A Bit Underwhelmed (and Concerned)

[King Knut]

1 hour ago, radoran said:

 

Not at all disagreeing - as you well know.

 

But I can see where crusty ol' hockey guy Ron Hextall wasn't gonna let some pencil necked geeks tell him who should coach his hockey team.

 

#davescott

 

Funny part is, I always thought of Hak as a pencil necked geek in a lot of ways. 

 

Objectively, I could see Hextall looking at the team he had and knowing he was going to build mostly with youth and the draft over time and that’s mainly why he thought to try Hak. 

 

He talked at the time about how it tortured him to can Berube and how that call was entirely about what was right for the future of the club, not the quality of that coach. 

 

I didn't buy it  because I thought Chief was really bad at positioning his D in their own and and a transition game. But maybe he was green and experimenting?  His lack of a transition game could be chalked up to a mostly unskilled / young Flyers team.  I’ll grant him that.  But his D men weren’t green.   They were slow and maybe not so skilled with the puck, but they should have been able to go to the right places, I do believe he was just sending them awry.  

 

However, what I took for granted at the time was Chief’s gamesmanship and knowing the NHL game. Which Hak clearly did not and was perpetually outclassed at.  

 

Hak’s entire D system seemed to be built around a misapprehension of how skilled and how fast your average NHL player is compared to your average college player. 

 

Chief just seemed to think d men should face away from the shooter... for some reason. 

 

Anyway, whatever. Vigneault knows the nhl.  Hopefully he gets his cup with us the way Keenan finally got his with the Rangers. 

 

 

[King Knut]

On 8/5/2019 at 5:51 PM, vis said:

I don't think it's a major problem, but when the team had a clear need and it went unfulfilled and the PK continued to struggle, you wonder if it was a "miss."  Maybe Hextall was saving hi pennies for going "all-in" this offseason.  Who knows?  

 

I think you're judging not signing Grabner (or any other UFA) last year in hindsight.  At the the time, the expectation was that Patrick would fill the 2C and there wouldn't be a need to sign Hayes to that contract.  I don't know that Hextall foresaw, at that time, a need to sign one of the top 3 centers this offseason.

 

Possibly.  But, again, isn't that the problem with Hextall?  Thinking too far ahead and sacrificing the near term?

 

Yeah, and Hextall/Hakstol didn't change the assistant either.  They rolled into the season with the same staff and personnel in place.  If they moved on from Lappy at the end of last year, I could see maybe giving the existing personnel another chance.  But they didn't can Lappy, so the next logical thing to do would have been to change personnel.  But they didn't do that either.  Failing to address the PK was a big failure last offseason.  do anything.  I'm still not sure if they have the right personnel for the PK (other than Hart).

 

At the time, even without the benefit of hindsight, relying on the likes of Laughton, Vorobyev and Lehtera to capably fill the 3C was foolish.

 

Yes, all wudder under the bridge.  Merely academic at this point.

 

The thing about Grabner is that no none else jumped at him either.  That seems odd to me.  He had a great season with the Rangers and no one except a team that was desperate for vet centers took a flyer on him and even that was for a very very modest contract. 

 

That really implies that most GMs just aren’t that fond of his game, doesn’t it?  

 

Compare his numbers to Hayes then look at their respective contracts.  Something’s off. 

 

Again, to me regarding last year, most roads lead to Hakstol and Hextall inappropriately trusting Hakstol.  

 

Was it Patrick. Or developing or Patrick playing under a coach that benched him for trying to score goals?

 

 

[King Knut]

1 hour ago, vis said:

I don't think Hextall ever had an inkling to fire Hakstol.  I think he was going down with Hakstol one way or another.  

 

 

Not sure why you think that.  I'm assuming he thought that if they missed the playoffs Hakstol was gone and he was probably really not into the idea, but like Berube, he likely knew it was coming.  Think about it, it makes sense.  If he thought he had through the next season (i.e. this coming season) to produce as per his plan and agreement with Snider/Homer (as he openly discussed when he took over) why would he bother replacing Hakstol mid-season?   he replaced Berube because he needed a guy who could make men of boys, so he got the best one he knew of.   He stuck with that guy a little too long, but I can't imagine why we'd assume he'd have stuck with him past another missed playoffs on a team that expected to go to at least the 2nd round this year.  

