Confirmed with Link: Ivan Provorov Signs Extension - 6 Years/$40.5M ($6.75AAV)

[Beef Invictus]

I'm not interesting in getting further off topic, but aside from the change in personnel usage the Hakshell also features a switch from offensive zone entry emphasizing controlled possession to one emphasizing dumps. Just throwing that out for clarification.

 

[Magua]

Someone just post the tied, down, leading stats.

 

[Striiker]

The personnel choices change the way the team plays.

You take out competent players and double (triple?) shift useless ones, and suddenly you’re not trying to move the puck and attack like you did for the rest of the game.

You’re holding on for dear life and throwing the puck to the neutral zone, hoping you can get off the ice instead of getting caught on an icing.

I went in other teams GDTs and saw that they mocked it last year. It’s no secret.

 

[Magua]

I went in other teams GDTs and saw that they mocked it last year. It’s no secret.

f***ing amateurs.

Their poor brains can’t even comprehend how deep the making-fun-of-Hakstol rabbit hole goes.

 

[FLYguy3911]

Someone just post the tied, down, leading stats.

I would but I don’t want to hear about Matt Read or Dale Weise again.

 

[Adtar02]

There is definitely a change in the way they are coached to play. Dumps leading to trying to stop zone entry. Then deploy hagg and Macdonald. To stand them up at the blue line. Or provy with whoever and put in the slow forwards so he has no one to pass to leaving the zone.


Quite frankly it’s ingenious

 

[Striiker]

****ing amateurs.

Their poor brains can’t even comprehend how deep the making-fun-of-Hakstol rabbit hole goes.

Obviously Hakstol needs to be fired... but it’s a little sad that all the Hakstol art will go to waste.

Poor @Captain Dave Poulin has entire hard drives full of the stuff.

 

[flyersfan187]

Ghost and Provy was gold in the regular season because of their high iqs together you could just see they knew where each other would be. Watching them together made the games entertaining alone.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

Obviously Hakstol needs to be fired... but it’s a little sad that all the Hakstol art will go to waste.

Poor @Captain Dave Poulin has entire hard drives full of the stuff.

I have spent so much time working on his face, and I can tell you that I wouldn't mind a change to someone else incompetent who has a more regular and workable face. I couldn't begin to explain why it's wrong, but I found out doing the Big Lebowski parody that it is very, very wrong. It goes without saying that everything that goes on above and inside the face is completely wrong too, obviously.

 

[Ruck Over]

The “Hakshell” isn’t a change in system. Posters bandy this about & cant even agree if the term represents a system change or personnel usage. Well, it’s sure not much of a system change. Most of it is they are a mediocre team that struggles to get it out of the defensive zone against urgent pressure & end up icing the puck too much, which all leads to more defensive zone time. People blindly contribute this to a system change. It’s not. It’s a personnel issue. Even the guy who created the “Fire Hakstok” thread had the awareness to realize the “Hakshell,” as a system change, is a lie. Now, if you dispute some of the personnel deployment, I agree there’s some legitimate questions there.

The coach is aware of the players chosen to close out games. If known capable players are benched so incompetent players are iced, then that is a systematic choice. We may be splitting hairs, as it all leads back to the coach, who makes the decisions on which players compete at a given moment, and the general structure those players are to use. "Hakshell" is more of a system change, in that the Flyers are often successful when they are more aggressive, and unsuccessful when passive. Choosing to be passive is a system the coach utilizes to protect leads. It all comes back to the comments made by Alexi Kovalev, coaches are ruining the game by teaching fear. Watching a game, it's easy to see when the players have a green light (often when they're winning, and not a game stolen by a goalie- the win over VGK is an example of a fluke win), and a red light (pick a time the Bruins tied a late game, and usually won in OT, end of season game excluded by fortune).

 

[Ruck Over]

I would but I don’t want to hear about Matt Read or Dale Weise again.

Take one for the team!

