Hakstol v Berube

[Garbage Goal]

If I had to make a prediction for this team, assuming Hakstol is at least what we hope he is we don't have major injury issues, and Medvedev is at least a competent two-way second pairing D I expect us to be a fringe playoff team, barely missing or barely making.

We did actually make some noteworthy improvements in areas that needed them. The worst offender at forward in Rinaldo is gone (you could say Lecavalier is, but at least he can score occasionally and Rinaldo has a longer history of suck here), the worst offender at D in Grossmann is gone (especially considering the major favoritism Berube gave him), and we actually have a pretty great backup situation as opposed to Ray Emery and Rob Zepp. All of that with the addition of Medvedev, potentially Provorov, and Hakstol could all actually amount to a big improvement. Potentially.

The ****?

There's nothing contradictory about it. Both can be, and were, true. Berube was just as bad as advertised AND the team itself was also an issue. The team was obviously flawed because of atrocious defense, terrible backup goaltending, deadweights like Lecavalier and Umberger, ect... And Berube did nothing to hide those faults, he made them even worse.

This is so simple. How could anyone be confused by this?

Certain people like to be obtuse, intentionally or unintentionally.

 

[deadhead]

I don't think a massive leap forward is to be expected, but 10-15 more points is reasonable, simply playing better than .500 against the bottom half of opponents would get you there. Partly from the coaching change, partly from the incremental changes Hextall is making to the roster (Grossman/Medvedev, Rinaldo/White, Vinnie/Laughton).

I do think that Berube was dead meat in any case, Holmgren really screwed up the roster, not so much the quantity of talent, but its distribution and fit - Peter Laviolette deep sixed here, then turns it in Nashville? The roster never fit a conservative scheme or an attack scheme. In two years I think we'll finally see a roster that makes sense, fast, skilled forwards with mobile defensemen, able to sustain an up tempo attack oriented scheme for 60 minutes.

With Hextall, you get the sense he has a consistent vision, and he hired Hakstol to implement that vision. But the roster is still screwed up, too many slow and limited forwards, not enough mobile defensemen, but they're slowing moving in the direction of a faster team that attacks the offensive zone instead of playing on their heels.

If we can improve 10 points each season, we're a fringe playoff team this year, a playoff team in 2016-17 and a cup contender in 2017-18.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Lavin failed here because he is a one trick pony and the roster wasn't suited for his trick. Berube failed because he had no idea what he was doing as HC.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Huh? Who expressed that? From what I recall, almost no one had us making the playoffs before the season started, and some had us missing them not just by a smidge.

It was in an article following the GM meeting.

 

[Ryker]

It was in an article following the GM meeting.

Got a link?

 

[Beef Invictus]

Got a link?

I'm working on it. It's a story posted during the season right after the GM meeting in March. I don't know what thread it was in though, so I'm having a hard time.

 

[Curufinwe]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=99831793&postcount=73

Like Hextall said-- other GMs have asked him how the hell they aren't a playoff team with this roster. Maybe that type of criticism costs Berube his job.

 

[Tripod]

If you guys remember correctly....we were way down on pre-season rankings last year and we thought they were nuts. In the end, the were closer to being right. TSN had us at #25 last year in the pre-season rankings:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-power-rankings-october-7-2014-1.100297

"No team is going to fare particularly well without their best defenceman and that's the prospect the Flyers face, which makes it all the more vital that G Steve Mason continue to play at the level he has since joining the Flyers. If he reverts to previous form, and the likes of Andrew MacDonald and Michael Del Zotto don't shore up the back end, then the Flyers are going to have to outgun the opposition to win and that's a tough game to play. It would put a lot of pressure on Claude Giroux and Jakub Voracek, the high-end forwards who might help the Flyers outscore their shortcomings.

Key Injuries: D Kimmo Timonen (blood clots)"

They were very wrong with others...but were pretty close with us in rankings.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

ahhh yes, the link that gave us Beef's famous line

Calgary

 

[Beef Invictus]

I stand by that. I mean, come on. Calgary.

