You go off base in this manner. Player development is never linear. It is always a series of ups and downs. So your point that it would imply that there was *an acceleration* is a really, really bad one. To think that the early development time under the previous coach had little to do with the players overall development is ridiculously shortsighted. All you had to watch them play to see that it happened. Hakstol had the tough years with most of the players. Vigneault, who is undoubtedly a better NHL coach is reaping some of the benefits of that.

You don't think that the NHL coach who a player is playing under has any input or guidance in the decision making process of sending a young player down to the AHL? You don't think the NHL coaching staff gives any direction or insight to the AHL staff on what areas of his game a young player needs to focus on to get better and get back to the NHL?
- MJL

1. It goes beyond saying that the acceleration must be sustained, not a blip. It is the same thing as saying "taking the next step."

2. Yes, any player who falls under a NHL coach should surely improve. It is less the individual coach's credit and more the credit due to simply the environment. That's what I meant when I said players will naturally trend upwards since they come into the league.

To get credit as a coach, you have to show me not that Hakstol did not fail, but that Hakstol actually did something *above and beyond* the minimum expectations of his position.

I never said Hakstol deserved an F for coaching, I said I would give him a C average. You seem to have a higher evaluation of him, as yet unproven.

Really good news...I’m excited to see what Allison can do. He seemed like a high-upside prospect before he got hurt and gives the pipeline a needed sniper!

1. It goes beyond saying that the acceleration must be sustained, not a blip. It is the same thing as saying "taking the next step."

2. Yes, any player who falls under a NHL coach should surely improve. It is less the individual coach's credit and more the credit due to simply the environment. That's what I meant when I said players will naturally trend upwards since they come into the league.

To get credit as a coach, you have to show me not that Hakstol did not fail, but that Hakstol actually did something *above and beyond* the minimum expectations of his position.

I never said Hakstol deserved an F for coaching, I said I would give him a C average. You seem to have a higher evaluation of him, as yet unproven.
- PT21

None of what you're stating here makes any sense whatsoever in my opinion. It's a proven fact that player development is not linear. So to say that it must be sustained and not blips, is not real. It's an arbitrary BS standard. So is the above and beyond part. It's silly. It's simply did a coach have a part and help a young player get better. It's a yes or no answer. Hakstol had a clear of obvious role in player development here and deserves credit for doing so. You're tryig to state that Konecny had his best year under a different coach so thererfore the previous coach deserves zero credit. That's asinine. Again, player development is rarely linear. It is a series of ups and down until or if the player reaches his top potential. Konecny clearly became a better all around player under Hakstol. That cannot be refuted.

Your statement of what rating I give to Hakstol is misguided. My discussion here was not about Hakstol overall as a coach and only about the role he had in developing young players.

None of what you're stating here makes any sense whatsoever in my opinion. It's a proven fact that player development is not linear. So to say that it must be sustained and not blips, is not real. It's an arbitrary BS standard. So is the above and beyond part. It's silly. It's simply did a coach have a part and help a young player get better. It's a yes or no answer. Hakstol had a clear of obvious role in player development here and deserves credit for doing so. You're tryig to state that Konecny had his best year under a different coach so thererfore the previous coach deserves zero credit. That's asinine. Again, player development is rarely linear. It is a series of ups and down until or if the player reaches his top potential. Konecny clearly became a better all around player under Hakstol. That cannot be refuted.

Your statement of what rating I give to Hakstol is misguided. My discussion here was not about Hakstol overall as a coach and only about the role he had in developing young players.
- MJL

I think many people may mistake player development with team coaching and systems. Though related, they are not the same. While Hak may have been good at managing and developing young players, his systems, team management, and leadership, especially through rough times was certainly lacking, Does he deserve credit for developing younger players into NHL players? Of course, he coached then for 3+ years. Does he deserve criticism for not being a very good game coach and managing team psychology and cohesiveness? Yes he does.

