Dave Hakstol

[Ghosts Beer]

They play on the weekends only, try again.

He played in more than 20 back-to-back pairs of games.

Where is your expert medical opinion on drawing the line? How many days of rest per week prevents injury? When are back to back games acceptable vs. unacceptable? Do practices count? Should practices be forbidden? Should forwards & defensemen skip games when there are a specific number in one week?

 

[Beef Invictus]

He played in more than 20 back-to-back pairs of games.

Where is your expert medical opinion on drawing the line? How many days of rest per week prevents injury? When are back to back games acceptable vs. unacceptable? Do practices count? Should practices be forbidden? Should forwards & defensemen skip games when there are a specific number in one week?

And he then got a lot of rest. That's a world of difference from playing the stretch Nuevirth played leading into his injury. It would have taken three weeks for a college goalie to play what Neuvirth did in about one.

Your medical questions are absurd. There is no universal answer. The simple fact is that both goalies were played harder than they were used to, harder than they are capable of, and injuries occurred.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

He played in more than 20 back-to-back pairs of games.

Where is your expert medical opinion on drawing the line? How many days of rest per week prevents injury? When are back to back games acceptable vs. unacceptable? Do practices count? Should practices be forbidden? Should forwards & defensemen skip games when there are a specific number in one week?

You’re legitimately arguing just for the sake of arguing because “we’re not doctors and we didn’t see the medical records.”

How someone could honestly have this stance is mind blowing. It’s common freaking sense that playing a goalie in a ton of consecutive games including multiple back to backs is more than likely going to lead to an injury. But hey, because it might have just naturally happened, blasting Hakstol for running his goalies into the ground multiple times with fatigue is unwarranted.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Why are you refusing to discuss Neuvirth now? He's a major part of the goalie management picture.

I’ve already fully addressed Neuvirth. He’s a highly injury prone backup. He’s likely to get hurt regardless of workload. They needed him when Elliott got hurt. Unsurprisingly, he got hurt. But the coach was using the NHL backup he was given to try to win crucial games when the starter was injured. You have no evidence that playing 5 times in 8 days caused Neuvirth’s injury & that he wouldn’t have hurt himself if he played a game less. And guess what? Pro athletes are paid very well knowing they’re going to face some difficult situations. Hakstol got what he could out of Neuvirth before he inevitably got hurt. This notion that you can protect a player from injury by playing him in one or two fewer games is ridiculous.

 

[Beef Invictus]

You’re legitimately arguing just for the sake of arguing because “we’re not doctors and we didn’t see the medical records.”

How someone could honestly have this stance is mind blowing. It’s common freaking sense that playing a goalie in a ton of consecutive games including multiple back to backs is more than likely going to lead to an injury. But hey, because it might have just naturally happened, blasting Hakstol for running his goalies into the ground multiple times with fatigue is incorrect.

"Arguing just to argue" became clear when after demanding medical expertise, I provided information from medical experts proving our assertions and rather than acknowledge it, he focused instead on the one goalie he thinks he can defend and began demanding statistics to boot. He has constantly been moving the goalposts and he isn't going to stop. Satisfy one demand with proof, and like a hydra more demands sprout forth from the last failed argument's neck. I see no end to the demands. There is no level of proof which will convince.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

I’ve already fully addressed Neuvirth. He’s a highly injury prone backup. He’s likely to get hurt regardless of workload. They needed him when Elliott got hurt. Unsurprisingly, he got hurt. But the coach was using the NHL backup he was given to try to win crucial games when the starter was injured. You have no evidence that playing 5 times in 8 days caused Neuvirth’s injury & that he wouldn’t have hurt himself if he played a game less. And guess what? Pro athletes are paid very well knowing they’re going to face some difficult situations. Hakstol got what he could out of Neuvirth before he inevitably got hurt. This notion that you can protect a player from injury by playing him in one or two fewer games is ridiculous.

No, it’s really not.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I’ve already fully addressed Neuvirth. He’s a highly injury prone backup. He’s likely to get hurt regardless of workload. They needed him when Elliott got hurt. Unsurprisingly, he got hurt. But the coach was using the NHL backup he was given to try to win crucial games when the starter was injured. You have no evidence that playing 5 times in 8 days caused Neuvirth’s injury & that he wouldn’t have hurt himself if he played a game less. And guess what? Pro athletes are paid very well knowing they’re going to face some difficult situations. Hakstol got what he could out of Neuvirth before he inevitably got hurt. This notion that you can protect a player from injury by playing him in one or two fewer games is ridiculous.

I gave you evidence. Apparently you ignored it. You're being exceptionally dishonest.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

I gave you evidence. Apparently you ignored it. You're being exceptionally dishonest.

You gave me evidence that fatigue is one thing that is capable of contributing to injuries.

You’re acting like that proves your thesis that fatigue is definitely what caused Elliott’s injury.

You continue to ignore that goalies suffer injuries that have nothing to do with fatigue.

