Dave Hakstol

[LegionOfDoom91]

The second unit hasn’t given them much at all over the years even for second unit standards. I think it was like five PP goals all of last year where at least one of Giroux, Voracek, Simmonds, Couturier, or Gostisbehere didn’t factor into it.

Even with coaches changing the same useless vets get PP spots on it so I don’t think they’re too concerned about that either along with the horrid PK.

 

[FLYguy3911]

PP1 is still good. Elite maybe. PP2 was a disaster and scored just a single goal all year as a unit. If Hak cared about scoring goals as much as he cared about preventing them, changes would have been made to that unit. He was pulling guys off the PK left and right when they were bleeding goals against but PP2’s biggest boost was getting Brandon Manning after he scored in a couple games.

 

[Beef Invictus]

The second unit hasn’t given them much at all over the years even for second unit standards. I think it was like five PP goals all of last year where at least one of Giroux, Voracek, Simmonds, Couturier, or Gostisbehere didn’t factor into it.

Even with coaches changing the same useless vets get PP spots on it so I don’t think they’re too concerned about that either along with the horrid PK.

It's excessively lazy that they try to run the same scheme for both units, despite the personnel of the 2nd unit not fitting in the slightest. How much work would it really be to earn your paycheck and figure out how to best employ who you've got on unit 2?

 

[deadhead]

Nothing you gibbered forth here refutes my post. The simple fact is that if he needs a roster too good to fail because we can judge him, then that indicates maybe he isn't actually very good. Good coaches can elevate their roster, rather than being dragged along behind it.


You're too terrified of my questions to answer them. Perhaps someone who lives in abject horror of simple yes/no questions because said questions ruin their assertions shouldn't be so confident.

You keep asking me when I stopped beating my wife, so I simply ignore those BS questions.

Really, give me all the examples of "good coaches" who elevated mediocre rosters.
Like Gallant elevating Vegas, except they were a deep, experienced team with premier goalies.
Or did Marchassault and Karlsson carry his butt, they did have career years, you know.

What you see more often are good but underachieving teams responding to a new coach.
But it's hard to make the claim that this team has underachieved the last three years.

 

[Beef Invictus]

You keep asking me when I stopped beating my wife, so I simply ignore those BS questions.

Really, give me all the examples of "good coaches" who elevated mediocre rosters.
Like Gallant elevating Vegas, except they were a deep, experienced team with premier goalies.
Or did Marchassault and Karlsson carry his butt, they did have career years, you know.

What you see more often are good but underachieving teams responding to a new coach.
But it's hard to make the claim that this team has underachieved the last three years.

No, I keep asking you very simple questions about what you consider to be good coaching. For example, Hakstol likes to play inferior players ahead of superior players, even in crucial situations.

Do you think it is good coaching to play inferior players?


Nothing about the question is a trap. It's really straightforward.

We have given multiple examples of coaches improving rosters but you respond by lying about the quality of their rosters. You lie a lot.

 

[deadhead]

No, it's a trap, because it's predicated on your valuation of players, I for example, consider Sanheim of last season a player I wouldn't put on the ice in the last five minutes of a game last year. I don't trust TK in any defensive situation (and notice he was horrible on the PP2). So I consider most of the choices not better or worse players, but equally bad choices. So your whole premise is faulty, since it's based on your faulty evaluation of players.

You have not given multiple examples of coaches improving rosters, in fact, no one has offered any real argument of substance other than "Hakstol sucks."

As I've pointed out they had four good forwards, two good defensemen, four forwards who were marginal 3rd line material and five defensemen who were 3rd pair caliber. Which means unless you want to run the top players further into the ground (or in some cases, put them in situations they weren't competent to handle, like TK on special teams) there were no good choices. Sanheim is a good example, his metrics were based on being sheltered, had he played 20 minutes a night his metrics would have plummeted, because playing against top talent on a regular basis he would have been exposed - he simply couldn't handle being pressed.

 

[Harhis]

No, it's a trap, because it's predicated on your valuation of players, I for example, consider Sanheim of last season a player I wouldn't put on the ice in the last five minutes of a game last year. I don't trust TK in any defensive situation (and notice he was horrible on the PP2). So I consider most of the choices not better or worse players, but equally bad choices. So your whole premise is faulty, since it's based on your faulty evaluation of players.

