Dave Hakstol

[Beef Invictus]

Just to be clear, do you think that playing a goalie known to be as fragile as Neuvirth in back to back games when there is no reason to do so is good coaching? How about 5 games in 8 days?

 

[kudymen]

Shut up and eat your beef stick.

You have no idea how close you are to the truth (about what I had for dinner tonight)

 

[Striiker]

So, just to be clear, we’re willing to assume as a fact that Simmonds is preventing injuries... but not willing to assume that playing an old goalie more than he’s ever played before could have caused an injury?

Why does one need proof and the other doesnt? Is human psychology a more exact science than human physiology?

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Quick isn't really comparable, is he? That's a fluke injury, not the result of being steadily worn down while playing a schedule his body was not used to handling.

You're ignoring the facts, because they are inconvenient to you: Elliott was being played at a 70-80 game rate, which he was absolutely not used to, and he was injured. Then he played Neuvirth at the same rate, and he became injured. Goaltender is a really demanding position, you know. You don't get breaks like skaters do. You can still take contact, and you make more dramatic motions that aren't efficient and push the body farther than skaters typically do. It is downright likely neither goalie breaks down as much or as severely if they aren't asked to play back-to-backs or get huge strings of starts everyone knows they can't handle.

But sure, you go ahead and ignore a pattern that Hakstol has repeated, with the same results on both goalies. It only reveals the unreasonable lengths you'll go to defend bad coaching.

How do you know Elliott’s injury wasn’t a “fluke” injury just like Quick’s?

There’s zero evidence for your “Hakstol wore Elliott down & caused his injury” theory. It’s all speculation, & it ignores that goalies can suffer pulled or torn core muscles on any individual save, regardless of workload.

And Elliott was on a 65 game pace before going on IR, not “70-80.” That’s nothing Earth shattering, & part of it was necessitated by China doll Neuvirth being hurt for a while. Goalies used to be expected to play around 65 games. 12 goalies still played 60+ games this season.

 

[MacDonald4MVP]

Just to be clear, do you think that playing a goalie known to be as fragile as Neuvirth in back to back games when there is no reason to do so is good coaching? How about 5 games in 8 days?

Never in my life have I seen such a ridiculous player usage. He was literally triple shifting Belly in last games of 16/17 season. If McPhee hasn't snatched him in expansion draft we would literally be watching filps and belly center our second and third line this year. All the while listening to simple Dave with his thumbs up his ass talk about how effort was there and we need to stick with it. Makes you wonder if we miss the playoffs Hexy actually considers coaching change.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

So, just to be clear, we’re willing to assume as a fact that Simmonds is preventing injuries... but not willing to assume that playing an old goalie more than he’s ever played before could have caused an injury?

Why does one need proof and the other doesnt? Is human psychology a more exact science than human physiology?

I said I think Simmonds probably helps reduce the number of cheap shots (not necessarily injuries) his teammates take over the course of a season, but that I can’t prove it any more than someone can prove he has zero deterrent impact. So I acknowledged it was just my feeling & I couldn’t prove it, unlike those who are acting like it is fact that Hakstol caused Elliott’s injury.

Weak effort on your part.

 

[Beef Invictus]

How do you know Elliott’s injury wasn’t a “fluke” injury just like Quick’s?

There’s zero evidence for your “Hakstol wore Elliott down & caused his injury” theory. It’s all speculation, & it ignores that goalies can suffer pulled or torn core muscles on any individual save, regardless of workload.

And Elliott was on a 65 game pace before going on IR, not “70-80.” That’s nothing Earth shattering, & part of it was necessitated by China doll Neuvirth being hurt for a while. Goalies used to be expected to play around 65 games. 12 goalies still played 60+ games this season.

A 65 game pace would be earth shattering for Elliott, since he has never had that sort of load before. The most games he's ever played is 55, and that was 8 years ago.


Do you mean to say there is absolutely no connection between Hakstol's decision to play an injury prone Neuvirth in 5 games in 8 days, including a back to back, where 4 of those games were on the road...and the fact that in the midst of that grueling stretch he was injured to the point that he needed IR? You believe Hakstol's decision to use him like that had absolutely no impact on the fact that he was injured? Do you think that is good coaching, to use him like that?

 

[FLYguy3911]

 

[Striiker]

I said I think Simmonds probably helps reduce the number of cheap shots (not necessarily injuries) his teammates take over the course of a season, but that I can’t prove it any more than someone can prove he has zero deterrent impact. So I acknowledged it was just my feeling & I couldn’t prove it, unlike those who are acting like it is fact that Hakstol caused Elliott’s injury.

