Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

10 straight

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Why can't you fire all the players?

    Tired of the fanboying from the fanbase.

    You can't trade Giroux, you can take the C and drop him to the third line. But the oh so.upset fanbase doesn't want to punish anyone actually on the ice.. least of all a "hero"

    Where did this team go under Captain Giroux? Serious question...how many coaches do you fire before turning the sights on the guys in then ice still making the same mistakes three coaches later?

    Someone will reply with all of Gs awesome individual numbers..weird because they fueled nothing and the team had been miserably uninterested for years...

    Giroux routinely gets left off national teams but that shouldn't be a sign of the overvaluing that happens in Philly.

    Take Giroux's C. Trade Voracek. Move two role players and bring up Martel and Lindblom..oh and Goulborne!

    Then...in 2 months we can maybe start talking about another coach.

    Edmonton has a generational talent and are spinning wheels. Toronto has a fantastic kid and the greatest coach evar and are just now getting it together..kinda..

    But Flyers fans want the easiest change with the least effect..look at the last decade..

    How has it worked?

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk


    Last edited by Rev_Bully; 12-03-2017, 10:20 AM.

    Comment


    • #12
      Rev, I wouldn't be opposed to any of that, except ....
      I think the C and the ability to "lead" the team singlehandedly to a Cup is overrated/impossible. The FO put the C on Giroux. No one here knows him personally so no one can comment that he's not a good captain. The team/organization's success is NOT a function of the C. Its more likely the other way around. Sure Messier/Pronger come to mind as leaders who really LED their team, but not every Cup team has that.

      I think G is a top line player, but he's the only one of a few on the team and has been for almost his whole career. I think this team has been SO SO SO lacking top end talent that we think Simon Gagne and Rod Brind'Amour were elite top line players. They never were. They're very nice pieces of a puzzle, but hardly top line.

      Jake is a complementary player because he doesn't shoot. If he was a greedy sniper, he'd be a top line guy. Since he's a passer first he's no longer THAT valuable since he's not that good at it.
      Simmer is a top line PF.
      Coots is Trent Klatt part 2
      TK might be a top line winger in a few years, not now.
      Patrick might be a top line C, not now.
      Weal, with the right linemates can be an excellent secondary scorer, no help from his linemates.

      So, yes we should trade G while we're going nowhere fast to maximize his value, BUT we need 2 REAL snipers and 2 REAL playmakers on the top 2 lines...PLUS we need another PF...AND we need a franchise goalie.

      This team hasn't been truly "Good" since Lindros left. Back then were were a D man and a slightly better goalie from 1-2 Cups. This team is so far from that it's comical.
      .
      .
      "Perry the Platypus! I swear, of all the aquatic mammals I hang with, you are TRULY the most uncooperative!" - Dr. Doofenshmirtz

      Comment


      • #13
        Both the players and coach are accountable, but lets not kid ourselves here Hakstol is no Babcock or Bowman; and he's in over his head right now and/or the team has tuned him out.

        Comment


        • #14
          the immediate solution might be to break up the first line...maybe put G on the second line, move Wayne up, even drop G to the third line..have him play with Weal, Filp, TK...etc...those guys have shown a little scoring touch here and there...maybe they need someone like G on their line to take away the attention...really at this point it can't hurt, can it? we are so used to losing..so what if we lose a few more...

          on the flip side, maybe having G playing alongside those I mentioned would break them out of their slumps...

          oh and call up Martel again, put HIM on the first line and put Jake in the box for a couple..getting a little tired of his lazy penalties and lazy turnovers...

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by flyerdog View Post
            the immediate solution might be to break up the first line...maybe put G on the second line, move Wayne up, even drop G to the third line..have him play with Weal, Filp, TK...etc...those guys have shown a little scoring touch here and there...maybe they need someone like G on their line to take away the attention...really at this point it can't hurt, can it? we are so used to losing..so what if we lose a few more...

            on the flip side, maybe having G playing alongside those I mentioned would break them out of their slumps...

            oh and call up Martel again, put HIM on the first line and put Jake in the box for a couple..getting a little tired of his lazy penalties and lazy turnovers...
            Oh novel.a 10 game losing streak and you leave the too line in tact.....no...things are going well don't mess with the top line. FFS the fanbase and the jerk announcer in Boston have ideas the head coach won't entertain.....and the ideas are not bad at all...just disappointed the coach amidst a collapse hast figured he should try and shake somehting up.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by EDMFLYERSFAN
              Both the players and coach are accountable, but lets not kid ourselves here Hakstol is no Babcock or Bowman; and he's in over his head right now and/or the team has tuned him out.
              Certainly true that Hakstol is no Bowman or Babcock...

              BUT...when we fire Hakstol we will be on coach 4 of the Giroux era...at what point do we consider it not being the coach? That's the question.



              Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by Rev_Bully View Post
                Certainly true that Hakstol is no Bowman or Babcock...

                BUT...when we fire Hakstol we will be on coach 4 of the Giroux era...at what point do we consider it not being the coach? That's the question.



                Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
                "Giroux Era" would be the last 3 coaches (Laviolette, Berube and Hakstol); I would put Stevens in the "Richards/Carter Era"; and lets be serious between the 3 only Laviolette is a legit NHL coach.

                Berube was a total joke.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by EDMFLYERSFAN View Post

                  "Giroux Era" would be the last 3 coaches (Laviolette, Berube and Hakstol); I would put Stevens in the "Richards/Carter Era"; and lets be serious between the 3 only Laviolette is a legit NHL coach.

                  Berube was a total joke.
                  Exactly... And lets look at the last 4 guys to have coached this team and how much Head Coaching Experience at the NHL Level they had:

                  Stevens - zero
                  Lavy - yes
                  Berube - zero
                  Hakstol - zero

                  Maybe, just maybe give these guys someone who knows what the heck he's doing and has some respect and authority in that room.

                  We we need to stop going to the clearance bin for our coaches and goalies...


                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Hexy's Axe View Post

                    Exactly... And lets look at the last 4 guys to have coached this team and how much Head Coaching Experience at the NHL Level they had:

                    Stevens - zero
                    Lavy - yes
                    Berube - zero
                    Hakstol - zero

                    Maybe, just maybe give these guys someone who knows what the heck he's doing and has some respect and authority in that room.

                    We we need to stop going to the clearance bin for our coaches and goalies...

                    Weird because Stevens took the team to the ECFs...was fired, with a winning record, midway thru the year they went to the finals.

                    Remind me, besides taking Stevens' team to the finals...what did Lavy do exactly?

                    He did say Giroux was better than Crosby, did completely mishandled Bob..

                    Looking for the great Lavy successes people seem to think existed..not coming up with many that don't involve that split year

                    ..this roster sucks and a new coach doesn't change it..



                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by Rev_Bully View Post

                      Weird because Stevens took the team to the ECFs...was fired, with a winning record, midway thru the year they went to the finals.

                      Remind me, besides taking Stevens' team to the finals...what did Lavy do exactly?

                      He did say Giroux was better than Crosby, did completely mishandled Bob..

                      Looking for the great Lavy successes people seem to think existed..not coming up with many that don't involve that split year

                      ..this roster sucks and a new coach doesn't change it..


                      Stop making this about Lavy vs Stevens. We get it. You loved Stevens and hated Lavy.

                      It's about the coaching selections this team has made. Frankly, it hasn't been very impressive including or excluding Lavy.

                      And whether you like it or not, Lavy went the furthest and ironically was the only one with NHL experience...

                      Maybe they should stop trying to outsmart the rest of the league and simply go with a guy who has a track record.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X