Podcast (Audio) Bobby Clarke says Hextall didn't listen to scouts, Makar should have been picked

[Embiid]

As with most GM's, Clarke's results were a mixed bag. His biggest issues were his mouth and his ego. That being said, most of my fondest memories as a Flyers fan were with Clarke at the helm and if it just ended in 2006, I wouldn't have any gripe with him.

The fact that he is still involved a lot more than we even realized, in 2022 while he is in his 70's, is a f***ing joke. I almost wonder if he saw Snider's death as an opportunity to weasel his way back into the decision-making room because I didn't hear any rumblings of his involvement between his resignation in 2006 and 2016 when Snider died.

That is what most likely happened ...weaseling his way back in with his influence after Snider passed because as a condition of taking the GM job Hextall asked Snider that he not be subject to outside influences when it came to making decisions...unfortunately Hextall took it to an extreme level.

 

[Rebels57]

That is what most likely happened ...weaseling his way back in with his influence after Snider passed because as a condition of taking the GM job Hextall asked Snider that he not be subject to outside influences when it came to making decisions...unfortunately Hextall took it to an extreme level.

I don't even buy that anymore. I believe that Hextall had A LOT of issues, but this Alumni nonsense now just smacks of egomaniacs like Clarke having their feelings hurt because they were no longer "advisors," which THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ANYWAY.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Embarrassing the level of hate for Clarke in here. He wasn't the best, but he put a competitive team on the ice right up to cap era. Guessing many fans here weren't old enough to see that though.

A good number of GMs did a better job. A much better job. He crippled himself with his own ego and that's pretty unforgiveable and insufferable.

I saw it from about 85. After the 86-87 squad which was my favorite...the wheels started to come off and Clarke let the team atrophy and it ushered in 5 years of no playoffs. His Poulin and Propp trades were another example of his stupidity. The guy was not a good GM...period!

And McCrimmon. Breaking up the best D pair in the league over ego was a major part of that atrophy.

And the tool has the audacity to accuse Hextall of putting himself before the team.

 

[deadhead]

I don't think the problem is "senior advisors," a smart GM would listen, exploit their networks to garner information, then do what he wants to do.
Hextall was a control freak, and that was his downfall.

The problem is I don't know if Scott knows enough about the NHL to filter the advice he gets. In that case, one can imagine the "angel/devil" scenario, Holmgren perched on one shoulder, Clarke on the other, whispering in his ears.

 

[Embiid]

I don't even buy that anymore. I believe that Hextall had A LOT of issues, but this Alumni nonsense now just smacks of egomaniacs like Clarke having their feelings hurt because they were no longer "advisors," which THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ANYWAY.

Knowing the history particularly the recent history at the time with the Bryz debacle where Homer caved to Snider...if I was Hextall I would have asked for the same thing. Hextall had his faults for sure though but I think he was on point asking that the "advisors" nor Snider should be involved in his plan for the team. He wanted to be empowered but I still think he took it a bit too far particularly with his stubbornness over Hak which was mostly his undoing.

 

[deadhead]

Knowing the history particularly the recent history at the time with the Bryz debacle where Homer caved to Snider...if I was Hextall I would have asked for the same thing. Hextall had his faults for sure though but I think he was on point asking that the "advisors" nor Snider should be involved in his plan for the team. He wanted to be empowered but I still think he took it a bit too far particularly with his stubbornness over Hak which was mostly his undoing.

Hak wasn't his undoing, Hak got them to the playoffs twice in 3 years before the wheels came off.

Failing to get a goalie who could stay healthy was his undoing, he should have upgraded Elliott/Neuvirth in the summer of 2018 with a veteran stopgap until Hart was ready.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I don't think the problem is "senior advisors," a smart GM would listen, exploit their networks to garner information, then do what he wants to do.
Hextall was a control freak, and that was his downfall.

The problem is I don't know if Scott knows enough about the NHL to filter the advice he gets. In that case, one can imagine the "angel/devil" scenario, Holmgren perched on one shoulder, Clarke on the other, whispering in his ears.

Senior advisors are responsible for hiring a trash GM who is trashing the team, and senior advisors are now clamoring to let him keep trashing the team as their vision of its future.

Senior advisors are the problem.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Hak wasn't his undoing, Hak got them to the playoffs twice in 3 years before the wheels came off.

Failing to get a goalie who could stay healthy was his undoing, he should have upgraded Elliott/Neuvirth in the summer of 2018 with a veteran stopgap until Hart was ready.

Hak got dragged to the playoffs.

Do you think ordering your team to play from the perimeter and go into a shell for up to half a game is good?