You have not given multiple examples of coaches improving rosters, in fact, no one has offered any real argument of substance other than "Hakstol sucks."

As I've pointed out they had four good forwards, two good defensemen, four forwards who were marginal 3rd line material and five defensemen who were 3rd pair caliber. Which means unless you want to run the top players further into the ground (or in some cases, put them in situations they weren't competent to handle, like TK on special teams) there were no good choices. Sanheim is a good example, his metrics were based on being sheltered, had he played 20 minutes a night his metrics would have plummeted, because playing against top talent on a regular basis he would have been exposed - he simply couldn't handle being pressed.

For arguments sake, let's say this is true. Why would you choose a older player over a young player who has room to grow and benefits from experience?

 

[Garbage Goal]

It’s at the point with Hakstol that he, just by his lonesome, makes me completely lower my expectations for the team and lowers my opinion of any poster who still supports him. The the last time I was this comfortable knowing a coach has no business coaching in the NHL was with Berube and Lappy. The former of which never coached in the NHL outside of his short-lived nepotistic stint with us and the latter of which manages to stay employed despite doing an absolutely awful job by every conceivable metric across multiple coaching regimes.

It’s amazing that anyone has any degree of faith in this teams ability to hire head coaches. Our last four head coaches are Stevens, Lavy, Berube, and Hak. The only one that had coaching experience outside of the Flyers prior to being brought on board was Lavy and he is literally the only one to have had any large degree of success here or on any other team. Then add in the hilarious ness of Lappy’s tenure and it amazes me how anyone can be anything but cynical about this teams ability to hire head coaches.

 

[Garbage Goal]

The second unit hasn’t given them much at all over the years even for second unit standards. I think it was like five PP goals all of last year where at least one of Giroux, Voracek, Simmonds, Couturier, or Gostisbehere didn’t factor into it.

Even with coaches changing the same useless vets get PP spots on it so I don’t think they’re too concerned about that either along with the horrid PK.

There’s no excuse for the PK at this point. The only true constant across multiple regimes and many players has been the PK coach and it is consistently awful by every metric.

I feel the same way about PP2. I get it’s PP2 and most teams don’t have a good PP2, but with the talent we have, as well as the PP historically being the lone constant bright spot for this team, there’s absolutely no excuse for it to drag our rank down to freaking 15th. When I see guys like Lehtera randomly getting PP time, guys like Ghost not playing full PP’s at a time, and sticking to the same old strategies even when they don’t work (excessively shooting from the point, Simmonds over Patrick on the PP, etc.), I have to blame the coaching.

 

[Garbage Goal]

No, I keep asking you very simple questions about what you consider to be good coaching. For example, Hakstol likes to play inferior players ahead of superior players, even in crucial situations.

Do you think it is good coaching to play inferior players?


Nothing about the question is a trap. It's really straightforward.

We have given multiple examples of coaches improving rosters but you respond by lying about the quality of their rosters. You lie a lot.

The team who has destroyed us in the playoffs lately, including last season, and have embarrassed us in terms of franchise success in the last decade are a shining example of this.

Most of their fans thought Therien was awful and held the team back, a vocal minority ceaselessly argued it wasn’t him though (it was the talent). They fired him mid-season and white immediately made a 180 into SC champions. Bylsma got stale and the same complaints happened, he went on to have zero success elsewhere and, the second their next regime got stale, they hired a new GM and he hired Sullivan. Sullivan implemented a system that fit his personnel and the new NHL perfectly, emphasizing speed and skill. Then they went on to be champions again despite people thinking they would go on the eventual post SC decline every winner goes on. Then they destroyed us last season despite not being all that good.

At this point, I just assume anyone downplaying the impact of obviously bad coaching to be intentionally obtuse. Doesn’t matter if they are, when a rival in the same freaking state built a dynasty by proving the opposite I just have to assume that’s the case.

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

PP1 is still good. Elite maybe. PP2 was a disaster and scored just a single goal all year as a unit. If Hak cared about scoring goals as much as he cared about preventing them, changes would have been made to that unit. He was pulling guys off the PK left and right when they were bleeding goals against but PP2’s biggest boost was getting Brandon Manning after he scored in a couple games.

