fanaticV3.0 Posted November 13, 2015 Author Share Posted November 13, 2015 that was me who posted it. This was from someone who was at the game behind the flyers bench, he is on a Flyers Facebook page I belong to Not a coaching issue 'directly' per se, but clearly this team is rebelling against Hackstol and does not believe in his system. They are doing the total opposite on the ice during the games than they do in practice (and I've been to many already this year). I've seen teams do this in the past when they dont gel with the coach, they shut down during the game. Classic rebellious attitude and quite frankly, very immature and unprofessional. Im not calling for Hackstol's head but he needs to try another approach/system that the players will support AND this team needs to support their coach no matter what. The home game vs Buffalo when Giroux lost it on the bench and started ripping the coaches and team...then Hackstol fired back at him telling him to use that energy on the ice crushed G's spirit (and the team's) imo. I was right behind the bench and heard everything that was said. They just hung their heads after that exchange and folded. Well that didn't take long. When did hockey players become such ******* btw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 When did hockey players become such ******* btw? Yeah, really. If you're that mentally soft, how physically hard can you be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted November 13, 2015 Author Share Posted November 13, 2015 The team looks more organized under Hakstol and you can tell that Dave stresses the importance of positioning as everyone on this club seems to have a better grasp of what he wants out of them. There's none of this garbage like "they need to work harder and skate faster." There's actual preparation before a game. Yes, it's up to the players to execute, but it's also up to the coaching staff to have a legitimate coaching and game plan in place, not just saying the same old tired and boring cliches that have been spouted by other garbage coaches in the past. Organized? The 2015 flyers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted November 13, 2015 Author Share Posted November 13, 2015 Yeah, really. If you're that mentally soft, how physically hard can you be? I don't know which true and what isn't, so it's hard to say for sure, but there are already rumors of problems between the coach and players. And those rumors didn't just start today - meaning they popped up somewhere around a whopping 10 or so games into this coach's tenure. This comes after they tuned out the last coach. They suck this year and sucked last year too. They sucked two or three years back too. Their franchise goalie sucks and their leading scorer from last year does too. at what point do these mental midgets, to borrow a phrase from superfan, recognize that maybe just maybe… * whispers* it might not be the coach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howie58 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Greetings: I agree with some here that fixing the D may amp the offense and prevent some really, really bad goals. But....it's telling that Neiburg's piece in the Inquirer this morning raises the same question that's been on this board for weeks or months...what happens if the rebuild takes longer than the primes of G, V, Simmonds...etc? That's relevant regardless of coach, GM, rebuild length. On a related note--I'd take what we can get for Simmonds. Per earlier post--I love the guy's ethic and accountability. But he isn't going to score 20+ goals without a lot of supporters who open up his wheelhouse. Hakstol deserves time to put his imprint on the squad. Will he be given the time? That's a different story. Howie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted November 13, 2015 Author Share Posted November 13, 2015 Greetings: I agree with some here that fixing the D may amp the offense and prevent some really, really bad goals. But....it's telling that Neiburg's piece in the Inquirer this morning raises the same question that's been on this board for weeks or months...what happens if the rebuild takes longer than the primes of G, V, Simmonds...etc? That's relevant regardless of coach, GM, rebuild length. On a related note--I'd take what we can get for Simmonds. Per earlier post--I love the guy's ethic and accountability. But he isn't going to score 20+ goals without a lot of supporters who open up his wheelhouse. Hakstol deserves time to put his imprint on the squad. Will he be given the time? That's a different story. Howie I didn't read that article and I haven't been here often enough to notice people were saying that, but I have to agree. I have been feeling that way for a while now. I remember saying that one of the guys from 97.5 on Twitter, a hockey guy too, and he sort of scoffed at me. I honestly don't get how someone can't see that it might be a concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FD19372 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Could it maybe somehow, possibly, in some way be that we overestimated Giroux and Voracek based on one season and an upset playoff win back when they played with one of top ten players to ever play the game? Maybe these guys just aren't that great. If we can get a top pairing d-man in a deal for either one of them, I pull the trigger immediately. Then maybe Hextall will think about gradually giving at least one of his top AHL dmen some NHL experience. This team isn't