 

1 hour ago, vis said:

That said, another GM may not have been as patient with the "smoke and mirrors" and lack of progress under Hakstol.  Plus, I question whether the young players were developing well under Hakstol.  When a team isn't meaningfully improving, you have to start thinking of making a coaching change.  I'm not totaling absolving the personnel, by the way.  Actually, there were times where I thought Hakstol was getting more out of the roster than I expected. 

 

Making the playoffs and taking the Caps to 6 games (and looking almost competitive some of that time) was impressive and gave me hope.  Watching the next season changed that opinion.  The mistakes were systematic in the D and neutral zone, not personal skill based mistakes.  Additionally the situational player use was awful (how many third period leads were blown because Lehtera and MacDonald were out on the ice in the last two minutes?).   The relentless lack of change of approach on the PK and PP... Just ridiculous.  That's not to mention poor use of challenges and lack of massaging the refs that he was continually outclassed at by the opposition.  Hak was an insurmountable problem for this team.  His guidance may have helped some kids early on, but the likes of TK, Patrick and others needed to shift focus to their offensive skills sooner and stop being condemned for trying to utilize those skills to help the team.

 

Sanheim needed to be in the lineup more regularly the year before he was.  Hextall gave Hak that shot and Hak benched him. Hak continually gave more minutes to the guys we all complained about.  Those guys were perfect 13th men or 4th liners.  Vets with nominal skill to step in when needed.  Hak played them 15-17 minutes a night, giving younger players the high hat.  

 

I can't get on board with the second thoughts regarding Hakstol's tenure.  It wasn't a bad idea to try.  It lasted a year and a half too long.  

 

1 hour ago, vis said:

 

I don't think it was entirely the coach's fault.  Goaltending was certainly an issue.  The players share blame as well.  I have doubts about the leadership in that locker room and I wonder if they are too cavalier and don't hold each other accountable.  I think there was a lot "wrong" with the team.  But, I think they did a good job in addressing the coaching issue and bringing in a solid, veteran staff.  Goaltending should be addressed, provided Hart stays healthy.  They brought in some leadership on defense.  Still think they need a leader up front.  I think Hayes helps with matchups and I am hopeful Patrick breaks out a bit as a result.  I think (hope?) all of that leads to a PO spot.  Really, they should have been a PO team last year.  

 

Nothing's entirely the coach's fault, but we knew the shortcomings of the team and their inexperience going into this as they started being brought up.  Goaltending was an issue, but how much less of an issue might it have been if Hakstol hadn't insisted on starting Elliott / Neuwirth EVERY GAME until they got hurt.  Elliott literally played an entire month two years ago.  And we wonder why he got hurt?   Berube did the same thing to Mason.  That was Hextall's other HUGE mistake IMHO.  Siding with Berube over Hierarchy instead of logic which was on Reese's side - but I digress.  Last year Gordon did it to Hart when he got hurt, but I blame that mostly on Fletcher for taking away Gordon's backup going into 4 games in 5 nights. 

 

I agree on the staff.  Safe.  Conventional.  But solid.  I wouldn't want Yeo or Therrien as head coach, but I like them where they are.  Vigneault's quality if not mind blowing and earth shattering in his approach.  He's got a track record of success when his team has even a little bit of talent.  It's that last hump that seems to elude him, but we'll see what we can do. 

 

I think Patrick is likely to break out under Vigneault.  It's criminal the skills Patrick has, that he has been prevented from using on a regular basis.  The kid is really really slick when he has the chance.  he needs to be coached as to HOW to get in the areas to get those chances.   Hopefully Vigneault sees that and gets him there.  I don't think it's exactly like Coots (who literally just needed to be allowed out of his own zone-apparently he had a sit down with Hak to explain that, "I can play offense too you know") because at least Coots was really really good in his own zone, but still, I have hope in Patty.  

 

[vis]

10 minutes ago, King Knut said:

That really implies that most GMs just aren’t that fond of his game, doesn’t it?  

