Post-Game Talk: PO #6 | Penguins 8, Flyers 5 | All irritating seasons must come to an end...

Van Buren Boy

--------------------
Aug 18, 2006
1,541
700
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
 

deadhead

Registered User
Feb 26, 2014
49,215
21,617
Because Nico is a rookie, and of course, his coach obviously sucked because he couldn't make adjustments. :sarcasm:

There's a reason good teams like to work rookies in slow, but it's a luxury only deep teams are afforded.
We threw Patrick and Lindblom into the fire because we had no depth. Lindblom sank, Patrick treaded water.
Next season, now that the top two lines are set, we can work Frost in as a 3C, NAK on the 3rd or 4th line, Morin as the 3rd pair D-man.
in 2019, our bottom six will probably be almost all players with 0-2 years of experience.

The advantage of working in rookie and second year players in slow is if they're ready, it'll be obvious, and if they're not, they can play sheltered minutes until the light goes on.
 

deadhead

Registered User
Feb 26, 2014
49,215
21,617
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hatcher

macleish1974

Crash.....Heart of a Lion
Aug 2, 2005
2,724
5,402
Florida Swampland
upload_2018-4-24_10-7-21.jpeg
upload_2018-4-24_10-7-21.jpeg
upload_2018-4-24_10-7-21.jpeg
upload_2018-4-24_10-7-21.jpeg
upload_2018-4-24_10-22-23.jpeg
upload_2018-4-24_10-22-28.jpeg
upload_2018-4-24_10-22-33.jpeg
upload_2018-4-24_10-22-37.jpeg


In reference to Rutherford's comments about Flyers fans: Doc to Ringo: Well Johnny Ringo, I'm your huckleberry.......
 
  • Like
Reactions: hatcher

magnumpi

Roger got goofy with Cancer
Apr 22, 2018
1,654
1,598
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.
 

Lindberg

Bennyflyers16 get a life
Oct 5, 2013
7,151
7,850
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.
 

Beef Invictus

Revolutionary Positivity
Dec 21, 2009
127,494
164,354
Armored Train
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.

A single series where a team may be specifically planning for a player is a miniscule sample size as well. Lord knows how often stars on bad teams have a bad first series and fans are ripping him, only for him to make up for it later if they make it through. It's an annual tradition.
 

Adtar02

@NateThompson44 is a bum
Apr 8, 2012
4,878
5,748
2nd star 2 the right
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.
I feel this way too. He has some good input but just misses the target or gets hung up blaming the studs.
 

Rebels57

Former Flyers fan
Sponsor
Sep 28, 2014
76,383
122,699
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.

I just went back and rewatched all four 3rd period goals.

1st goal is on him, plain and simple.

2nd goal, the goal just after Coots was blatantly tripped, he had nothing to do with. He literally JUST stepped on the ice. In fact he wasn't even on the ice yet when Coots was tripped. His skates hit the ice and the puck was already getting moved to Guentzel for the one-timer.

3rd goal, he shares blame with MacDonald and Neuvirth. They just went down 6-4 so the D has to be aggressive in the neutral zone. He stepped up and the puck was lobbed JUST over his glove and it resulted in a 2 on 1 the other way. Guess who decided to slide down on their stomach and let the pass through YET AGAIN, like they have all season? Andrew MacDonald. He has not idea how to play a 2 on 1. It's unreal. Neuvirth also needed to come up with a save there and didn't.

4th goal, the EN goal, was all on him. Didn't matter. Game was over.

That's my honest take.
 

Ruck Over

When the revolution comes, pants will do you no gd
Apr 19, 2016
4,197
3,323
Philadelphia, Pa
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.

Film, tape, aren't both of these antiquated?

Last I checked, most of the media today is presented more in video fashion, mpeg's and the sort, a gif to really drive home a point. But hey, whatever the Flyers coaching staff is doing, ain't working all that well.
 

deadhead

Registered User
Feb 26, 2014
49,215
21,617
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.