Weak effort on your part.

Wasn’t really any effort at all. I was just curious because it seems like you’d either be willing to believe both or neither.

Actively arguing in favor of one and against the other seems strange.

If you don’t know either way, on either topic, then it’s odd you’re arguing so much about both, but with opposite view points.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

A 65 game pace would be earth shattering for Elliott, since he has never had that sort of load before. The most games he's ever played is 55, and that was 8 years ago.


Do you mean to say there is absolutely no connection between Hakstol's decision to play an injury prone Neuvirth in 5 games in 8 days, including a back to back, where 4 of those games were on the road...and the fact that in the midst of that grueling stretch he was injured to the point that he needed IR? You believe Hakstol's decision to use him like that had absolutely no impact on the fact that he was injured? Do you think that is good coaching, to use him like that?

We’re talking about Neuvirth now?

The guy who’s been unable to stay healthy no matter who his coach is? Whether he plays often or not?

Neuvirth, like everyone else, is paid to play when they need him. They needed him, so the coach played him.

There’s zero evidence that playing 5 times in 8 days caused him to get hurt. More likely, he’s just injury prone and can easily get hurt any time he plays.

 

[Beef Invictus]

We’re talking about Neuvirth now?

I've been talking about both goalies the entire time, which I made clear by using the plural. I have been discussing them both because they were both injured in the midst of mismanagement.

The guy who’s been unable to stay healthy no matter who his coach is? Whether he plays often or not?

So you are aware of his injury history. Well then: Do you think playing a goalie with Neuvirth's medical history in 5 games in 8 days, 4 of which were on the road, including road back to backs, in a streak that was only ended by a major injury, was a good idea? Do you think it was good coaching to use a fragile goalie so strenuously, particularly when Elliott was also injured?

Neuvirth, like everyone else, is paid to play when they need him. They needed him, so the coach played him.

The coach is paid to get the team wins. Playing your fragile goalie on an insane pace that no other intelligent coach would match, until he got hurt, and thus reducing the chances of winning for an extended period, is bad coaching. They needed him to remain in playing condition.

There’s zero evidence that playing 5 times in 8 days caused him to get hurt. More likely, he’s just injury prone and can easily get hurt any time he plays.

Wow. So you actually don't believe playing him in 5 games in 8 days including in a back to back had any impact on his health. You are no different than the posters who believe Bryzgalov only allowed one or two bad goals in his tenure in Philly. You will go to absolutely unreasonable lengths to absolve the coach of blame. I mean this is completely nuts. The NFL and NCAA both acknowledge players playing games on short weeks are way more likely to be injured. Fighting sports and even track and field have come to the same conclusion, that minimal rest causes injuries. We have the evidence in front of our own eyes with Hakstol playing goalies into the dirt. But you refuse to see it, because it proves you wrong.

The simple fact is, a goalie playing 60 minutes a night without rest will become fatigued. Fatigue causes form to break down. Form breaks down, and injuries are more likely. This is basic training knowledge applicable to all sports. Rest is important. Look no further than Bobrovsky and Luongo, who have both admitted that after grueling seasons where they played huge numbers of games they were too worn out to perform well in playoffs. They seem to know some things about goaltending.


I ask again: Do you think it is good coaching to play a fragile, injury-prone goalie in 5 games in 8 days, mostly on the road, including road back to backs? Is that good coaching?

 

[Tripod]

Just to add:

Those who post during ever/most games, were commenting that Stolarz needed more starts during his recall when Neuvirth was hurt 2 years ago. Neuvirth played Nov 12th...then again on Jan 7th.

Stolarz:
Nov 14th recalled
Started Nov 27th: won game
Started Dec 11th: got a SHUTOUT
Came in in relief Dec 22: 40 minutes
Came in in relief Dec 30th: 38:35 minutes
So never got another start during the recall despite getting a shutout!!

Mason played 17 games from Nov 17th to Dec 22nd including 3 back to backs.

You would think, when you re-call a goalie and he gets a shutout, he would get another start within the next month that he is re-called. Both Neuvirth and Mason had back to backs later on in the season too.

It's just the simple things like that(not playing goalies on back to backs) that cause people to say he has no idea how to handle goalies AND USAGE.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

I've been talking about both goalies the entire time, which I made clear by using the plural. I have been discussing them both because they were both injured in the midst of mismanagement.



So you are aware of his injury history. Well then: Do you think playing a goalie with Neuvirth's medical history in 5 games in 8 days, 4 of which were on the road, including road back to backs, in a streak that was only ended by a major injury, was a good idea? Do you think it was good coaching to use a fragile goalie so strenuously, particularly when Elliott was also injured?



