There's always Disco Dan. I'd really have zero interest in promoting anyone from within besides Murray.
- hereticpride

Yeah, Bylsma is out there...I'm not too high on him, but he's managed to put up good records with the Pens during stretches without Crosby or Malkin

He should have been fired after the lockout shortened season, or during it.
- Jsaquella

No he shouldn't have.

Meszaros, Coburn and Grossmann had two long term and major injuries that season, which left us the following....

Kimmo Timonen, Luke Schenn, Erik Gustafsson, Bruno Gervais, Kurtis Foster, Oliver Lauridsen and Kent Huskins.

Prior to that season, Laviolette never got any shorter then the second round of the playoffs in three season (one including a Cup Final) and we didn't have a training camp during that shorten season.

Outside of your assessment of being stubborn and unwilling to adjust his system (Which it is his system), he deserved a lot more rope. He never deserved anything else. With the roster he had to work with, that falls on the shoulders of the GM.

What if they hand the reigns over to Gord Murphy and he coaches them into the playoffs? Do you really turn around and replace him at that point?

That's the issue, is it about saving this season or ensuring that you're not making a mistake in acting too rashly?
- Jsaquella

Not being a fly on the wall at Hexys office I would say for me its about not making a mistake. Edit add- You usually get a brief jolt from a change so any interim coach success would have to be downplayed.

There are a lot of different people on that team and they all need to be stroked or pushed in different ways in private by management. I am really concerned about the younger players like Laughton or others that may come up for look sees. Most of the rest there are mature and have been around long enough to deal with this.

It is just a really sad thing for people who follow this team, Groundhog Day with the coaching.

No he shouldn't have.

Meszaros, Coburn and Grossmann had two long term and major injuries that season, which left us the following....

Kimmo Timonen, Luke Schenn, Erik Gustafsson, Bruno Gervais, Kurtis Foster and Oliver Lauridsen and Kent Huskins.

Prior to that season, Laviolette never got any shorter then the second round of the playoffs in three season (one including a Cup Final) and we didn't have a training camp during that shorten season.

Outside of your assessment of being stubborn and unwilling to adjust his system (Which it is his system), he deserved a lot more rope. He never deserved anything else. With the roster he had to work with, that falls on the shoulders of the GM.
- SuperSchennBros

I disagree. He's had a short shelf life at every job he's had and he wore out his welcome. The team was not responding and he was loathe to adjust his system to meet the new realities of his roster.

Yes, he was dealt a bad hand. So was Bylsma. He lost Crosby for long stretches over two seasons. He got his team in the playoffs, every year. A coach has to be able to adjust and adapt. Laviolette hasnt been able too

Not being a fly on the wall at Hexys office I would say for me its about not making a mistake.
There are a lot of different people on that team and they all need to be stroked or pushed in different ways in private by management. I am really concerned about the younger players like Laughton or others that may come up for look sees. Most of the rest there are mature and have been around long enough to deal with this.

It is just a really sad thing for people who follow this team, Groundhog Day with the coaching.
- Steelmanpa

Right now, I see maybe 6 or 7 guys who are going to be key pieces of the future. I don't think another couple of months of Berube really does them a ton of damage.

Conversely, if you have a guy like Murphy or Lappy, they might see it as an audition and try to win at all costs, which likely means more of the same things we worry about with Berube-benching kids, limiting their minutes and having a preference to use veterans.

I'll be honest. I think Torts would at least scratch RJ and Vinny for poor play. It would certainly lend to some great quotes.

Unfortunately I think he'd ruin a young player or two along the way as well.

Everybody upgrade to Xfinity so they can afford Babcock.

I'll be honest. I think Torts would at least scratch RJ and Vinny for poor play. It would certainly lend to some great quotes.

Unfortunately I think he'd ruin a young player or two along the way as well.

Everybody upgrade to Xfinity so they can afford Babcock.
- hereticpride

I disagree. He's had a short shelf life at every job he's had and he wore out his welcome. The team was not responding and he was loathe to adjust his system to meet the new realities of his roster.

Yes, he was dealt a bad hand. So was Bylsma. He lost Crosby for long stretches over two seasons. He got his team in the playoffs, every year. A coach has to be able to adjust and adapt. Laviolette hasnt been able too
- Jsaquella

Erik Gustafsson, Bruno Gervais, Kurtis Foster, Oliver Lauridsen and Kent Huskins don't even play in the NHL anymore. Some of them, if not all of them aren't even NHL caliber players.

