GDT: #40 | Flyers at Leafs | Sunday, January 5, 2024 | 7:00 PM TONIGHT | NBCSP, 97.5 FM

[Hollywood Cannon]

This is why I didn't want to rehash that situation...but my focus was more on how they handled it in the aftermath than on the likely reasons they got there. Using that as a way to sell tickets and make a villain/absolve themselves of criticism was as cynical and shortsighted as it gets, and told me they weren't serious about doing this right.

A reminder that tomorrow night’s game is in the highest tier of games set by the Flyers.

The pettiness is amazing.

 

[MJL66]

They would rather finish in dead last in a year where they don't have a 1st rounder than ever, EVER, do anything that might accommodate an "entitled" young player by giving them a cookie they don't think they "earned." It's a hysteria on their part that has existed in Clarke his whole career (the guy who sets the culture of this thing) and which Hextall also promoted and made a core defining player-development value. The Olds running the team loved that. They kept it, just like they kept damned near everything he did.

Teams that excel in player development invest in the investment they made on a player and give them all the opportunity they need to grow and succeed. Not the Flyers. A player has to earn his ice time. He has to prove he can play as a grinder and a checker first. Learn to play the right way first before we put you in a position to use your skill. As a RH shot until you learn to play left handed, you can't play to your strengths. You're only a 120 foot player. We demand 200 feet.

This is why I didn't want to rehash that situation...but my focus was more on how they handled it in the aftermath than on the likely reasons they got there. Using that as a way to sell tickets and make a villain/absolve themselves of criticism was as cynical and shortsighted as it gets, and told me they weren't serious about doing this right.

Also a big part of it.

 

[Boocowski]

No, they outscored them. Using offense. This always seems to come as a surprise to some people, but every single hockey game that has been won has been won by the team that can score more. The best defensive team in the league rarely wins. Top offenses, however, do better when it matters. And when it comes to defensive results? Again, huge correlation between offensive ability and defensive results. When you're scoring, the other team isn't. That's good defense.

The team that scores more wins. Again, we have actual metrics to measure defense. The mythology that the Leafs are bad at defense because they're skilled fails every test.

Here, let's make this simple. One easy question. Is keeping the other team from being able to try to score on you good defense?

That's really dumb. HOW you score goals is what matters. There is a counter attack that comes from errors made playing against good defense. When you have solid structure and take away the time and space and offensive team needs they end up turning over the puck and then you capitalize on those mistakes.
The really good defensive teams knock you off the puck and take it away and if they have a good forecheck (like Florida had) your offensive team coughs it up in their own end and they pounce on those errors as well.
Offensive teams only win in the playoffs when they are given open ice. That's hockey 101.

That's just your uninformed take on it. It's really not the tough defensive teams that keep winning cups. It's the tough offensive teams. You just don't know what you're looking at.

So when Vegas added Cassidy they went offensive? Cassidy taught Eichel to be an offensive threat and stop checking so well? Come on man, that's not even close to reality.

 

[deadhead]

Started off strong. The rest goes against what the start stated.

We know they wanted to talk with Gauthier (and his people). Which suggests they were willing to make amends. We don't know why they wouldn't talk with Flyers management.

 

[Boocowski]

You think that this management group in 26/27 is going to magically sign UFA's and or make trades to push this team to contention? This management group that can't even reach the low bar they've set now. Any players drafted in the next couple of years, are years away. Losing Hart was a blessing in disguise. Helps the team get a higher draft pick and kept the team from doing what they wouldn't be smart enough to not do. Sign an average goalie in Hart to a long term contract. There is zero chance this is a top tier team in 2027. Literally zero. If this team reaches the level of contention, it will be 5-10 years from now, Thinking they will be in 2027 is fan boy delusion. This team needs a legit #1 defenseman, another top tier defenseman, a #1C and a 2nd high quality top 6 center and it needs it's goaltending the vastly improve. To believe they can do that in two years, is illogical. It's just blind hope with you with no actual thought to what needs to happen.

