What the Hell just happen?

[fanaticV3.0]

my confusion comes from colorado having a single loss this season, and calgary having a winning record.  the record at this point is a less profound measure than some people are making it out to be.

 

 

 

yes, aside from the twice since then that they've missed the playoffs.

 

So because of that, the Ducks can't be good? LOL, what?

 

Their record this year and over the last several years speaks for the organizations success; and in terms of this conversation superiority of that team we root for.

Edited October 30, 2013 by fanaticV3.0

[FD19372]

I agree with your post, and I agree with this.

 

But short of moving multiple people AND picks, I don't know that we have the assets to get this done.

Ruxpin,

 

Eventually, for the better of the team as a whole, you have to be willing to part with some of these young guys like Read and Couturier to fill  serious need.  If they have to move multiple players and picks to get it done, outside of Giroux, I don't care who they have to move. Their young players aren't developing here. Couturier should already be a star at this point.  The season may not be a waste, but management has to get over themselves, and growing their own talent.  They have to be willing to get players at their peak, not ones they have to develop or ones they have to pray still have it (see Lecavalier, who still does, and over the hill Streit). They have a need for an offensive d-man, and they need to fill it.  The franchise won't succeed until they fill that need.

[Mad Dog]

@canoli

@aziz

 

My observation is the team is simply fragile - both mentally and physically. Why - I have no clue... probably due to the make-up of the team. They lack confidence and probably more than just that. They can't dominate. Forget dominate. They can hardly hold their own. That's the only explanation I have for starting games on a high note and not being able to finish them.

 

My hunch is after Berube took over, he started instilling this "play like a team", "play hard", "play disciplined hockey" stuff and surely, the team started responding... what else are the players supposed to do but to *try* to do what their coach is asking them to do? So as a result, we see that great effort and drive and then, as the game goes on, the team is out of its tricks. To be successful, you need more than just a drive and aspiration. And this team just doesn't have it. Hard work can only get you so far.

 

It's unfortunate, but I think it really is that simple. You guys are trying to overanalyze it, while there doesn't seem to be much to analyze. Aziz is asking what is not good. It's that. From top to bottom - the way the team is built they just don't have a make-up of a technically sound and mentally tough team.  And taht starts with our captain.  The third period seems to be supporting this, no? 

Edited October 30, 2013 by Mad Dog

[aziz]

Colorado had a fair amount of significant injuries last season.  Add that to the explanation that that Players disliked Sacco, and the fast paced skating system works.... and you have your explanation. 

 

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2013/10/28/duchene-avalanche-players-knew-saccos-style-of-play-would-fail/

 

As far as Calgary goes.  Maybe by removing some dead weight and playing with a greater effort is winning them games.  Which might be a bit tougher now with Giordano's broken ankle.

 

imo, they are both bad teams who have managed to overachieve so far this season.  at some point both will return to form.  i think you might be right as to why they are winning for the moment, but structurally they are not going to be able to maintain.  i believe some form of the opposite is happening with the flyers: they are playing below their capability, and it is worth trying to figure out why.

[aziz]

Their forwards stopped skating and Anaheim picked up their aggression and forecheck.

 

see, this is not what i saw at all.  they continued to skate, furiously even, but to far less effect.  less cohesion, less organization.  i didn't see lazy, i saw confused.  and thus my apparently pointless question of "why?"

[brelic]

Ruxpin,

 

Eventually, for the better of the team as a whole, you have to be willing to part with some of these young guys like Read and Couturier to fill  serious need.  If they have to move multiple players and picks to get it done, outside of Giroux, I don't care who they have to move. Their young players aren't developing here. Couturier should already be a star at this point.  The season may not be a waste, but management has to get over themselves, and growing their own talent.  They have to be willing to get players at their peak, not ones they have to develop or ones they have to pray still have it (see Lecavalier, who still does, and over the hill Streit). They have a need for an offensive d-man, and they need to fill it.  The franchise won't succeed until they fill that need.

Couturier should not already be a star. No one said he would be a star at 18 or 19 or 20 years old. In fact, no one said he would be a star.

His rating on Hockeysfuture.com is 8.5 C. The C is hugely important in this context.