I think many people may mistake player development with team coaching and systems. Though related, they are not the same. While Hak may have been good at managing and developing young players, his systems, team management, and leadership, especially through rough times was certainly lacking, Does he deserve credit for developing younger players into NHL players? Of course, he coached then for 3+ years. Does he deserve criticism for not being a very good game coach and managing team psychology and cohesiveness? Yes he does.
- Letterkenney

Certainly he had weaknesses as an NHL head coach. That was obvious. I often described Hakstol as a good hockey coach but not necessarily a good NHL head coach. He was learning that on the job. He clearly lost the team and did not have a solution for getting it back and getting the team out of the funk they were in. The players were not happy and they didn't want to play for him anymore. That's why it was a real good idea for him to take an assistants job under an experienced head coach.

My discussion on this was within the scope of young player development and not on Hakstol in whole as a head coach. That's a different conversation.

None of what you're stating here makes any sense whatsoever in my opinion. It's a proven fact that player development is not linear. So to say that it must be sustained and not blips, is not real. It's an arbitrary BS standard. So is the above and beyond part. It's silly. It's simply did a coach have a part and help a young player get better. It's a yes or no answer. Hakstol had a clear of obvious role in player development here and deserves credit for doing so. You're tryig to state that Konecny had his best year under a different coach so thererfore the previous coach deserves zero credit. That's asinine. Again, player development is rarely linear. It is a series of ups and down until or if the player reaches his top potential. Konecny clearly became a better all around player under Hakstol. That cannot be refuted.

Your statement of what rating I give to Hakstol is misguided. My discussion here was not about Hakstol overall as a coach and only about the role he had in developing young players.
- MJL

Here is another way of putting it. Take any of our young players, who were young during Hakstol's reign. Now say we put them in the same environment (playing for the Flyers) but instead of Hakstol, we pick a coach randomly from the list of all NHl and AHL coaches.

Is there any thing specific to Hakstol that resulted in the player improving? I can't think of anything. Players will improve naturally as they mature, the head coach in that progression is largely immaterial, and that's how I place Hakstol.

Here is another way of putting it. Take any of our young players, who were young during Hakstol's reign. Now say we put them in the same environment (playing for the Flyers) but instead of Hakstol, we pick a coach randomly from the list of all NHl and AHL coaches.

Is there any thing specific to Hakstol that resulted in the player improving? I can't think of anything. Players will improve naturally as they mature, the head coach in that progression is largely immaterial, and that's how I place Hakstol.
- PT21

The answer to the question is a complete hypothetical. There is no answer because we are talking about what ifs. If the queen had balls she'd be the king.

Here is another way of putting it. Take any of our young players, who were young during Hakstol's reign. Now say we put them in the same environment (playing for the Flyers) but instead of Hakstol, we pick a coach randomly from the list of all NHl and AHL coaches.

Is there any thing specific to Hakstol that resulted in the player improving? I can't think of anything. Players will improve naturally as they mature, the head coach in that progression is largely immaterial, and that's how I place Hakstol.
- PT21

Your other way of putting it is even more idiotic. It's the game of hockey. So because you feel that nothing was done that any other coach wouldn't have done hypothetically then we ignore what actually did happen and pretend it doesn't exist? That the coaches didn't do a good job of developing young players because another coach could've or may have done the same thing?

Your responses are getting more unintelligent. What you state is not real! It's putting blinders and on saying I don't like the coach so therefore I'm going to ignore what happened and not give him any credit.

Do you think Alain Vigneault is the only NHL coach alive who could've had success with this improved roster? If your answer is no then based on your criteria, Vigneault deserves zero credit for the team's play.

I won't even get into the absurd statement that head coach is immaterial in the progression of a young player improving as they mature.

There is an obvious bias to ignore reality and invent a fantasy world where the head coach is immaterial in a young players development and an invention of a standard that can't possibly be met in order to avoid recognition of something that actually happened.

Your other way of putting it is even more idiotic. It's the game of hockey. So because you feel that nothing was done that any other coach wouldn't have done hypothetically then we ignore what actually did happen and pretend it doesn't exist? That the coaches didn't do a good job of developing young players because another coach could've or may have done the same thing?

