WHY NO TIMEOUT AT 2-0?

For the most part, I think that Alain Vigneault has done an outstanding job in his first half-season as Flyers head coach. The practices -- when they've been able to hold them, due to the schedule -- are fast-paced. The systems are well-organized. He's a good communicator. He's able to make honest assessments about his personnel. He rewards players for solid play. He demands accountability from everyone, including veterans. He's able to separate personal relationships from the professional side. He's usually very good with the media; personable and forthcoming while making sure the message that's put out is the one that HE wants, rather letting others dictate the narrative.

On the current road trip, however, I think Vigneault hit the wrong note for one of the few times in his still-young tenure. He's called out his players, and rightfully so, when needed. But when a team has repeatedly gotten off to as poor of starts -- falling behind by multiple goals early and looking extremely fragile as soon as adversity hits -- the coach needs to call himself out as well as his team.

In the Arizona game, I actually thought the Flyers DID come out well prepared. The first 12 minutes were pretty well played. But once the Brad Richardson bouncer hopped under Carter Hart's arm and then, less than a minute later, Matt Niskanen stuck out his leg to block a shot and the puck re-directed into the net off his knee, there was nothing but despair and bad body language.

A timeout was sorely needed here, but not taken. Vigneault is a bright coach. He clearly sensed what was going on. Next thing you knew, Travis Sanheim took a roughing penalty, putting the recently struggling PK back to work (after yielding goals on four of their previous five PK situations).

On what looked to an easy zone clear for Ivan Provorov, the puck eluded the Flyers' No. 1 D -- the just-tipped puck was on its edge and perhaps hopped over or at least off Provorov's stick blade -- and went into the corner. Provorov pursued it, along with Coyotes forward Christian Dvorak. Provorov got to it first and attempted to clear the puck up the wall as he got checked cleanly into the boards by Dvorak: a much tougher clear to execute than the original opportunity but still one that has to be made. Instead, the clear attempt was easily intercepted by Phil Kessel.

Now, with Justin Braun and Provorov covering near the net and with Scott Laughton and Kevin Hayes high in the zone and the puck both of behind them after a quick pass from Kessel to Taylor Hall, there was a huge swatch of soft ice near the hash marks to Carter Hart's left. Clayton Keller moved into the huge seam in the spread out PK box. Hall took advantage of the gaping passing lane and fired a tape-to-tape pass for Keller to one-time.

Hart was back in his net with a lot of blue above him at the top of the crease. Moving to his left, Hart was beaten through the five hole on Keller's shot along the ice. If the shot had been top shelved over the glove, it would be a "credit the shooter, blame the Provorov failed clear and Laughton getting out of range to cover Keller" goal. But this shot was stoppable and Hart simply failed to stop it. It may have been tough to prevent a rebound unless the heavily-fired puck simply died in Hart's pads and he was able to cover, but at least make the initial save.

Now it was a 3-0 game, and a couple of unfavorable bounces and a tough but not unmanageable deficit had become a crater (especially in light of what had happened in three of the four previous games on the trip). Vigneault did what he had to do at that point, and made a change in goal from Hart to Elliott.

After the game -- mind you, I am not on the road trip and the TV postgame only shows a segment of each interview -- I was waiting for Vigneault to say words to the effect of, "We should have taken our timeout at 2-0. That's my bad. I thought we were playing pretty well up until the two goals but we needed a timeout just to regroup. Put that one on me."

He didn't say that, though. Vigneault said it was a stoppable goal on Hart -- which it was. He talked about how the team, before the current disastrous trip, had raved about their unity and closeness but hasn't circled the wagons very well of late. Again, that's true.

But when the Flyers played the San Jose game like their legs and brains were still on Christmas break, gave up a bad early goal (before recovering and winning in OT) in Anaheim, had an atrocious first period in LA (down 4-0 by intermission), gave up another 4-spot in the first period in Vegas (which was NOT a goaltending issue in that particular game) and gave up another three in rapid succession in Arizona, it is fair to question how well-prepared the team was to come out and play.

Players are responsible for themselves first and foremost -- it's why I don't buy the "blame the coach for linemates/ ice time/systems" narrative every time certain fan-favored players slump -- but coaches have accountability, too, when a team falls apart early with so much frequency over a number a games. I think Vigneault needed to at least say here, "A few of these games, we didn't come out ready to play. Tonight, we did but like we've done all trip, we had things snowball on us until it was out of hand. I take some blame for that, too, because we're all accountable here."

