2022/23 Roster Thread III: Run It Back!

[Hollywood Cannon]

I do wonder how much he makes as an analyst. Maybe it’s an acceptable enough cut to consider bailing

I'm not saying it's going to happen but it is his self proclaimed last coaching job. Why let that pull you down to where the networks won't look at you again?

 

[Rebels57]

Sorry, but I think you are just wrong with this take. On top of the stats from this playoff that other's have posted, it's also the idea of having a bona fide super star in your lineup that teams need to be aware of and game plan for at all times, potentially opening up space for other players to elevate their game. The Flyers have not had a legit superstar that opposing teams feared going into a game or playoff series since #88.

He's wrong with every take. He's never been right in his life.

The boards Larry and Moe finally have their Curly.

 

[flyersnorth]

So, let's make a few assumptions.

The roster is healthy-ish, aside from Ellis. He's dead.

With Torts, and a healthy Coots, Hayes, and Hart - we probably get, what, 7-8 more wins?

That still keeps the team comfortably below .500, but would bump them to about 75-77 points.

That would place us 23rd overall, just sneaking into the draft lottery for top pick.

It's almost like the worst possible outcome. I think only 22nd would be worse - not in the draft lottery, but nowhere near competitive.

I wish I could fast forward through half a dozen seasons.

 

[wankstifier]

I'm not saying it's going to happen but it is his self proclaimed last coaching job. Why let that pull you down to where the networks won't look at you again?

That’d take something unspeakable—like taking off both shoes to beat the fans with

 

[Rebels57]

So, let's make a few assumptions.

The roster is healthy-ish, aside from Ellis. He's dead.

With Torts, and a healthy Coots, Hayes, and Hart - we probably get, what, 7-8 more wins?

That still keeps the team comfortably below .500, but would bump them to about 75-77 points.

That would place us 23rd overall, just sneaking into the draft lottery for top pick.

It's almost like the worst possible outcome. I think only 11th would be worse - not in the draft lottery, but nowhere near competitive.

I wish I could fast forward through half a dozen seasons.

Been saying since Torts was hired that they would place around 7th-8th worst team in the league. He'll have them grind out enough ugly shot-block fest wins to keep them out of the Bedard sweepstakes but nowhere near the Playoffs.

Chicago and Arizona are locks for bottom 2

 

[Cootsfanclub]

Been saying since Torts was hired that they would place around 7th-8th worst team in the league. He'll have them grind out enough ugly shot-block fest wins to keep them out of the Bedard sweepstakes but nowhere near the Playoffs.

Chicago and Arizona are locks for bottom 2

100%. He's a good coach, not a great one at this point. This isn't a tank commander.

 

[deadhead]

CBJ
2014-15: xGF/60: 2.06 (23), xGA/60: 2.34 (23)
2015-16: xGF/60: 2.52 (3), xGA/60: 2.42 (27) [took over after 7 games]
2016-17: xGF/60: 2.44 (3), xGA/60: 2.35 (22)
2017-18: xGF/60: 2.64 (1), xGA/60: 2.42 (20)

NYR:
2007-08: xGF/60: 2.28 (4), xGA/60: 1.95 (12)
2008-09: xGF/60: 2.59 (1), xGA/60: 2.43 (30) [took over after 61 games]
2009-10: xGF/60: 2.46 (2), xGA/60: 2.55 (29)
2010-11: xGF/60: 2.68 (1), xGA/60: 2.35 (25)

This shocked the hell out of me, wait, thought Torts was this defensive HC for whom offense was an afterthought?
Makes me think he needs a closer look, it's more like he stresses defense as a way to regain puck possession and go on the attack, not retreat in a shell.

It's not like these were uber-talented offensive teams:
Ranger 2008-09 top scorers: Zherdev, Gomez, Drury, Naslund, Drury, Dubinsky, Callahan, D: Rozsival, Redden, Girardi
Ranger 2009-10 top scorers: Gaborik, Prospal, Dubinsky, Callahan, Drury, Avery, D: MDZ, M Staal, Girardi, Rozsival

CBJ 2015-16: Saad, Atkinson, Jenner, Hartnell, Dubinsky, Weenberg, Foligno, D: Murray, Savard, S Jones
CBJ 2016-17: Atkinson, Weenberg, Saad, Foligno, Gagner, Dubinsky,, Hartnell, Jenner, D: Werenski, Jones, Savard
CBJ 2017-18: Panarin, Dubois, Atkinson, Bjorkstrand, Weenberg, Foligno, Jenner, Andrerson, D: Jones, Werenski, Nutivaara, Savard

 

[Beef Invictus]

I liked Fletcher's first off-season. Last off-season wasn't great in hindsight, but looked ok at the time. But this off-season is shaping up to be a disaster.
If this team doesn't somehow exceed expectations, it should cost him his job.

eeehhhhhhhh last off-season was blatantly shit too.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Deadhead is now arguing Tortorella is an offense-first, defensively neglectful coach. Amazing.

