Post-Game Talk: ECQF 3 (Flyers lead series 2-1): FLYERS 1 vs. Canadiens 0, Sunday, Aug. 16, 2020

[JojoTheWhale]

i am listening. IN fact I am the only poster asking you questions to expand upon your posts . Meaning not only have a i read your posts but i am prodding for even more information from you. I know you're not limiting this to coaches, i just am reminding you of what you already know that anytime a member of the flyers organization meets with a player that is considered a team activity and there are hard set rules on the amount of team interactions a player can have with their organization over the course of a week and month.

Fair enough. I would state up front that I cannot give you a comprehensive list as an outsider because I will never know every fulcrum point that happened along the way. The best I can do is to generalize while admitting my limitations. I would add that in most cases, the NHL doesn't have the same type of strictness of some other leagues though.

Let's take Hagg as a random example since he's got a relatively interesting developmental curve. As part of the process of scouting evaluation, you can examine how you projected him going forward. Which of those skills developed? Which of those skills did you push him to develop? How much do those two overlap? When did you identify that the skills that did not develop were stagnating? How did you handle that? You need to go back and read your developmental staff's reports on him. Where do your internal scouts' opinions differ from your AHL coaching staff's? How often do those two branches disagree in specific areas?

How much value did Hagg actually give you as a 3rd pairing guy over a replacement level player? Does that justify telling him to keep things simple and focus on becoming a role player? There's a real answer to be found to that question and it's not something you can think about for 10 seconds and fully grasp. If you allow him to sink or swim while pushing harder to develop the ability to excel at transitional play, there's a small chance he does. How often do you have to get that type of result before you come out ahead? How much was the organizational slot worth in a super crowded pool? When in his developmental curve was he promoted at each step? What prompted the promotion? Is this a strategy that generally works for us? Is this a strategy that works for us in narrow bands or wide swaths?

There needs to be more than Player X passed through the AHL and is good in the NHL, so the AHL staff did a good job with him. To be frank, that's a joke. You can drill down deeper into which player archetypes your AHL staff improved or stagnated with the most. Of course the natural extension of that is what you can do to sure up your weaknesses, but it also might mean you adjust your draft board because you now believe there's more or less risk involved with a player in your specific support system.

They need to treat these orgs as the high-value businesses they are and properly audit the individual steps involved. It's not common in the NHL. You don't find these patterns unless you make the effort to seek them out.

 

[TB87]

Phil Myers was a steel trap defensively last night at Even-Strength:

- As in, shut down lots of rushes & plays before they became dangerous chances, kept opponents to the outside and away from the house (as evidenced below via shot attempt locations against):

 

[Rebels57]

Phil Myers was a steel trap defensively last night at Even-Strength:

- As in, shut down lots of rushes & plays before they became dangerous chances, kept opponents to the outside and away from the house (as evidenced below via shot attempt locations against):
View attachment 361793

That pair was ridiculously good.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Fair enough. I would state up front that I cannot give you a comprehensive list as an outsider because I will never know every fulcrum point that happened along the way. The best I can do is to generalize while admitting my limitations. I would add that in most cases, the NHL doesn't have the same type of strictness of some other leagues though.

Let's take Hagg as a random example since he's got a relatively interesting developmental curve. As part of the process of scouting evaluation, you can examine how you projected him going forward. Which of those skills developed? Which of those skills did you push him to develop? How much do those two overlap? When did you identify that the skills that did not develop were stagnating? How did you handle that? You need to go back and read your developmental staff's reports on him. Where do your internal scouts' opinions differ from your AHL coaching staff's? How often do those two branches disagree in specific areas?

How much value did Hagg actually give you as a 3rd pairing guy over a replacement level player? Does that justify telling him to keep things simple and focus on becoming a role player? There's a real answer to be found to that question and it's not something you can think about for 10 seconds and fully grasp. If you allow him to sink or swim while pushing harder to develop the ability to excel at transitional play, there's a small chance he does. How often do you have to get that type of result before you come out ahead? How much was the organizational slot worth in a super crowded pool? When in his developmental curve was he promoted at each step? What prompted the promotion? Is this a strategy that generally works for us? Is this a strategy that works for us in narrow bands or wide swaths?

