What is wrong with the Flyers and how do you fix it?

[tucson83]

4 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

Thing is that these days teams aren't letting that sort of quality player get to the open market.

 

When was the last time you saw the number and quality of a Timonen/Hartnell/Briere get onto the open market?

 

Probably 2007.

just an example, nothing like 2007 more like if one or two of those guys are available for reasonable contracts.

[ruxpin]

37 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

I don't know why Niskanen retired. I don't think you do either. It could be that he just bought a bitchin chainsaw and those trees by the lake aren't going to cut themselves down for all we know. Projecting your idea onto his action is just that. 

 

I completely agree with this.

But I do think it's plausible.

But so is the chain saw and the teenagers...er...trees by the lake.

 

Niskanen, specifically, is wild speculation at best.   But from my vantage it fits in nicely with what to me is several seasons of mounting symptoms.

[tucson83]

i really believe that a full offseason and more practice time will help this team alot, i mean they were playing well before the bubble and struggling when hockey resumed in aug, that's not coaching, that's a lack of preparation meaning they had no practice time and condensed schedule which they couldnt get in sync because of so much time off and yeah nisky retiring doesnt help either.

 

they do need some retooling and they will come back better, alot of it has to do with youth and they do need full practices for them to be in sync, that's why they are struggling, it doesnt excuse the vets though, they have to show up and they didnt so that needs to be retooled.

[radoran]

2 hours ago, GratefulFlyers said:

I think the Voracek-hate is misguided as he’s one of the few who reliably contributes offensively.

 

I kinda get that - and kinda don't get that.

 

The guy has all of three goals since February 1. And for a lynchpin of PP1 he has all of four PPP (all A) in that time frame.

 

And while I'm "happy" they weren't shut out against Buffalo, his assist on the goal that made it 6-1 was...

 

Others definitely "hate" him more than I do. I'm just not terribly impressed with him as a cornerstone of the franchise.

[GratefulFlyers]

"Everybody says play 60 minutes. It's a hockey cliche. I've never seen a team control all 60 minutes."

 

Isn’t this is the quote in question? If not my apologies. It sounds completely self-explanatory to me no interpretation needed. You really have to twist yourself pretzel-style to make it into something incriminating. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

[radoran]

5 minutes ago, GratefulFlyers said:

Isn’t this is the quote in question? If not my apologies. It sounds completely self-explanatory to me no interpretation needed. You really have to twist yourself pretzel-style to make it into something incriminating. 

 

Different people see things differently. I live in the pretzel capital of the country - Philadelphia - and I don't think I'm particularly twisted. It's also a tough quote to stomach coming out of the month of March they just had.

 

Voracek deftly conflates "control" with "play". Those are two different words with radically different meanings.

 

I'm not asking a team to control 60 minutes. I'm asking a team to play 60 minutes. You can play hard even if you're not in control of the game.

 

And even @mojo1917earlier notes that Jake simply doesn't always play the 16-18 minutes he's given.

[tucson83]

5 minutes ago, GratefulFlyers said:

"Everybody says play 60 minutes. It's a hockey cliche. I've never seen a team control all 60 minutes."

 

Isn’t this is the quote in question? If not my apologies. It sounds completely self-explanatory to me no interpretation needed. You really have to twist yourself pretzel-style to make it into something incriminating. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

this is the example of bad leadership,  he should be saying, the young players are struggling but it's on me that i have to play better, i have to get more shots on the net and show i can be an impact player for the rest of the team.

[radoran]

2 minutes ago, tucson83 said:

this is the example of bad leadership,  he should be saying, the young players are struggling but it's on me that i have to play better, i have to get more shots on the net and show i can be an impact player for the rest of the team.

 

I'll pile on some more.

 

It's like when Giroux called the team "definitely a playoff team" when they were on the outside looking in and hadn't made the playoffs the year before.

 

It's the mindset that they project that I don't believe can't be reflected in what's going on "in the room."

 

To me, they believe they are better than they are. They need to believe that they need to be better in order to achieve their goals.

 

"I believe if we work hard and raise our game we should be a playoff team" is a damn sight better than "definitely a playoff team."

 

And "I need to raise my play and do what needs to be done to make the playoffs" is a damn sight better than explaining that your team doesn't have to "play" 60 minutes because you're not going to "control" all 60 of them.

