But won't pull the lever with much worse players, it doesn't add up, its an ego thing for him, hes the boss.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.
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 luckThere 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?
Yeah, I can buy that. I would agree that situations matter.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
That his coach is a prick. Tortorella isn't bothering to communicate any message more meaningful than that, from the sound of things.What is the message Couts is supposed to take away from this
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.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
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.Are we doing the thing where all of the opinions expressed on the board are amalgamated to represent a fictional person?
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 teamI 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 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.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.
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.
Again, I don’t agree with his methods.But won't pull the lever with much worse players, it doesn't add up, its an ego thing for him, hes the boss.
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.
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.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.
Ghost says hello....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.
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).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.
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.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.