Instead, Vigneault more or less said -- not in so many words -- "I don't know what's wrong with these guys but we'll figure it out." The message, at least in my mind, should have been all-inclusive with himself mentioned. There's only so many buttons any coach can push and, in reality, I put 95% of what's happened on the trip on the players and not the coaches. But there's still a coaching piece to it terms of things like the aforementioned timeout opportunity that wasn't taken.

None of this changes the fact that Vigneault has been an excellent coach for this team so far. But even savvy, experienced coaches are human and make mistakes. The need for a timeout at 2-0 in Arizona was not a hindsight is 20/20 situation: The situation fairly screamed "Take a timeout right now!" and it was instead allowed to further play out and further go downhill.

Perhaps Vigneault, from the bench, didn't think there was panic setting in: bad body language, heads down on the bench, frustration-created shouting, etc. Perhaps his read was "We can still reel this in". I don't know.

All I know is that, from afar, it sure looked like a timeout was needed. If a timeout was called and the team still soon ends up down 3-0, well, at least that button was tried.

By the way -- and I know this is one of those "Other than THAT, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" type of pronouncements -- I don't think the Flyers really played all that bad in Arizona on a shift-to-shift basis apart from the disastrous mid-first period span and then giving up a goal at 19:59 of the second period. For that particular game, the horse was out of barn early and wasn't going to be caught. Even so, the Flyers held the Coyotes to 22 shots... and some of those came because of the types of chances that have to be taken when trailing by so many goals.

I don't know what will happen in Carolina tomorrow night. I also don't think the Flyers first-half home pace is sustainable for an entire season: There are some very tough games at home upcoming, and it'd be mighty tough to win them all or to at least get one point in almost all of them. But I do know that this team isn't nearly as bad as they looked over most of the trip so far.

HART AND THE HOME/ROAD SPLITS PANIC

I don't have an answer to the Jekyll-and-Hyde nature of the Flyers' collective differentials on the road vs. at home this season; not just record wise but in terms of their productivity, ability to prevent goals and their special numbers. Most NHL teams are typically a little bit better at home than on the road, but the severity of the Flyers' differentials are completely out of whack.

In terms of Carter Hart's individual extreme splits between home and road -- 2-9-1 record, 4.01 GAA, .850 save percentage on the road, 11-1-2 record, 1.49 GAA and .947 save percentage at home -- I have no concrete answers, either, except to say that there's a huge team play component to it as well as a significant individual piece that Hart himself has to own.

Let's talk about the team component first. There have been a number of road games this season -- too many already within a half-season plus one game -- where it wouldn't have been a win no matter who was in goal because of the play in front of the goalie. These were the games where things spiraled out of control:

* Oct 16 @ EDM (6-3 loss)
* Oct 27 @ NYI (5-3 loss)
* Oct 29 @ PIT (7-1 loss)
* Nov 15 @ OTT (only a 2-1 loss but very sloppily played)
* Nov 19 @ FLA (5-2 loss)
* Dec 14 @ MIN (4-1 loss)
* Dec 15 @ WPG (7-3 loss)
* Dec 28 @ SJ (6-1 loss)
* Dec 31 @ LA (5-3 loss)
* Jan 2 @ VGK (5-4 loss)
* Jan 4 @ ARI (6-2 loss)

With these games, there were some goaltending was either a leading (more than one preventable goal) or contributing (one stoppable goal) factor in why things unraveled. I put the Edmonton, Islanders, Florida and Arizona games down as the ones where Hart's play was a leading factor in why things went downhill.

Brian Elliott was the starter in the debacles in Pittsburgh, Winnipeg and LA. I'd put his performance in all four in the "contributing factor" category, because there was no more than one goal that was primarily his fault, but he wasn't the stopping the bleeding, either.

Additionally, Elliott relieved Hart in the aforementioned four games. He only fared significantly better in one: the NYI game, where he was tested several times in stopping all 19 shots he faced. In the Florida game, he wasn't tested in making seven generally routine stops. In the Edmonton and Arizona games, Elliott had ugly numbers -- a couple goals against on low shot totals -- but those were breakdown-caused.

Hart's scarily bad road numbers are largely driven by the four games in which he was pulled and a few others where the shot volumes he faced were quite low but 2 or 3 were scored either due to not being a reasonable opportunity to make a save or due to pinballing double-deflections.

In big picture -- and I know it can be hard to separate the emotion of the here-and-now from the dispassion of the big picture -- try to keep this in mind:

* Hart has 12 decisions on the road this year. That's a very small sample size by which to make any sorts of judgment. His road numbers last year as a rookie were fine (9-5-4 record, 2.48 GAA, .928 save percentage) and actually better than his home numbers (11-9-1, 2.98 GAA, .912 save percentage). He legitimately hasn't played well on the road overall this season, but it's really no cause for any sort of big-picture alarm.