For reference, he would fall somewhere between 8 and 9:

9. Elite Talent – possesses the potential for greatness, a perennial All-Star throughout his career.

Defense: Nicklas Lidstrom, Zdeno Chara, Chris Pronger

Forward: Ilya Kovalchuk, Joe Thornton, Eric Staal

Goaltender: Martin Brodeur, Roberto Luongo, Henrik Lundqvist

8. First-Line Forward/ No. 2 Defenseman / No. 1 Goaltender – players with definite skill that might be just a cut below elite status, but still possessing All-Star potential.

Defense: Dan Boyle, Duncan Keith, Kimmo Timonen

Forward: Patrick Marleau, Jason Spezza, Mike Richards

Goaltender: Cam Ward, Marc-Andre Fleury, Tomas Vokoun

Ok, so somewhere between Mike Richards and Eric Staal. Awesome, sign me up.

A – All but guaranteed to reach potential - 100 percent metaphysical certitude that the player will play up to his abilities as noted by his potential rating. In this case, the potential rating is multiplied by 100 percent for depth chart purposes, signaling that the player is a lock to reach his given potential.

B – Should reach potential, could drop 1 rating - likely to reach potential, but may have a hole or two in his game that will keep him from reaching his full potential. The potential rating is multiplied by 90 percent for depth chart purposes, which indicates slightly less certainty about a player’s future performance.

C – May reach potential, could drop 2 ratings – has shown some flashes, but may ultimately not have what it takes to reach his potential. The potential rating is multiplied by 80 percent for depth chart purposes to show the uncertainty of a player reaching his potential.

Ahh, so scouts identified enough holes and uncertainties within his game that they've indicated he may drop two rankings, to a 6.5.

7. Second-Line Forward/ No. 3-4 Defenseman / Journeyman No. 1 Goaltender – players not quite good enough to play on the top line or pairing on a regular basis, but still possessing enough talent to contribute offensively, defend with some authority, or competently play the goaltender's position for long stretches.

Defense: Filip Kuba, Christian Ehrhoff, Henrik Tallinder

Forward: Andy McDonald, Ryan Malone

Goaltender: Chris Mason, Dwayne Roloson, Mike Smith

6. Third-Line Forward/ No. 5-6 Defenseman / Backup Goaltender – generally speaking, players whose game is defensively-oriented, or whose abilities aren't quite good enough to land full-time duty on the 2nd line, top two defensive pairings, or the No. 1 goaltending position.

Defense: Jordan Leopold, Chris Campoli, Shane O'Brien

Forward: Trent Hunter, Manny Malhotra, Matt Cooke

Goaltender: Scott Clemmensen, Ty Conklin, Alex Auld

So, somewhere between a Manny Malhotra and Ryan Malone.

The problem is not Couturier or the organization. It is the expectations that people place on him that may not be justified, or at the very least, represent his absolute ceiling. But many players fail to reach their ceiling, and scouts felt that Couturier was one of those players who likely will not.

I've always felt that if he ends up being a Michal Handzus, great. Every team needs one of those. YOu can't always strike gold with first rounders the way we did with Richards, Carter, JVR.

To put things in context, Sam Morin is a 7.0 C. So his ceiling is pegged at #3-4 defenseman, with a good chance that that he could drop to 5.0 (a #7 defenseman). Same with Robert Hagg.

[aziz]

So because of that, the Ducks can't be good? LOL, what?

 

this whole thing started with the idea that the team is not good, and there is nothing more to say or think of beyond that.  that the record was proof and end of story.  colorado and calgary were mentioned to point out teams with records that to this point say something different than the quality of their roster would suggest.  

 

Their record this year and over the last several years speaks for the organizations success; and in terms of this conversation superiority of that team we root for.

 

it does?  to me, it speaks for a decent organization that has ups and downs like any other, but isn't particularly special, and benefited from very weak division-mates several of those years.

 

btw, they've collected 547 points in the standings since their cup win, including missing the playoffs twice.  the flyers have collected 546 with one miss.  it's not like they are detroit or anything.

[brelic]

this whole thing started with the idea that the team is not good, and there is nothing more to say or think of beyond that.  that the record was proof and end of story.  colorado and calgary were mentioned to point out teams with records that to this point say something different than the quality of their roster would suggest.

