2023-24 Roster Thread #7: A shave and a haircut, two bits

How many total points will the 2023-24 Flyers compile at the end of the season?


  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

BiggE

SELL THE DAMN TEAM
Jan 4, 2019
25,090
65,851
Somewhere, FL
We’ve seen a popular terminology switch, among coaches and the like, in switching the word “defense” out with “checking.” (Not that kind, sit down, Deslauriers.) It removes the dichotomous aspects with the implication that checking is a 3-zone concept. Some players excel at different aspects of that. It’s a bit different than “puck controlling,” which is obviously the goal, in keeping the discussion centered on off-puck work.

I think Provorov is an even better example than Hagg or someone in differentiating between technique and impact. He absolutely had solid technique: gaps, body leveraging, stick work. And yet he got caved defensively for complex reasons, often having to do with the puck. Prime Justin Braun? Technique and impact. You can be pretty bad in traditional defense and have great impacts. But that does not describe Frost.
Exactly. Lots of players skate well and have skills, but it’s smarts and hockey sense which often separates the elite from the average. Bill Barber, Mark Howe, Eric Desjardins, Mark Recchi, Simon Gagne, Kimmo Timonen, Chris Pronger, Claude Giroux and Sean Couturier were all skilled, some more than others. Some of those guys were excellent skaters, some not so much and other than Pronger, they were average or below average in size. But what they all had in common was the innate ability to read the game in real time and make the smart play.

I don’t think you can teach this. Yeah, you can perhaps improve it with good coaching to a small degree but for the most part you have it or you don’t. Hell, even Scotty Bowman couldn’t turn Risto into a top pair D, he’s just too slow when it comes to reading the play.

I’ll take a team of average skilled players who possess great hockey sense and smarts over a more skilled team of morons every day of the week.
 

renberg

Registered User
Dec 31, 2003
7,250
7,520
Lewes Delaware
forums.hfboards.com
Exactly. Lots of players skate well and have skills, but it’s smarts and hockey sense which often separates the elite from the average. Bill Barber, Mark Howe, Eric Desjardins, Mark Recchi, Simon Gagne, Kimmo Timonen, Chris Pronger, Claude Giroux and Sean Couturier were all skilled, some more than others. Some of those guys were excellent skaters, some not so much and other than Pronger, they were average or below average in size. But what they all had in common was the innate ability to read the game in real time and make the smart play.

I don’t think you can teach this. Yeah, you can perhaps improve it with good coaching to a small degree but for the most part you have it or you don’t. Hell, even Scotty Bowman couldn’t turn Risto into a top pair D, he’s just too slow when it comes to reading the play.

I’ll take a team of average skilled players who possess great hockey sense and smarts over a more skilled team of morons every day of the week.
Excellent post. Some people believe that the “right” coach can turn chicken **** into chicken salad. It doesn’t work that way. Players either have a feel for the game and the skills to use or they don’t. A coach can put the players in position to use their skills to succeed but unless they have the natural IQ and skills to be used, there’s only failure in their future. One of the hardest thing for a coach is to take a kid aside and tell them, and possibly their parents, that trying isn’t enough. Go for another sport, hobby or whatever. This one isn’t for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BiggE

deadhead

Registered User
Feb 26, 2014
51,059
22,234
There's a spectrum to IQ, the same way with speed, puck handling, etc.

You can have average IQ and compensate with skill, but one trick is pairing the right players, TK is great with Couts b/c he has someone to cover for his mistakes (though the last couple years he hasn't needed as much protection).

Highest IQ on the Flyers to me are Couts, Cates and Foerster. All three are complementary players in that they lack elite offensive skills, but can make offensive linemates better. None are good skaters, Foerster has the best shot and physicality in the corners, Couts the best instincts, Cates the best stick in a crowd. Farabee is up there with them, but not as good in the D-zone. Frost and Brink are above average. TK and Tippett, well, speed and high motor covers a multitude of sins.

Ideally:
Farabee - Couts - TK
Cates - Frost - Tippett
Foerster - ??? - Brink
 
  • Like
Reactions: captainpaxil

FlyerNutter

In the forest, a man learns what it means to live
Jun 22, 2018
12,937
29,442
Winnipeg
There's a spectrum to IQ, the same way with speed, puck handling, etc.

You can have average IQ and compensate with skill, but one trick is pairing the right players, TK is great with Couts b/c he has someone to cover for his mistakes (though the last couple years he hasn't needed as much protection).

Highest IQ on the Flyers to me are Couts, Cates and Foerster. All three are complementary players in that they lack elite offensive skills, but can make offensive linemates better. None are good skaters, Foerster has the best shot and physicality in the corners, Couts the best instincts, Cates the best stick in a crowd. Farabee is up there with them, but not as good in the D-zone. Frost and Brink are above average. TK and Tippett, well, speed and high motor covers a multitude of sins.

Ideally:
Farabee - Couts - TK
Cates - Frost - Tippett
Foerster - ??? - Brink
I wonder if Kucherov, MacKinnon, Panarin, or Hughes would be able to get into the the world chess championships.
 

JojoTheWhale

"You should keep it." -- Striiker
May 22, 2008
35,944
111,070
Every time the IQ discussion is had, I think back to this:



I’m pretty convinced we underrate playmaking to a strong degree as a hockey. I think I’d be willing to make the case that Passing grade is a better measure of IQ in practice than actual IQ grades. That’s the advantage of more clear lines of thought. IQ means wildly different things to different people.
 

deadhead

Registered User
Feb 26, 2014
51,059
22,234
I see IQ as more of an all around approach to the game, you can have a high IQ but not be a great passer, b/c the latter requires more than vision, it also requires a high degree of eye to hand coordination to put a puck 30 feet down the ice in a one foot radius (onto a stick blade).