There needs to be more than Player X passed through the AHL and is good in the NHL, so the AHL staff did a good job with him. To be frank, that's a joke. You can drill down deeper into which player archetypes your AHL staff improved or stagnated with the most. Of course the natural extension of that is what you can do to sure up your weaknesses, but it also might mean you adjust your draft board because you now believe there's more or less risk involved with a player in your specific support system.

They need to treat these orgs as the high-value businesses they are and properly audit the individual steps involved. It's not common in the NHL.

I find it troubling that for the last decade, all too often a young player has to blow the doors off to earn a real spot. How much marginal talent that could have been groomed into solid depth was ignored and misused, in place of an army of washed up slugs?

NAK was very nearly another addition to that list. We should be asking questions about their development process. Scouting and drafting is great, but it's the first step. What is going on after that? Is it really good enough? If Laughton had been a 3rd rounder, would he still be a depth player here, or did the 1st round investment earn him more leeway? How many players have we missed on?

Unfortunately, as you've pointed out, it's easily the most invisible and unknowable part of the process.

 

[flyerslducks]

It’s just trash hockey. Playing Thompson in key situations or at all really when you’ve got youth that is better is the kind of stuff that sucked the fun out of it for me during the Hak era. We had the same with Stewart and now with 44.

The systemic approach, I get it. You had to clamp down after game 2 - but they kind of got lucky in my eyes yesterday. This team has deficiencies but we aren’t playing peak Datsyuk/Zetterberg Red Wings here.

its just so bizarre. We have a selke winner and we use thompson more in key situations just because he has decent faceoff numbers...he lost several to suzuki and he still doesn't put couts on. It would somewhat justifiable if couts was terrible at faceoffs but hes not. He did have an off night in FO yesterday but let him fight it through.

 

[Psuhockey]

I find it troubling that for the last decade, all too often a young player has to blow the doors off to earn a real spot. How much marginal talent that could have been groomed into solid depth was ignored and misused, in place of an army of washed up slugs?

NAK was very nearly another addition to that list. We should be asking questions about their development process. Scouting and drafting is great, but it's the first step. What is going on after that? Is it really good enough? If Laughton had been a 3rd rounder, would he still be a depth player here, or did the 1st round investment earn him more leeway? How many players have we missed on?

Unfortunately, as you've pointed out, it's easily the most invisible and unknowable part of the process.

Well they fired the guys involved the development of NAK and anyone over the last 5 years. People are complaining about Frost but the last administration wouldn’t have lived with Myers growing pains this year at the NHL level. So it’s a least a step in the right direction.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Well they fired the guys involved the development of NAK and anyone over the last 5 years. People are complaining about Frost but the last administration wouldn’t have lived with Myers growing pains this year at the NHL level. So it’s a least a step in the right direction.

I very much want Scott Gordon to go away too.

 

[Rebels57]

I very much want Scott Gordon to go away too.

His garbage system is a big reason our prospects aren't able to make seamless transitions to the NHL.

 

[Starat327]

I very much want Scott Gordon to go away too.

Getting rid of Gordon would probably be the biggest future upgrade this team could get for future success.

Obviously that coincides with replacing him with a similar coach to AV.

 

[Beef Invictus]

His garbage system is a big reason our prospects aren't able to make seamless transitions to the NHL.

Which in turn makes it too easy to misjudge players who might have actually been useful.

 

[Rebels57]

Which in turn makes it too easy to misjudge players who might have actually been useful.

Meanwhile, teams that run the same system in the AHL, like Boston for example, have had a lot of success rotating prospects of all types in and out of their bottom 6.