As for Bylsma, Sidney Crosby is one player. Malkin is one player. Beyond those two players, they still had a pretty good team. Jordan Staal was drafted high and as a number 1 one center in this league. I sure hope he was still able to get production from Staal, Letang, Kunitz, Neal and with Fleury as their netminder.

Right now, I see maybe 6 or 7 guys who are going to be key pieces of the future. I don't think another couple of months of Berube really does them a ton of damage.

Conversely, if you have a guy like Murphy or Lappy, they might see it as an audition and try to win at all costs, which likely means more of the same things we worry about with Berube-benching kids, limiting their minutes and having a preference to use veterans.
- Jsaquella

If the 6-7 guys are mature players as mentioned and Laughton, then the risks are lower I agree. Hextall would have to specifically instruct the interim coach as to what he wants to see and that it is not an audition for anybody but the players. Sort of like what happens when kids get called up late in the season, but very very early

Have a good night all, time to pack it in with an early rise and back to the grind tomorrow.

He's molding their HOF busts as we speak
- PhillySportsGuy

Well they will both be in the HOF. And when they are inducted the Eagles will still have never even sniffed a super bowl ring.

If the 6-7 guys are mature players as mentioned and Laughton, then the risks are lower I agree. Hextall would have to specifically instruct the interim coach as to what he wants to see and that it is not an audition for anybody but the players. Sort of like what happens when kids get called up late in the season, but very very early

Have a good night all, time to pack it in with an early rise and back to the grind tomorrow.
- Steelmanpa

They are. Giroux, Voracek, Simmonds, Couturier, Schenn, Raffl, Mason, Laughton & maybe Del Zotto.

If they're still scuffling at the TDL, and they still seems unable to correct their inability to execute basic plays and play competent fundamental hockey, I would have to assume that the coach had been tuned out and that change was needed.

I'd make the change then, bringing up Murray or Murphy, and I'd start selling. Coburn, Grossmann, Streit, MacDonald, Lecavalier, Umberger, whatever else appealed to another team for picks and/or prospects.

Basically, for me it'd be giving Berube a chance to show his mettle. I'd lay down conditions-fix the poor fundamentals, bury the anchors and use others, free Couturier from such a restrictive role, even if it means that the team struggles-because development trumps winning right now.

If the team is losing, but competing, I'm a lot more content that the direction is the right one. Getting their doors blown off, like they have been, isn't the right direction.

I'm a little confused, is this article saying the flyers are playing poorly?

They are. Giroux, Voracek, Simmonds, Couturier, Schenn, Raffl, Mason, Laughton & maybe Del Zotto.

If they're still scuffling at the TDL, and they still seems unable to correct their inability to execute basic plays and play competent fundamental hockey, I would have to assume that the coach had been tuned out and that change was needed.

I'd make the change then, bringing up Murray or Murphy, and I'd start selling. Coburn, Grossmann, Streit, MacDonald, Lecavalier, Umberger, whatever else appealed to another team for picks and/or prospects.

Basically, for me it'd be giving Berube a chance to show his mettle. I'd lay down conditions-fix the poor fundamentals, bury the anchors and use others, free Couturier from such a restrictive role, even if it means that the team struggles-because development trumps winning right now.

If the team is losing, but competing, I'm a lot more content that the direction is the right one. Getting their doors blown off, like they have been, isn't the right direction.
- Jsaquella

We do have Terry Murray, don't we? Awesome!

They are. Giroux, Voracek, Simmonds, Couturier, Schenn, Raffl, Mason, Laughton & maybe Del Zotto.

If they're still scuffling at the TDL, and they still seems unable to correct their inability to execute basic plays and play competent fundamental hockey, I would have to assume that the coach had been tuned out and that change was needed.

I'd make the change then, bringing up Murray or Murphy, and I'd start selling. Coburn, Grossmann, Streit, MacDonald, Lecavalier, Umberger, whatever else appealed to another team for picks and/or prospects.

Basically, for me it'd be giving Berube a chance to show his mettle. I'd lay down conditions-fix the poor fundamentals, bury the anchors and use others, free Couturier from such a restrictive role, even if it means that the team struggles-because development trumps winning right now.

If the team is losing, but competing, I'm a lot more content that the direction is the right one. Getting their doors blown off, like they have been, isn't the right direction.
- Jsaquella

i like this but i wholeheartedly agree with the last bit, which has been frustrating the past few weeks.