 

[deadhead]

If you guys remember correctly....we were way down on pre-season rankings last year and we thought they were nuts. In the end, the were closer to being right. TSN had us at #25 last year in the pre-season rankings:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-power-rankings-october-7-2014-1.100297

"No team is going to fare particularly well without their best defenceman and that's the prospect the Flyers face, which makes it all the more vital that G Steve Mason continue to play at the level he has since joining the Flyers. If he reverts to previous form, and the likes of Andrew MacDonald and Michael Del Zotto don't shore up the back end, then the Flyers are going to have to outgun the opposition to win and that's a tough game to play. It would put a lot of pressure on Claude Giroux and Jakub Voracek, the high-end forwards who might help the Flyers outscore their shortcomings.

Key Injuries: D Kimmo Timonen (blood clots)"

They were very wrong with others...but were pretty close with us in rankings.

So we were ranked 25th preseason, and finished 24th.
Guess we must have had an average coach, he got just as much out of this team as was expected.

I don't think we were 25th in overall talent, but probably 25th in terms of functional talent. Without Kimmo, Coburn wasn't a top 4 defenseman, the defensemen didn't fit together, the forwards couldn't be matched to a 2nd or 3rd line that worked well.

Really, could you say the last 3 or 4 years or so of his tenure that the coaches and Holmgren were on the same page in terms of personnel?

At least with Hextall and Hakstol, one hopes they have the same vision and can agree on who to keep and who to dump. Just looking at the last couple drafts, team speed is obviously a priority, especially on defense. Forwards can be small and fast, but they better have some cojones (I don't think Hakstol will be happy with "figure skaters," pretty skaters who don't like corners or back checking).

That's one reason I think a healthy Read is safe, to me at least what I've read about Hakstol, he's pretty much the prototype winger, fast, can score and is responsible defensively. And it seems the kids they're drafting fit that mold as well.

 

[Beef Invictus]

That team should've finished considerably better than 24th. Having a coach with at least a basic grasp of line changes and TOI management, as well as matchups, would've worked wonders.


deadhead, can you please list the things you think Berube did well? Then we can list the things he did badly and see how things shake out.

 

[Jack Straw]

That team should've finished considerably better than 24th. Having a coach with at least a basic grasp of line changes and TOI management, as well as matchups, would've worked wonders.


deadhead, can you please list the things you think Berube did well? Then we can list the things he did badly and see how things shake out.

I'm not "deadhead", but I am A "deadhead" so...

1) he improved the team's level of fitness
2) he improved the team's overall structure (smaller gaps, 5 skaters in the same zone more often, etc)
3) he improved the team's 5 on 5 play
4) he improved the team's transition game

numbers 3 and 4 are both to a significant degree a result of #2

DISCLAIMER: saying that Berube did some things well, or even saying that he is not the worst coach in the history of coaching, is not the same as saying that he a) was a good coach, or b) should not have been replaced. Carry on.

 

[deadhead]

That team should've finished considerably better than 24th. Having a coach with at least a basic grasp of line changes and TOI management, as well as matchups, would've worked wonders.

deadhead, can you please list the things you think Berube did well? Then we can list the things he did badly and see how things shake out.

Got them to play adequate defense with a really weird group of defensemen, can you claim any were top 4 (Streit on the power play, but not ES, MDZ, which week? Schultz is a solid 3rd pair guy). Coburn checked out the day Kimmo went down, Mac went south, Grossman and Schenn couldn't skate, your best defenseman had to be benched for a couple weeks just to wake him up (MDZ played his best hockey after he was benched).

Got them to raise their game against playoff caliber competition, Berube's problem was he couldn't get them to play "efficient" hockey, good teams beat bad teams when they're flat through talent and competence, the Flyers couldn't be competitive if they weren't "up." But they were able to get up again and again against playoff teams. Some of this may simply have been lack of talent, they weren't good enough to coast against anyone.

