Simmonds

[hf101]

Lots of injuries, wow. 

 

Wayne Simmonds injury timeline

• Enters training camp with torn pelvis.

• Oct. 17: pulled groin

• Oct. 19: broken teeth from Mattias Ekholm’s stick

• Late Oct: breaks ankle from Shayne Gostisbehere snapshot

• Feb. 16: tore ligament in his hand.

 

 

[OccamsRazor]

4 minutes ago, hf101 said:

Lots of injuries, wow. 

 

Wayne Simmonds injury timeline

• Enters training camp with torn pelvis.

• Oct. 17: pulled groin

• Oct. 19: broken teeth from Mattias Ekholm’s stick

• Late Oct: breaks ankle from Shayne Gostisbehere snapshot

• Feb. 16: tore ligament in his hand.

 

 

 

 

Trade him now before he gets hurt again......

[albertaflyer]

7 minutes ago, hf101 said:

Lots of injuries, wow. 

 

Wayne Simmonds injury timeline

• Enters training camp with torn pelvis.

• Oct. 17: pulled groin

• Oct. 19: broken teeth from Mattias Ekholm’s stick

• Late Oct: breaks ankle from Shayne Gostisbehere snapshot

• Feb. 16: tore ligament in his hand.

 

 

And I’m sitting here whining cause I had an emergency appendectomy on Monday night. I will say they do have pretty sweet pain killers though.

[mkscrewy]

we should have traded him yesterday!!!!!11

 

[OccamsRazor]

Seriously i could see Ron hold onto him to let him rebound from this past year and at the same time increasing his trade value before the deadline.

 

And with all that said i can see them working out a deal and him giving a sort of home team discount to stay in Philly.

 

Only Simmer knows what he would take to stay.

 

He has been one of my favs since he has laced them up for the Flyers....so i am torn on what to do with him.

 

At the end of the day i want what is best for the team....my heart aside. Myself...like i said this is just me speaking. I would rather trade Jake.

[AlaskaFlyerFan]

1 hour ago, hf101 said:

• Enters training camp with torn pelvis.

 

Interesting.  I'd like to know what a torn pelvis is since the pelvis is bone.  Must have been pelvic ligaments and not the pelvis.

 

EDIT:  It was a pelvic ligament according to the article below.

[AlaskaFlyerFan]

https://www.courierpostonline.com/story/sports/nhl/flyers/2018/04/25/after-painful-year-wayne-simmonds-wants-stay-rest-my-career/552051002/

 

After painful year, Wayne Simmonds wants to stay ‘for the rest of my career’

Dave Isaac, @davegisaac Published 6:12 p.m. ET April 25, 2018

     

(Photo: Zack Hill/Philadelphia Flyers)

CONNECTTWEETLINKEDINCOMMENTEMAILMORE

VOORHEES — The Wayne Train had several unexpected delays this season until it finally trudged to the end of the playoffs.

Next stop: the surgeon.

Wayne Simmonds, somehow, played through a torn pelvic ligament, pulled groin, broken teeth, broken ankle and only finally came out of the lineup when he fought Sewell’s Tony DeAngelo and got his hand stuck in DeAngelo’s jersey, tearing a ligament in his thumb. The only reason he missed seven games was because he couldn’t grip his hockey stick.

“I actually forgot about that,” said Simmonds, whose grin is now toothless.

Simmonds claims that all these injuries were a matter of pain tolerance and so the Flyers let him play. Doctors didn’t stop him even after he came to camp with the first injury, which he estimates would have cost him about a month and a half. He played on and scored a hat trick on opening night, lending more to his apparent indestructibility.

“They showed me the MRI and I’m like, ‘Can I play?’” Simmonds recounted. “They said I could play.

“I don’t know if it’s the right thing, but I can’t not play. It’s just geared in my head. If I’m not dead or I’m not deathly sick, I’m gonna try to get out there and do whatever I can. Whether the coach is gonna play me, whatever minutes he wanted to play me, that was up to him. I’m definitely gonna sacrifice my body for the team, that’s for sure.”  

Wednesday the Flyers opened the doors of the renovated gym and nutrition areas of the team's practice facility to the media. Wochit

Here’s the question for Simmonds, who will turn 30 this summer and is up for a new contract after next season: what else did he sacrifice?