Yours is the half empty pessimist view. You can have that. Not for me. I find that way of living unhealthy. If I felt that pessimistic about my sports team I would stop watching just to clear my head of the negativity. Or I'd find a new team.
So you can have that view, and you can say the past mistakes guarantee future ones but you won't get me to sail on that sinking ship.

 

[MJL66]

So when Vegas added Cassidy they went offensive? Cassidy taught Eichel to be an offensive threat and stop checking so well? Come on man, that's not even close to reality.

Completely anecdotal. You've proven that you have no idea how the modern game in the NHL is played today. Stuck in the stone ages.

 

[deadhead]

Teams that excel in player development invest in the investment they made on a player and give them all the opportunity they need to grow and succeed. Not the Flyers. A player has to earn his ice time. He has to prove he can play as a grinder and a checker first. Learn to play the right way first before we put you in a position to use your skill. As a RH shot until you learn to play left handed, you can't play to your strengths. You're only a 120 foot player. We demand 200 feet.


Also a big part of it.

Teams that excel in player development don't throw players to the wolves, they tend to start them in sheltered roles. And they often marinate players in the AHL longer than the Flyers.

No one has asked Michkov to be a "grinder and checker," but you're not going to get a lot of chances if you hang out and wait for your linemates to get you the puck. B/c they're going to lose a lot of 2 on 3 battles.

Michkov's problem isn't usage, he's spent most of his time with Frost at center, and his minutes are limited b/c he's not going to get a lot of 3rd period minutes with a lead for some reason. His issues are conditioning and other teams focusing on stopping him?

 

[MJL66]

Yours is the half empty pessimist view. You can have that. Not for me. I find that way of living unhealthy. If I felt that pessimistic about my sports team I would stop watching just to clear my head of the negativity. Or I'd find a new team.
So you can have that view, and you can say the past mistakes guarantee future ones but you won't get me to sail on that sinking ship.

I live in a world of reality. I find living in a fantasy unhealthy. As an adult, I learned to accept and deal with reality. Whether it is good or bad. The view I have is an adult view that is backed up with an informed knowledge of the game of hockey. It isn't past mistakes that guarantee future ones. It's that the philosophy and strategy of the team hasn't changed. You can bring in all the new faces you want but if you keep using the same flawed processes and way of thinking that has failed for 15 years and counting. Not much is going to change.

 

[MJL66]

Teams that excel in player development don't throw players to the wolves, they tend to start them in sheltered roles. And they often marinate players in the AHL longer than the Flyers.

No one has asked Michkov to be a "grinder and checker," but you're not going to get a lot of chances if you hang out and wait for your linemates to get you the puck. B/c they're going to lose a lot of 2 on 3 battles.

Michkov's problem isn't usage, he's spent most of his time with Frost at center, and his minutes are limited b/c he's not going to get a lot of 3rd period minutes with a lead for some reason. His issues are conditioning and other teams focusing on stopping him?

You don't have to prevent a player from using their strengths to shelter them. If you take a young very skilled offensive player and play him on a line with top veteran offensive players, that's not throwing them to the wolves. That's giving them an opportunity to succeed. You routinely buy into the cool aid and take everything Tortorella says as truth. He's a complete BS artist. Michkov doesn't have a conditioning issue. He has a coaching issue. They don't know how to develop him. Their methods are archaic and you buy into it.

We know they wanted to talk with Gauthier (and his people). Which suggests they were willing to make amends. We don't know why they wouldn't talk with Flyers management.

We do know why. Whether going scorched earth like they did was fair or professional is another matter. However it was his right.

 

[Boocowski]

This might get long, because I want to be thorough about where my criticism and negativity comes from:

Goaltending may have cost them the playoffs last year. I'm not sure if them making it would have changed much—they would have been first round cannon fodder and would have dropped a few slots in the draft, but they'd have still been able to draft Luchanko at 18, so who knows. If anything, I think missing them actually decreased the pressure on management, because they'd have been in the same place this season either way.