While it's easy to make Berube the whipping boy, they lost a half dozen points because no one could score on a shoot out - and that's not coaching, that's pure talent. They also probably lost another half dozen points because the backup goalies were substandard. So that's 12 points right there, and 96 points makes them close to the playoffs.

They were also too thin to handle Umberger and Read playing subpar due to injury - there was no one to sub, White missed the first half of the season, Akeson simply isn't NHL quality, Laughton wasn't ready, Vinnie was, well, Vinnie, ***** about Rinaldo, but the bodies weren't there. No coach can put together a 3rd line out of trash.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I'm not "deadhead", but I am A "deadhead" so...

1) he improved the team's level of fitness
2) he improved the team's overall structure (smaller gaps, 5 skaters in the same zone more often, etc)
3) he improved the team's 5 on 5 play
4) he improved the team's transition game

numbers 3 and 4 are both to a significant degree a result of #2

DISCLAIMER: saying that Berube did some things well, or even saying that he is not the worst coach in the history of coaching, is not the same as saying that he a) was a good coach, or b) should not have been replaced. Carry on.

I dispute 4. The transition game was broken. It was far too slow, and far too deliberate, as well as too conservative. They looked like a team that believed the 2 line pass was still in place. They did this weird thing where they seemingly had to pass the puck back first (to our dmen who mostly were bad with the puck), which gave the opposition plenty of time to set up in the neutral zone and impede us. Getting through the neutral zone was a struggle. Only Giroux and Voracek at first could do it consistently, and in time Couturier became proficient at it because he had to. We were never hitting the NZ with speed, creating and exploiting gaps with quick transition, etc. The transition game was different from what Lavi had in place at first and had the advantage of not trying to force the puck up along the same wall every time, but it quickly became stagnant once other teams got a good look at it and then it was never adjusted.

 

[Jack Straw]

I dispute 4. The transition game was broken. It was far too slow, and far too deliberate, as well as too conservative. They looked like a team that believed the 2 line pass was still in place. They did this weird thing where they seemingly had to pass the puck back first (to our dmen who mostly were bad with the puck), which gave the opposition plenty of time to set up in the neutral zone and impede us. Getting through the neutral zone was a struggle. Only Giroux and Voracek at first could do it consistently, and in time Couturier became proficient at it because he had to. We were never hitting the NZ with speed, creating and exploiting gaps with quick transition, etc. The transition game was different from what Lavi had in place at first and had the advantage of not trying to force the puck up along the same wall every time, but it quickly became stagnant once other teams got a good look at it and then it was never adjusted.

I said he improved it, not that he actually made it good. It really is not even debatable. At the end of Laviolette's tenure (his last "full" season, not the the three games before he was fired) the Flyers literally could not get the puck out of their own zone. It was probably the worst transition I've ever seen. Berube got the forwards coming back in the defensive zone and there were far fewer of those hail Mary passes than there had been under Lavi. "Better" does not mean "good". The defense the Flyers have had over the past few seasons is not capable of being "good" in transition.

 

[deadhead]

But how much of that was talent?
PEB is a good 4th line center, but when people talked about moving him to the 3rd line, well . . .
Schenn struggled at LW and C, Laughton wasn't ready, Umberger and Read were limping, so other than G and V, who was going to move the puck into the offensive zone on a regular basis.

Now if they had competent offensive defensemen, they could have picked up the slack, but other than MDZ (and he was an adventure, able to facilitate scoring for both teams, not the highest hockey IQ out there), who could lead a rush? Streit is slowing down, which is why he was better on the PP where he could hang out and QB, than at ES, where he had to skate (and was a liability in the defensive zone). Schultz, Grossman, Schenn? Coburn hasn't done that since ???

I think while they may be coached better this year, we may see some similar frustrations if they have injuries among the forwards (at least we'll have some defensemen who should be ready by the New Year). One reason Hextall may have signed a couple marginal NHL forwards for Allentown is to have some reinforcements available. If Read or Raffl go down, who the heck plays LW?

