Who would replace AV?

[Redpath]

Note that there are almost no serious answers to the question at hand.

The next guy will get blamed too.

 

[Cootsfanclub]

Would and should are different questions. Would? Probably Yeo

 

[Beef Invictus]

Yeo.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Note that there are almost no serious answers to the question at hand.

The next guy will get blamed too.

Depends on what he does.

With this team's track record, they'll hire another failed loser.

 

[deadhead]

Depends on what he does.

With this team's track record, they'll hire another failed loser.

Nah, they should get a hot shot unknown young HC instead of a retread, because that always works.

HCs are as bad as goalies, pick one and pray.
Notice Q missed the playoffs his first season and got knocked out of the playoffs in the 1st rd in his second season, HCs aren't miracle workers.
If Spencer Knight turns out to be a franchise goalie, his coaching IQ will rise by 20 points next season.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Nah, they should get a hot shot unknown young HC instead of a retread, because that always works.

HCs are as bad as goalies, pick one and pray.
Notice Q missed the playoffs his first season and got knocked out of the playoffs in the 1st rd in his second season, HCs aren't miracle workers.
If Spencer Knight turns out to be a franchise goalie, his coaching IQ will rise by 20 points next season.

It goes the other way, too. Terrible coaching can squander good goaltending or good rosters.

See: MT, Bylsma, and Yeo. Two of those teams were able to win with a coach who simply wasn't actively horrible.

There's a lot more to hockey than the goalie.

 

[Redpath]

Depends on what he does.

With this team's track record, they'll hire another failed loser.

I’m more so mocking the idea that no one can actually name a viable replacement. AV’s system and track record are apparently cancerous enough to bring down the entire team, but no one can name a coach with a worthwhile system and track record.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I’m more so mocking the idea that no one can actually name a viable replacement. AV’s system and track record are apparently cancerous enough to bring down the entire team, but no one can name a coach with a worthwhile system and track record.

People have named numerous candidates over time, it's all sort of a joke now because this team doesn't value stuff that leads to cutting edge or competent coaching. They just named a guy with no experience to be HC of the Phantoms, for example

 

[Redpath]

People have named numerous candidates over time, it's all sort of a joke now because this team doesn't value stuff that leads to cutting edge or competent coaching. They just named a guy with no experience to be HC of the Phantoms, for example

Lappy was a bad move/hire.

But the “Flyers don’t hire competent coaching” excuse falls on deaf ears when that excuse has been trotted out ad nauseam, only to see said incompetent coaches work with rosters that were intentionally neglected by the GM during a rebuild, and in one case managing to win a Cup elsewhere.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Note that there are almost no serious answers to the question at hand.

The next guy will get blamed too.

The question really boils down to, "Who will be the next scapegoat?"

Barry Trotz went his first 11 years as an NHL head coach with 6 missed playoffs and 5 first round losses.

He went his next 7 years with 2 missed playoffs and 5 second round losses.

To summarize, in Barry Trotz first 18 seasons as an NHL head coach: 8 missed playoffs, 5 first round losses, 5 second round losses. Never advanced past round two.

Many posters would have labeled him a "mediocre" "retread" who "can't get his team over the top" and "isn't a winner." And clamored for his firing, or clamored against hiring him.

Then, in his 19th season as NHL head coach, after 3 straight 2nd round losses with an excellent Capitals team, Trotz won the Stanley Cup.

Now, he has taken the Islanders to 2 straight conference finals. He is regarded by many as the best coach in hockey.

One would think that Trotz is the perfect lesson against reductionist coach-blaming and "no Cups in the past mean no Cups in the future" analysis. But of course it's not. It just gets ignored because his history doesn't fit the narrative.

 

[Embiid]

While the coach is a dummy...there are some structural flaws with the roster no doubt. It is why we are in deep doodoo with our dummy FO. I am sure though they will move the needle just enough for the status quo to continue on and then the wheels will fall off again and we'll arrive at the Flyers 50th anniversary cup win year. They will market all sorts of paraphernalia...send Gritty out on promotions and trot out the Broad Street Beer Bellies and old tehnicolor videos of their last cup victory...

 

[Beef Invictus]

Lappy was a bad move/hire.

But the “Flyers don’t hire competent coaching” excuse falls on deaf ears when that excuse has been trotted out ad nauseam, only to see said incompetent coaches work with rosters that were intentionally neglected by the GM during a rebuild, and in one case managing to win a Cup elsewhere.

Most people here acknowledged Lavi as a good coach who was in a situation he couldn't figure out. After he left, he did in fact figure out how to be more flexible with his system to solve the problems we had here, which was irreconcilable conflicts between defense and breakout forced on him by idiotic roster choices made by his boss.

Berube was f***ing terrible as HC here. He wasn't ready for the job. He didn't have the experience. The Berube with the Blues isn't remotely the Berube we had. Coaches develop too, and Berube isn't the same. He was genuinely bad here. He took a bad roster and made it as bad as possible with his decisions and usage.