The fact that Manning, Lehtera, Filppula, Weise and AMac were on any form of PP this past season is f***ing infuriating. Hell, Lehtera got over 34 minutes is proof enough that Hak likes the play the shittiest older players in whatever situation, just because experience. Filppula did not deserve over 124 minutes on the PP this year. Outside of the beginning of the season where he put up a couple PP goals, he was straight up f***ing awful all year.

But now hopefully it changes to something like this:

Giroux-Couts-JVR
Ghost-Voracek

Konecny-Patrick-Simmonds
Provy-Sanheim

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Do you think maximizing the chance of Elliott becoming injured by subjecting him to a workload he isn't accustomed to is good coaching?

By how much of a % did Hakstol raise Elliott’s chances of injury? Was it by more of a % than benching Elliott would have reduced the Flyers’ chances of winning?

You’ve got a team fighting for the playoffs. Every game is huge. The backup goaltender gets hurt & is completely unreliable. Plenty of goalies can handle 23 starts in a row. That’s what they needed from Elliott, & anyone acting like it’s a fact that Hakstol is the reason Elliott got hurt is purely speculating. Acting like this speculation is a fact is appalling.

 

[Beef Invictus]

By how much of a % did Hakstol raise Elliott’s chances of injury? Was it by more of a % than benching Elliott would have reduced the Flyers’ chances of winning?

You’ve got a team fighting for the playoffs. Every game is huge. The backup goaltender gets hurt & is completely unreliable. Plenty of goalies can handle 23 starts in a row. That’s what they needed from Elliott, & anyone acting like it’s a fact that Hakstol is the reason Elliott got hurt is purely speculating. Acting like this speculation is a fact is appalling.

Plenty of goalies can handle it. Elliott cannot. He does not play that pace. He hasn't for years. Making him do that increased the likelihood of injury. Because he got injured, and because he hasn't been injured much with lighter usage, let's call it 100% even though at this point I think you're just being an extremist, since I've already proven with sources that fatigue causes injuries, and if you dig into the sources they mention that activity you aren't used to is more likely to cause fatigue. Do I also need to post sources showing that recovery tends to diminish with age? Or will you obstinately refuse to believe that widely known fact in your futile quest to defend the indefensible?


When you are fighting for the playoffs, hurting your goalies because you manage them badly is bad coaching. Especially when the fight is harder than it should be because your lineup choices make winning difficult, which is also bad coaching.

The fact that you're now trying your hardest to ignore the management of Neuvirth speaks volumes though. The only thing "appalling" is your siege on reason. When you have to be as ludicrous as you've been while trying to take what you think is a middle ground, your position isn't sound. When you have to ignore facts your position isn't sound. You have an opinion and you are twisting to keep it even though facts don't support it.

 

[deadhead]

The reason these players were on the PP was that TK and Weal were awful.
Leier was awful on the PK.

Couts played 21:36, Ghost 21:27, Giroux 20:32, Provorov 24:09, Voracek 19:27 (with no PK time)
TK played 14:54, 1:24 on the PP2, if he was good on STs he would have played 17 minutes a night (a lot for a 20 year old player)
Sanheim played 15:35, but only 0:41 on STs, if he was good on Sts he would have played 17-18 minutes a night

Lack of depth and lack of readiness by young players for ST duties explains a lot of PT decisions.

As far as Sullivan - exactly what I described - a talented, underachieving team gets a jump start from a new coach.
Again, no one has shown any evidence that this team has underachieved.

 

[Curufinwe]

Starting goalies in back to back games or playing them for long stretches isn't unique to Hak. Other coaches, who have no NCAA background, have done the same thing.

Back to Back Goalie Tracker

 

[deadhead]

11 teams did it more, tied for 12th with 2 other teams according to that chart.
Guess Hakstol is pretty typical of NHL coaches?

