Hakstol v Berube

[Garbage Goal]

they had a winning record against the Flyers, were 15 points better also
they were +23 in GD, while scoring 23 more goals and allowing 19 less goals than the Flyers, who were -19 in GD
hence, objectively=better, any way you look at it

The implication you were making before is that we couldn't possibly have been better. The discussion is about Berube and how the quality of this team would have been without him.

If you were being that literal then what the hell was the point in saying it? Every team ahead of them in the standings was objectively better then, you don't have to say it and it doesn't relate to the Berube discussion.

 

[YEM]

If you were being that literal then what the hell was the point in saying it? Every team ahead of them in the standings was objectively better then, you don't have to say it and it doesn't relate to the Berube discussion.

You previously claimed that a team in the playoffs was not objectively better than them. Hence, my response.

 

[Garbage Goal]

Actually, with a better coach we may well allow at least 20 fewer goals because of semi-competent line and TOI management, as well as not completely destroying the PK. Berube's idiotically aggressive PK allowed 57 goals last season. The season before: 43. That's 14 goals right there. Another 6 can easily be accounted for thanks to Berube's terrible line matching and game management in general.


Giroux not being made to play unbelievably conservatively would have certainly added another 5-10 goals for us, but I don't know how much above that they could've gone due to the D group.

All of that and he got absolutely destroyed on the road. Presumably because he was too crappy to not overcome the last change disadvantage.

His decisions for zone starts were absurdly weird at times too. I remember us losing a game to the Bruins because he put Lecavalier for a defensive zone face-off against Bergeron in a tied game with the minutes winding down even though he had Giroux or Couturier to choose from. That's just one example that sticks in my head. He made even more absurd decisions with regularity.

 

[Flyerfan4life]

All of that and he got absolutely destroyed on the road. Presumably because he was too crappy to not overcome the last change disadvantage.

His decisions for zone starts were absurdly weird at times too. I remember us losing a game to the Bruins because he put Lecavalier for a defensive zone face-off against Bergeron in a tied game with the minutes winding down even though he had Giroux or Couturier to choose from. That's just one example that sticks in my head. He made even more absurd decisions with regularity.

you mean like Roo/Vora/ZAc attack..

that was always a beauty...

 

[CodyTheHuman]

Jesus christ this thread is ridiculous. How many times can you ask the same questions and get them answered while still not believing the answers?

Yes, Giroux played as much as other top centers, but if his time was spread out evenly, like other top centers, it would have been used more effectively and not beat him into the ground by the end of the game.

Voracek, one of the best RWs in the game last season was used less than Patrick Kane. An extra minute of your best player on the ice is going to help you score. How do you not get that?

Yes, losing Kimmo and Coburn hurt the PK, but so did the incredibly horrible adjustment that made it more aggressive. That's bad coaching and he never changed it even after it didn't work. It worked last season because he kept it the same as Lavy's. He wasn't some genius last season with a great mind for the PK. He used someone else's system and it worked. When he implemented his own it failed. Must be a great ****ing coach.

The Flyers could have most likely made the playoffs in the wildcard or 8th seed. It's really not hard. More than half of the league makes the playoffs, but not half of the league is a contender. That's easy to see. I don't know where you're getting this 100 point team nonsense. No one in this thread said they were a 100 point team.

I would argue that he cost them around 15 points last season.

Teams do practice the shootout. Google it and you'll find team videos of them practicing.

4th lines shouldn't be used as an offensive zone draw after a TV timeout or icing. That's not how you score goals.

All of these issues that are being brought up you're just shouting "LALALA I can't hear you" at it and ignoring everything that is said while bringing up the same questions that have been answered 100 times. It's ridiculous.

 

[deadhead]

They needed 98-99 points to make the playoffs (Penguins at 98).
They were an 84 point team (prorated) under Lav, 94 point team two years ago (when Berube turned it around) and an 84 point team last year.

