GDT: #71 | Blue Jackets at FLYERS | Thu., Mar. 15, 2018, 7:00 pm ET | NBCSP, FS-O

[Magua]

It's like listening to a skipping record in here sometimes. All you guys ever do is cherry pick plays and players to forward your own agenda.

 

[deadhead]

I was forced to read "Wings of a Dove" in college. Enough, but the man could give you a great two page description of a lace curtain.

Now back to slamming the HC for not winning with mediocre talent.
The Penguins were different, you can turn an underachieving team around with a HC change.
But notice that Lavi - Berube - Hakstol, the same result from the same mediocre talent.

 

[RonHextall27]

Skipping record. Just keep staring at the gif imaging it saying "Fire Hakstol"

 

[Tripod]

I was forced to read "Wings of a Dove" in college. Enough, but the man could give you a great two page description of a lace curtain.

Now back to slamming the HC for not winning with mediocre talent.
The Penguins were different, you can turn an underachieving team around with a HC change.
But notice that Lavi - Berube - Hakstol, the same result from the same mediocre talent.

So they all are "maybe's" for good coaches or not?

 

[BernieParent]

I really don't have an opinion on Hakstol.
I just don't think another coach would make a significant difference with this personnel.
I don't think another coach has a magic wand that would turn Sanheim instantly into a bigger version of Ghost.
I don't think another coach would pull off a Wizard of Oz and give Laughton instincts, Voracek a good wrist shot, Filppula his legs back, Mrazek an idea how to play goal, etc. Manning/MacDonald/Gudas/Hagg, is like Lehtera/Weise/Leier/Read, if those are your choices, you have issues.

So I don't get bent out of shape over Hakstol's decisions, because I think they're basically irrelevant, given the personnel, ex post, most decisions will turn out to be the wrong ones. Replacing one scrub with another scrub just changes the name of the scapegoat.

I like the scheme, I like the fact that players have good discipline, and I think the prospects have been brought along and developed about as well as can be expected, we're not Edmonton, where high draft picks go to see their careers die. I think Sanheim didn't play as well as most of y'all do, and I think he was helped by being sent down. I'm more interested in what he can do next year than whether he provides a marginal improvement this year. I don't think it helps a player to struggle at the NHL level, so I see no value in rushing prospects.

So to me, Hakstol isn't the problem, in two years, when this team has real talent, and he can't get them to play up to that talent, I may sing a different tune. But right now, my expectations are pretty low, when the team was winning, I saw no reason not to ride it out, now that they're struggling, I see no reason to panic. Because to me this season is just treading water.

But winning is just one of the team's objectives. The leading one, but if it was all about winning, Schenn would still be here, and Elliott probably wouldn't have been the go-to guy. You point out that very few personnel changes will bring about significant improvement to the on-ice production. If it's all six of one, half-dozen of the other, why not emphasize the playing time of the players on an upward career trajectory? The time was November / December / January to see how players like Sanheim could withstand the final 2 minutes of a 1-goal game, or how useful Laughton would be in the same situation. We are in agreement that the usual suspects are mediocre at best, and I share your optimism that Hextall will let the talent cream rise to the top and let the curdled stuff walk. So then emphasizing play time in the most pressure-cooked of game situations on players will no apparent future with the Flyers is a waste of valuable TOI.

There's the matter of earning your ice time, and if Hakstol and Hextall are on the same page about the level of readiness on the game and practice ice, I will accept that perspective reluctantly. But what we see her in terms of TOI decisions seems to fly in the face of the belief that the players on the ice at specific times in a game won't make a significant difference.

 

[Angry Hockey Dad]

We lose this game. Fall to WC spot. Florida catches WC2 and Eventually WC1. We get bumped out of WC2. I drink all the alcohol I can find.

 

[Juicy Pop]

We lose this game. Fall to WC spot. Florida catches WC2 and Eventually WC1. We get bumped out of WC2. I drink all the alcohol I can find.

Will it be enough to make Weise look handsome?

 

[Striiker]

I was forced to read "Wings of a Dove" in college. Enough, but the man could give you a great two page description of a lace curtain.

Now back to slamming the HC for not winning with mediocre talent.
The Penguins were different, you can turn an underachieving team around with a HC change.
But notice that Lavi - Berube - Hakstol, the same result from the same mediocre talent.

False.

The coach is being slammed for making it harder for the team to win because of incompetence. The roster is flawed, so it'd probably be smart to not make it even worse by using them horribly.

But hey, keep up the lazy strawmen! It's impossible for you to win an argument when you're in the wrong, so magically changing the argument is your only remaining move, I guess.