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Plenty of goalies can handle it. Elliott cannot. He does not play that pace. He hasn't for years. Making him do that increased the likelihood of injury. Because he got injured, and because he hasn't been injured much with lighter usage, let's call it 100% even though at this point I think you're just being an extremist, since I've already proven with sources that fatigue causes injuries, and if you dig into the sources they mention that activity you aren't used to is more likely to cause fatigue. Do I also need to post sources showing that recovery tends to diminish with age? Or will you obstinately refuse to believe that widely known fact in your futile quest to defend the indefensible?


When you are fighting for the playoffs, hurting your goalies because you manage them badly is bad coaching. Especially when the fight is harder than it should be because your lineup choices make winning difficult, which is also bad coaching.

The fact that you're now trying your hardest to ignore the management of Neuvirth speaks volumes though. The only thing "appalling" is your siege on reason. When you have to be as ludicrous as you've been while trying to take what you think is a middle ground, your position isn't sound. When you have to ignore facts your position isn't sound. You have an opinion and you are twisting to keep it even though facts don't support it.

I haven’t twisted a damn thing. I’m only pointing out that you’re making your own medical diagnosis of Elliott without any medical expertise or access to his medical information.

Goalies get hurt. Some get hurt in game 1 (Quick), backups with low workloads get hurt, your assertion that Hakstol raised Elliott’s injury risk “100%” by playing him in 23 straight games is nothing but conjecture.

I ask you how many games he should have sat where he played that would have prevented the injury, & you have no answer. Because you don’t know & are talking out of your ass.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Air Force’s goalie played in each of his team’s 43 games.

Can’t believe his head didn’t fall off.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I haven’t twisted a damn thing. I’m only pointing out that you’re making your own medical diagnosis of Elliott without any medical expertise or access to his medical information.

Goalies get hurt. Some get hurt in game 1 (Quick), backups with low workloads get hurt, your assertion that Hakstol raised Elliott’s injury risk “100%” by playing him in 23 straight games is nothing but conjecture.

I ask you how many games he should have sat where he played that would have prevented the injury, & you have no answer. Because you don’t know & are talking out of your ass.

Why are you ignoring the medical facts from medical experts that support every aspect of my claims? That fatigue causes injuries, and individuals partaking in activities they aren't used to increases fatigue and thus the chance of injury? Facts were laid out for you and you are ignoring them. Why?


How come you're entirely ignoring Neuvirth now? Because admitting his handling was bad opens up the possibility that Elliott was also mishandled?

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

Air Force’s goalie played in each of his team’s 43 games.

Can’t believe his head didn’t fall off.

They play on the weekends only, try again.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Air Force’s goalie played in each of his team’s 43 games.

Can’t believe his head didn’t fall off.

I think you should check out college schedules and compare them to NHL schedules. Pay close attention to the amount of rest they get during the week.


You're really flailing at this point.

 

[Curufinwe]

I want to do all 29 goalies who started more than 41 games, but that will take a while. So I have started with the top 3 plus Elliot. As mentioned previously, all of Elliot's back to back starts happened when Neuvirth was on IR in December.

NHL.com - Stats

2017-18 back to back starts by goalies

Talbot (30 years old as of 12/31/17, EDM) 10 back to back starts out of 67 total starts: 11/21/17 & 11/22/17, 1/6/18 & 1/7/18, 1/12/18 & 1/13/18, 2/17/18 & 2/18/18, 3/24/18 & 3/25/18

Andersen (28, TOR) 0 back to back starts out of 66 total starts

Bobrovsky (29, CBJ) 10 back to back starts out of 65 total starts 10/13/17 & 10/14/17, 11/10/17 & 11/11/17, 12/8/17 & 12/9/17, 1/7/18 & 1/8/18, 2/9/18 & 2/10/18

Hellebyuck (24, WPG) 4 back to back starts out of 64 total starts: 1/12/18 & 1/13/18, 1/20/18 & 1/21/18,

Vasilevskiy (23, TB) 4 back to back starts out of 64 total starts: 10/6/17 & 10/7/17, 11/28/17 & 11/29/17,

Quick (31, LA) 2 back to back starts out of 62 total starts: 1/18/18 & 1/19/18

Lundqvist (35, NYR) 4 back to back starts out of 61 total starts: 1/20/18 & 1/21/18, 2/17/18 & 2/18/18

Jones (27, SJ) 4 back to back starts out of 60 total starts: 11/24/17 & 11/25/17, 1/30/18 & 1/31/18

