Discussion in 'Philadelphia Flyers' started by whitstifier, Nov 14, 2017.
Was-Win would have been a better Final.
After just missing the Playoffs in his 1st season as coach, the Panthers had their best regular season in franchise history in Gallant's 2nd year as coach. They lost to the Islanders team in the 1st round but they did outplay them that series.
Florida Panthers hockey team statistics and history at hockeydb.com
He was fired 22 games into the following season with a record above .500 despite numerous significant injuries because of front-office meddling and drama.
He is a terrific coach.
How many times did they make the cup finals or win the cup?
Gallant has done a good job in Vegas, but he got fired because he was an old fashioned coach who liked "veteranish" players over speed youngsters.
Now in Vegas, he has a whole team of veterans and only has to play two kids (under 25). And a bunch of big veterans.
In other words, the kind of coach most of the posters here hate with a passion.
"As Rowe said on a conference call Monday, Gallant and the front office had a "philosophical divide," Gallant wanting more size, the front office more speed."
"Some of this has to do with a clash between the Panthers' analytics group and old-school guys such as Tallon and Gallant."
"There had been whispers of friction between Gallant and the front office over the latter’s emphasis on advanced analytics, which dictated some of the controversial off-season moves such as trading rugged defenceman Erik Gudbranson to the Vancouver Canucks for unproven 20-year-old forward Jared McCann, now in the minors."
"There was definitely a philosophical divide and conflict,” Rowe added, referring to analytics. “We wanted to develop a fast team, move the puck quickly and attack the net, and pressure the puck in all three zones. Gerard wanted a little more size. We decided to go in a different direction."
Gallant told a story about how an unnamed former Florida player looked great to the analytics staff but wasn't the sort of player he wanted.
"I couldn't stand watching him on the ice," Gallant said that night in Canada. "I didn't like the way he played one bit."
Now imagine the Flyers had fired Hakstol last year and hired Gallant, and the stories about how he doesn't like analytics came out and how he preferred size over speed - most of the people here would have blasted Hextall for hiring another Hakstol!!!!!
Big looks like it wins again and it does in everything including this sport. Tampa should dismantle to from the sissy little boys.
That's correct, zero times.
And why is that? Because the players didn't perform well enough.
So, now that he's coach of a team where the players are performing well enough, it makes no sense to attribute the success to his coaching and system.
He's a good coach and I'd obviously rather have him than Hak, but the post I was responding to gave him way too much credit, as if he was the main reason Vegas is where they are. In reality, it's the players performances that have made this possible, which is something he doesn't have control over. Having a good system is great and his philosophy seems smart, but that isn't what's responsible for their success this year. If it was, it would have shown the same, or better, results in Florida. It wasn't enough to get Florida to a cup final, it wasn't what got Vegas there. The difference in results proves the variable is the players.
I agree that player performances are the deciding factor at the end of the day, but...
I disagree that he doesn't have some control over player performances.
It's well known that great coachs can get more out of players than terrible coachs.
It's a combination of great coaching / great player performance.
Yeah, of course he has some kind of impact, even if only staying out of their way (which is what I wish Hakstol would do). But I was disagreeing with this:
That's going too far and giving him too much credit.
why are you wasting your time ???
If the only thing that contributes to a team's success is its players' performances, which you assert are independent of coaching and something a coach "doesn't have control over," then why should teams even bother with coaching staffs? After all, you seem to think coaches can hold teams back, yet cannot contribute significantly to their success. So why not just eliminate all coaches?
And why were the Islanders so bad this year despite so many of their players having good statistical seasons?
You're embarrassing yourself, as usual.
Well obviously because there's things that need to be done that the players can't/shouldn't do themselves. They can't be the ones deciding who plays or not, who plays with who, or how much each person plays. There has to be someone they answer to.
Ideally, the coach puts his players in the best possible position to succeed by implementing a good system and then putting together the best possible lineup. Unfortunately, that's usually not the case and most coaches do more harm than good because of backwards, outdated thinking. So usually best case scenario is they cancel out the good and the bad and end up as a net neutral.
Maybe Gallant is a net positive, but it's foolish to give him as much credit as some people have. He didn't "make mediocre players into a contender". If he had that much influence the Panthers would have been better than they were when he was there. In the end, their success comes down to the players actually performing.
Think you're going to extremes, Striiker, coaches do matter, but not in the obvious way fans think.
Schemes are more important than micro-management, as is psychology.
Gallant is successful in Vegas because both he's good at managing players, but also because he got the right players for the schemes he likes to run.