But "good" and "bad" are meaningless without records, no? You (and I mean the general "you") can believe all you want that a team really is good, and their roster really is solid. But if they put up 3-8, they just are not as good as you expected.

The Avalanche are "good" because they are 7-1. They're not 7-1 because they were judged to be "good", or rather, they're not 7-1 in spite of pundits saying they should be "bad." They're 7-1. A "good" team. Period.

I'm being trite, you get my point.

And I get yours - you believe the Flyers roster suggests the team should be better, and you;re after the "why?" Makes sense.

[canoli]

Even the games they've won, they haven't yet had a full 60-minute effort.

 

I guess we're seeing different things then - or just describing them differently. But I saw plenty of effort all game long last night. I saw it in the Detroit game too and the Vancouver game. Good effort, "hard work" (as MD called it) is not lacking imho. What's lacking is composure under pressure. When the opposition raises its game the Flyers have yet to figure out how to sustain their game. If you believe like I do that the Flyers have enough "game" to compete with good teams the question is, "where does it go?" once the stakes get higher - the final 20, up or down by a goal, a late PP that could save the day...etc.

 

I know some of you don't believe the Flyers have enough game, that they're "simply not good" or whatever. I don't see that. I see a team that struggles when the pressure goes up. But to be fair since Berube took over they've really only had 2 tests against good teams - teams that are capable of applying tough pressure. Last night was the 3rd test. So - 3 tests they came up short. I sure don't think that's any reason to call them "no good" or "not good enough." Not yet.

[aziz]

The Avalanche are "good" because they are 7-1. They're not 7-1 because they were judged to be "good", or rather, they're not 7-1 in spite of pundits saying they should be "bad." They're 7-1. A "good" team. Period.

 

we've all been following this sport long enough to know that is transient, though.  many many many teams over the years who were projected to be "bad" had "good" records for a period of time, only to ultimately turn out to, in fact, be "bad".  and the opposite, as well.

 

the penguins are 1-3 over their last 4, with 7 goals scored, total.  does that mean they are "bad" and can't score goals, or does it have something far less far reaching to say about how they have played recently?

[radoran]

see, this is not what i saw at all.  they continued to skate, furiously even, but to far less effect.  less cohesion, less organization.  i didn't see lazy, i saw confused.  and thus my apparently pointless question of "why?"

 

It's not a pointless question at all. I was asking it all last year. So, to that: "welcome to the party, pal!"

 

The problem is that the usual response last year was "the goalie! the goalie!" and then at the start of this year it became "the coach! the coach!"

 

So they've replaced both to little result.

 

I do think this team can be better and am somewhat mystified by the product they are showing on the ice. Odds are at least some of them have played professional hockey before.

 

I also think that they have severely overvalued some of their players - Hartnell and Timonen among them - and are locked in to long term deals that will be hard (not impossible, even with NMC/NTC) to shake.

[brelic]

I know some of you don't believe the Flyers have enough game, that they're "simply not good" or whatever. I don't see that. I see a team that struggles when the pressure goes up. But to be fair since Berube took over they've really only had 2 tests against good teams - teams that are capable of applying tough pressure. Last night was the 3rd test. So - 3 tests they came up short. I sure don't think that's any reason to call them "no good" or "not good enough." Not yet.

Ok, if you see a "team that struggles when the pressure goes up," and they are not winning games, what do you call that?

I don't know about the others, but when I say the Flyers are "bad", I don't mean any particular player individually. Sure, there are some of those. But mainly, I mean the Flyers, as a team. And to me, that means all the things you mention - struggle when faced with pressure, fold when losing a lead, can't find that extra gear.

For whatever reason, something with this "team" isn't working.

Of course, that could all change - the same as the Avalanche could start tumbling down (hehe).

But in the meantime, the Flyers, to me, are not a good team.

[FD19372]

Ok, if you see a "team that struggles when the pressure goes up," and they are not winning games, what do you call that?

I don't know about the others, but when I say the Flyers are "bad", I don't mean any particular player individually. Sure, there are some of those. But mainly, I mean the Flyers, as a team. And to me, that means all the things you mention - struggle when faced with pressure, fold when losing a lead, can't find that extra gear.