Your responses are getting more unintelligent. What you state is not real! It's putting blinders and on saying I don't like the coach so therefore I'm going to ignore what happened and not give him any credit.

Do you think Alain Vigneault is the only NHL coach alive who could've had success with this improved roster? If your answer is no then based on your criteria, Vigneault deserves zero credit for the team's play.

I won't even get into the absurd statement that head coach is immaterial in the progression of a young player improving as they mature.

There is an obvious bias to ignore reality and invent a fantasy world where the head coach is immaterial in a young players development and an invention of a standard that can't possibly be met in order to avoid recognition of something that actually happened.
- MJL

Exactly correct. Here's an anecdote. I've seen it first hand. I've had 3 boys go through all levels of hockey and have seen 50+ coaches in 25 years. One of my sons made it to play in college (he played against Provorov many times when Provorov played for Wilkes Barre Scranton Knights at 14), and another is on track to do so again. Some coaches were really good at development and skills. At the younger ages up to 12, nothing else matters but skill development. Once they get to 13 and above, the transition into really drilling the game and hockey IQ becomes more important. And a coach's ability to make that transition varies considerably.

Of all the coaches I have seen, some that were excellent at skill development and teaching the basics in practice turned out to be not very good at running a game. The higher level that my boys played at, the more obvious the gap between skill development and team play/game management and leadership becomes. I don't see any reason why that difference or gap would not exist at the NHL level. People are people and the same frailties afflict all of us.

I get it. Hak may have been good at development and pressuring young players to become better through a sticks and carrots approach, but running a game and getting players to buy into it, not so much.

Yo I asked this on Reddit already but what number(s) do y’all think Frost/Farabee are gonna pick for next year once they are “legit” starting with the big club?

Yo I asked this on Reddit already but what number(s) do y’all think Frost/Farabee are gonna pick for next year once they are “legit” starting with the big club?
- Wingdestroyer

I believe Farabee has worn 28 in past so he won’t be getting that one here. So he’s a question mark

Frost previously rocked 16, and we know he ain’t getting that haha.

MJL you cease to amaze me with your know it all attitude and your totally wrong once again in regards to Hex and Haks. I hate those two names as well as yours. The Flyers finally have the coach and GM to move forward instead of those two morons, trading Schenn for futures when Schenn has already won a team mvp, a stanley cup and is currently a force with his new team. At this point we still have nothing until Frost can prove he is a contributing nhler.
Stay safe everyone, this virus is for real as I predicted a month ago and MJL said it nothing more than a minor flu,, ffs

Exactly correct. Here's an anecdote. I've seen it first hand. I've had 3 boys go through all levels of hockey and have seen 50+ coaches in 25 years. One of my sons made it to play in college (he played against Provorov many times when Provorov played for Wilkes Barre Scranton Knights at 14), and another is on track to do so again. Some coaches were really good at development and skills. At the younger ages up to 12, nothing else matters but skill development. Once they get to 13 and above, the transition into really drilling the game and hockey IQ becomes more important. And a coach's ability to make that transition varies considerably.

Of all the coaches I have seen, some that were excellent at skill development and teaching the basics in practice turned out to be not very good at running a game. The higher level that my boys played at, the more obvious the gap between skill development and team play/game management and leadership becomes. I don't see any reason why that difference or gap would not exist at the NHL level. People are people and the same frailties afflict all of us.

I get it. Hak may have been good at development and pressuring young players to become better through a sticks and carrots approach, but running a game and getting players to buy into it, not so much.
- Letterkenney

Well said and the bottom line is winning hockey games. Hakstol was never the answer for being the head coach. He was continually outcoached, got zeroe respect from the refs or his own players for that matter. AV gets respect and well deserved respect. Coaches need to be respected by players and some just have the desire to win more than others and make it happen.