 

[Curufinwe]

If all the waiver eligible RFAs took their QOs they would be just under the cap without putting Ellis on LTIR.

FORWARDS (13)
Right wing: Cam Atkinson ($5,875,000) - Travis Konecny ($5,500,000) - Owen Tippett ($874,125) - Nicolas Deslauriers ($1,750,000) - Zack MacEwen ($990,000)
Centre: Sean Couturier ($7,750,000) - Kevin Hayes ($7,142,857) - Morgan Frost ($874,125) - Patrick Brown ($750,000)
Left wing: James van Riemsdyk ($7,000,000) - Joel Farabee ($5,000,000) - Scott Laughton ($3,000,000) - Isaac Ratcliffe ($813,750)

DEFENSE (7)
Right: Anthony Deangelo ($5,000,000) - Rasmus Ristolainen ($5,100,000) - Justin Braun ($1,000,000)
Left: Ivan Provorov ($6,750,000) - Travis Sanheim ($4,675,000) - Cam York ($880,833) - Nick Seeler ($775,000)

GOALTENDER (2)
Carter Hart ($3,979,000) - Felix Sandström ($775,000)

BUYOUTS (2)
Ilya Bryzgalov ($0) - Oskar Lindblom (-$333,333)

DETAILS
Roster Size: 22
Salary Cap: $82,500,000
Bonus Overages: $295,000
Cap Hit: $82,466,357
Cap Space: $33,643

 

[FlyerNutter]

I pray to god that they realize at some point next season they need to sell.

They have f***ed themselves over with so many of these contracts but Sanheim, Konecny, and Provorov trades need to be explored.

A commitment to acquiring more draft capital needs to happen, and continuing to hang on to some skilled/likeable players would be nothing but cowardly imo.

The “window” is so far out at this point, that I don’t consider someone who will turn 26/27 next year as worthwhile in keeping. This is going to be Giroux, or Couturier all over again very soon.

I truly hope they see the dire need to commit to proper organic growth.

 

[Beef Invictus]

@deadhead It's incredibly goofy to look at expected rates for entire seasons, especially over an extended span of seasons. You can look at actual results instead, since there's no longer need for projection or normalizing for in-season fluctuations.

2007-8: 25th in goals for
2008-9: 28th
2009-10: 21st
2010-11: 18th
2011-12: 11th
2012-2013: 15th (unsure why you ignored this year, but I can guess)

2013-2014: 28th

2015-16: 19th
2016-17: 6th!
2017-18: 17th
2018-19: 12th
2019-20: 27th
2020-21: 28th

If you want to convince me that Tortorella is secretly an offensive-minded goal guru, then his teams have to actually score the goals, not expect to.

 

[deadhead]

Deadhead is now arguing Tortorella is an offense-first, defensively neglectful coach. Amazing.

Facts are facts.

I was surprised, I expected a dropoff in both xGF and xGA with Torts at the helm.
Now I looked at xGF/xGA b/c they're more stable than GF/GA and remove the goalie factor, which was big on the Rangers.

Reason i Ignore the out years is they're more GM influenced, like CBJ allowing Panarin and others to walk, which is when Torts pretty much gave up, b/c what's the point when the FO won't keep talent. And with Torts, there is also the "burn out" factor - we'll see if he's learned to tone it down for long term stability.

CBJ
2014-15: GF/60: 2.23 (18), GA/60: 2.60 (25)
2015-16: GF/60: 2.26 (10), GA/60: 2.45 (27) [took over after 7 games]
2016-17: GF/60: 2.53 (6), GA/60: 1.97 (3)
2017-18: GF/60: 2.51 (9), GA/60: 2.17 (9)

NYR:
2007-08: GF/60: 2.11 (20), GA/60: 1.81 (3)
2008-09: GF/60: 2.03 (25), GA/60: 2.31 (16) [took over after 61 games]
2009-10: GF/60: 2.34 (11), GA/60: 2.22 (11)
2010-11: GF/60: 2.30 (16), GA/60: 2.13 (10)

So he manages to take mediocre offensive talent and turn them into top ten scoring teams at ES.
Other than Panarin, he had teams loaded with 2nd/3rd line forwards and 2nd pair D-men.
The question then becomes, "How do you think he does it? I don't know. What makes him so good?"

