Lavi has to go

[radoran]

interestingly... just after i read your post, i see a tweet from panotch where he asked homer if he'd fire Lavvy. 'I haven't even thought about it" was his response.

He rewteeted "I don't like the way we're playing right now, but I don't necessarily blame that on the coach."

To which I immediately replied.

"Nope. The GM"

[Bakanekimiwa]

@Bakanekimiwa

I am wondering (I am not picking because I've heard/read others say this and I think I've actually said it myself), but what "system" would these players fit into, exactly?

I think the forwards ARE probably best-suited for the run and gun that we have now. Clearly, the defensemen aren't. Nor the goalie. But looking at the scrap heap we lovingly call a defense, I'm wondering what they would be suited for. Gervais, last I looked (before last night's follies) was a -74 for his career. He's never been a plus player on any team in any system. Short of playing on grass (either the field kind or the smoking kind), I'm not sure what he'd be suited for. Same with Foster.

Coburn, Timo, Grossman, Schenn and Mezaros. Are we suggesting 1990's Devils' system? 1997 Red Wings?

I know it sounds like I'm being smarmy (go figure), but I really don't know what this group was built to do, because I'm not sure it's hockey.

Mezaros has been hurt, but they knew that coming in. Coburn is having a horrible year, but he's had other horrible years and picked it up for stretches. Timo is a step or two slower. Schenn is developing, but I don't know what to expect there. That leaves Grossman.

And what kind of system wouldn't involve the goalie learning to, I don't know, square himself with the shooter?

What kind of system are we talking about? (Don't worry, I"m not planning on forwarding your response to my source)

well, you bring up very valid points here... imagine that!? It's a chicken and egg situation here. We keep going round and round because nobody really knows what the answer is. I guess the current feeling of the board seems to be one of ... just make SOME change. We all know 'IT' is not working... even though we're not sure what 'IT' really is.

For me... it's not really about systems here. The players are just not getting it done. And let's be honest here... we are just not a very good team. We simply don't have the players to be a Stanley Cup contender right now. It doesn't matter if we have Scotty Bowman back there... they're not getting it done with this crew.

To quote one of the best movies ever... "It's a huge **** sandwich and we're all gonna have to take a bite"

[ruxpin]

@Bakanekimiwa

I agree. Not only are we not Stanley Cup quality; we're not playoff quality. We're not a good team at all. In fact, we're a lousy team.

It's actually not a long walk from lousy to good in this league so I don't think you have to blow it up, but right now we're lousy.

I don't *think* it's the coach, but I think he's a goner. Like you said, Scotty Bowman can't win without a defense or a goalie.

I think it's a matter of putting a defense together and getting a goalie (back up or starter or both). How that's done is the crux of it. I advocate firing Holmgren just as punishment for coming into a gun battle with a floppy hot dog this year. But he CAN fix it. Not to Stanley Cup levels, maybe, but at least to competitive levels. I still think he should be fired, though.

[radoran]

I don't *think* it's the coach, but I think he's a goner. Like you said, Scotty Bowman can't win without a defense or a goalie.

Scotty Bowman would AT LEAST make AN ADJUSTMENT (if not several) when a team has OWNED you repeatedly.

See: Devils, New Jersey - 2012 playoffs, 2013 season

All we're getting on our sh!t sandwich is a bunch of jam.

[aziz]

just read this, not flyers-related, but the kind of thing that i think laviolette doesn't pay any attention to at all and trusts his players to just know. and these players don't just know. someone will at some point need to see these kinds of instincts as a primary thing to work on with this roster.

also, it's a great feature in general

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2013/02/14/systems-analyst-in-which-one-nasty-toe-drag-lulls-a-wild-forward-to-sleep/

[Bakanekimiwa]

@Bakanekimiwa

I advocate firing Holmgren just as punishment for coming into a gun battle with a floppy hot dog this year. But he CAN fix it. Not to Stanley Cup levels, maybe, but at least to competitive levels. I still think he should be fired, though.

