Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 15 of 27 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 225 of 398

Thread: Offseason

  1. #211
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    8,583
    i would've wanted keefe as well but they obviously wanted someone with experience after what happened with hakstol. Can't blame them really for thinking that way. We can always sign him on as an assistant..?

  2. #212
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    8,583
    [QUOTE=txravis12;32894816]Couple things I'd like to say.

    1. This Giroux must be on the wing thing is frustrating. Yes. He is a really good winger. He is also a really good center. If you want to add a center it should be because you think he improves the team. Not because you want Giroux on the wing. Giroux is a better center than any of the available centers this free agency. Two of the best attributes Giroux has are availability and position flexibility. Use them.
    /QUOTE]

    for me its no necessarily that he must be on the wing but that he gives us more options. Right now, wings depth is our weakness, especially if G is a 2C. It takes away responsibility for him so that he can save energy/play pk more/do his thing offensively. Ya, there are more wings in this FA but signing another center would greatly help this team. Unless we can get panarin, I say get a 2c/3c and then hope patrick can knock that guy down in a few years.

  3. #213
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,782
    Dave Hakstol was a good hire at the time. He was a younger coach who had a lot of experience with young players. What couldn't have been known at the time was how he would have an over reliance on "safe" and "veterans". He was a good hire who turned out to be a bad coach. That's okay. It happens when you try new things
    for the record:
    BREAKING: Flyers have hired Dave Hakstol as yead coach.
    Havent read about him yet.

    Woah.
    Sounds as if Hexy is actually focused on getting the most out of these guys. Especially growth in the younger guys. I like it. I didn't feel we had a great shot at Babcock anyway. Now to really focus on the draft.
    I hate to say it, but throwing $5 million at Babcock would of been the "traditional Flyers way" to go. Just get the best and most expensive free agent out there.

    I like that Hexy is doing things differently, building a fresh program for today's NHL. I DONT like that it's just his sons college coach, I'm hoping that's just a coincidence.

    Eager to see what his NHL philosophy will be. Hope it's possession based. All I've seen is he is high on strategy, which I interpret to be like a chip kelly, meaning form a strategy based on the given scenario.
    Let's see if he can carry an NHL locker room.
    Im intrigued by this hire.

    I like it better than Babcock for where we are as a team. Hakstol won't likely be expected to come in and turn it around immediately. He's also developed 20 NHL players at UND. With the youth movement, he's probably a good choice to develop them.

    Doing some reading on him. Seems to be a fairly arrogant kind of guy. Can't tell if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Some UND fans seem to think he always thought he was better than college hockey. Time to prove it. Should also be noted, Hextall's kid played for him. They know him very well. When you take it in context, I'm not so sure this is that off the board.
    What I like most: not your typical "Flyers" hire. He's outside the organization. He brings a fresh perspective. He seems to have a knack for developing young players and not DEMANDING but EARNING his players' respect. He also seems to be adaptive in the sense that he's always looking for ways to improve. He's a respected hockey mind outside of the NHL.

    The guy has coached at UND for 11 years. He went to the NCAAs 11 times, the Frozen Four 7 times, and once to the final.

    Also, it goes along with Hextall's credo to this point: patience.

    It's new, it's a fresh perspective. I'm not going to say it's awesome or horrible. Let's see how it plays out before we make any blanket statements.

    I'm with Cubs here, I'm intrigued.
    One other under-rated note of this hire: I think it shows that Hextall has been given a lot of room to do what he believes is right.
    I hope this isn't a 3 year rebuild. I was hoping this would be the last year before the playoffs started again
    We'll see. I'm interested to see what his philosophy is in terms of system and deployment/usage. One thing for sure is that the players he develops are two-way guys. Toews is arguably the best in the game in that regard; Parise and Oshie are also very good two-way players.

    This initially makes me believe he'll be very good for guys like Couturier, Raffl, and Laughton.
    Two red flags: 1) so so far out of the box. Not on the radar about the jump. 2) no experience at higher level. Not ahl level, only college. Completely different.

