Big shout-out to all you bums that wanted no part of drafting Debrincat. Only out there getting hat tricks already.

I gave up on the other thread because your points were so obtuse it made me sick.
- flyers20032002

mfw MJL responded to this quote with "You were wise to give up on the last thread. I gave you no other choice". But he deleted it before I could quote it.

mfw MJL responded to this quote with "You were wise to give up on the last thread. I gave you no other choice". But he deleted it before I could quote it.


- Giroux_Is_God

Full contact blogging

4 Games didn't prove Sanheim could play in this league, he should've been in the lineup all year long.
- flyers20032002

He was removed after a couple of uneven games. I, like the GM at the time thought he had played well. The coaches at the time thought Manning was a more “reliable” choice, that’s the coaches prerogative. Now should Sanheim have sat that long ? No probably not. He’s a (frank)in rookie, everyone new there were going to be peaks and valley’s in his play. To get through these rookie mistakes you have to be able to play through them. After sitting way to long for any rookies development, Hextall did the right thing and put him were he was going to play.
Now it’s pretty evident he’s a better choice then Manning, although that’s not really setting the bar very high. Is Hextall and Hakstol “responsible” for this kids development? That’s just an idiotic way to think of it. They want to put him in positions to succeed and with Sanheim that should be putting him in positions were he can play to his strengths.
These kids are very talented before they get here. Yes coaching and career paths have a lot to do with how quick or how well they develop, but most of that development comes from the player them selves....bottom line is Sanheim and Lindblom have shown they both belong to both the coach and GM....now as rookies they need to keep showing they deserve that continued chance to play ahead of the Vets.

Edit: your right.

mfw MJL responded to this quote with "You were wise to give up on the last thread. I gave you no other choice". But he deleted it before I could quote it.


- Giroux_Is_God

Now you've done it.

He was removed after a couple of uneven games. I, like the GM at the time thought he had played well. The coaches at the time thought Manning was a more “reliable” choice, that’s the coaches prerogative. Now should Sanheim have sat that long ? No probably not. He’s a (frank)in rookie, everyone new there were going to be peaks and valley’s in his play. To get through these rookie mistakes you have to be able to play through them. After sitting way to long for any rookies development, Hextall did the right thing and put him were he was going to play.
Now it’s pretty evident he’s a better choice then Manning, although that’s not really setting the bar very high. Is Hextall and Hakstol “responsible” for this kids development? That’s just an idiotic way to think of it. They want to put him in positions to succeed and with Sanheim that should be putting him in positions were he can play to his strengths.
These kids are very talented before they get here. Yes coaching and career paths have a lot to do with how quick or how well they develop, but most of that development comes from the player them selves....bottom line is Sanheim and Lindblom have shown they both belong to both the coach and GM....now as rookies they need to keep showing they deserve that continued chance to play ahead of the Vets.

Edit: your right.
- landros 2

I agree - it seems there's a fundamental disconnect between Hakstol and Hextall on players. The way I saw it in January, Hextall was sitting there waiting for Hakstol to insert Sanheim back into the lineup. Especially after several bad games in a row from Manning. Hakstol is extremely risk-averse at all positions on the ice as you mentioned. He prefers attributes like "safe" and "calm" over more skilled options that, while they will make more noticeable mistakes as they develop, have a much higher ceiling and lead to a better hockey club when it matters. Winning a Stanley Cup with Brandon Manning in the lineup would require a super-natural top 4 and huge forward-depth.

He was removed after a couple of uneven games. I, like the GM at the time thought he had played well. The coaches at the time thought Manning was a more “reliable” choice, that’s the coaches prerogative. Now should Sanheim have sat that long ? No probably not. He’s a (frank)in rookie, everyone new there were going to be peaks and valley’s in his play. To get through these rookie mistakes you have to be able to play through them. After sitting way to long for any rookies development, Hextall did the right thing and put him were he was going to play.
Now it’s pretty evident he’s a better choice then Manning, although that’s not really setting the bar very high. Is Hextall and Hakstol “responsible” for this kids development? That’s just an idiotic way to think of it. They want to put him in positions to succeed and with Sanheim that should be putting him in positions were he can play to his strengths.
These kids are very talented before they get here. Yes coaching and career paths have a lot to do with how quick or how well they develop, but most of that development comes from the player them selves....bottom line is Sanheim and Lindblom have shown they both belong to both the coach and GM....now as rookies they need to keep showing they deserve that continued chance to play ahead of the Vets.