 

[iceman42]

Hard to find your footing when a GM goes out and acquires the 4th line centers of not one, but two non-playoff teams (Anaheim is awful and Montreal was far out of it at the deadline).

Also, in the 20 games Frost did play, he posted positive metrics despite bad puck luck (93.0 PDO) and paced for 30 points. He also had just 6 giveaways. He knows how to take care of the puck. Far better than Grant and Thompson.

https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/f/frostmo01.html

Yes, yes that is all well and good but can he play heavy and can he grow a thick and luscious beard.

 

[StarterHart]

Meanwhile, teams that run the same system in the AHL, like Boston for example, have had a lot of success rotating prospects of all types in and out of their bottom 6.

Why would you do that when you can just get veterans that no one else wants to fill those spots?

 

[CanadianFlyer88]

I find it troubling that for the last decade, all too often a young player has to blow the doors off to earn a real spot. How much marginal talent that could have been groomed into solid depth was ignored and misused, in place of an army of washed up slugs?

NAK was very nearly another addition to that list. We should be asking questions about their development process. Scouting and drafting is great, but it's the first step. What is going on after that? Is it really good enough? If Laughton had been a 3rd rounder, would he still be a depth player here, or did the 1st round investment earn him more leeway? How many players have we missed on?

Unfortunately, as you've pointed out, it's easily the most invisible and unknowable part of the process.

This could apply to almost every team, which is more a failing of the traditional development path for particular "roles" than it is a specific failure of the Flyers organization.

The perception bias of what it means to be a bottom six forward or bottom pair defenseman is infuriating.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

As much as I hate Thompson in this lineup I have a question about getting Frost in. Pretty much everyone has struggled with the pressure Montreal has put on the puck carriers. Especially when the Flyers are on the power play. Decisions with the puck have been below average.
I like the kid and I want him to play I just worry about him getting overwhelmed

 

[deadhead]

I find it troubling that for the last decade, all too often a young player has to blow the doors off to earn a real spot. How much marginal talent that could have been groomed into solid depth was ignored and misused, in place of an army of washed up slugs?

NAK was very nearly another addition to that list. We should be asking questions about their development process. Scouting and drafting is great, but it's the first step. What is going on after that? Is it really good enough? If Laughton had been a 3rd rounder, would he still be a depth player here, or did the 1st round investment earn him more leeway? How many players have we missed on?

Unfortunately, as you've pointed out, it's easily the most invisible and unknowable part of the process.

You make these generalizations without substantiation.

So let's start after 2012-13, when there was no reason to block a young player.
2013-14: Rinaldo and McGinn were 23, were they blocked? Akeson (23) played 13g, 7 PO games and never again sniffed the NHL.
2014-15: Laughton (20) played 31 games, Manning (24) 11g, Cousins (21) 11g, Alt (23) 1g, Lauridsen (25) 1g
2015-16: Laughton started 71 games, Cousins 36g, Manning 56g, Leier (21) 6g, Weal (24) 4g
2016-17: Cousins 60g, Weal 23g, Luby (25) 47g (then back to KHL), Leier 10g, MV (23) 2g
2017-18: Weal 69g, Laughton 81g, Sanheim (21) 49g, Hagg (22) 78gLeier 39g, Alt 8g, Martel 4g, Morin (22) 2g, Lindblom (21) 23g,
2018-19: Lindblom 81g, Myers (22) 21g, Vorobyev (22) 15g, Bailey (23) 11g, Friedman (23) 1g

Who exactly could have been groomed?
Cousins has had a decent career, but the rest? Rinaldo, McGinn, Akeson, Alt, Lauridsen, Leier, Weal, Luby, MV, Martel, Bailey?
Vorobyev got three shots and showed nothing, maybe by 26 he'll be NHL ready.
Friedman should get a shot at a roster spot next year.

Can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

 

[Beef Invictus]

You make these generalizations without substantiation.