But when I say I had hopes for Briere early on, I'm not judging him off of Fletcher's mistakes so much as his unwillingness to undo them and his behavior since taking the job. In terms of what we saw, I think he got off to a strong start with the Provorov trade. They did really well there, and I found that encouraging.

Everything after has been questionable. Someone offers you a 1st+ for Laughton (as was rumored in his first summer)? You take that deal. You wanna sign Konecny long-term? Fine, but why Tippett too? Are we building the first RW-only team? Why are we extending guys like Hathaway and Seeler before their deals end? Why are we letting the coach bury some younger middle-of-the-lineup talent? If they aren't going to be here for the long haul, why aren't we raising their value and then moving them? None of these things make sense to me.

The nail in the coffin for me was the Gauthier situation, which I am tired of rehashing, but was just such a blatant shitshow that it tells us a lot about these people and their preparedness to manage an NHL team. Clearly there was a breakdown in communication between team and player, which may have resulted from expectations set by Fletcher that were not shared by Briere. It isn't necessarily Danny's fault for having to take an important conversation with a difficult player on just his 3rd day as a GM.

But rather than acting like professionals about it and fixing the relationship or just finding the best deal and moving on, they turned it into a media spectacle and marketing moment. It might have galvanized some of the fanbase, but they had the GM, President, and corporate CEO talking shit about a 19-year old on their broadcast. How does that look to prospective players?

Then there's the Johansen situation—where the player was reportedly willing to play for the team but was told not to bother and waived, and then claimed an injury. They just DOA'd an NHL veteran's career because their unfireable coach doesn't like him. Do you think these things go unnoticed throughout the NHLPA?

The idea that all of that may've prevented them from drafting Buium (the three share an agent) is just incredibly damning. Management is a diplomatic job. If you can't make it work with different players and agents who may have difficult personalities, and maintain a fair and neutral tone throughout, you shouldn't be in a management position. If your inability to manage those relationships is limiting your draft board, you should not be an NHL GM.

If the stated goal is to make Philly an attractive player destination again in order to get those mythical impact UFAs, it looks to me like they're doing an awful job of creating the perception of a competent, fair organization that knows what it is doing. And not only that...those impact UFAs almost never hit the market in this capped-out league. 95% of the stars sign long term with the teams that drafted them, which is why this conversation goes back to where it started: You need to build through the very top of the draft.

None of it adds up. I hope it does! I want them to be good! I want them to win! But from where I'm sitting, I don't see a management group that knows how to get there.

See now that's more reasonable than some of the negativity I see here. Valid points. Negative, but valid. Gauthier? idk. A mistake, but I tend to think it's more him and less the Flyers (but not worth arguing, it's over). Michkov seemed to only want Philly so can we balance those two out as a wash maybe?
The draft is the draft. They have extra picks. If they use them well (maybe add more) you have a young pipeline to build from. Whether or not they blow it won't be known until 3-4 years pass from each draft day.
As for the destination thing, I guess Philly doesn't have palm trees either but I think the same thing holds as it does in Buffalo. If you start to win and have a winning culture players will want to come. The money should be there and the opportunity should be there and I'm willing to wait to see if they make it all happen. Again, I see the pathway. I think it is their plan. 2027 this team will be good.
If they blow it and it isn't, well, I guess then you fire everybody again, we listen to all the complaints again, and then it starts all over again with whoever. I am hopeful we don't get to that point but that's how sports goes.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

We know they wanted to talk with Gauthier (and his people). Which suggests they were willing to make amends. We don't know why they wouldn't talk with Flyers management.

The Flyers story of how Gauthier and his camp wouldn’t talk to them didn’t match up with what they would go on to say. The more they opened their mouths the more it fell apart.

If you believe that the Flyers didn’t talk to his camp and didn’t know why he wouldn’t sign, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[Boocowski]

I live in a world of reality. I find living in a fantasy unhealthy. As an adult, I learned to accept and deal with reality. Whether it is good or bad. The view I have is an adult view that is backed up with an informed knowledge of the game of hockey. It isn't past mistakes that guarantee future ones. It's that the philosophy and strategy of the team hasn't changed. You can bring in all the new faces you want but if you keep using the same flawed processes and way of thinking that has failed for 15 years and counting. Not much is going to change.