Gibson (24, ANA) 0 back to back starts out of 60 total starts

Dubnyk (31, MIN)
4 back to back starts out of 59 total starts: 1/13/18 & 1/14/18, 3/9/18 & 3/10/18

Rinne (35, NSH)
0 back to back starts out of 59 total starts

Howard (33, DET) 2 back to back starts out of 57 total starts: 2/24/18 & 2/25/18

Markstrom (27, VAN) 4 back to back starts out of 57 total starts: 11/6/17 & 11/7/17, 2/25/18 & 2/26/18

Allen (27, StL) 8 back to back starts out of 56 total starts: 12/9/17 & 12/10/17, 3/17/18 & 3/18/18, 3/23/18 & 3/24/18, 3/30/18 & 3/31/18

Smith (35, CGY) 2 back to back starts out of 55 total starts: 10/13/17 & 10/14/17

Anderson (36, OTT) 6 back to back starts out of 55 total starts: 11/24/17 & 11/25/17, 1/5/18 & 1/6/18, 1/9/18 & 1/10/18


Elliot (32, PHI) 6 back to back starts out of 42 total starts: 12/6/17 & 12/7/17, 12/22/17 & 12/23/17, 12/28/17 & 12/29/17

 

[Beef Invictus]

I want to do all 29 goalies who started more than 41 games, but that will take a while. So I have started with the top 3 plus Elliot. As mentioned previously, all of Elliot's back to back starts happened when Neuvirth was on IR in December.

NHL.com - Stats

2017-18 back to back starts by goalies

Tablot (EDM) 10 back to back starts out of 67 total starts: 11/21/17 & 11/22/17, 1/6/18 & 1/7/18, 1/12/18 & 1/13/18, 2/17/18 & 2/18/18, 3/24/18 & 3/25/18

Andersen (TOR) 0 back to back starts out of 66 total starts

Bobrovsky (CBJ) 10 back to back starts out of 65 total starts 10/13/17 & 10/14/17, 11/10/17 & 11/11/17, 12/8/17 & 12/9/17, 1/7/18 & 1/8/18, 2/9/18 & 2/10/18


Elliot (PHI) 6 back to back starts out of 42 total starts: 12/6/17 & 12/7/17, 12/22/17 & 12/23/17, 12/28/17 & 12/29/17

So we have goalies who are used to the workload, plus one who is not.

This doesn't make a difference unless you can prove Neuvirth and Elliott are accustomed to the workload Hakstol was giving him, but you can't do that because they aren't. The only time Neuvirth had a chance was coming out of Buffalo when his positioning was razor sharp and that minimized his reliance on athleticism.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Why are you ignoring the medical facts from medical experts that support every aspect of my claims? That fatigue causes injuries, and individuals partaking in activities they aren't used to increases fatigue and thus the chance of injury? Facts were laid out for you and you are ignoring them. Why?


How come you're entirely ignoring Neuvirth now? Because admitting his handling was bad opens up the possibility that Elliott was also mishandled?

I’ve never said fatigue isn’t one thing that can contribute to an injury. There are a lot of things that cause injuries. One of them is trying to make a reflex save.

You’re convinced that “fatigue” from playing in 23 straight games caused Elliott’s injury, but it’s pure conjecture. You don’t know if Elliott was fatigued. You don’t know how he injured himself. You’re guessing and treating it like fact.

And you’re making exaggerated statements like “no other coach” handles goaltenders like Hakstol, which is proven false, & again implies that your opinions are influenced by an anti-Hakstol bias.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I’ve never said fatigue isn’t one thing that can contribute to an injury. There are a lot of things that cause injuries. One of them is trying to make a reflex save.

You’re convinced that “fatigue” from playing in 23 straight games caused Elliott’s injury, but it’s pure conjecture. You don’t know if Elliott was fatigued. You don’t know how he injured himself. You’re guessing and treating it like fact.

And you’re making exaggerated statements like “no other coach” handles goaltenders like Hakstol, which is proven false, & again implies that your opinions are influenced by an anti-Hakstol bias.

Why are you refusing to discuss Neuvirth now? He's a major part of the goalie management picture.