Why should I jump on Hakstol? :deadhorse So many do it better than I can. :sarcasm:

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?

I've made this point before, it's not veterans v rookies, it's prospects v themselves, that is, if a prospect is struggling, his time is reduced or he's benched, veterans play by default because we lack viable alternatives (everyone who harped over Lehtera v Read, uh, Lehtera actually played better than Read in the playoffs, not that's saying much). Manning v MacDonald v Hagg? Give me a break.

Provorov at 21 lead all players in TOI and Patrick at 19 was 4th among forwards. That certainly doesn't sound like favoring veterans.
Konency was 7th among forwards, the "veterans" who played more were Simmonds and Filppula, and last time I checked, TK isn't a center and he doesn't play the PK.

So it basically comes down to Sanheim, Laughton and Lindblom.
Lindblom was awful, obviously overmatched.
Sanheim was meh, he didn't look like the guy of the last couple months of the season, maybe better than Manning, but not enough that it made a difference.
Laughton was bad at center, much better when they moved him to LW and Lehtera at center.

So I have no idea why people make such a big deal about PT. A minute or two more isn't that important. Give TK an extra shift a period (2 more minutes per game) and he's still unlikely to score another goal (given he scored 1 in 83 minutes), start Sanheim over Manning and I expect you'd end up with about the same result.

And the best way to make them more successful was probably by finding another opponent.

Making a mountain out of a molehole.
 

Beef Invictus

Revolutionary Positivity
Dec 21, 2009
127,494
164,354
Armored Train
It's obviously veterans vs rookies, because even when prospects prove themselves they get benched or have ice time minimized in favor of crappy players.


Do you think it is good coaching to play inferior players in place of better players?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captain Dave Poulin

deadhead

Registered User
Feb 26, 2014
49,215
21,617
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: renberg

Beef Invictus

Revolutionary Positivity
Dec 21, 2009
127,494
164,354
Armored Train
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?


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.
 

renberg

Registered User
Dec 31, 2003
6,773
6,819
Lewes Delaware
forums.hfboards.com
It looked to me that Lindblom was struggling. He really needs to pick up a step in his skating so that he can be in better position both offensively and defensively. He does have the strength to succeed.
Sanheim didn't deserve to get benched. I wonder if he got dinged up? From what I saw of his play, he was reasonably steady on the ice. Good vision and sense of where the play was going. Only drawback might of been a lack of strength against big forwards like Malkin, Hornquist and Kessel. Even so, his play was better than what we got out of Gudas and Manning.
Patrick played well but doesn't have the defensive skills yet that are needed to handle Malkin at 2C. So. If his ice time was less than what we wanted, I get it.
Konecny's story is the same as Patrick's. He needs to be a bit more responsible. Also he needs to cool his temper a bit out there and not be so prone to retaliate immediately to some underhanded play. Get even on the next shift or so.
Hagg played reasonably well. His game has flaws but also has strengths-literally. Again he played better than Gudas or Manning.
Next season, if these guys don't have their roles pushed forward by Hakstol, I'd be upset. They're ready for more responsibility. I'd say that this series should result in one thing-veterans playing themselves out of town. I can't see why Gudas, Manning, Fillpula, and Weiss need to be here. Simmonds played hurt. When he's healthy, he's still a force on the ice. Lehtera found a way to make himself useful. However others have no value over the kids. It's time for them to play.
 

Striiker

Former Flyers Fan
Jun 2, 2013
89,442
155,161
Pennsylvania
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?

So if Michael Phelps is doing relay races with couple of high schoolers and they keep winning every race (because he’s a god and he carries them), but then they do a relay race against a team full of olympians and lose... that’s Phelps fault?

:popcorn:
 

deadhead

Registered User
Feb 26, 2014
49,215
21,617
Can we keep all the fire Hakstol posts in the Fire Hakstol thread, I promise to stay out and you can all talk to each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JXC

JXC

#ThisAintXbox #ThisAintMightyDucks #FireHakstol
Dec 28, 2005
21,923
4,898
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...
He did.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->