 

And, yes, when you've got a whopping one playoff round victory in eight years and are coming off the worst month of hockey in franchise history this sort of thing matters.

 

To me, anyway.

 

YMMV

 

[ruxpin]

 

 

1 hour ago, mojo1917 said:

Everyone here knows I don't buy into the G is suk narrative so I'm not going to dive into that anymore.

If people want him gone, fine. 

 

I'm over seeing 10k posts about how he's the reason this team is bad. 

 

I'm not saying G is suk and haven't.  He doesn't.  I get what you're responding to with this, and I hear you, but I  am not saying that.

This isn't about his skill.   Richards was quite frankly a horrible captain.   I'm still fine with trading him because he simply was horrible captain and there, too, there was something horribly wrong with the group.  He and Carter were shipped out not because Richards is suk or Carter is suk but because they represented the leadership and their "It's just one game" and you can just screw off and 'f[orget] the coach!" mentality was permeating.   What we got in return is another topic altogether.  And their play on the Kings is actually beside the point:  neither was captain in LA.  They had other strong voices in the room.   Both players were able to play and do their thing and the room followed those other strong, positive voices that mirrored the coach's direction.  I'm arguing the same concept with Giroux.  And Voracek.  Just, for the love of God, be smarter about the return!   (In many ways, the return wasn't bad with Carter/Richards, but there's no reason at this moment to trade Grioux/Voracek for players and picks that are several seasons away from contributing in a meaningful way).

 

1 hour ago, mojo1917 said:

I also don't know if I understand how G and V ruined Myers? Are they telling him, "hey pass it away from your support ?" or "rather than taking the extra stride to get beside the cage and clear the puck high down the center of the ice just throw that **** off the high glass and hope".  I don't see where those 2 guys have that kind of influence.

 

To me it is far more likely that Myers is having a bit of a sophomore slump and is developing at the normal pace for an NHL defenseman who's also relied upon to be 2nd pair.

 

Your second statement in the above quote is certainly plausible.   But your super focusing on his name when he was just a single name I used as an example of many.  Let's not lose the forest for the moss mound beneath the tree.   I reversed the order of the quotes here because I'm hoping this answer is apparent given my answer to the first quote. 

 

This isn't about a decision to throw a puck up the boards blindly or missing coverage, etc.   Those things happen because of laissez faire attitudes and approaches to their jobs.   This is exactly the culture I'm talking about and a decade later and the fact it continues across coaches --2 of whom have won a cup elsewhere and one who has repeatedly gone to the finals--GMs and enough players to populate a medium sized town, you cut the head off at the top; you don't screw around with the foot soldiers.    Once you've replaced the top, you'll have a better understanding of the lower personnel who aren't ready to follow the new leader.   

 

To put the metaphor closer to the language you were trying to use (your quote below).   On the manufacturing floor, sometimes when you see a stream of injuries and quality issues occur over time, the problem doesn't necessarily have to be training or process (I'm not implying it never is or that it's not a valid place to start!).  But when you have changed training and process, etc., and have repeated anecdotal evidence that the employees are simply being careless and skipping steps of process and their training and you have evidence of the floor leadership looking the other way or, worse, also cutting corners, usually the most effective approach isn't to replace 10+ operators.  You move out the supervisor.   So, if we want to quibble over allegory, I'm fine with meeting at the supervisor/floor leader  level if that's the context we want to place Giroux and Voracek. 

 

 

Quote

I don't know if I quite cotton to the last paragraph either. The captains and alternates would be supervisor or floor level leaders in almost every instance I can think of aside from pick-up games.

