Absolutely Inexcusable.

[aziz]

@JackStraw

 

[JackStraw]

@aziz - is that... Che Hextall???

Edited December 16, 2013 by JackStraw

[aziz]

ron guevara

[JackStraw]

@aziz - let's just hope the CIA doesn't know where he is.

[aziz]

@JackStraw

 

well, he did say, "whereever kneejerk firing may surprise us, let it be welcome, provided that this our battle cry may have reached some receptive ear and another hand may be extended to wield our smart draft picks."  

 

his spirit will live on.

[JackStraw]

@JackStraw

 

well, he did say, "whereever kneejerk firing may surprise us, let it be welcome, provided that this our battle cry may have reached some receptive ear and another hand may be extended to wield our smart draft picks."  

 

his spirit will live on.

 

Words that will be recited by revolutionary GMs of the future, no doubt.

[Bakanekimiwa]

guys, come on.  i'm not going to cheerlead, but take it for what it is.  things were fine this afternoon until a pair of screened shots and a misplay by mason.  three very specific, non-chronic events turned the game around.  the fact that grossmann was right in mason's sightline or that mason failed to get the puck on the glass doesn't say anything about the team as a whole.

 

this was a fluky game, mostly good, a couple moments of bad.  add in the shootout and they end up with a loss.  they played well, overall, though.

I can't disagree more. I say it's inexcusable for any nhl team to lose a game they were up 4-1 late in the 3rd and you offer up excuses. We see the game fundementally different. If you accept the excuses, then I guess you accept a barely mediocre team. Again... We see things differently.

[fanaticV3.0]

The big guys beat the little guys,again! The Caps pushed the guys around all night and the Flyers let em'. Until Chief resolves that problem,your going to have a problem getting anybody to go full throttle. Grossman screened Mason on the third goal,he was all by himself on the fourth goal. Grossman plays 60 minutes and gives 100%,Downie and Simmonds do a good job,but that's it. Apparently there is not one Phantom that can help.How can that be? Mason is not going to stand on his head every game. Maybe its time to acquire a top five goon just to sit on the bench,just waiting. A team of 180 lb.over-hyped players isn't going to cut it  in the NHL.

 

I think it's funny some people keep insisting this team is stuck in the 70s. They haven't been a very tough team for a while now and actually get pushed around a lot.

[fanaticV3.0]

Yep...let's throw out 50 plus minutes of solid hockey..THAT MEANS NOTHING....The Orlov goal literally curved into the top left of the goal...it wasn't even on goal when he shot it. It literally curved around the 2 guys screening Mason and snuck in. The last goal was just a mistake by Mason that put him out of position to play the puck. It happens and it is a safe bet that Mason would be the first to tell you he made a bad mistake on that play. I do agree that you need to continue to keep attacking though. It is a whole lot tougher to score when the puck is at the other end of the ice. I think you will see Berube make the adjustments there. He is not the "idiot" many people thought he was........

 

They fell apart and lost a game they shouldn't have, but you're happy because they "played good for most of it"?

[flyerrod]

I can't disagree more. I say it's inexcusable for any nhl team to lose a game they were up 4-1 late in the 3rd and you offer up excuses. We see the game fundementally different. If you accept the excuses, then I guess you accept a barely mediocre team. Again... We see things differently.

What was your take on their play for the first 50 minutes of the game? Did they suck? Were they outclassed or out played? Were they mediocre? The answer is no to all. The last 10 minutes were mistakes that led to scoring chances and some lucky bounces. Those are facts, not excuses. There is a huge difference between REASONS and EXCUSES. Berube has been very solid when it comes to making adjustments with this team and I expect him to continue to do so.

[aziz]

I say it's inexcusable for any nhl team to lose a game they were up 4-1 late in the 3rd and you offer up excuses.

 

i'm not making up excuses, i just happen to think it is beyond the powers of any team to exert control over the vagaries of luck and chance.  yes, the flyers sat back on a 3 goal lead and that was a mistake.  they weren't overwhelmed by the massive offensive onslaught, though.  didn't crumble under the relentless pressure.  2 lucky point shots found their way through screens and the goalie misplayed the puck.  the best team ever playing the best game ever can have those things happen to them.  there is no corrective action that can be applied so they never happen again.  not roster-wise, not strategy-wise, not execution-wise.

 

this isn't a great team, but yesterday had way more to do with weird **** happening than it did the roster's weakness.

[radoran]

They fell apart and lost a game they shouldn't have, but you're happy because they "played good for most of it"?

 

The Flyers are among the league's elite teams when it comes to moral victories.

 

So, they have that going for them.

[murraycraven]

Great job you bunch of overrated millionaire hockey players...  we'll get them next time!

 

Moral victories are not what this team needs nor do they deserve it... better to leave the kumbaya stuff to Coatsey.  

Edited December 16, 2013 by murraycraven

[brelic]

Moral victories are not what this team needs nor do they deserve it.