"informed knowledge of the game of hockey" implies you think someone else (maybe me) doesn't have that right? A comment not unlike my "never played hockey" one (which I posted on purpose to needle some couch coaches but was not really serious). So do you think you know better? If so why?

The crux of the difference is the one side insisting it's 15 years of the same, and I don't see it that way. There are some similarities, but those aren't wrong. Culture first and building out from team D first and then skilled O on top of that is a winning philosophy. Unfortunately what this team lacks most is top level goaltending. A lot of things would look better if we had that.

 

[MJL66]

"informed knowledge of the game of hockey" implies you think someone else (maybe me) doesn't have that right? A comment not unlike my "never played hockey" one (which I posted on purpose to needle some couch coaches but was not really serious). So do you think you know better? If so why?

The crux of the difference is the one side insisting it's 15 years of the same, and I don't see it that way. There are some similarities, but those aren't wrong. Culture first and building out from team D first and then skilled O on top of that is a winning philosophy. Unfortunately what this team lacks most is top level goaltending. A lot of things would look better if we had that.

No it's not. LOL. Culture can never be first. It is the cart to the horse. The horse is player talent. You've bought into the Flyers nonsense. A lot of things would be covered up with top goaltending that would eventually be exposed. You're just proving my point more with each reply.

 

[ybnvs]

Culture first

Talent first.

 

[Beef Invictus]

That's really dumb. HOW you score goals is what matters. There is a counter attack that comes from errors made playing against good defense. When you have solid structure and take away the time and space and offensive team needs they end up turning over the puck and then you capitalize on those mistakes.
The really good defensive teams knock you off the puck and take it away and if they have a good forecheck (like Florida had) your offensive team coughs it up in their own end and they pounce on those errors as well.
Offensive teams only win in the playoffs when they are given open ice. That's hockey 101.

Offensive teams win in in the playoffs annually even against better defensive teams by forcing time and space. Sutter (Noted defensive coach) steered far away from his roots when he took Calgary deep and openly explained that the old purely defensive ways were dead, and that the key was ATTACKING hard to force errors and create offense, and he ran Calgary on the idea that the best defense was being on offense. You made your own space via hard offensive attack. Sitting back and counterattacking in the current league environment means you're just getting caved in for the game. You say "this is hockey 101" while demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding of NHL hockey for the last 9 years.

Offensive teams don't cough it up in their own end. That's the thing. That's why Edmonton only allowed 23 shots against, far and away the lowest in the playoffs among teams that lasted more than a round last year. Offense is characterized by effective possession. You seemingly have this idea that "offensive" hockey has to be sloppy hockey. I don't get it.


You missed my question. I'll help by restating it.

Would you say that keeping the other team from shooting on you is effective defense?

 

[Beef Invictus]

Talent first.

The harder the Flyers have tried to build a team based on culture, the worse the team gets.

 

[freakydallas13]

No one knows what really happened with Gauthier, their anger wasn't so much hurt feelings but frustration b/c his people wouldn't even talk to them and let them try to rectify the situation.

In one sentence, you start with telling us no one knows what happened with Gauthier, then BEFORE THAT SENTENCE IS OVER start lecturing us on what happened with Gauthier.

Pick a lane.

 

[ybnvs]

The harder the Flyers have tried to build a team based on culture, the worse the team gets.

Was only a few years ago the propaganda machine (COMCAST) was out in full force pushing a narrative of having the best locker room after they Made The Culture Great Again by bringing in Hayes, Yandle, Atkinson and then some other shitbirds.

We should be so far beyond building culture at this point. How are they still at that point in the rebuild?