For whatever reason, something with this "team" isn't working.

Of course, that could all change - the same as the Avalanche could start tumbling down (hehe).

But in the meantime, the Flyers, to me, are not a good team.

 

Could it be that they just don't have that extra gear?  I think some of their personnel, especially on the back end, has been VASTLY overrated by the organ-eye-zation.

[ruxpin]

I guess we're seeing different things then - or just describing them differently. But I saw plenty of effort all game long last night. I saw it in the Detroit game too and the Vancouver game. Good effort, "hard work" (as MD called it) is not lacking imho. What's lacking is composure under pressure. When the opposition raises its game the Flyers have yet to figure out how to sustain their game. If you believe like I do that the Flyers have enough "game" to compete with good teams the question is, "where does it go?" once the stakes get higher - the final 20, up or down by a goal, a late PP that could save the day...etc.

 

I know some of you don't believe the Flyers have enough game, that they're "simply not good" or whatever. I don't see that. I see a team that struggles when the pressure goes up. But to be fair since Berube took over they've really only had 2 tests against good teams - teams that are capable of applying tough pressure. Last night was the 3rd test. So - 3 tests they came up short. I sure don't think that's any reason to call them "no good" or "not good enough." Not yet.

 

 

Alright.   I'm going to quote and comment below.  Putting it above just makes it easier for me to grab.

 

 

 

Good effort, "hard work" (as MD called it) is not lacking imho. What's lacking is composure under pressure.

 

For me, the former is defined by the latter.   A "good" hockey team--and the discussion in this thread seems to be what this has become about--is defined by composure under pressure; the ability to overcome adversity; the ability to survive the opposing team's onslaught so that your own "up" time isn't for not.   This team lacks all of that.  I don't care about "effort" when it is so disjointed that it doesn't matter.  Action to utterly no purpose or effect is not "effort." It's entropy.  You could go to the zoo and get any group of animals and throw them on the ice.  It wouldn't even have to be primates.  They may work their ass off.  They may show tons of effort.  But all they'll succeed in doing is exactly what the Flyers accomplished from about the 10 minute mark of the second period on:  **** all over the ice.

 

 

 

When the opposition raises its game the Flyers have yet to figure out how to sustain their game

 

I suspect we're talking in circles because you're seeing the same exact thing I am, I think, but here's the difference.  The Flyers are not a good enough team to sustain their game when the opposition raises its.  That's why they've only beaten teams like Florida and NYR who either didn't have the skill or had too many injuries to raise the level above pond hockey.  3-8 is early in the season, but it's a large enough sampling to bare this out as true.

 

 

 

If you believe like I do that the Flyers have enough "game" to compete with good teams (I don't!) the question is, "where does it go?" once the stakes get higher

 

The illusion/delusion is that it went somewhere.  The reality is it was never there.  Having enough "game" to compete with a good team while THAT team isn't playing particularly well (Ducks in the first) or against crap teams like Florida or a hurt NYR squad means just that:  they have enough game to compete when the opposition provides no...opposition.   When the stakes get raised, that doesn't go anywhere.  It stays at the same level.  The problem is it's not good enough to compete when the stakes get raised.

 

 

 

I know some of you don't believe the Flyers have enough game, that they're "simply not good" or whatever. I don't see that. . I see a team that struggles when the pressure goes up.

 

See, I think that above quote is why sometimes you and I don't see eye to eye.  And this is why it's good we discuss these things because sometimes it just comes out that our definitions are different.

 

This: " I see a team that struggles when the pressure goes up" -- for me -- CANNOT COEXIST with this: "I know some of you don't believe the Flyers have enough game, that they're "simply not good" or whatever. I don't see that."

 

Because if a team repeatedly and consistently struggles when the pressure goes up they, by definition (mine , anyway), DON'T HAVE ENOUGH GAME and SIMPLY AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH.

 

Apparently, you're calling "not enough game" something else--I'm not sure what--but no matter what you call it, they don't got it.

[SwedeFly]

@aziz

The driver is our captain who is MIA and playing like crap.

[hf101]

Could it be that they just don't have that extra gear?  I think some of their personnel, especially on the back end, has been VASTLY overrated by the organ-eye-zation.