Edit: your right.
- landros 2

I agreed they had to send him down but I asked yesterday coudl have Hak handled it a bit differently where Sanheim could have stayed, that is a yes but Hak overall has done a good job. Haks team was winning with Manning in the line up, the ONLY reason Manning stayed in the line up. Proven by the losing streak and now Manning is sitting, Sachem needed another opportunity and he go it. Saying Manning was better is just an opinion, only supported by that the coach was playing him, no other facts to speak of. It is truly easy for someone to say "manning was the better player", saying the company line is always easy to say.

Again Hak has done a real good job but there was probably a different way with SAnHeim, all good either way

We won't go in circles I'll just show how your're wrong just like I did on the other thread. If you wind up feeling less intelligent, you did that to yourself.

- MJL

I agree - it seems there's a fundamental disconnect between Hakstol and Hextall on players. The way I saw it in January, Hextall was sitting there waiting for Hakstol to insert Sanheim back into the lineup. Especially after several bad games in a row from Manning. Hakstol is extremely risk-adverse at all positions on the ice as you mentioned. He prefers attributes like "safe" and "calm" over more skilled options that, while they will make more noticeable mistakes as they develop, have a much higher ceiling and lead to a better hockey club when it matters. Winning a Stanley Cup with Brandon Manning in the lineup would require a super-natural top 4 and huge forward-depth.
- flyers20032002

On what basis are you stating that there is a fundamental disconnect between Hakstol and Hextall. The situation with one player? There are how many players on the roster? Hakstol is not extremely risk adverse at all positions. That is false. Flyers defensman even including the lesser offensively gifted defenseman such as Haag and MacDonald are routinely up in the offensive zone playing aggressively. There is no way you can watch the Flyers play, especially with Gostisbehere and Provorov and state that that Hakstol is extremely risk-adverse. That is just putting blinders on, ignoring the on ice evidence to suit a biased narrative.

Brad Marchand is our friend

I agreed they had to send him down but I asked yesterday coudl have Hak handled it a bit differently where Sanheim could have stayed, that is a yes but Hak overall has done a good job. Haks team was winning with Manning in the line up, the ONLY reason Manning stayed in the line up. Proven by the losing streak and now Manning is sitting, Sachem needed another opportunity and he go it. Saying Manning was better is just an opinion, only supported by that the coach was playing him, no other facts to speak of. It is truly easy for someone to say "manning was the better player", saying the company line is always easy to say.

Again Hak has done a real good job but there was probably a different way with SAnHeim, all good either way
- wcorvette

Saying that the only thing supporting that Manning was better was that the coach was playing him is just an opinion. A bad one at that. There is a reason why a coach stops playing a player and favors another. Is it because he and Manning go out for beers and are best buds! Any trained eye could easily see how Sanheim's game deteriorated and he lost focus and confidence. How he steadily got worse and worse in the defensive end. To the point where he played 6 minutes and change in his last game played before being sent down. To the fact that the coach did not trust the player and chose to go with a player who was in fact playing better. The only mistake made was not sending Sanheim down sooner.

On what basis are you stating that there is a fundamental disconnect between Hakstol and Hextall. The situation with one player? There are how many players on the roster? Hakstol is not extremely risk adverse at all positions. That is false. Flyers defensman even including the lesser offensively gifted defenseman such as Haag and MacDonald are routinely up in the offensive zone playing aggressively. There is no way you can watch the Flyers play, especially with Gostisbehere and Provorov and state that that Hakstol is extremely risk-adverse. That is just putting blinders on, ignoring the on ice evidence to suit a biased narrative.
- MJL

*Risk averse

I agreed they had to send him down but I asked yesterday coudl have Hak handled it a bit differently where Sanheim could have stayed, that is a yes but Hak overall has done a good job. Haks team was winning with Manning in the line up, the ONLY reason Manning stayed in the line up. Proven by the losing streak and now Manning is sitting, Sachem needed another opportunity and he go it. Saying Manning was better is just an opinion, only supported by that the coach was playing him, no other facts to speak of. It is truly easy for someone to say "manning was the better player", saying the company line is always easy to say.