 

However, the captains and alternates were not supervisor or floor level leaders in the context I was stating/framing it, though it doesn't change the point.    First,  supervisors and floor level leaders don't make 2-3 times more than the leaders.   And the player group follows the lead of the captain and alternates much more than they follow the coach--especially and clearly in Philadelphia.   I'm talking in relation to the guys actually on the team.  I'm not talking about Comcast shirts or front office people or even coaching staff.  Those are all the corporate people in this context, not the guys at the "plant" or "branch" level, which would be the players.  In that context, Giroux is senior leader.  In the context of the Flyers' team, Giroux and Voracek are the senior leadership.    And I'm talking in terms of if the culture is bad and permeating, benching or trading the 3rd or 4th line guys or the bottom two defensive pairings (or 7-8th) isn't changing a systemic culture.   You need to change the leadership.   And we've been through 5 coaches and three GMs.  And several different lineups.   At some point the root cause should be clearly apparent even to Helen Keller three weeks after she slipped into a coma.  Giroux and voracek have survived while culture has not changed despite the wake of coach, GM and player bodies strewn behind them.   Let's once and for all change them and stop being naïve.   This isn't about them sucking.  They have enough left that they can prove successful yet elsewhere.   Broadcasters seem to think Voracek is terrific despite the fact that when I watch him he's among the dumbest, most irritating players I've ever watched.   Clearly, that's a matter of perception.  So, trade him and let him be wonderful elsewhere.

 

 

[ruxpin]

44 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

I kinda get that - and kinda don't get that.

 

The guy has all of three goals since February 1. And for a lynchpin of PP1 he has all of four PPP (all A) in that time frame.

 

And while I'm "happy" they weren't shut out against Buffalo, his assist on the goal that made it 6-1 was...

 

Others definitely "hate" him more than I do. I'm just not terribly impressed with him as a cornerstone of the franchise.

 

I hate him.   For the record, I completely despise him.   Like I did Lecavalier, except that unlike Vinny, I didn't hate Voracek from the moment he arrived.

First, he's not the only one that reliably contributes offensively.   First of all, it's hardly "reliably," and second, the amount of offense he contributes the other way due to sheer idiocy and arrogance is mind-numbing.    He simply makes utterly asinine plays in the neutral zone and high in the offensive zone.    They don't ALL end up in the Flyer net, but he puts an absurd amount of pressure on the Flyers' defense and goaltending as a result.   Just simply a stupid player.  Yeah, so he "picks things up and puts them down."    Terrific.  The s**t ended up exactly where it started.  Yippee.

 

41 minutes ago, GratefulFlyers said:

"Everybody says play 60 minutes. It's a hockey cliche. I've never seen a team control all 60 minutes."

 

Isn’t this is the quote in question? If not my apologies. It sounds completely self-explanatory to me no interpretation needed. You really have to twist yourself pretzel-style to make it into something incriminating. 

 

It's not exactly self-explanatory, apparently.   And it's incriminating in the sense it's a stupid statement.  Unsurprising given the caveman who said it.   It's right up there with "It's only one game."   Of course it's only one game!  It clearly wasn't 12!

But if every game isn't important, if every minute isn't important, why bother at all?   Certainly some shifts will be better than others.  Some games better than others.   But the "play 60 minutes" is about effort and giving a damn.  His quote (and Richards' "it's just a game" before it) is indicative of a 'screw it, we'll turn it on when we need to" thought when clearly they're NOT turning it on when they need to.   It's about playing stupid or not giving a rip because there's always another shift or another game.

 

I'm sure the pay for every game is pretty damn important to him.

 

Sure, the results won't always be there.  Sure, the best players will make boneheaded mistakes and they'll make mistakes while tying their best.  Of course...they're human.  And there's another team out there.    But Jesus, no one's asking the team to control all 60 minutes.   Just show the hell up .   The whole statement from Voracek i is just simply absurd on its face, is whiney excuse-making "duh...nobody is perfect [scratch scratch grunt]," and is entirely missing the point.

 

You lost 9-0 and 7-2 or whatever, dipshit.   Start by controlling SIX MINUTES you fleabag punk!

Edited April 8, 2021 by ruxpin

[ruxpin]

Just now, ruxpin said:

It's not exactly self-explanatory, apparently.   And it's incriminating in the sense it's a stupid statement.  Unsurprising given the caveman who said it.   It's right up there with "It's only one game."   Of course it's only one game!  It clearly wasn't 12!

But if every game is important, if every minute isn't important, why bother at all?   Certainly some shifts will be better than others.  Some games better than others.   But the "play 60 minutes" is about effort and giving a damn.  His quote (and Richards' "it's just a game" before it) is indicative of a 'screw it, we'll turn it on when we need to" thought when clearly they're NOT turning it on when they need to.   It's about playing stupid or not giving a rip because there's always another shift or another game.