Jason Akeson, who cleared waivers on Friday and was assigned to the AHL's Lehigh Valley Phantoms, was never part of the solution. A few Flyers fans called him the next Patrick Sharp but he will be lucky if he's the next Patrick Maroon and eventually finds a specific NHL niche because he has one particular asset that is a good fit with two star linemates.

Talk to NHL scouts from numerous other organizations and you will be hard-pressed to find one who are high on Akeson. Almost to a man, they will tell you that Akeson has AHL-caliber feet, suspect physical strength and is prone to playing a one-dimensional game. There was never really much doubt that he would clear waivers this week. Teams including the Flyers don't care about his offensive stats on generally thin Phantoms teams his first three pro seasons. They need to see more than that.

As for the undeniable fact that Akeson played fairly well for the Flyers in the playoffs last year, ask retired players such as Joe Paterson (1985 Flyers), Tim Tookey (1987 Flyers) and Eric Wellwood (dressed in every playoff game in 2012) whether dressing and playing well in a few playoff games meant they'd made it permanently to the NHL. Akeson did not do enough with his limited ice time this season to merit extended time on higher lines, and it wasn't only a matter of his linemates or being miscast.
- BillMeltzer

Warning: Long Post - TLDR Version: See bottom paragraph of this post, "Bottom line:..."

I think you make some good points, Bill, but I don't think there's a conclusive case yet against Akeson making it in the NHL or at least meriting a longer NHL look or two in the future. I feel the disparity in how Akeson has performed this season versus last is due largely to significant changes in how Akeson was handled by Berube and the Flyers .

At the end of last season, Akeson was getting credit for his good showing in the playoffs against the Rangers. Playing mostly with middle-six linemates Matt Read and Sean Couturier, and getting some pp time, Akeson looked confident and like he belonged in the NHL. He was able to have a significant impact on the scoreboard while not being a liability on defense. I'm sure if you had asked those same scouts you mentioned if they thought Akeson could be an impact player in that series, they probably would have laughed and said, no way. One needs only to look back at the drafts a few years to show how often some of these so called "professional" scouts get it wrong...but I digress.

Fast forward to this season, Jason Akeson has looked mostly pedestrian. Most notably, he has not been able to produce, something a player like him must do in order to provide value to his team (afterall, you're not, or, well, you shouldn't, be icing a guy like Akeson for his defensive/checking game). So, why did this happen? Logically, one might look at what things might have been different this season versus last season to try and identify anything that might factor into the drop-off in his play.

One thing that changed is Akeson went from 13-15 minutes of icetime, with time on the power-play, to 7-8 minutes of icetime with no time on the power-play. It's pretty reasonable to think this might have a negative impact on the performance and production of a young, offensive oriented player.

Another difference was going from playing with linemates that have proven to be capable of producing 35-50 points per season (Read/Coots), to linemates consisting of Rinaldo, a guy who averages a point every 10 games and has been one of the the team's worst shooters for years, and PEB, a french player who has never played in the NHL. Oh, wait, Akeson did get a brief "promotion", getting the "opportunity" to play a few minutes with the horribly slumping RJ Umberger and VLC before his failure to revive their games confirmed he was a bust and he was benched/waived. [/sarcasm]. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that the significant downgrade in scoring talent that Akeson got to play with this season versus last had a commensurate impact on his ability to produce...something he needs to do to have value in the NHL.

Another difference was going from being trusted enough to play through rookie mistakes (ex, the high stick in the Rangers series), to being put on one of the shortest leashes of any player on the roster. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that this kind of treatment could negatively impact the confidence and creativity of a rookie like Akeson and the perception others have about his play.

Another factor arriving this season was what seemed to be a double standard, where Berube severely punished Akeson by reeling in his already small minutes, calling him out publicly and benching him for (alleged) poor play when, by contrast, others, who played obviously worse, seemed to have been spared the wrath of their coach and, in some cases, were even rewarded for their poor play with more ice-time, pp time and patience. How can a player like Akeson be expected to thrive under this kind of treatment, when the only way out is to try and show what you can do during the few minutes of icetime you get with the team's most offensively challenged players? I don't think it's unreasonable to assume this kind of thing could have a negative impact on a player's confidence.

Something changed this season. RJ Umberger and Bellemare were brought in and the team/Berube decided to push Akeson down the depth chart and into a role that severely hindered his opportunity and ability to produce. The negative impact was compounded by Berube's seemingly biased and overly harsh treatment of the player.