    High high risk.
    I kind of hope it is, honestly. And I think it needs to be. IMO, for this team to be anywhere near where it needs to be, we need to shed multiple horrid contracts. 25% of our cap is currently being sucked up from losers like Vinny, MacDonald, Umberger, and our random assortment of 4-5, 6th-Defensemen types. Those are not recipes for winning. It will likely take 2 more years to begin to rid ourselves of enough awful, awful contracts for us tro truly emerge again. Couple that with developing our very young defense-prospects that usually take years, not months, to develop, and I don't see how this team realistically competes for anything decent in the next 2 seasons.
    But still, 2016/2017 was my hope for a round 1 or 2 exit. I don't want it to be 2018/2019 before that. I. Will. Go. Crazy. Especially with the Phillies sucking
    After listening to hextall and seeing the flyers my entire life. We should all really appreciate Ed snider. He hires the people who he trusts and will work hard (right or wrong decisions) and signs the checks. And asks for success. That is all you can ask for from an owner. Desire to win and putting hard working people in a position to be successful. Hit or miss. I appreciate the passion.
    I like what I hear so far. Emphasis on strategy, respect, and speed with/without the puck.
    Well at least we didn't spend 6 million a year on a guy who's not going to be able to fix our problems on defense. Or fix the fact that we are stuck with Umberger and Vinny. If his emphasis is on speed, good luck with some of the guys on this team, lol.
    PEM summarized this earlier but here's the direct quote:

    "You've got to work and play fast without the puck and with good structure. It's about transition. But you've got to have the puck in order to be able to transition up the ice. You're going to see with me an expectation that our defensemen are involved in an awful lot of our play in terms of our play with the puck. I think it's essential as far as getting up the ice and in the zone."
    I like the Hakstol hire....getting a different perspective from outside the NHL. I have no issues with hiring his son's former college coach....I think because he was his son's coach he got to see how this guy worked first hand and saw the finished products....

    I was tired of all the talk of bringing in another NHL retread as our coach....just because a coach won a Stanley Cup 5-10 years ago doesn't guarantee he'd bring one here....
    From everything I've gathered thus far, Hakstol's philosophy is as such:

    - he runs an aggressive style of hockey; get in hard on the forecheck, cause havoc
    - he wants control of the puck, and when they don't have the puck, he wants to fight like hell to get it back
    - he wants to play with speed in all three zones
    - he wants his forwards to be two-way players
    - he wants his defensemen active offensively; pushing play up the ice, leading and joining the rush
    - he wants his players attacking the net, driving the middle lane


    This is what I've read/heard. The defensemen part is fairly new to his scheme, maybe a little over 2 years he's been doing this. He adapted it due to the personnel he had.
    This has me excited. Hopefully Hexy can move at least a few of these anchors out so Hakstol can get his type of players in here to run this type of system.
    Side note, was watching Canadian news last night, they were talking about the CHL championship games, and their analysts would not stop raving about Morin. Saying he's NHL ready right now, no way he doesn't start in the NHL, should of been there this year, and he's a Victor Hedman.
    Yeah....their analysts are nuts lol.

  4. #214
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,782
    1. This Giroux must be on the wing thing is frustrating. Yes. He is a really good winger. He is also a really good center. If you want to add a center it should be because you think he improves the team. Not because you want Giroux on the wing. Giroux is a better center than any of the available centers this free agency. Two of the best attributes Giroux has are availability and position flexibility. Use them.
    have you noticed that giroux has been healthy at the end of the last two seasons? he wasn't concealing injuries all year. he didn't need major post-season surgery. he stayed healthy and he was productive.

    when was the last time both of those statements were true when he was a full-time center?


    this is the reality:
    giroux is small, he's old and his body cannot physically hold up in the middle of the ice for 82 games.

    when giroux is on the wing, he protects himself, he stays away from scrums and other dangerous situations, he skates less, he gets hit less.

    this is good for his career (and it's also probably good for his lifespan).

  5. #215
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Seoul
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    Dave Hakstol was a good hire at the time. He was a younger coach who had a lot of experience with young players. What couldn't have been known at the time was how he would have an over reliance on "safe" and "veterans". He was a good hire who turned out to be a bad coach. That's okay. It happens when you try new things. Failure is learning experiences. So you live, learn, and try again. This is a 180 hire from that. What we *can* say about Alain Vigneualt, is that he has repeatedly shown an over reliance on *both* of those things in the past. The team got rid of a coach who displayed literally the same tendencies. Now, Vignault has a more interesting system, but we don't need to "wait and see" how this plays out with a coach who's got a ton of track record of just that. It's likely that he'll be Alain Vigneault, and not someone else.

    It's a "good enough" hire. I'd rather all day the team try with Dave Hakstol's and find out they failed than go with known quantities that have bad tendencies and habits hoping that somehow Alain Vigneault somehow changes his mind on those things. He almost assuredly won't.

