Post-Game Talk: #4 | FLYERS 5 at Predators 6 | Tue. Oct. 10, 8:00 pm ET

[Rebels57]

Hopefully this was the beginning of Hextalls trust in Hakstol wavering.

It's a seriously terrible decision.

 

[deadhead]

the fact that you make the decision to challenge when you can't even see the puck, makes it even worse. He cost the Flyers 1...maybe 2 points. Time will tell is that matters or not.

Actually, since they still would have ahd a 5 on 4 PP for another minute, there's a good possibility we'd have lost in regulation. So the actual expected loss is probably less than a point.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

Actually, since they still would have ahd a 5 on 4 PP for another minute, there's a good possibility we'd have lost in regulation. So the actual expected loss is probably less than a point.

You always bend over backwards to defend your boy, but this is some impressive elasticity. A real stretch. Well done.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

In Frankie's article on TSN, Hakstol said they only had one angle when deciding to review, and it is implied that it was the bird's eye view we all had. If so, the inability to see where Johansson had the puck because he was on the boards near the camera but particularly Forsberg's reaction made them think it could have been offside.

could of is not a good enough reason at that point of the hockey game. if you are ahead by more than a goal, sure. But not then.

 

[Tripod]

Actually, since they still would have ahd a 5 on 4 PP for another minute, there's a good possibility we'd have lost in regulation. So the actual expected loss is probably less than a point.

Wrong again.

The 2 penalties were are 17:19
The goals was at 18:43

So there was only 36 seconds left to kill if we accepted the goal and the faceoff was at centre ice.

Again....the risk/reward was not there to challenge that call. Only a biased person would argue that.

 

[Amorgus]

Actually, since they still would have ahd a 5 on 4 PP for another minute, there's a good possibility we'd have lost in regulation. So the actual expected loss is probably less than a point.

But it's virtually guaranteed they'd lose on a 5 on 3 PP and they did. Even his best case scenario of winning the challenge would still have us on a 6 on 3, so what's the point of challenging at all? I'm sorry but this situation is a pretty cut and dry poor judgment call.

 

[Curufinwe]

The call was poor mainly because they didn't base it on a piece of video showing a clear offsides.

I think being down 6 on 3 for 36 seconds starting with a faceoff at center ice should be survivable.

 

[deadhead]

My point wasn't to defend it, but to simply point out that overtime wasn't guaranteed, and the impact of the decision won't make or break this season.

Fans of bad teams hang on every penalty and bad decision.
As the Eagles showed last night, good teams simply find ways to win.

 

[Rebels57]

Exactly.

With the new system, you have to be 100% sure, or you should not challenge.

The Blackhawks challenge last night was a really interesting one.

Zucker entered the zone prior to the puck, BUT Seabrook was the last to touch the puck before it entered the Blackhawks zone so Zucker was not offsides. The game was 1-1 at the time with less than 10 to go in the 3rd so I thought that challenge by Quenneville was acceptable. It took the refs a long time to even figure out that it wasn't offsides despite Zucker entering before the puck. The broadcasters had no clue what happened either.

 

[Tripod]

My point wasn't to defend it, but to simply point out that overtime wasn't guaranteed, and the impact of the decision won't make or break this season.

Fans of bad teams hang on every penalty and bad decision.
As the Eagles showed last night, good teams simply find ways to win.

Except you don't know if it will make or break the season. Maybe it's the difference of a playoff spot or not. Or a better seeding or not. Who knows.

Might as well lose on Saturday since that won't matter either. Or the game after that.

 

[Ruck Over]

In a rare moment for me, I'll defend Hakstol on the challenge play.

Only in the sense that, he was coaching to win the game, which will nearly always garner respect. If he's successful, his team maintains the lead, has a lengthy break during the review, and if they surrender a goal in worse-case scenario, are again tied with the Preds. Now, because of the rule change, as we observed, losing that challenge virtually guaranteed a loss, PP's tend to score against a PK of only 3 skaters.

So, to me, it came down to supporting Hak's coaching to win, in contrast to not calling the challenge, and coaching to overtime.

There's a lot not to like about him, this call is low on the list.

Assuming the Flyers have at least one other near-miss, last-minute lost, this doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things because 82 games. These points may have caused us to miss the playoffs come April, but honestly, too far out to tell.

When a football coach goes for 2, instead of 1, after a TD, it's gutsy. Team makes it, hero coach, team misses it, dunderhead coach. That's where Hak was with the challenge. Now, based on the video he had, and how plausible it was, up for critique. I hope he saw more than, "maybe, kinda, sorta, if you look at it with your head tilted and triangulate the reflection of the ice, the popcorn vendor in section 116B and the score board..."

 

[Ruck Over]

Might as well lose on Saturday since that won't matter either. Or the game after that.

