What the Hell just happen?

[radoran]

btw Rad of course I accept your premise here because it's so obviously true. I just thought interjecting it when you did, when we were already on a roll about how the team is playing wasn't helpful to the discussion. But I'll go with the flow. If you guys want to get into Homer and Ed's responsibility for the product on the ice that's fine.

 

[edit: But I do believe that's a different conversation.]

 

No, again, I mixed up the threads.

 

And I created my own thread to discuss the idiocy of playing Rosehill. But that does directly impact the team's play on the ice and is a direct result of the decision made by the head coach to play him.

[aziz]

Yeah, I buy that. At least briefly.

But seriously, I wonder about the "system." It wasn't directed at you necessarily but even on broadcasts I hear "learning Berube's system" or "adjusting to..." or phrases similar. So, to you and others that have watched for a long time and have a decent understanding of what you're looking at:

How different is it really? I mean on an X's and O's "system" level. I don't have a source and I promise I won't email any responses anywhere, but I'm really wondering. Because for me, personally, I'm not sure I'm looking at any really different system than Lavi's or if I'm just seeing some players trying harder (if often only for stretches) to impress the new coach.

I think there is a fairly large difference in this case. HF101 is right, I think : we saw Berube's system in the first and a reversion to laviolette's in the second and third.

As to what is actually different from an X's and O's perspective, laviolette ran an aggressive left wing lock, not just as a forechecking system, but as a preferred zone entry method. Berube seems to be pushing for a more in-control possession entry. Assignments, positioning, and timing are pretty completely different.

Laviolette had the puck carrier get the puck in deep from the neutral zone as quickly as possible, regardless of what kind of support he had at the moment. The idea was to get the puck in deep and force it around to a forward "locked" along the halfwall, so the timing of the entry wasn't real important, so long as that F3 could be in position by the time the play worked it's way around. F1 needed to be in quick, F2 shortly after, and F3 a little after that, but it was a fairly get - there - when - you - can thing.

Berube is having the puck carried into the zone rather than dumped, and that means support has to be organized through neutral, and available at all times. Coming from a system where using support generally meant winging the puck around the boards and hoping someone was there, learning where to look for and where to provide actual puck support is a big change.

And that, I think, at least partially explains what happened against the ducks: the timing fell off as the game went on, support became less and less available, and the team started falling back to the old get it deep and get there when you can mode. Which they really don't have a roster to support.

What is most familiar is most comfortable, and it will probably be a little while before the new approach becomes the default when legs and brains start to get tired late in games. Whether it makes a difference in the scoreboard remains to be seen.

[canoli]

why the Vancouver game? Because any earlier than that and we're right up against Berube's takeover. I figure the first few games after a new HC takes over are basically meaningless as far as evaluating the team. Guys are trying to impress, the new system (new demands, responsibilities, etc.) is barely in place and the concept of a TEAM has had zero chance of taking hold.

 

After a few games - I picked 3 but okay, 4 would've been fair too - I believe we can begin to gauge what the new HC wants to see...and in the Vancouver game we saw it pretty clearly. Since then his style is slowly emerging. The D-men are not active in the O zone nearly as much as they were under Lavy; there's less freewheeling among the forwards coming up ice. That "slingshot" play they were using to enter the O zone is all but dead. The forwards are collapsing back quicker and protecting the net better... there seems to be less emphasis on shots from the point (and the cycle that's necessary to create those shots) and more on working the puck low, below the dots.

 

I disregarded the NY teams because they suck. We beat a debut goalie and a Callahan/Nash-less Rags team. Yay. But the Pens, the Ducks and Vancouver are good teams - and we played them evenly or better for long segments of each game. We didn't win any of them but I saw a lot to like from the TEAM play those nights. The breakdowns, turnovers and penalties - still killing the Flyers. But now at least there's a reason to watch the games.

[canoli]

Berube is having the puck carried into the zone rather than dumped, and that means support has to be organized through neutral, and available at all times.

 

So what happens - what is Berube's answer when a good team starts pressuring at the red line, the way the Ducks did in the 3rd? How do you beat that? If I read your post correctly you're saying Berube is asking for more carries-in and less dump-ins. I see that (and I like it btw). But I wonder how you get past a good checking team like the Ducks or the Bruins, Chi, SJ etc. when they step it up in the N zone. Aren't you kind of forced to dump in and scramble hard after the puck?

