Robert Hagg Season Review

[TB87]

Philadelphia Flyers Robert Hagg: Season in Review - Last Word on Hockey

Click to read more...

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Philadelphia Flyers Robert Hagg: Season in Review - Last Word on Hockey

I think now might be a better time to cue the Monty Python GIF.

 

[TB87]

I think now might be a better time to cue the Monty Python GIF.

I’m in the dark on this one...

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

 

[FlyTimmo]

Even Hagg's best asset, his physical play, can be disappointing at times. If I have a defenseman who specializes in physical play, I'd want them to excel at intimidation. I like the idea of having a defenseman that the forwards always need to be particularly conscious of. Having a defenseman capable of throwing timely open-ice hits with a high success rate, or a defenseman capable of patrolling their own blue line looking for a forward to cross center-ice with their head down in a similar manner to Stevens, is very desirable.

But, Hagg doesn't really do that, he sinks back and lets the play come to him, which generally results in at best a rub out or containment-type of play. At worst, we give up a scoring chance. There is nothing wrong with a defenseman who can take the puck carrier out of the play, but if that is the only thing they can do there is a problem.

He isn't a lost cause, but at this stage he really doesn't have the skills or IQ to progress very much.

 

[TB87]

Even Hagg's best asset, his physical play, can be disappointing at times. If I have a defenseman who specializes in physical play, I'd want them to excel at intimidation. I like the idea of having a defenseman that the forwards always need to be particularly conscious of. Having a defenseman capable of throwing timely open-ice hits with a high success rate, or a defenseman capable of patrolling their own blue line looking for a forward to cross center-ice with their head down in a similar manner to Stevens, is very desirable.

But, Hagg doesn't really do that, he sinks back and lets the play come to him, which generally results in at best a rub out or containment-type of play. At worst, we give up a scoring chance. There is nothing wrong with a defenseman who can take the puck carrier out of the play, but if that is the only thing they can do there is a problem.

He isn't a lost cause, but at this stage he really doesn't have the skills or IQ to progress very much.

His trouble with exits and the reluctance to defend the blueline are my primary issues with his game.

 

[Magua]

He isn't a lost cause, but at this stage he really doesn't have the skills or IQ to progress very much.

 

[TB87]

This is genius

 

[tymed]

 

[Magua]

This is genius

Resident mad genius @Captain Dave Poulin has a lot more where that came from.

 

[deadhead]

Hagg was a 22 year old rookie, who has the raw physical skills to improve (i.e. he skates better than say Luke Schenn).
He showed flashes of offensive skills, but was very tentative, sort of the anti-Sanheim (if only you could mind/body meld the two!), playing it too safe.
Will he improve? Ron just bet a little more than the minimum salary for two years to find out.
Stayed tuned.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

If other young defensemen beat him out, he's still a cheap #7 and certainly tradable.

 

[Striiker]

We all know he's terrible, whether some refuse to admit it or not, so there's no point in going over it again.

But there's one thing I was curious about... what about him makes you think he has offensive potential or could ever be close to a two-way defensemen? Was it that clip? Because Grossmann 1.0 had a couple of goals that looked like that and I'm sure nobody thought that was because of dormant offensive ability. It was just luck, same as Grossmann 2.0.

 

[TB87]

We all know he's terrible, whether some refuse to admit it or not, so there's no point in going over it again.

But there's one thing I was curious about... what about him makes you think he has offensive potential or could ever be close to a two-way defensemen? Was it that clip? Because Grossmann 1.0 had a couple of goals that looked like that and I'm sure nobody thought that was because of dormant offensive ability. It was just luck, same as Grossmann 2.0.

I’m not a fan of Robert Hagg’s game. I’m not going to let that creep into my writing though. Objectivity is key in writing about sports (in my opinion). Focusing on the good and the bad is the goal.

Using that one clip does not mean that one clip persuaded me that he has offensive upside. Admittedly, his offense appears to be pretty limited. I’ll feel comfortable writing him off if there’s no offensive improvement whatsoever over the duration of his new contract. Maybe those fancy goals he scored this year prove to be the exception in his career. We don’t know that yet (for sure). Again, I’ll write him off completely if he shows little to no improvement in regards to his deficiencies in two years time. I’ll wait and see.

 

[Tripod]

It's a good read.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

We all know he's terrible, whether some refuse to admit it or not, so there's no point in going over it again.

But there's one thing I was curious about... what about him makes you think he has offensive potential or could ever be close to a two-way defensemen? Was it that clip? Because Grossmann 1.0 had a couple of goals that looked like that and I'm sure nobody thought that was because of dormant offensive ability. It was just luck, same as Grossmann 2.0.