 

[deadhead]

The coach is aware of the players chosen to close out games. If known capable players are benched so incompetent players are iced, then that is a systematic choice. We may be splitting hairs, as it all leads back to the coach, who makes the decisions on which players compete at a given moment, and the general structure those players are to use. "Hakshell" is more of a system change, in that the Flyers are often successful when they are more aggressive, and unsuccessful when passive. Choosing to be passive is a system the coach utilizes to protect leads. It all comes back to the comments made by Alexi Kovalev, coaches are ruining the game by teaching fear. Watching a game, it's easy to see when the players have a green light (often when they're winning, and not a game stolen by a goalie- the win over VGK is an example of a fluke win), and a red light (pick a time the Bruins tied a late game, and usually won in OT, end of season game excluded by fortune).

The earth still moves and the team still wins.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

The coach is aware of the players chosen to close out games. If known capable players are benched so incompetent players are iced, then that is a systematic choice. We may be splitting hairs, as it all leads back to the coach, who makes the decisions on which players compete at a given moment, and the general structure those players are to use. "Hakshell" is more of a system change, in that the Flyers are often successful when they are more aggressive, and unsuccessful when passive. Choosing to be passive is a system the coach utilizes to protect leads. It all comes back to the comments made by Alexi Kovalev, coaches are ruining the game by teaching fear. Watching a game, it's easy to see when the players have a green light (often when they're winning, and not a game stolen by a goalie- the win over VGK is an example of a fluke win), and a red light (pick a time the Bruins tied a late game, and usually won in OT, end of season game excluded by fortune).

No, the Flyers actually succeeded when they adjusted to a more defensive 1-2-2 compared to their more aggressive 1-1-3.

If you want to complain about Hakstol’s roster usage in the late minutes with a lead, fine. But there was no major system change.

 

[hatcher]

The coach is aware of the players chosen to close out games. If known capable players are benched so incompetent players are iced, then that is a systematic choice. We may be splitting hairs, as it all leads back to the coach, who makes the decisions on which players compete at a given moment, and the general structure those players are to use. "Hakshell" is more of a system change, in that the Flyers are often successful when they are more aggressive, and unsuccessful when passive. Choosing to be passive is a system the coach utilizes to protect leads. It all comes back to the comments made by Alexi Kovalev, coaches are ruining the game by teaching fear. Watching a game, it's easy to see when the players have a green light (often when they're winning, and not a game stolen by a goalie- the win over VGK is an example of a fluke win), and a red light (pick a time the Bruins tied a late game, and usually won in OT, end of season game excluded by fortune).

Caps sit back also and keep it to the out side and counter attack with turnovers in the neutral zone. Hey they won the cup and could put anyone on the ice. Regular season games for the most part are boring and teams are just trying to get threw the year healthy. What you saw from top to bottom in the lineup more so the top end is what you see when the playoffs start which isnt much. If all games were played like a cup game flyers wouldnt win many at all no matter who the coach is.

 

[hatcher]

No, the Flyers actually succeeded when they adjusted to a more defensive 1-2-2 compared to their more aggressive 1-1-3.

If you want to complain about Hakstol’s roster usage in the late minutes with a lead, fine. But there was no major system change.

Hak coaches the same as many coaches including Gallant. 1-2-2 and a low to high offence. Hey he was coach of the year because players played above expectations and then really got it going in the playoffs. There top players played the others teams best and were awesome so the coach looks awesome to.

 

[Adtar02]

No, the Flyers actually succeeded when they adjusted to a more defensive 1-2-2 compared to their more aggressive 1-1-3.

