkos, Steven). They don't need to fling more pucks at the opponent's net. They need fewer pucks at their own.

Right - losses are very important. As are the reasons for the losses. Management has assembled a team that covers badly in front of a goalie who is struggling and has unwisely committed a huge amount of the future to two long term contracts to the struggling goalie and injured 36yo defenseman. Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic doesn't convince me that this will be in a new, much less right, direction. If they buy Bryz out after next season - or, heck, this season - what faith do you have that this group will finally make the RIGHT decisions regarding personnel? I see a panicky, knee-jerk, slap-dash, data-free, reputation-based approach to filling needs on the roster - dating back to Dale Hawerchuk and beyond. I don't really see any sort of plan to WIN a Stanley Cup, just one that puts them in a position to "compete for a Stanley Cup" in front of a goalie like, for example, Michael Leighton. I see a team that has lavished praise upon and granted ridiculous contracts to their drafts picks... before throwing them under the bus and shipping them out of town. Play Bob? Fine play Bob. Unless more changes than the guy between the pipes, not much will change.

And even if they replace Bryz with Bob, the same people who made the decision to give a "not good goalie" a nine-year, $51M, NMC deal will still be here. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

The point being that they took a goalie who obviously benefitted from a strong defensive system and expected the same results in a run and gun offense. And the coach, the players and the goalie seem to have made few adjustments to losing their top defenseman and captain. Every goalie depends on his team as the team depends on the goalie. If you leave Steve Stamkos wide open, he's going to beat Henrik Lundqvist or even Tim Thomas more often than not. And it's not just a problem this year. Stamkos has 4 goals in 14 games against the Rags and 5 in 13 against da Broons. He has 10 in 15 career games against the Flyers. And that's including three games this season. No matter who's in goal, this team needs to play better from top to bottom. It's not something that a goalie change alone will fix. I wouldn't mind seeing Bob play. I don't think it's going to happen this season, but if this is how things start next season, they will take a good hard look at Bob before the trade deadline. Not saying it's what they "should" do, but what they "will" do.

I'm not expecting a Cup, but they should make the playoffs. I'm not opposed to a change in net at all. But I don't expect it to make a blossoming bit of difference if the team keeps leaving players like Steven Stamkos wide open in scoring position. The goalies also are what they are. And the Flyers shot themselves in the foot with how they've handled Bob, IMO.

@Mad Dog As you note, "premier goalies are tough to come by" - why the Flyers thought that at the exact moment they decided they "needed" a "#1 G" that the universe would simply drop one in their laps is beyond me. They didn't "need' to sign a guy this past offseason - they NEEDED a PLAN to get/develop a premier goalie. A "plan" isn't the owner telling the GM to acquire a guy who had four career appearances against the Flyers. And three starts. Granted he was 1.86/.927 in those games - and @TedZep notes Bryz does have the capability of playing to that level - but how many times could Snider POSSIBLY have seen Bryzgalov actually play? I don't think Bryz's situation will improve with "competition" - it's not lack of effort of desire at this point. It is simply that he is not the world-beating goalie he was touted as by Flyer management. At this point, IMO, the best thing Lavy could do is get his team to, yes, play tighter defense. Let's look at Tampa. It wasn't Bryzgalov who lost track of Steven "leading the league in goals" Stamkos in the slot right in front of Bryz. It was Giroux. And it wasn't Bryzgalov who left Stamkos open again on the power play, nor was he responsible for the penalty. You leave Steve Stamkos wide open in the slot or alone on the left side during a power play and more often than not you're going to have two goals against no matter WHO is in goal. The Schenn screen/redirect on goal one is debateable - but there have been a ridiculous amount of deflections and "own goal" deflections this season (IMO). The Downie goal was inexcusable. And indicative of Bryz's lack of lateral mobility. On top of that, you have forwards who, IMO, are more interested in being at the front of a rush than making sure some of the league's most dangerous players are covered down low. Bryz has played abysmally. But you can't really say the Flyers have been playing solid team defense in front of him.

There's been a lot a lot of talk about Drew Stafford... And Roy, I think, too. There's no reason to lose a guy going down or coming up.