 

Sure, the results won't always be there.  Sure, the best players will make boneheaded mistakes and they'll make mistakes while tying their best.  Of course...they're human.  And there's another team out there.    But Jesus, no one's asking the team to control all 60 minutes.   Just show the hell up .   The whole statement from Voracek i is just simply absurd on its face, is whiney excuse-making "duh...nobody is perfect [scratch scratch grunt]," and is entirely missing the point.

 

You lost 9-0 and 7-2 or whatever, dipshit.   Start by controlling SIX MINUTES you fleabag punk!

 

Other than that, I really don't have much of an opinion on the subject.   Pretty much undecided on him.

[Cheesesteak]

5 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

And say by the grace of God the Kraken (hey don't ruin my dream just go with me) select JVR and well now we are talking at about close to 15 mill to spend up grading the team.

 

P.S. don't wake me!!!!

[Cheesesteak]

2 hours ago, CoachX said:

interesting you mentioned Nisky and chainsaws

 

some people cant saw the forest for the trees

fixed haha

[Cheesesteak]

19 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

But if every game isn't important, if every minute isn't important, why bother at all?   Certainly some shifts will be better than others.  Some games better than others.   But the "play 60 minutes" is about effort and giving a damn.  His quote (and Richards' "it's just a game" before it) is indicative of a 'screw it, we'll turn it on when we need to" thought when clearly they're NOT turning it on when they need to.   It's about playing stupid or not giving a rip because there's always another shift or another game.

 

EXACTLY!!

[GratefulFlyers]

Word count alone I think it’s safe to say I respectfully disagree.  
 

re: the quote...Pretzel Logic. Yay! After all these years that album title finally makes sense. Ha lol. Someone mentioned the word “conflating.” Conflating indeed. Well have it your way me I’m ok with it.

[mojo1917]

51 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

So, if we want to quibble over allegory, I'm fine with meeting at the supervisor/floor leader  level if that's the context we want to place Giroux and Voracek. 

this is correct for how I was interpreting this idea.

The coaches would be the senior leaders.

I wasn't dragging Dave Scott into the flow chart. 

54 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

And we've been through 5 coaches and three GMs.  And several different lineups.   At some point the root cause should be clearly apparent even to Helen Keller three weeks after she slipped into a coma.  Giroux and voracek have survived while culture has not changed despite the wake of coach, GM and player bodies strewn behind them.   Let's once and for all change them and stop being naïve.   This isn't about them sucking. 

So, during that time, who would you have built around or tried to build around ?

Name 4 Flyers all-stars who were not them during that stretch, Konecny, Timnonen, and... who else am I missing.

 

I can agree, G was never a captain prior to the NHL, was too young, shouldn't have been thrust upon the fanbase as the replacement for Dave Poulin and all the great Flyers captains. 

The team was terrible for most of the VeeGees® radoran  time. 

I don't think the reason the team was bad was because G wasn't leading, it was because the team was suk. 

If he were worse in all facets of the game and responsibilities,  it may have worked out better for the team, higher picks less playoffs, more cracks at that sweet sweet lottery luck.

 

Like I said, I'm over it, trade him- get a 2022 1st round pick and Alex Newhook.

Shed salary and go free-agent shopping/trading in the offseason.

 

 

 

 

 

[radoran]

53 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

Like I did Lecavalier

 

I have completely excised the memory of Lecavalier as a Flyer.

 

I feel better for it.

 

 

55 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

you fleabag punk!

 

Don't hold it in, rux. That's unhealthy.

 

Just come out and say what it is you mean.

 

[ruxpin]

10 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

So, during that time, who would you have built around or tried to build around ?

 

There was no other option, but that's not really the point.    The people you mentioned weren't here long enough (Konecny on the back end, Timonen on the front) or reasonable choices (Konecny) or whomever.

The point is --and this part is certainly not Giroux's fault -- is that they never brought that in.   And by the time Giroux was in the role for multiple years--and especially with V as the wingman -- you couldn't bring someone else in and expect it to work as long as the VeeGees were here.    So, it's time to move on.

 

Honestly, I have quite a bit of vitriol pointed toward Voracek.  I realize that's "pretzel logic" to some, but I prefer to refer to is as "possessing eyes and a working brain stem."

