Has Scott Gordon done enough to be retained at the Flyers Head Coach for the 2019-2020 Season?

[vis]

2 hours ago, King Knut said:

Depends.

I don't get this.  How can one argue that good goaltending doesn't help cover up mistakes and bad coaching?

[King Knut]

3 minutes ago, vis said:

Bit of a stretch to blame Fletcher for that.

 

Really?  Who else is there for that one? 

[Podein25]

5 minutes ago, vis said:

How can one argue that good goaltending doesn't help cover up mistakes and bad coaching?

 

Maybe you just don't know what "good goaltending" means. You know, on account of being a Flyer fan and all. How would you know? It could involve getting vertigo for all I know.

[King Knut]

1 hour ago, vis said:

I don't get this.  How can one argue that good goaltending doesn't help cover up mistakes and bad coaching?

 

Depends on a lot of things.  

A goalie can save a game here or there, but to me that doesn’t cover up mistakes and it certainly does little to hide systemic problems in a poorly coached team. 

 

case and point, 16-17 years ago, I complained on the old board almost every day about Cechmanek. He was stealing games and it made it seem like the team wasn’t terrible and that Barber was a good coach.  But it didn’t fool me and I greatly preferred Boucher and later Esche... and no one should ever be forced to prefer Esche, should they?  

 

He was stealing games, but I did not feel it was good goaltending. Still don’t.  

 

I think Hart May have stolen a couple of games early on as Gordon started making tweaks and the team started adjusting to them, but it was only after they got used to the tweaks that hart couldn’t stop losing. 

 

Hart both is a good goalie and can steal a few games here and there for a poorly performing team which is what you need to be a winner because no team performs well every night.  Especially not ones coached by Hakstol. 

[LegionOfDoom]

On 3/4/2019 at 3:51 PM, ruxpin said:

 

I really would be okay with that.  I like Q, but something has me really apprehensive about him coming to Philly.   I don't know if I can articulate it.  I don't know.

The second he was mentioned as a possibility, that feeling instinctually to over my mind.

 

I know the feeling, maybe it's for different reasons than yours.

Words stringed together about it could be different to explain it.

Here goes one string of words for this thought/feeling: The man that killed your father is now assigned with you to go save your mother. He has possibly the tools to accomplish it and you know it, but don't know if you can come to grips with it, to carry it through.

or: The Blackhawks coach that crushed many of us back in the Stanley Cup Finals is someone who can take us back to win it.

 

Or maybe this might push you further to articulate what it is that is lingering in the back of your pallet, like the little piece of stuck'd skin you can't unhinge off. 

[hf101]

One of the reasons why Quenneville was fired is he failed to change his system to a faster - offensively minded NHL.  

 

If he failed to do that in Chicago why do you all think he can do that here?

[OccamsRazor]

Well whatever they decide I hope it works.

 

A Cup before I leave this earth would be nice.

 

 

[ruxpin]

57 minutes ago, hf101 said:

One of the reasons why Quenneville was fired is he failed to change his system to a faster - offensively minded NHL.  

 

If he failed to do that in Chicago why do you all think he can do that here?

I think this is my issue. 

 

It's really not so much the 2010 Cup Finals.  That's not really an issue for me.  But it's what just described. 

 

I mean, different situation, yadda yadda, but I think this is it. 

[OccamsRazor]

2 hours ago, hf101 said:

One of the reasons why Quenneville was fired is he failed to change his system to a faster - offensively minded NHL.  

 

Is this in fact true?

 

So you're telling me it's a different NHL than when they last won in 2015.

 

How so I really would like to know how this has come about or where you think it differs so much?

[King Knut]

5 hours ago, hf101 said:

One of the reasons why Quenneville was fired is he failed to change his system to a faster - offensively minded NHL.  

 

If he failed to do that in Chicago why do you all think he can do that here?

 

Honestly asking, did he fail to do that or did was Kane just the only guy on the team built for that by the time it was what became needed?

 

Actually even now, their problem doesn't seem to be scoring points as much as preventing them.  

[elmatus]

11 hours ago, hf101 said:

One of the reasons why Quenneville was fired is he failed to change his system to a faster - offensively minded NHL.  

 

If he failed to do that in Chicago why do you all think he can do that here?

 

I'm not so sure that's the truth of it. Chicago's decline has a lot to do with their core players simply getting older and becoming less effective, not to mention the substantial list of players they've lost along the way due to lack of cap space. There isn't much Quenneville could do to stop the hands of time, and the truth is Stan Bowman is far from the best at bringing in new talent for his team to replenish.

