The Flyers had the 6th best SV% in the league in 15-16, and career years from their five best players in 16-17. Without those type of exceptional performances the Hakshell approach to hockey couldn't get near a playoff spot.
- Feanor

No coach is successful without the players on the ice playing well.

Gotta disagree with you on that point. My opinion: Saw multiple guys giving more of an effort than they have of late, especially the last two games in Alberta.

I disagree with the contention that they were "playing tight" before and that they "played loose" last night. If they had played with the level of commitment they showed last night while in Alberta, Hakstol would still be the coach
- AllInForFlyers

Playing tight leads to frustration which can lead to a player not keeping his feet moving. It has nothing to do with effort. Case in point. During my first season in Bantam, I played for an excellent coach who was a pleasure to play for. He understood that mistakes were going to happen and he didn't overreact when you screwed up. Also, if he had something to say to you that was a criticism, he took you aside and didn't do it in front of your teammates. Every guy on the team played their butts off for this guy and we had a blast doing so.

The next season, still in Bantam, our coach was a guy who had actually played pro in the old Eastern League. He was the worst coach I ever played for. He constantly belittled guys in front of the whole team and his answer to everything was "shut the (frank) up and work harder". His strategy was basically go after the puck, get it, and score. We rarely, if ever, practiced any kind of set breakouts or any manner of special teams. You knew if you made a mistake, you were going to get reamed out in front of the entire team and probably benched for a shift or 2.

So, what happened? Guys were hesitant. They would slow up, not from lack of effort, but from fear of making mistakes and not wanting to do the wrong thing. We spent too much time thinking about the coach and what not to do instead of just reacting and playing the game, and that is always a recipe for failure.

Now, pro sports is light years beyond a bunch of 14 year old kids playing bantam, but some basic tenets hold true at all levels. When you are frustrated and/or afraid to screw up, your natural inclination is to be hesitant on the ice. It will seem to the casual viewer to be a lack of effort, but what it really is, is a lack of confidence combined with a fear of failure. Hakstol certainly is a good hockey coach, you don't get to where he is if you aren't. But just because he's a good hockey coach and for that matter a good person, doesn't mean that he's going to be successful coaching in the NHL. Like it or not, the league has changed quite a bit over the last couple of decades and coaches need not only to be good coaches, but also, at least to some degree, sports psychologists too.

You need to which players need a pat on the back and which respond better to a kick in the ass. You need to know which guys have thick skin and can take a chewing out and which are sensitive and would respond better to a quiet chat. You need to make sure that the key veterans are on the same page as you and that the kids are comfortable and being put in a position to thrive. Scott Gordon may not be the next Quenneville or Hitchcock, but he's been coaching NHL and AHL players for a decade and he knows how to communicate with them. I'm not sure that Hakstol was skilled enough in this department to succeed in today's NHL.

The Flyers had the 6th best SV% in the league in 15-16, and career years from their five best players in 17-18. Without those type of exceptional performances the Hakshell approach to hockey couldn't get near a playoff spot in a league where more than half the teams make the playoffs.
- Feanor

OK, then.

Is Scott Gordon a good coach? Make the call. Since you know who is a good coach and who is a bad coach.

Ken Hitchcock missed the playoffs in Dallas last year. With Tyler Seguin, Jamie Benn, John Klingberg and Alexander Radulov. Good coach or bad coach?

Or did he just have poop goaltending?

You make it seem like it's a bad thing for your goaltending to make saves and your good players to be your best players.

Todd McClellan was a good coach in San Jose. He made the playoffs once in Edmonton, because that year, Cam Talbot made saves.

Good coach? Bad coach? Which is it?

Gordon has these Dmen ACTIVATED and I love it. The way he wants to play suits guys like Sanheim, Ghost, Provy. They were all very noticeable, meanwhile Hak tried to get them going by giving Andy Mac 20 minutes a night and hemmed in our O zone. It was refreshing to see the Dmen up ice all night, they created a lot of scoring chances.

