Reckless, maybe. I think they're more guilty of constantly vacillating between plans, though.

Bob was the one we all remember most, but they also let Eriksson's rights lapse so Homer could go and blindly follow the trend of hugely-tall goalies. Then we got to watch as Eriksson posted consecutive .930SV% seasons, and a .950SV% en route to an Elitserien Champtionship, while Hovinen got lit up in the ECHL, got waived, and was flushed out of NA hockey.
- Tomahawk

I said it a few days ago... I think that they are constantly doubting their own decisions.

Sign Carter and Richards long term- tell them they wont be traded- trade them anyway.

Sign JvR to a longer extension- trade him right after it kicks in.

Give Bob the starting nod in net as a rookie (who seriously impresses until the playoffs- see game 1) and then go out and sign Bryz to a 9 year deal.

Buy out Bryz after year 2 of 9.

Say Laviolette is not on the hot seat.. Fire him 3 games into the new season.

I'm with you on that one. With the exception of very few goalies, the position really does seem like a poopshoot.
- BulliesPhan87

not only that, but goalies (a lot like Pitchers in baseball) tend to have short periods of dominance (aside from a handful) .

So I am not being dramatic about it, and not once did I say trading Bob was a knee jerk move... In fact, Bob was actually traded a year after that playoff series...

My point is that it WAS impatient, rash, and reckless to go out and literally at all costs try to get a goalie. We finally had some serious potential in net. Bob was in his first year in the NHL and was putting up very solid numbers. Even more so, he was a hell of a committed competitor. He was willing to learn, and put it a ton of work to continue improving.

Im not basing this at all on what Bob ended up doing last season. Im basing it on how the org. works on a normal basis.

It was reckless to go out and (again) at ALL COSTS get a new goalie. If that isnt reckless idk what is. If I remember correctly, didnt Homer or Snider or Lukko (or one of them) admit that they kinda over bid for a goalie that summer. Didnt need to go so aggressively? Ya know, trading for the goalie you want (who was a UFA anyway) and then signing him to a 9 year deal?

All because Mr. Snider publicly stated the goalie problem needed to be solved?
- jak521

Again I disagree. If a team identifies a need, it is not reckless in my opinion to go out and sign who they feel is the best Goalie available. Who was a player that had played to a high level and was a recent Vezina finalist. That move was no different then when they went out and got Timonen. Same exact move. The only difference is how it worked out. And honestly, we both know how it turned out plays into all of this. Well the Flyers don't get to do their GMing 2-3 years down the road. They go with what they know or what they think at the time. If Bryzgalov had worked out and played to a high level here, no body would be calling it reckless, or knee jerk. That's the bottom line. Real easy to be a GM after the fact. Holmgren doesn't have that luxury.
Adn far too much is bing made of what Snider said. Snider wanted the goaltender situation fixed. But he didn't tell Holmgren how to go about it.

I think it's fair to say the decision to "fix the goaltending" after the 2011 playoffs was knee jerk. Maybe not on the seconds and minutes scale, but the decision to change course was made after one bad game by the promising young goaltender. On a relative scale, that's a pretty hasty change of heart.

Just my two cents.
- BulliesPhan87

It was far more then about one game. The whole Flyers history with goaltending issues played into it.

Reckless, maybe. I think they're more guilty of constantly vacillating between plans, though.

Bob was the one we all remember most, but they also let Eriksson's rights lapse so Homer could go and blindly follow the trend of hugely-tall goalies. Then we got to watch as Eriksson posted consecutive .930SV% seasons, and a .950SV% en route to an Elitserien Champtionship, while Hovinen got lit up in the ECHL, got waived, and was flushed out of NA hockey.
- Tomahawk

When Eriksson becomes a top goalie in the NHL, then I'll worry about that.

Not only knee jerk, but also such a shallow viewpoint of the team's issues and an over-inflated value of the goaltender position.
- bradleyc4

Goaltending was absolutely an issue with this team when Bryzgalov was here. And goaltender is the most important position on the ice.

It was far more then about one game. The whole Flyers history with goaltending issues played into it.
- MJL

I'm well aware of the role the Flyers goaltending stigma played into it. But it seems apparent the decision that it had to be rectified was made as a reaction to one game.

I said it a few days ago... I think that they are constantly doubting their own decisions.

Sign Carter and Richards long term- tell them they wont be traded- trade them anyway.

Sign JvR to a longer extension- trade him right after it kicks in.

Give Bob the starting nod in net as a rookie (who seriously impresses until the playoffs- see game 1) and then go out and sign Bryz to a 9 year deal.

Buy out Bryz after year 2 of 9.

Say Laviolette is not on the hot seat.. Fire him 3 games into the new season.
- jak521

The Flyers have made a boatload of moves. To say that they doubt their own decisions based ona few moves doesn't hold up. Would you like a team to not be willing to adjust it's thinking and change in a different direction? Would you feel better if they hadn't bought out Bryzgalov and he was still here? Should they have stayed with that contract even with the results they were getting? And what they say about Coach is just PR.

I'm well aware of the role the Flyers goaltending stigma played into it. But it seems apparent the decision that it had to be rectified pretty made as a reaction to one game.
- BulliesPhan87

I think it was made over the frustration of goaltending issues, even going back to the Cup finals when the stigma was that the Flyers lost the Series due to goatending. It all played in.

I think it was made over the frustration of goaltending issues, even going back to the Cup finals when the stigma was that the Flyers lost the Series due to goatending. It all played in.
- MJL

I get that there was mounting frustration, and I'd contend it goes even further back than the finals. Like, a LOT further back. But they made a very sudden decision to alter course, and to make an ultimate move to settle the issue for good.
The catalyst that prompted that move was Sergei Bobrovsky's bad game and subsequent scratching. I can think of one other immediate factor, and that would be trying to mime Boston's success on the back of Tim Thomas.

Either way, it was a massive mistake, and I'm glad we got a mulligan.

I get that there was mounting frustration, and I'd contend it goes even further back than the finals. Like, a LOT further back. But they made a very sudden decision to alter course, and to make an ultimate move to settle the issue for good.
The catalyst that prompted that move was Sergei Bobrovsky's bad game and subsequent scratching. I can think of one other immediate factor, and that would be trying to mime Boston's success on the back of Tim Thomas.

Either way, it was a massive mistake, and I'm glad we got a mulligan.
- BulliesPhan87

I'm starting to see why Flyers fans are following other teams and calling them "Flyers West" or "Flyers Metropolitan" or whatever the Seravalli they wanna call it. I hate it, personally, but am beginning to understand it.