You continue to act like you have intimate medical knowledge of Elliott’s injury, when you have none.

You are also assuming Elliott was fatigued without any evidence aside from a number of starts that your non-expert medical opinion feels doubles some goaltenders (but not all’s) risk of injury.

And you get highly offended when I point out that your theory of Elliott’s injury is conjecture.

Now you & Hollywood Couturier act like the Air Force goalie playing over 20 pairs of back to back games is no big deal, because 5 days of no games beforehand apparently, in your non-expert opinion, is enough to protect from injuries.

Well, something tells me that if Elliott played 43 games & was used in back to backs for 20 straight weeks, & he got hurt, you’d be blaming Hakstol’s usage of him.

 

[Beef Invictus]

You gave me evidence that fatigue is one thing that is capable of contributing to injuries.

You’re acting like that proves your thesis that fatigue is definitely what caused Elliott’s injury.

You continue to ignore that goalies suffer injuries that have nothing to do with fatigue.

You continue to act like you have intimate medical knowledge of Elliott’s injury, when you have none.

You are also assuming Elliott was fatigued without any evidence aside from a number of starts that your non-expert medical opinion feels doubles some goaltenders (but not all’s) risk of injury.

And you get highly offended when I point out that your theory of Elliott’s injury is conjecture.

Now you & Hollywood Couturier act like the Air Force goalie playing over 20 pairs of back to back games is no big deal, because 5 days of no games beforehand apparently, in your non-expert opinion, is enough to protect from injuries.

Well, something tells me that if Elliott played 43 games & was used in back to backs for 20 straight weeks, & he got hurt, you’d be blaming Hakstol’s usage of him.

Not one mention of Neuvirth. I wonder why you've shifted the goalposts so far that they're now on an entirely different field that ignores half our goalie situation, and ignores half my argument.


I guess admitting that Neuvirth was handled in a way that maximized injury, leading to an injury, is too much of a concession that Hakstol has flawed goalie management.

Keep moving those goalposts. There is no proof you'd accept without demanding more.

 

[Adtar02]

I gave you evidence. Apparently you ignored it. You're being exceptionally dishonest.

or intentionally obtuse!!!!!

 

[Magua]

Brian Elliott sucks, Hakstol sucks, this thread sucks, this universe sucks and I can’t wait for it to collapse so we can give it another go.

 

[Striiker]

Action X is known to potentially cause Result Y.

Action X is performed, Result Y occurs...

Seems logical to assume that Action X was what caused it.

------------------

Even if it didn't, it's still bad to perform Action X when you know that Result Y is a possible (even likely, given who was being used) risk.

So, at this point, arguing whether he definitely caused it or not doesn't really matter. Either way he screwed up by either a) being the direct cause of the injury, or b) majorly increasing the chances of the injury. Saying the team needed to win games isn't much of an excuse either, since a goalie ending up injured and needing to miss many games is a worse result than possibly losing a game due to resting to prevent injury.

 

[VladDrag]

I want to do all 29 goalies who started more than 41 games, but that will take a while. So I have started with the top 3 plus Elliot. As mentioned previously, all of Elliot's back to back starts happened when Neuvirth was on IR in December.

NHL.com - Stats

2017-18 back to back starts by goalies

Tablot (EDM) 10 back to back starts out of 67 total starts: 11/21/17 & 11/22/17, 1/6/18 & 1/7/18, 1/12/18 & 1/13/18, 2/17/18 & 2/18/18, 3/24/18 & 3/25/18

Andersen (TOR) 0 back to back starts out of 66 total starts

Bobrovsky (CBJ) 10 back to back starts out of 65 total starts 10/13/17 & 10/14/17, 11/10/17 & 11/11/17, 12/8/17 & 12/9/17, 1/7/18 & 1/8/18, 2/9/18 & 2/10/18


Elliot (PHI) 6 back to back starts out of 42 total starts: 12/6/17 & 12/7/17, 12/22/17 & 12/23/17, 12/28/17 & 12/29/17

All of Elliot's back to backs were in December (3 sets). the last two sets were less then a week apart.

By contrast, Bob had 5 back to back sets in 5 different months (1 back to back set per month) and coming off a 63 GP season.

Talbot had 1 set in Nov; 2 sets in January, 1 set in Feb, and 2 sets in March. Talbot also played 73 and 55 games, respectively.

 

[KrazyKat]

Brian Elliott sucks, Hakstol sucks, this thread sucks, this universe sucks and I can’t wait for it to collapse so we can give it another go.

This. Although I think our team will be better. I thought goaltending and coaching was our weak spot last year. Nothing has changed there. Prepare for even bigger fail.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Brian Elliott sucks, Hakstol sucks, this thread sucks, this universe sucks and I can’t wait for it to collapse so we can give it another go.

You say that, but the next universe might replace water with pee.

 

[Beef Invictus]

All of Elliot's back to backs were in December (3 sets). the last two sets were less then a week apart.

By contrast, Bob had 5 back to back sets in 5 different months (1 back to back set per month) and coming off a 63 GP season.