So what great improvement did they make last year?
Replaced Kimmo with Schultz
Replaced Hartnell with Umberger
Replaced Hall with PEB
Replaced Gill/Mezaros with MacDonald
VV got PT in place of Vinnie.
Read was injured
That's pretty much it, no young players emerged. No major FAs.

You'd expect from the decline in talent that the team would have regressed. And it did.

It takes an heroic leap of faith to presume this was a playoff team.

 

[Garbage Goal]

They needed 98-99 points to make the playoffs (Penguins at 98).
They were an 84 point team (prorated) under Lav, 94 point team two years ago (when Berube turned it around) and an 84 point team last year.

So what great improvement did they make last year?
Replaced Kimmo with Schultz
Replaced Hartnell with Umberger
Replaced Hall with PEB
Replaced Gill/Mezaros with MacDonald
VV got PT in place of Vinnie.
Read was injured
That's pretty much it, no young players emerged. No major FAs.

You'd expect from the decline in talent that the team would have regressed. And it did.

It takes an heroic leap of faith to presume this was a playoff team.

No young players emerged? You can't be serious with that can you? Like, you have to be kidding with that remark.

Anyways I don't argue about things I know aren't going to go anywhere with people I know who have the tendency to do so, but Homer/Laviolette weren't exactly great examples of competency either. Definitely not with Homer, definitely not with Laviolette if you just look at his tenure here.

You really like to imagine you read things by the way. Nobody has used this 100 point nonsense except you, nobody has mentioned being contenders except you. One singular poster, in one singular post said we should have been a playoff team when he obviously meant that our ceiling should have been that of a fringe team.

 

[Striiker]

No young players emerged? You can't be serious with that can you? Like, you have to be kidding with that remark.

Anyways I don't argue about things I know aren't going to go anywhere with people I know who have the tendency to do so, but Homer/Laviolette weren't exactly great examples of competency either. Definitely not with Homer, definitely not with Laviolette if you just look at his tenure here.

You really like to imagine you read things by the way. Nobody has used this 100 point nonsense except you, nobody has mentioned being contenders except you. One singular poster, in one singular post said we should have been a playoff team when he obviously meant that our ceiling should have been that of a fringe team.

I told you he didn't watch last last season.

Holy **** this is too funny to be true.

 

[Tripod]

They needed 98-99 points to make the playoffs (Penguins at 98).
They were an 84 point team (prorated) under Lav, 94 point team two years ago (when Berube turned it around) and an 84 point team last year.

So what great improvement did they make last year?
Replaced Kimmo with Schultz
Replaced Hartnell with Umberger
Replaced Hall with PEB
Replaced Gill/Mezaros with MacDonald
VV got PT in place of Vinnie.
Read was injured
That's pretty much it, no young players emerged. No major FAs.

You'd expect from the decline in talent that the team would have regressed. And it did.

It takes an heroic leap of faith to presume this was a playoff team.

Why are you ignoring MDZ having a good year.
Or Voracek having a good year.
Or BSchenn being better.
Or Mason being way better.
Etc..

We get it. You want them being a bad team placed on Holmgren and not Berube. But if you actually watched the games last year, there were so many WTF moments CAUSED by Berube. When that happens, it's on the coach. Yet you ignore all the examples people give you. That's on you not being observant enough.

 

[deadhead]

Who?
Laughton? He did zilch.
MDZ? He's a roller coaster on an up year.

G, V, Simmonds, Schenn, Couts were pretty much the same as the year before. V had 20 more assists but one less goal. Simmonds had 9 less assists. Raffl went from 22 to 28 points, more goals b/c of his linemates. There was no rookie or second year player making a big jump last year.

 

[Striiker]

Yeah guys, Voracek only had 19 more points than his career high.

 

[Beef Invictus]

So the loss of Kimmo had no impact on the PK.
Replacing half the PK guys had no impact.

