Post-Game Talk: #69 | Leafs at Flyers | March 19, 2024 | Flyers win 4-3

[Strawberry Fields]

 

[bennysflyers16]

There have been several articles about how the quality of Coots play has tanked since December. The eye test works too. I agree he’s still been “fine” defensively, but this is about way more than just his linemates.

Of course, that begs the question “why name him captain now?” when his play was slipping for the better part of 2 months. But that’s a different discussion.

At any rate, I don’t expect a one time public flogging (regardless of whether it was necessary or not) to end Coots 12 year mutual love affair with this team.

It’s just Torts pulling a lever the same way he has all throughout his tenure. There’s no deep meaning or evil plan to fracture the locker room or cast Couturier out behind it.

But won't pull the lever with much worse players, it doesn't add up, its an ego thing for him, hes the boss.

 

[freakydallas13]

Is the coach accusing Couts of dogging it out there? What is the message Couts is supposed to take away from this, especially since Torts apparantly hasn't told Couts anything?

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

There have been good wins this year. I get the victory laps after those. But after a game where the Flyers were outplayed by a team that looked like they took this game for granted?

I am not sure the Flyers were out played but the Flyers were definitely playing not to lose after the 3-0 goal. This game could of been 9-7 with different puck luck

 

[VladDrag]

Advanced stats are really great, but situations matter. If you outplay a team to a 3-0 lead (as the flyers did) and then shell up in the 3rd (which the flyers also did), it’s expected that the xGoals might favor the other team. But you wouldn’t have been playing that way if the actual score wasn’t what it was.

I’d prefer if we didn’t play that way in the first place and continued to play our game instead of going hyper-conservative, but Torts gonna Torts.

I think they deserved that win.

Yeah, I can buy that. I would agree that situations matter.

But the Flyers weren't dominant through the first two periods. They got three long range goals that likely don't result in goals more often than not (the Sanheim goal was a bit of a better chance, but the Tippett and Frost goals were nothing shots that typically don't end up as goals).

Through 2 periods and at 5v5, Toronto was slightly leading the xG battle, but supremely dominating the Corsi battle. Toronto doubled up the Flyers in total shot attempts in the 2nd period. The xG differential would have been more significant if the Flyers didn't block 17 shots in the second period alone. Now, I'm not saying shot blocking isn't important - quite clearly it is. But when we talk about who is pressing play vs who is on the back foot, the team who is shooting more is clearly pressing more than the team who is defending. Toronto clearly was a more dangerous team through 2 periods. I can think of two grade A chances (the Nylander post after he deked through the Flyers, and the Cam York block on Domi's shot) that more often than not, turn into a goal.

With that being said - It's not the Flyers fault that they were in the situation they were in. Toronto's goaltending sucked, and they took advantage of it. So, while I understand what you're saying, and agree to an extent - they still were outplayed, and were lucky the game wasn't tied going into the 3rd period.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

They're on course to remain in the Montreal Hell for years to come. Make playoffs occasionally (not impressive as bad teams make it every year) and then have no chance of winning.

I mean that sounds more like the Philadelphia Hell we are living in since the end of the 80s teams that were regular contenders. Problem is it sounds like people want it both ways. We want to tank and get a high pick. I am with that. We should sell off most of this roster. I don't expect a deep run in the playoffs but at this point it's too late to root for a tank and ugly or not they keep winning. I'm ready to see what happens this season and set the sights on the rebuild once they're eliminated.

But then you have the same people complaining about these things also were mad that Sanheim was almost traded for a first or that worse players are getting playing time over better players. These are things that we should be happy about in a rebuild. Obviously the Sanheim trade had a lot of moving parts and we don't know the real situation, but a first from St. Louis for him would have given us three for the upcoming draft and potential trade chip in Tory Krug if he played decent, and if he didn't the team achieves the tank goal. So we would have achieved two goals there in getting draft capital AND having a worse defense. Would that be the best deal ever for Sanheim, no but it is a step in the right direction. Nic Deslauriers sucks and gets minutes over better players and Frost and others are being benched or not utilized properly or whatever. If we play better players and use them in better situations, wouldn't this team be doing even better than they are now? They're top 3 in the division with guys like Nic Deslauriers playing on a nightly basis and they're a few wins away from clinching.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Were they really outplayed? From inside the building, it felt like we were thoroughly outplaying Toronto for the bulk of the first 2 periods. A brutal penalty call followed by a powerplay goal and “playing the score” (read as “Tortleshell”) turned the tide in the 3rd, but I think they deserved that win.