    I don't care about the term. I care highly about the guy. He's an "okay" coach. The team does not seem to want to hire interesting, creative and innovative. And the same old **** will almost always fall back on the same old **** they do. Fletcher was a "same old ****" hire, and he went out and hired a "same old ****" coach. It doesn't make me confident that he's going to do anything more than "same old ****" with the roster. And I'm not confident a coach who displayed the same issues in Vancouver as he did New York will do anything other than the "same old ****" here, too. I don't think Alain Vigneault is a horrible, no good, coach. He's not Dan Bylsma. But he's also fairly uninteresting hire for a franchise who's been mired in mediocrity for quite some time.

    As I said, give me Sheldon Keefe 50x over Alain Vigneault. Maybe he's a good hire who goes down the same dark path Dave Hakstol did. But there's another side there where maybe he doesn't, and shows a strong ability to work with our kids and keep an interesting system. Vigneault, given his druthers, will probably fall back on his bad habits. The ceiling there is very much capped, unless somehow, he's had the ability to sit back, really adjust and accept his short comings in New York and Vancouver and adapt. People don't usually change that much.
    From what Iíve heard, Hakstol relied on safe players while he was at North Dakota to close out games. Sound familiar? I believe that was one of the biggest criticisms about him. Hakstol also failed to win a National Championship despite having loaded rosters.

  6. #216
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    53,334
    Quote Originally Posted by MShark View Post
    From what Iíve heard, Hakstol relied on safe players while he was at North Dakota to close out games. Sound familiar? I believe that was one of the biggest criticisms about him. Hakstol also failed to win a National Championship despite having loaded rosters.
    If he did that, then I'm being forgetful and for that I'm sorry. The national championship thing is iffy at best, though, as I'm a little less worried about that.

    However the evaluation of Vinguealt remains.
    We're From Philadelphia


    We. Fight.

  7. #217
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,259
    Quote Originally Posted by MShark View Post
    From what Iíve heard, Hakstol relied on safe players while he was at North Dakota to close out games. Sound familiar? I believe that was one of the biggest criticisms about him. Hakstol also failed to win a National Championship despite having loaded rosters.
    That was my issue with him from Day 1 -- no rings. You need to win.

  8. #218
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    53,334
    Quote Originally Posted by 3iverson3 View Post
    i would've wanted keefe as well but they obviously wanted someone with experience after what happened with hakstol. Can't blame them really for thinking that way. We can always sign him on as an assistant..?
    Keefe isn't likely as an assistant, as someone should come calling with something better given time. Nor would I expect Vigneault to really, you know, listen. At that point, what are you getting? I'd expect Vigneault to, again, do what he thinks is best, and that's likely to rely more on "safe" and "veteran". A rookie assistant isn't likely to crack that shell.

    That said, I find "experience" to be about the most overrated thing. I don't really care. Experience isn't all that good when the experience hasn't been overtly a positive thing. Vigneault's experience is "iffy" at best in his track record. Prioritizing experience isn't what I'd consider a strong asset, personally. If everything is even, sure, but I don't find everything even here. I'd rather go with system and vision than "experience". I can't say that the vision of Vigneault is a good one based on past history.
    We're From Philadelphia


    We. Fight.

  9. #219
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    53,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace23 View Post
    That was my issue with him from Day 1 -- no rings. You need to win.
    Meh. "Rings" can be many things. Rings are won by team efforts. Can coaches facilitate that? Sure. But there have been plenty of coaches who have rings that are less than quality and have won with them around, not necessarily because of them. Dan Bylsma has a ring. I don't want Dan Bylsma running the team because those rings were earned by Sidney Crosby and crew.

    If Hakstol had an over reliance on safe players at college, then that's something I'd have worried about. His lack of a national championship is kind of "whatever", really. Again, my things for a coach are system and a vision; how does he view players? His team? His willingness to use youth over the "safe" quantity that isn't as talented. His system he'll put his players in. This is where my issue is with Vigneault. He's had a few teams over achieve, perhaps, but is he someone I trust to always put out the most talented lineup? Not really. I hate worrying if a coach is going to get in his own way. I worry about Alain Vigneault.
    We're From Philadelphia


    We. Fight.

  10. #220
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    8,583
    at least we know we will have a much better offense

  11. #221
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    6,183
    Relatively good coach. Probably the wrong hire. Pretty much sums up my thoughts. Good news is he has taken teams with less talent to the cup.