 

Bingo.  However I still think yesterdays fault lies on Berube for changing the game strategy from a we need to skate and score mentality to let's hold on to a win.  Maybe the play in the 2nd and 3rd periods was more of a comfort level of play residing from Lavy's coaching.  If it it happens again. Berube shares that blame.

[aziz]

@ruxpin

 

the thing is, and what i believe canoli and i are trying to say, is that while you are right, the ultimate symptom is the same -the team is losing games- the diagnosis is very different if you consider "hard work" to be a different thing than "composure under pressure", or struggling under pressure as a different concept than simple lack of talent.  the diagnosis is very different, the solutions are very different, the timelines are very different.

 

if this is a lazy team with no talent to speak of, then this season is lost and i'm not real interested in watching from here out.  if they are lazy with no talent, then really, the entire roster needs to go and a complete top to bottom rebuild needs to start, which means the next four or five seasons are lost and i'm not real interested in actually watching the long term disaster until 2017 or later.

 

if this is an at least somewhat talented team that is willing to skate but has serious organizational, conditioning, and/or character issues...then that can be a matter of time and incremental adjustments.  a good draft pick here, a smart trade there, an effective implementation of a defensive system over here...it can be fixed, modified, progress can be made, and i'm interested to watch it happen.

 

that's why were struggling to define the nature of the issue here, why we appear to be splitting hairs a bit.  because they aren't hairs.  the *reason* for the current issues determines the scope and likelyhood of the repair.  and that scope runs from "over the course of the season" to "leaf/NYR half decade in the toilet", with the likelyhood going from "detroit retooling quickly" to "leaf/NYR half decade in the toilet and headed back there again".

[radoran]

Bingo.  However I still think yesterdays fault lies on Berube for changing the game strategy from a we need to skate and score mentality to let's hold on to a win.  Maybe the play in the 2nd and 3rd periods was more of a comfort level of play residing from Lavy's coaching.  If it it happens again. Berube shares that blame.

 

Lavy's "system" such as it was, WAS a "skate and score" mentality system.

 

Berube's charge was to change that about them.

[Mad Dog]

i believe some form of the opposite is happening with the flyers: they are playing below their capability, and it is worth trying to figure out why.

 

And again, I believe this all comes down to the fact that as a whole, as a unit, they are NOT A GOOD TEAM. I think you and @canoli are rejecting, or questioning this assertion with a focus on the fact that they can't sustain pressure. And what many of us are saying that THAT (inability to sustain pressure) *is* what makes them a bad team. And that's why they keep losing games. So I don't think they are "playing below their capability". I think they are playing exactly to their potential.

 

Now... if you would raise a question WHY this collection of players are not capable of sustaining pressure and why they crumble under pressure, and, as a result, end up losing more games than win, that's a deeper question and is a good one to ponder. Now THAT would probably warrant a deeper analysis. And to that end, I would start with defense. Personally? I believe this defensive corps don't possess nearly enough mobility, ability to make plays in tight spots, and think fast on their feet. I do think that. Timonen used to be able to have all these traits, but he is too old, too spent and too beat up. Coburn and Luke Schenn are waste. Seriously. They are. Streit has never been known to resemble anything capable of playing defense. He is known for carrying the puck and getting a decent shot on net.  Hockey games are not won or lost based on the number of carries.  This is not football.

 

It was really painful to watch yesterday how Perry held on to the puck for nearly 30 seconds in the Flyers zone, and the three players, each of whom weighted more than Perry, could do nothing about it. That was embarrassing. I could hear that even Keith Jones wanted to scream from his announcer booth.

 

And if it was just this game, I would say the hell with that game… watch the tape and throw it away.  But there is chaos and confusion just about every time the Flyers have to make crucial decision - the decision that does not involve simply dumping the puck. Hence, multiple missed opportunities on odd man rushes.

 

I mean you are looking for something that is right in front of you. What I am trying to say - the things I mentioned above are all signs of a bad team. They are not necessarily bad players individually. Maybe with the exception of Luke Schenn and Coburn, who I do think are just bad players, the rest of players, when looked at their individual skill sets, are not really that bad. They are OK. Not great, but I would agree, the team record, when looked purely in the prism of each individual player, should be better. I don't know... maybe they are not coached well. Maybe they lost confidence. Maybe it's all in their heads now. But no matter how we dissect it, the conversation returns to the point that THIS IS A BAD TEAM.