Hak is gone. There's no need to keep pretending he was a good coach at the NHL level.
- Feanor

Last night they carried the puck into the zone more than dumping it.

Gone is the defenseman stretch pass to forward at the wall tip in to single man forecheck.

Three man forecheck in offensive zone instead of one man created stress and turnovers by Detroit.

On the pk the didn’t use a passive box. The puck side forward pressured the puck continuously instead of just hanging back with his stick in the passing lane.

Defensemen were aggressive in the offensive zone and forwards rotated well in coverage.

TOI was very even among all players last night but reversal of sanheim and Macdonald’s usage was something that’s time was long overdue.

Not considering the score, these changes in system and style seemed to make the players happier and more effective. It certainly was enjoyable to watch gameplay for the first time in a while.

In addition to all this wonderful stuff, we also won

Playing tight leads to frustration which can lead to a player not keeping his feet moving. It has nothing to do with effort. Case in point. During my first season in Bantam, I played for an excellent coach who was a pleasure to play for. He understood that mistakes were going to happen and he didn't overreact when you screwed up. Also, if he had something to say to you that was a criticism, he took you aside and didn't do it in front of your teammates. Every guy on the team played their butts off for this guy and we had a blast doing so.

The next season, still in Bantam, our coach was a guy who had actually played pro in the old Eastern League. He was the worst coach I ever played for. He constantly belittled guys in front of the whole team and his answer to everything was "shut the (frank) up and work harder". His strategy was basically go after the puck, get it, and score. We rarely, if ever, practiced any kind of set breakouts or any manner of special teams. You knew if you made a mistake, you were going to get reamed out in front of the entire team and probably benched for a shift or 2.

So, what happened? Guys were hesitant. They would slow up, not from lack of effort, but from fear of making mistakes and not wanting to do the wrong thing. We spent too much time thinking about the coach and what not to do instead of just reacting and playing the game, and that is always a recipe for failure.

Now, pro sports is light years beyond a bunch of 14 year old kids playing bantam, but some basic tenets hold true at all levels. When you are frustrated and/or afraid to screw up, your natural inclination is to be hesitant on the ice. It will seem to the casual viewer to be a lack of effort, but what it really is, is a lack of confidence combined with a fear of failure. Hakstol certainly is a good hockey coach, you don't get to where he is if you aren't. But just because he's a good hockey coach and for that matter a good person, doesn't mean that he's going to be successful coaching in the NHL. Like it or not, the league has changed quite a bit over the last couple of decades and coaches need not only to be good coaches, but also, at least to some degree, sports psychologists too.

You need to which players need a pat on the back and which respond better to a kick in the ass. You need to know which guys have thick skin and can take a chewing out and which are sensitive and would respond better to a quiet chat. You need to make sure that the key veterans are on the same page as you and that the kids are comfortable and being put in a position to thrive. Scott Gordon may not be the next Quenneville or Hitchcock, but he's been coaching NHL and AHL players for a decade and he knows how to communicate with them. I'm not sure that Hakstol was skilled enough in this department to succeed in today's NHL.
- BiggE

Coaches a hell of a lot better than Hakstol have been fired, so being a good coach does not make one immune to being fired or to his team failing.

The thing that I think it being overlooked is placing too much of the responsibility on the coach for having to motivate player, to pat them on the back or to kick them in the ass. A larger part of the dynamic of a team revolves around it's player leadership. That was a big failure with this team. Players have to do a lot of policing of themselves and their teammates. If players are not going to respond to the coach, then he only has a few options.

There were no systems change in the game last night. They played the same systems they played under Hakstol. Gordon did not install completely new systems in a 40 minute practice.

Do you have this picture up on the wall in a frame, or on your coffee table covered in plastic for easy clean up?


- Feanor

Are those happy or sad tissues

If Fletcher trades any of the kids today, people will riot!

