GDT: Pre-7: Rangers 4 at FLYERS 2, Thursday, Sept. 27, 2018, 7:00 p.m. ET

[Beef Invictus]

Yeah, apparently it's too early to judge the job he's done, since the roster isn't finished...

What a strange mentality.

It's the ultimate cop out: there is no such thing as a perfect roster. There will always be a weak link to point to as an absolving factor.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

Hextall has his flaws. But 90 percent of the GMs in the league can stay the same.

 

[Striiker]

Hextall has his flaws. But 90 percent of the GMs in the league can stay the same.

Yeah, Hextall is FAR from innocent here, but I'm not on-board with firing him in the near future because I have a hard time seeing us get an upgrade once he's gone. He's definitely f***ed up badly when it comes to coaching how slow he is to get rid of problem players, but he's done a lot right too.

Would the next guy make the same mistakes, but also do less of the good stuff? Because I can easily imagine that happening.

 

[deadhead]

It's absurd to think we're being too hard on the coach. This place rightly turned against Lavi after the crappy 12-13 season, even though the roster was worse than anything Hakstol has had to deal with, and he was an established NHL head coach with a Stanley Cup. It was clearly time for a change then, just like it now.

Huh? Say what?
Forwards: Giroux (25), Read (26), Voracek (23), Briere (35), Schenn (21), Hartnell (30), Simmonds (24), Couts (20), Talbot (28), Gagne (32), Fedotenko (34), Knuble (40)
Defensemen: Coburn (27), Kimmo (37), L Schenn (23), Grossman (28), Gustafsson (24), Gervias (28)

The defense was pretty bad after Kimmo and Coburn, but I hear our defensemen other than Ghost and Provorov were pretty bad the last 3 years.
The forwards were better than anything Hakstol has had until this season.
The goalies? Well, Brzy or the crap we rolled out last year? Tough call!

 

[deadhead]

@deadhead will have you believe we cannot be critical of a coach if the roster has even a single flaw on it.

Nah, I just don't take your nitpicking seriously.
People whining about VdV v Luby, or Lehtera v Leier. Silly season stuff.

Basically the complaints come down to fans wanting to see shiny new toys under their hockey stick tree.

 

[Foggy14]

And I thought the Dallas Cowboys had a pitiful front running fan base, this board can give them a run for the money.

Front running?

We're here through thick and thin, pal, waging Interweb wars about 4th liners and following this team despite its statistical league best mediocrity the last decade. Desperately wanting things to change, instead of slobbering over the entities that ensure that mediocrity and ragging on the ones who are trying to prevent it, does not equate to losing interest. It's the definition of interest. Difficult concept, I know.

The only thing this team has in common with the Dallas Cowboys is having the Jason Garrett of NHL coaches. Maybe he can start furiously clapping after every slow start or heavy PK goal against or MacDonald starfish.

Amen, Mag.

We're a lot of things, but front running fans isn't one of them.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Nah, I just don't take your nitpicking seriously.
People whining about VdV v Luby, or Lehtera v Leier. Silly season stuff.

Basically the complaints come down to fans wanting to see shiny new toys under their hockey stick tree.

You've flat out refused to criticize the coach after citing a flawed roster. At what point will the roster be so free of flaws that you'll deem it's finally time to judge Hakstol?

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

And I thought the Dallas Cowboys had a pitiful front running fan base, this board can give them a run for the money.

I'll have you know that I don't run.

 

[Beef Invictus]

And I thought the Dallas Cowboys had a pitiful front running fan base, this board can give them a run for the money.

If it were comparable we wouldn't be here.

 

[Adtar02]

It's the ultimate cop out: there is no such thing as a perfect roster. There will always be a weak link to point to as an absolving factor.

Your coach is only as good as the weakest link

 

[deadhead]

You've flat out refused to criticize the coach after citing a flawed roster. At what point will the roster be so free of flaws that you'll deem it's finally time to judge Hakstol?

Meh, all I did was point out that Lavi's rosters were as good or better than anything Hakstol has rolled out.
Lavi from 2010-12 had great rosters, Hakstol is close to that, maybe this year, certainly next year.
The key for Lavi was the combination of experienced vets and core young players from 22-25, guys like Couts and JVR had limited minutes (another coach favoring scrub veterans).

 

[Beef Invictus]

Meh, all I did was point out that Lavi's rosters were as good or better than anything Hakstol has rolled out.
Lavi from 2010-12 had great rosters, Hakstol is close to that, maybe this year, certainly next year.
The key for Lavi was the combination of experienced vets and core young players from 22-25, guys like Couts and JVR had limited minutes (another coach favoring scrub veterans).

It's nuts that you would seriously think we could have to wait six years to judge a coach. That flat-out isn't the case. You can readily judge the system used, how players are employed, how they're handled, choices with the roster, well before that.