[ruxpin]

@ruxpin

 

the thing is, and what i believe canoli and i are trying to say, is that while you are right, the ultimate symptom is the same -the team is losing games- the diagnosis is very different if you consider "hard work" to be a different thing than "composure under pressure", or struggling under pressure as a different concept than simple lack of talent.  the diagnosis is very different, the solutions are very different, the timelines are very different.

 

if this is a lazy team with no talent to speak of, then this season is lost and i'm not real interested in watching from here out.  if they are lazy with no talent, then really, the entire roster needs to go and a complete top to bottom rebuild needs to start, which means the next four or five seasons are lost and i'm not real interested in actually watching the long term disaster until 2017 or later.

 

if this is an at least somewhat talented team that is willing to skate but has serious organizational, conditioning, and/or character issues...then that can be a matter of time and incremental adjustments.  a good draft pick here, a smart trade there, an effective implementation of a defensive system over here...it can be fixed, modified, progress can be made, and i'm interested to watch it happen.

 

that's why were struggling to define the nature of the issue here, why we appear to be splitting hairs a bit.  because they aren't hairs.  the *reason* for the current issues determines the scope and likelyhood of the repair.  and that scope runs from "over the course of the season" to "leaf/NYR half decade in the toilet", with the likelyhood going from "detroit retooling quickly" to "leaf/NYR half decade in the toilet and headed back there again".

 

 

I agree with all that (if I've never told you, you're an excellent writer, btw).

 

And I don't think it's splitting hairs.  You're right, the diagnosis is everything because the treatment is dependent upon it. 

 

if this is an at least somewhat talented team that is willing to skate but has serious organizational, conditioning, and/or character issues...then that can be a matter of time and incremental adjustments.  a good draft pick here, a smart trade there, an effective implementation of a defensive system over here...it can be fixed, modified, progress can be made, and i'm interested to watch it happen.

 

I actually think it's the above, although I think it's a combination of the things you listed.  I don't think it's "lazy."  There's "effort" out there--at least there was last night--but (again last night) to absolutely no effect.

 

I personally think it's a character thing.   But it's a group character thing (the reference I made to you regarding a group personality--church, etc.).  This group lacks a leader.   I don't mean to call out Giroux here, but they don't have an on ice general or generals that the grunts can lean on to get them through a struggle like the third period last night.   I know things can change from period to period (like it did from the 1st to the 2nd last night), but I'm convinced that with this team once the tide turns, it's over.  Had there been a fourth period it would have been more of the same.

 

This doesn't necessarily have to be about the C (it can be and often is).  But it's more than the C.  The current group has a damaged psyche and has no one among them to help pull them through.

 

By the way, I do believe that "hard work" IS different than "composed under pressure."  But without the latter, the former is of no real value.  Evidence:  Period 3 October 29, 2013.

[hf101]

Lavy's "system" such as it was, WAS a "skate and score" mentality system.

 

Berube's charge was to change that about them.

 

Lavy's system was not as much about carrying the puck in the zone with numbers it was pressuring the puck once it was dumped in.

 

In the first period they carried the play into the zone as a unit.  (I'll assume this is Berube's plan) 

 

Periods 2 and 3 the team chipped the puck in sending one man in to dig out the puck from the wall.  (Lavy's system)

[radoran]

Lavy's system was not as much about carrying the puck in the zone with numbers it was pressuring the puck once it was dumped in.

 

In the first period they carried the play into the zone as a unit.  (I'll assume this is Berube's plan) 

 

Periods 2 and 3 the team chipped the puck in sending one man in to dig out the puck from the wall.  (Lavy's system)

 

By "Berube's plan" I'm guessing you mean "effective hockey"?

 

What was the coach doing on the bench in the 2nd when they started that. What adjustments did he make in the second intermission to change the way they played - considering you identify it as them playing the same way in both periods?

 

I watched UVM/Penn State last Saturday at the Wells Fargo Center. Those were two teams that actually played as a unit (UVM won 5-2).