The coach is paid to get the team wins. Playing your fragile goalie on an insane pace that no other intelligent coach would match, until he got hurt, and thus reducing the chances of winning for an extended period, is bad coaching. They needed him to remain in playing condition.



Wow. So you actually don't believe playing him in 5 games in 8 days including in a back to back had any impact on his health. You are no different than the posters who believe Bryzgalov only allowed one or two bad goals in his tenure in Philly. You will go to absolutely unreasonable lengths to absolve the coach of blame. I mean this is completely nuts. The NFL and NCAA both acknowledge players playing games on short weeks are way more likely to be injured. Fighting sports and even track and field have come to the same conclusion, that minimal rest causes injuries. We have the evidence in front of our own eyes with Hakstol playing goalies into the dirt. But you refuse to see it, because it proves you wrong.

The simple fact is, a goalie playing 60 minutes a night without rest will become fatigued. Fatigue causes form to break down. Form breaks down, and injuries are more likely. This is basic training knowledge applicable to all sports. Rest is important. Look no further than Bobrovsky and Luongo, who have both admitted that after grueling seasons where they played huge numbers of games they were too worn out to perform well in playoffs. They seem to know some things about goaltending.


I ask again: Do you think it is good coaching to play a fragile, injury-prone goalie in 5 games in 8 days, mostly on the road, including road back to backs? Is that good coaching?

I agree that Hakstol is paid to win games.

I think he has an average team & that every game can be the difference between playoffs & not.

The backup goaltender he was given on the roster decided by the GM is very fragile.

The starter got hurt.

That means the backup has to play.

No, I don’t blame Hakstol for playing Neuvirth over an untested AHL goalie when every game is critical 5 times in 8 days. I’d have done the same. Yes, it sucks that Neuvirth is so fragile, but he gets hurt regardless of workload. Play him when the starter is out. That’s what he’s getting paid for. And if he can’t handle it, he can’t handle it.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I agree that Hakstol is paid to win games.

I think he has an average team & that every game can be the difference between playoffs & not.

The backup goaltender he was given on the roster decided by the GM is very fragile.

The starter got hurt.

That means the backup has to play.

No, I don’t blame Hakstol for playing Neuvirth over an untested AHL goalie when every game is critical 5 times in 8 days. I’d have done the same. Yes, it sucks that Neuvirth is so fragile, but he gets hurt regardless of workload. Play him when the starter is out. That’s what he’s getting paid for. And if he can’t handle it, he can’t handle it.

When the starter is hurt, playing your fragile goalie on that stretch like he did is pure idiocy, as it ensures you lose both your main goalies. This was really obvious. Many of us here were predicting that Neuvirth was going to get injured if he kept it up, and he did. We were able to predict it, because there aren't many outcomes to playing a guy like Neuvirth that hard. And by the way, the starter was hurt because he was playing a pace he couldn't handle. Here's a prediction: If Hakstol uses these goalies the same way this season, they will get hurt again. That is guaranteed. These are not ironmen, but he plays them like they are, so injury is inevitable. Completely unavoidable.

So, I presume the answer to my question is yes, you consider it good coaching to drive the goalie until he is injured?

 

[Ghosts Beer]

When the starter is hurt, playing your fragile goalie on that stretch like he did is pure idiocy, as it ensures you lose both your main goalies. This was really obvious. Many of us here were predicting that Neuvirth was going to get injured if he kept it up, and he did. We were able to predict it, because there aren't many outcomes to playing a guy like Neuvirth that hard. And by the way, the starter was hurt because he was playing a pace he couldn't handle. Here's a prediction: If Hakstol uses these goalies the same way this season, they will get hurt again. That is guaranteed. These are not ironmen, but he plays them like they are, so injury is inevitable. Completely unavoidable.

So, I presume the answer to my question is yes, you consider it good coaching to drive the goalie until he is injured?

You acknowledged that Hakstol is paid to win.

Do you acknowledge that the Flyers were a fringe playoff team where every game mattered?

If so, you should realize the coach is going to rely on his NHL caliber backup when his starter is injured over playing an untested, average statistically AHL goalie. It’s not his fault the backup supplied by the GM is extremely fragile. He’s playing. If he can’t handle it, then you move to the next option. Neuvirth gets hurt regardless of how often he plays. Might as well play him often when Elliott is out, because rationing him doesn’t seem to make him less injury prone.

 

[Beef Invictus]

You acknowledged that Hakstol is paid to win.

