The team seemed to play with a different commitment level last night whether it was for Hart, for Gordon, for themselves or for change in general I think it was evident.

I think that's great for every day from yesterday forward.

But the cynic in me, maybe the parent in me feels a twinge of disappointment that the same effort wasn't there when it was needed to save the coach's job. I'm not saying Hakstol should still be here, not even interested in whether he was a good coach or not. I'm more concerned with this sort of "we're going to play crappy until we get our way" attitude that I've felt from the team recently.

That's not to say I won't just forgive it all if they just keep playing well as a team, I'm a fan...not a coach, gm or a parent to any of these players.
- shekkie

The idealistic viewpoint would be that they played well to win it for Hart/Gordon.

The cynical viewpoint would be that the players, newly given a blank slate, turned it up to 11 to make a good impression with the new boss.

The viewpoint that they've been purposely playing like poop to force a coaching change is just melodramatic and farcical.

For sure it wasn’t a perfect game but the effort was there. They seemed to rally around our very own Carter Hart. It does make you wonder if they couldn’t manage this for the other goalie’s we brought up or for their now former coach, how long can it last? However there is always a different way to look at it, it is possible those recent experiences taught them something. Now that they have found a win and someone to rally around, perhaps they can grow their games. Plus, Hart is a different goalie.

I don’t think there is any doubt that we still have holes. Just want to make that clear, but teams win all the time with holes.

The idealistic viewpoint would be that they played well to win it for Hart/Gordon.

The cynical viewpoint would be that the players, newly given a blank slate, turned it up to 11 to make a good impression with the new boss.

The viewpoint that they've been purposely playing like poop to force a coaching change is just melodramatic and farcical.
- Tomahawk

I would agree that it isn't a purposeful tantrum but I think its clear in watching the games that we've seen nights where the effort didn't match what we saw last night. The point I made was that at some point over the last few weeks they could have put up an effort equal to last night's and they didn't and that has a feeling, to me, of petulance.

I think the team clearly played better with Hakstol gone. Sure, it could be a combination of pride, hart, new coach. But they didn't blow the one goal 3rd period lead. They stayed with it. Hakstol should have been gone the day they let Ron go.

Glad to see Sanheim on the top pairing. There is a reason we drafted him in the first round. I pray to god they don't trade him and then he turns into a stud.

The team seemed to play with a different commitment level last night whether it was for Hart, for Gordon, for themselves or for change in general I think it was evident.

I think that's great for every day from yesterday forward.

But the cynic in me, maybe the parent in me feels a twinge of disappointment that the same effort wasn't there when it was needed to save the coach's job. I'm not saying Hakstol should still be here, not even interested in whether he was a good coach or not. I'm more concerned with this sort of "we're going to play crappy until we get our way" attitude that I've felt from the team recently.

That's not to say I won't just forgive it all if they just keep playing well as a team, I'm a fan...not a coach, gm or a parent to any of these players.


- shekkie

It really makes you wonder. They played a sound team game last night. Which means the foundation has always been there. I thin the opponent has to be considered also. Detroit is not a real strong team. The Flyers played well in all 3 zones, defended well, and were opportunistic offensively. If they keep doing that maybe they have a chance at the playoffs.

The idealistic viewpoint would be that they played well to win it for Hart/Gordon.

The cynical viewpoint would be that the players, newly given a blank slate, turned it up to 11 to make a good impression with the new boss.

The viewpoint that they've been purposely playing like poop to force a coaching change is just melodramatic and farcical.
- Tomahawk

Okay so then why didn't they play well for reasons they had previous to the change? It was blatantly obvious that for whatever reason, they weren't going to play for Hakstol. Even when they knew the seat was as hot as it was going to get, when Hakstol challenged them publicly to "sack up", they did not respond.

So no evidence at all to back it up, but it must be true cuz' feelings?
- Tomahawk

No evidence! The evidence is overwhelming!

It really makes you wonder. They played a sound team game last night. Which means the foundation has always been there. I thin the opponent has to be considered also. Detroit is not a real strong team. The Flyers played well in all 3 zones, defended well, and were opportunistic offensively. If they keep doing that maybe they have a chance at the playoffs.
- MJL

I think this kind of points back to my belief that while Hakstol wasn't the reason for the current state of play, he didn't have the tools to bring them out of it. Whether a lack of experience or having "lost the room" moving on from him was really the only move left to make other than flipping a large portion of the roster. Maybe sometimes the will of group wins out over logic.