 

That's not to say Q could just show up here and the team would suddenly become a powerhouse. I'm just not convinced he lost his previous job because he couldn't adapt to the new NHL. That seems too simplistic to me. The NHL really hasn't changed that much in the last four years.

 

What has happened in that time is a bunch of young guns have become superstars much quicker than previous generations -- and none of them wear a Blackhawks jersey. If we tallied a list of the top 10 or even 20 players in the league right now, a solid half or more would be under 24 years old. That is something we've just never seen before in this league. 

 

Not much Quenneville can do about that.

[vis]

 

On 3/5/2019 at 6:04 PM, King Knut said:

 

Depends on a lot of things.  

 

Think we may be talking past each other.  Of course the mistakes of a bad team can still be apparent, but good goaltending can make a team look better - at least on the scoreboard - by making saves instead of allowing goals when mistakes or poor play result in scoring opportunities.  No?

[vis]

On 3/5/2019 at 4:03 PM, King Knut said:

 

Really?  Who else is there for that one? 

Maybe no one since injuries can happen without anyone's fault.  Hart didn't carry a particularly heavy load after the bye week.  And Talbot's visa issues may not have been foreseeable.  Maybe Hart played one extra game than he had to if Talbot were available, but I still think it's reasonable for him to have been able to play four games in a row.  In those circumstances, it's a stretch for me to blame Fletcher.  At least much less of a stretch than to blame Hextall for rolling into the season with Elliott/Neuvirth as his tandem.

[King Knut]

21 minutes ago, vis said:

Maybe no one since injuries can happen without anyone's fault.  Hart didn't carry a particularly heavy load after the bye week.  And Talbot's visa issues may not have been foreseeable.  Maybe Hart played one extra game than he had to if Talbot were available, but I still think it's reasonable for him to have been able to play four games in a row.  In those circumstances, it's a stretch for me to blame Fletcher.  At least much less of a stretch than to blame Hextall for rolling into the season with Elliott/Neuvirth as his tandem.

 

4 games isn't too much to ask for a vet #1, but even if we cede that Hart should be able to handle it, would you want those 4 in a row to be against the strongest or the weakest team if you're trying to win games?

 

Would you want the third in a row in 4 nights to be against the best team in the league?  Would you want the 4th in a row after that to be against a team you absolutely have to beat?  

 

Maybe your rookie doesn't need to start the first two in that stretch that happen to be back to back in different cities if you're going to ask him to beat the best team in the league and a team directly in front of you in the standings immediately thereafter?  

 

And I'm sorry, but yets, every GM in the league knows about the Visa issues.  It's pretty common.   

The rumors about Tablot and Stolarz were swirling for a couple of days.  Why not just hold off until after the Detroit home and home so you're not screwing your team and your star goalie?

 

Hextall rolling into the season with Elliott and Neuvirth has nothing to do with what we're talking about, but it's a nice example of "what about-ism".  

 

Since you brought it up, do you think hextall should have signed a UFA goalie (if so which one,  Bernier or Halak?) or do you think he should have traded for one (if so, what should he have traded and for whom?).  Keep in mind that he couldn't waive Neuvirth or Elliott or Stolarz to start the season.

[King Knut]

2 hours ago, vis said:

 

Think we may be talking past each other.  Of course the mistakes of a bad team can still be apparent, but good goaltending can make a team look better - at least on the scoreboard - by making saves instead of allowing goals when mistakes or poor play result in scoring opportunities.  No?

 

Sure, I agree that on the scoreboard I think this is possible, but there's an expiration date on it being effective which i think is part of what you're saying.  

 

In my mind a team can look terrible and still win... they can also look good and still lose.  It's hard to do either of those consistently though. 

[King Knut]

On 3/6/2019 at 8:00 AM, OccamsRazor said:

Well whatever they decide I hope it works.

 

A Cup before I leave this earth would be nice.

 

 

 

Elon, is that you?

[OccamsRazor]

1 minute ago, King Knut said:

 

Elon, is that you?

 

Yes it is.

 

And thanks a lot for giving away my cover.

 

Now I have to find another place to hide.

 

I'll call Joe Rogan up and see what he is doing...

[King Knut]

9 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Yes it is.

 

And thanks a lot for giving away my cover.

 

Now I have to find another place to hide.

 

I'll call Joe Rogan up and see what he is doing...

 

Cool... Can I borrow your space car?  