 

[Rebels57]

Knowing the history particularly the recent history at the time with the Bryz debacle where Homer caved to Snider...if I was Hextall I would have asked for the same thing. Hextall had his faults for sure though but I think he was on point asking that the "advisors" nor Snider should be involved in his plan for the team. He wanted to be empowered but I still think he took it a bit too far particularly with his stubbornness over Hak which was mostly his undoing.

He for sure should have been fired due to his blind loyalty to an awful coach that he only hired because he coached his son - but the fact that the alumni shit and not allowing the players to eat pizza was the reason given in the days after the firing is just P A T H E T I C.

 

[Beef Invictus]

He for sure should have been fired due to his blind loyalty to an awful coach that he only hired because he coached his son - but the fact that the alumni shit and not allowing the players to eat pizza was the reason given in the days after the firing is just P A T H E T I C.

Exactly. He deserved to be fired, but they didn't fire him for any of those reasons. They fired him for "betraying" the cronies.

The senior advisors are the problem.

 

[deadhead]

Hak got dragged to the playoffs.

Do you think ordering your team to play from the perimeter and go into a shell for up to half a game is good?

When you have to throw players like VdV and Manning out there b/c your GM is saving cap room and draft picks instead of getting you depth players, yes.

 

[Beef Invictus]

When you have to throw players like VdV and Manning out there b/c your GM is saving cap room and draft picks instead of getting you depth players, yes.

Teams with worse rosters perform better relative to talent than Hakstol's teams did. That's because he is a bad coach. Even in Seattle, that bad roster is performing worse than it should, because the Hakshell keeps costing them points.

Do you think coaching badly is good?

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

When you have to throw players like VdV and Manning out there b/c your GM is saving cap room and draft picks instead of getting you depth players, yes.

 

[Beef Invictus]

You mean freely choosing to have players even worse than VDV and Manning because you think they make you competitive is bad management!?

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

You mean freely choosing to have players even worse than VDV and Manning because you think they make you competitive is bad management!?

Your words, not mine.

 

[deadhead]

Teams with worse rosters perform better relative to talent than Hakstol's teams did. That's because he is a bad coach. Even in Seattle, that bad roster is performing worse than it should, because the Hakshell keeps costing them points.

Do you think coaching badly is good?

No they don't. Go look at the rosters of those teams, you had one good line, plus a couple other forwards, a bad group of defensemen, and shaky goalies other than Mason in 2015. None of those teams were playoff quality.
You could make a case the worst thing Hakstol did was win with that talent - they'd been better off if they had missed the playoffs and drafted higher.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

No they don't. Go look at the rosters of those teams, you had one good line, plus a couple other forwards, a bad group of defensemen, and shaky goalies other than Mason in 2015. None of those teams were playoff quality.
You could make a case the worst thing Hakstol did was win with that talent - they'd been better off if they had missed the playoffs and drafted higher.

You mean the worst thing was Giroux and the top line winning with his talent, not Hakstol.

They made the playoffs (which I might add is not an accomplishment) despite Hak not because of him.

 

[Beef Invictus]

No they don't. Go look at the rosters of those teams, you had one good line, plus a couple other forwards, a bad group of defensemen, and shaky goalies other than Mason in 2015. None of those teams were playoff quality.
You could make a case the worst thing Hakstol did was win with that talent - they'd been better off if they had missed the playoffs and drafted higher.

Each of those teams were playoff quality. Making the playoffs isn't anywhere near the achievement you think it is. It's pretty easy, actually. Bad teams do it all the time. Annually.

No, the worst thing Hakstol did was hold his available talent back and get the least out of them while playing a coward's system that maximized opposition chances to win. He also actively pursued matchups that the opposing team wanted. That's pretty bad. Doing what helps the other team win is bad coaching, wouldn't you say?

Hey, you mentioned that having players like VDV and Manning is bad management. What is having players worse than VDV and Manning, then?

 

[deadhead]

Each of those teams were playoff quality. Making the playoffs isn't anywhere near the achievement you think it is. It's pretty easy, actually. Bad teams do it all the time. Annually.

No, the worst thing Hakstol did was hold his available talent back and get the least out of them while playing a coward's system that maximized opposition chances to win. He also actively pursued matchups that the opposing team wanted. That's pretty bad. Doing what helps the other team win is bad coaching, wouldn't you say?

Hey, you mentioned that having players like VDV and Manning is bad management. What is having players worse than VDV and Manning, then?

Bull. Every team has two or three good players on their roster (ok, maybe not Arizona right now!). The first line was a top group, though not as dominant as say the "perfection line."
But after that, the talent on those teams was putrid, all I heard for four years was how bad [insert name] was, now I'm told those were playoff teams?