 

[freakydallas13]

Name me a coach who always makes the right decision ex post.

I just think that most of the complaints here are wishful thinking (Sanheim and Laughton are better players than I think they are right now) and nitpicking, how can you play Lehtera over Leier? (Uh, because the last couple weeks Lehtera's been a better player?).

Sure, Filppula sucks, so does Laughton defensively or as a true center (like him as a forechecker but not in his own D-zone).
Sure, Manning looks ugly, but Gudas has as well.
The best players play about as many minutes as they can handle, the rest, whatever.

So I don't sweat these decisions because I think in most cases it's tweedledee or tweedledum.

Right. Let's continue this logic.

Fact 1 : There are better NHL head coaches than Beet-head. They exist, I don't think anyone will argue against this.

Fact 2 : Nothing the coach (negatively) does matters, because the problem is not the coach, it's the players.

If you accept both of these things (like your essays indicate), then there is zero reason to not fire Beet-head and try another coach. Either A) The new coach is better, and the team becomes better as a result. Or B) The new coach also sucks, but it is not the new coaches fault (refer to fact 2), leaving us in the exact same situation we are in now. We can then replace the new coach, seeing as that will also have no consequences. Repeat process until we have a good coach.

So, in conclusion, according to deadhead's logic, replacing beet-head has possible benefits, and no foreseeable negatives.

Now, oh wise one, tell me again why we shouldn't fire beet-head?

 

[Ghosts Beer]

It is interesting to me how many people try to paint deadhead as a moron.

He's well-written, logically organized, and gives evidence for his opinions even if you don't agree with him.

To me, he's easily one of the smartest posters on the board.

When people try to label him a complete dumbass, it lowers my opinions of those who do so.

It's like they want to bully him into their opinions and want no parts of actually considering there may be some truth in some of his differing opinions because it may threaten their own thought processes. And, of course, by shouting down his opinions and casting a scarlet letter on him, it attempts to persuade others into believing his opinions are idiotic and the masses are clearly correct.

So much mob psychology in message boards. And life in general, I guess. Disagree with him all you want, but deadhead isn't anywhere near stupid.

 

[Garbage Goal]

It is interesting to me how many people try to paint deadhead as a moron.

He's well-written, logically organized, and gives evidence for his opinions even if you don't agree with him.

To me, he's easily one of the smartest posters on the board.

When people try to label him a complete dumbass, it lowers my opinions of those who do so.

It's like they want to bully him into their opinions and want no parts of actually considering there may be some truth in some of his differing opinions because it may threaten their own thought processes. And, of course, by shouting down his opinions and casting a scarlet letter on him, it attempts to persuade others into believing his opinions are idiotic and the masses are clearly correct.

So much mob psychology in message boards. And life in general, I guess. Disagree with him all you want, but deadhead isn't anywhere near stupid.

I don’t see many people slamming deadheads intelligence very often. I do see deadhead strive to be as contrarian as possible and get into incessant debates with strangers. While constantly using logical fallacies, such as straw men, to perpetuate these pointless debates. I also see other patterns normally associated with trolling, such as avoiding direct and obvious questions, selectively ignoring posts, and changing the goal posts.

Overall, I see someone who strives to be annoying and obtuse for no reason other than to hear himself speak. You can present yourself well or even be intelligent while still possessing a long list of mental or character flaws, such as being constantly annoying and obtuse.

 

[Magua]

Dale Weise, Tommy Joseph, Jahlil Okafor.

That’s all I’m gonna say.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

I don’t see many people slamming deadheads intelligence very often. I do see deadhead strive to be as contrarian as possible and get into incessant debates with strangers. While constantly using logical fallacies, such as straw men, to perpetuate these pointless debates. I also see other patterns normally associated with trolling, such as avoiding direct and obvious questions, selectively ignoring posts, and changing the goal posts.

Overall, I see someone who strives to be annoying and obtuse for no reason other than to hear himself speak. You can present yourself well or even be intelligent while still possessing a long list of mental or character flaws, such as being constantly annoying and obtuse.

In cases where he disagrees with others' opinions, he gives his reasoning. I don't see anything wrong with that. I think a lot of it is people don't like having their opinions challenged (just look at politics -- everything is always all or nothing; my side is always right, your side always wrong, never much thought given to actually considering differing opinions and finding a middle ground). I think humans are very tribal by nature, and like identifying with groups, and feel threatened by any challenge to their own group's philosophies. It's a chicken-or-egg scenario when you're talking about incessant debates with strangers on message boards. Both sides are guilty.