Not nearly as much impact as the system changes, which had dmen chasing after the puck and leaving prime areas unguarded constantly. Timonen's presence wouldn't have mattered very much since he would've been ordered to be aggressive. Timonen's absence was missed more on PP2 and on offense, and ES defense, than it would've been in Berube's nonsense PK.

What kind of TOI management? Giroux was maxed out, Vorecek was used as much as most top RWs? Whose minutes would you have increased?

You aren't reading anybody's posts, are you? This has been explained a few times. Nobody said TOI needs to be increased, but that it needs to be managed better. Giroux and Voracek would have laughable minutes through two periods, then Berube would play them into the dirt in the third, leaving them exhausted with a considerable amount of game left to play. He minimized their chances to have an impact early in the game, then reduced their ability to be effective by draining them late.

"Giroux not being made to play unbelievably conservatively would have certainly added another 5-10 goals for us" and probably 5-10 goals for our opponents as well.

Pretty doubtful. Our top line's forecheck was actually weakened because Giroux playing high meant our wingers were routinely outnumbered, costing us possession. Giroux playing normally would have likely rectified that situation and actually reduced the number of times he found himself backchecking from the offensive zone. Having Giroux play defensively increased the chances of him needing to play in his own zone. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Vinny, on the other hand, should have been defensive like Giroux was made to be. He no longer has the ability to control possession, yet he was fully committed to a deep forecheck. So when he or his linemates inevitably coughed up the puck he had no prayer of getting back in time and was routinely caught with his pants down because he skates like a slug now.

Berube may not have done a good job,

Understatement.

but anyone who didn't have an axe to grind (and slam it between his eyes) would admit that with any coach this wasn't a 90+ point team last year - it's not like they were a 100 point team in 2013-2014 that went out and made significant additions - it was a 94 point team (and that was a 10 point jump over the previous season) that had significant losses.

Appleyard has worked a lot of numbers, related to the PK alone (which Berube changed for the worse), that indicated the team would have been in contention for a playoff spot with their normal PK ability.

It's super simple. Berube made winning a lot harder than it needed to be. His poor coaching cost the team games. The roster was absolutely not as bad as their record; Berube got the least out of them due to his perpetual mismanagement. Your coach should be making it easier for the roster to win...not forcing it to win despite you, which was the case.

 

[Tripod]

Yeah guys, Voracek only had 19 more points than his career high.

Lol...yup...pretty much the same as the year before.

Oh wait...Voracek was better BECAUSE of Berube....right deadhead?

 

[deadhead]

You haven't explained where this great jump was supposed to come from while the overall talent declined last year - either Berube was an above average coach the year before, Lav was a horrible coach two years ago, or the truth is somewhere in between - this has been a 84-94 point team the last three years.

You are what your record says you are, this wasn't a one year decline by a good team with a new coach, this was three years of ineptitude, which began when Holmgren traded JVR for L Schenn, then got worse when Hextall started moving out talent to make cap room down the road.

I doubt they get to 100 points this year no matter how Hakstol coaches, unless they're extremely lucky in terms of health - because this team is still too thin in terms of forward depth (i.e., a turned ankle and you have an AHL caliber player starting until one of the kids is ready). They still need to rework the defense. Better depth at goalie will help.

Now miracles can happen, Gagner can learn to walk on water and score 30 goals, Umberger might rebound to his 20 goal past, MacDonald might look like a top 4 D-man, etc. But Vegas ain't betting on it right now - despite some improvements (a real backup goalie, Grossman replaced by Medvedev, Laughton a year older, Cousins) where are we ranked right now? 28th? Guess they think Hakstol won't be a better coach than Berube!

 

[Appleyard]

Even the statement that Giroux is being maxed out in terms of minutes is wrong...

from 2011-12 to 2012-13 he averaged 21:23 TOI per game.

2013-14 to 2014-15 he averaged 20:29 TOI per game.

Berube played him almost a minute less a game than Lavi did.
Berube also plays Jake around a minute less than wingers of a similar ability get.