The game last night, I think it’s a combination of things.
Detroit is not that deep, really only one scary line.
Plus a they had a lot to play for last night, new coach, kid in goal.

I don’t think that effort and result will be sustained every game, but it was a good game all around.

I think what I’m most excited about right now is Sanheim. Playing him with Provy, well that’s the number one pairing he’s on. He’s jumping up in the play more and picking the right times to do it.

I think he’s primed for a big 2nd half of the season under Gordon.

Patrick looked very good last night too.

I haven't seen Provy this engaged for awhile on the ice. He was aggressive and he actually was physical. Actually the whole team was. I hope this wasn't a one game glimpse but maybe an internal issue with the coach demanding a more finesse style?

1 win in a row ...

I don’t think the team decided not to play for Hak. The opposite probably, they tried to hard. The last few games I think they knew they were playing for a soon to be fired coach, just not easy. Even if they won a couple, they knew another couple loses and the fire Hak conversation would be back.

Dead man walking

the great thing about a new coach is that players get a fresh slate. I think that can be very important for the young players who seemed to have gotten buried and struggled to get out from under it.

So no evidence at all to back it up, but it must be true cuz' feelings?
- Tomahawk

No, but it might be opinion.

Hart made a comment during the post game interview that he was scored on by the first shot he faced in his first WHL game with the tips and laughed. The kid is different numerous articles call him mature and developed professionally and I think he’s the real deal. His play has even improved at the AHL level from the beginning of the season up to prior to the call up. Other than the Russian prospect that the Capitals have he by all means should be considered the future.


As for the game last night the team came out and played a full 60 minutes of hockey. They were defensively sound other than a couple turnovers but gave the kid a fighting chance. This game couldn’t have come at a better time for the Flyers to play a sub-par Detroit team. Was it a true test, no. What it did do is give confidence to the team and to a goalie that was put in a position and expected to act.

I think this kind of points back to my belief that while Hakstol wasn't the reason for the current state of play, he didn't have the tools to bring them out of it. Whether a lack of experience or having "lost the room" moving on from him was really the only move left to make other than flipping a large portion of the roster. Maybe sometimes the will of group wins out over logic.
- shekkie

They really had no choice. Whether you think the coach is the main problem or not, it had to be done. Hakstol got the shaft but that comes with the job. He's been well paid.
Hopefully the team moves forward now.

I really don't think that the players weren't trying under Hakstol. I think they were just wound too tight, and pressing and when you do that, you make mistakes. They seemed looser and when you looked on the bench you saw smiling faces which was something we haven't seen around here for a while. I also think playing in front of a 20 year old goalie who was making his NHL debut helped them buckle down and focus a bit more than they've been doing in the recent past.

Either way, you can't judge anything off of one game. Lets see how the next few games shake out. I'm not concerned as much about the win/loss record (though of course I always want them to win), but I just want to see how they play. Are they keeping their feet moving? Are they keep the gaps small enough to be manageable? Are they making good decisions with the puck and playing positionally sound without the puck? If they go down early in the game, do they fall apart or do they rally?

The answers to those questions will tell you a lot about the players on this team.

1 win in a row ...

I don’t think the team decided not to play for Hak. The opposite probably, they tried to hard. The last few games I think they knew they were playing for a soon to be fired coach, just not easy. Even if they won a couple, they knew another couple loses and the fire Hak conversation would be back.

Dead man walking
- wcorvette

It was a 30+ game block that got the coach fired, not just the last few. Where were all the posts while all this was going on that they were just trying too hard? They continually came out flat, continually sagged under pressure, and continued to make repeated mistakes in coverage and in puck management. There is no question that it wasn't going to happen under Hakstol. The players wanted a change.

If they actually start winning games do you hold onto Simmonds? I think you have to move him regardless. The return outweighs the positives of having him for a few more months imo.
- hereticpride

It depends. If they're winning enough to be in 9th-10th in the ECF maybe 4+ points out of a WC, then yes, I'd trade him. If they're winning enough to be solidly in the WC conversation or have a top-3 division seed, then I wouldn't. It also depends on how much he's contributing and what the possible returns are.

I know that he's most likely gone after this year unless he takes a short-term deal, which he probably won't. I think most people on here get that. However, I still do subscribe to what Hextall said that this is the year to move forward. Now again, we have some holes that need to be filled, there are definite flaws on this team. However, I think that playoff experience, and more importantly, playoff success would do wonders for our kids. If we think that Wayne Simmonds could be the difference between a first-round win and a first-round exit, I'd hold onto him. You aren't required to deal every impending UFA, because sometimes the rewards of holding onto that player can outweigh, or at least minimize, the rewards of moving him.