PS: I don't think anyone claims Berube was a good coach, just that it's unfair to make him the whipping boy for the decline of the franchise. Holmgren (probably prodded by Snider) is the real villain, and Hextall fortunately isn't trying for the quick fix that got us into this hole in the first place. A better coach might have garnered a few more points (so we miss Provokov and the playoffs, the worst of all worlds!), but couldn't overcome the slow defensemen, the mishmash forward lines, the mediocre backup goalies who started too many games, or the inability to score on a shootout).

 

[Beef Invictus]

Got them to play adequate defense with a really weird group of defensemen, can you claim any were top 4 (Streit on the power play, but not ES, MDZ, which week? Schultz is a solid 3rd pair guy). Coburn checked out the day Kimmo went down, Mac went south, Grossman and Schenn couldn't skate, your best defenseman had to be benched for a couple weeks just to wake him up (MDZ played his best hockey after he was benched).

MDZ really didn't need a benching. The benching definitely didn't need to be that long either, and he never benched the guys who truly deserved it. He started MDZ in the offensive zone about as much as he started Grossmann, and Schenn started in the O zone more than MDZ. That is dumb. That is bad coaching. Coburn didn't check out. Coburn was put in over his head, and like every dman, found himself routinely played on the wrong side of the ice because Berube was a bad coach.

Got them to raise their game against playoff caliber competition, Berube's problem was he couldn't get them to play "efficient" hockey, good teams beat bad teams when they're flat through talent and competence, the Flyers couldn't be competitive if they weren't "up." But they were able to get up again and again against playoff teams. Some of this may simply have been lack of talent, they weren't good enough to coast against anyone.

How is this good? He couldn't keep the team motivated game to game. He couldn't keep them focused. That is bad coaching.

While it's easy to make Berube the whipping boy, they lost a half dozen points because no one could score on a shoot out - and that's not coaching, that's pure talent.

Pretty sure coaching matters, as they weren't even practicing the thing until a long chunk of the season went on. There was an obvious problem. Berube didn't bother trying to fix it for a while. The team had gotten steadily worse at shootouts under Berube. Are you trying to tell me Giroux doesn't have the talent? Because he regressed a lot while Berube didn't have them practicing.

They also probably lost another half dozen points because the backup goalies were substandard. So that's 12 points right there, and 96 points makes them close to the playoffs.

Remember how Berube did weird stuff with when he would play Emery, how he would jerk Mason around, that sort of thing? How many points did his idiotic handling of goalies cost us?

They were also too thin to handle Umberger and Read playing subpar due to injury - there was no one to sub, White missed the first half of the season, Akeson simply isn't NHL quality, Laughton wasn't ready, Vinnie was, well, Vinnie, ***** about Rinaldo, but the bodies weren't there. No coach can put together a 3rd line out of trash.

Most coaches who have bad lines try to minimize how exposed they are. Berube did not do that. He constantly lost matchup battles, even at home when that shouldn't happen, which left the 3rd and 4th lines far more exposed than they needed to be; he just got thoroughly outcoached routinely. Hell, he willingly put them out there at stupid times as well.

On top of that, there was Berube throwing Mason and Couturier under the bus for no reason. There was his handling of an injured Mason costing us a goalie coach, and risking Mason for no reason. There was his insistence on using the 3rd and 4th lines in offensive zone faceoffs after TV timeouts, as well as after icings. There was the way he made Giroux play back defensively while allowing Vinny to fully forecheck and constantly get caught out of place when the other team gets the puck, instead of sheltering Vinny and letting Giroux loose. There was the mind-boggling tactic of putting Rinaldo on the ice immediately after a PK, even if he had to put him out for the last bit of the PK, or had to split up good lines to get him out there for the first shift afterwards. There was the way he completely destroyed a good PK unit by forcing the dmen to chase pucks around, leaving vital areas open. The was the strange transition that seemed to forbid passing across more than one line at a time, and required a "Regroup" first that let the other team get set up to defend, instead of exploiting gaps in a quick transition. There was the fact that he valued size and bulk over skill and results; putting a rusty, old Hal Gill in against the fast Rangers over Gus, when Gill's skillset was the worst possible matchup and Gus' was exactly what the team needed (as proven in the next game) remains one of the most idiotic roster decisions I've seen from a Flyers coach in the playoffs...it could be the most idiotic. There was his incredibly stupid ice time management which could see Rinaldo and Vinny getting more ice time than Voracek, Simmonds, Schenn, etc through the first period...and then playing Giroux and Voracek into the dirt in the third, instead of spreading that playing time out through the game. He exhausted his stars at the end of the game and reduced their ability to produce, whereas a better pace would keep them more effective throughout. There was the many, many bench minors for failed line changes, as well as a struggle in general to complete changes in one go, leaving players trapped on the ice after shifts. There's the way that he failed to see Couturier's potential for production and didn't give him decent linemates until the end of the season, resulting in an instant boost in production...something we had predicted would happen ages before. This is the coach who occasionally started 4 on 4 OT with Grossmann on the ice over MDZ or Streit.