But none of this is to say it's Giroux's fault or even Voracek's.  In the absence of a viable captain, Giroux stepped in and took it--or was handed it, but he could have said no.   And it's not like he's publicly grumbled or whined about it.   I think he's actually tried his best with it.   And he has produced.   It's nearly impossible to soberly argue that point.  But he is never going to captain a winning team and you can't bring in that type with him here.   So move on.   He'll come back and rightfully have his jersey retire and all of the people who kvetched about him for the last 5 years will stop the world for the game they're honoring Giroux and nearly uniformly everyone will wax nostalgic about how great he was, nevermind that in real time half the board would put him in front of a wall with a blindfold on.

 

But he'll rightly have his number retired.     He tried his best.  He produced.   True and true.   But none of that means that the rest isn't true either.  That whether because of him or despite him and and Voracek, the culture is toxic and it's emanating from the core.  The only way to wake up the room with out unnecessarily gutting it is to change the core that has existed through every other change possible (barring Comcast selling the team to a DeVos or something).  

 

I don't think you and I actually disagree on a lot of this.  Neither one of us really blame him.  Neither one of us think he's as bad as at least some on here seem to think.  And we're both kind of resigned to moving him.   I think we differ in that where you're more "what the hell, get on with it then,"  I'm a little further down the road at "do it NOW and get on with it."  Because I do think fault or not, it's at the heart of what needs to be done at this point.

[ruxpin]

17 minutes ago, radoran said:

Don't hold it in, rux. That's unhealthy.

 

Just come out and say what it is you mean.

 

It wouldn't be the first (or last) site I'd get banned from.

 

Or church, for that matter.

[CoachX]

1 hour ago, GratefulFlyers said:

"Everybody says play 60 minutes. It's a hockey cliche. I've never seen a team control all 60 minutes."

 

Isn’t this is the quote in question? If not my apologies. It sounds completely self-explanatory to me no interpretation needed. You really have to twist yourself pretzel-style to make it into something incriminating. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

why would a professional athlete even make a statement like this?

 

[radoran]

35 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

VeeGees® radoran  

 

 

35 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

I don't think the reason the team was bad was because G wasn't leading, it was because the team was suk. 

 

There's no question the (definitely a playoff) team wasn't all that great #wonthetrades.

 

I don't at all say he "wasn't leading" or that "G is suk" I'm saying he's not apparently particularly good at "leading" and I can only point to the worst overall stretch of organizational hockey in it's history that apparently just happens to overlap with his captaincy.

 

And while coincidence doesn't necessarily equal correlation, IMO those two things can't just be dismissed because the team that #wonthetrades apparently wound up on the short end of the talent stick.

 

Which brings us back to the issue, I think we agree that one of the major things that has held this franchise back for... 20? 30? years? Is the Executive Suite.

 

(I will go to my grave ruing the day The Voorhees D'ohboy let Jagr walk pushed Jagr out the door. Both G and V would have benefitted tremendously from that sort of influence. Instead we're still stuck with the guy who fired a guy for not firing Hakstol apparently being "mean" and not letting the team have pizza and wings and cake after games.)

 

And - to be honest and depressing - they are the "only people who can fix it" and I'm really not sure that they have it in them to accomplish the task. So my vitriol and pique that comes out at the players (who IMO deserve at least some of it) is in no small part due to the fool who took a Cup Final team and crashed it like a bike in Sea Isle City.

 

 

Edited April 8, 2021 by radoran

[radoran]

4 minutes ago, CoachX said:

why would a professional athlete even make a statement like this?

 

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and think that he meant it.

 

[flyercanuck]

6 hours ago, ruxpin said:

 

 

I find it interesting--and telling--that Myers was really good in his first season and suddenly forgot how to play. More telling, and almost proof in my mind, is that Niskanen played one season on a TWO year contract and ran from the building after one season.  

 

 

 

You could say the same about almost every young player we have. Konecny. Hart. Provorov. Myers. Sanheim. All 5 of them went from loking like the core of the future Flyers to wtf happened?

[OccamsRazor]

1 hour ago, radoran said:

I have completely excised the memory of Lecavalier as a Flyer.

 

Who?

 

 

 

[CoachX]

1 hour ago, radoran said:

 

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and think that he meant it.

 

call me silly, but it sounded a lot like an excuse