He is not nearly the troll or obtuse person as often painted. I like reading what he has to say. There's a real danger in only listening to one side of a story. Then you have essentially a dictatorship which assumes the dictator is both infallibly correct and has no ulterior motives. That's never the case. For years the only side of the story I heard on fats were that they'd kill you, eggs' cholesterol would give you a heart attack, and to eat low fat and follow a food pyramid loaded with bread and grains. Suddenly all the science has shown that advice to be about 180 degrees incorrect and influenced by sugar lobbyists. There's value in retaining a sense of cynicism and not always following the herd, and it's not for the purpose of contrarianism, it's because the herd isn't always right.

 

[BillDineen]

It is interesting to me how many people try to paint deadhead as a moron.

He's well-written, logically organized, and gives evidence for his opinions even if you don't agree with him.

To me, he's easily one of the smartest posters on the board.

When people try to label him a complete dumbass, it lowers my opinions of those who do so.

It's like they want to bully him into their opinions and want no parts of actually considering there may be some truth in some of his differing opinions because it may threaten their own thought processes. And, of course, by shouting down his opinions and casting a scarlet letter on him, it attempts to persuade others into believing his opinions are idiotic and the masses are clearly correct.

So much mob psychology in message boards. And life in general, I guess. Disagree with him all you want, but deadhead isn't anywhere near stupid.

He is the perfect troll. I want to do the same thing to the Pens board. Randomly choose an opinion and bombard them with endless posts trying to engage them. (I have him on ignore and yet all these threats are still taken up responding to the same arguments over and over).

 

[Garbage Goal]

In cases where he disagrees with others' opinions, he gives his reasoning. I don't see anything wrong with that. I think a lot of it is people don't like having their opinions challenged (just look at politics -- everything is always all or nothing; my side is always right, your side always wrong, never much thought given to actually considering differing opinions and finding a middle ground). I think humans are very tribal by nature, and like identifying with groups, and feel threatened by any challenge to their own group's philosophies. It's a chicken-or-egg scenario when you're talking about incessant debates with strangers on message boards. Both sides are guilty.

He is not nearly the troll or obtuse person as often painted. I like reading what he has to say. There's a real danger in only listening to one side of a story. Then you have essentially a dictatorship which assumes the dictator is both infallibly correct and has no ulterior motives. That's never the case. For years the only side of the story I heard on fats were that they'd kill you, eggs' cholesterol would give you a heart attack, and to eat low fat and follow a food pyramid loaded with bread and grains. Suddenly all the science has shown that advice to be about 180 degrees incorrect and influenced by sugar lobbyists. There's value in retaining a sense of cynicism and not always following the herd, and it's not for the purpose of contrarianism, it's because the herd isn't always right.

I’m just gonna say that, going by your post, literally the only thing you took away from mine was that I used the word contrarian. Meaning, you skipped most of what I said and just kind of went off on your own random tangent to further an argument that nobody is actually presenting.

Which, ironically, is probably what most people feel like when they try to debate or reason with deadhead.

 

[RANKKA]

We lose this game. Fall to WC spot. Florida catches WC2 and Eventually WC1. We get bumped out of WC2. I drink all the alcohol I can find.

well Boston/Tampa or Pens/Caps, i would love to face Boston out of those

edit out of read out to

 

[WIP CALLER]

It is interesting to me how many people try to paint deadhead as a moron.

He's well-written, logically organized, and gives evidence for his opinions even if you don't agree with him.

To me, he's easily one of the smartest posters on the board.

When people try to label him a complete dumbass, it lowers my opinions of those who do so.

It's like they want to bully him into their opinions and want no parts of actually considering there may be some truth in some of his differing opinions because it may threaten their own thought processes. And, of course, by shouting down his opinions and casting a scarlet letter on him, it attempts to persuade others into believing his opinions are idiotic and the masses are clearly correct.

So much mob psychology in message boards. And life in general, I guess. Disagree with him all you want, but deadhead isn't anywhere near stupid.

Awww it sounds like the other board contrarian has a crush

 

[backburner]

must win game, so we’ll probably lose

 

[RonHextall27]

There are two points of view on this board. One is that the roster does not have enough talent yet and the team is inconsistent and these problems will change in time as the younger players take bigger roles. There's more or less said but that is the basis for that argument.

The other is that the roster has enough talent and the coach sucks at deployment therefore hurting our chances of having a better record. There is also more or less said but again that is the basis of the argument.

