Post-Game Talk: #75 | Rangers 3 at FLYERS 4 | Thu., Mar. 22, 2018, 7:00 pm ET

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

Check out Jori's PK numbers some time. They're god awful.

which is why Read should be in over him on the PK. Read may have lost his quick feet, but the guy knows where to be on the ice.

 

[Beef Invictus]

There you go with “we” again.

Stop following the crowd like a lemming and think for yourself.

We as in You and Me. You have access to the same evidence, but you ignore it in your endless quest to be the coach's lemming. You should try thinking for yourself like I do.

 

[JXC]

The problem with "he has something against TK" is how to explain Lindblom immediately playing 15 minutes a night and never being benched, even though he's less experienced and the same age as TK.
Or Provorov at 19 playing more than Sanheim at 21?
It might have something to do with being "defensively responsible?

That’s how it seems to me, too.

And then there is Gostisbehere, who found himself watching from the bench enough last year that he corrected himself.

 

[JXC]

We as in You and Me. You have access to the same evidence, but you ignore it in your endless quest to be the coach's lemming. You should try thinking for yourself like I do.

“Subdivisions”

 

[Beef Invictus]

That’s how it seems to me, too.

And then there is Gostisbehere, who found himself watching from the bench enough last year that he corrected himself.

Actually, Ghost said that he eventually decided to just do his own thing.

 

[Beef Invictus]

“Subdivisions”

"Cul De Sacs?"

 

[onlylordsvsmorebp]

i think they played like **** last nite...i want to like lyon but its difficult, made a couple hero saves but hes not solid at all. they got pinned in their own zone for disgustingly long periods. the usual suspects still suck. and our our good players are good.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

I don’t think so Jojo, a lot of teams have a player who only understands the stick.

This is an excuse for doing things the way they've been done simply for the sake of it. We're not dealing with a disruptive person by any reports, right? Unless I missed something (and please correct me if I did), we're only talking about on ice behavior?

Hakstol goes beyond negative reinforcement into punishment, and this is where I have a major problem with his entire approach. The former has a place, especially in the initial stages of making a change. When it continues over the long term, especially when it also manifests in punishment, it produces lesser results. I've read a ton on the subject and I don't mean half-baked "leadership" journals.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

It's pretty simple. The Flyers had a lead they needed to protect in a must-win game, and the coach doesn't trust Konecny yet not to make a terrible turnover leading to an odd-man rush the other way. I mean, hell, Konecny did it just the game before and luckily it didn't end up in the net.

 

[Beef Invictus]

So he plays someone even more likely to do those bad things?

 

[Magua]

And they "protected" that 3rd period lead in a "must-win" by getting their teeth kicked in by a lowly Rangers team. They were a disaster in the 3rd. There was no lead protecting. It was a live reenactment of the Alamo, and they were downright lucky to not have met the same fate.

I don't think people would gripe too much if TK was benched the last 5 minutes. Hakstol does it with others. It's annoying but far from egregious. Almost whole period benchings with leads, right from puck drop, are egregious for a guy who was perhaps your best forward all night (and Hakstol got his sweet, sweet results) and exactly what gets peopled miffed at this overly conservative, insanity defining coach. TK then proceeded to have a shift a handful of minutes in, and lo and behold, the team actually spent the entire time in the offensive zone, instead of checking for missing teeth. What happened next? Benched -- may have had 1 shift the rest of the game.

Worst of all, I don't think a single person could point out what appalling actions actually got Konecny benched. It was either nitpicking or downright illusory.

 

[Ruck Over]

Playing not to lose is not conducive to winning. It is much harder for an opposing team to score if they don't have the puck, and are engaged in activity 200 ft. (+/-) away from the Flyers' goal.

TK should've been playing. Flyers should've been playing to win by more. Turtling with the Devils 00s defense and Brodeur makes sense. This team? Not so much.

Edit: Late to party, wanted to comment. Probably belongs in the fire Hakstol page, alas, here it is.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Playing not to lose is not conducive to winning. It is much harder for an opposing team to score if they don't have the puck, and are engaged in activity 200 ft. (+/-) away from the Flyers' goal.

TK should've been playing.

This diagram originally made for Couturier helps explain it.

 

[The Rage Kage]

There you go with “we” again.

Stop following the crowd like a lemming and think for yourself.

You always fall back to this. It really shows your constant need to be different. Any argument used against you is invalid because more than one person agrees with it. Instead of dismissing it as a hivemind, look deeper to see why so many people agree on this one thing when they disagree on others. It doesn't make you look smart when all you do is shout about the hivemind all while praying at the church of Hakstol.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

So he plays someone even more likely to do those bad things?

Read is more likely than Konecny to make a bad turnover causing an odd-man rush the other way? I don't think so. Konecny has a history of doing it. Like I said, he did it late in the previous game and it almost cost them.