It's a fair point.  Maybe GMs view him as one dimensional?  Maybe he's got personality/dedication issues.  In that regard, there were some knocks on him early in his career that may linger as a vet.  Of course, they aren't paying him like Hayes.

 

 

[Podein25]

40 minutes ago, vis said:

Of course, they aren't paying him like Hayes

 

This phrase is gonna get a workout over the next several years. 

[brelic]

2 hours ago, vis said:

Goaltending should be addressed, provided Hart stays healthy. 

 

I think this is a potential blind spot.

 

It will take more than just a healthy Hart. He’s a 20 year old kid with 30 games of NHL experience. It’s possible, but quite unlikely, that his career trajectory is only uphill. The majority of ups and downs will probably be over the next 3 years. 

 

So what if Hart comes out and plays like Provorov in his down year? Still giving full effort but struggling with the workload and expectations of a new top dog role in the NHL? Then all of a sudden, you need to rely on a sketchy Elliott to pull you through the lows and an improved team defense. 

 

This is the primary reason I’m not sold on Elliott. I like his fight, and he’s a fine goalie when healthy. But the last few seasons have not been kind to him.

[vis]

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

Not sure why you think that.  I'm assuming he thought that if they missed the playoffs Hakstol was gone and he was probably really not into the idea, but like Berube, he likely knew it was coming.

Possibly.  I'm just going off my recollection (perhaps inaccurate) that Hakstol came to the Flyers because Hextall promised him he'd get the full benefit of his contract term.  I think Hextall would keep true to that promise.  I think that's the type of guy he is.

 

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

Hak was an insurmountable problem for this team.

Agree, which is why I think a coaching change alone should return this team to the POs.  The on-ice personnel isn't perfect, but at least the coaching should improve.

 

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

I can't get on board with the second thoughts regarding Hakstol's tenure.  It wasn't a bad idea to try.  It lasted a year and a half too long.  

Eh, I think the results speak for themselves re: his tenure, but I can see where you're coming from.  Post-Berube, I think most fans were happy they went outside the org to hire someone.  But, I still think there were some other, more qualified candidates that seemed to get overlooked.  Now, maybe Hextall knew no one had interest in the job.  Seems unlikely, but possible.  Or maybe Hextall also wanted someone that would be loyal to him and not clash personality-wise.  Who knows?  But the hiring of Hakstol was unconventional and when unconventional things don't work out, it's typical to second-guess the decision in the first place.

 

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

I think Patrick is likely to break out under Vigneault.

As mentioned above, Patrick should find some more favorable matchups with Hayes on the roster.  He should have room to develop and build confidence.  He has shown some glimpses.  Hope it becomes more consistent.

[vis]

3 minutes ago, brelic said:

This is the primary reason I’m not sold on Elliott. I like his fight, and he’s a fine goalie when healthy. But the last few seasons have not been kind to him.

I'm with you.  I'm not terribly keen on penciling in Hart for 60+ starts, but that's what I think will happen.  I worry about him breaking down and then having to live (or die) by Elliott.  I think Elliott is a good mentor - seems like a solid, cerebral person.  But not necessarily a guy you can rely on to shoulder a load if the starter goes down.  Maybe one of the other young goalies on the farm could step in and be a surprise for a bit, but even that is asking a lot. 

[King Knut]

49 minutes ago, vis said:

 

Eh, I think the results speak for themselves re: his tenure, but I can see where you're coming from.  Post-Berube, I think most fans were happy they went outside the org to hire someone.  But, I still think there were some other, more qualified candidates that seemed to get overlooked.  Now, maybe Hextall knew no one had interest in the job.  Seems unlikely, but possible.  Or maybe Hextall also wanted someone that would be loyal to him and not clash personality-wise.  Who knows?  But the hiring of Hakstol was unconventional and when unconventional things don't work out, it's typical to second-guess the decision in the first place.

 

 

Sorry, I think I was confusing in my original statement.  I wasn't referring to the hiring of him, I was referring to the people now who are sort of making apologies and painting a little bit of a "Hakstol wasn't so bad" picture... not saying that's you either.  Forget who was implying it actually.

 

Long story short, giving Hak a shot can be an okay thing to try and keeping him a year and a half past him making it obvious he didn't belong aren't mutually exclusive.  That's all I meant. I phrased it poorly. 