The fact is that the Flyers have had a single good coach in the last fifteen years. Everyone else has been bad. There's no reason for it to wear thin. It's just how the team works. Management has particular values that have been perpetuated for decades, and when they hire coaches to fit those values it largely ends in failure.

 

[saophim]

I vote for Olly from "On the bench". It can't be worse than Hak.

 

[Redpath]

The question really boils down to, "Who will be the next scapegoat?"

Barry Trotz went his first 11 years as an NHL head coach with 6 missed playoffs and 5 first round losses.

He went his next 7 years with 2 missed playoffs and 5 second round losses.

To summarize, in Barry Trotz first 18 seasons as an NHL head coach: 8 missed playoffs, 5 first round losses, 5 second round losses. Never advanced past round two.

Many posters would have labeled him a "mediocre" "retread" who "can't get his team over the top" and "isn't a winner." And clamored for his firing, or clamored against hiring him.

Then, in his 19th season as NHL head coach, after 3 straight 2nd round losses with an excellent Capitals team, Trotz won the Stanley Cup.

Now, he has taken the Islanders to 2 straight conference finals. He is regarded by many as the best coach in hockey.

One would think that Trotz is the perfect lesson against reductionist coach-blaming and "no Cups in the past mean no Cups in the future" analysis. But of course it's not. It just gets ignored because his history doesn't fit the narrative.

I'd love to have seen the reaction from this board if we had hired Pete DeBoer in 2019 instead of AV. Meanwhile DeBoer, noted retread loser who has never won anything, is in his second consecutive conference final and quite possibly on a way to a Cup.

And that isn't even an endorsement of DeBoer! He took over a great team. Turns out having a good roster is a bit helpful

 

[Ghosts Beer]

I'd love to have seen the reaction from this board if we had hired Pete DeBoer in 2019 instead of AV. Meanwhile DeBoer, noted retread loser who has never won anything, is in his second consecutive conference final and quite possibly on a way to a Cup.

And that isn't even an endorsement of DeBoer! He took over a great team. Turns out having a good roster is a bit helpful

Another excellent example.

 

[Kelmitchell2]

The question really boils down to, "Who will be the next scapegoat?"

Barry Trotz went his first 11 years as an NHL head coach with 6 missed playoffs and 5 first round losses.

He went his next 7 years with 2 missed playoffs and 5 second round losses.

To summarize, in Barry Trotz first 18 seasons as an NHL head coach: 8 missed playoffs, 5 first round losses, 5 second round losses. Never advanced past round two.

Many posters would have labeled him a "mediocre" "retread" who "can't get his team over the top" and "isn't a winner." And clamored for his firing, or clamored against hiring him.

Then, in his 19th season as NHL head coach, after 3 straight 2nd round losses with an excellent Capitals team, Trotz won the Stanley Cup.

Now, he has taken the Islanders to 2 straight conference finals. He is regarded by many as the best coach in hockey.

One would think that Trotz is the perfect lesson against reductionist coach-blaming and "no Cups in the past mean no Cups in the future" analysis. But of course it's not. It just gets ignored because his history doesn't fit the narrative.

Tbf no other coach would take that islanders team as far as he has

 

[Redpath]

Most people here acknowledged Lavi as a good coach who was in a situation he couldn't figure out. After he left, he did in fact figure out how to be more flexible with his system to solve the problems we had here, which was irreconcilable conflicts between defense and breakout forced on him by idiotic roster choices made by his boss.

Berube was f***ing terrible as HC here. He wasn't ready for the job. He didn't have the experience. The Berube with the Blues isn't remotely the Berube we had. Coaches develop too, and Berube isn't the same. He was genuinely bad here. He took a bad roster and made it as bad as possible with his decisions and usage.

The fact is that the Flyers have had a single good coach in the last fifteen years. Everyone else has been bad. There's no reason for it to wear thin. It's just how the team works. Management has particular values that have been perpetuated for decades, and when they hire coaches to fit those values it largely ends in failure.

I consider Lavy a good coach who just burnt out like all coaches do eventually, especially considering our roster burnt out too leading into the rebuild.

From there, it’s been Berube, Hakstol, and AV.

Berube takes over a bad roster. He finds minimal success with that roster, alternating between making and missing the playoffs. (He then wins a Cup with a good roster)

Hakstol takes over a bad roster. He finds minimal success with that roster, alternating between making and missing the playoffs.

Alain Vigneault takes over a roster that is allegedly on the cusp. He finds minimal success with that roster, alternating between making and missing the playoffs.

Noticing a pattern yet? Berube and Hakstol were both tasked with carrying Hextall-era rebuild trash. And now AV is tasked with carrying Hextall-era prospects. None of this is even an argument in favor of the coaches! Hakstol was a terrible coach. But they’ve all been saddled with the same, over-arching problem, and few are willing to accept that.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Hell, I remember the heat Quenneville used to get for allegedly being unable to “win in the playoffs” & “get his teams over the top.”