Really... when you think about it... Firing Homer is the only move that really makes sense right now. If it's not the coach and the players aren't good enough. Well, it's Homer's mess then right?

[aziz]

I agree. Not only are we not Stanley Cup quality; we're not playoff quality. We're not a good team at all. In fact, we're a lousy team.

It's actually not a long walk from lousy to good in this league so I don't think you have to blow it up, but right now we're lousy.

I don't *think* it's the coach, but I think he's a goner. Like you said, Scotty Bowman can't win without a defense or a goalie.

I think it's a matter of putting a defense together and getting a goalie (back up or starter or both). How that's done is the crux of it. I advocate firing Holmgren just as punishment for coming into a gun battle with a floppy hot dog this year. But he CAN fix it. Not to Stanley Cup levels, maybe, but at least to competitive levels. I still think he should be fired, though.

if someone says that seasons like this are required every now and then in order to have a strong young team in a year or two...what is the response? really, the only "mistake" holmgren really made over the offseason was letting carle walk, and as underrated as i think he is/was, he wouldn't have changed things dramatically. high end vets cost assets, and had holmgren moved the assets to restock on high end vets to not have a competitively off year....isn't that what the flyers always do, the thing we wish they'd stop doing and give things some time? are we now demanding exactly what we spend most seasons complaining about?

[radoran]

just read this, not flyers-related, but the kind of thing that i think laviolette doesn't pay any attention to at all and trusts his players to just know. and these players don't just know. someone will at some point need to see these kinds of instincts as a primary thing to work on with this roster.

also, it's a great feature in general

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2013/02/14/systems-analyst-in-which-one-nasty-toe-drag-lulls-a-wild-forward-to-sleep/

Sounds like one Bill Barber.

JR: "I've never played on the power play before! How does it work!?!?"

[Digityman]

almost want to sign him to a 5 year contract, and call him an adivisor for a few years while the team brings in a defensive-minded coach to bridge the gap, and then put him back behind the bench when the defensive fundamentals have been drilled into the under-25 crowds' heads.

I agree that if Lavy is fired, in a few years we will be wishing he was behind the bench. So if that is the case, why not just bring in a assistant coach that can work on the defense while the team grows together?

[aziz]

@radoran

kinda, except barber had no center of focus, just "work harder" over and over.

coaches can be like wingers, in that they have to be paired with their roster in the same way a winger needs to be paired with his center. a shooting winger and a shooting center isn't going get anything done. you don't have a jeff carter centering an alex ovechkin. or the flip, a saku koivu centering a jagr.

hitchcock burns with a offensively empty team, and laviolette with a defensively inexperienced one. the coach's focus has to compliment the abilitie of the team. don't think laviolette does, atm.

[JackStraw]

the thing here, though, is in 2 or 3 years, this roster may very well be back in a position to succeed with a system like laviolette's. almost want to sign him to a 5 year contract, and call him an adivisor for a few years while the team brings in a defensive-minded coach to bridge the gap, and then put him back behind the bench when the defensive fundamentals have been drilled into the under-25 crowds' heads.

Or, how about just hiring a coach who can implement a well balanced two-way system? Where you get 5 guys playing as a unit in all three zones. It's not really THAT complicated.

[aziz]

I agree that if Lavy is fired, in a few years we will be wishing he was behind the bench. So if that is the case, why not just bring in a assistant coach that can work on the defense while the team grows together?

probably the best solution, really. problem is it takes patience as the team grows together, as you put it. can we take it? do we require someone get fired if the flyers aren't playoff contenders for a year or two, or do we insist they do something drastic to return the team to shortterm competitiveness?

honestly, we talk about snider being the problem, rebuilds out of the question and everything, but...look at this forum. a pause in being a team in the mix and everyone calls for heads to roll. i don't think the patience is there to wait it out.

[aziz]

Or, how about just hiring a coach who can implement a well balanced two-way system? Where you get 5 guys playing as a unit in all three zones. It's not really THAT complicated.

not really sure i agree there. when you are expecting 5 players on the ice to be constantly evaluating and adjusting to every move of every opposing skater at all times, and doing that in a coordinated and individually responsible way, things get really pretty very complicated. to do it well, anyway. you could just have all your skaters back off their checks and vague it up, but...that's pretty much what we have right now. you want them right on top of their defensive game as a team, it's a whole lot of moving parts that have to move to the same scheme.