 

49 minutes ago, vis said:

 

As mentioned above, Patrick should find some more favorable matchups with Hayes on the roster.  He should have room to develop and build confidence.  He has shown some glimpses.  Hope it becomes more consistent.

 

I feel good about his future.  I don't see the same things I saw in Couturier back when I kept trying to tell everyone he was actually really good, but I see other things.  I wouldn't say my confidence in Patty is as High as it was in Coots either... but I think the offensive ceiling could also be a lot higher if he can get it to start clicking.  New Coach, new line... all the ingredients are there for it!

 

 

 

[radoran]

25 minutes ago, King Knut said:

I was referring to the people now who are sort of making apologies and painting a little bit of a "Hakstol wasn't so bad" picture... not saying that's you either.  Forget who was implying it actually.

 

I don't think there's anyone actually doing that. If there are, feel free to quote them directly and respond.

 

Sometimes it helps to put aside the steadfast beliefs and look at things from a different perspective.

 

My point was that the season before Hextall "should have" fired Hakstol was the best Flyers season in four years and once can see where Hextall might not have thought the foundation was cracked and the roof was on fire. 98 points. Third place in the division. Lost in the first round to the two-time defending Cup champions.

 

From that perspective, things might not look so so "fire the coach" bad.

 

That doesn't mean the foundation wasn't cracked and the roof wasn't on fire. Both things were true. But Hextall saw it differently and, quite frankly, so did a lot of people before things cratered out of the gate last season.

 

And it cost him his job.

[JR Ewing]

5 hours ago, brelic said:

 

I think this is a potential blind spot.

 

It will take more than just a healthy Hart. He’s a 20 year old kid with 30 games of NHL experience. It’s possible, but quite unlikely, that his career trajectory is only uphill. The majority of ups and downs will probably be over the next 3 years. 

 

This. My old take was always "development doesn't necessarily occur in a straight line". We've all seen a lot of kids come up do really well for 30-40 games and then struggle to maintain it, but it NEVER stops people from assuming that the next 300 games will look like the first 30 he played.

 

Maybe it will and maybe it won't, but simply assuming that the trajectory will continue as it was is a bet against the house. Worse yet, people can gain completely unrealistic expectations based on a young player getting on a heater, and when he comes back down to earth (but are still terrific), some fans are ready to crap all over him because he didn't maintain a level of play that nobody could. See: Gostisbehere, Shayne.

 

 

[King Knut]

15 hours ago, JR Ewing said:

See: Gostisbehere, Shayne.

 

 

People learned how to defend Ghost and he slowed down.  But that opened things up for Provo a bit and he scored a ton of goals instead.  It's all relative and it's not necessarily just a player sorting things out in his head.  It's often him sorting out how the league is sorting him out.

 

Goalies are of course no different, but straight line of development isn't unheard of (see: Bobrovsky, Sergei).

Of course then there's always the very relevant "Mason, Steve" on the other end of the spectrum.  

 

Side Note:  I really wish we still had Jeff Reese.  Thanks a lot Obama... uh, I mean Hextall.

 

Sandstrom is a Phantom this year, so we'll have a better idea of what we've got there and frankly Ustimenko and Ersson were kinda tearing it up in Europe last year.  I;m not crazy about Sandstrom as a backup to Hart.  His style is too different from what I understand.  That's not good for the defense and the transition game to flip back and forth.  But he might be a decent goalie nonetheless.  

 

Also, our #1 goalie of the past two years who actually did decently enough when healthy, is now our backup. Add to that he tended to only be not healthy when he had to start a ton of games in a row because his backup was always hurt, and maybe it's a pretty good thing.  I still wish we had Stolarz.  I think he's the perfect backup to Hart in style and he's signed in Anaheim for $750k, but Fletch thought trading him for a goalie he was never going to play and who was never going to resign made sense, so here we are.  Carrying two backups is a little bonkers anyway... though the way goalies get hurt in this league lately, it might eventually become a thing.  

 

Which is all just to say that I think think the season or even the future is lost of Hart has some rough patches.  Frankly, he had them last spring as well (not the least because he got hurt playing too much, so hopefully VIgneault is smarter than Berube, Hakstol and Gordon (though Gordon's hand was forced by Fletcher on Hart) when it comes to goalies.