 

great post - thanks.

[ruxpin]

@canoli

 

Okay, thank you for the explanation.   Your reasoning makes sense for what you're trying to show.   Although, *maybe* in the interest of where you're going with the "give the coach a chance" maybe you draw the line with the week off instead? (Although I appreciate if you thought I'd jump on that, too--I probably would have).

 

This will not come as a stunning revelation to you (or anyone else for that matter), but you're obviously a bit more patient than I am (also describes a rabid squirrel).  And that's fine.  I'm sure it comes out to a bit less blood pressure meds.

 

But I just don't see the "a lot to like" or a reason to watch enjoy the games.   For explanation of my point on that, just go back to my thing about ability to play while the opponent isn't playing so well and folding when they turn it on.  That way I don't bore you with repeating.  IMO, btw, the Pens simply ran over us.   The portions of the game that we looked even was because the Pens appeared bored.

 

Who knows in a month or two (I honestly don't hold out much optimism, but who knows), but right now they simply aren't a good team.

[Samifan]

I think it becomes a 4-1 for the full 0:18 seconds he's on the ice.

Flyers are basically playing a man down whenever Rosehill is on the ice. Thankfully its not much time but I still for the life of me cannot figure out why he is dressing over Hall or has a roster spot over McGinn? Oh wait, yes I can, it's because Ed Snider thinks it still 1975 and we need and enforcer!

Hey Uncle Eddie, it's 2013!

Edited October 31, 2013 by Samifan

[ruxpin]

I think there is a fairly large difference in this case. HF101 is right, I think : we saw Berube's system in the first and a reversion to laviolette's in the second and third.

As to what is actually different from an X's and O's perspective, laviolette ran an aggressive left wing lock, not just as a forechecking system, but as a preferred zone entry method. Berube seems to be pushing for a more in-control possession entry. Assignments, positioning, and timing are pretty completely different.

Laviolette had the puck carrier get the puck in deep from the neutral zone as quickly as possible, regardless of what kind of support he had at the moment. The idea was to get the puck in deep and force it around to a forward "locked" along the halfwall, so the timing of the entry wasn't real important, so long as that F3 could be in position by the time the play worked it's way around. F1 needed to be in quick, F2 shortly after, and F3 a little after that, but it was a fairly get - there - when - you - can thing.

Berube is having the puck carried into the zone rather than dumped, and that means support has to be organized through neutral, and available at all times. Coming from a system where using support generally meant winging the puck around the boards and hoping someone was there, learning where to look for and where to provide actual puck support is a big change.

And that, I think, at least partially explains what happened against the ducks: the timing fell off as the game went on, support became less and less available, and the team started falling back to the old get it deep and get there when you can mode. Which they really don't have a roster to support.

What is most familiar is most comfortable, and it will probably be a little while before the new approach becomes the default when legs and brains start to get tired late in games. Whether it makes a difference in the scoreboard remains to be seen.

 

Nice post.   I just read canoli's response and his concern is a good one.   Although I think dumping in is fine when a team changes their defensive posture.  Clearly, the carry in will be Berube's preference, though.

 

Aziz, what do you think, though?   I don't think the team was very well built for the dump, chase, forecheck thing.  They just didn't seem fast enough to the puck to support it, and not very good at getting/keeping the puck when they did.   So I like the carry in approach.  But I wonder if--as canoli's post seems to suggest--if they have the ability to adapt when the opponent recognizes the plan and adjusts.

[OH1FlyersFan]

@canoli

@aziz

 

My observation is the team is simply fragile - both mentally and physically. Why - I have no clue... probably due to the make-up of the team. They lack confidence and probably more than just that. They can't dominate. Forget dominate. They can hardly hold their own. That's the only explanation I have for starting games on a high note and not being able to finish them.

 

My hunch is after Berube took over, he started instilling this "play like a team", "play hard", "play disciplined hockey" stuff and surely, the team started responding... what else are the players supposed to do but to *try* to do what their coach is asking them to do? So as a result, we see that great effort and drive and then, as the game goes on, the team is out of its tricks. To be successful, you need more than just a drive and aspiration. And this team just doesn't have it. Hard work can only get you so far.