So let's start after 2012-13, when there was no reason to block a young player.
2013-14: Rinaldo and McGinn were 23, were they blocked? Akeson (23) played 13g, 7 PO games and never again sniffed the NHL.
2014-15: Laughton (20) played 31 games, Manning (24) 11g, Cousins (21) 11g, Alt (23) 1g, Lauridsen (25) 1g
2015-16: Laughton started 71 games, Cousins 36g, Manning 56g, Leier (21) 6g, Weal (24) 4g
2016-17: Cousins 60g, Weal 23g, Luby (25) 47g (then back to KHL), Leier 10g, MV (23) 2g
2017-18: Weal 69g, Laughton 81g, Sanheim (21) 49g, Hagg (22) 78gLeier 39g, Alt 8g, Martel 4g, Morin (22) 2g, Lindblom (21) 23g,
2018-19: Lindblom 81g, Myers (22) 21g, Vorobyev (22) 15g, Bailey (23) 11g, Friedman (23) 1g

Who exactly could have been groomed?
Cousins has had a decent career, but the rest? Rinaldo, McGinn, Akeson, Alt, Lauridsen, Leier, Weal, Luby, MV, Martel, Bailey?
Vorobyev got three shots and showed nothing, maybe by 26 he'll be NHL ready.
Friedman should get a shot at a roster spot next year.

Can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

That's the thing, we don't know who exactly they've ignored or failed to develop. With marginal players, failure to develop in one place can be enough of a setback to hamstring their careers for good. Unlearning poor development isn't a luxury they have.

I'm skeptical that the people who almost missed out on NAK (as just one example), who was obvious as day, aren't missing on other players.

 

[deadhead]

This could apply to almost every team, which is more a failing of the traditional development path for particular "roles" than it is a specific failure of the Flyers organization.

The perception bias of what it means to be a bottom six forward or bottom pair defenseman is infuriating.

It reflects a paucity of talent, because athletic talent is on the far end of the curve, so there is far more mediocre (replacement level, just above or below, than legitimate top 6/top 4 players).

So coaches work around that, things you'd ask of your first two lines you're often hesitant to ask of your bottom six lines, b/c the risk/reward tradeoff is different - scoring lines can score, so if they take chances there's a real benefit, when less talented lines take the same chances, the costs are the same but the benefits (scoring) is much lower. So you want your less talented lines to be more conservative offensively but more disciplined defensively.

Same on defense, most 3rd pair defensemen shouldn't take the same chances pinching, driving the net, etc. you'll allow a faster, more talented player.

Now if you have great depth, that changes the calculus, but take Frost, after his first two games he had 0-4 4 his next 18 games, so not a lot of benefit having him playing aggressively on offense, but he had a high xGA, or high cost to his style of play. So how do you use him right now? Hope he finds his scoring touch in a tough playoff series and live with his gaffes? Have him play more of a defensive style of play, which he's not well suited to do?

The ideal 3C most of the time is a two way player who is responsible defensively but has enough skill to exploit an opportunity or mismatch on offense. We have that guy, unfortunately he's on IR.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Also, I doubt the miss rate is like 2 to 4 a year or anything drastic. But if it's even one guy every other year (which is quite plausible), then you're still talking about a significant impact to your roster.

 

[deadhead]

That's the thing, we don't know who exactly they've ignored or failed to develop. With marginal players, failure to develop in one place can be enough of a setback to hamstring their careers for good. Unlearning poor development isn't a luxury they have.

I'm skeptical that the people who almost missed out on NAK (as just one example), who was obvious as day, aren't missing on other players.

NAK is the ONLY example, the other guys I listed simply weren't very good, b/c Holmgren had stripped the organization of young talent. And NAK got his shots, he did not stand out in TC, and was sent down to keep Twarynski and Bunnaman. They didn't give up on him and were rewarded.