That's just winging it off the top of my head, I'm sure there are things I've forgotten. In general, Berube made winning harder. How many points do you suppose we lost because Berube made winning even harder for a flawed roster?

 

[Ryker]

If you guys remember correctly....we were way down on pre-season rankings last year and we thought they were nuts. In the end, the were closer to being right. TSN had us at #25 last year in the pre-season rankings:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-power-rankings-october-7-2014-1.100297

"No team is going to fare particularly well without their best defenceman and that's the prospect the Flyers face, which makes it all the more vital that G Steve Mason continue to play at the level he has since joining the Flyers. If he reverts to previous form, and the likes of Andrew MacDonald and Michael Del Zotto don't shore up the back end, then the Flyers are going to have to outgun the opposition to win and that's a tough game to play. It would put a lot of pressure on Claude Giroux and Jakub Voracek, the high-end forwards who might help the Flyers outscore their shortcomings.

Key Injuries: D Kimmo Timonen (blood clots)"

They were very wrong with others...but were pretty close with us in rankings.

Yeah, that was kind of my point, too. We got ranked low, and there's no reason to believe we are any more knowledgeable (if anything, less so) than the TSN guys that made the predictions. I mean, personally I didn't think we'd make the playoffs, but if I recall correctly from the thread made before last season started, most here did. I don't think Berube was the greatest coach, but in my opinion he nevertheless got too much flak. Nevertheless, I'm happy to have Hakstol on board, since some of Berube's decisions did start really irritating me, as well.

 

[deadhead]

I think as the season progressed, Berube did start flailing, because he couldn't fix or cover the fundamental problems with this team. If he was really that bad, then this team should have been a 100 point team without him, and TSN would have ranked them 10-15th before the season. Given that Berube had turned the team around the previous season, it's doubtful TSN rated them so low b/c of the coach - which says the outside perception of the Flyers' talent was well below that of the fans.

I suspect the Flyers won't be ranked higher than 20th this preseason, because while there have been a few incremental improvements, the fundamental talent deficiencies will take two more offseasons to address.

 

[Ryker]

I think as the season progressed, Berube did start flailing, because he couldn't fix or cover the fundamental problems with this team. If he was really that bad, then this team should have been a 100 point team without him, and TSN would have ranked them 10-15th before the season. Given that Berube had turned the team around the previous season, it's doubtful TSN rated them so low b/c of the coach - which says the outside perception of the Flyers' talent was well below that of the fans.

Yeah, but clearly everyone else is clueless, right?

 

[Tripod]

I think as the season progressed, Berube did start flailing, because he couldn't fix or cover the fundamental problems with this team. If he was really that bad, then this team should have been a 100 point team without him, and TSN would have ranked them 10-15th before the season. Given that Berube had turned the team around the previous season, it's doubtful TSN rated them so low b/c of the coach - which says the outside perception of the Flyers' talent was well below that of the fans.

I suspect the Flyers won't be ranked higher than 20th this preseason, because while there have been a few incremental improvements, the fundamental talent deficiencies will take two more offseasons to address.