 

[Rich Nixon]

See now that's more reasonable than some of the negativity I see here. Valid points. Negative, but valid. Gauthier? idk. A mistake, but I tend to think it's more him and less the Flyers (but not worth arguing, it's over). Michkov seemed to only want Philly so can we balance those two out as a wash maybe?
The draft is the draft. They have extra picks. If they use them well (maybe add more) you have a young pipeline to build from. Whether or not they blow it won't be known until 3-4 years pass from each draft day.
As for the destination thing, I guess Philly doesn't have palm trees either but I think the same thing holds as it does in Buffalo. If you start to win and have a winning culture players will want to come. The money should be there and the opportunity should be there and I'm willing to wait to see if they make it all happen. Again, I see the pathway. I think it is their plan. 2027 this team will be good.
If they blow it and it isn't, well, I guess then you fire everybody again, we listen to all the complaints again, and then it starts all over again with whoever. I am hopeful we don't get to that point but that's how sports goes.

I don't doubt they'll be "good" again, in the sense that they'll make the playoffs again for two years straight before 2030. I think that'll happen, though it's a low bar.

My grave concern is in repeating the Giroux era: One superstar, some supporting talent, but a deeply flawed team otherwise. I don't want the half-in-half-out thing. That's what they're looking at unless they magically find Bergeron and Pastrnak equivalents late in a 1st round. Nah, I want a long-term nucleus of absolute killers that makes the playoffs for a decade straight and wins a Cup or two.

My view on this is heavily informed by the 7 years I lived in Pittsburgh, from 2008 to 2015. When I got there I'd mock the Penguins fans for what their team had done to get back on its feet. I felt superior that my hockey team would NEVER do that. I got kicked out of a chick's apartment once because I made her roommate so mad with that talk (such a sturdy Flyers fan that I willingly passed on getting laid to shit-talk the Penguins some more, never question my commitment here).

But that all started to wane as I watched the entire city put on their Pens hats and sweatshirts and get excited for the games every other night, and then when they won a Cup. And as I talked to people and found out that it really is a good hockey town, people just were waiting for something to actually enjoy. The team mattered. They were a big deal again. There was buzz and excitement for every season. I went from looking down on their fans to deeply jealous of the fun they were having watching their team contend and win championships.

It wasn't CULTURE that did that. No one cares after the fact about how shitty the locker room was on the 2003 Penguins. It was tanking and lottery balls and then some savvy GMing to put the supporting cast in place. I'll gladly sacrifice a few years of CULTURE and ticket sales for a couple more top-3, top-5 picks that give us a chance to get there and feel that. I work for a Chicago-based company now, and my friends there got to experience the same thing—and without an all-timer like Crosby! But still by going through the process and getting their guns. Of course there's other stuff that comes with it: You need to execute on the other steps. But that's how I'll close out our exchange.

 

[MJL66]

The harder the Flyers have tried to build a team based on culture, the worse the team gets.

If you build a culture on a mediocre team, know what you get? A mediocre team.

 

[MJL66]

I don't doubt they'll be "good" again, in the sense that they'll make the playoffs again for two years straight before 2030. I think that'll happen, though it's a low bar.

My grave concern is in repeating the Giroux era: One superstar, some supporting talent, but a deeply flawed team otherwise. I don't want the half-in-half-out thing. That's what they're looking at unless they magically find Bergeron and Pastrnak equivalents late in a 1st round. Nah, I want a long-term nucleus of absolute killers that makes the playoffs for a decade straight and wins a Cup or two.

My view on this is heavily informed by the 7 years I lived in Pittsburgh, from 2008 to 2015. When I got there I'd mock the Penguins fans for what their team had done to get back on its feet. I felt superior that my hockey team would NEVER do that. I got kicked out of a chick's apartment once because I made her roommate so mad with that talk (such a sturdy Flyers fan that I willingly passed on getting laid to shit-talk the Penguins some more, never question my commitment here).

But that all started to wane as I watched the entire city put on their Pens hats and sweatshirts and get excited for the games every other night, and then when they won a Cup. And as I talked to people and found out that it really is a good hockey town, people just were waiting for something to actually enjoy. The team mattered. They were a big deal again. There was buzz and excitement for every season. I went from looking down on their fans to deeply jealous of the fun they were having watching their team contend and win championships.