And, for the record, personally I would have played Konecny -- at least for most of the period. I was just giving an explanation for Hakstol's probable thought process. And I think it certainly had something to do with his bad turnover late in the prior game even after I'm sure the coaching staff has harped on him about it.

 

[Magua]

You must be one of those guys who thinks Matt Read is a top 3 player on the team!

 

[Flyerfan4life]

Are you kidding me? He does it every time they have a lead in the 3rd without fail. Objectively.

dont waste ur time... that guy thinks the Hakshell is pure fantasy...


LOL

 

[Striiker]

Actually Lindblom PROVES there is something irrational against TK.

Yup, Hakstol has a size fetish, same as his fanclub.

Small/skilled guys like Ghost or TK are unfairly punished and criticized but bigger guys can get away with more, even if they perform worse (Patrick early in the season, Lindblom is playing well but not as well as TK, and then the dumb/bigger/“safe” trash: Hagg, Manning, Lehtera, Filppula).

 

[Ruck Over]

Manning isn't a dumb lug?

He must be playing better than I've realized. Have the underlying stats to back this up?

 

[Beef Invictus]

Read is more likely than Konecny to make a bad turnover causing an odd-man rush the other way? I don't think so. Konecny has a history of doing it. Like I said, he did it late in the previous game and it almost cost them.

And, for the record, personally I would have played Konecny -- at least for most of the period. I was just giving an explanation for Hakstol's probable thought process. And I think it certainly had something to do with his bad turnover late in the prior game even after I'm sure the coaching staff has harped on him about it.

Read has had turnovers going the other way while bringing far less to the team. So, yeah, it's ridiculous to play Read over TK. Another instance of unequal punishment.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Read has had turnovers going the other way while bringing far less to the team. So, yeah, it's ridiculous to play Read over TK. Another instance of unequal punishment.

I talked about Konecny's penchant for bad turnovers that end up in odd-man rushes, which almost cost them as recently as the game prior to the Rangers game.
You said "So he plays someone even more likely to do those bad things?"
I'm merely saying that Read is absolutely not more likely than Konecny to make a bad turnover that causes an odd man rush.
Nowhere did I say Read brings more to the team. Of course Konecny does. And I also said that I, personally, would have played Konecny most of the period. But none of that changes the fact that Konecny *does* have a tendency toward forced plays leading to odd-man rushes the other way.

I don't think that's something that you can just pretend doesn't exist, even if you disagree with the coach.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I talked about Konecny's penchant for bad turnovers that end up in odd-man rushes, which almost cost them as recently as the game prior to the Rangers game.
You said "So he plays someone even more likely to do those bad things?"
I'm merely saying that Read is absolutely not more likely than Konecny to make a bad turnover that causes an odd man rush.
Nowhere did I say Read brings more to the team. Of course Konecny does. And I also said that I, personally, would have played Konecny most of the period. But none of that changes the fact that Konecny *does* have a tendency toward forced plays leading to odd-man rushes the other way.

I don't think that's something that you can just pretend doesn't exist, even if you disagree with the coach.

Playkilling turnovers were part of what got Read sent down to begin with, and he has also had turnovers leading the other way. You can't ignore that, either.


There simple is no justification for what Hakstol is doing. It makes winning harder. The team is better overall at driving possession in the offensive zone consistently when TK is on the ice, much better than Read. That's far more advantageous overall even accounting for a few outlier plays.

 

[BernieParent]

I didn't see the rest of Hakstol's complete quote about Konecny from last night – thank you for this, BillM!! – that was uplifting ... until the soul-crushing last sentence.

"There is never a lack of [work ethic] and we love that. I love that about TK. On most nights, he’s working hard to do the right things on both sides of the puck. There’s been very few nights where he hasn’t given us that injection of energy and that punch offensively. He’s been a real consistent player on that side of things.

"He got one goal from the outside and he got one from that net front. You love those things about him. There’s certain nights where, a night like tonight, where with the puck and for this time of the year depending on the situation and time of the game, you need him to do a better job and he knows that. But that’s part of the growing process here and he’s done a hell of a job for our team. Again tonight, he was an impact player. But on a night like tonight, where some of the decisions aren’t what we want them to be, we’ve got guys that can go in there at the right time of game and do the job."

 

[Beef Invictus]

Guys like Matt Read who Hakstol sent to the AHL for 3/4 of the season because he wasn't getting the job done. Got it.

And boy oh boy Hak praising his work ethic must really grind the gears of posters who were claiming he's being benched for not putting in the work during games.

 

[BringBackHakstol]

So those that defend this thought process:

Why is a POSSIBLE turn over going the other way while spending the majority of the time threatening to score so much worse than a significant increase in the chance of "safely" spending a lot more time in your own zone?

It's faulty reasoning