The truth is somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the argument that you automatically plug rookies into high profile roles and you see immediate results as some say. You can't treat every player the same in their development. I also don't like some of the player deployment at certain points in the game but I'm not foolish enough to think you can ride your horses for the last 5 mins straight. At some point you need to put the bad players out and hope lol.

 

[marcsson68]

It is interesting to me how many people try to paint deadhead as a moron.

He's well-written, logically organized, and gives evidence for his opinions even if you don't agree with him.

To me, he's easily one of the smartest posters on the board.

When people try to label him a complete dumbass, it lowers my opinions of those who do so.

It's like they want to bully him into their opinions and want no parts of actually considering there may be some truth in some of his differing opinions because it may threaten their own thought processes. And, of course, by shouting down his opinions and casting a scarlet letter on him, it attempts to persuade others into believing his opinions are idiotic and the masses are clearly correct.

So much mob psychology in message boards. And life in general, I guess. Disagree with him all you want, but deadhead isn't anywhere near stupid.

Absolutely true.
.
I don´t agree with everything deadhead has to say. And there are many decisions of our HC that can be doubted. But posts like "Fire Haktard" are not very convincing and that is what many of the critical posts are basically saying.
.
I don´t see an epic collapse either as the more pessimistic people here want to see. At least not yet. We had won a couple a couple of games that we really shouldn´t have. This lead to a 1st place for more a less a second or two. Pick this two seconds out and dramatize the couple of losses that have followed since as an epic collapse. I don´t buy it.
.
To me the Flyers this season are a franchise that is good for a 2nd WC spot or a near miss. If they win against Columbus they will stay below par. I expect an overtime or shootout loss leading them closer to the 2nd WC spot.

 

[deadhead]

Right. Let's continue this logic.

Fact 1 : There are better NHL head coaches than Beet-head. They exist, I don't think anyone will argue against this.

Fact 2 : Are any actually available?

That is, the handful of top coaches who are better with a developing team are probably coaching one of those teams.
And some of the better coaches who might be available are better with a veteran team and might not be an improvement with a young team.
Most top coaches are employed, for obvious reasons, so you're either hiring retreads or gambling on a college, AHL or juniors coach.

As far as playing young players, that depends on the player, I don't think playing Sanheim more in the NHL would help his development. That's a judgement call, but each player is different, and a "just throw them in for big minutes" is probably not the optimal development strategy. Some players need to be "sheltered" until they're ready to handle high pressure/tough matchup situations.

 

[Jtown]

Fact 2 : Are any actually available?

That is, the handful of top coaches who are better with a developing team are probably coaching one of those teams.
And some of the better coaches who might be available are better with a veteran team and might not be an improvement with a young team.
Most top coaches are employed, for obvious reasons, so you're either hiring retreads or gambling on a college, AHL or juniors coach.

As far as playing young players, that depends on the player, I don't think playing Sanheim more in the NHL would help his development. That's a judgement call, but each player is different, and a "just throw them in for big minutes" is probably not the optimal development strategy. Some players need to be "sheltered" until they're ready to handle high pressure/tough matchup situations.

That is the only way one develops. Playing in the nhl is crucial to anyone who was drafted by an nhl team, in fact its the premise of the whole job description.

 

[deadhead]

A lot of players develop by playing sheltered minutes (and often 2+ years in the AHL) and working their way into more PT.
I think Sanheim is one of those guys, whereas Provorov, Patrick and Lindblom have better instincts and/or are more fundamentally sound.

 

[Jtown]

A lot of players develop by playing sheltered minutes (and often 2+ years in the AHL) and working their way into more PT.
I think Sanheim is one of those guys, whereas Provorov, Patrick and Lindblom have better instincts and/or are more fundamentally sound.

I have no problem with sanheim getting sheltered. Look at hischier this year, lots of sheltered minutes, and that is the right approach to any young player. But at some point you have to expose him to hard situations to see what he can do.

 

[The Rage Kage]

There are two points of view on this board. One is that the roster does not have enough talent yet and the team is inconsistent and these problems will change in time as the younger players take bigger roles. There's more or less said but that is the basis for that argument.

The other is that the roster has enough talent and the coach sucks at deployment therefore hurting our chances of having a better record. There is also more or less said but again that is the basis of the argument.

The truth is somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the argument that you automatically plug rookies into high profile roles and you see immediate results as some say. You can't treat every player the same in their development. I also don't like some of the player deployment at certain points in the game but I'm not foolish enough to think you can ride your horses for the last 5 mins straight. At some point you need to put the bad players out and hope lol.

You got it half right, most posters know how much talent the team has, its certainly not enough though.