The Flyers, if they so choose, could negotiate an extension on July 1 this summer. So far in his career with the Flyers, Simmonds has 187 goals and 351 points in 522 games. Ever since he came to Philadelphia in the summer of 2011 he has averaged at least 20 goals and has been either at 30 goals or close to it for the last four seasons before this one where he had 24.

For that he will almost surely be due some kind of backpay, but how much money can the Flyers afford to give him and for how long of a term with a new nucleus of young players constantly pushing the veterans?

“This is where I want to be for the rest of my career,” Simmonds said. “I do realize, at the same time, that hockey’s a business and whatever happens, happens. If I do end up signing an extension then that’s great, but hopefully I stay here and get to work my way into an extension. This year wasn’t ideal for me and they probably didn’t see from me what would require an extension. This is definitely where I want to be.”

His on-ice performance is certainly a factor and when he missed time rookie Nolan Patrick proved that he could provide what Simmonds does as a net-front presence on the power play. Patrick scored two goals in his first game in that slot.

The other factor is his off-ice role. He is the self-proclaimed bad cop to Claude Giroux’s good cop. He wears the “A” on his jersey as an alternate captain and definitely provides a leadership role that is intangible to the team.

“Wayne is the heart and soul of our team, I think,” Giroux said. “Every game he goes out there and gives it all. It’s obviously not a secret that he was hurt, but just the way he battles…I always tell him he’s a little crazy, but that’s part of his game. Simmer’s gonna come next year and he’s gonna be Wayne Simmonds again. He’s gonna play his game and it’s guys like that you want to go out there and play the game with.”

Simmonds said that while he wants to sign an extension, “that’s not my decision.” He recited the typical line that “hockey is a business” and he hopes it works out. Speculation had grown outside of the organization that maybe a player who plays as rough-and-tumble a game as Simmonds does might not physically last through his next contract.

Well, general manager Ron Hextall, who was part of the Los Angeles Kings franchise that traded Simmonds to Philadelphia, knows all about the eye-popping list of injuries that Simmonds played through and that he was named a finalist Tuesday for the Mark Messier Leadership Award.

“I don’t do it for admiration,” Simmonds said of his playing through injury. “I do it because it’s just the way we’re geared as hockey players. If you can play, you can play. That was kinda my thought process.”

[ruxpin]

1 hour ago, albertaflyer said:

And I’m sitting here whining cause I had an emergency appendectomy on Monday night. I will say they do have pretty sweet pain killers though.

Glad to hear you're okay. 

[Samifan]

1 hour ago, OccamsRazor said:

Myself...like i said this is just me speaking. I would rather trade Jake.

                                                         

 

It’s not just you speaking sir!

 

#IHATEJAKE 

[vis]

I admire his toughness and commitment, but at what point does the organization simply shut a player down?  I mean, if he's out the first six weeks of the season, might he return in better form and make a better contribution later in the season and in the playoffs?  A player like Simmonds is going to play until you tell him he can't.  Just seems like the organization should have taken notice and said, "Take a rest and come back stronger."

[RJ8812]

That's great and all...but why play? His play hurt this team. He should have just rested and came back when he was healthier 

[elmatus]

49 minutes ago, vis said:

I admire his toughness and commitment, but at what point does the organization simply shut a player down?  I mean, if he's out the first six weeks of the season, might he return in better form and make a better contribution later in the season and in the playoffs?  A player like Simmonds is going to play until you tell him he can't.  Just seems like the organization should have taken notice and said, "Take a rest and come back stronger."

 

Malkin and Letang are two players who seem incapable of playing full seasons without injury. They're routinely told to sit, often for very long periods of a season. Yet they've managed to be part of three cup winning teams in recent years.

 

I think your point is bang on. If a player is truly injured, they need to sit. Yeah, it sucks, but the alternative stands to be much worse. If Simmonds really was injured all year, someone in the org should have noticed it and told him to sit it out. It doesn't matter if he thinks he can power through -- that shouldn't be his call to make.

 

Put another way, if the Flyers medical staff knew of Simmonds injuries and allowed him to play anyway, they were negligent and didn't do their job. These are exactly the kinds of things that are both hidden and extremely important.