If you want to complain about Hakstol’s roster usage in the late minutes with a lead, fine. But there was no major system change.

two different things. and yes he simplified the structure cause the rookies and d-man were struggling with the three at the back.

during the 1-2-2 they were still agressive and forecheck hard and tight in the neutral zone. the "hakshell" is a bit over the top but the stopped playing agressive. less pinching and controled entries to dump and chase with one fore checker. and he would deploy Mac and Hagg. to stop people at the blue line. Like I said before ingenious to use those two in such a role they are the best in the league at backing into there own zone,

 

[hatcher]

Best dman on this team easy and he should get 7mil for 8yrs.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

two different things. and yes he simplified the structure cause the rookies and d-man were struggling with the three at the back.

during the 1-2-2 they were still agressive and forecheck hard and tight in the neutral zone. the "hakshell" is a bit over the top but the stopped playing agressive. less pinching and controled entries to dump and chase with one fore checker. and he would deploy Mac and Hagg. to stop people at the blue line. Like I said before ingenious to use those two in such a role they are the best in the league at backing into there own zone,

The switch to a more passive 1-2-2 helped. It was a good adjustment. They were getting killed when their top two forecheckers ended up behind the puck way too often.

Arguments that Hak changes his system dramatically late with the lead are wrong. He has a mediocre team, & against amped up pressure they struggle exiting the zone & ice it a lot. It leads to increased d-zone time, but it’s not because of a system change. If you want to argue about his personnel usage, I agree it’s probably not what I would do. But the system doesn’t go into a shell. That’s just a fabrication.

 

[deadhead]

Exactly who is talented enough to engage in "controlled possession" entering the O-zone?
Voracek and ???

I've seen TK stripped numerous times trying to skate past a defender, which is why he figured out if he just dumps it past the defender he can beat him to the puck if he's not interfered with (now that's another issue, refs not calling that).

A lot of what Hakstol does is recognition of limited talent, and the system is designed to get offense out of his defensemen, when Manning, MacDonald and Gudas are in the top half of 5x5 defensemen in offense, well, . . . Flyers were 2nd in goals by defensemen.

Flyers were 16th in GF/60 and 7th in GA/60 5x5. So they were average offensively and top ten defensively.
Given their lack of offensive talent (only 6 forwards with 10 or more ES goals), that's not a bad performance.

 

[Adtar02]

The switch to a more passive 1-2-2 helped. It was a good adjustment. They were getting killed when their top two forecheckers ended up behind the puck way too often.

Arguments that Hak changes his system dramatically late with the lead are wrong. He has a mediocre team, & against amped up pressure they struggle exiting the zone & ice it a lot. It leads to increased d-zone time, but it’s not because of a system change. If you want to argue about his personnel usage, I agree it’s probably not what I would do. But the system doesn’t go into a shell. That’s just a fabrication.

it wasnt more passive 1-2-2. it was structure that changed. Passive came to play at the end of games. Yes the other team up preasure but there was way less of the style that would get them the lead.

 

[Adtar02]

Exactly who is talented enough to engage in "controlled possession" entering the O-zone?
Voracek and ???

I've seen TK stripped numerous times trying to skate past a defender, which is why he figured out if he just dumps it past the defender he can beat him to the puck if he's not interfered with (now that's another issue, refs not calling that).

A lot of what Hakstol does is recognition of limited talent, and the system is designed to get offense out of his defensemen, when Manning, MacDonald and Gudas are in the top half of 5x5 defensemen in offense, well, . . . Flyers were 2nd in goals by defensemen.

Flyers were 16th in GF/60 and 7th in GA/60 5x5. So they were average offensively and top ten defensively.
Given their lack of offensive talent (only 6 forwards with 10 or more ES goals), that's not a bad performance.

not sure if you are serious here. but you definitely confirmed you dont watch!!!

 

[Ghosts Beer]

it wasnt more passive 1-2-2. it was structure that changed. Passive came to play at the end of games. Yes the other team up preasure but there was way less of the style that would get them the lead.

It absolutely was more passive. It kept a second forechecker much deeper than previously.

 

[deadhead]

not sure if you are serious here. but you definitely confirmed you dont watch!!!

Notice you didn't answer the question.

 

[Rebels57]

not sure if you are serious here. but you definitely confirmed you dont watch!!!

That was even up for debate?

 

[Mkoll]

Notice you didn't answer the question.

you'd know all about not answering questions