Look at the reasons they expected us to fall in the standings:
1. Losing Kimmo...keep in mind Kimmo was still good at this point
2. Mason....they did not expect him to be better than the year before
3. Unsure on MacD and MDZ
4. Felt we would have to outgun teams to win

Results
1. Yes losing a healthy Kimmo hurt us....especially on the PK....but MDZ, his replacement played well
2. Mason was clearly better
3. Both guys were down but MDZ got up while MacD was meh
4. We didn't try to do this...but Jake and G put up good points, we just expected them reversed.

So really, their reason for us failing, didn't really happen. We never had to try and outscore teams due to bad goaltending from Mason. Berube had us playing an ultra conservative system that held our scoring chances down....but also helped our D.

Speaking of D...just think how we view each guy. Schultz, Streit, and MDZ we feel had good years. Schenn was Schenn...not good, not bad. Coburn was down...mostly due to not having Kimmo. And MacD was even to down. Some numbers suggest he is better than we give credit for, but still was even at best. Then Grossmann is viewed as bad despite have a good year for him offensively and a solid +\-. So to sum up, half our D was good, half was meh to bad.

For forwards, we know who was good and bad....pretty clear cut.

My point is, with great goaltending, half the D playing good, 2 star forwards, an excellent shutdown C, and 2 other 50 pt wingers, we were a bad team. In fact, we were wildly inconsistent.

Berube had some shortcomings in depth and players given to him...for sure. But he also made lots of decisions that hurt us instead of helping us....as others have covered in here.

If we told TSN that
Mason would be top 5 in SV% for starters
Streit would get 50 points
G and Jake would combine for 154 points
Schultz would hVe a good year
MDZ would rebound to his NYR days
And we would have no major injuries...I bet TSN would have ranked us much higher.

 

[Garbage Goal]

Look at the reasons they expected us to fall in the standings:
1. Losing Kimmo...keep in mind Kimmo was still good at this point
2. Mason....they did not expect him to be better than the year before
3. Unsure on MacD and MDZ
4. Felt we would have to outgun teams to win

Results
1. Yes losing a healthy Kimmo hurt us....especially on the PK....but MDZ, his replacement played well
2. Mason was clearly better
3. Both guys were down but MDZ got up while MacD was meh
4. We didn't try to do this...but Jake and G put up good points, we just expected them reversed.

So really, their reason for us failing, didn't really happen. We never had to try and outscore teams due to bad goaltending from Mason. Berube had us playing an ultra conservative system that held our scoring chances down....but also helped our D.

Speaking of D...just think how we view each guy. Schultz, Streit, and MDZ we feel had good years. Schenn was Schenn...not good, not bad. Coburn was down...mostly due to not having Kimmo. And MacD was even to down. Some numbers suggest he is better than we give credit for, but still was even at best. Then Grossmann is viewed as bad despite have a good year for him offensively and a solid +\-. So to sum up, half our D was good, half was meh to bad.

For forwards, we know who was good and bad....pretty clear cut.

My point is, with great goaltending, half the D playing good, 2 star forwards, an excellent shutdown C, and 2 other 50 pt wingers, we were a bad team. In fact, we were wildly inconsistent.

Berube had some shortcomings in depth and players given to him...for sure. But he also made lots of decisions that hurt us instead of helping us....as others have covered in here.

If we told TSN that
Mason would be top 5 in SV% for starters
Streit would get 50 points
G and Jake would combine for 154 points
Schultz would hVe a good year
MDZ would rebound to his NYR days
And we would have no major injuries...I bet TSN would have ranked us much higher.

It's also worth mentioning that Timonen was pretty bad this season when he did come back, albeit that time was entirely with the Blackhawks. So his loss is probably overstated all things considered, more-so because he didn't have anything left in him then having anything to do with us needing a number one.