I disagree. Moral victories are not what *good* and *contenting* teams need.

But young, inexperienced teams like the Flyers? Sure, moral victories are helpful.

[murraycraven]

This team has enough veteran presence that we can skip the "feel good" stuff.   A mark of a bad or mediocre Team is inconsistency - something the Flyers have been all year.  

 

This team simply collapsed in the 3rd period.  Did they play well for the first 50 minutes?  Yes... they played well.   But hockey is a 60 minute game and they simply struggle night in and night out to put together a full 60 minute effort.   At this point moral victories become nothing more than words to young players... something that everyone can say when things are going bad.   It makes for a great sound bite but in the end the NHL is about winning games.

 

How many leads have they blown in the 3rd period this year alone?   When you are a bad team the only thing talk about is moral victories.  A true moral victory is when a good team loses a game or has a letdown.   Not when your team is bad and has been proven to be for much of the season. 

Edited December 16, 2013 by murraycraven

[aziz]

This team has enough veteran presence that we can skip the "feel good" stuff

 

do they, though?  i mean, timonen, hartnell, streit.  one increasingly over the hill player, one overpaid stiff, and one guy no one knows who is completely not carrying his weight.  the functional core to the team is almost exclusively 25 or younger.

[radoran]

do they, though?  i mean, timonen, hartnell, streit.  one increasingly over the hill player, one overpaid stiff, and one guy no one knows who is completely not carrying his weight.  the functional core to the team is almost exclusively 25 or younger.

 

I'll quibble a bit. The Flyers are a "young team" in that they haven't been together all that long as a unit, but there are a number of "young" guys who don't really have the luxury of using the "but I'm a young guy" excuse at this point.

 

On the blue line, only Luke Schenn is under 25. Gustaffson is a 25-year-old in the press box.

 

Giroux is about to turn 26, is the captain of the team and is in his sixth year in the NHL.

 

The forwards have some youth, true - but Simmonds (25) and Voracek (24) are in their sixth seasons as well, the second line center (VLC - signed for four more years) is 33 but will be 34 at the end of the season. Downie, Read, Hall and Rosehill* are over 25. More than half the team will be 26 or more at the start of next season.

 

There was a lot of "youth" when they traded away the experience they had given Crater and Richards, but quite frankly, it's time for "potential" to begin turning into "performance" and - yes - "moral victories" can play a role in that. But overreliance on "moral victories" leads to players saying "we're better than our record" or "we can flip the switch when we get to the playoffs" etc.

 

And that line of thinking got Mike Richards shipped to Los Angeles.

 

 

* I just threw up a little

[fanaticV3.0]

The Flyers are among the league's elite teams when it comes to moral victories.

 

So, they have that going for them.

 

I guess when Snider talks about a tradition of winning, that's the kind of stuff he's referring to?

[mojo1917]

I guess we will see if this group is capable of learning from that let down.

 

I have to say, compared to the way they played the caps the first time , this was 1000% percent A#1 better.

 

I think @JackStraw 's work in progress sign is a very helpful thing to keep in mind.

[Bakanekimiwa]

Pretty much 5 min into the 3rd period, you could literally sense the team sagging and pretty much counting the 2 points in the standings. They let the Caps come at them and they let their foot off the gas, which allowed the Caps to come back. Some here may see those goals as 'flukes' or what have you, but those were opportunities they never should have had to begin with. 

 

Those 'fluke' goals happened because of a team that collectively let up,  believing they already had the win. Winning teams DO NOT display this characteristic. The coaches were complicit in this failing because they didn't recognize it and did nothing to correct it. There was also a chance for Berube to call a time out which seemed to be much needed after the Flyers had iced the puck for the 2nd or 3rd time within a few minutes. Berube chose not to take the timeout with gassed defenders. They were scored upon on the immediate faceoff and control. 

 

That's ok boys... we've still got a lead... 

 

NO .... NO .... NO. This is not how you build a winning atmosphere and lead a team. Accepting that these were 'flukes' is quite frankly... bullsh1t. Those goals were caused by a collective sag and this is what you have right here fellas.... a losing team. 

[aziz]

ccepting that these were 'flukes' is quite frankly... bullsh1t. Those goals were caused by a collective sag and this is what you have right here fellas.... a losing team. 

 

because a team on its game should allow no shots against at all??  dude, shots against are going to happen, and every now and then they'll go in.

 

look, i get it, and there certainly are times where a team backs off and gets punched in the nose for it.  i agree the flyers felt overconfident with their lead and didn't keep pressing.  they gave the caps too much time with the puck and were too comfortable just getting clears.  that can and does lead to increased offensive pressure, which causes defensive breakdowns, which leads to goals against.  give a team time to swarm and spend multiple shifts in your defensive zone, and they will eventually find a way to built a nice play that puts the puck in the back of the net.

