iow, you can't address the salient point that the flyers do not have a consistent org philosophy like the teams that I specifically mentioned. and how can you? you have said as much yourself, as have buts, jsaq, brad and a whole host of other posters here for the last 4-5 yrs. because in that time, homer has radically changed course more than most other GMs so he can be good enuf to be a contender, but likely, never more...because its hard to stay a course that's always changing.
most cups are won by orgs that identify what type of game they want to play, draft players based on that philosophy and decide what core players are to be part of the process going forward. they resist the temptation to radically make changes in their core unless its clear that it cant work and certainly don't give into expediency with younger plyrs.
if I have a complaint - and it's as much an observation- its this general point. the specifics only support that observation.
counselor, your redirect... - isaiah520
we had Hitchcock who loves a defensive system
then Lavy who loves an offensive system
we copied Detroit, crappy cheap goaltending (just make the easy saves please)
then we splurged on an $$ veteran
we had Hitchcock who loves a defensive system
then Lavy who loves an offensive system
we copied Detroit, crappy cheap goaltending (just make the easy saves please)
then we splurged on an $$ veteran
what identity? (right?) - puckhead17
Thats a prime example why theres no perfect way to build a team. You have to play your best hockey at the right time, stay healthy and catch some breaks (lucky).
iow, you can't address the salient point that the flyers do not have a consistent org philosophy like the teams that I specifically mentioned. and how can you? you have said as much yourself, as have buts, jsaq, brad and a whole host of other posters here for the last 4-5 yrs. because in that time, homer has radically changed course more than most other GMs so he can be good enuf to be a contender, but likely, never more...because its hard to stay a course that's always changing.
most cups are won by orgs that identify what type of game they want to play, draft players based on that philosophy and decide what core players are to be part of the process going forward. they resist the temptation to radically make changes in their core unless its clear that it cant work and certainly don't give into expediency with younger plyrs.
if I have a complaint - and it's as much an observation- its this general point. the specifics only support that observation.
counselor, your redirect... - isaiah520
The Flyers absolutely do have a consistent Orginizational philosophy. And that is to be aggressive, spend money, and do whatever they feel it takes to win every year.
Holmgren has radically changed course once. And that was with the Carter and Richards deals.
Location: me bitter? F-no i think it's hilarious Joined: 12.14.2011
Jun 27 @ 11:35 PM ET
The Flyers absolutely do have a consistent Orginizational philosophy. And that is to be aggressive, spend money, and do whatever they feel it takes to win every year.
Holmgren has radically changed course once. And that was with the Carter and Richards deals. - MJL
I would prefer they get a specific style of play i.e defensive, offensive, trap the life out of you, score 8 or 9 goals give up 7 or 8, whatever, just stick with it. I think that's what he's trying to say, so to speak maybe not literally but yea, they need to get more continuity. I was just thinking that the other day.
I would prefer they get a specific style of play i.e defensive, offensive, trap the life out of you, score 8 or 9 goals give up 7 or 8, whatever, just stick with it. I think that's what he's trying to say, so to speak maybe not literally but yea, they need to get more continuity. I was just thinking that the other day. - JoeRussomanno
His post wasn't about playing style, it was about player moves the GM makes.
I would prefer they get a specific style of play i.e defensive, offensive, trap the life out of you, score 8 or 9 goals give up 7 or 8, whatever, just stick with it. I think that's what he's trying to say, so to speak maybe not literally but yea, they need to get more continuity. I was just thinking that the other day. - JoeRussomanno
yup
how can you explain going from Hitch a strictly defensive coach
to Lavy, a complete opposite?
what are we? a defensive minded team or a run & gun?
iow, you can't address the salient point that the flyers do not have a consistent org philosophy like the teams that I specifically mentioned. and how can you? you have said as much yourself, as have buts, jsaq, brad and a whole host of other posters here for the last 4-5 yrs. because in that time, homer has radically changed course more than most other GMs so he can be good enuf to be a contender, but likely, never more...because its hard to stay a course that's always changing.
most cups are won by orgs that identify what type of game they want to play, draft players based on that philosophy and decide what core players are to be part of the process going forward. they resist the temptation to radically make changes in their core unless its clear that it cant work and certainly don't give into expediency with younger plyrs.
if I have a complaint - and it's as much an observation- its this general point. the specifics only support that observation.
Location: "All train compartments smell vaguely of sh*t. It gets so you don't mind it" Joined: 12.26.2006
Jun 27 @ 11:41 PM ET
The Flyers absolutely do have a consistent Orginizational philosophy. And that is to be aggressive, spend money, and do whatever they feel it takes to win every year.
Holmgren has radically on changed course once. And that was with the Carter and Richards deals. - MJL
no they don't and you know it. the pronger trade was another change in philosophy (never trade youth unless youth is coming back).
they put it together every yr for a nice run, but they often rush prospects and squander assets because they are backed into a corner. he's a seat of your pants GM and the flyers are a team that has failed to draft/develop a dman or a goalie for close to 2 decades. I described the orgs strengths earlier and they have kept them in contention.
In short, they lack patience as an org, tend to be capricious and that's been conclusively demonstrated. we can do better, IMO.
how can you explain going from Hitch a strictly defensive coach
to Lavy, a complete opposite?
what are we? a defensive minded team or a run & gun? - puckhead17
Well there was Stevens in between. And when Laviolette was hired, it was what a great system. So much better then Stevens We need to be more aggressive. And there was a buzz phrase thrown around. 'Hunt the puck" Now, we need to tweak the system and become more defensive. Same with player moves. Get a Goalie! Why'd you get that Goalie.