[OccamsRazor]

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

 

Cool... Can I borrow your space car?  

 

Borrow?

 

You borrow a cup of sugar.

 

I can't just be letting everyone borrow my space ship. 

 

I need some collateral. Whatcha got?

[vis]

8 hours ago, King Knut said:

4 games isn't too much to ask for a vet #1, but even if we cede that Hart should be able to handle it

Before the bye week he started five games in a row.  Seems reasonable he'd be able to start four in a row.

 

8 hours ago, King Knut said:

Would you want the third in a row in 4 nights to be against the best team in the league?  Would you want the 4th in a row after that to be against a team you absolutely have to beat? 

Yes.  He's the best goalie they have.  Would you start your weakest goalie against the best teams?

 

8 hours ago, King Knut said:

Maybe your rookie doesn't need to start the first two in that stretch that happen to be back to back in different cities if you're going to ask him to beat the best team in the league and a team directly in front of you in the standings immediately thereafter? 

Don't see a reason why he couldn't.  Goalies start back to back all the time.  Besides, he hadn't played in five days before that.

 

8 hours ago, King Knut said:

And I'm sorry, but yets, every GM in the league knows about the Visa issues.  It's pretty common. 

Maybe every GM knows that in nearly all cases visa issues are resolved fairly quickly, but in this case extenuating circumstances occurred resulting in a longer than normal delay.  **** happens sometimes.

 

8 hours ago, King Knut said:

Hextall rolling into the season with Elliott and Neuvirth has nothing to do with what we're talking about, but it's a nice example of "what about-ism".  

Sure it does.  You're quick and certain to lay all of the blame on the GM in this instance when circumstances may have been unforeseeable, but yet unwilling to lay any blame on a GM for failing to address a glaring weakness and ticking time bomb, whether through trade or free agency.  There is a disconnect.

 

I'm not going to answer the same tired question.  I get it: Hextall good, Fletcher bad.

[King Knut]

9 hours ago, vis said:

Sure it does.  You're quick and certain to lay all of the blame on the GM in this instance when circumstances may have been unforeseeable, but yet unwilling to lay any blame on a GM for failing to address a glaring weakness and ticking time bomb, whether through trade or free agency.  There is a disconnect.

 

I'm not going to answer the same tired question.  I get it: Hextall good, Fletcher bad.

 

i Blane Fletcher for the Detroit games, I blame Gordon for the games after Elliott was available, but less so because those were the Better teams that you’d want your better goalie starting. Too bad he was gassed and maybe hurt and crapped the bed In Both those games.  But I’m sure it was a great learning experience for him even though it helped cost them any progress they’d made. 

 

I openly blame everyone for everything I see that they did wrong. In Hextall’s Case I have and do openly say that he deserved to be fired for Hakstol and mostly only Hakstol.  Though the Reese incident his first year indicated a similar head coach and pal coach blind trust weakness in a Hextall that in hindsight smells even more troubling than it did st the time.   

 

I have a crusade for Hextall however and that is not Laying blame on him for stuff that isn’t realistically his fault or an actual problem. 

 

The problem wasnt that MacDonald, Weise, Lehtera and Folin were on the team,  every team has useless POS’s. The problem was Hextall gave Hakstol alternatives and Hakstol refused to use them even though those alternatives were and are the future of the organization. 

 

So yeah, Hextall good in that he got good players but very bad in that he let Hakstol just not use them. 

 

As as far as the goalies go, Hextall had 5 goalies for 4 slots to start the season. 

 

He could not waive three of them due to injury (by the start of the season it was 4 of them, but Elliott played anyway).  Yet you are saying he should have signed somebody... I don’t know, Bernier let’s say (at $3mil), on 7/1 and put 6 Pro goalies under contract to start the season even though he wouldn’t be able to waive anyone until some indeterminate point after the season started?  

 

Maybe.  Maybe he should have signed Bernier just so he could waive Neuvirth or Elliott when they got healthy.  Of course that’s the kind of crap that makes players not want to sign a UFA deal with you to begin with, but whatever, is that your assertion?  That he should have signed ANOTHER mediocre goalie to a $3 million deal just so he'd Be safe to waive either that goalie or another one later?  

 

In hindisght, Neuvy hasn’t even really been healthy enough to waive. 

 

Or or maybe he should have traded a pick or a prospect for a mediocre goalie as a rental?  Or maybe you think he should have traded picks and prospects for an actual good goalie as a rental? 

