radoran Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 3 minutes ago, GratefulFlyers said: What "company line?" You evidently heard something that I haven't heard. That the entire culture of the organization was completely destroyed by the longest serving captain in the history of the franchise and that no one else in the room had anything else to do with it. 4 minutes ago, GratefulFlyers said: But whatever connections, leftovers, holdouts etc there are on the current roster, blaming them for the weaknesses of the Giroux years is a farfetched proposition imho. Blaming the players who were on the roster in leadership positions for the weaknesses of the leadership of the roster is a farfetched proposition? Couturier wore an A, you know? Thing is, I'm not actually blaming them. The organization is, and they don't even realize they're doing it. I'm saying that if the company line that the entire foundation of the organization's culture was completely and utterly destroyed after a decade under the leadership of the longest serving captain in the history of the franchise is correct then the idea that three guys who were sitting in leadership roles during that time might not be the best foundation upon which to build the "New Era." Of course, that's all horsehockey. Which is exactly why three guys who have grown up in the Flyers system are the ones being chosen to take it forward. And that's where the question of whether or not this is a "New Era" remains open. We're not even through Year One. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GratefulFlyers Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 Okay I appreciate that. Other than the fact that it omits much of reality it make perfect sense. Lol sorry to be blunt but...come on...I mean ... come on. The guy wore an A therefore he's responsible for 10 years of mediocre teams. We're debating leadership positions, the C and the As, and what impact they have on the team's performance on and off the ice. Are they, as you imply, entirely and exclusively responsible for what we see on the ice? Also for the culture, the "personality" of the team? Naturally they had some role in it what happened - there were there after all. But to try and quantify it and hold them responsible; that's what I find farfetched. They don't get a "pass" but they're not the villains either. One last thing: Couturier and Laughton grew up with the team during the Giroux years. Why not take a glass-half-full approach and assume they learned a helluva lot and are bringing those lessons to the roster today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 bodies for the next game... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1917 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) @radoran My memory of being on athletic teams is there were definitely hierarchies based on ability, seniority and forcefulness of personality. My study of leadership through various points of my career has reinforced those learnings. If the senior, best guys are behaving one way, the junior guys struggle to have their voices heard. Especially if those junior voices contradict the seniors. There are intrapersonal dynamics working in all group situations. Because Couturier wore a letter while Giroux was the captain doesn't automatically make him a complicit acolyte or willing participant of the "for who , for what?" mentality that creeped into the room and accelerated once Simmonds was traded. The culture of the organization was damaged by Scott, Camillo, Fletcher and the folks who tried to "modernize" the organization without at least honoring the past. Gritty, as much as I like him is symptom A of the mentality. The rot starts at the head or words to that effect. I think it's too simplistic of a point to say, yeah, Coots was there so he sucks just as much as Giroux, and he should have stopped whatever was going on. Edited March 18 by mojo1917 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GratefulFlyers Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 47 minutes ago, radoran said: I'm saying that if the company line that the entire foundation of the organization's culture was completely and utterly destroyed after a decade under the leadership of the longest serving captain in the history of the franchise is correct But no one in or out of the organization has said that. Or implied that. Why not? Because it's an absurd proposition. Everyone on those Giroux teams shares some responsibility for what happened. Anything over and above "some" is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachX Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 This is all fascinating, but i take it as irrelevant. This is a new team, with a new coach, and new management. Some key players remain. So be it. i will still circle back and say that Laughton was not traded because the Flyers value him higher than any other team, and did not get the value they wanted. If they had, he would be wearing another sweater and I’d finally STFU about it this forum also values Laughton in a way that I don’t. I still say if he is so good at uniting the room, and being a role model for younger players, why was he not given the C? I don’t recall very many posts on here touting Coots as having the same locker room ability as Laughton. I take Coots being made captain as a clear indication that Laughtons “intangibles” are overhyped. As alluded to by others here, in the absence of better options, Laughton stands out by default Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post radoran Posted March 18 Popular Post Share Posted March 18 22 minutes ago, mojo1917 said: I think it's too simplistic of a point to say, yeah, Coots was there so he sucks just as much as Giroux, and he should have stopped whatever was going on. Didn't say that. Said the organization says the entire culture was eroded and destroyed. Said if that's true, then building upon guys that were there when it happened might not be the most effective thing to do. Clearly none of this is true. Also said Coots was given the C immediately upon G's departure, except for the fact that he was injured. And that decision also predates the "New Era of Orange." 