[ruxpin]

if someone says that seasons like this are required every now and then in order to have a strong young team in a year or two...what is the response? really, the only "mistake" holmgren really made over the offseason was letting carle walk, and as underrated as i think he is/was, he wouldn't have changed things dramatically. high end vets cost assets, and had holmgren moved the assets to restock on high end vets to not have a competitively off year....isn't that what the flyers always do, the thing we wish they'd stop doing and give things some time? are we now demanding exactly what we spend most seasons complaining about?

No. We are not. (Actually, I don't know who "we" refers to, but *I'm* not)

The Carle thing, first of all, was not the only mistake (and I didn't underrate him. I have way too many battle scars from defending him to prove it).

We have maybe half of a defensive corp on the NHL roster. That's on Holmgren.

He's been GM for what, 6, 7 years or so? We have no defensemen to speak of in "the system" either at the AHL or junior level. That's on Holmgren.

We have NO backup goalie. For 3-4 years he's been fornicating around with Boucher and Leighton as if EITHER are a remotely dependable or functional backup. That's on Holmgren.

He hands out huge contracts and, more importantly, no movement clauses as if he's a PEZ dispenser set on auto-puke. That's on Holmgren.

I've maintained--and I think it plays largely to your very good opening post on the other thread--that despite all of that we're not too far away from a competent NHL roster. But we are light years away from an organization that seeks out and develops talent or spends even one iota of half of a eye blink thinking about its AHL club or other prospects. That's on Holmgren. (arguably on Snider, too).

----

I just read your response to rad. I do agree the coach has to compliment the abilities of the players. I don't like, and haven't liked, some of the line combinations and think there are better options. I would also extend that to the pairings on defense. But I don't care who you put Gervais or Foster with. Neither has EVER done it in their careers and I don't expect them to start now, no matter whom you put them with.

[aziz]

@ruxpin

can't disagree with any of that. especially on the gervias/foster part.

[JackStraw]

not really sure i agree there. when you are expecting 5 players on the ice to be constantly evaluating and adjusting to every move of every opposing skater at all times, and doing that in a coordinated and individually responsible way, things get really pretty very complicated.

It's not a question having each guy independently evaluating every move of every opposing player at all times, it's a matter of defining the roles of each position on the team, where they're expected to go in various situations. Ultimately it's how you achieve those popular phrases, "puck support" and "gap control". It's about not chasing the game, not bunching up and not over-committing.

[aziz]

It's not a question having each guy independently evaluating every move of every opposing player at all times, it's a matter of defining the roles of each position on the team, where they're expected to go in various situations

those roles of each position and those various situations change based on minute things the opposition does, though. that link i posted earlier, look at how one weak side winger not paying attention to the pointman for a half second ultimately caused a one-on-one with the goalie moments later. while statements like don't chase the game, don't bunch up, don't over-commit are enough for us as fans, they are useless when getting your team to actually be effective in the defensive zone. those things happen when the coverage is correct, but they don't happen all by themselves. they are symptoms of good defensive zone work, not good defensive zone work itself. telling a winger to not bunch up doesn't mean he should just skate away from the play, there is a specific area of the ice and a specific man he has to be covering in a specific way, and all of those specifics depend on all the other specifics of his 4 teammates and the 5 skaters for the other guys.

i think defensive coverage is the single most complicated aspect of hockey. most complicated aspect of any sport i can think of, really. the speed of the game combined with the reality that inches and miliseconds change everything makes it a hugely detail-oriented thing.

[Flyingswede]

Lavy has to go"" means "I dont know anything about hockey"

Sorry but have you missed the fact that we didnt strenged our roster this summer??? its was a disaster of a silly season. And we still have our crappy goaltender wich I thought would be gone this summer. Ironicly he seems to be alittle bit better than last year.