Talbot had 1 set in Nov; 2 sets in January, 1 set in Feb, and 2 sets in March. Talbot also played 73 and 55 games, respectively.

Their usage is flat out abnormal. Hakstol is very slow to adjust and he clearly hasn't adjusted away from college.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Not one mention of Neuvirth. I wonder why you've shifted the goalposts so far that they're now on an entirely different field that ignores half our goalie situation, and ignores half my argument.


I guess admitting that Neuvirth was handled in a way that maximized injury, leading to an injury, is too much of a concession that Hakstol has flawed goalie management.

Keep moving those goalposts. There is no proof you'd accept without demanding more.

I’ve fully addressed my opinion on Neuvirth multiple times. I repeated my opinion just a few posts above your claim that I’m avoiding him. Acting like I’m avoiding discussing Neuvirth is truly bizarre.

And I have no idea why you’re accusing me of trying to move the goalposts. My argument has been clear & consistent from the beginning: You’re making a guess about Elliott’s injury & treating it as fact.

 

[deadhead]

Elliott and Neuvirth are stopgaps, I don't lose sleep over either one.
Lyon will have a chance at some point this season to show his playoff performance wasn't a fluke and he belongs in the NHL.
Hart will be watched carefully, but unless he tears it up at LHV, he'll spend the year in the AHL and hopefully a long playoff run.
But at worst we're in the same spot as last year, if lucky, someone will step up.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I’ve fully addressed my opinion on Neuvirth multiple times. I repeated my opinion just a few posts above your claim that I’m avoiding him. Acting like I’m avoiding discussing Neuvirth is truly bizarre.

And I have no idea why you’re accusing me of trying to move the goalposts. My argument has been clear & consistent from the beginning: You’re making a guess about Elliott’s injury & treating it as fact.

You're argument has required support from assertions that have been disproven as well as incompatible comparisons . You are shown proof and then fabricate new demands .

You refuse to even consider the possibility that Hakstol is at fault.

 

[deadhead]

Hextall is the one at fault, by not getting a reliable veteran goalie who could carry the load.
But that would have cost a king's ransom, not a good move for a rebuilding team that instead has loaded up on goalie prospects.

Again and again, people whine about coaching decisions that are driven by Ron's decisions.
When you max out the minutes of your top players, there aren't good options left.

And when your choice is Elliott or a gimpy Neuvirth, do you ride Elliott or put Neuvirth in at less than 100% given his injury history?
It would have been nice to have a healthy Stolarz last year as an option, because Lyon clearly wasn't ready when he came up.
Hopefully they can keep both Lyon and Stolarz around this year, and hopefully Lyon has taken a step up.
Because I doubt they're making it through the season with Elliott and Neuvirth.
And Hart is far too valuable to rush.

 

[Garbage Goal]

All of Elliot's back to backs were in December (3 sets). the last two sets were less then a week apart.

By contrast, Bob had 5 back to back sets in 5 different months (1 back to back set per month) and coming off a 63 GP season.

Talbot had 1 set in Nov; 2 sets in January, 1 set in Feb, and 2 sets in March. Talbot also played 73 and 55 games, respectively.

Talbot also had an awful season coming off the heels of another crazy workload the season before.

Curu brings this up every off-season when people start talking about it. He points to amount of games played (or amount of B2B) and goalie capability. Someone points out how it’s just as much about the space between games as it is the amount. Said person shows the workload is hugely abnormal with an inordinate number of starts over a small time frame. He ignores it. Rinse and repeat next off-season after it happens again.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

You're argument has required support from assertions that have been disproven as well as incompatible comparisons . You are shown proof and then fabricate new demands .

You refuse to even consider the possibility that Hakstol is at fault.

Huh? You really are just making things up.

My argument is that you’re guessing a medical diagnosis & treating your conjecture as fact.

That hasn’t been disproved. It’s correct.

Proof that fatigue is one thing that sometimes leads to an injury isn’t proof that Elliott was fatigued or that fatigue caused his injury. You haven’t proved that Hakstol caused Elliott’s injury & you can’t prove it.

It’s funny you accuse me of refusing to even consider Hakstol caused Elliott’s injury when you refuse to consider the possibility it was unrelated to workload. All I’m asking for is specific evidence, since you’re treating it as fact, & all you have are generalities.

 

[Flyerfan4life]

insert kid in the sandbox banging his feet in the sand picture here...


"your not the boss of me"

 

[Garbage Goal]

They’re also arguing the guy is responsible as it relates to injuries while Simmonds played the entire season plus training camp with injuries and was never told to rest or forced to recouperate.

Didn’t a goalie also say they were fatigued in exit interviews? Or was that Mason in the past? Or am I completely misremembering (which is possible)?

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

Basically what you’re arguing is that we’re not doctors and we never saw the medical records, congratulations you’re correct that we can’t prove 100% proof.

You win man, but Hak contributed to it greatly and you refuse to admit that.