While Nylander was probably the most dangerous individual player, I thought Tippett-Frost-Konecny was probably the most dominant line from either team and inexplicably, Torts refused to play them as we were trying to “hang on” down the stretch, electing to go with his “forechecking” (read as “lose a faceoff then shell up and block shots”) lines instead.

Absolutely. Flyers easily lose that one if any of the myriad lucky bounces go the other way. Toronto was producing a lot of Grade A chances.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I mean that sounds more like the Philadelphia Hell we are living in since the end of the 80s teams that were regular contenders. Problem is it sounds like people want it both ways. We want to tank and get a high pick. I am with that. We should sell off most of this roster. I don't expect a deep run in the playoffs but at this point it's too late to root for a tank and ugly or not they keep winning. I'm ready to see what happens this season and set the sights on the rebuild once they're eliminated.

But then you have the same people complaining about these things also were mad that Sanheim was almost traded for a first or that worse players are getting playing time over better players. These are things that we should be happy about in a rebuild. Obviously the Sanheim trade had a lot of moving parts and we don't know the real situation, but a first from St. Louis for him would have given us three for the upcoming draft and potential trade chip in Tory Krug if he played decent, and if he didn't the team achieves the tank goal. So we would have achieved two goals there in getting draft capital AND having a worse defense. Would that be the best deal ever for Sanheim, no but it is a step in the right direction. Nic Deslauriers sucks and gets minutes over better players and Frost and others are being benched or not utilized properly or whatever. If we play better players and use them in better situations, wouldn't this team be doing even better than they are now? They're top 3 in the division with guys like Nic Deslauriers playing on a nightly basis and they're a few wins away from clinching.

Are we doing the thing where all of the opinions expressed on the board are amalgamated to represent a fictional person?

 

[freakydallas13]

People aren't mad we kept Sanheim and didn't trade for Krug. People are mad this team whiffed on yet another pro evaluation and it almost cost them again.

Trading Sanheim for assets to further the rebuild is a good thing, but that is not what the team had in mind. "We had no idea Sanheim was this good! Thank god we didn't trade him" is not what you want your GM saying, because it means they blindly lucked into making the right choice; they didn't make this choice as the result of good process thinking.

As always, you want the team to show you the process over the results. It's why the Ellis trade should be viewed as a good one despite the results. It's why a bunch of Briere moves are concerning despite the positives of their results, because the reason they made those positive result moves reek of more Flyers middle ground mediocrity thinking.

 

[ponder719]

What is the message Couts is supposed to take away from this

That his coach is a prick. Tortorella isn't bothering to communicate any message more meaningful than that, from the sound of things.

 

[Hexxxy]

Benching Coots is a Torts Psyop. He's trying to trigger a sense of urgency -- and anger. BC the team doesn't have the talent, he knows the team needs an edge. The team can outplay the best teams when "smelling the vapors". Looks like wants to stoke anger and urgency. There's what like 14 games left? It's a desperate ploy but it worked and may continue to work.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

You can be happy all you want about this season but don't be dismissive about the concerns that a lot of posters have about the current state of the team. At the end of your first paragraph you admitted that you don't think the team is built for a deep run or that they will be better off next year, and then proceeded to say at this point what are we complaining about. That is exactly what we are complaining about.

Some posters would like a team that is capable of having deep playoff runs and having a decent chance at winning the cup and not just some long shot "get in and we will see" mentality and it's lame to complain about the people who aren't "enjoying the wins" who have valid reasons not to enjoy the wins

I think you misunderstood the post. I'm not saying this is the model we should stick with or that it is a winning formula. It isn't. I'm saying we're complaining about things that at this point in the season are moot points. They're going to make the playoffs it looks like and they're winning games even if they aren't doing it in the way we want them to do it. I'm not going to complain that they didn't trade PLAYER X or that Torts doesn't coach the way I want or that veterans are favored over young players when we are about to make the playoffs in a year the team was supposed to be competing for the #1 OA pick. I 100% would have preferred fighting for that #1 pick we're here now. Look at the complaints in this thread. It's basically "Yeah they won but they didn't deserve to win." "I can't believe that these players were on the ice at this time of the game." "Torts sucks but the media will say how great he is." "They're going to lose in the playoffs." "Playoff experience isn't important." "Culture isn't important." Blah blah blah and so forth and so on.

We're past all that. For better or worse this team is a playoff team. I can't pinpoint the reason, but it is no longer really viable to call it a fluke. I'm sure people will say they are doing this in spite of Torts and in spite of the roster moves, but it is also possible that people were wrong and this team is just better than we thought. Admitting that doesn't mean you think this team is a Cup contender. It doesn't mean you think that the rebuild is over. It just means we were wrong. Not a big deal. Much rather be wrong about them sucking and making the playoffs than be wrong about them being good and missing the playoffs.