Believe me! Lavy is NOT the problem. He knows hockey and he knows how to win the cup.

Our defense is not as good as it was. Nothing new is added, just guys getting older, and losing carle and pronger.

The biggest problem is the lack of Carter, Richards and JVR upfront. Schenn/simmonds/voracek are another type of players and doesnt bring what they did. I like simmonds as a player and I like the goalproducing and speed of voracek! But I want more from Schenn.

[ruxpin]

Schenn is in his second full season (if you count last year's shortened season due to starting late and this year's shortened season due to owners' head trauma).

But he already has more points in 27 games this year than he had in 54 last year. But if this were an 82 game season he'd be projecting to a nice 60 pts in his second year. Add to that the hitting, etc., he does. What more do you want to see from him, exactly?

The problem definitely has nothing whatsoever to do with JVR. He'd be a marginal third line winger here. And I'll take Simmonds and Voracek over Richards/Carter. Especially adding Couturier and Schenn to that equation.

Our defense is not as good, I agree. But we didn't lose Pronger over the summer. This was known well in advance that something should have been done on defense. It wasn't.

I agree that this is not on Lavy. It's on Homer.

[FD19372]

Lavy is the BEST coach this team has had since Mike Keenan. You can bring in Scotty Bowman, Mike Keenan or ANY other coach you want and he won't win with this bunch. Their d is not NEARLY good enough. You want to make a good, (maybe you can argue it's a bold) move and that is fire the GM that got us into this mess and NEVER CAME CLOSE to addressing the problems on d. Lavy did a great job in getting that lousy goaltending trio to a SC final, and he's done a pretty good job with this team's subpar d. Their d isn't talented enough. They can all be coached to death, and it won't matter. They are who they are, and until they upgrade there, this team is DONE.

To quote Jim Mora when he was with the Saints ( I think) "Playoffs!!?? Are you kidding me? You're talking about playoffs?"

This team ain't making them.

[ruxpin]

They were talking on DNL tonight about how Lavy changed the defensive scheme over the summer. Does anyone know what they're talking about?

[doom88]

They were talking on DNL tonight about how Lavy changed the defensive scheme over the summer. Does anyone know what they're talking about?

Something Homer or Snider mentioned a while ago. Basically the Flyers didn't protect Bryz enough, so now they will not giddy up and go anymore.

[jammer2]

@ruxpin "They were talking on DNL tonight about how Lavy changed the defensive scheme over the summer. Does anyone know what they're talking about"

Yes rux, they are now positiioning the d-men where they think the brutal rebound will go.

[toughfighter83]

why is this team not scoring goals is because of lack of goal scoring on d, too much passing, and bad defensive coverage, faceoffs?

[JackStraw]

those roles of each position and those various situations change based on minute things the opposition does, though. that link i posted earlier, look at how one weak side winger not paying attention to the pointman for a half second ultimately caused a one-on-one with the goalie moments later. while statements like don't chase the game, don't bunch up, don't over-commit are enough for us as fans, they are useless when getting your team to actually be effective in the defensive zone. those things happen when the coverage is correct, but they don't happen all by themselves. they are symptoms of good defensive zone work, not good defensive zone work itself. telling a winger to not bunch up doesn't mean he should just skate away from the play, there is a specific area of the ice and a specific man he has to be covering in a specific way, and all of those specifics depend on all the other specifics of his 4 teammates and the 5 skaters for the other guys.

i think defensive coverage is the single most complicated aspect of hockey. most complicated aspect of any sport i can think of, really. the speed of the game combined with the reality that inches and miliseconds change everything makes it a hugely detail-oriented thing.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, other than the fact that (if this is what you believe) that's it's too complicated for NHL players to do. Other teams do it, the Rangers being one example that comes to mind. You almost never see the kind of breakdowns you routinely see with the Flyers, they keep everything outside and opposing players rarely get a good chance in close against Hank. Heck, the Flyers used to be decent at this. Remember the year they made the conference finals with Biron? Everything was kept outside, very rarely any shots from in close.

Edited March 14, 2013 by JackStraw