hatcher
Registered User
Its having the lead at the end of the game. Caps play two way hockey that makes the totals lower.
Dave Hakstol
- Thread starter briererocks
- Start date
- Status
Magua
Entirely Palatable Product
“Solid two way hockey” should not even be used in the same sentence as Ovi, Kuznetsov, Carlson, Orlov, etc.
hatcher
Registered User
hatcher
Registered User
Yes it should thats why they are at the top of the leauge every year. They check hard and ovi really cranked it up two way this year and so did the rest.
Striiker
Former Flyers Fan
You can only have the lead at the end of the game if you score...
No game has ever been won without scoring. The game will go on forever until that single objective accomplished. Perfect defense means nothing if you don't score a goal... a 0-0 game isn't a win. You need goals, no matter what. You can't get around this.
Yeah, that's absurd too, but I was too focused on the other insanity.
As usual, every Flyers player sucks and every other player is perfect and plays the "right way".
deadhead
Registered User
- Feb 26, 2014
- 51,059
- 22,234
You mean the team that scores the most goals every year is awarded the Stanley Cup?
Silly me, I thought it was the team that won all of its playoff series.
Beef Invictus
Revolutionary Positivity
Ah, so would you say it is bad coaching to finish games with inferior players who are much more likely to be scored upon while not scoring, when you have better players sitting for no reason?
Why are you struggling with these easy, simple, yes/no questions?
Hollywood Cannon
I'm Away From My Desk
Typically the team that scores the most goals in 16 games is awarded the Stanley Cup.
Giroux 102
Voracek 85
Couturier 76
Konecny 47
Simmonds 41
Filppula 33
Ghost 65
Provorov 41
Elliott .909
Neuvirth .915
490 Points/.912
McDavid 108
Draisaitl 70
RNH 48
Strome 34
Lucic 34
Maroon 30
Nurse 26
Benning/Klefbom 21
Talbot .908
Brossoit .883
371 Points/.8955
Barzal 85
Tavares 84
Bailey 71
Lee 62
Eberle 59
Beauvillier 36
Leddy 42
Pulock 32
Halak .908
Greiss .892
471 Points/.900
Excuse my French, but you are so full of shit if those are the two best examples you have. Direct comparison between the top 6 forwards, top 2 D, and full goalie tandem between us and the two teams you specifically cited to backup your claim that the Flyers were just as talented as a bunch of non playoff teams (bunch being your word). Outscored Edmonton by 118 points and our goalie tandem was considerably better. 18 points better than the Islanders and goaltending was still substantially better. Striiker proved our offensive production was better than the Cup champs'. You admitted yourself we had better goaltending than Pittsburgh, the team that wiped the floor with us in the first round, despite ignoring that Neuvirth posted a .915. This is all ignoring that we could have been a better team if Sanheim and Konecny were properly utilized, among other things.
So, once again, who are these non playoff teams who had the talent we did? You said a bunch of them. Also, once gain because you keep ignoring and deflecting from the question, is it bad coaching to put your worst players on the ice at once to close out a one goal game? Similarly, is it bad coaching to put your worst forward, and easily arguable to be one of the worst players in the league, on the PP and PK? It's a simple yes or no question.
The Giroux move is literally the one good thing I have seen him done in a multi-year career here. It's not enough and it is far outweighed by the plethora of longstanding and substantial criticisms. It is also a move people on this very discussion board thought of before the season started so it wasn't some genius idea.
Last edited:
deadhead
Registered User
- Feb 26, 2014
- 51,059
- 22,234
St Louis, Colorado, Dallas, Florida all missed the playoffs.
Calgary had as much or more talent but only had 84 points. Gadreau, Monahan, Tkachuk, Backlund, Ferland, Hamilton, Giordano, Brodie, Harmonic, Mike Smith in goal
Comparing us to terrible teams is cherry picking the obvious.
Though some teams raise questions:
How did the Blackhawks go from 109 to 76 points? Montreal 103 to 71? Edmonton 103 to 78?
Why is Carolina so bad year after year (with what people suggeste was a good coach and lots of high draft picks)?
Calgary had as much or more talent but only had 84 points. Gadreau, Monahan, Tkachuk, Backlund, Ferland, Hamilton, Giordano, Brodie, Harmonic, Mike Smith in goal
Comparing us to terrible teams is cherry picking the obvious.