Are we doing the thing where all of the opinions expressed on the board are amalgamated to represent a fictional person?

Not a fictional person but just the general ideas that are regularly floated on the board. Not directed at any specific person but these are the complaints we've been hearing all year.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I think you misunderstood the post. I'm not saying this is the model we should stick with or that it is a winning formula. It isn't. I'm saying we're complaining about things that at this point in the season are moot points. They're going to make the playoffs it looks like and they're winning games even if they aren't doing it in the way we want them to do it. I'm not going to complain that they didn't trade PLAYER X or that Torts doesn't coach the way I want or that veterans are favored over young players when we are about to make the playoffs in a year the team was supposed to be competing for the #1 OA pick. I 100% would have preferred fighting for that #1 pick we're here now. Look at the complaints in this thread. It's basically "Yeah they won but they didn't deserve to win." "I can't believe that these players were on the ice at this time of the game." "Torts sucks but the media will say how great he is." "They're going to lose in the playoffs." "Playoff experience isn't important." "Culture isn't important." Blah blah blah and so forth and so on.

We're past all that. For better or worse this team is a playoff team. I can't pinpoint the reason, but it is no longer really viable to call it a fluke. I'm sure people will say they are doing this in spite of Torts and in spite of the roster moves, but it is also possible that people were wrong and this team is just better than we thought. Admitting that doesn't mean you think this team is a Cup contender. It doesn't mean you think that the rebuild is over. It just means we were wrong. Not a big deal. Much rather be wrong about them sucking and making the playoffs than be wrong about them being good and missing the playoffs.


Not a fictional person but just the general ideas that are regularly floated on the board. Not directed at any specific person but these are the complaints we've been hearing all year.

I think it seems valid to be miffed at the team for completely missing on a Sanheim evaluation so badly and getting lucky that Krug refused to come here. They get that wrong, they can get anything wrong.

 

[CerpinTaxt]

I think you misunderstood the post. I'm not saying this is the model we should stick with or that it is a winning formula. It isn't. I'm saying we're complaining about things that at this point in the season are moot points. They're going to make the playoffs it looks like and they're winning games even if they aren't doing it in the way we want them to do it. I'm not going to complain that they didn't trade PLAYER X or that Torts doesn't coach the way I want or that veterans are favored over young players when we are about to make the playoffs in a year the team was supposed to be competing for the #1 OA pick. I 100% would have preferred fighting for that #1 pick we're here now. Look at the complaints in this thread. It's basically "Yeah they won but they didn't deserve to win." "I can't believe that these players were on the ice at this time of the game." "Torts sucks but the media will say how great he is." "They're going to lose in the playoffs." "Playoff experience isn't important." "Culture isn't important." Blah blah blah and so forth and so on.

We're past all that. For better or worse this team is a playoff team. I can't pinpoint the reason, but it is no longer really viable to call it a fluke. I'm sure people will say they are doing this in spite of Torts and in spite of the roster moves, but it is also possible that people were wrong and this team is just better than we thought. Admitting that doesn't mean you think this team is a Cup contender. It doesn't mean you think that the rebuild is over. It just means we were wrong. Not a big deal. Much rather be wrong about them sucking and making the playoffs than be wrong about them being good and missing the playoffs.


Not a fictional person but just the general ideas that are regularly floated on the board. Not directed at any specific person but these are the complaints we've been hearing all year.

Just nitpicking here but there's plenty of time and plenty of teams that can catch up and knock the Flyers out of playoff position. They are in a playoff position but certainly not a playoff team

And I don't think the team being "better" than what we thought they were means we were wrong about them. If they pull off a miracle and win the cup then I think you can say we were wrong about them. We're not even asking for them to win the cup this year, we are just asking for a better process from everyone involved. They are set to wallow in mediocrity for years and it almost seems like the brass wants it that way with the decisions they make

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

I think it seems valid to be miffed at the team for completely missing on a Sanheim evaluation so badly and getting lucky that Krug refused to come here. They get that wrong, they can get anything wrong.