And who does he give those minutes to compared to pre-Berube? Our 4th line.

Do people think the Flyers MAYBE have a bit more success if Giroux and Voracek play that extra minute instead of Vinny, VdV, Bellemare, Rinaldo?!

 

[Beef Invictus]

You haven't explained where this great jump was supposed to come from while the overall talent declined last year - either Berube was an above average coach the year before, Lav was a horrible coach two years ago, or the truth is somewhere in between - this has been a 84-94 point team the last three years.

You are what your record says you are, this wasn't a one year decline by a good team with a new coach, this was three years of ineptitude, which began when Holmgren traded JVR for L Schenn, then got worse when Hextall started moving out talent to make cap room down the road.

I doubt they get to 100 points this year no matter how Hakstol coaches, unless they're extremely lucky in terms of health - because this team is still too thin in terms of forward depth (i.e., a turned ankle and you have an AHL caliber player starting until one of the kids is ready). They still need to rework the defense. Better depth at goalie will help.

Now miracles can happen, Gagner can learn to walk on water and score 30 goals, Umberger might rebound to his 20 goal past, MacDonald might look like a top 4 D-man, etc. But Vegas ain't betting on it right now - despite some improvements (a real backup goalie, Grossman replaced by Medvedev, Laughton a year older, Cousins) where are we ranked right now? 28th? Guess they think Hakstol won't be a better coach than Berube!

Why do you set up these situations? It doesn't need to be "guess X or Y must be true."


It's fully possible to lose talent, and then have the team perform even worse than it should have due to a horrific coaching performance. It doesn't have to be one or the other. It can very well be a roster decline made even worse by bad coaching, which is indeed what we saw last year.

 

[Appleyard]

The reason they made the playoffs in 2013-14 were:

Great PK.
Great PP.
Elite offense outscoring poor defense.
Mason being good.
Couturier shutting down opponents.
Giroux being arguably the best player in the NHL from November to seasons end.

In 2014-15:

The PK system changes and is hilarious.
PP is still great.
The system changes to a more conservative one... lo and behold our poor D cannot concede less than our pretty good forward group can score.
Mason was better.
Couturier was better.
Giroux was one of the best players in the NHL from October to December. He then for some reason loses 5% of offensive zone starts and gains 5% defensive... with them given to the 4th line... from that point 1st line drops off and team that had a playoff shot falls off.

 

[Appleyard]

Both out top two centres last season were top 10 in defensive zone faceoffs taken...

Giroux: 466 Dzone faceoffs... more than Toews, Kopitar, Kesler etc.

Berube spent the whole year overplaying our 4th line while giving them some of easiest minutes in the league. Think about that... it is a juxtoposition of logic that should not happen.

4th line not good enough to take anything but offensive zone starts vs other 4ths without being a total liability?

No?

Then why play them more than most 4ths in the league then while playing your 1C a minute less than the previous coach and your star RW a minute less than others of similar ability?

 

[deadhead]

How was Couts better last year? Same offense, same defense.

With Kimmo gone, which Flyer defenseman would you trust on the ice on the PK? Any? (Grossman and Schenn can't clear, Streit gets manhandled, MAC is meh, MDZ is too careless, maybe Shultz?)

Mason was better but Emery/Zepp were worse, pretty much evened out.

The system became more conservative in 2013-14 after Berube took over from Lav, and more so this year without Kimmo, MDZ may be as good offensively, but he's far less trustworthy with the puck. The rest of the defense, well, who would you let play aggressive? Streit is a top PP QB, but has lost a step playing ES.

Vinnie was a mess, they couldn't play him in the defensive zone because he was so bad and made his linemates bad on defense, so you either play him in the O-zone or bench him, but that meant playing Rinaldo. I'm sure you all loved that choice!

I think the real reason G and V fell off is that other teams saw they were the only offense and basically game planned to shut them down because they didn't care about any other matchup (didn't have to worry about a solid 2nd line pumping in goals).