*Hart has been excellent at home this season, but he's not as unbeatable as his home numbers look or as awful as his road numbers look. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. It's going to be extremely difficult for him to keep up his pace at home -- just as with the team as a whole -- but the road numbers should stabilize even though it will take a lot of good work to get those up to respectable range by the end.

* Although we all talk stats a lot -- myself included -- goaltending really is more about the timeliness and difficulty of saves more than it's about save percentage or goals against average. Take the Vegas game for example. Over the final 40 minutes, Hart was a big reason why the Flyers had a chance to come back -- and he was pretty severely tested at times, especially in the third period. He didn't look mentally weak or down.

* See above. Team play and goaltending go hand in hand. Those low shot volume games where there's nevertheless several goals against may or may not be the goalie's fault. A high shot-volume game where only one or two go in doesn't automatically equal a stellar goaltending performance. You have to break the goals and the chances down, along with the game situation (score, time of game), and not just look at the numbers.

* Carter Hart is 21 years old. Goaltenders take longer to develop than any other position, which is verifiable based on the leagewide average age of making NHL debuts, the average age where even future Vezina-caliber goalies become regular starters and the average age where they come into their own for the long haul. To cite but three examples, Henrik Lundqvist was playing in Sweden at age 21 and didn't arrive in the NHL until age 23, Jonathan Quick primarily played in the ECHL and AHL at age 21, and Sergei Bobrovsky made his NHL debut for the Flyers at age 22 directly out of the KHL, was dropped from starter to Ilya Bryzgalov's backup at age 24 and blossomed to stardom with Columbus at age 25.

To close out this section and bring it full circle back to a balance of team and individual play, there's one other aspect that I'd like to mention: practice time. With the way the NHL schedule goes -- and the Flyers have the NHL's toughest one this season in terms of fatigue-factor games, especially on the road -- it can tough to schedule practices. Even when there's the single off-day in a 3-in-4 set, it's more important to get rest than to practice.

That's OK when a team is a good groove. But when it's in a rough patch, the lack of practice time makes it hard to correct things. Yes, pre-scouts and video meetings are important and helpful. But the road to righting the ship starts with good practices to get back into doing things the right way on the ice.

No one feels a lack of practice time more than a goalie. When Steve Mason was the Flyers goalie -- and this was over a much larger sample size than Hart's -- he had very noticeable differences in his home/road splits: 69-32-16 record, 2.28 GAA, .925 save percentage, eight shutouts at home vs. 35-46-20, 2.70 GAA, .910 save percentage and six shutouts on the road.

Mason admitted quite a few times that he often played how he practiced and disruptions in his practice routine affecting his subsequent game-night performances were something that he had to work on minimizing as much as possible. Mason's Flyers career road numbers weren't all that bad, but were a clear notch below his level of consistency at home (even apart from goal support, but looking subjectively at the timeliness and quality factor of saves/goals).

I liked "Mase" then, and still defend him now. But I think Carter Hart is more mature at 21 and mentally tougher than Mason was even at the height of his best Flyers years much less than how he was in Columbus in his early 20s when he fell apart as adversity hit following his dream-like Calder Trophy season at age 20. Mason faced very little adversity until his second year and handled it very poorly until he was in reclamation project mode in Philly.

Hart is cut from a different cloth. More consistency is needed from him, but he's not falling apart mentally during tough stretches at age 20 or 21. He'll be just fine.


GROWING PAINS GALORE

Drafting and development of young players are different animals. Part of drafting players is to project the learning curve and development cycle that's in front of them and try to get a sense of their commitment to seeing it through and the underlying mental toughness and hockey sense that it will take to get there.

That, however, is much more art than science. We're talking about mostly 18-year-old (often not-quite-18 on Draft Day) kids. The truth is that, once the player turns pro, it's hard to say exactly when things will fully click. The path from draft day to becoming a significant impact player (for those with that potential) often takes four, five or even six years from first draft eligibility to mostly finished product.

For this reason, it is a foolhardy exercise to put too much expectation of NHL consistency on 18, 19 and 20-year old players no matter how much potential they have down the line. The Connor McDavid and Eric Lindros types are the rarest of the rare. Even those who are NHL ready as teenagers or as a 20-year-old usually still have learning curves to navigate, and it could take them three, four, even five seasons to hit the consistency level where star potential becomes genuine stardom.

That's true even for a player like Jack Eichel, who had clear-cut superstar potential as a teenager. In the NHL, he didn't crack 60 points until his third year and get into the 80-plus point range until his fourth year. Taylor Hall, a first overall pick and virtual can't-miss superstar, had a 53-point career high until signs of blossoming came in his third season (the 2012-13 lockout year) and then fully emerged in year four.

It's the same thing that Jack Hughes and Kaapo Kakko are going through as rookies this season in New Jersey and with the New York Rangers. Both teenagers show plenty of signs of what they probably will eventually become in the NHL. Neither, however, is setting the league on fire and neither yet have reached the consistency level where they truly stand out (not just points wise, but in making things happen) far more games than not. They're not saviors, nor should they be expected to be.

Therein lies some of fallacy of those who would gladly see their team tank to improve the odds of lottery luck. Unless the prize is an instant superstar like McDavid, it's probably going to take several years for even a top prospect to make a consistent offensive impact over the marathon-like season. Even if he dominates quickly, ala McDavid,you still have to have enough of a team around him for it to make a difference in the standings.

Right now, in the Flyers system, 19-year-old Joel Farabee has been struggling for awhile in the NHL. Twenty-year-old Morgan Frost has shown only flashes but still has a way to go even in the AHL in cleaning up various details (which have nothing to do with his hands or ice vision) before he's truly ready to be a top-three center in the NHL, much less a consistent producer.

I'm not concerned. Both of these youngsters are very good prospects -- highly skilled, smart, eager to learn -- although they're in that prospect grouping that's the next step down from the kids who could be safely projected at age 17 or 18 as future NHL major impact players. It would be nice if they had avoided hitting the wall near midseason, but they have and it's not unusual.

Around the Flyers system --referrering here to both the NHL and AHL levels -- there are quite a few young players who are either outright struggling or at least struggling for consistency. We already discussed Hart's situation. In terms of other players, beyond Farabee and Frost, Phil Myers needs a touch more consistency to his game. At the AHL level, there has been a slew of struggling first-year and second-year players this years. In some cases, injuries have been a factor. In others, it's been a rough jump from the junior ranks to the pros. Whatever the case, players such as German Rubtsov, Isaac Ratcliffe, David Kase, Matthew Strome, Pascal Laberge, Carsen Twarynski (after his great camp with the Flyers), Connor Bunnaman and others have really struggled to take that next step so far this season.

It's not fun to watch, but it's nothing unusual. The reality is that some of these kids will figure things out over the next season or two and some won't. That's why it's good to have system depth.

MISSING OSKAR

Ever since Oskar Lindblom's Ewing Sarcoma diagnosis was revealed, it has been hard for me lately to get too emotional about hockey wins or losses. While the emotional toll on his teammates is no doubt even higher, it's their jobs as professional athletes to separate the human side from the hockey side and to focus on what's within their control.

Neither from the emotional side nor from the hockey side does Lindblom's loss from the team while undergoing cancer treatments -- he has a very long and difficult road ahead of him -- entirely account for all the leaks the team has sprung. The PK was so good until Christmas and then sprung leaks everywhere. The power play has been a roller coaster all season. Other issues were discussed above.

Lindblom's absence alone does not account for all or even most of it. But it's been clearly felt. Let's talk about the hockey side first.

What Lindblom brought to the table, apart from his 11 goals in 30 games and an historic young career tendency to play his best hockey in the second half of the regular season, was all of the following:

* He excelled on the forecheck and winning puck battles on the boards.
* He was hard to take off the puck and strong on the cycle.
* He had become a regular, and reliable, part of the PK rotation.
* He was good at creating space for linemates by taking defenders to the net.
* He was a diligent backchecker.
* He usually made smart plays with the puck with the right balance of risk vs. safety (no one is infallible, and he wasn't either).
* He could play with many different types of linemates and find chemistry.
* Overall team chemistry wise, he brought a sunny disposition to the rink every day, whatever happened the previous night.

In general, Lindblom is a pretty complete player. Not a superstar but a bonafide top-six player for all he does well. He isn't an elite scorer, not a playmaker (although he could hit an open man with a pass) and lacked blazing speed but his level of smarts was off the charts. Add that to decent scoring ability around the net and you've got a player who is exceptionally hard to replace in a lineup for more than a game or two.

To put it bluntly and honestly, the Flyers do not have such a player at present that can effectively make up for it. I think Farabee, over time, WILL become that type of player -- with a bit more snarl and perhaps equal or better goal scoring -- but he's not there at age 19 nor should be expected to be there.