I mean I guess. The other side of that is that Sanheim is going to be on the downside of his career when things turn around here (assuming they ever turn around) and getting a first for him while also bringing a worse player in would have been better for the tank, no? This is where I don't understand the complaints a lot of the time. Scott Laughton everyone is pissed they didn't get a first for him and he is still here and useless for the rebuild. Travis Sanheim everyone is happy we didn't get a first for him in a move that would have accelerated the rebuild. This is where the confusion stems from. I would 100% have preferred to trade Sanheim and get that first along with Krug. That is a rebuilding move. I'm not going to pretend it is a great trade by any means, but getting that first PLUS having Krug instead of Sanheim in the lineup now puts us in a worse position in the standings with now three first round picks, plus a contract that ends sooner which will provide more flexibility at a time when we may be able to sign a big name UFA or even use Krug as a trade chip if he plays well. IDK about you but I prefer that scenario to having Sanheim on this team right now. A team that we all know needs a lot more work than what's been done.

Not a knock at Sanheim but just the reality that if we want to do a real rebuild that would have been a great start to it. Yes, trading Laughton and others would have been good for that too if the rumors were true about him, but that doesn't have any bearing on the trade they tried to make involving Sanheim.

 

[ponder719]

I mean I guess. The other side of that is that Sanheim is going to be on the downside of his career when things turn around here (assuming they ever turn around) and getting a first for him while also bringing a worse player in would have been better for the tank, no? This is where I don't understand the complaints a lot of the time. Scott Laughton everyone is pissed they didn't get a first for him and he is still here and useless for the rebuild. Travis Sanheim everyone is happy we didn't get a first for him in a move that would have accelerated the rebuild. This is where the confusion stems from. I would 100% have preferred to trade Sanheim and get that first along with Krug. That is a rebuilding move. I'm not going to pretend it is a great trade by any means, but getting that first PLUS having Krug instead of Sanheim in the lineup now puts us in a worse position in the standings with now three first round picks, plus a contract that ends sooner which will provide more flexibility at a time when we may be able to sign a big name UFA or even use Krug as a trade chip if he plays well. IDK about you but I prefer that scenario to having Sanheim on this team right now. A team that we all know needs a lot more work than what's been done.

Not a knock at Sanheim but just the reality that if we want to do a real rebuild that would have been a great start to it. Yes, trading Laughton and others would have been good for that too if the rumors were true about him, but that doesn't have any bearing on the trade they tried to make involving Sanheim.

Simple answer here is that a first for the player Laughton is would be a solid return. Accepting a deal of that nature is good process; rejecting it is not. A first and a severe cap dump for the player Sanheim is falls short of what he should be worth. Accepting a deal of that nature is not good process; letting Sanheim prove he's worth more, then getting more, is good process.

What's most important, beyond any amount of signaling that they're ready for a rebuild, is signaling that they understand our players' value, and skill sets, and how to maximize both. The team hasn't displayed a good process yet, so of course they'll get criticized for decisions that don't make sense holistically.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

I mean I guess. The other side of that is that Sanheim is going to be on the downside of his career when things turn around here (assuming they ever turn around) and getting a first for him while also bringing a worse player in would have been better for the tank, no? This is where I don't understand the complaints a lot of the time. Scott Laughton everyone is pissed they didn't get a first for him and he is still here and useless for the rebuild. Travis Sanheim everyone is happy we didn't get a first for him in a move that would have accelerated the rebuild. This is where the confusion stems from. I would 100% have preferred to trade Sanheim and get that first along with Krug. That is a rebuilding move. I'm not going to pretend it is a great trade by any means, but getting that first PLUS having Krug instead of Sanheim in the lineup now puts us in a worse position in the standings with now three first round picks, plus a contract that ends sooner which will provide more flexibility at a time when we may be able to sign a big name UFA or even use Krug as a trade chip if he plays well. IDK about you but I prefer that scenario to having Sanheim on this team right now. A team that we all know needs a lot more work than what's been done.

The disconnect here is that you can't cut off timelines like that. Sanheim is worth more in a trade today than he was in the summer. There was meaningful upside to holding on to July 2023 Travis Sanheim that someone like July 2023 Laughton didn't have. Whether or not they ultimately cash in on that is a separate issue.

I'm willing to trade everyone including Michkov. No one would give you enough to make it worthwhile to even consider trading him, but I'm all ears. At some point, you do have to trade players you don't particularly want to trade.

 

[FromOyVey2Matvei]

But won't pull the lever with much worse players, it doesn't add up, its an ego thing for him, hes the boss.

Again, I don’t agree with his methods.

I think there’s a better way to handle it, but I don’t think he handled Coots in some especially dirty fashion. He gave Coots the same treatment he gave to Atkinson, who we all know Torts absolutely adores. He ignored Coots slipping play for a month+ then he moved him down the lineup and indirectly called him out as one of the players he needs more from (didn’t do it by name, but it was obvious he was one of the ones Torts was talking about). And when that didn’t work, he benched him. It’s the exact same thing he did to Atkinson, except this board (myself included) f***ing hates Atkinson while they (myself included) largely love Coots.