 

thing is, that isn't what happened here.  it wasn't multiple shifts with crushing offensive pressure that caused the goals against.  it was a pair of lazy shots from the point with little set up, and one mistake by the goalie.  the flyers didn't give those goals up because they stopped pressing offensively.  they gave them up because of a couple unlucky breaks on low percentage shots and a goof behind the net.  the flyers could have been offensive hawks, with an overpowering forecheck and an airtight defensive game, but so long as they allowed two shots from the point in the entire period, those two shots could have gone in.

 

i'm not arguing against the theory of don't let up just because you have a lead.  i'm just saying that theory doesn't account for or describe  the outcome yesterday.  had it been three multi-touch passing plays leading to open onetimers from the far post, then yeah, backing off caused it.  what were essentially dump ins from the blueline, no, backing off had nothing to do with those going in.  crap for luck did.

 

similarly, btw, couturier's goal in no way comments on the capitals' overall game.  weirdo crazy goal from behind the goalline against the boards, that had nothing to do with how the 18 caps skaters were playing.  it just went in, despite best efforts (aside from the goalie).  crap for luck bit both teams yesterday.

Edited December 16, 2013 by aziz

[flyerrod]

They let the Caps come at them and they let their foot off the gas, which allowed the Caps to come back. Some here may see those goals as 'flukes' or what have you, but those were opportunities they never should have had to begin with.

I do agree with that, that they quit pressing the attack and let them get too many chances. That was part of what I was referring to when I said Berube should make adjustments as he has been doing since he took over. They had control of the game until the last 10 minutes before they dropped into the prevent wins defense.

[fan4ever]

@Bakanekimiwa

There was also a chance for Berube to call a time out which seemed to be much needed after the Flyers had iced the puck for the 2nd or 3rd time within a few minutes. Berube chose not to take the timeout with gassed defenders. They were scored upon on the immediate faceoff and control.

 

I agree with this whole-heartedly.  I was just saying to my Dad Sunday night, the chance to correct the pace of the game came at that minute when Chief decided not to call the time out and get the team back on the right track after that icing.  It may not have mattered but I think it should've been a time out!!!!

[caluso]

because a team on its game should allow no shots against at all??  dude, shots against are going to happen, and every now and then they'll go in.

 

look, i get it, and there certainly are times where a team backs off and gets punched in the nose for it.  i agree the flyers felt overconfident with their lead and didn't keep pressing.  they gave the caps too much time with the puck and were too comfortable just getting clears.  that can and does lead to increased offensive pressure, which causes defensive breakdowns, which leads to goals against.  give a team time to swarm and spend multiple shifts in your defensive zone, and they will eventually find a way to built a nice play that puts the puck in the back of the net.

 

thing is, that isn't what happened here.  it wasn't multiple shifts with crushing offensive pressure that caused the goals against.  it was a pair of lazy shots from the point with little set up, and one mistake by the goalie.  the flyers didn't give those goals up because they stopped pressing offensively.  they gave them up because of a couple unlucky breaks on low percentage shots and a goof behind the net.  the flyers could have been offensive hawks, with an overpowering forecheck and an airtight defensive game, but so long as they allowed two shots from the point in the entire period, those two shots could have gone in.

 

i'm not arguing against the theory of don't let up just because you have a lead.  i'm just saying that theory doesn't account for or describe  the outcome yesterday.  had it been three multi-touch passing plays leading to open onetimers from the far post, then yeah, backing off caused it.  what were essentially dump ins from the blueline, no, backing off had nothing to do with those going in.  crap for luck did.

 

similarly, btw, couturier's goal in no way comments on the capitals' overall game.  weirdo crazy goal from behind the goalline against the boards, that had nothing to do with how the 18 caps skaters were playing.  it just went in, despite best efforts (aside from the goalie).  crap for luck bit both teams yesterday.

So, bad luck cost them the game? That is a loser's lament, my friend!

 

Clearly, your take on the game is different than everybody else - players, coaches and fans. After the game, EVERY player and coach talked about "sitting back." Once they went up by 3, they did not generate any offense (outside of voracek having  a great chance) and spent most of the time trying to clear their own zone.

 

Whatever you want to say, however you want to put it, the reality is this: the more time spent running around in your own zone, the higher the likelihood of a goal agaInst. Even you must be able to see that.

 

According to the Hockeybuzz, the Flyers have a winning percentage of only .862 over the last two years when leading after two periods. It is clear that this team has no idea how to close out games. 

 

Bad luck didn't cost them the game, bad play did. 

Edited December 17, 2013 by caluso

[aziz]

Bad luck didn't cost them the game, bad play did.

Kid runs around the house holding a pair of scissors. He trips, falls, and hits his head on the coffee table. Mom yells, "that's why you don't run with scissors!"

The Flyers made a big mistake in not continuing to press the attack, but that did not cause a pair of low-threat shots from the point to go in. It just didn't. Running with scissors did not cause them to fall down and hit their head. Still shouldn't run with scissors, but there is a reality beneath the platitudes.