 

I haven't seen the Flyers play as a unit for more than a shift or two.

And this team is not all that different than last year's - aside from adding VLC and Streit. At least VLC is leading the team in points since someone made the genius adjustment of putting him on Giroux's line.

[ruxpin]

@Mad Dog

 

I tend to agree with you about the defense.  And the 30 second or so thing with Perry was painful.

 

But I'm becoming increasingly convinced that this is more than about x's and o's and about a less than stellar defense (although I'd like to try adding a top pair defenseman just to see how much it helps!).

 

I'm really to the point that I do think it's a team-wide character disease.  Until they are able to just work for each other (not just work hard, but work for each other), they will continue to have a handful that wilts under pressure and another group that simply tries to do entirely too much on their own.

[hf101]

By "Berube's plan" I'm guessing you mean "effective hockey"?

What was the coach doing on the bench in the 2nd when they started that. What adjustments did he make in the second intermission to change the way they played - considering you identify it as them playing the same way in both periods?

 

That is not really what I wanted to say as in "Berube's Plan"  but the result sure is "effective hockey" 

 

But there was a difference in Flyers play after the first period that really had nothing to do with the "Ducks" play. 

I was at the game. My seat was near the corner on the same side as the benches on the end where the Flyers score twice.   Thus I can't answer what happened at the bench, because of the view.  However, there was  Power, Speed, Time, and Effort, that focused on a line as a 5 man unit as the Flyers entered and maintained pressure in the offensive zone that was greater in the first period.  OF which became less in the second and was nonexistent in the third even when it was 6 on 4 at the end of the game. 

 

In the first period the D pinched in from the blue line, they cycled the puck. The shifts were longer.   In the second period I saw two instances where the puck was in the offensive zone and the Flyers D chose to make a line change.  The Flyers then lost possession without a shot on net.  The shifts seemed to get much shorter as the game went on.  Thus a quick dump the puck and off for a line change.  They were also unable to role 4 lines.  Did it wear on the 3 lines... absolutely.  Rosehill is lost on the ice.  Placing him in the lineup destroys the ability to use 4 lines.

 

The good and the bad is on Berube, imo  I think the players played as he called it from the bench. 

[radoran]

That is not really what I wanted to say as in "Berube's Plan"  but the result sure is "effective hockey" 

 

But there was a difference in Flyers play after the first period that really had nothing to do with the "Ducks" play. 

I was at the game. My seat was near the corner on the same side as the benches on the end where the Flyers score twice.   Thus I can't answer what happened at the bench, because of the view.  However, there was  Power, Speed, Time, and Effort, that focused on a line as a 5 man unit as the Flyers entered and maintained pressure in the offensive zone that was greater in the first period.  OF which became less in the second and was nonexistent in the third even when it was 6 on 4 at the end of the game. 

 

In the first period the D pinched in from the blue line, they cycled the puck. The shifts were longer.   In the second period I saw two instances where the puck was in the offensive zone and the Flyers D chose to make a line change.  The Flyers then lost possession without a shot on net.  The shifts seemed to get much shorter as the game went on.  Thus a quick dump the puck and off for a line change.  They were also unable to role 4 lines.  Did it wear on the 3 lines... absolutely.  Rosehill is lost on the ice.  Placing him in the lineup destroys the ability to use 4 lines.

 

The good and the bad is on Berube, imo  I think the players played as he called it from the bench. 

 

Which is, quite frankly, worrisome... 

 

He's also the guy suiting up Rosehill. Here's a good "what the hell" (#ontopic) - WHAT THE HELL is Rosehill doing on the ice against Anaheim? Anaheim's two top penalty minute guys are 15 each - Pat Maroon and Bryan Allen. What's Rosehill's "role"? Was his 9 shift/5:42, -1 essential to the team's play last night? How big was his one (1) hit?? Allen AND Maroon BOTH played regular shifts. Does Anaheim even have a goon?

 

Berube seems out of his depth and without a timely hat trick from VLC, this team would STILL not have a game with more than two goals.

 

"Playing not to lose" is not in any way the same as "playing to win." The Flyers are "playing not to lose" and that's not how you win hockey games.