I think everyone would have agreed prior to the season that Akeson was not a fourth line type of player. A skilled but smallish playmaker with good hands, average skater, not overly physical...he's pretty much the antithesis of what a fourth liner would typically be (see Rinaldo, Zac), yet that's where they put him this season. So, if everyone knew he wasn't a fourth liner, why does it seem like now many are making conclusions about his NHL career potential based primarily on a small sample size of his play in that kind of role?

Has Akeson's impressive performance from the playoffs last season, when he was in a more suitable role, been rendered completely irrelevant by the mediocre performance this season, when he was given the outsized challenge of trying to produce with offensively inept linemates, while trying to acclimate to an unfamiliar checking role?

Bottom line (TLDR): Can anyone truthfully say that the Flyers put Jason Akeson in the best position to succeed this season? I don't think so. Yet many seem inclined to blame the player alone for his circumstances and current status rather than look at the extenuating circumstances. Akeson deserves another shot at some point, under more favorable circumstances.

Finals schedule:

Friday 12/5
Saturday 12/6
Monday 12/8
Tuesday 12/9
Thursday 12/11
Friday 12/12


- Giroux_Is_God

ill be trudging this week and the next with you. crunch time.

I skipped page 10-26 because of work.

Did they fire Berube?
Or you guys just speculating that is next?

Yeah, Bylsma is out there...I'm not too high on him, but he's managed to put up good records with the Pens during stretches without Crosby or Malkin
- Jsaquella

im not going to say he is an awful coach. but, based on many of the concerns you guys have and the direction that seems to be apparent, i really do not think he is a guy you want. AT ALL.

I skipped page 10-26 because of work.

Did they fire Berube?
Or you guys just speculating that is next?
- Marc D

Speculation unless I missed something.

Warning: Long Post - TLDR Version: See bottom paragraph of this post, "Bottom line:..."

I think you make some good points, Bill, but I don't think there's a conclusive case yet against Akeson making it in the NHL or at least meriting a longer NHL look or two in the future. I feel the disparity in how Akeson has performed this season versus last is due largely to significant changes in how Akeson was handled by Berube and the Flyers .

At the end of last season, Akeson was getting credit for his good showing in the playoffs against the Rangers. Playing mostly with middle-six linemates Matt Read and Sean Couturier, and getting some pp time, Akeson looked confident and like he belonged in the NHL. He was able to have a significant impact on the scoreboard while not being a liability on defense. I'm sure if you had asked those same scouts you mentioned if they thought Akeson could be an impact player in that series, they probably would have laughed and said, no way. One needs only to look back at the drafts a few years to show how often some of these so called "professional" scouts get it wrong...but I digress.

Fast forward to this season, Jason Akeson has looked mostly pedestrian. Most notably, he has not been able to produce, something a player like him must do in order to provide value to his team (afterall, you're not, or, well, you shouldn't, be icing a guy like Akeson for his defensive/checking game). So, why did this happen? Logically, one might look at what things might have been different this season versus last season to try and identify anything that might factor into the drop-off in his play.

One thing that changed is Akeson went from 13-15 minutes of icetime, with time on the power-play, to 7-8 minutes of icetime with no time on the power-play. It's pretty reasonable to think this might have a negative impact on the performance and production of a young, offensive oriented player.

Another difference was going from playing with linemates that have proven to be capable of producing 35-50 points per season (Read/Coots), to linemates consisting of Rinaldo, a guy who averages a point every 10 games and has been one of the the team's worst shooters for years, and PEB, a french player who has never played in the NHL. Oh, wait, Akeson did get a brief "promotion", getting the "opportunity" to play a few minutes with the horribly slumping RJ Umberger and VLC before his failure to revive their games confirmed he was a bust and he was benched/waived.
- exlund[/sarcasm]. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that the significant downgrade in scoring talent that Akeson got to play with this season versus last had a commensurate impact on his ability to produce...something he needs to do to have value in the NHL.

Another difference was going from being trusted enough to play through rookie mistakes (ex, the high stick in the Rangers series), to being put on one of the shortest leashes of any player on the roster. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that this kind of treatment could negatively impact the confidence and creativity of a rookie like Akeson and the perception others have about his play.