Though some teams raise questions:
How did the Blackhawks go from 109 to 76 points? Montreal 103 to 71? Edmonton 103 to 78?
Why is Carolina so bad year after year (with what people suggeste was a good coach and lots of high draft picks)?
Beef Invictus
Revolutionary Positivity
Before you begin asking others questions, you have several that are extant. Here is one:
Would you say it is bad coaching to finish games with inferior players who are much more likely to be scored upon while not scoring, when you have better players sitting for no reason?
Hollywood Cannon
I'm Away From My Desk
FLYguy3911
Sanheim Lover
- Oct 19, 2006
- 54,778
- 90,186
Considering Hagg was scratched for that Boston game, that was the worst possible 5 man group he could have put out on the ice. It's comical. He couldn't even stagger the bench enough to get Giroux or Couturier on the ice. But hey, all that experience- 37 combined seasons of NHL experience on the ice at once. What could possibly go wrong? 
I'd prefer to focus on his claim that the Flyers were similarly talented to a bunch of non playoff teams because that is blatantly false and the only two teams he cited were nowhere near as good as us. Granted, he keeps avoiding answering your question directly and completely avoids using the words good or bad in any context, but at least he admits Simmonds shouldn't have been out there. That's more than I got for my question lol.
I want to see the non playoff team that had a 100+ Hart candidate/Art Ross runner-up, Selke candidate center, near PPG D, and an ES goal leader on D on top of a slew of career individual years.
Beef Invictus
Revolutionary Positivity
No, that's not my opinion. It's a question.
deadhead
Registered User
- Feb 26, 2014
- 51,059
- 22,234
Same nitpicking crap. You could pull up every NHL team and cherry pick decisions.
In the end, you win or you die.
Flyers had 98 points last year with mediocre talent, that's good enough for me.
As long as they play up to their talent, Hakstol will remain the coach and y'all can grind your teeth.
The next coach will be the same sort of coach as Hakstol (maybe better looking) as long as Hextall is general manager.
Hold your breath until you're blue in the face, but you're not going to see an offense first coach here.
Nor will you see one that will tolerate young players freelancing, playing careless hockey and ignoring their defensive responsibilities.
I laugh at people trying to exonerate Hextall while lambasting Hakstol, Hakstol is doing what Hextall wants done.
He was hand picked by Hextall, it's obvious the two of them constantly trade notes on players, and Hextall has never indicated in any way that he's displeased with the job Hextall is doing as HC. He wants his young players to be held accountable.
Hextall is building this team through the draft, he's focused on high IQ, two way players, and he expects all his prospects to be held to that standard - from what the development people tell them in juniors and college (who is the development guy for the CHL?)., to Gordon to Hakstol. They want them to learn to play defense, to play without the puck. If a young player is benched for playing a certain way, it's because that's how Hextall wants it done.
In the end, you win or you die.
Flyers had 98 points last year with mediocre talent, that's good enough for me.
As long as they play up to their talent, Hakstol will remain the coach and y'all can grind your teeth.
The next coach will be the same sort of coach as Hakstol (maybe better looking) as long as Hextall is general manager.
Hold your breath until you're blue in the face, but you're not going to see an offense first coach here.
Nor will you see one that will tolerate young players freelancing, playing careless hockey and ignoring their defensive responsibilities.
I laugh at people trying to exonerate Hextall while lambasting Hakstol, Hakstol is doing what Hextall wants done.
He was hand picked by Hextall, it's obvious the two of them constantly trade notes on players, and Hextall has never indicated in any way that he's displeased with the job Hextall is doing as HC. He wants his young players to be held accountable.
Hextall is building this team through the draft, he's focused on high IQ, two way players, and he expects all his prospects to be held to that standard - from what the development people tell them in juniors and college (who is the development guy for the CHL?)., to Gordon to Hakstol. They want them to learn to play defense, to play without the puck. If a young player is benched for playing a certain way, it's because that's how Hextall wants it done.
Ghosts Beer
I saw Goody Fletcher with the Devil!
- Feb 10, 2014
- 22,780
- 16,527
Yeah, I’m the one who is “full of shit” when you’re trying to act like the team’s save percentage was .912.