Imagine if Filppula was three years younger, or Patrick two years older, how much better the Flyers would have looked last season.
Lavi was brilliant as long as he had a deep, veteran Flyers team, and in Nashville a great defensive core has covered the limitations of a mediocre forward core.
Gallant has a deep, veteran team with players willing to execute his conservative forechecking scheme - when the veterans age or leave in FA, we'll see if he can adjust.
Gallant's problem in Florida is he coached up a mediocre team, but his insistence on veteran size probably limited their long-term upside.
So if you're management, do you stick with the coach who can give you short-run results or focus on your long-run strategy?
They might be wrong, but it's a legitimate discussion.
The question in Vegas is going to be in three years is whether Gallant is the right coach for a young fast team, or does he rely too much on aging veterans?
Again, for clarity...
I'm not saying he's a bad coach
I'm not saying he doesn't deserve ANY credit
I'm not saying coaches can't help their teams
I'm not saying coaches are all useless
I'm not saying coaches can't have uses behind the scenes
I'm only saying it's ridiculous to give him as much credit as the post I was responding to gave him.
When he had 31 points in a season?
Imagine if Filppula didn’t play here is where I begin this fantasy.
You are good at fantasies.
The fact that Filppula did play here and played that many minutes simply demonstrated how little depth and talent we had.
If Patrick had been healthy and able to train last summer, he'd have averaged 16-17 minutes (probably for the Devils, and Nico would be our 2C!).
In that case, Filppula only plays 13 minutes a night and against weaker competition.
Which will be the case this season, the 3C will play 12-13 minutes, the 4C 10-11 minutes.
The top three played 50 minutes last year, I expect the same, with Couts down to 20, Patrick up to 17-18, and the 3C 12-13.
It wasn’t a matter of depth, Hakstol severely overrated Filppula.
If he realized how bad he is, he wouldn’t have been playing more than Patrick and sure as **** wouldn’t have been the 1C in playoff elimination games.
Oh come on, he sees the players every day in practice and in games.
Patrick was awful until January, if they could have sent him down to the AHL they would have.
After that he steadily improved, and so did his minutes, he averaged about 15:35 from February onward, despite lacking strength and stamina.
In fact, from February 1:
Nico 16:15 33g 12-10 22: 11-10 21 ES 1-0 PP
Patrick 15:35 32g 9-10 19: 4-9 13 ES 5-1 PP
Patrick played as much as you could expect from a 19 year old who wasn't physically ready for the NHL because he hadn't worked out for two summers.
Laughton from Jan 1: 43g 4-5 9 -13
He regressed at center, especially after Raffl moved up.
Best combination without Raffl, Laughton - Lehtera - Read.
So not a lot of good options, Laughton played better at LW, Lehtera was too slow for anything but limited 4C duties, Patrick had to be sheltered and Couts was playing 21+ minutes a night.
This is what happens when you trade a solid 3C, but when someone offers you 2 1st rd picks for a 3C, you go for it when you're rebuilding.
If they keep Schenn, Filppula ends up at LW or 4C and we don't have these issues.
Laughton was a good possession player all year long, unlike Flip. Simple Hak thinks you can roll out a second pairing with two terrible possession dmen on it, and a shutdown center with terrible possession numbers, and still compete. Turns out you can't.
I could argue the rest, but I already gave an example that proves my point, so there’s really no need.
If Hakstol could properly see him for what he really is, he isn’t used the way he was in that playoff series.
The purpose of hockey is not to put up the best possession statistics. Sometimes it seems like that's lost -- like players and teams are judged on a game of "keep away" as opposed to wins, losses, and the scoreboard.
These possession stats also struggle to factor in deployment differences, such as quality of competition faced, zone starts, and the quality of chances a player creates and concedes due to good plays and mistakes.
Fans frequently compare players' possession stats in a vacuum, as if everything about their usage is equal, when it is not. Doing so ignores how much deployment impacts statistics, and also overemphasizes the importance of possession metrics.
In many cases, fans are making huge deals out of what amounts to merely a couple of shots for/against over a 100 shot span, and ignoring shot quality and deployment differences in the process.
To further illustrate what I believe is the tendency of many fans to place too much emphasis on possession stats (while also ignoring too much context):
The 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 6th teams in the NHL in CF% missed the playoffs.
The Capitals, who won the Cup, were 9th in the playoffs in CF% at 48.83%.
Now, I'm not saying possession metrics are useless, but I do believe they are too often cited as the definitive authority on player and team evaluation. They aren't.
Separate names with a comma.