 

[King Knut]

20 hours ago, radoran said:

 

Sometimes it helps to put aside the steadfast beliefs and look at things from a different perspective.

 

 

This is pretty much how I look at everything.  

 

20 hours ago, radoran said:

And it cost him his job.

 

I remain convinced that the team's underperformance wasn't why he got fired, it was the excuse Scott needed because Hextall mouthed off to him one time too many.  

 

There's always the possibility that Quennville wanted to come coach the Flyers and Hextall told him to go to hell and there's always the possibility that the Blue Jackets wanted to trade Panarin for Simmonds and Hextall told them to go to hell... but somehow I'm guessing neither of those things happened. 

 

You don't fire your GM a month or so into the season like that for going into the season with some cap room he intends to use before the start of the following season on UFA's and and still developing RFAs.   You don't even fire him like that for refusing to fire his coach.

 

You fire him like that because it's personal. 

 

[Podein25]

I think I hit the trifecta for responses here!

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Podein25

[vis]

On 8/7/2019 at 1:53 PM, King Knut said:

Sorry, I think I was confusing in my original statement.  I wasn't referring to the hiring of him, I was referring to the people now who are sort of making apologies and painting a little bit of a "Hakstol wasn't so bad" picture... not saying that's you either.  Forget who was implying it actually.

Got it.

 

On 8/7/2019 at 1:53 PM, King Knut said:

Long story short, giving Hak a shot can be an okay thing to try and keeping him a year and a half past him making it obvious he didn't belong aren't mutually exclusive.  That's all I meant. I phrased it poorly. 

Got it.

 

On 8/7/2019 at 1:53 PM, King Knut said:

I feel good about his future.  I don't see the same things I saw in Couturier back when I kept trying to tell everyone he was actually really good, but I see other things.  I wouldn't say my confidence in Patty is as High as it was in Coots either... but I think the offensive ceiling could also be a lot higher if he can get it to start clicking.  New Coach, new line... all the ingredients are there for it!

I'm still surprised by Couturier's offensive turnaround.  I know he put up tons of points in the Q, but he didn't look offensively capable in the NHL.  And it wasn't just because he was saddled with hard minutes.  He looked, to me, like he he didn't have NHL-level skill or skating ability.  But you could see he was a smart player and he worked hard.  I don't know what happened, but his offensive skill seemed to improve overnight and, coupled with the smarts and work ethic, he blossomed.  All of this to say that with Patrick, I see more skill than I did with Couturier, but not the same smarts/dedication.  Couturier struck me as a kid who didn't need to be pushed at this level.  But Patrick strikes me as someone who needs a coach in his ear to max out his potential.  Hoping the new staff can do that.  I worry a little bit about Therrien in this regard.  I don't think players react well to Therrien's abrasiveness, especially younger kids.  

[vis]

52 minutes ago, Podein25 said:

I think I hit the trifecta for responses here!

 

Gordie Howe hat trick of message board posting.

Edited August 8, 2019 by vis

[Podein25]

On 8/7/2019 at 1:43 PM, radoran said:

Sometimes it helps to put aside the steadfast beliefs and look at things from a different perspective.

 

Says the guy who just ordered an American widdout for the 10,00th time.

 

You're not fooling anybody man.

[vis]

On 8/7/2019 at 2:43 PM, radoran said:

My point was that the season before Hextall "should have" fired Hakstol was the best Flyers season in four years and once can see where Hextall might not have thought the foundation was cracked and the roof was on fire. 98 points. Third place in the division. Lost in the first round to the two-time defending Cup champions.

I see your point better now.  It seems there was just enough "good" or "reasonable justification" each season, particularly the one you cite above, to give Hextall cover for not firing Hakstol.  I still submit that the team was never as good, consistently, as it should have been.

[vis]

2 minutes ago, Podein25 said:

 

Says the guy who just ordered an American widdout for the 10,00th time.

 

You're not fooling anybody man.

American?  C'mon...

[Podein25]

Just now, vis said:

American?  C'mon...