going anywhere, bring up one of the kids on D, and see what he can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FD19372 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Organized? The 2015 flyers?Maybe Organ lacking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted November 13, 2015 Author Share Posted November 13, 2015 Could it maybe somehow, possibly, in some way be that we overestimated Giroux and Voracek based on one season and an upset playoff win back when they played with one of top ten players to ever play the game? Maybe these guys just aren't that great. If we can get a top pairing d-man in a deal for either one of them, I pull the trigger immediately. Then maybe Hextall will think about gradually giving at least one of his top AHL dmen some NHL experience. This team isn't going anywhere, bring up one of the kids on D, and see what he can do. While I have my problems with Giroux, he has had more than one good season. I think his career .ppg is something around .90 (if my math is correct). He's good for 70 to 80 points a year (and the occasional 90 point year on a better team). He's a good player, but not a great one. He would greatly benefit from someone better than him being on the team. Voracek on the other hand will prove to be massively overpaid. Last year was a fluke. He's a 50 to 60 point man and there's nothing wrong with that, but they should have never paid him based on one year. Organ lacking – I see what you did there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Voracek on the other hand will prove to be massively overpaid. Last year was a fluke. He's a 50 to 60 point man and there's nothing wrong with that, but they should have never paid him based on one year. i dunno. last season was the second time in three years he was right up against a point/game. he hasn't finished with less than 60 points (adjusting for the 46 points in 48 games in 12-13) in four years. doesn't mean he's worth his money, but seems like he is specifically above a 50-60 point player, as he has finished beyond that range three seasons in a row, now. 60-80 points is the spread his actual play has described. until this season, of course. the drastic drop this season, too many other players are doing exactly the same thing for me to believe it has anything to do with their individual capacity. that the entire offense is completely off the rails, something other than "we overestimated them" is going on. i don't know what, but it isn't a series of mediocre players who overachieved coming precipitously back to earth all at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canoli Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 that the entire offense is completely off the rails, something other than "we overestimated them" is going on. Yes and you see it on the PP esp - one of the best PPs in the league over the last 7 years - minus 1 or 2 middle-of-the-pack seasons - and now they're standing around, nobody takes the initiative and they get outworked on a regular basis. They've got one play apparently: G passes to BSchenn in the slot, Schenn rips it toward the net. Other than shooting from the half-wall that's about all they've shown so far. The wraparound tries are so obvious they're always stopped. Point shots? ...looks like all Braydon Coburns out there. We know they can play better - individually - because they have in the past. I can only hope Hak figures out what to do - I sure can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted November 13, 2015 Author Share Posted November 13, 2015 i dunno. last season was the second time in three years he was right up against a point/game. he hasn't finished with less than 60 points (adjusting for the 46 points in 48 games in 12-13) in four years. doesn't mean he's worth his money, but seems like he is specifically above a 50-60 point player, as he has finished beyond that range three seasons in a row, now. 60-80 points is the spread his actual play has described. until this season, of course. the drastic drop this season, too many other players are doing exactly the same thing for me to believe it has anything to do with their individual capacity. that the entire offense is completely off the rails, something other than "we overestimated them" is going on. i don't know what, but it isn't a series of mediocre players who overachieved coming precipitously back to earth all at once. I think what you meant to say was that he scored more than 60 points twice. 2011-12: 49 in 782012-13: 46 in 482013-14: 62 in 822014-15: 81 in 82 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 @fanaticV3.0 i said four years, should have said three years. sorry. still, that's three years of .75p/g or better. in an 82 game season, 60 points is .73p/g. he has been better than that for long enough that i can't see any basis for "50 points" being in the conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 You give me a guy that scores 35 goals and 60 points on a consistent basis and I'll take him every time over a guy who scores 23 goals and 80 points on a consistent basis. Points can be inflated. Goals not as much. And goals win hockey games. i can't see any basis for "50 points" being in the conversation. Voracek is a 60 point player. Whether he'll ever be a 25-goal scorer remains to be seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted November 13, 2015 Author Share Posted November 13, 2015 @fanaticV3.0 i said four years, should have said three years two. sorry. still, that's three