Jump to content

Laviolette


Guest SoCalFlyfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

laviolette is a great coach and has that desire and fire in him that a coach needs to have to be successful. however, after 3 episodes of '24/7' and between all the F-bombs being thrown around and 'work hard' speeches i have not ONCE heard him tell the team to shoot the puck or to keep putting pucks on the net. tortorella has mentioned that numerous times and, imo was the main reason the rangers won the other night. word is out on bryzgalov and any team that just throws the puck at the net against us has a chance to win any given night. still.. it goes both ways. it's obvious to me that we need to shoot more and create chances from rebounds, deflections, etc. instead of expecting giroux to make all the pretty plays every night.

maybe those speeches from lavi are left on the editing room floor but i can't remember one moment so far where he has mentioned this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see the episode yet, but the Flyers shot totals were 33 - 30 - 30 - 31 over the last four games (Col - Dal - NYR - TB).

In contrast, the Rangers were 21 - 25 - 24 - 31 over their last four (NJD, PHI, NYI, NYI).

Broken down by period, the Flyers took an average of 13 shots in the first period, 7.5 in the second (skewed down slightly due to the 3 taken in the TB game, which I'm not sure was part of the episode), and 10.5 in the third. Rangers averaged 7.75 / 8 / 9.5. The only other periods where the Flyers had less than 10 shots on goal were the first against the Rangers, which was then a tie game, and the second versus Dallas, after which the Flyers held a two goal lead. This team shoots a lot (31.7 shots per game, 7th in the league). I'm not sure what more Laviolette could accomplish by telling them to shoot the puck more. There's no need to remind the team to do what they've been doing consitently if you want them to do something else that you're not doing as well. Conversely, the Rangers are 26th in the league in SOG with 27.3/game, so Tortorella trying to drill it into his guys to shoot more makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran. As I said, I haven't watched Ep. 3 either, but HF101 posted a quote in the thread of Laviolette after the second period in NY, pretty much what you said:

Scoring chances that period were seven to one. For the opposition. Do you know why, Hartsy? Cause it's about as f*ckin' casual as it gets. As casual as it gets. In Boston we said, 'alright, it got mixed into the schedule, let's turn the page.' Somebody tell me what the f**k is the difference now? What's the problem now?

I wanna see people rip their heart out of their f*ckin' chest this period, and if ya don't, you're probably not gonna like your ice time. Take your first shift, you'll get it. Earn the second one. I'm not puttin' up with it. It's too much horse sh!t. It's oo much. Don't allow it.

D-zone coverage? Soft down low. Out to the points, casual strides. We don't wanna block a shot, 'cause it hurts. One game Boston, alright let's move on. Tonight? Unacceptable. Not gonna happen. We're way better than what we just showed, every guy in here knows it, and you should not accept it. Don't.

You got twenty minutes. You win a period, you win a game, we move on. But you need to dig in right now. Every guy. Enough is enough. Start playing with some jam in here. Let's go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Lavy but come on guys, he took us to the finals. How many coach would've be able to do that with those same players. Every coach ride their players to win the Cup.

Yes our d is suspectable. The y can look great one nite and sh!tty the next, it's the consistency that we need there.

I'm tired of coaching change but if you guys want to see the defense stable maybe we need to bring in Lemaire or Guy Boucher to install the trap game, That's the only way I see the team play great defense nitely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran

i disagree. i'd rather have a guy like lavi with his passion as opposed to a guy like terry murray who is 'x's and o's' but nothing else. then again, at some point (with the personnel we have) a coach can only do so much screaming, yelling and f bomb dropping. still, if we're going to play this up and down river hockey style that coaches like laviolette and tortorella like a team needs to fire pucks on net at every chance that presents itself. i'm not seeing that from the flyers. were dumping pucks in, fighting for possession, and then trying to find the perfect play while playing 'hot potato' at the point. just fire the freakin' puck on net and see how many chances we can create that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see the episode yet, but the Flyers shot totals were 33 - 30 - 30 - 31 over the last four games (Col - Dal - NYR - TB).

In contrast, the Rangers were 21 - 25 - 24 - 31 over their last four (NJD, PHI, NYI, NYI).

Broken down by period, the Flyers took an average of 13 shots in the first period, 7.5 in the second (skewed down slightly due to the 3 taken in the TB game, which I'm not sure was part of the episode), and 10.5 in the third. Rangers averaged 7.75 / 8 / 9.5. The only other periods where the Flyers had less than 10 shots on goal were the first against the Rangers, which was then a tie game, and the second versus Dallas, after which the Flyers held a two goal lead. This team shoots a lot (31.7 shots per game, 7th in the league). I'm not sure what more Laviolette could accomplish by telling them to shoot the puck more. There's no need to remind the team to do what they've been doing consitently if you want them to do something else that you're not doing as well. Conversely, the Rangers are 26th in the league in SOG with 27.3/game, so Tortorella trying to drill it into his guys to shoot more makes sense.