 

[Beef Invictus]

Oh, it would also be helpful if he stopped saying things like "McDavid needs to score less and focus on defense" and "I don't understand offense so I hope my boss hires someone who does"

 

[Beef Invictus]

Facts are facts, if you have an objection, support it with more than a snarky comment.

I was surprised, I expected a dropoff in both xGF and xGA with Torts at the helm.
Now I looked at xGF/xGA b/c they're more stable than GF/GA and remove the goalie factor, which was big on the Rangers.

CBJ
2014-15: GF/60: 2.23 (18), GA/60: 2.60 (25)
2015-16: GF/60: 2.26 (10), GA/60: 2.45 (27) [took over after 7 games]
2016-17: GF/60: 2.53 (6), GA/60: 1.97 (3)
2017-18: GF/60: 2.51 (9), GA/60: 2.17 (9)

NYR:
2007-08: GF/60: 2.11 (20), GA/60: 1.81 (3)
2008-09: GF/60: 2.03 (25), GA/60: 2.31 (16) [took over after 61 games]
2009-10: GF/60: 2.34 (11), GA/60: 2.22 (11)
2010-11: GF/60: 2.30 (16), GA/60: 2.13 (10)

So he manages to take mediocre offensive talent and turn them into top ten scoring teams at ES.
The question then becomes, "How do you think he does it? I don't know. What makes him so good?"

I just did support it. Again, you're doing everything you can to flex stats to favor what you want to believe. There's a really easy and ideal stat for a sample size this huge: straight-up GF. A team's production. His teams produce pretty poorly.

 

[deadhead]

I just did support it. Again, you're doing everything you can to flex stats to favor what you want to believe. There's a really easy and ideal stat for a sample size this huge: straight-up GF. A team's production. His teams produce pretty poorly.

And GF also supports my point. Drastic improvement on both teams that wasn't driven by talent.

 

[Beef Invictus]

And GF also supports my point. Drastic improvement on both teams that wasn't driven by talent.

They were almost always at the bottom of the league.

Vancouver plummeted when he was there and then recovered when he left, recovered drastically actually.

Columbus improved a bit. New York shot up.

You're writing fantasy nonsense.

 

[BillDineen]

I think it is possible Chuck chose to not go after Gaudreau because of size and the dinosaur's belief in a culture change back to tougher, heavy players.

 

[deadhead]

Here's some stuff on Torts from his Ranger days:

I’m sure some of you have recently heard John Tortorella describe the Rangers as a “defense-first” team. Obviously this is causing some confusion among our fanbase, since most people tend to understand the term as a way of describing neutral zone trap teams (e.g., Yotes, Bruins, Devils back in the day).

When Tortorella says defense first, he is referring to wanting his players to be defensively responsible, hard on the backcheck and aggressive on the forecheck. Yes, forechecking is part of defense because you don’t have the puck. These are consistent themes for most hockey clubs.

This is a very different definition than the “defense first” label the media communicates. They often use this term against Torts and blame it for stifling the team’s offense. Except, lack of offense isn’t caused by a system, it is the result when a system isn’t executed.

The Blueshirts generate most of their 5-on-5 offense from an aggressive 2-1-2 spread forecheck (shown above) and transitional offense, meaning offense generated from the rush. The 2-1-2 spread relies on skating, puck pressure, and pursuit from all five skaters. Some coaches use a variation of this forecheck where F1 and F2 approach from the same lane, rather than spread out like the image shown above. This system helps produce grade A chances by winning puck possession battles below the dots, but it’s on the players to find twine.

Defensive oriented teams, or conservative teams, generally do not send two or three forwards in deep after the puck. Hybrid trap teams will sometimes forecheck aggressively, but generally will do so only until they have a lead. Once they have the lead, they tend to drop guys back and plug up the neutral zone in those 1-4 or 1-3-1 formations. This is a major tactical difference between those who always encourage puck pursuit in the offensive zone (think Torts or Bylsma) and those who do not (think Hitchcock or Lemaire).