Giroux, Voracek, and Mason all had arguably elite seasons, relative to their peers in the NHL. Streit had a very good season, MDZ had a nice rebound season, Schultz had a nice rebound season, Couturier and Schenn produced well relative to career performances so far (the former of which produced a career high in goals...I think?). The only players that had an unexpected truly bad season was Read and that's possibly and probably because of injury and Berube himself to an extent. All the rest of the bad performances were from players that you expect that from (Rinaldo, Lecavalier, etc.). Looking at the individuals on our roster, last year they performed above expectations on the whole. Three relatively elite seasons, one of which was entirely unexpected, Streit not regressing at all, and some very nice rebound performances. Yet we were still terrible and arguably performed worse then expected, to the point where we were in contention for the third overall pick about halfway through the season.

I just ignore the people who claim Berube was anything but bad at this point.

 

[deadhead]

Look at the reasons they expected us to fall in the standings:
1. Losing Kimmo...keep in mind Kimmo was still good at this point
2. Mason....they did not expect him to be better than the year before
3. Unsure on MacD and MDZ
4. Felt we would have to outgun teams to win

Results
1. Yes losing a healthy Kimmo hurt us....especially on the PK....but MDZ, his replacement played well

MDZ played well at times, but it's a stretch to see him as anything but a bottom 4, nothing close to Kimmo

2. Mason was clearly better
3. Both guys were down but MDZ got up while MacD was meh
4. We didn't try to do this...but Jake and G put up good points, we just expected them reversed.

Berube had us playing an ultra conservative system that held our scoring chances down....but also helped our D.

The lack of talent on D dictated a conservative system, no Kimmo, Coburn going south, MDZ untrustworthy, Schenn, Grossman and Schultz limited, Streit aging and best on the PP, Mac, meh.

For forwards, we know who was good and bad....pretty clear cut.

We had five reliable forwards, G, V, Raffl, Couts and Simmonds. Read and Umberger were injured, Schenn wasn't comfortable at C or LW, Vinnie, bleech, a revolving cast on the 3rd and 4th lines (Akeson, Jones, Laughton, Rinaldo) until the end of the season.

My point is, with great goaltending, half the D playing good, 2 star forwards, an excellent shutdown C, and 2 other 50 pt wingers, we were a bad team. In fact, we were wildly inconsistent.

Berube had some shortcomings in depth and players given to him...for sure. But he also made lots of decisions that hurt us instead of helping us....as others have covered in here.

If we told TSN that
Mason would be top 5 in SV% for starters
Streit would get 50 points
G and Jake would combine for 154 points
Schultz would have a good year [for Schultz, he's still a 3rd pair D]
MDZ would rebound to his NYR days [great plays and brain farts]
And we would have no major injuries...I bet TSN would have ranked us much higher.

I doubt it. TSN would have looked at our D and said, you don't have a 1st pair, and barely have a second pair. You don't have a consistent 2nd line and no 3rd line and it took 2/3 of the season to find a 4th line (when VV and White were paired with PEB). Your backup goalies are the worst in the NHL with a starting goalie who can't play more than 50 games.

The primary problem was this was not a good TEAM, it had some good pieces, but they didn't fit together well. A better coach might have patched around this to a minor extent, but what was and is needed was to rebuild the defense and fill out the forward lines.

 

[deadhead]

Yeah, but clearly everyone else is clueless, right?

Those who think this was a good team that Berube deep sixed are clueless.
Those who think this was a bad team that deep sixed Berube, who was over his head trying to coach up a mess, are not.

I think the reason people want to blame Berube is denial, if he's the problem then replacing him means we don't have to go through the pain of rebuilding, because it's all the coach's fault.

Fortunately Hextall is nobody's fool, he's spent the last two years patiently trying to get out of cap hell, accumulating draft picks to replenish a "farm system" that was thin on talent, refusing to rush young prospects, and waiting until he could hire a coach that had a similar philosophy (i.e. not hiring a name to placate fans). Which means this season isn't going to be a huge jump over last season, because Hextall is building for the long-term. No big trades, no big FA signing, a coach who'll need time to learn the ropes. No magical solutions, no miracle coach, no savior free agent.