It’s obvious that Torts has different standards for different players. He judges Deslauriers different than he judges Coots. I don’t like that. I want us to ice the best lineup possible every night. But this is how Torts does it and its consistent.

 

[BritainStix]

He's a consistent asshole. That's for sure.

 

[trostol]

i see tank is again being thrown around...a majority of people want a better process of the rebuild...very few have actually said tank

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Simple answer here is that a first for the player Laughton is would be a solid return. Accepting a deal of that nature is good process; rejecting it is not. A first and a severe cap dump for the player Sanheim is falls short of what he should be worth. Accepting a deal of that nature is not good process; letting Sanheim prove he's worth more, then getting more, is good process.

What's most important, beyond any amount of signaling that they're ready for a rebuild, is signaling that they understand our players' value, and skill sets, and how to maximize both. The team hasn't displayed a good process yet, so of course they'll get criticized for decisions that don't make sense holistically.

Like I said, the trade wouldn't have been a great trade. I am not suggesting that at all and said that. But that is a rebuild move. If they could have gotten more elsewhere, they should have. But my guess is they couldn't.

The disconnect here is that you can't cut off timelines like that. Sanheim is worth more in a trade today than he was in the summer. There was meaningful upside to holding on to July 2023 Travis Sanheim that someone like July 2023 Laughton didn't have.

Sure, that's the case now but that was far from a guarantee during the Krug trade-saga and his value next season very well may go back to what it has been, which is why they should trade him at the draft. Laughton I don't think his value has changed. I think we have two things going on: either the Flyers just aren't interested in trading him (which seems to be the case) or that the rumors about his value last TDL were inaccurate, or some combination of the two. I suspect Laughton will be dealt eventually and I think Sanheim should be dealt at the draft.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

Sure, that's the case now but that was far from a guarantee during the Krug trade-saga and his value next season very well may go back to what it has been, which is why they should trade him at the draft. Laughton I don't think his value has changed. I think we have two things going on: either the Flyers just aren't interested in trading him (which seems to be the case) or that the rumors about his value last TDL were inaccurate, or some combination of the two. I suspect Laughton will be dealt eventually and I think Sanheim should be dealt at the draft.

How can it be that Sanheim's value can tank from here, but Laughton having a truly putrid season didn't change his? I feel like we have to pick a lane on that one.

I would also note that Sanheim was coming off of the worst season of his career last year, so betting on a bounceback was reasonable, albeit not definite.

 

[Flyerfan4life]

I think it seems valid to be miffed at the team for completely missing on a Sanheim evaluation so badly and getting lucky that Krug refused to come here. They get that wrong, they can get anything wrong.

Ghost says hello....

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

How can it be that Sanheim's value can tank from here, but Laughton having a truly putrid season didn't change his? I feel like we have to pick a lane on that one.

I would also note that Sanheim was coming off of the worst season of his career last year, so betting on a bounceback was reasonable, albeit not definite.

Because Laughton is a reliable bottom six guy on a reaosnable contract. Sanheim is an up and down player on a 100 year contract over $6 million. One of those is a risk and the other isn't. One of those is a known commodity that is always in demand. Sanheim there's a lot of differing opinions on his skill and value throughout his career who is signed through I think 2031 or 2032. If Sanheim was on another team I can't imagine posters here would be happy paying out the ass for a 28 year old on a big contract who has had an up and down career (I know, I know, it is only because the Flyers forced him to not play well that he didn't play well, it has nothing to do with him).

 

[FromOyVey2Matvei]

Absolutely. Flyers easily lose that one if any of the myriad lucky bounces go the other way. Toronto was producing a lot of Grade A chances.

They absolutely were. It’s just that the bulk of those grade A chances occurred in the 3rd after the game was 3-0 Flyers. We were the clearly better team through 2.

We self-neutered our offense to crater up and protect our lead and in so doing, we allowed Toronto a lot of possession, which players like Nylander and Matthews feast on.

If we entered the period up 3-2 and it was 3-3 after that powerplay goal, our play style would’ve been completely different. The 6 on 5 situation where they piled on a lot of grade A chances also would’ve never occurred if not for the scoreline.

Again, I would’ve much preferred to not see us Tortshell up, but we deserved that game. We played better, built a big lead and then took the foot off the gas. Did we deserve to have such a big lead to piss away? Probably not. Should’ve been a 1 goal lead (2 at ) entering the 3rd. But you can’t say they were “outplayed” when it was a deliberate tactical switch by both teams in response to the score.