It wasn't CULTURE that did that. No one cares after the fact about how shitty the locker room was on the 2003 Penguins. It was tanking and lottery balls and then some savvy GMing after the fact. I'll gladly sacrifice a few years of CULTURE and ticket sales for a couple more top-3, top-5 picks to give us a chance to get there and feel that. I work for a Chicago-based company now, and my friends there got to experience the same thing—and without an all-timer like Crosby! But still by going through the process and getting their guns. Of course there's other stuff that comes with it: You need to execute on the other steps. But that's how I'll close out our exchange.

Outstandingly written. A educational text book to teach some people on here.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

I commend those who are fighting the good fight against people who deserve to be ignored.,

 

[Beef Invictus]

Offensive teams win in in the playoffs annually even against better defensive teams by forcing time and space. Sutter (Noted defensive coach) steered far away from his roots when he took Calgary deep and openly explained that the old purely defensive ways were dead, and that the key was ATTACKING hard to force errors and create offense, and he ran Calgary on the idea that the best defense was being on offense. You made your own space via hard offensive attack. Sitting back and counterattacking in the current league environment means you're just getting caved in for the game. You say "this is hockey 101" while demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding of NHL hockey for the last 9 years.

Offensive teams don't cough it up in their own end. That's the thing. That's why Edmonton only allowed 23 shots against, far and away the lowest in the playoffs among teams that lasted more than a round last year. Offense is characterized by effective possession. You seemingly have this idea that "offensive" hockey has to be sloppy hockey. I don't get it.


You missed my question. I'll help by restating it.

Would you say that keeping the other team from shooting on you is effective defense?

I'm gonna quote myself to track some of the deep reasons why hockey has trended this way back towards skill and finesse and favoring the attack over teams that can murderize and grind down opponents.

It starts with hits like Richards liquefying Booth's brain, and the aftermath that saw headshots finally cracked down on. Youth leagues led the way and put hard bans in place. Prior to that, with kids emulating Lindros and Stevens and Pronger, skilled kids had to spend a shitload of time learning to protect themselves over learning how to attack the opposition defense. Fine offensive skills took a backseat. When kids no longer had to worry about keeping their heads on their shoulders, offensive skill began exploding. Look at the sheer talent and creativity coming in with McDavid and the guys after him. That's a result of a new era of hockey that lets guys experiment and take those chances instead of wondering if they'd have their brain removed. And the modern-thinking teams are doing all they can to take advantage of that skill.

The advantage does not lay with defense anymore. Not just because goalie gear was cracked down on, but because kids have grow up building more effective toolsets than we've seen since the 90s and early 00s. These players have the means to force defensive teams on their heels. Use initiative to make them react, and once they're reacting they're more likely to make mistakes.

The Flyers are not moving in this direction with all the other good teams trying to get the most out of what new players are bringing to the table. The Flyers are obstinately trying to fly backwards in time to the Dead Puck Era. An age that doesn't exist, and which puts them at a disadvantage. They are not growing the skills in players that are seeing success around the league, especially on Cup winning teams. They're obsessed with making guys into 1999 style grinders with simple, safe games. And thanks to their defense-first mentality, they're forever yielding initiative to their opponents.

They've actually vastly improved this year by being less passive and not sitting in shells on defense. But serious aggression is still absent on offense. They are not truly attacking or pushing the opposition. They don't force mistakes. Goalies aren't challenged off their angles, defenders aren't forced to make choices. It's all based around making safe plays to limit the possibilities of attacks against, but those attacks are going to happen. Having 3 fewer of them against a game isn't worth turning down all the potential pressure you can generate. The Flyers are stuck in a dead era built on a style of play that matches retiring players who aren't flowing into the league now. Rather than what IS entering the league. Look at how they're squandering and suppressing Michkov!

All in service of a defense-first mindset, when in this league environment built on aggression and offensive attack, defense-first means you're just holding on and trying to delay drowning.