2017-18:
G - Couts - Voracek - TK, then Simmons, Raffl, next tier was Filppula, Patrick, Laughton, then Weise, Weal, Lehtera, Leier, Lindblom for 23g
Simmonds was already a 5x5 liability, Raffl a bottom six guy, Filppula, nuff said, Laughton was still learning how to play.
Provorov - Ghost - AMac - Manning - Hagg - Gudas - Sanheim
Sanheim was a much better player when he returned from the AHL, but still got bitch slapped in the playoffs. Same with Lindblom.
Elliott/Neuvirth

 

[Rebels57]

You mean the worst thing was Giroux and the top line winning with his talent, not Hakstol.

They made the playoffs (which I might add is not an accomplishment) despite Hak not because of him.

Remember when he took the red-hot Konecny off the red-hot 1st line to start the 2018 Playoffs and replaced him with Raffl because he wanted the 1st line to be able to "grind?"

I'm honestly surprised Hakstol can even tie his shoes - though he just might wear his "DH" embroidered flip-flops everywhere.

 

[tictactoe]

On the Cam and Strick podcast, Bobby Clarke chats about how Hextall pretty much went rogue and drafted Patrick over Makar against the advice of the scouting staff. Made other 1st round mistakes and passed on the opportunity to trade for O'Reilly.

So who hired Paul Holmgren? Does Clarke know?

 

[renberg]

Every GM has rough moments. Clarke had his with Lindros and his family and then the McCrimmon move. However there were other things that he did that were top shelf. How much of what he did as a GM and how much of it was Ed, is something that we'll never know. What we do know is that he put a decent product out on the ice. Can anyone say that the years that he was in charge, that the Flyers were boring like they are today?
Hextall was given a pretty nice opportunity here which he badly mismanaged. A franchise just can not afford to blow the #2 selection in the draft. He did not do his obligation to fine comb Patrick's health conditions. More than anything else, that mistake has put the Flyers where they are today. Throw in a few other gaffes such as not exploiting the Leaf's situation with Nylander when he was holding out; signing Weise, etc. and there was more to Hextall's failure than bumping heads with the alumni.
Fletcher has to be on a death watch unless this club turns it around over the next three months. We don't know if he chose AV and under what terms that rascal agreed to come here. My suspicion is that Vigneault had a lot of control put into his contract. Fletcher may or may not have been the one that brought in Thompson, Yandle, Brassard, et al. but he does shave the power to dump them. How he handles that along with the Ristolainen and Giroux situations will determine his future.

 

[Shrike]

No they don't. Go look at the rosters of those teams, you had one good line, plus a couple other forwards, a bad group of defensemen, and shaky goalies other than Mason in 2015. None of those teams were playoff quality.
You could make a case the worst thing Hakstol did was win with that talent - they'd been better off if they had missed the playoffs and drafted higher.

Roster would have been way better if not for which of our players they chose to give nhl ice time to.
Just because you think Vdv was a better option than lindblom or manning was a better option than sanheim doesn’t make it true. We had better players not playing because hakstol chose to play old mediocre consistent players over developing more talented but inconsistent younger players.
And don’t tell me that developing players doesn’t happen in the nhl. If that’s the case than I can tell you why Provy has stagnated

 

[BrindamoursNose]

Every GM has rough moments. Clarke had his with Lindros and his family and then the McCrimmon move. However there were other things that he did that were top shelf. How much of what he did as a GM and how much of it was Ed, is something that we'll never know. What we do know is that he put a decent product out on the ice. Can anyone say that the years that he was in charge, that the Flyers were boring like they are today?

Hextall was given a pretty nice opportunity here which he badly mismanaged. A franchise just can not afford to blow the #2 selection in the draft. He did not do his obligation to fine comb Patrick's health conditions. More than anything else, that mistake has put the Flyers where they are today. Throw in a few other gaffes such as not exploiting the Leaf's situation with Nylander when he was holding out; signing Weise, etc. and there was more to Hextall's failure than bumping heads with the alumni.

Fletcher has to be on a death watch unless this club turns it around over the next three months. We don't know if he chose AV and under what terms that rascal agreed to come here. My suspicion is that Vigneault had a lot of control put into his contract. Fletcher may or may not have been the one that brought in Thompson, Yandle, Brassard, et al. but he does shave the power to dump them. How he handles that along with the Ristolainen and Giroux situations will determine his future.

You don't remember what Hextall was given if you think he was given a nice opportunity. He had to dig through the mud to re-build the team after what Homer did to it.

 

[renberg]

You don't remember what Hextall was given if you think he was given a nice opportunity. He had to dig through the mud to re-build the team after what Homer did to it.

He was given a club that made the POs with a flawed roster and a coach that looked to be in over his head. Not the greatest or worst situation. There were cap issues but they could have been better worked through. No one can say that Hextall made the best of the situation.