There's no Patrick Sharpe, who showed flashes and was playing pretty well when they gave him away (for a 3rd rd pick).
The guys who didn't develop here showed nothing elsewhere. I doubt they destroyed McGinn, for example.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

As much as I hate Thompson in this lineup I have a question about getting Frost in. Pretty much everyone has struggled with the pressure Montreal has put on the puck carriers. Especially when the Flyers are on the power play. Decisions with the puck have been below average.
I like the kid and I want him to play I just worry about him getting overwhelmed

How much worse can it get? We’re at about ground level in those areas with no signs of improvement as currently constructed.

You can’t keep mucking it up & hoping for Carter Hart to bail you out. We’ve scored 2, 0, & 1 goals this series against the 12th seed team coming into this whole thing. That’s unacceptable.

 

[Protest]

As much as I hate Thompson in this lineup I have a question about getting Frost in. Pretty much everyone has struggled with the pressure Montreal has put on the puck carriers. Especially when the Flyers are on the power play. Decisions with the puck have been below average.
I like the kid and I want him to play I just worry about him getting overwhelmed

He's not ready. He's not coming in and going to be what we expect Morgan Frost to be in 2 or 3 years. He's a guy who is going to be overwhelmed, but that if left alone in the front of the net will bury the f***ing puck just like Farabee did and that's the whole damn point.

You don't put these guys on the top two lines and send them out to get manhandled by Weber. You stick them on the 4th line and let them bring some skill to the bottom of the lineup. That way when Pitlick causes a turnover you have someone who can actually convert it into a scoring chance instead of some stiff fumbling with the puck like a teenager trying to get a bra off for the first time.

AND when your PP is absolute dog shit and can't do anything you have other options who are creative with the puck instead of stone hands Grant playing way above his pay grade and treating the puck like it's covered in Ebola.

Will he get pinned in his own zone? Yes
Will he turn the puck over? Yes
Will he lose faceoffs? Yes

You know who else will? Nate f***ing Thompson.

You know who won't miss a wide open net from 8 inches away? Morgan Frost or Joel Farabee

What is the point of having homerun draft picks if you don't roll them out in the playoffs against other teams' slobs? How do you have this differentiation as an organization and refuse to utilize it?

Sorry, that anger wasn't aimed at you. I'm just so f***ing tired of having the same damn conversation over and over again. The point isn't about kids coming in to save the day, the point is that deferring to veterans solely because they're veterans is illogical. It's not John Madden out there anchoring our checking line.

 

[Beef Invictus]

NAK is the ONLY example, the other guys I listed simply weren't very good, b/c Holmgren had stripped the organization of young talent. And NAK got his shots, he did not stand out in TC, and was sent down to keep Twarynski and Bunnaman. They didn't give up on him and were rewarded.

There's no Patrick Sharpe, who showed flashes and was playing pretty well when they gave him away (for a 3rd rd pick).
The guys who didn't develop here showed nothing elsewhere. I doubt they destroyed McGinn, for example.

NAK didn't have shots. 6 minutes a night under Hakstol isn't a shot.

Again, we really have no idea who of these players they've missed on; because, they missed. Like I said, these guys pretty much have to blow the doors off to stick. In the last decade we also have Gus, who outperformed half our defense and wasn't appreciated despite being a clear roster upgrade. Morin outperformed Hagg and other existing dmen, and never got a real shot. Frost is currently being neglected for no good reason. Bunnaman too. What impact is that having on their development and perception?

The Pimp has skill, but he flat-out wasn't turning it into something at the NHL level. That's hardly all his fault. The people in charge of making him an NHL player are to blame too.

If Laughton had been the same player, but had been taken a few rounds later, he wouldn't be on this team or have had the chances he has year after year. Who else can fall into that camp?

I mean really, what do you think is more likely? That they've erred and missed on some players, or have never made this error and haven't ever missed on anyone?

 

[Magua]

Still the best Flyers quote I’ve heard in some time. Goddamn right, Nic.

 

[Cmoneyflyguy]

You'd never know from this thread this is a team that has won 15 out of their last 17 games.
Odd
How many games have they lost since the trades?
Must suck to not be able to enjoy that ride...