Again Hak has done a real good job but there was probably a different way with SAnHeim, all good either way
- wcorvette

Should Sanheim have been given another chance back in January? That’s totally up to the coaching staff. I thought just based on the guys ahead of him, that Sanheim should have been on a longer leash...but I don’t have luxury of knowing what was happening behind the scenes or what the issues were with Sanheim that made him a scratch for a month. What I do know is you don’t get better by watching for that long from the press box as a 19 or 20 year old. I also see a talented kid that will only get better with ice time at the NHL level.

I agree - it seems there's a fundamental disconnect between Hakstol and Hextall on players. The way I saw it in January, Hextall was sitting there waiting for Hakstol to insert Sanheim back into the lineup. Especially after several bad games in a row from Manning. Hakstol is extremely risk-adverse at all positions on the ice as you mentioned. He prefers attributes like "safe" and "calm" over more skilled options that, while they will make more noticeable mistakes as they develop, have a much higher ceiling and lead to a better hockey club when it matters. Winning a Stanley Cup with Brandon Manning in the lineup would require a super-natural top 4 and huge forward-depth.
- flyers20032002

It did seem that there was a disconnect, but I’m not sure that was the case. Perhaps Sanheim just wasn’t grasping what the coaching staff wanted him to do on a regular basis. One things certain. He’s a better hockey player then some of the guys playing ahead of him. It’s up to Sanheim now to prove he belongs, night in, night out.

Can't believe I'm watching the Bruins/Blue Jackets game and rooting for the B's. They just scored again. Up 3-1 in the 2nd.

On what basis are you stating that there is a fundamental disconnect between Hakstol and Hextall. The situation with one player? There are how many players on the roster? Hakstol is not extremely risk adverse at all positions. That is false. Flyers defensman even including the lesser offensively gifted defenseman such as Haag and MacDonald are routinely up in the offensive zone playing aggressively. There is no way you can watch the Flyers play, especially with Gostisbehere and Provorov and state that that Hakstol is extremely risk-adverse. That is just putting blinders on, ignoring the on ice evidence to suit a biased narrative.
- MJL

I listed one situation that comment...

1. Weise was playing much longer than he should've been
2. Lehtera should not be in this lineup ever
3. Remember this guy: Pierre-Édouard Bellemare and how about Chris VandeVelde (not even in the NHL anymore - it's a shame Hakstol couldn't come to grips with that)

There's a plethora of examples, I'm not cherry picking.

edit: it seems like Hextall has to continually take away Hakstol's toys hahaha

Can't believe I'm watching the Bruins/Blue Jackets game and rooting for the B's. They just scored again. Up 3-1 in the 2nd.
- Pixote Andolini

Sheesh and now it's 3-2 Bruins.

I listed one situation that comment...

1. Weise was playing much longer than he should've been
2. Lehtera should not be in this lineup ever
3. Remember this guy: Pierre-Édouard Bellemare and how about Chris VandeVelde (not even in the NHL anymore - it's a shame Hakstol couldn't come to grips with that)

There's a plethora of examples, I'm not cherry picking.
- flyers20032002

None of that shows that there is a disconnect between Hextall and Hakstol. I agree with you on Wiese. Disagree on Lehtera. No problem with Hakstol's usage of Bellemare and Vandevelde.

None of that has anything to do with being risk averse. It's simply using veteran role players while the team drafts and develops replacements. It's something that every team does at one point or another.

edit: it seems like Hextall has to continually take away Hakstol's toys hahaha


- flyers20032002

Weise was signed to a 4 year contract by Hextall. Lehtera was traded for by Hextall. Hextall re-signed Bellemare to an extension before losing him to expansion. Vandevelde played two seasons for the Flyers under Hextall. You're not thinking clearly at all.

Brad Marchand is our friend
- KINGKENZO

(frank)...is he good or what.

When Sanheim got the hook from the lineup, he had gone from decent play-driving results with occasional mistakes that wound up in his net to a player who you couldn't put out on the ice because he was reading the game pretty freaking poorly.

He looked freaking soft out there. He wasn't playing a man's game. He was playing a kid's game, and that was why he got the hook.

Nobody thinks Manning is a long-term answer. But there was a stretch of games where he was clearly more competent and competitive than Sanheim.

Yeah, Hakstol has to care about development. But he also needs to win hockey games. Sanheim dropping his stick defending a rush, getting lost in coverage and playing soft and tentative isn't helping anyone do that.

He needed more time in the AHL. He really did

When Sanheim got the hook from the lineup, he had gone from decent play-driving results with occasional mistakes that wound up in his net to a player who you couldn't put out on the ice because he was reading the game pretty freaking poorly.