This wasn't a good team, heck, this wasn't an average team, Berube or no Berube. It was a below average, flawed team that was full of misfits - or maybe y'all forgot your rants about Vinnie, Rinaldo, Read, Umberger, L Schenn, Grossman, MacDonald and Emery all season?

 

[JWEKD]

I think its fairly obvious that deadhead didn't actually watch games last season. What he/she is doing now is supplementing that lack of first hand knowledge by looking at this: http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?season=20142015&gameType=2&team=PHI&position=S&country=&status=&viewName=summary&sort=&ord=#
and this: http://www.nhl.com/stats/team
and arguing with dozens of people that watched EVERY game last season.
I think if you look back at post #1 you'll see that multiple people answered every single question deadhead had. He/she set up a troll job, really digging in after all questions were reasonably answered.
Right now everyone is running around in circles with this person like they can't resist doing with JTown all the time.

 

[Appleyard]

Couturier 2013-14: 2.07 GF/60, 2.45 GA/60
Couturier 2014-15: 2.22 GF/60, 1.84 GA/60

So yes... Couturiers positive influence on our games this year was far greater than the previous year. His defensive figures last year were good for the circumstances... this year they were godly.

Anyone who does not skate past the hashes constantly, chase forwards to the halfboards, constantly attack players instead of clogging the lanes... oh wait, that was all of them... as the system was changed to a suicidal one. The loss of Kimmo hurt... but his loss taking the PK from one of the consistent best in the league for multiple years to one of the worst in NHL history? Yep... Kimmo must be god.

Team sv% in 2013-14 was 90.95, 2014-15 was 91.01... so yes, there was a marked improvement even with Emery being absymal. 6 extra goals per 1000 shots stopped compared to the prior year... considering we face ~2400 shots a year that is 14 less goals allowed directly due to better overall goaltending. So it did not 'even out'.

So if he wanted to shield the 4th and thought they were poor why did he play them more than most 4th lines in the NHL? A juxtoposition no? Berube: Oh yeh they suck and I have to shield them... but hey, what the heck, I'll give them more shifts a game than most of their competant 4th line counterparts around the league.

But they were not the only offence... at EV our 2nd line put in a really solid contribution. The fact that Giroux was played as a 3rd D man and our top line had the most defensive zone starts of any in the league may have had something to do with it... (though luck actually plays into it, Girouxs on ice sh% was unsustainably low, and he should rebound to ~PPG next year on that alone.)

Most of us recognised the team as ~8th-10th best team in the conference before the year, and thought they would be either just in or just out of the playoffs. I do not think that is unreasonable considering that if the PK had been even NHL average they would have almost certainly finished on the cusp of the playoffs.

 

[deadhead]

Yes, I watched practically every game. One reason save % was up was the conservative system giving up fewer easy shots and rebounds, they did a good job blocking shots and keeping shooters wide.

Vinnie wasn't the 4th line, they hardly had a 2nd line (used Couts line more as a 3rd line), when Vinnie was in his line was effectively the 2nd/3rd line, hoping for some offense (cause they weren't getting any defense from whomever you put with him). When Vinnie wasn't in, they had two 4th lines.

MDZ has great offensive skills, but he's also a mind fart machine, the kind of player who puts up good numbers on bad teams because he gambles, but also leads to a lot of rushes the other way.

Sorry, no way to spin this as a good team buried by Berube, rather, a below average team made worse by Berube - maybe they're a 90 point team with another coach, but they weren't a playoff team last year.

G & V were taking a beating by the second half of the season, and not surprising, playing the Flyers, I'd hit them every chance I could get, wear them down and dare the rest of the team to beat me. We do that to the Penguins, and they actually have two scoring lines.

 

[Random Forest]

No one said they were a good team.

They were and still are decidedly average on paper.

A good coach gets his team to perform better than the 'on paper' lineup would suggest.

Under Berube, they performed below their 'on paper' standard.

Ipso facto, Berube is a bad coach.