 

You keep saying it needed to to be addressed, but there are no realistic suggestions on what that would look like.

 

 

[King Knut]

15 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Borrow?

 

You borrow a cup of sugar.

 

I can't just be letting everyone borrow my space ship. 

 

I need some collateral. Whatcha got?

 

No not the space ship, just the car that you tossed at Jupiter or whatever.  

[mojo1917]

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

As as far as the goalies go, Hextall had 5 goalies for 4 slots to start the season. 

 

He could not waive three of them due to injury (by the start of the season it was 4 of them, but Elliott played anyway).  Yet you are saying he should have signed somebody... I don’t know, Bernier let’s say (at $3mil), on 7/1 and put 6 Pro goalies under contract to start the season even though he wouldn’t be able to waive anyone until some indeterminate point after the season started?  

 

Maybe.  Maybe he should have signed Bernier just so he could waive Neuvirth or Elliott when they got healthy.  Of course that’s the kind of crap that makes players not want to sign a UFA deal with you to begin with, but whatever, is that your assertion?  That he should have signed ANOTHER mediocre goalie to a $3 million deal just so he'd Be safe to waive either that goalie or another one later?  

 

In hindisght, Neuvy hasn’t even really been healthy enough to waive. 

 

Or or maybe he should have traded a pick or a prospect for a mediocre goalie as a rental?  Or maybe you think he should have traded picks and prospects for an actual good goalie as a rental? 

 

You keep saying it needed to to be addressed, but there are no realistic suggestions on what that would look like.

 

This is how I remember it. There were too many goalies already at the beginning of the season, none were great...they were all treading water until Jesus Hart was "ready". 

 

It is not unreasonable at all to think, well, maybe Lyon's AHL success will translate to the NHL this year, and Neuwirth will be able to play some games. 

A lot of things went comically wrong at the beginning of this season; the big  FA signing breaking his knee bone blocking a shot in game 2.  All 5 goalies getting injured...who realistically is ready for those things to happen? Then the kid who was tearing up the preseason and camp, forgets to skate when he's on the ice ?  I don't know it was a lot of misfortune right out of the blocks this year. 

[King Knut]

20 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

 

This is how I remember it. There were too many goalies already at the beginning of the season, none were great...they were all treading water until Jesus Hart was "ready". 

 

 

This is pretty close to my memory too, although I believe that to start the season, Stolarz, Elliott and Neuvirth were all coming off injuries and Lyon got himself hurt in preseason... though I may be misremembering that last part.  

Long story short, none could be waived. Until the season started and they got healthy and you couldn't have an additional Non waiver exempt goalie on the pro roster until after the season started and you could LTIR one of the others (if they even qualified, and I'm not sure any of them would have).

 

 At most, Lyon could have been waived and as you point out below, maybe not the best choice, and besides he was the only one with NHL experience who was waiver exempt if I'm remembering correctly, so waiving him would have been pointless because he could just go to the Phantoms.  

 

20 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

It is not unreasonable at all to think, well, maybe Lyon's AHL success will translate to the NHL this year, and Neuwirth will be able to play some games. 

A lot of things went comically wrong at the beginning of this season; the big  FA signing breaking his knee bone blocking a shot in game 2.  All 5 goalies getting injured...who realistically is ready for those things to happen? Then the kid who was tearing up the preseason and camp, forgets to skate when he's on the ice ?  I don't know it was a lot of misfortune right out of the blocks this year. 

 

I myself, thought it was pretty apparent that Lyon wasn't an NHL goalie even in spite of his record setting performance in the playoffs. But you're right.  Keep in mind that Stolarz was (and still is IMHO) a strong talent and really only the injury history is the thing to prevent him from having a viable NHL career as a A level backup with the potential to play very well as a long term fill in if necessary.  It's not unreasonable for the organization to have been thinking NHL for him as well.

 

20 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

A lot of things went comically wrong at the beginning of this season; the big  FA signing breaking his knee bone blocking a shot in game 2.  All 5 goalies getting injured...who realistically is ready for those things to happen? Then the kid who was tearing up the preseason and camp, forgets to skate when he's on the ice ?  I don't know it was a lot of misfortune right out of the blocks this year. 

 

To a lot of people here, JVR and all 5 goalies getting hurt were clearly foreseeable and should have been planned for in advance.  

 

Are you talking about Vrobyev in that last bit?  

[mojo1917]

@King Knut

yes, Misha was a different guy once the season started.  He wasn't able to put it together under Gordon either, so the issue is twixt his ears I believe.