Thread over

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if we had a healthy Pronger on the ice this would be a different story. Lavy pushes these guys and that is what this team needed a few years back. He is unlike Johnny Cakes Stevens who could of iced team Canada and still got lackadaisical hockey.

Lavy is a good coach that is getting a bum scoop because of the space cadet goal tender. I am not giving him the Jack Adams award, but he is the best we have had in over a decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this topic is close, but not quite on target. Coaching? I think so. Head coach? Not quite.

Enter Kevin McCarthy. I'm pretty sure he's the one responsible for coaching defenseman. Why isn't anyone talking about replacing a specific coach when there is one systematic element wrong with the team (think back to Lemelin for example). Any chance we could promote Hatcher to Assistant Coach - Defense in his place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran

i disagree. i'd rather have a guy like lavi with his passion as opposed to a guy like terry murray who is 'x's and o's' but nothing else. then again, at some point (with the personnel we have) a coach can only do so much screaming, yelling and f bomb dropping. still, if we're going to play this up and down river hockey style that coaches like laviolette and tortorella like a team needs to fire pucks on net at every chance that presents itself. i'm not seeing that from the flyers. were dumping pucks in, fighting for possession, and then trying to find the perfect play while playing 'hot potato' at the point. just fire the freakin' puck on net and see how many chances we can create that way.

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

um he took the Islanders to the playoffs...twice. who was on that team that made that job easy ?

that year in Carolina that he made the playoffs turned out pretty good.

Stumbling and Bumbling around with huge roster turnover, a lot of really young guys , and we're still only a couple of 3-5 points out of first place in the conference, saddled with a space cadet in net.

bottom line here is the guy doesn't suck, he might not be Toe Blake or Scotty Bowman but he's a good coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AJgoal

those stats prove me wrong.

maybe what i'd like to see more of is shots from the point however i'm sure there's no official stat tracker there. all i know is any time the opposition fires the puck from the point i cringe, moreso than watching another team cycle the puck against us. the first two ranger goals against us were a result of that. call it luck, but that simple concept of throwing the puck at the net set the entire tone for the game. we need to do that more often than trying to pretend we're detroit looking for the pretty stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ SoCal: One of the things to take into account as well is how often our d-men's shots go wide, high, or are blocked. If you're arguing for more point shots, I'm with you, but I think our d-men do take a lot of shots. It just seems that, aside from Timonen, very seldom do those point shots get on net.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with a lot of the above. I am still scratching my head when I see the Chief in a suit and tie behind the bench. There are better assistants out there that can help adjust the Flyers game on the fly.

Now that we are stuck with Dmitry Dubyago in net for the better part of a decade, does the coach try and adjust his game plan to boost his stats?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bert, I wonder how easy that is to do at the NHL level. Implementing a new defensive system just doesn't seem to me to be the easiest thing to do when you're playing every other night, especially when the team has been playing this style all season. If he does change the defensive style, I'm not sure it'll be something we'd see right away, either. Players will revert to the old style out of habit until the new style finally becomes habit, and until every player is doing it all the time, we may not notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AJgoal

I didn't think of it that way. You are correct. Now If they keep the style in place, is it possible to put a big body in place of Pronger and keep the system the same? It just seems odd that they are more of a zone oriented defense (from what I am seeing) than one that plays more of a man/cover scheme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bert,

Wish I knew. I have a very basic man/zone understanding of hockey defenses, and without knowing exaclty who is supposed to be doing what, I'm not sure if one big body would be enough. I think with their speed and relatively small size, a zone d might work better for this team - but who knows. I do think we'll see some adjustments, but it will take time. I do think that the leadership on this team will have a big say in getting the play turned around as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bottom line here is the guy doesn't suck, he might not be Toe Blake or Scotty Bowman but he's a good coach.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

this is an interesting argument... the isles playoffs losses. i'm just curious why you would also choose to leave out the fact that he won a stanley cup in carolina? every coach loses, but i've never seen a coach win a game... is that it? players do have an effect on the game... the fact the isles made it to the playoffs with their perennial losers is testament enough for me that lavy is a great motivator.

i think the thing that strikes me about lavy is that he treats the players with respect. as a coach, he can't get out there and do the little things they need to do, so he's an instructor and motivator. that's all he can do, and from where i sit, he's pretty damn good at it.

the interesting thing about 24/7 is to see the contrast in coaching styles with torts. torts manages by fear. he treats them like kids and motivates them negatively. i think lavy is a far better coach in so far as his repoire with the players leads them to want to play for him. not just want to play well to avoid being in the doghouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Bakanekimiwa

Pretty sure rads point is Laviolette won a cup cause his goalie stood on his head...a goalie he didn't choose, but was forced to play. And it was one of the instances where the goalie won the cup. It certainly wasn't laviolettes brilliant coaching. I said the same thing when Philly hired him. I don't mind him as a coach, but he's far from "great."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is an interesting argument... the isles playoffs losses. i'm just curious why you would also choose to leave out the fact that he won a stanley cup in carolina?

It's right there in black and white (or whatever your particular settings conjure)

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...