 

It's unfortunate, but I think it really is that simple. You guys are trying to overanalyze it, while there doesn't seem to be much to analyze. Aziz is asking what is not good. It's that. From top to bottom - the way the team is built they just don't have a make-up of a technically sound and mentally tough team.  And taht starts with our captain.  The third period seems to be supporting this, no? 

 

 

 

Exactly!

[aziz]

So what happens - what is Berube's answer when a good team starts pressuring at the red line, the way the Ducks did in the 3rd? How do you beat that? If I read your post correctly you're saying Berube is asking for more carries-in and less dump-ins. I see that (and I like it btw). But I wonder how you get past a good checking team like the Ducks or the Bruins, Chi, SJ etc. when they step it up in the N zone. Aren't you kind of forced to dump in and scramble hard after the puck?

great post - thanks.

Not if support is where it needs to be. Given two line passes are legal these days, a team can only afford to pressure at the red line with the three forwards, and even that is risky. An organized four man breakout (one D trailing as a failsafe) should be able to put together an outnumbering situation against any particular forechecker. Pass around the pressure. And IF the other team has committed three skaters at the red line, you likely have an odd man break once you get past them. We see it against the Flyers all the time.

But again, there's where the learning curve comes in. The support needs to be in the right place, and players have to know how to use it. it sounds simple, but there are a lot of little details you have to get just so.

[canoli]

@canoli

 

Okay, thank you for the explanation.   Your reasoning makes sense for what you're trying to show.   Although, *maybe* in the interest of where you're going with the "give the coach a chance" maybe you draw the line with the week off instead? (Although I appreciate if you thought I'd jump on that, too--I probably would have).

 

This will not come as a stunning revelation to you (or anyone else for that matter), but you're obviously a bit more patient than I am (also describes a rabid squirrel).  And that's fine.  I'm sure it comes out to a bit less blood pressure meds.

 

But I just don't see the "a lot to like" or a reason to watch enjoy the games.   For explanation of my point on that, just go back to my thing about ability to play while the opponent isn't playing so well and folding when they turn it on.  That way I don't bore you with repeating.  IMO, btw, the Pens simply ran over us.   The portions of the game that we looked even was because the Pens appeared bored.

 

Who knows in a month or two (I honestly don't hold out much optimism, but who knows), but right now they simply aren't a good team.

 

I get you but I just think it's too easy to say "the Flyers are good only when the other team is asleep." It's true the Ducks weren't as good in the 1st as they were later. But good teams take advantage when the opposition is fighting the puck a bit, when they're on the road and unfamiliar with the ice, etc. The Flyers put up 2 goals that period. Don't they get any credit for that?

 

I don't think the Pens ran over us but the Flyers didn't show the same level of execution as they did against Vancouver (for 2 periods). IIRC in the Pens game there were 3 big breakdowns on D and each one went up on the board as a goal-against.

 

It's interesting what Aziz said about the timing falling off as the Ducks' game progressed. I assume that's the result of the Ducks pressuring the puck so much better. I hope there's an answer for that because the Flyers need one desperately. You're right when you say they are struggling against good teams. I just see a lot of good stuff too that's all.

 

[edit: actually Aziz gave us an answer - proper positioning. I can see how that would be a Huge Change for this squad. Lavy was known to let them freewheel, improvise on offense and as Aziz said it seemed the priority was "just get it deep, get a D-man into the forecheck and good things will happen." Under Berube it appears they're being told they've got definite positions to play, places on the ice where they must be in order to advance the puck.]

Edited October 31, 2013 by canoli

[brelic]

You're right when you say they are struggling against good teams. I just see a lot of good stuff too that's all.

I think that's just the reality of the NHL... there are very few truly awful teams.

So even the worst teams lose by a goal or two most of the time, and probably have stretches in each game where they are playing well. They're just not good enough to put it all together to win consistently.

[Mad Dog]

@ruxpin

 

I actually see quite a bit of a difference. Lavy's system, for better or worse, was basically a go-go, reckless abandon type of hockey. It really wasn't too sophisticated. The idea was to outrun the opposing team. And look, sometimes this actually works. If you have two potent lines filled with the likes of Eric Staal at his prime, and Rod Brind'Amour who was playing out of his mind, and Ward who just couldn't let any goals in, and all five positionally sound and responsible defensemen - sure, you can win playing this way. The Flyers... well, OK, we know all too well it was a different story.