Once upon a time, it was beneficial to want the Flyers to lose. Then Dale Weisse happened, begrudgingly so. And from that was delivered unto the Flyers, Patrick Nolan.

Mysteries, enigmas, questions - the Universe of Possibilities.

Edit: I really hate this new format, change is scary, I miss the soft blues, too much red for my liking.

 

[Striiker]

My point wasn't to defend it, but to simply point out that overtime wasn't guaranteed, and the impact of the decision won't make or break this season.

Fans of bad teams hang on every penalty and bad decision.
As the Eagles showed last night, good teams simply find ways to win.

Last year the Islanders and the Lightning were 1 point behind the last playoff spot.
In 2015 Boston was 2 points behind.
In 2014 Phoenix was 2 points behind.
In 2013 Columbus was 1 point behind.

Get the point?

One thrown game like that could be the difference between playoffs and not.

 

[deadhead]

Is the objective to sneak into the playoffs or build a team that can bring the Cup back to Philly?
In my experience, bad FOs focus on making the playoffs, and saving their jobs.
Good FOs focus on building teams, and want to kick down the front door into the playoffs, instead of sneaking through the back window.

When I watch one of my teams, I'm more worried about how they play early in the season then wins or losses. Over a season, penalties and mistakes even out, but if you're not a good team, you need lots of breaks to sneak in.

If it comes down to one point in April to make the playoffs, who cares?
That's not a team that's ready to compete with the big boys.

 

[Tripod]

Yeah, what does 1 point in April mean anyways? Answer.....same as one in October.

 

[Rebels57]

@RuckOver, the problem with that line of thinking is that even if they won the challenge, St. Louis still has a 6 on 3 powerplay and will most likely still score.

The risk (goal counting and then facing a 5 on 3) was not outweighed by the reward (goal not counting but still facing 6 on 3).

 

[Striiker]

Is the objective to sneak into the playoffs or build a team that can bring the Cup back to Philly?
In my experience, bad FOs focus on making the playoffs, and saving their jobs.
Good FOs focus on building teams, and want to kick down the front door into the playoffs, instead of sneaking through the back window.

When I watch one of my teams, I'm more worried about how they play early in the season then wins or losses. Over a season, penalties and mistakes even out, but if you're not a good team, you need lots of breaks to sneak in.

If it comes down to one point in April to make the playoffs, who cares?
That's not a team that's ready to compete with the big boys.

...as if making the playoffs as the 8th seed will prevent them from winning the cup in the future? These things aren't mutually exclusive.

You went from "this won't hurt us" to "it doesn't matter if it hurts us"... come on... you can support Hakstol and be honest/realistic at the same time.

And you don't need to be the top seed to have a chance in the playoffs. You need a good team, but you also have to get hot at the right time. I don't like cliches, but when they say "you just need to get in and anything can happen", they're right. Maybe they get on a roll, maybe the opponent has injury problems , maybe they match up favorably style-wise against the opponent... you never know.

 

[Amorgus]

Is this going to break a record for post-game thread length?

 

[Ruck Over]

@RuckOver, the problem with that line of thinking is that even if they won the challenge, St. Louis still has a 6 on 3 powerplay and will most likely still score.

The risk (goal counting and then facing a 5 on 3) was not outweighed by the reward (goal not counting but still facing 6 on 3).

I get that, the Flyers were in a bad spot regardless. However, Hakstol took a chance on putting the team in a chance to win the game, rather than leave them in a tied game. That risk back-fired and they lost the game.

How likely, is it if the score is tied at 5-5, no challenge called, and the Flyers are now facing a 5-4 PK, they score a short-handed goal to retake the lead? Or even, score a goal in the dying seconds at EV after the Weisse penalty ends? If the Flyers win that challenge, albeit unlikely, kill the PK successfully, they are still leading the game.

I get people want to bag on him. And points are as important now as they are in March. Blame Hakstol on not having the correct video package for proof. Don't blame the decision to challenge.

If he coaches scared he gets blamed, he coaches aggressive he gets blamed, where's the acceptable medium?

(I really don't want to defend this guy anymore. I didn't really expect to have a conversation about this, just a different view point to mull over.)

 

[Rebels57]

I get that, the Flyers were in a bad spot regardless. However, Hakstol took a chance on putting the team in a chance to win the game, rather than leave them in a tied game. That risk back-fired and they lost the game.

How likely, is it if the score is tied at 5-5, no challenge called, and the Flyers are now facing a 5-4 PK, they score a short-handed goal to retake the lead? Or even, score a goal in the dying seconds at EV after the Weisse penalty ends? If the Flyers win that challenge, albeit unlikely, kill the PK successfully, they are still leading the game.

I get people want to bag on him. And points are as important now as they are in March. Blame Hakstol on not having the correct video package for proof. Don't blame the decision to challenge.