Coaching isn't underrated or overrated -- it's part of the package. You want your coach to be smarter than the other guy, but what you really want is your players to be better than their players

Bill Peters didn't get smarter in Calgary, with the Flames now leading the Pacific Division, than he was in Carolina the last few years, where they didn't make the playoffs

He just got better players

OK, then.

Is Scott Gordon a good coach? Make the call. Since you know who is a good coach and who is a bad coach.

Ken Hitchcock missed the playoffs in Dallas last year. With Tyler Seguin, Jamie Benn, John Klingberg and Alexander Radulov. Good coach or bad coach?

Or did he just have poop goaltending?

You make it seem like it's a bad thing for your goaltending to make saves and your good players to be your best players.

Todd McClellan was a good coach in San Jose. He made the playoffs once in Edmonton, because that year, Cam Talbot made saves.

Good coach? Bad coach? Which is it?
- AllInForFlyers

Scott Gordon has no record of being a good coach at the NHL level. Maybe he can fashion one now, or maybe he'll be replaced by Q in 2019.

Comparing McClellan and Hitch to Hak is a joke. They have track records at the NHL level Hak could only dream of.

Unless he's willing to take a four year deal with a cap hit no higher than 7.25, I think the smart move is still to trade him.
- BiggE

I’ve been on the keep Simmonds train along time and I wouldn’t go further than 6.5 million for five years. I’ll be blow away if he gets a 7 million dollar deal.

Coaches a hell of a lot better than Hakstol have been fired, so being a good coach does not make one immune to being fired or to his team failing.

The thing that I think it being overlooked is placing too much of the responsibility on the coach for having to motivate player, to pat them on the back or to kick them in the ass. A larger part of the dynamic of a team revolves around it's player leadership. That was a big failure with this team. Players have to do a lot of policing of themselves and their teammates. If players are not going to respond to the coach, then he only has a few options.
- MJL

Players have to buy into the system in order for them to lead. I'm not sure how much the veterans bought into what Hak was selling. How often over the last 4 seasons did we see them only start to compete once they fell behind and were able to just go all out offensively? Ken Hitchcock always said that it was imperative that the key veterans on the team buy into what you are trying to do, if not, you don't stand a chance. He had that in Dallas with Hatcher and Carbonneau and in Philly with Primeau and Roenick. I don't think Hak ever made those connections. Of course if a team is struggling a lot is on the players. That's obvious. But it is part of the coaches job to figure out a way to reach these guys and get them to play to their potential. In that respect, Hak failed.

Lets be real here, if it was all on the players, than any competent hockey coach should be able to succeed in the NHL and their would be no reason to pay huge salaries to guys like Babcock and Quenneville. The coach matters.

There were no systems change in the game last night. They played the same systems they played under Hakstol. Gordon did not install completely new systems in a 40 minute practice.
- MJL

False, the Dmen were 100% more involved and clearly had the green light to get up in the play. Were most likely encouraged to. That to me would be a change.

Coaching isn't underrated or overrated -- it's part of the package. You want your coach to be smarter than the other guy, but what you really want is your players to be better than their players

Bill Peters didn't get smarter in Calgary, with the Flames now leading the Pacific Division, than he was in Carolina the last few years, where they didn't make the playoffs

He just got better players
- AllInForFlyers

I think it has more to do with fit than anything, or getting the right players if you will. Obviously better players help.

Coaching isn't underrated or overrated -- it's part of the package. You want your coach to be smarter than the other guy, but what you really want is your players to be better than their players

Bill Peters didn't get smarter in Calgary, with the Flames now leading the Pacific Division, than he was in Carolina the last few years, where they didn't make the playoffs

He just got better players
- AllInForFlyers

He has basically the same players the previous coach did, who was fired after just two years.