Defensemen Joining The Play

More passive teams also typically do not give their offensive defensemen free reign to pinch, forecheck, or join the rush. They are much more conservative with their blueliners. The Rangers are the opposite. Torts certainly wants his defensemen to get involved offensively, so long as someone covers them. If you don’t believe that, then you haven’t ever watched Michael Del Zotto. He is as aggressive as it gets.

John Tortorella’s system

I'm sure some of you have recently heard John Tortorella describe the Rangers as a "defense-first" team. Obviously this is causing some confusion among our fanb

blueseatblogs.com

 

[Adam Warlock]

So, let's make a few assumptions.

The roster is healthy-ish, aside from Ellis. He's dead.

With Torts, and a healthy Coots, Hayes, and Hart - we probably get, what, 7-8 more wins?

That still keeps the team comfortably below .500, but would bump them to about 75-77 points.

That would place us 23rd overall, just sneaking into the draft lottery for top pick.

It's almost like the worst possible outcome. I think only 11th would be worse - not in the draft lottery, but nowhere near competitive.

I wish I could fast forward through half a dozen seasons.

If the draft is as deep as advertised...being in the top 10 is still a great place to be. Your scenario has them still in selling position with the potential to pick up more 1st rounders.

It sucks not getting the generational guys but if played right, next years draft could still be a big part of the rebuild.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Here's some stuff on Torts from his Ranger days:

I’m sure some of you have recently heard John Tortorella describe the Rangers as a “defense-first” team. Obviously this is causing some confusion among our fanbase, since most people tend to understand the term as a way of describing neutral zone trap teams (e.g., Yotes, Bruins, Devils back in the day).

When Tortorella says defense first, he is referring to wanting his players to be defensively responsible, hard on the backcheck and aggressive on the forecheck. Yes, forechecking is part of defense because you don’t have the puck. These are consistent themes for most hockey clubs.

This is a very different definition than the “defense first” label the media communicates. They often use this term against Torts and blame it for stifling the team’s offense. Except, lack of offense isn’t caused by a system, it is the result when a system isn’t executed.

The Blueshirts generate most of their 5-on-5 offense from an aggressive 2-1-2 spread forecheck (shown above) and transitional offense, meaning offense generated from the rush. The 2-1-2 spread relies on skating, puck pressure, and pursuit from all five skaters. Some coaches use a variation of this forecheck where F1 and F2 approach from the same lane, rather than spread out like the image shown above. This system helps produce grade A chances by winning puck possession battles below the dots, but it’s on the players to find twine.

Defensive oriented teams, or conservative teams, generally do not send two or three forwards in deep after the puck. Hybrid trap teams will sometimes forecheck aggressively, but generally will do so only until they have a lead. Once they have the lead, they tend to drop guys back and plug up the neutral zone in those 1-4 or 1-3-1 formations. This is a major tactical difference between those who always encourage puck pursuit in the offensive zone (think Torts or Bylsma) and those who do not (think Hitchcock or Lemaire).

Defensemen Joining The Play

More passive teams also typically do not give their offensive defensemen free reign to pinch, forecheck, or join the rush. They are much more conservative with their blueliners. The Rangers are the opposite. Torts certainly wants his defensemen to get involved offensively, so long as someone covers them. If you don’t believe that, then you haven’t ever watched Michael Del Zotto. He is as aggressive as it gets.

John Tortorella’s system

I'm sure some of you have recently heard John Tortorella describe the Rangers as a "defense-first" team. Obviously this is causing some confusion among our fanb

blueseatblogs.com

And the result is.... Typically bottom of the league. This team is bereft of talent to boot.

I am quite familiar with Tortorella's fondness for grinding up and down the ice while avoiding risk.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

We live in a god damn society.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

Guess the “Torts will build the roster” thing failed so now it’s on to “Torts is an offensive mastermind.”

Despite, you know, him saying that he doesn’t have a grasp of that side of the game and needs the assistant to carry the load.

 

[Beef Invictus]

My favorite thing about Tortorella is his awareness that offense is not his thing. That's fantastic. I love that kind of self-awareness in a coach. I don't like that his solution is "hire someone else to handle it" rather than pulling a Sutter and learning it yourself, especially since there's no chance of Fletcher hiring anyone good.

 

[renberg]

Chuck needs to get his ass moving on an extension for Sanheim. If he can't get that done now, it's time to move him. Going into the season with him unsigned will end up in a complete loss. Calgary is smarting from losing JG, perhaps they would do a Sanheim for Hanifin or Andersson with some reasonable extras tossed in on both sides. Can't lose Sanheim for nothing.