Beef Invictus
Revolutionary Positivity
Teams watch film and prepare, eh?
How come we weren't prepared? How come we made only the single systemic adjustment?
How come we weren't prepared? How come we made only the single systemic adjustment?
Overmatched by a more talented team.
Teams watch film, and the one thing that stands out is that teams with forechecking depth harass Giroux and Ghost to get the puck off their sticks, and they can't play with a man on them - younger Giroux and rookie Ghost (before his hip injury) were quick and agile enough to make teams pay for pressing them but no more. I don't think it's an accident that our best line all series was Laughton - Couts - Simmonds, a nice combination of size and speed.
That's why playoff hockey is a different game, Nico and Bratt totally disappeared for New Jersey, but Hall (6'1 205 had a big series).
Not every smurf is shut down, Panarin had a good series for CBJ.
Mitch Marner is having a big series for Toronto, note he was 5'11 160 at the combine, i.e. same size as Frost, jump to the NHL at 19 and is playing big at 20. But if you're not physical, you'd better be fast and elusive.
Look at the points leaders in the playoffs...4 out of the top 5 are all under 6' and under 200lbs
So wait, if your not physical then you better be fast and elusive...Nico is fast and elusive...why did he not succeed then? You know why? Because there is no formula to playoff success
Carlson and Couts certainly aren't small.
Crosby, Guentzel (23), Pastrnak (21), Kucherov (24), none are "smurfs",
Guentzel and Kucherov the smallest, 5'11 180-85? about the same size as TK and Giroux.
Pastrnak is 6'1 195.
Crosby is 5'11 201
Note that other than Crosby, they're in their early 20s, at the peak of their athletic ability.
Giroux had his one great playoff at age 24.
That size must be why Rick Nash is always lighting up the playoffs. Gasp even your big man Jumbo Joe has gone completely cold in the playoffs.
Your narratives are just nonsense. There's a lot of reasons why players go cold. Bad matchups, bad schemes, trailing in games, injuries and etc.
Teams watch film and prepare, eh?
How come we weren't prepared? How come we made only the single systemic adjustment?
I feel this way too. He has some good input but just misses the target or gets hung up blaming the studs.I've stalked this board for a couple years.
I've thought Deadhead has made some good points about different things and I thought there was an unnecessary vitriol cast against him, just an overall nasty, mean spirited attitude simply over a different outlook. Reading those attacks I cringed.
However, he doesn't hold Hakstol accountable for anything. For example, he goes on an on about different players (giroux, sanheim, TK, patrick, lindblom, etc) playing poorly against the Pens but he never considers that a good coach could have given the the opportunity to be more successful. Is he telling me that it was impossible for a coach to find situations for these players to be more successfully? Moreover he never analyzes a player like sanheim vs. gudas or manning. Gudas and Manning are pure trash. There was no reason to start either one of them over Sanheim.
Ok. I guess we see this a little differently which is fine.
IMO, players should keep playing until a whistle, so you can’t disregard his positioning on goal 6. My guess is most if not all NHL players would agree. This is what we are taught from a young age.
In regards to goals 7 and 8, see the comment above, so yes, it did matter. I’m sure Provy was still playing the game in an effort to win at that point. I’m sure it mattered to him.
I do agree with you that Gudas was awful and put us into a tough position to win.
hopefully Hexy does this to beetfarmer... SOON
We watch tape, bud, not film - there's a difference. Tape is from before, from the olden days, the golden halcyon days Hak longs for - the Hakcyon days.
I've stalked this board for a couple years.
I've thought Deadhead has made some good points about different things and I thought there was an unnecessary vitriol cast against him, just an overall nasty, mean spirited attitude simply over a different outlook. Reading those attacks I cringed.
However, he doesn't hold Hakstol accountable for anything. For example, he goes on an on about different players (giroux, sanheim, TK, patrick, lindblom, etc) playing poorly against the Pens but he never considers that a good coach could have given the the opportunity to be more successful. Is he telling me that it was impossible for a coach to find situations for these players to be more successfully? Moreover he never analyzes a player like sanheim vs. gudas or manning. Gudas and Manning are pure trash. There was no reason to start either one of them over Sanheim.
Do you think it's good player development to push players into mismatches that won't help the team win but might hinder their development?
l
My point on the "stars" is I keep reading that they're the only reason the Flyers won this year (as if there's a playoff team that won without the top 5 or 6 players contributing most of their scoring?), so when they come up short, shouldn't they be accountable for the team losing?
There was no evidence they were mismatched. The opposite, in fact. They were doing well. Their punishment for doing well was sitting as worse players struggled harder than they did.
My advice is to see an opthamologist.
He did.this line of thinking is so obviously flawed I'm a little embarrassed that I'm even pointing this out
that being said if you told someone in October we'd make the playoffs and lose to the defending cup champs in 6 games, one would probably think Hak did a fairly decent job this season...