Another factor arriving this season was what seemed to be a double standard, where Berube severely punished Akeson by reeling in his already small minutes, calling him out publicly and benching him for (alleged) poor play when, by contrast, others, who played obviously worse, seemed to have been spared the wrath of their coach and, in some cases, were even rewarded for their poor play with more ice-time, pp time and patience. How can a player like Akeson be expected to thrive under this kind of treatment, when the only way out is to try and show what you can do during the few minutes of icetime you get with the team's most offensively challenged players? I don't think it's unreasonable to assume this kind of thing could have a negative impact on a player's confidence.

Something changed this season. RJ Umberger and Bellemare were brought in and the team/Berube decided to push Akeson down the depth chart and into a role that severely hindered his opportunity and ability to produce. The negative impact was compounded by Berube's seemingly biased and overly harsh treatment of the player.

I think everyone would have agreed prior to the season that Akeson was not a fourth line type of player. A skilled but smallish playmaker with good hands, average skater, not overly physical...he's pretty much the antithesis of what a fourth liner would typically be (see Rinaldo, Zac), yet that's where they put him this season. So, if everyone knew he wasn't a fourth liner, why does it seem like now many are making conclusions about his NHL career potential based primarily on a small sample size of his play in that kind of role?

Has Akeson's impressive performance from the playoffs last season, when he was in a more suitable role, been rendered completely irrelevant by the mediocre performance this season, when he was given the outsized challenge of trying to produce with offensively inept linemates, while trying to acclimate to an unfamiliar checking role?

Bottom line (TLDR): Can anyone truthfully say that the Flyers put Jason Akeson in the best position to succeed this season? I don't think so. Yet many seem inclined to blame the player alone for his circumstances and current status rather than look at the extenuating circumstances. Akeson deserves another shot at some point, under more favorable circumstances.

I know you are a believer in Akeson's ability so I'll say this. If not one player outside of the top line can produce, what makes you think Akeson can? The argument your making, I could make the same for Lecavalier. Jason Akeson is an offensive player who has only spent his very limited time on the roster with the likes of Bellemare, Rinaldo and Vandevelde. Lecavalier this season has only seen time with Laughton, Raffl, Umberger, Bellemare, Vandevelde and Rinaldo. Again, the problem is nobody within the bottom nine are doing much of anything. If Berube simply stuck Akeson where he left off with Couturier and Read last season, what difference would it make? They're playing a defensive role and they're not scoring either. Akeson would still become limited within what is expected of him. I don't believe Akeson to be the difference maker you are hoping he'll be.

I think the future is pretty bright, actually. There's a plan in place, the last two drafts have yielded good players and they do have some good trade chips to add more picks. If they can continue to add picks and draft smart, they'll be fine
- Jsaquella

makes you wonder what the team would look like right now if the magic balls dropped our way in the spring of 2007. eeeehhhhhhhhhh.....kane probably would have suffered a career ending injury by now, so, probably not any different.

makes you wonder what the team would look like right now if the magic balls dropped our way in the spring of 2007. eeeehhhhhhhhhh.....kane probably would have suffered a career ending injury by now, so, probably not any different.
- hammarby31

thats what cracks me up about these (frank)ing tankers... we had a top 5 pick, hes in toronto now and the guy we traded for ... gawd do i need to go on?!

makes you wonder what the team would look like right now if the magic balls dropped our way in the spring of 2007. eeeehhhhhhhhhh.....kane probably would have suffered a career ending injury by now, so, probably not any different.
- hammarby31

A chain reaction of differences. There would be no need for a guy like Voracek today because Kane plays the same position and a similar style.

exlund, i actually read your post, but for the sake of servers holding hockeybuzz archives i am not quoting replying directly to it. i will say this, good job, i mostly agree and would rather the flyers lose rolling akeson out there 15 minutes a night than (frank)ing vinnyburger

exlund, i actually read your post, but for the sake of servers holding hockeybuzz archives i am not quoting replying directly to it. i will say this, good job, i mostly agree and would rather the flyers lose rolling akeson out there 15 minutes a night than (frank)ing vinnyburger
- JoeRussomanno

nobody in here believes he's the second coming, but he's had proven scoring ability at every level he's played in, and had a good showing in the playoffs with other good linemates. i just don't understand the short leash, and misuse of his best attributes while other players have sucked far worse and continued to play in all situations with double the ice time. it's absurd. (frank)ing absurd.

i hope he goes to another nhl team, rips it up, and sticks it down our (frank)ing throats.