 

I see a lot more puck support, more defensive fore-check and more less open flank attacks with Berube.

 

\But again, to me it comes down to a fairly simple break-down: this *team* is not good. Berube's system, Laviolette's system, or the Christ's himself system would not make a big difference. I just don't know if these players really know how to win. There is a reason I keep coming back to that Perry play during the last game. That was as pathetic and inept defensive play as I have seen in a long, long time. We are not talking Eric Lindros who was impossible to take off the puck. Perry is a nice player and all, but there is no reason to have 3 players clinging to him and not being able to take the puck away from him. I would like to see that play again so I could see who those players were. I believe those were big players.

My point is I am not much of a believer in Berube, but really, how much of this inept play is really on him? This is fundamental hockey, which coaches teach players in college. You just check the guy with a shoulder and he is separated from the puck, *especially* the guy who is not exactly a human mountain.

 

I gave up counting how many times Giroux takes the puck and screws around with it, blowing an opportunity to just make a simple play. That was with the old coach and the current coach.  The chaos and confusion when trying to transition the puck was going on for as long as I can remember. 

 

I don't know what is wrong with this team - again, not individual players, but a team. What exactly is lacking... I mean we can clearly see what is lacking. My question is *why* it is lacking. These are not some replacement players, or a bunch of novices who simply don't know any better. I can't accept that Giroux, Voracek, B Schenn, Read, Simmonds, Talbot, Hartnell suddenly forgot how to organize the attack. And as bad as Coburn, Luke Schenn, Grossmann, Timonen, and Meszaros are, I can't accept that they are suddenly incapable of making a simple, rudimentary play to separate a player from the puck. These terrible plays are all rather symptoms, not causes, at least the way I see it.

 

Something is just off. Way off with this team. On paper, they are not worse than Colorado or Calgary, as it has been mentioned in this thread.  I don’t even think they are worse than the Islanders, actually.  And I am not buying that the Islanders are better coached.  I respect Jack Capuano as a coach, and I am giving him tons of credits for turning that team around, but the intangibles are intangibles. But they are so off on many plays that it's not even funny. 

Edited October 31, 2013 by Mad Dog

[aziz]

Nice post. I just read canoli's response and his concern is a good one. Although I think dumping in is fine when a team changes their defensive posture. Clearly, the carry in will be Berube's preference, though.

Aziz, what do you think, though? I don't think the team was very well built for the dump, chase, forecheck thing. They just didn't seem fast enough to the puck to support it, and not very good at getting/keeping the puck when they did. So I like the carry in approach. But I wonder if--as canoli's post seems to suggest--if they have the ability to adapt when the opponent recognizes the plan and adjusts.

No, I don't think they do have a good roster for all the board play. Some of it is speed, some of it is size, some of it is reliable puck control at the points (which play a vital pressure release / overload role).... But the biggest shortcoming I think is a lack of confidence and creativity coming off the wall and reliably turning board work into scoring chances. And that's always been the case with this team under laviolette, I was yelling about it when Richards and carter were around. It's great to physically have the puck in the offensive zone, but if you can't turn that into a scoring chance, there isn't much point. Possessing and moving the puck in open ice naturally presents looks at the net, moves defenders into and out of changing coverage. Working the puck up and down and around the boards is easy for a defending team to follow, and is always at least one pass away from a direct threat to score. A team has to be fast enough to win the race to the puck, big enough to win the battle, and creative enough build a multi touch play away from the boards and into a scoring position. The Flyers haven't had all three of those in years.

[fanaticV3.0]

this whole thing started with the idea that the team is not good, and there is nothing more to say or think of beyond that.  that the record was proof and end of story.  colorado and calgary were mentioned to point out teams with records that to this point say something different than the quality of their roster would suggest.  

 

 

 

it does?  to me, it speaks for a decent organization that has ups and downs like any other, but isn't particularly special, and benefited from very weak division-mates several of those years.

 

btw, they've collected 547 points in the standings since their cup win, including missing the playoffs twice.  the flyers have collected 546 with one miss.  it's not like they are detroit or anything.

 

Records are the only thing that matter bub. Teams aren't award W and L based on who should be better, who had a better period, what matters is results.

[aziz]

Records are the only thing that matter bub. Teams aren't award W and L based on who should be better, who had a better period, what matters is results.