MJL you cease to amaze me with your know it all attitude and your totally wrong once again in regards to Hex and Haks. I hate those two names as well as yours. The Flyers finally have the coach and GM to move forward instead of those two morons, trading Schenn for futures when Schenn has already won a team mvp, a stanley cup and is currently a force with his new team. At this point we still have nothing until Frost can prove he is a contributing nhler.
Stay safe everyone, this virus is for real as I predicted a month ago and MJL said it nothing more than a minor flu,, ffs
- joegreif17

How you been Joe? Do you have your resume updated compete with all the info from your 50 years plus of GM experience in case some openings come up?

Well said and the bottom line is winning hockey games. Hakstol was never the answer for being the head coach. He was continually outcoached, got zeroe respect from the refs or his own players for that matter. AV gets respect and well deserved respect. Coaches need to be respected by players and some just have the desire to win more than others and make it happen.
- joegreif17

Do you actually realize that you replied well said to a post that was replying to a post I made stating what I posted was exactly right? Probably not.

My (frank)ing god people

Well said and the bottom line is winning hockey games. Hakstol was never the answer for being the head coach. He was continually outcoached, got zeroe respect from the refs or his own players for that matter. AV gets respect and well deserved respect. Coaches need to be respected by players and some just have the desire to win more than others and make it happen.
- joegreif17

You are an utter fool

Your other way of putting it is even more idiotic. It's the game of hockey. So because you feel that nothing was done that any other coach wouldn't have done hypothetically then we ignore what actually did happen and pretend it doesn't exist? That the coaches didn't do a good job of developing young players because another coach could've or may have done the same thing?

Your responses are getting more unintelligent. What you state is not real! It's putting blinders and on saying I don't like the coach so therefore I'm going to ignore what happened and not give him any credit.

Do you think Alain Vigneault is the only NHL coach alive who could've had success with this improved roster? If your answer is no then based on your criteria, Vigneault deserves zero credit for the team's play.

I won't even get into the absurd statement that head coach is immaterial in the progression of a young player improving as they mature.

There is an obvious bias to ignore reality and invent a fantasy world where the head coach is immaterial in a young players development and an invention of a standard that can't possibly be met in order to avoid recognition of something that actually happened.
- MJL

The concept you are struggling with is called grading on a curve. . I am so sorry you are struggling to understand it.

Since logic and example failed, let me try a metaphor. Consider a river flowing from place A to B, B is downstream in the current. You could float or swim from A to B, but there are nasty fish that bite, so you need a vessel.

There are a hundred makeshift rafts. Any will do. You choose one, and get on it. Sure enough, it supports you, and the river takes you there in its natural course.

Was the raft important? Sure, it took you there. Its not anymore important than any other raft.

Hakstol was one such raft. Vigneault is a boat, with a motor.

My (frank)ing god people
- jmatchett383

Arguing on the Internet is like cheating while playing cards with your kid. Even if you win, you are still a loser.

Arguing on the Internet is like cheating while playing cards with your kid. Even if you win, you are still a loser.
- PT21

My (frank)ing god people
- jmatchett383

The world stops but Flyersbuzz lives on!

The world stops but Flyersbuzz lives on!
- opeth_pa

It's partially a symptom of extreme boredom and too much time on the hands that magnifies the usual Flyersbuzz debates over minutia. All in good fun, though.

How you been Joe? Do you have your resume updated compete with all the info from your 50 years plus of GM experience in case some openings come up?
- MJL

Lol

It's partially a symptom of extreme boredom and too much time on the hands that magnifies the usual Flyersbuzz debates over minutia. All in good fun, though.
- Letterkenney

I have leeched off lurking for years on this site. Now things are so slow, I am trying to do my bit in stirring up something.

Certainly succeeding if that something is called MJL.

Passion, even misguided passion, can be entertaining for a bit anyway.



Said! SAID!

Exactly correct. . One of my sons made it to play in college (he played against Provorov many times when Provorov played for Wilkes Barre Scranton Knights at 14), and another is on track to do so again.

- Letterkenney

Wait. I thought you seemed familiar from the draft day talk.

You are Jim Hughes - Jack Hughes' dad.