I would agree that it isn't a purposeful tantrum but I think its clear in watching the games that we've seen nights where the effort didn't match what we saw last night. The point I made was that at some point over the last few weeks they could have put up an effort equal to last night's and they didn't and that has a feeling, to me, of petulance.
- shekkie

I don't think they even played particularly well in this game.

They still took their foot off the gas at points during the game, and there were still a lot of poor puck management throughout. PK still left a guy open in the high slot, and the De La Rose goal was failed clear followed by leaving the net-front completely undefended.

They took the body a bit more in the 1st, but to me that doesn't necessarily indicate a better effort. It could be mostly guys waving at the new coach going "notice me!"

Difference tonight was the quality of the opponent. The D played looser and activated more. And Hart didn't let any softies in. I really didn't feel the effort was much different than what we've been seeing under Hak.

I really don't think that the players weren't trying under Hakstol. I think they were just wound too tight, and pressing and when you do that, you make mistakes. They seemed looser and when you looked on the bench you saw smiling faces which was something we haven't seen around here for a while. I also think playing in front of a 20 year old goalie who was making his NHL debut helped them buckle down and focus a bit more than they've been doing in the recent past.

Either way, you can't judge anything off of one game. Lets see how the next few games shake out. I'm not concerned as much about the win/loss record (though of course I always want them to win), but I just want to see how they play. Are they keeping their feet moving? Are they keep the gaps small enough to be manageable? Are they making good decisions with the puck and playing positionally sound without the puck? If they go down early in the game, do they fall apart or do they rally?

The answers to those questions will tell you a lot about the players on this team.
- BiggE

I think the wound to tight bit is just as plausible as anything else. It may all have come into to play really. Bad starts get you wound tight, pressure to perform gets you wound tighter, coach starts coming down in ways you don't think are correct and you start tuning him out, yada yada. It's all just speculation but i'm with you, i'm way more interested in the future than an autopsy on the first third of this season.

At 4:12 of the second period, the Red Wings tied the game on the power play after an offensive zone slashing penalty on the forecheck by Oskar Lindblom.

Boy that was a weak call.

I think the team clearly played better with Hakstol gone. Sure, it could be a combination of pride, hart, new coach. But they didn't blow the one goal 3rd period lead. They stayed with it. Hakstol should have been gone the day they let Ron go.

Glad to see Sanheim on the top pairing. There is a reason we drafted him in the first round. I pray to god they don't trade him and then he turns into a stud.
- bmoreflyer

They played better to an extent, but their opposition was weak and they still had some issues defensively. Also, after the first Detroit goal, they definitely sagged a bit, which they can't do against better team.

But overall, they seemed to play with more pride and attitude, which is what I want. If they don't have the talent to beat teams, fine. But as long as they going out there and giving what they have, and play hard for 60 minutes I can live with that.

Flyers practice cancelled.

Likely because Fletch is trading half a dozen guys today before the roster freeze.

I think the wound to tight bit is just as plausible as anything else. It may all have come into to play really. Bad starts get you wound tight, pressure to perform gets you wound tighter, coach starts coming down in ways you don't think are correct and you start tuning him out, yada yada. It's all just speculation but i'm with you, i'm way more interested in the future than an autopsy on the first third of this season.
- shekkie

Mostly, I think it starts with doubting yourself and your teammates. When you stop being confident that guys will be where they're suppose to be, or that your linemates will make the right plays in a given situation, guys will start freelancing, or throwing the puck away instead of working together.

If enough of that happens, and it isn't corrected quickly, it snowballs into a team-wide crisis.

As Hitch said in an interview recently, his job is to constantly review and adjust to "keep the players out of the ditch", more than it is coming in with some novel gameplan or motivation strategy.

Hak obviously didn't do too well at keeping his players out of the ditch. And the entire team ended up there in the end.

It was a 30+ game block that got the coach fired, not just the lat few. Where were all the posts while all this was going on that they were just trying too hard/ They continually came out flat, continually sagged under pressure, and continued to make repeated mistakes in coverage and in puck management. There is no question that it wasn't going to happen under Hakstol. The players wanted a change.
- MJL

At the end they sure did hence my dead man walking comment. I don’t think they tanked it on purpose just how it goes in professional sports. In some ways Same reason why a Q can get canned