Don't forget, having a great roster is a poor way to judge a coach because it could help mask errors and make him look better than he is.

 

[Striiker]

Right now is EXACTLY when you judge a coach.

Too bad and the roster might mask what he’s doing right, too good and the roster might mask what he’s doing wrong. We’re solidly enough in the middle that you can clearly see every failure he makes because his failures are so blatantly spectacular.

There’s enough high end talent that it’s not an excuse, but enough bad players that he has the opportunity to screw up... and boy oh boy does he take advantage of those opportunities.

 

[WIP CALLER]

No no no the only way you can TRULY judge a coach is if they have a roster comparable to the 70s canadiens and they've been there for at least as long as Scotty Bowman was with them. If a coach doesn't have that, he's just getting the short end of the stick obviously and you're all just being too hard on him...

 

[deadhead]

Fact is, we can only judge results, not nit pick each decision, a team is a holistic entity, and there are reasons for decisions that are not disclosed to well after the fact.
Y'all can pontificate about what you would do as hockey geniuses, but that doesn't mean I have to accept your self assessment of your superior judgment.
The better player is not the most talented player, it's the player in that situation, taking into account both short-term (this game), medium term (this season) and long term (player development), as well as externalities as team chemistry, personalities, etc.

Like I said, most of the complaints here come off to me as whining about trivial decisions that had little impact on winning and losing.
Sanheim being the perfect example, in hindsight he had no impact on the team at the beginning of the season, either when he played or when he was demoted, and only a marginal impact when he returned. So we'll see how he develops, but as far as last season, pretty much a non-issue.

In the end, a coach is judged by how his term performs relative to its talent, last year's team had mediocre talent, certainly far less than Toronto, so does that make Bowman a bad coach?

 

[Beef Invictus]

The results are a team that is worse than it should be because the coach makes bad decisions. That is the result and it has been judged appropriately and accurately.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

a team is a holistic entity

Jeff Hakstok is an assholistic entity.

 

[deadhead]

The results are a team that is worse than it should be because the coach makes bad decisions. That is the result and it has been judged appropriately and accurately.

That's a presumption, not a fact.

Since your presuming those decisions made the team worse, but other than criticizing those decisions with insufficient information, you have little evidence they impacted the season performance.
The problem with micro-analysis is we have limited information, what's seen in the film room, what goes on in the locker room, medical issues, player development issues.

The problem I have is the aura of certainty with which so many of you post, as if
1) you're hockey experts - NOT
2) you have inside information - DOUBTFUL
And you take umbrage when I don't take your opinions seriously.

 

[Beef Invictus]

That's a presumption, not a fact.

Since your presuming those decisions made the team worse, but other than criticizing those decisions with insufficient information, you have little evidence they impacted the season performance.
The problem with micro-analysis is we have limited information, what's seen in the film room, what goes on in the locker room, medical issues, player development issues.

The problem I have is the aura of certainty with which so many of you post, as if
1) you're hockey experts - NOT
2) you have inside information - DOUBTFUL
And you take umbrage when I don't take your opinions seriously.

Do you believe that choosing to play inferior players over superior players is good?


Otherwise, yeah, what I said is fact.

 

[deadhead]

No, it's the opinion of an amateur observer. Not facts.
Like I said, many people here have an exaggerated opinion of their expertise.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Do you believe that choosing to play inferior players over superior players is good?

Do you believe players are simply good vs. bad?

Would you put Gostisbehere out to take a crucial defensive zone faceoff over Lehtera because Ghost is "good" and Lehtera is "bad"?

There are so many factors that go into who gets on the ice in different situations and positions. Even including who is available based on who took the last shift. I hate such a simplistic method of judging deployment.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Do you believe players are simply good vs. bad?

Would you put Gostisbehere out to take a crucial defensive zone faceoff over Lehtera because Ghost is "good" and Lehtera is "bad"?

There are so many factors that go into who gets on the ice in different situations and positions. Even including who is available based on who took the last shift. I hate such a simplistic method of judging deployment.

Why would I have Ghost play center?

I wouldnt bench him for the last half of the third period, then watch as the team cannot get out of its own end as my best puck mover sits.

 

[Lindberg]

I wouldnt bench him for the last half of the third period, then watch as the team cannot get out of its own end as my best puck mover sits.

Precisely and instances like this are the reason why D.H. is a bad headcoach. He's trying to hold on rather than win. Close the game out and move on. He also really doesn't mind taking a game to OT as well which is a terrible approach since there isnt any loser points in the playoffs.

If you're a good team you should be using the regular season as somewhat of a practice for the playoffs.

 

[Lindberg]

More important how the eff is Lappy still a coach?

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Why would I have Ghost play center?

I wouldnt bench him for the last half of the third period, then watch as the team cannot get out of its own end as my best puck mover sits.

So you agree that more things should factor into an NHL player deployment decision than just raw talent?