A good passer may have "tunnel vision," that is, very aware of players in front of him and how the pattern changes (passing windows opening and closing) but have mediocre instincts when it comes to transitioning to defense and anticipating where the puck is going.

Compare G and Couts for example, G is a much better playmaker, but I'd say Couts is a higher IQ (but not by a huge margin) player who is above average on offense and elite on defense.
 

VladDrag

Registered User
Feb 6, 2018
6,375
16,221
Every time the IQ discussion is had, I think back to this:



I’m pretty convinced we underrate playmaking to a strong degree as a hockey. I think I’d be willing to make the case that Passing grade is a better measure of IQ in practice than actual IQ grades. That’s the advantage of more clear lines of thought. IQ means wildly different things to different people.

We’ve had this conversation to a degree before. I believe it’s underrated because it’s not part of the publicly available RTSS dataset.

I believe there is an untapped passing dataset yet to be collected. I don’t pretend to have it fully flushed out, but I believe there is something there.
 

FLYguy3911

Sanheim Lover
Oct 19, 2006
54,778
90,186
I’ve always believed outside of having baseline athletic traits, passing was the most important skill to have in hockey. It’s a form of pace and speed. It translates to all three zones. It overlaps “hockey iq” in that you have to have good vision and awareness, you need to anticipate well, you need to be deceptive, and you need to have good timing to pull in defenders and give your teammates the appropriate space.
 

JojoTheWhale

"You should keep it." -- Striiker
May 22, 2008
35,944
111,070
I see IQ as more of an all around approach to the game, you can have a high IQ but not be a great passer, b/c the latter requires more than vision, it also requires a high degree of eye to hand coordination to put a puck 30 feet down the ice in a one foot radius (onto a stick blade).

A good passer may have "tunnel vision," that is, very aware of players in front of him and how the pattern changes (passing windows opening and closing) but have mediocre instincts when it comes to transitioning to defense and anticipating where the puck is going.

Compare G and Couts for example, G is a much better playmaker, but I'd say Couts is a higher IQ (but not by a huge margin) player who is above average on offense and elite on defense.

I think that’s a reasonable definition of IQ. My point was just that the definition is going to have more variation from person to person than some other attributes.

As a prospect, it’s a different story. But I don’t know that you can be a good NHL level passer and be just mediocre at anticipation . It feels like an oversimplification of exactly how many things go into passing at this level. There are certainly players who are better in-zone passers than transition ones. I would tend to think that hinges on a different attribute though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Striiker and BigToe

VladDrag

Registered User
Feb 6, 2018
6,375
16,221


Charlie's report cards here. Scroll all the way down to read about the forwards. He loves his Evolving Hockey RAPM data and ignores basically every other piece of data. Without going too much into it, RAPM attempts to better assign individual value for on-ice metrics such as Corsi for/against or xgoals for/against. But it's not the only model that does this, and it's not the only important value.

I disagree with a few grades but it's pretty fair.
 

Curufinwe

Registered User
Feb 28, 2013
56,994
45,414
A truly D-sastrous signing

NicolasDeslauriersWebsite-1024x576.png
 

Beef Invictus

Revolutionary Positivity
Dec 21, 2009
130,493
171,221
Armored Train
Every time the IQ discussion is had, I think back to this:



I’m pretty convinced we underrate playmaking to a strong degree as a hockey. I think I’d be willing to make the case that Passing grade is a better measure of IQ in practice than actual IQ grades. That’s the advantage of more clear lines of thought. IQ means wildly different things to different people.


Well, the Flyers disagree with you and I find it very negative of you to doubt individuals who are paid professionals in this field. The positive move would be to find their authority appealing.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: JojoTheWhale

Beef Invictus

Revolutionary Positivity
Dec 21, 2009
130,493
171,221
Armored Train
We’ve had this conversation to a degree before. I believe it’s underrated because it’s not part of the publicly available RTSS dataset.

I believe there is an untapped passing dataset yet to be collected. I don’t pretend to have it fully flushed out, but I believe there is something there.

Reliable passing data would do wondrous things for xG models.
 

Tripod

I hate this team
Aug 12, 2008
79,242
87,031
Nova Scotia
When hockey IQ is brought up my thoughts run to anticipation. Couturier is amazing with this. He sees the play coming before it starts. When it does, he’s able to get engaged in it in spite of his lack of great speed. It’s an innate ability that not many players have.
And tbhn you hear the comments of:

Always in the right spot at the right time
The puck seems to follow him
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Beef Invictus

VladDrag

Registered User
Feb 6, 2018
6,375
16,221
There’s really nothing that danny has done in the time he’s actually been in charge (or at least the GM… how “in charge” he actually is seems to be a matter of opinion) that suggests signing Deslauriers for that long to that contract was his idea.
No - but IIRC before he took over the job, it was stated, either by Chuck or by Danny himself, that Danny was the one or negotiated that contract. At the very least he was on board.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Beef Invictus

LegionOfDoom91

Registered User
Jan 25, 2013
83,385
143,432
Philadelphia, PA
No - but IIRC before he took over the job, it was stated, either by Chuck or by Danny himself, that Danny was the one or negotiated that contract. At the very least he was on board.

They took an absolute blowtorch to every move Chuck made that they seemingly didn’t agree with. I think it’s pretty safe to say if they didn’t like Deslauries &/or his deal he would have been gone this past summer too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad