Despite not agreeing with many of his decisions, especially in the past year, I went with Lava. Each coach certainly has things you love and hate about them. Overall Lava got us to the Cup Finals, has a relatively long tenure so far as Flyers coach, and has a likeable personality. I was in the "fire Lava camp" during following last season, but he still gets my vote.
- five4fighting10

As well as mine. I'm still not sure he should be the coach right now, but he took a team with Brian Boucher and Michael Leighton to the SCF. Whatever other sins he's committed, he's done a good overall job.

The problem with both Laviolette and Hitchcock is their inflexibility.

I'm going to Stevens here. I liked Hitch, I like Lavi, but I don't think they can coach outside thier system. Stevens was a great X-O guy and really developed they key players for this team to turn around the team, Richards, Carter, Giroux, JVR, Coburn, Upshall, Lupul and Carle.
- youarewrong

Stevens seems like a very good developmental coach, and was what this team needed when it was mostly the younger guys (Richards, Carter, Lupul, Umberger, Upshall, etc.). But I don't think he's the guy to get you to the top in the NHL.

Also, more so than other coaches, he seemed married to his players (see: Modry, Jaroslav).

I'm going to Stevens here. I liked Hitch, I like Lavi, but I don't think they can coach outside thier system. Stevens was a great X-O guy and really developed they key players for this team to turn around the team, Richards, Carter, Giroux, JVR, Coburn, Upshall, Lupul and Carle.
- youarewrong

I thought about Stevens for the same reasons. But I went with Hitch.

Yeah, Boucher wasn't exactly stellar in his Game 1 appearance. Talk about taking yourself completely out of the play. At least Leighton was lights out against Montreal.
- jmatchett383

Leighton did to the Habs what the "experts" said Halak would do the Flyers.

Stevens seems like a very good developmental coach, and was what this team needed when it was mostly the younger guys (Richards, Carter, Lupul, Umberger, Upshall, etc.). But I don't think he's the guy to get you to the top in the NHL.

Also, more so than other coaches, he seemed married to his players (see: Modry, Jaroslav).
- jmatchett383

Stevens was learning on the job as a Head Coach. Ready for it in some ways, in some ways he wasn't. He needed to do what he's been doing. Go back to being an assistant, and gain more experience. If he get's another shot, he'll be ready.

As well as mine. I'm still not sure he should be the coach right now, but he took a team with Brian Boucher and Michael Leighton to the SCF. Whatever other sins he's committed, he's done a good overall job.

The problem with both Laviolette and Hitchcock is their inflexibility.
- Jsaquella

This is another situation where the Progressive Bundler would come in handy.

I'm going to Stevens here. I liked Hitch, I like Lavi, but I don't think they can coach outside thier system. Stevens was a great X-O guy and really developed they key players for this team to turn around the team, Richards, Carter, Giroux, JVR, Coburn, Upshall, Lupul and Carle.
- youarewrong

Was never a fan of Stevens. He did do a lot for Richards and Carter, but I would not credit him with the development of Giroux or JVR. Lavi was actually here longer that season than Stevens was. Those 10 game losing streaks were terrible. I really view Stevens' tenure here overall as negative, aside from what he did for Richards and Carter.

Agreed.

Cup finals, historical comeback against Boston, jam, series vs. pitt and the Bylsma feud, typical montreal, gum chewing by a chiseled jaw, punching leino in the head...
- feelingkettle

Stevens was learning on the job as a Head Coach. Ready for it in some ways, in some ways he wasn't. He needed to do what he's been doing. Go back to being an assistant, and gain more experience. If he get's another shot, he'll be ready.
- MJL

MOAR cake recipes!

The problem with both Laviolette and Hitchcock is their inflexibility.
- Jsaquella

You could probably say the same for just about every coach who's ever stepped behind an NHL bench, though.

Guys usually stick to the M.O. that got them hired in the first place, whether it be a preferred way of play and/or a preferred way of handling players. Coaches who switch systems/styles mid-stream rarely live to tell about it (see Bruce Boudreau in WSH)... only after they've been fired do they have the luxury to reflect and make wholesale changes to their styles (like Hitch's approach to young players).

Hitch

More wins, better win %, 1 SCF appearance.

But I voted for Hitch.
- jmatchett383

For some reason I thought he was talking about what they had accomplished in their entire coaching careers.

Was never a fan of Stevens. He did do a lot for Richards and Carter, but I would not credit him with the development of Giroux or JVR. Lavi was actually here longer that season than Stevens was. Those 10 game losing streaks were terrible. I really view Stevens' tenure here overall as negative, aside from what he did for Richards and Carter.
- feelingkettle

Scratched Upshall, but never Calder. Maddening.

Scratched Upshall, but never Calder. Maddening.
- Flyskippy

He saw some good things out there.

For some reason I thought he was talking about what they had accomplished in their entire coaching careers.
- Feanor

I just figured it was for their Flyers careers, same way we couldn't take Bob's play last season into account.

He saw some good things out there.
- feelingkettle

Well remembered

Hitch
- Crimsoninja

YEEEEESSSSSSS

YEEEEESSSSSSS
- PhillySportsGuy

worried the runoff will end this run..

YEEEEESSSSSSS
- PhillySportsGuy

So, we we going with Emeryz or Mazon next year?

Was never a fan of Stevens. He did do a lot for Richards and Carter, but I would not credit him with the development of Giroux or JVR. Lavi was actually here longer that season than Stevens was. Those 10 game losing streaks were terrible. I really view Stevens' tenure here overall as negative, aside from what he did for Richards and Carter.
- feelingkettle

I don't. I thought he had his issues. The team seemed to walk all over him at times, but he was what the young guys needed after being chewed out by Hitch so often. The one thing that always resonated with Stevens teams was their undisciplined play. Penalties and risky plays always seemed to occur. It seemed as if there wasn't enough accountability.

worried the runoff will end this run..
- Crimsoninja

I think we will be on the same page for at least one of the dmen. I don't know if Bill is going to include skill guys for a 4th line spot like Forsberg.

So, we we going with Emeryz or Mazon next year?
- jmatchett383

I think Mazon will be better than Emeryz. They will each get their shot.

I don't. I thought he had his issues. The team seemed to walk all over him at times, but he was what the young guys needed after being chewed out by Hitch so often. The one thing that always resonated with Stevens teams was their undisciplined play. Penalties and risky plays always seemed to occur. It seemed as if there wasn't enough accountability.
- PhillySportsGuy

He was definitely labeled as a players Coach. That same issue with penalties has carried over under Laviolette. And as far as risky play is concerned. The amount of risky play under Laviolette is tenfold over what is was under Stevens.

I think we will be on the same page for at least one of the dmen. I don't know if Bill is going to include skill guys for a 4th line spot like Forsberg.
- PhillySportsGuy

That's what I always wonder about with these "pick x-amount of players" polls. I'd like to see something more like "pick 6 of these 15 players for top-6" and "pick 6 of these players for bottom 6." Granted, guys like Brindy could play either, but you don't want Forsberg on your 4th line, unless you want to use the ASG mentality.

He was definitely labeled as a players Coach. That same issue with penalties has carried over under Laviolette. And as far as risky play is concerned. The amount of risky play under Laviolette is tenfold over what is was under Stevens.
- MJL

I know, but it seems Lavi is more willing to bench guys or put them on the 4th line for stupid penalties (not that it helps). I always liked Stevens and was never in favor of the team firing him.

I think management always felt he wasn't the guy to take the team to the next level, but he would help the young guys develop their offensive game.