What's more, when one looks at the Flyers right now, I think there's reason for legitimate concern about the depth. Today's game is more of a top-line, middle-six (i.e., fairly interchangeable), playable fourth line ideal. Right now, the Flyers have a clear cut top six and then a dropoff to suspect or recently banged-up players playing one spot higher than ideal in the lineup.

As much as the Flyers miss Lindblom on the ice, they may miss Nolan Patrick even more. He still hadn't blossomed at the NHL level into a consistent force through two seasons -- all related to reasons I discussed in the previous section -- but the Flyers have a major need now for a third-line center. Nothing that has been tried has filled that void on any sort of a sustained basis. As a result, the Flyers may be forced to put Claude Giroux back at center yet again (where he is less effective at this point than at left wing, but still preferable to the alternatives).

I love Scott Laughton, for example, as a third line left winger. I like him as a fourth-line center. I do NOT like him as a third line center. I love Michael Raffl as a utility left winger, based primarily on the fourth line but able to be plugged in for short stretches a little higher. He's passable as a fourth-line center. Unfortunately, he has struggled since his return from injury.

Laughton's play since his return from his second LTIR stint of the season has been a mixed bag of good and bad. One thing he needs to curb immediately are all the bad penalties he's taken of late; there's a fine line in how to channel frustration and desire to make a difference with doing things that put the team shorthanded.

I really liked what I saw from Andy Andreoff at the AHL level -- he was a big part of the Phantoms' early season success before the bottom dropped out, and a significant piece of Frost's early season point streak with the Phantoms came on plays where Andreoff did the dirty work -- and think he's OK on a 4th line if the other two-third is going well. But he's more of a 13th forward at the NHL level, and the Flyers already have a 13th forward in having Chris Stewart on the roster this season.

I think I've seen all I want to see of Mikhail Vorobyev at the NHL level. I don't really see it as a developmental needs issue with him by this point, although he's still young. I don't think he competes with enough consistency, and that's something that is hard to teach.

It's not laziness per se. What's lacking is a constant hunger for the puck, and the energy to make the second-effort/ third effort play if he doesn't win the initial battle. It's playing to the buzzer if his is the final shift of the period. Frankly, it wasn't there on a truly sustained basis even in the AHL, either, but he's a talented enough player to where he'd still make more positive contributions than negative ones for stretches of a couple weeks. On the flip side, I saw him give up on an entire end-of-period shift in the Phantoms morning start game earlier this season, and it helped cost the team a goal in the waning seconds and contributed to a loss.

Getting back to Lindblom, the emotional side of his situation is hard to put into words. His teammates have struggled to do so. The ONLY focus as Lindblom is concerned here is on him achieving remission and living a healthy, long life. Resumption of an professional sports career isn't on the radar at present.

Even those of us who have tangential relationships with Oskar -- the broadcasters, the media who cover the team -- have been thrown for a loop since the news came out. He is an extremely nice young man; always friendly, courteous, and approachable. As his initial shyness gave way to comfort, he lets his sense of humor come out, too, and he loves to laugh. The omnipresent smile on his face is genuine, and he's impossible to dislike.

But even if Oskar Lindblom were some egotistical jerk, no one would remotely wish on him what he and his family are going through. The fact that he's one of the nicest people one could hope to meet only makes the situation more gut-wrenching.

Through all of this, though, the outpouring of love and care from the other Flyers players, Flyers fans, players on other NHL teams, hockey fans and players worldwide and even non-sports fans who've heard about Oskar's situation has been touching. The #OskarStrong sentiments are also very important.

When someone is battling cancer, there is a very real correlation between their emotional support system -- which helps patients keep up the fight through inner strength -- and their chances for survival. My brother-in-law, an oncologist at Sloan Kettering in NYC, will personally attest to the fact that his patients who have strong support systems also have increased odds at outcomes where they achieve remission. Even a slightly increased chance can make a huge difference throughout the process.

The only hope here is that Lindblom's Ewing Sarcoma was diagnosed early, which would greatly increase his chance of remission, and did not spread beyond the initial localized site where it was discovered. He'll have excellent medical care. He has his own strong will working for him, and literally tens of thousands of people who care about him and lending their emotional support.

Join the Discussion: » 85 Comments » Post New Comment

» Lightning Strike Takes Down Jets

» Practice Day, Ersson, Jay Greenberg, A Personal Note

» Flyers Gameday: Game 12 vs. BOS

» Wrap: Brink Lifts Flyers over Blues, 2-1

» Game 11 Preview: Flyers vs. STL