He looked freaking soft out there. He wasn't playing a man's game. He was playing a kid's game, and that was why he got the hook.

Nobody thinks Manning is a long-term answer. But there was a stretch of games where he was clearly more competent and competitive than Sanheim.

Yeah, Hakstol has to care about development. But he also needs to win hockey games. Sanheim dropping his stick defending a rush, getting lost in coverage and playing soft and tentative isn't helping anyone do that.

He needed more time in the AHL. He really did
- AllInForFlyers

Every post you've made today has been spot on.


But did you look at his Corsi and PDO?

Saying that the only thing supporting that Manning was better was that the coach was playing him is just an opinion. A bad one at that. There is a reason why a coach stops playing a player and favors another. Is it because he and Manning go out for beers and are best buds! Any trained eye could easily see how Sanheim's game deteriorated and he lost focus and confidence. How he steadily got worse and worse in the defensive end. To the point where he played 6 minutes and change in his last game played before being sent down. To the fact that the coach did not trust the player and chose to go with a player who was in fact playing better.
- MJL

do you have any data that pointed to manning be better? you will forgive us if we dont take your word. There were plenty articles that showed the need to sit Manning. You can have your opinion, you tend to take the coaches opinion, that is safe. You are welcome to call my opinion bad, you are welcome to tell other posters you made them stop posting due to be so right, maybe you need that. I am welcome to say you dont do much in the way of exchanging, you basically take the coporate response and just restate it, not much value on a message board. On a team you would be a yes man. Yes, you and I mostly agree, i do think HaK and Hex are doing a real good job, especially considering where it was when Hex took over. None of us know what really goes on behind the scenes. I think the last poster was referring to the fact that SAnHeim sat 9 games, I agree 1 player doesnt mean a complete disconnect and yes the team was winning, Hak wasnt going to change it up but 9 games sitting for Sanheim there was a disconnect, maybe not with Hex and Hak but no one would want him sitting 9 games.

I listed one situation that comment...

1. Weise was playing much longer than he should've been
2. Lehtera should not be in this lineup ever
3. Remember this guy: Pierre-Édouard Bellemare and how about Chris VandeVelde (not even in the NHL anymore - it's a shame Hakstol couldn't come to grips with that)

There's a plethora of examples, I'm not cherry picking.

edit: it seems like Hextall has to continually take away Hakstol's toys hahaha
- flyers20032002

You’d be better off arguing with a brick wall, at least the wall doesn’t talk back.

I listed one situation that comment...

1. Weise was playing much longer than he should've been
2. Lehtera should not be in this lineup ever
3. Remember this guy: Pierre-Édouard Bellemare and how about Chris VandeVelde (not even in the NHL anymore - it's a shame Hakstol couldn't come to grips with that)

There's a plethora of examples, I'm not cherry picking.

edit: it seems like Hextall has to continually take away Hakstol's toys hahaha
- flyers20032002

Let’s hope he takes away the Filpula and Manning toys this summer....and to bad there’s not a money back guarantee on Weise ...lol.

do you have any data that pointed to manning be better? you will forgive us if we dont take your word. There were plenty articles that showed the need to sit Manning. You can have your opinion, you tend to take the coaches opinion, that is safe. You are welcome to call my opinion bad, you are welcome to tell other posters you made them stop posting due to be so right, maybe you need that. I am welcome to say you dont do much in the way of exchanging, you basically take the coporate response and just restate it, not much value on a message board. On a team you would be a yes man. Yes, you and I mostly agree, i do think HaK and Hex are doing a real good job, especially considering where it was when Hex took over. None of us know what really goes on behind the scenes. I think the last poster was referring to the fact that SAnHeim sat 9 games, I agree 1 player doesnt mean a complete disconnect and yes the team was winning, Hak wasnt going to change it up but 9 games sitting for Sanheim there was a disconnect, maybe not with Hex and Hak but no one would want him sitting 9 games.
- wcorvette

Well my evidence that you're full of it is the above. You need to do that instead of talking about Sanheim and you need to talk about me. That makes you a fraud.

My opinion is that Manning was playing better and that Sanheim was not playing well away from the puck and his confidence was deteriorating along with his deteriorating game

The simple fact that the coach saw the same thing, reduced his minutes, and ultimately removed him from the lineup supports my opinion.