Do you acknowledge that the Flyers were a fringe playoff team where every game mattered?

If so, you should realize the coach is going to rely on his NHL caliber backup when his starter is injured over playing an untested, average statistically AHL goalie. It’s not his fault the backup supplied by the GM is extremely fragile. He’s playing. If he can’t handle it, then you move to the next option. Neuvirth gets hurt regardless of how often he plays. Might as well play him often when Elliott is out, because rationing him doesn’t seem to make him less injury prone.

Every game mattered, which is why playing your only remaining goalie into the ground was incredibly dumb. It put many games in the hands of lesser goalies, rather than a game or two to rest Neuvirth.

 

[Striiker]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Beef is saying that yes, both agree that every game matters, but that’s exactly why you can’t use your goalies the way Hakstol did, while Ghosts Beer is saying it’s the reason he’s justified in doing what he did.

Beef is using the same logic as why you don’t play Couturier or Provorov 40+ minutes per game. Yes, every game matters and maybe playing them that much helps you win a handful of games because having top players on the ice over inferior players is a good thing, but the long term health risk of losing them for an extended period of time is a bigger negative than the higher chance to win that individual stretch of games is a positive.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Every game mattered, which is why playing your only remaining goalie into the ground was incredibly dumb. It put many games in the hands of lesser goalies, rather than a game or two to rest Neuvirth.

Disagree. You can’t predict injuries. You play your backup for the job he was paid to do. And if he’s incapable of it, then you turn to your AHLer. You’re acting as if the Flyers would’ve been better off playing Neuvirth only 3 or 4 times in 8 days. I disagree. Lyon was horrid in his first few NHL games, & there’s zero evidence supporting that fragile Neuvirth wouldn’t have ended up hurt in that 8 day span, anyway. He’s always one stretch away from an injury.

 

[deadhead]

Or maybe Hextall could actually find a real goalie who isn't made of glass?

Frankly, Elliott and Neuvirth are an injury waiting to happen, back to back or just warming up.

Which is why I hope Lyon's AHL playoff performance (.944) was the "real" Lyon, and not his meh regular season (.912, .913) and cameo (.905).

But in reality, we just have to have Hart.

 

[MacDonald4MVP]

Injuries or not his goalie usage isn't normal.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Disagree. You can’t predict injuries. You play your backup for the job he was paid to do. And if he’s incapable of it, then you turn to your AHLer. You’re acting as if the Flyers would’ve been better off playing Neuvirth only 3 or 4 times in 8 days. I disagree. Lyon was horrid in his first few NHL games, & there’s zero evidence supporting that fragile Neuvirth wouldn’t have ended up hurt in that 8 day span, anyway. He’s always one stretch away from an injury.

You can predict injuries very easily when you play Neuvirth like Hakstol did. Posters here predicted it, and we were unhappy at the prospect of losing both our NHL goalies. We were right. It was very easily predictable.

If he is always one stretch away from injury, then maximizing the number of stretches he does in a short period maximizes the chances of injury.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Injuries or not his goalie usage isn't normal.

Gee, I wonder if there's a reason why no other NHL coach manages their goalies like that?

 

[MacDonald4MVP]

Gee, I wonder if there's a reason why no other NHL coach manages their goalies like that?

NHL coach being the distinction there.

 

[deadhead]

Actually, a lot of NHL coaches manage their goalies like that.

Hellenbuyck 67 games (56 games the year before)
Bob 65 games (63)
Anderson 66 (66)
Vasilevskiy 65 (50) at age 23
Talbot 67 (73)
Quick 64 (other seasons 68, 72, 69, 72)
Lundqvist 63 (at age 35, at age 24-27: 70, 72, 70, 73)
Rinne 59 (61, 64, 63)
Dubnyk 60 (65, 67)
Gibson 60

Guess riding your #1 is pretty common, huh?

 

[Beef Invictus]

Actually, a lot of NHL coaches manage their goalies like that.

Hellenbuyck 67 games (56 games the year before)
Bob 65 games (63)
Anderson 66 (66)
Vasilevskiy 65 (50) at age 23
Talbot 67 (73)
Quick 64 (other seasons 68, 72, 69, 72)
Lundqvist 63 (at age 35, at age 24-27: 70, 72, 70, 73)
Rinne 59 (61, 64, 63)
Dubnyk 60 (65, 67)
Gibson 60

Guess riding your #1 is pretty common, huh?

Those are all goalies who are capable of that. You know who isn't? Elliott and Neuvirth.

Notice that those coaches aren't riding players who can't handle that load like that.