years of .75p/g or better. in an 82 game season, 60 points is .73p/g. he has been better than that for long enough that i can't see any basis for "50 points" being in the conversation. He has scored more than 60 twice. You cannot credit someone for something they did not do, because "they might have" in a full season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 He has scored more than 60 twice. You cannot credit someone for something they did not do, because "they might have" in a full season. which is why i switched over to points per game. but whatever. if you want to view 46 points in 48 games as simply 46 points for the season without weighing the actual number of games played at all, that's fine. a wholly disingenuous interpretation of data to the point of intellectual dishonesty, but it's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted November 13, 2015 Author Share Posted November 13, 2015 which is why i switched over to points per game. but whatever. if you want to view 46 points in 48 games as simply 46 points for the season without weighing the actual number of games played at all, that's fine. a wholly disingenuous interpretation of data to the point of intellectual dishonesty, but it's fine. Players and teams are measured based on what happened, not what might've happened. Projections are just that. Save the lecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Players and teams are measured based on what happened, not what might've happened. Projections are just that. Save the lecture.Points per game is not a projection, it is what actually happened. And allows us to appropriately weigh things like shortened seasons. Going strictly by points scored better supports your argument by effectively turning an outstanding almost point-per-game short season into a poor sub-50 point effort. All of a sudden, a very strong partial season becomes a remarkably weak normal one, and you've succesfully co-opted reality. I understand why you would want to use totals, instead of per-game figures. Don't let what the numbers actually mean influence what your want them to say and all of that. It's totally fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 Well, here is one. You think gostisbehere would do better in the NHL than he is doing in the A? I'm not sure I follow that logic at all.Now, granted, his +/- down there is pretty bad (while Macdonald's is actually pretty good), but I don't know why anyone would think that would change if he were playing against more talented and experienced opponents. I didn't get to see the game tonight, but I hear Gostisbehere had a great game. "Excuse me while I gush over the revelation that was Shayne Gostisbehere this evening. Bringing speed, creativity, and game breaking skill, he was easily the Flyers best player on the ice tonight."http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2015/11/14/9736414/flyers-vs-hurricanes-recap-suck-it-eric-t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 @hf101 i only saw the last period, but to me he looked strong, smart and confident. had a good game, here's to a few more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 I didn't get to see the game tonight, but I hear Gostisbehere had a great game. "Excuse me while I gush over the revelation that was Shayne Gostisbehere this evening. Bringing speed, creativity, and game breaking skill, he was easily the Flyers best player on the ice tonight."http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2015/11/14/9736414/flyers-vs-hurricanes-recap-suck-it-eric-tSounds good in the article it sounds like Ryan White could be banged up.Well if he has to miss a game please lord do not suit Vinny up.You know what time it would be???? Goul time!!!!That way the can have Ghost and Gouls on the ice. Goulbourne would be a similar player like White. And he has 4 goals think year. It White is out Hextall make it happen!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaFlyerFan Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 "Excuse me while I gush over the revelation that was Shayne Gostisbehere this evening. Bringing speed, creativity, and game breaking skill, he was easily the Flyers best player on the ice tonight."http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2015/11/14/9736414/flyers-vs-hurricanes-recap-suck-it-eric-tI disagree. Simmonds was the best player on the ice for the Flyers. Ghost played well and did not look out of place, but he wasn't close to having the kind of game that Simmonds did, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 @AlaskaFlyerFan What the heck is the matter with you...what about new, shiny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1917 Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 I disagree. Simmonds was the best player on the ice for the Flyers. Ghost played well and did not look out of place, but he wasn't close to having the kind of game that Simmonds did, IMHO.last night was the best simmonds looked this whole year. i'll take that performance anytime, i'd like to see him reproduce it ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaFlyerFan Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 @AlaskaFlyerFan What the heck is the matter with you...what about new, shiny? Not sure. Maybe I need to put the Orange & Black glasses on.last night was the best simmonds looked this whole year. i'll take that performance anytime, i'd like to see him reproduce it ...As would I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.