He also has a starting goalie who is playing terribly, but he's been able to overcome that.

https://www.eliteprospect...m/player/10173/mike-smith

Hart gets the W - changes are working, for now.. my thoughts: https://youtu.be/j9fbxYTG5yo

Okay, let’s pump the breaks. I felt the team looked a lot more relax and I think we are seeing more of a balanced attack but I don’t think this has more to do with Hakstol’s firing, over the one practice Scott Gordon has hosted so far. I don’t even expect Gordon to last the season.

Coaching isn't underrated or overrated -- it's part of the package. You want your coach to be smarter than the other guy, but what you really want is your players to be better than their players

Bill Peters didn't get smarter in Calgary, with the Flames now leading the Pacific Division, than he was in Carolina the last few years, where they didn't make the playoffs

He just got better players
- AllInForFlyers

True, but you still need to know how to reach those players and get them to buy into your system. I'm not sure that Hak would have been the right guy to take a team to the top no matter who the players were. You don't get to the NHL if you don't have a keen grasp of the Xs and Os of playing hockey. What sets the top coaches apart is their ability to constantly tweak their system to best fit their personnel and having that innate grasp of how to get 20 players all on the same page working towards a common goal. It's most certainly a skill and a rare one at that.

There were no systems change in the game last night. They played the same systems they played under Hakstol. Gordon did not install completely new systems in a 40 minute practice.
- MJL

I didn’t think Gordon was at practice.

Scott Gordon has no record of being a good coach at the NHL level. Maybe he can fashion one now, or maybe he'll be replaced by Q in 2019.

Comparing McClellan and Hitch to Hak is a joke. They have track records at the NHL level Hak could only dream of.
- Feanor

Anybody know what bill belichick’s record was in Cleveland? 36-44. Sometime a coach and team aren’t a good fit fore each other. You just hope it doesn’t take 4 years and 90 percent of your fan base to figure it out before something is done about it.

Scott Gordon has no record of being a good coach at the NHL level. Maybe he can fashion one now, or maybe he'll be replaced by Q in 2019.

Comparing McClellan and Hitch to Hak is a joke. They have track records at the NHL level Hak could only dream of.
- Feanor

I'm not comparing Hakstol to Hitch or McClellan. I'm saying that they all end up the same place, whether we think they're "good" or "bad," and it's ridiculous to hate Hakstol when his record is better than some, not as good as others

The Sabres were an absolute dumpster fire last year under Phil Housley. He's got no track record of coaching success. This year, they're Top 5 in the conference.

He didn't get smarter. He got Jeff Skinner, Rasmus Dahlin and a new goalie who has stopped more pucks

I’ve been on the keep Simmonds train along time and I would go further than 6.5 million for five years. I’ll be blow away if he gets a 7 million dollar deal.
- SuperSchennBros

Well JVR got 5 years at 7 million per and he doesn't bring the intangibles to the table that Simmonds does. Couple that with a rising cap and I can all but guarantee that if Simmer is willing to take a 4 year deal, there will be GM willing to pony up at least 7.5 per or if he wants 5 years, he'll get the same as JVR from someone. It's just the nature of the business.

Oh ffs, you’ve all done it now...

Players have to buy into the system in order for them to lead. I'm not sure how much the veterans bought into what Hak was selling. How often over the last 4 seasons did we see them only start to compete once they fell behind and were able to just go all out offensively? Ken Hitchcock always said that it was imperative that the key veterans on the team buy into what you are trying to do, if not, you don't stand a chance. He had that in Dallas with Hatcher and Carbonneau and in Philly with Primeau and Roenick. I don't think Hak ever made those connections. Of course if a team is struggling a lot is on the players. That's obvious. But it is part of the coaches job to figure out a way to reach these guys and get them to play to their potential. In that respect, Hak failed.

Lets be real here, if it was all on the players, than any competent hockey coach should be able to succeed in the NHL and their would be no reason to pay huge salaries to guys like Babcock and Quenneville. The coach matters.
- BiggE

You could question whether or not Hakstol knew how to make those connections. He went from coaching young students in a university to coaching millionaires.

Who thought this was a good idea?