If he coaches scared he gets blamed, he coaches aggressive he gets blamed, where's the acceptable medium?

(I really don't want to defend this guy anymore. I didn't really expect to have a conversation about this, just a different view point to mull over.)

It wasn't likely that we would re-take the lead in regulation.

However, it WAS likely that we would make it to Overtime and secure 1 point with a good chance at securing the 2nd.

If he didn't have the correct angle to show indisputable evidence, than he should not have challenged.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

Hakstol is the head coach. He has final say on the matter as well as monitors on the bench. So he’s not completely out of the dark. There was no angle that should have made them go ahead with the challenge there especially given the other circumstances. It was an incredibly stupid decision & there’s no way around it.

 

[deadhead]

My point is it's just not a big deal.
If you guys liked Hakstol you'd have said it was a mistake, everyone makes mistakes, now don't repeat it.
But because you want Hakstol fired, you make it into some huge deal.

The dishonesty here just makes me shake my head.
If Giroux screws up, "crickets", if MacDonald screws up, SHOUT SHOUT LET IT ALL OUT.
Gudas has looked like crap to start the season, and I'm one of his biggest supporters. But hardly anyone wants to mention it.

If one point in October keeps them out of the playoffs, they don't deserve to be in the playoffs anyway. Because if they're close to the playoffs in April, they should win their way in, not depend on a point in October (which was the joint responsibility of the refs, Elliott, Giroux and Hakstol) or some other team losing.

 

[Striiker]

My point is it's just not a big deal.
If you guys liked Hakstol you'd have said it was a mistake, everyone makes mistakes, now don't repeat it.
But because you want Hakstol fired, you make it into some huge deal.

The dishonesty here just makes me shake my head.
If Giroux screws up, "crickets", if MacDonald screws up, SHOUT SHOUT LET IT ALL OUT.
Gudas has looked like crap to start the season, and I'm one of his biggest supporters. But hardly anyone wants to mention it.

If one point in October keeps them out of the playoffs, they don't deserve to be in the playoffs anyway. Because if they're close to the playoffs in April, they should win their way in, not depend on a point in October (which was the joint responsibility of the refs, Elliott, Giroux and Hakstol) or some other team losing.

That's not true at all. People bitch about Giroux constantly. Go back in the GDT and look.

And yeah, MacDonald gets more hate... because he f***s up 100x more and does 1/100000 of the good.

 

[Beef Invictus]

My point is it's just not a big deal.
If you guys liked Hakstol you'd have said it was a mistake, everyone makes mistakes, now don't repeat it.
But because you want Hakstol fired, you make it into some huge deal.

The dishonesty here just makes me shake my head.
If Giroux screws up, "crickets", if MacDonald screws up, SHOUT SHOUT LET IT ALL OUT.
Gudas has looked like crap to start the season, and I'm one of his biggest supporters. But hardly anyone wants to mention it.

If one point in October keeps them out of the playoffs, they don't deserve to be in the playoffs anyway. Because if they're close to the playoffs in April, they should win their way in, not depend on a point in October (which was the joint responsibility of the refs, Elliott, Giroux and Hakstol) or some other team losing.

I've been patient with Hakstol. I've preached patience and given him multiple chances. I've repeatedly pushed for thoughtful moderation in criticizing him, and worked to find the logic behind his decisions rather than just bashing him. That being said, the mistake you're defending is inexcusable. It's a huge deal. He should be progressing and developing as a coach; that challenge would be a rookie mistake and poor judgement at any level of hockey. At the NHL level it's unacceptable and demonstrates deeply questionable reasoning.

You seem to be pretending this decision exists in a vacuum. It doesn't. In the greater context of many other questionable decisions it paints a clearer picture of sub-standard competency.

 

[deadhead]

No it doesn't, it was just a mistake in judgement under new rules.

And most of the criticism of Hakstol concerns really minor issues, like benching Konency and Ghost for a couple games last year, playing MacDonald over a bunch of bad defensemen last year, playing VdV over a bunch of bad forwards, all of whom are gone from the team.

Right now Weise is playing over Lehtera, MacDonald over Manning.
Hextall decided who'd stay and who'd go, only reason Morin made the West Coast trip was their uncertainty concerning Ghost. He wanted the Europeans to have AHL experience.

Giroux at LW may be Hakstol's call, but given the roster situation I think it started out as an experiment and both Hakstol and Hextall liked the results, I'm sure Hextall has planned on Giroux moving to wing at some point in the future, or why draft Frost when you have Laughton, Vorobyev and Rubtsov already on the roster?

So far the scheme looks a lot better (check the shot diagrams of the four games) because the players are a lot better. And this started last year when we added Weal and Filppula. The defense should look a lot better in a couple months once Hagg and Sanheim settle in. The goalies?????