 

I'm also not willing to believe he simply hid his injuries from medical staff. We don't work closely with this guy, and many of us noticed he seemed to be playing injured all year. If we can notice it, and the medical staff working directly with him can't, that doesn't speak very highly of whoever they have watching over player health.

[ruxpin]

Just to echo the above. 

 

I've never understood why a whole season at 50% is better than 75% of the season at 100%. What is the logic--on the organisation's part--that allows this? It seems self-defeating to me. 

 

On the player's side, I can kind of get it. If the guy is a gamer and is wired in such a way that he simply lives to play and is keenly aware that he only has a finite amount of time to do that (clock is always ticking), then he's going to push to play if he's physically capable of bearing weight and holding a stick.  I don't know that this is on the medical staff. Anyone can refuse medical treatment.  This is on management. At some point, management has to have a spine and say "Wayne (or Ivan, or Sean, or whomever) I know you want to play, but *I'm* not putting you in until you get a full duty medical release."

 

I know it's warrior manly testosterone proving to say you scored a hat trick on a torn MCL or were able to say you played but 'yeah, that's my left eye rolling around in the corner over there next to my right testicle,' but it really is in the best interest of team and player until he's reasonably healthy. 

[ruxpin]

You know, along the same lines, why does it take a MENSA member to have the wherewithal to dress a 7th defenseman when he knows his #1 defenseman has a badly separated shoulder?  It's just unbelievable stupidity. 

[hf101]

1 minute ago, ruxpin said:

You know, along the same lines, why does it take a MENSA member to have the wherewithal to dress a 7th defenseman when he knows his #1 defenseman has a badly separated shoulder?  It's just unbelievable stupidity. 

 

When his #1 centerman has a torn ACL.

[ruxpin]

1 minute ago, hf101 said:

 

When his #1 centerman has a torn ACL.

 Right. I know what he was able to do with that, and I know it's the playoffs and all and an elimination game, but he had no business being out there either. 

 

And it's not an excuse to not dress seven. It's a flight of stupidity.  Hakstol isn't alone in dressing people that are hurt. That's common. Far too common. But not dressing seven was simply dumb.  

 

Even with 7x11, if Coots comes up unable to continue you drop to three lines and float the 10th guy in where appropriate. In 6x12, if Provorov can't go it's a lot more taxing and we don't have Sami Kapanen. 

[hf101]

2 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 Right. I know what he was able to do with that, and I know it's the playoffs and all and an elimination game, but he had no business being out there either. 

 

And it's not an excuse to not dress seven. It's a flight of stupidity.  Hakstol isn't alone in dressing people that are hurt. That's common. Far too common. But not dressing seven was simply dumb.  

 

Even with 7x11, if Coots comes up unable to continue you drop to three lines and float the 10th guy in where appropriate. In 6x12, if Provorov can't go it's a lot more taxing and we don't have Sami Kapanen. 

 

7 d-men did dress for the warm-up.  My guess is Provorov said he was good to go.  I guess they didn't think about the pain shot wearing off before the end of the game.  Had it not have worn off... Yeah, maybe the Flyers might have pulled out a win.  But this team would have been completely toast moving into the 2nd round.

 

 

[vis]

1 hour ago, elmatus said:

 

Put another way, if the Flyers medical staff knew of Simmonds injuries and allowed him to play anyway, they were negligent and didn't do their job. These are exactly the kinds of things that are both hidden and extremely important.

I’m sure the staff knew.  Don’t see how they couldn’t.  But if there’s no risk of an injury worsening, I think it’s more of a pain tolerance thing for the player.  However, I could blame the staff if they failed to recognize that overcompensating for the original issue would cause other injuries.  

 

Assuming the staff knew and informed him of the risks (if any) and he still elected to play, should that really be the end of it?  To be clear, I don’t think it’s a training staff decision at that point.  I think it becomes a coach and/or GM decision.  

[ruxpin]

4 minutes ago, hf101 said:

 

7 d-men did dress for the warm-up.  My guess is Provorov said he was good to go.  I guess they didn't think about the pain shot wearing off before the end of the game.  Had it not have worn off... Yeah, maybe the Flyers might have pulled out a win.  But this team would have been completely toast moving into the 2nd round.