23 minutes ago, mojo1917 said: The culture of the organization was damaged by Scott, Camillo, Fletcher and the folks who tried to "modernize" the organization without at least honoring the past. Completely agree with this. The "definitely a playoff team" mantra came from the top down. I think you're skimming over the impact of the Senior Hockey Advisors who selected Fletcher, Hextall, and Holmgren And who are - checks notes - still there. Which is why we're all looking to make sure that the "culture" has actually "changed". And why there are some that are intensely, reactively suspicious of it. I honestly don't think I'm in the same camp as @flyercanuck, but I'm also not in the "everything is good news for the Flyers" camp, either. The problem that this organization* has is that it tries to declare what reality is, instead of living in reality. That's when a guy who's never been a captain and never been a center becomes your #1C longest serving captain in franchise history overseeing the worst stretch of hockey in franchise history. And that includes the "we need Nick Seeler and Scott Laughton or the whole thing falls apart" mantra. 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachX Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1917 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 2 hours ago, radoran said: I think you're skimming over the impact of the Senior Hockey Advisors who selected Fletcher, Hextall, and Holmgren And who are - checks notes - still there. I am, because I don't give any credence to the Homer/Clarke cabal secretly puppet mastering the franchise into the gutter. There isn't a "what's the blue line for?" nincompoop in the GM, Chairman or President's position. I don't think the current big 3 rely on the doddering old fools at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 9 minutes ago, mojo1917 said: I am, because I don't give any credence to the Homer/Clarke cabal secretly puppet mastering the franchise into the gutter. I'm not at all saying that they're "puppet mastering" the situation. Briere and Jones are in charge. The SHAs are sitting next to the current GM and the President of Hockey Operations in the press box. They do still have offices. They are still involved. So, if I have some well-placed, well-earned skepticism I don't think it's surprising. I'm positive about where Briere has gone so far, I'm not on the ledge about "a fourth rounder for a 35-year-old" (rental). I do question whether or not the rebuild path that they are on will get them to their declared destination - only because it hasn't worked for anyone else. You referenced Scott (who continually said he deferred to the SHA, fwiw) trying to move the franchise forward without respect for the past. The Flyers "culture" that needed to be "found" again - who would you say represents the Flyers' pre-loss-of-it "culture" better than the Senior Hockey Advisors? Is that what we're "trying to get back" to? #halloffame? The question at hand is are we getting "back to" the "Flyers culture" we had for the last 25 years or are we building upon the foundation of what that culture "meant/s" - accountability, determination, grit(ty) - in pursuit of a truly new direction? I'm saying I don't know that yet. I guarantee you if they make the playoffs someone - coach/GM/President/player - says "anything can happen." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 I'm not on the ledge about a 4th or 5th rounder either....I'm just saying Briere is starting to do the same things the previous guys did with draft picks, while a few people are saying he isn't....while he's doing it. I know 4ths and 5ths rarely work out. But they don't work out ever if you throw them in on trades. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyerrod Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 1 hour ago, flyercanuck said: I'm not on the ledge about a 4th or 5th rounder either....I'm just saying Briere is starting to do the same things the previous guys did with draft picks, while a few people are saying he isn't....while he's doing it. I know 4ths and 5ths rarely work out. But they don't work out ever if you throw them in on trades. What a novel idea, using draft picks for actual draft picks. It might not hurt to explore some of the wealth of info out there on players in college and junior hockey and take a look at potential longer shots i.e. 4th or 5th rounders. Oh never mind……that is just too crazy of an idea….. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1917 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 1 hour ago, radoran said: I guarantee you if they make the playoffs someone - coach/GM/President/player - says "anything can happen." If I could get that tenner out of the ignition chamber I wouldn't bet it. I'm sure those words will be uttered...a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1917 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 1 hour ago, radoran said: The question at hand is are we getting "back to" the "Flyers culture" we had for the last 25 years or are we building upon the foundation of what that culture "meant/s" - accountability, determination, grit(ty) - in pursuit of a truly new direction? Keith Allen and the first go-round with Robert Earl, those were successful. That 80s team was my favorite, so borrowing from that culture would be fine by me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 (edited) 6 hours ago, mojo1917 said: Keith Allen and the first go-round with Robert Earl, those were successful. That 80s team was my favorite, so borrowing from that culture would be fine by me. Would that we could so easily erase 40 years... Edited March 19 by radoran 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.