It was .903. 22 out of 31. Of the teams finishing ahead of the Flyers, only Pittsburgh was worse at .902, & every other team was at least .909.
It’s embarrassing that you remove Mrazek & Lyon from the equation to try & change the narrative.
OK — we outscored Edmonton by 118 points. Maybe some of that, like the W/L record, is because we had better coaching? Maybe give Hakstol credit for moving Giroux to wing & making Couturier the 1C?
Your statement that we had “considerably better” goaltending than Edmonton is a lie. It was .903 vs .901.
The Blues, the Stars, the Flames, the Avalanche, the Panthers, the Islanders, the Oilers, the Blackhawks, all in the same tier as the Flyers talent wise. Missed the playoffs.
Beef Invictus
Revolutionary Positivity
If other NHL coaches were choosing to play bad players in crucial situations instead of good players, would you consider that to be good coaching?
Hollywood Cannon
I'm Away From My Desk
deadhead
Registered User
- Feb 26, 2014
- 51,059
- 22,234
The Hart candidate was only that because he was put at LW with the 3C. That's the coach's decision.
Before last season, Giroux hadn't averaged over 2.1 pp/60 since 2011-12 (when he put up 2.60).
So it was moving him from center and pairing him with Couts that led to him regaining his scoring touch, not getting healthy.
The PPG defense was due to the coach's scheme, Ghost 17th in pp/60, Manning 33rd, Provorov 36th, MacDonald 53rd, Gudas 62nd out of 162 defensemen who played 800 5x5 minutes.
Are Manning, MacDonald and Gudas top offensive defensemen? Or was that the scheme that helped them score?
And what career years? Not Voracek, who merely bounced back to where he was three years ago.
Not Simmonds, not Raffl, not Read, not Filppula - who exactly?
Outside of Couts, who stayed healthy and was moved to 1C by, who else?
Hollywood Cannon
I'm Away From My Desk
Ghosts Beer
I saw Goody Fletcher with the Devil!
- Feb 10, 2014
- 22,780
- 16,527
Well, the Avs did make the playoffs so that is factually wrong from the get-go.
To the rest of your rambling, lol. I'm the one that is full of shit for analyzing our complete goalie tandem, half of our forwards, and our top two D. So, apparently covering our tandem isn't fair, but just analyzing Elliott is (as you were doing) because it fits your narrative better? Except you then go on to claim I should be looking at Mrazek, a trade deadline pickup that wasn't part of our regular goalie tandem, and Lyon too. Let me guess, that would also be fine because it would lower the team save percentage and further your narrative? So, basically, anything is okay so long as it makes your point look better.
Neuvirth played over 25% of this teams games and he would have played closer to half of them if he did not have injury issues. Considering those facts and that he is signed to be the second half of our goalie tandem I do not see how it's unfair to include him. Even if you want to erase him because it furthers your narrative, our goaltending was still better than Pittsburgh and .001 better than Edmonton and NYI despite being much more productive offensively. Personally, when the team's backup is posting a .915 in over a quarter of our games and the two teams you cited have trash backing up trash, I think it is a relevant data point to present.
You also go on to ascribe a 117 point difference in offensive production to Hakstol despite the original point of yours being that the team was equally talented to a bunch of non playoff teams and are what held Hakstol back. You then go on to say Edmonton and NYI, I go on to show direct comparisons proving neither were anywhere near us in talent, and then you backpedal and say Hakstol elevated us to that 117 point difference.
You're so absurd that it cannot be properly explained in words. Thus far all you have done is completely avoid a question that has been asked to you ad nauseum by Beef, me, and Striiker, make a blatantly false claim and then proceed to backpedal into a circular argument when it is shown as such, and, quite poetically, you end it by saying something factually incorrect (the Avs missing the playoffs).
I'm just done with you. I'm not even the one making the bogus claim here, you are. I took the time to compare the first two teams you mentioned then you mention 8 more teams, one of which is wrong, without taking the time to show the proof yourself. Me and Striiker both put in more work than you have in any of your posts.
I'm just gonna leave this convo. For some reason I thought you might be a reasonable person, but I was wrong and it is a point of mine to just leave the baiting from internet people alone. By the way, feel free to answer the question Beef has asked you directly about a 1000 times.
- Status