 

Prov? Whiz? Help a brother out, all I got is Google

[radoran]

5 hours ago, King Knut said:

I remain convinced that the team's underperformance wasn't why he got fired, it was the excuse Scott needed because Hextall mouthed off to him one time too many.  

 

I would agree with that, with the corollary that it was an underperforming team that put Scott into the "oversight" position where Hextall mouthed off to him.

 

47 minutes ago, vis said:

I'm still surprised by Couturier's offensive turnaround.  I know he put up tons of points in the Q, but he didn't look offensively capable in the NHL. 

 

@King Knut was an early adopter, but there were signs that Couturier was putting his offense together. He had the injuries in 1516 and 1617, but was on pace in 1516 for 50 points and his "post all star" 1617 showed 21 points in 31 games ("on pace" for 56).

 

The hard minutes were a part of it, but he was starting to put up pretty good numbers despite the zone starts, etc.

 

Then being put into a position to succeed at 1C, and getting Giroux back to his (real) natural position on the wing really paid dividends.

 

Blind coach finds nut.

 

40 minutes ago, vis said:

I still submit that the team was never as good, consistently, as it should have been.

 

I don't disagree. But I might say "could" have been. I'm not yet convinced this team is as good as we/they think it is.

 

41 minutes ago, Podein25 said:

Says the guy who just ordered an American widdout for the 10,00th time.

 

Whiz witout, tyvfm.

 

I said sometimes didn't I?

[mojo1917]

54 minutes ago, Podein25 said:

Prov? Whiz? Help a brother out, all I got is Google

Whiz, wit. get the fries too they're worth it.

have  your cash ready Pods, don't be bringing that check card crap around here...

[Podein25]

2 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

Whiz, wit. get the fries too they're worth it.

have  your cash ready Pods, don't be bringing that check card crap around here...

 

Noted.

[mojo1917]

12 minutes ago, radoran said:

The hard minutes were a part of it, but he was starting to put up pretty good numbers despite the zone starts, etc.

 

Then being put into a position to succeed at 1C, and getting Giroux back to his (real) natural position on the wing really paid dividends.

 

Blind coach finds nut

 

 

Did the blind coach find the nut or did Sean dump a 1lb bag in front of him ?

If he hadn't spoken up at an exit interview he might still be a 45 point guy because he's dragging Weisse and Laughton around for 13 even strength minutes a night.

 

[King Knut]

18 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

I would agree with that, with the corollary that it was an underperforming team that put Scott into the "oversight" position where Hextall mouthed off to him.

 

 

I mean, maybe... but Scott wasn't in charge when they came up with and approved the plan, so he's kinda got to take a back seat until the plan is given its full chance to not work.  

 

18 minutes ago, radoran said:

@King Knut was an early adopter, but there were signs that Couturier was putting his offense together. He had the injuries in 1516 and 1617, but was on pace in 1516 for 50 points and his "post all star" 1617 showed 21 points in 31 games ("on pace" for 56).

 

The hard minutes were a part of it, but he was starting to put up pretty good numbers despite the zone starts, etc.

 

Then being put into a position to succeed at 1C, and getting Giroux back to his (real) natural position on the wing really paid dividends.

 

Blind coach finds nut.

 

 

Thanks Rad,  I'll be rattling that one around for a while.  

The other contributor was Patrick.  They didn't expect to get a 2nd overall Center that year.  

They went into the season with a bunch of centers (Coots, Patrick, VLC, Laughton and Lehtera, technically even Weal maybe).  Drafting Patrick and deciding not to send him back to juniors made moving G back to LW make a bit more sense for them.  

 

No one else agreed, but I really liked Coots' vision when he was carrying the puck out of his own end.  As I saw it, being on that line without a heck of a lot of skill around him gave him little to move the puck to.  His 5v5 scoring was also really impressive compared to the other "elite" defensive centers of the time that kept winning awards (even before he took off).  He typically out produced most of them including Bergeron.  Of course what they had that he didn't was the PP, so what truly surprised me was when he actually started scoring on the PP.  It's a testament to exactly how bad PP2 was without a decent QB.

 

18 minutes ago, radoran said:

I don't disagree. But I might say "could" have been. I'm not yet convinced this team is as good as we/they think it is.

 

October is coming!