 

 

I agree with all of that. It's still dumb. That doesn't necessarily make Hakstol dumb. I get that he's under tremendous pressure and doesn't have an enviable decision to make there.  But he ultimately gave himself no fall back position. And regardless of what a second year player said, you have to plan for likely contingencies. Not thinking about pain meds not wearing off isn't a defense; that's an indictment. 

 

While I understand the pitfalls either way, and I get the pressure to win and extend the season, I don't think this was a particularly mentally-taxing call. 

[ruxpin]

4 minutes ago, vis said:

I’m sure the staff knew.  Don’t see how they couldn’t.  But if there’s no risk of an injury worsening, I think it’s more of a pain tolerance thing for the player.  However, I could blame the staff if they failed to recognize that overcompensating for the original issue would cause other injuries.  

 

Assuming the staff knew and informed him of the risks (if any) and he still elected to play, should that really be the end of it?  To be clear, I don’t think it’s a training staff decision at that point.  I think it becomes a coach and/or GM decision.  

This. This exactly. 

 

Again, in the case of Simmonds I get the pressure on the coach (and even the GM). I also get the algebra of "is 50% Simmonds better than our options?" He still scored 24 goals and almost 50 points playing in his condition and on the third line. We also know he was very handicapped in terms of defensive ability. I think the lesser options for a month or whatever might have been the way to go. 

 

In the case of Provorov, I get playing him, but you don't self-eliminate yourself from having a contingency plan. It just reads like playing Candyland when the job is playing chess. 

[ruxpin]

20 minutes ago, hf101 said:

7 d-men did dress for the warm-up. 

 

By the way, this is an indictment in my view as well. Because this says it occurred to them and they wilfully chose against the good sense of being prepared for contingency.  Ultimately, dressing 7 for warmups is neither impressive nor relevant. The other team isn't on the ice. No award for this. 

 

 

[hf101]

4 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

While I understand the pitfalls either way, and I get the pressure to win and extend the season, I don't think this was a particularly mentally-taxing call. 

 

Thinking about this more it may have been more of a coaching challenge playing all 7 d-men especially with the mix of players we have.   There isn't an easy insertion of the 7th guy in without changing all the lines of who plays best on which side with whom.  There probably was a better chance of making the wrong decision there and getting beat on the road with the long change.

[ruxpin]

1 minute ago, hf101 said:

 

Thinking about this more it may have been more of a coaching challenge playing all 7 d-men especially with the mix of players we have.   There isn't an easy insertion of the 7th guy in without changing all the lines of who plays best on which side with whom.  There probably was a better chance of making the wrong decision there and getting beat on the road with the long change.

Not moreso than playing a guy who can't control the puck (we saw the results of that, but they deliberately removed the possibility of an option) or playing with 5 (because, again, no option).  Sorry, from where I sit that's not a winning argument either. If Hak isn't capable--and that sounds like the argument--then maybe they should consider getting someone who is. 

 

I'm just saying, plan for the very possible contingency and give yourself the option. 

[ruxpin]

@hf101

 

You know first hand in fantasy hockey. Particularly in NAHAHA where you have to use the roster move the day before. If you have a player that is questionable and need the man game, you go get someone so you have the option of making the switch right up to game time. 

 

There are more ways than not that this is clearly not apples to apples, but the simple point being that when presented with obvious possibility, you give yourself an option. 

 

Sanheim in for Provorov in the third period of an elimination game is not ideal by any stretch of the imagination. But when Provorov starts showing that he can't control the puck and this should have been a predictable possibility, you should have planned for it. He didn't. 

[ruxpin]

13 minutes ago, hf101 said:

 

Thinking about this more it may have been more of a coaching challenge playing all 7 d-men especially with the mix of players we have.   There isn't an easy insertion of the 7th guy in without changing all the lines of who plays best on which side with whom.  There probably was a better chance of making the wrong decision there and getting beat on the road with the long change.

I think i get what you're saying if the idea is to play the 7th throughout the game. That's not my intent. The 7th sits until or unless needed. If you want to throw him out there in spot situations and rest someone for a shift if you think you can get away with it, I get that (even just to avoid the 7th getting stiff sitting there all game). But really, it's just giving yourself the contingency option.