Got canned during his 8th season in St. Louis after three 1st rd losses, three 2nd rd losses, & one conference final loss, & on the verge of missing the playoffs when fired.

Then with excellent teams in Colorado — rd 2 loss, missed playoffs, rd 2 loss.

Then he gets hired by Chicago, & in his second season there, his 13th in the NHL, he wins the Stanley Cup; the first time he made the Cup final in 13 years as a head coach, & second time he had gotten past rd 2 as a head coach. Then, of course, he ends up winning two more Cups in Chicago.

 

[Kelmitchell2]

Gordon Bombay

I second this amazing nomination

 

[Beef Invictus]

I consider Lavy a good coach who just burnt out like all coaches do eventually, especially considering our roster burnt out too leading into the rebuild.

From there, it’s been Berube, Hakstol, and AV.

Berube takes over a bad roster. He finds minimal success with that roster, alternating between making and missing the playoffs. (He then wins a Cup with a good roster)

Hakstol takes over a bad roster. He finds minimal success with that roster, alternating between making and missing the playoffs.

Alain Vigneault takes over a roster that is allegedly on the cusp. He finds minimal success with that roster, alternating between making and missing the playoffs.

Noticing a pattern yet? Berube and Hakstol were both tasked with carrying Hextall-era rebuild trash. And now AV is tasked with carrying Hextall-era prospects. None of this is even an argument in favor of the coaches! Hakstol was a terrible coach. But they’ve all been saddled with the same, over-arching problem, and few are willing to accept that.

When a coach gets less than expected out of a roster, they're doing a bad job. When they make them worse and play to weakness rather than strength, they're doing a bad job. It's a coach's job to make it as easy as possible for the roster to win. It's pretty easy to spot when they're doing glaringly inefficient stuff.

It isn't scapegoating to assign them the blame they earn.

It's not like it's been the same roster the whole time either. That part has changed constantly. Except for a core group that drags bad coaches and bad depth along for a ride sometimes. Without them we'd be Buffalo.

 

[Embiid]

When a coach gets less than expected out of a roster, they're doing a bad job. When they make them worse and play to weakness rather than strength, they're doing a bad job. It's a coach's job to make it as easy as possible for the roster to win. It's pretty easy to spot when they're doing glaringly inefficient stuff.

It's not like it's been the same roster the whole time either. That part has changed constantly. Except for a core group that drags bad coaches and bad depth along for a ride sometimes.

But but he needs a normal season..

 

[Redpath]

When a coach gets less than expected out of a roster, they're doing a bad job.

It's not like it's been the same roster either.

What is expected out of a roster, particularly on this forum, is completely relative. It is not AV's fault that HFBoards expects Provorov-Sanheim-Myers to be a formidable defensive core.

It isn't all the same roster, but it was almost all built by the same guy. And now Fletcher has had only parts of two seasons, one with COVID, to assess and rebuild the young core.

 

[Beef Invictus]

What is expected out of a roster, particularly on this forum, is completely relative. It is not AV's fault that HFBoards expects Provorov-Sanheim-Myers to be a formidable defensive core.

It isn't all the same roster, but it was almost all built by the same guy. And now Fletcher has had only parts of two seasons, one with COVID, to assess and rebuild the young core.

Fletcher has shown nothing in his career to indicate he is capable of either building the core or hiring the right coach.

It is AVs fault that those dmen are put in positions to fail by a trash system.

 

[Redpath]

Fletcher has shown nothing in his career to indicate he is capable of either building the core or hiring the right coach.

It is AVs fault that those dmen are put in positions to fail by a trash system.

We've gone through this circle plenty of times before. Maybe Fletcher doesn't put it together. But writing off any GM based off their first tenure is wrong.

Rutherford took an eternity to win his first Cup. Dean Lombardi and Doug Armstrong were retread losers.

Noted worst GM in the league Pete Chiarelli is a Cup winner. Shero hasn't been able to replicate his success without inheriting two generational talents. Dave Poile has been praised for his work as GM despite being the longest tenured loser in the league. It is not nearly as black and white as you try to make it seem.

 

[Beef Invictus]

We've gone through this circle plenty of times before. Maybe Fletcher doesn't put it together. But writing off any GM based off their first tenure is wrong.

Rutherford took an eternity to win his first Cup. Dean Lombardi and Doug Armstrong were retread losers.

Noted worst GM in the league Pete Chiarelli is a Cup winner. Shero hasn't been able to replicate his success without inheriting two generational talents. Dave Poile has been praised for his work as GM despite being the longest tenured loser in the league. It is not nearly as black and white as you try to make it seem.

What has Fletcher done to indicate he's evolved?

His mindless pursuit of Prosser, Thompson, and Stewart is the exact opposite of good GMing or of good team-building processes. Hiring Lappy and standing by the entire intact coaching staff is the opposite of what is good.