Of course. Like I said, though, if final results and point totals are the only thing that interests, there is no reason to do anything more than check scores in the morning and go about your day. Box scores are full of irrelevant info, and messages boards are beyond useless. What is there to talk about if the only thing that matters is W or L?

[FD19372]

Amazing that this topic could be recycled so appropriately twice in 3 days.

[doom88]

Amazing that this topic could be recycled so appropriately twice in 3 days.

No kidding. Never a dull moment eh?

[ruxpin]

Amazing that this topic could be recycled so appropriately twice in 3 days.

 

No kidding.  Possibly the best thread title EVER.  It will remain relevant forever and be appropriate every 2-3 days or so.

[OH1FlyersFan]

Great post.

 

I really think it's a development thing. There are young players in key positions, and they're learning. The 2nd and 3rd line centers are learning the game at the NHL level, have constantly changing linemates, have the Philly pressure to perform, and are part of a roster that is constantly in flux. Let's think about that... we have a 22 year old and 20 year in key positions. And Giroux is 25, still very young and learning how to be a leader while having the pressure to be THE guy for offense on the team. All of these factors bring adjustment periods. Add to that guys like Read, Raffl, McGinn, and Gus who are all pretty new to the NHL.  Even though Read is way ahead of the other 3 in terms of development, he still only has 1.5 years of NHL experience, so still new to this guy. Jake just turned 24 two months ago, Luke is 23. These guys are not going to be consistent night in and night out, especially when the supporting core is just as green.

 

Plus, they just fired their coach who should have been fired last year. So now they're learning a new system mid-stream.

 

They have two new goalies.

 

And they have an entire team of beat writers who have such lofty expectations that they are deemed a failure every time they make the slightest miscue.

 

Give these guys 5 years. Keep this core for that long, add the right supporting guys as needed, draft smartly, and I bet we'll be watching a real team that can hang with the best of them.

Totally agree with this.  But what I find frustrating is that the Penguins can get a kid like Crosby who at a very young age can step in and make a huge, positive impact immediately while our young guys are still struggling to find their way.  I know a guy like Crosby doesn't come along every day and my wishing may be completely unrealistic or unreasonable, but man it sure would be nice to find someone like that and have the Flyers reap the rewards immediately rather than waiting four, five, six years.  I'm all for patience and fault this team for not being more patient in developing our younger players, but we're due!

[brelic]

Totally agree with this.  But what I find frustrating is that the Penguins can get a kid like Crosby who at a very young age can step in and make a huge, positive impact immediately while our young guys are still struggling to find their way.  I know a guy like Crosby doesn't come along every day and my wishing may be completely unrealistic or unreasonable, but man it sure would be nice to find someone like that and have the Flyers reap the rewards immediately rather than waiting four, five, six years.  I'm all for patience and fault this team for not being more patient in developing our younger players, but we're due!

Yeah, I agree, it's frustrating. But as you say, Crosby is a special player. Generational talent.

And there are others who can step in right away and contribute (Stamkos, Kane, Ovechkin, Malkin), though in the case of the latter two, they didn't play in the NHL immediately following their draft year (lockout).

Couturier came in and contributed right away as an 18 year old. Not at an elite level, but he still contributed. JVR got 15 goals and 35 points in his rookie year. Read scored 24 goals and 47 points as a rookie.

We got screwed on the draft, no doubt. Not only was it a weak year, but we lost the first overall pick lottery. So double whammy. I mean, Malkin was 2nd overall in his draft year. Can you imagine getting him instead of JVR? Makes us a different team for sure.

Philly needs two to three top-level players. Giroux, a top level defenseman (think Doughty, Pietrangelo, OEL), and another top-level winger/forward. We just don't have those guys.

[ruxpin]

Philly needs two to three top-level players. Giroux, a top level defenseman (think Doughty, Pietrangelo, OEL), and another top-level winger/forward. We just don't have those guys.

 

A top level GM and a top level coach would be good, too.

[AJgoal]

Yup. This thread can definitely fit every 2-3 days around this team. Glad I only saw the 1st period yesterday. What an embarassment.

[flyersfan83]

what's happening is this team just doesnt want to play.

[radoran]

Just giving the thread a little BUMP after the 2-1 Carolina OT loss.

[jammer2]

@radoran  Something tells me this thread is gonna get a work out this year...nice and handy.