Striiker and his absolutes. "We all know he's terrible," some just won't admit it. Grossmann did the same things a couple times, so that definitely means 22-year-old Hagg's flashes were luck and not a hint he may have a bit better offensive ability than he showed overall. Striiker is nothing if not consistent in his absolutism.

 

[TB87]

It's a good read.

Thank you!

 

[Striiker]

I’m not a fan of Robert Hagg’s game. I’m not going to let that creep into my writing though. Objectivity is key in writing about sports (in my opinion). Focusing on the good and the bad is the goal.

Using that one clip does not mean that one clip persuaded me that he has offensive upside. Admittedly, his offense appears to be pretty limited. I’ll feel comfortable writing him off if there’s no offensive improvement whatsoever over the duration of his new contract. Maybe those fancy goals he scored this year prove to be the exception in his career. We don’t know that yet (for sure). Again, I’ll write him off completely if he shows little to no improvement in regards to his deficiencies in two years time. I’ll wait and see.

To be clear, that wasn’t a shot at you or the article. I was just curious about what made you say he has potential.

The first part of my post wasn’t directed at you either.

 

[Striiker]

Striiker and his absolutes. "We all know he's terrible," some just won't admit it. Grossmann did the same things a couple times, so that definitely means 22-year-old Hagg's flashes were luck and not a hint he may have a bit better offensive ability than he showed overall. Striiker is nothing if not consistent in his absolutism.

Well, considering how often Striiker has been proven to be correct when he makes absolutes, maybe he has a reason and isn’t just pulling it out of his ass, like others on this site do.

I tend to prioritize accuracy over being different. There’s nothing wrong with being right when an answer is obvious.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Well, considering how often Striiker has been proven to be correct when he makes absolutes, maybe he has a reason and isn’t just pulling it out of his ass, like others on this site do.

I tend to prioritize accuracy over being different. There’s nothing wrong with being right when an answer is obvious.

You’ve been right sometimes, & you’ve twisted things in your head to convince yourself you are right all the time.

You refuse to give Hakstol an ounce of credit for moving Giroux to Couturier’s wing, which is a dubious absolute. You refuse to admit that move was a factor in the Flyers making the playoffs. Dubious. You refuse to admit that sometimes tough love on talented young players makes them better in the end, despite examples in all sports of it happening. You retroactively fully justify the Weise signing a good move at the time & say almost no one was against it, when it was a bad signing & plenty were against it once the terms were announced. I think you said Gordon would have a ripple effect on helping Giroux & derided anyone who said such alleged effect was being overblown (could be thinking of others on that one, though). You were right on Weal last season, but somehow your Weise logic doesn’t apply to Weal since you were right about Weal & wrong about Weise. (And maybe Weal bounces back?) You were right about G & V bouncing back, but want to act like it was entirely on their own. Yes, you certainly are convinced your extreme views are infallible, but you’ve been wrong, & there have been shades of gray where you refuse to acknowledge them.

 

[FLYguy3911]

Ahh yes. I knew it was coming.

 

[Rebels57]

Hextall should use the highlight of his goal against NJ to trick another team into thinking he is a special young dmen so we can trade him for a nice asset before he gets figured out.

 

[Striiker]

You’ve been right sometimes, & you’ve twisted things in your head to convince yourself you are right all the time.

You refuse to give Hakstol an ounce of credit for moving Giroux to Couturier’s wing, which is a dubious absolute. You refuse to admit that move was a factor in the Flyers making the playoffs. Dubious. You refuse to admit that sometimes tough love on talented young players makes them better in the end, despite examples in all sports of it happening. You retroactively fully justify the Weise signing a good move at the time & say almost no one was against it, when it was a bad signing & plenty were against it once the terms were announced. I think you said Gordon would have a ripple effect on helping Giroux & derided anyone who said such alleged effect was being overblown (could be thinking of others on that one, though). You were right on Weal last season, but somehow your Weise logic doesn’t apply to Weal since you were right about Weal & wrong about Weise. (And maybe Weal bounces back?) You were right about G & V bouncing back, but want to act like it was entirely on their own. Yes, you certainly are convinced your extreme views are infallible, but you’ve been wrong, & there have been shades of gray where you refuse to acknowledge them.

My only question is if this misrepresentation is because of ignorance or dishonesty.



Getting more and more like your BFF every day.

 

[deadhead]

Nah, cause I've learned when you wrestle with the pig, you both get dirty, but the pig loves it.

 

[GapToothedWonder]

Well, considering how often Striiker has been proven to be correct when he makes absolutes, maybe he has a reason and isn’t just pulling it out of his ass, like others on this site do.

I tend to prioritize accuracy over being different. There’s nothing wrong with being right when an answer is obvious.

Did you just refer to yourself in the 3rd person haha