  12. #222
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    53,334
    Quote Originally Posted by 3iverson3 View Post
    at least we know we will have a much better offense
    Yeah, there are things to hopefully like here. Like I've said, I don't find this a dumpster fire of a hire. It's just not a good one. And it highly concerns me about where this franchise sees it's roster heading forward, how they'll continue to handle youth development, and if this team is going to ever rise to the level it should be able to with the talent they have in terms of the youth. I also question it's creativity and innovation in building a winning franchise.

    Do I think the Flyers will be a playoff team next season? Yes. I'm just not sure the Flyers have the right GM and the right coach in tandem to make this anything more than a perennial playoff team in a league where over 50% of the franchises make the playoffs. It almost feels more like the Flyers are willing to take the "well as long as we make the playoffs, anything can happen approach" than the "let's make this a powerhouse franchise" approach, even if they don't know they're doing that.
    We're From Philadelphia


    We. Fight.

  13. #223
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4,234
    Quote Originally Posted by steagles View Post
    have you noticed that giroux has been healthy at the end of the last two seasons? he wasn't concealing injuries all year. he didn't need major post-season surgery. he stayed healthy and he was productive.

    when was the last time both of those statements were true when he was a full-time center?


    this is the reality:
    giroux is small, he's old and his body cannot physically hold up in the middle of the ice for 82 games.

    when giroux is on the wing, he protects himself, he stays away from scrums and other dangerous situations, he skates less, he gets hit less.

    this is good for his career (and it's also probably good for his lifespan).
    I'm not saying that Giroux on the wing is bad. I'm saying Giroux is also a more than capable center.

    Meaning they shouldnt sign a less talented center over a more talented winger if it comes to it. The primary focus should be adding the most talent. If it turns out to be a center and Giroux stays at wing, that's perfect. If it turns out to be a winger and Giroux has to move back to the middle until another 2c option reveals itself so be it. He can be more than effective there.

  14. #224
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    53,334
    Quote Originally Posted by txravis12 View Post
    I'm not saying that Giroux on the wing is bad. I'm saying Giroux is also a more than capable center.

    Meaning they shouldnt sign a less talented center over a more talented winger if it comes to it. The primary focus should be adding the most talent. If it turns out to be a center and Giroux stays at wing, that's perfect. If it turns out to be a winger and Giroux has to move back to the middle until another 2c option reveals itself so be it. He can be more than effective there.
    I think this goes as well for Morgan Frost, personally. The team should be willing to be creative with the lineup. If the best lineup they can roster next year has Frost and Giroux on the wings...good. If one of them should be a center to give you the best roster...good. I'm more concerned with putting the best roster on the ice in 2019-2020, than anything. Be creative. Be innovative. Don't get yourself locked into a singular concept and idea.

    I get that Giroux has been healthy and productive the last two years, and while that *may* be due to playing wing, it could very well be a "correlation =/= causation" issue, too. Simply put, it could be that it took Giroux an extra year to be fully healthy again, and this would have happened if he was a C or a W. I'm not sure.

    I'd rather Giroux stay on the wing if I had my druthers, but I think being close minded is how you end up overpaying and getting undervalue than if you were to remain fluid, flexible, and open to multiple ideas.
    We're From Philadelphia


    We. Fight.

  15. #225
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    8,583
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    Yeah, there are things to hopefully like here. Like I've said, I don't find this a dumpster fire of a hire. It's just not a good one. And it highly concerns me about where this franchise sees it's roster heading forward, how they'll continue to handle youth development, and if this team is going to ever rise to the level it should be able to with the talent they have in terms of the youth. I also question it's creativity and innovation in building a winning franchise.

    Do I think the Flyers will be a playoff team next season? Yes. I'm just not sure the Flyers have the right GM and the right coach in tandem to make this anything more than a perennial playoff team in a league where over 50% of the franchises make the playoffs. It almost feels more like the Flyers are willing to take the "well as long as we make the playoffs, anything can happen approach" than the "let's make this a powerhouse franchise" approach, even if they don't know they're doing that.
    well it all depends on our prospects and young players really developing. Because we have so many, vigneault has no choice but to play out young guys. I honestly don't see him messing with guys like provorov, patrick, ghost, tk, lindblom. Mayb morin/hagg will sit a few games here and there. Gordon played our vet guys a lot too.

Page 15 of 27 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •