how do you give up a 2 on 0 when killing a penalty

It’s not about benching them for one mistake. I said repeated mistakes. Some players you tell them once and it’s corrected from there on out. Other players need the message enforced another way. Ice time is the most effective way to get through to players. That doesn’t mean you’re not working with them on how to improve. If you ask your players to do something and there’s no accountability for players who don’t then you’ll lose the whole team.

I don’t agree with everything Torts does but he gets unnecessary hate on here at times. I’ll also add that I don’t think he’s the right coach for the Flyers at this time.
- Schmojo

You keep going back to this telling them. That's not how coaching works. It's not talk. It's repetition through drills and video and other coaching tools. This idea of taking away ice time to a player who is competitive and playing with effort is counter productive and old school nonsense. Taking away ice time is punitive and should only be used if a player is showing signs of not being competitive, of not working or playing hard. If you're a coach and the single biggest tool you have is benching or scratching players, then you're not a very good development coach. Top teams and top development coaches simply don't wield that hammer to the level that Tortorella does. The coach them and work through the growing pains and don't kill a players confidence. They allow them to pay freely and know that a mistake or two is not going to send them to the bench or the press box. Young developing players make mistakes. You coach them through it and teach them and you don't have to hold them accountable when they make mistakes. Slowly but surely, Tortorella's methods will lose the team. We've already seen signs of it. Especially when the team realizes that Tortorella's system and style of play is not winning hockey.

How about as a coach when you don't hold veterans accountable for the same mistakes that you hold young players accountable for? When vets make repeated mistakes but keep on getting ice time? Does that lead to losing a team? Why is that? For the very reason that he thinks that's how you win. By playing Ryan Poehling 19 minutes as the 1C in a must win game. While benching better and more talented players. That's how you keep the room?

since you did not decide to read my rebuttal:

nd played 75% of the games - he played more games that bb
es played over half when factoring in the week or two he missed with injuries
ca played 88% of the games
sc was scratched for 2 games
ra dressed for 14% of games
ea dressed for 11%
ol dressed for 21%
mf was scratched for 13% of the season

facts are a pesky thing

please tell me how they torts did not rely on veterans?
- corduroy

York 23yrs
Foerster 22yrs
Farabee 23 yrs

Those are 3 of the top 5 players in ice time this season.

Morgan Frost was the defacto #1C in the 2nd half but you choose to focus on his benching at the end of the season. Bobby Brink looked absolutely lost at times defensively. Brink is also better off playing top line minutes for the Phantoms than playing on the 4th line with some plugs. Tyson Foerster focused on his all around game which kept him in the lineup and then his offense broke out in the 2nd half. This is the NHL not little league, you have to put in the work, it’s not gifted to you.

It was a bit better before they arrived. There is no indication that the coaching staff, particularly Thompson can be effective in coaching the PP.
- MJL

We don’t disagree here. A better PP coach is needed. But also better players are needed. But since I’m on team tank, their PP being bad is actually a good thing.

York 23yrs
Foerster 22yrs
Farabee 23 yrs

Those are 3 of the top 5 players in ice time this season.

Morgan Frost was the defacto #1C in the 2nd half but you choose to focus on his benching at the end of the season. Bobby Brink looked absolutely lost at times defensively. Brink is also better off playing top line minutes for the Phantoms than playing on the 4th line with some plugs. Tyson Foerster focused on his all around game which kept him in the lineup and then his offense broke out in the 2nd half. This is the NHL not little league, you have to put in the work, it’s not gifted to you.
- Schmojo

It is completely false that Brink looked absolutely lost at times defensively. GA/60 only Delasuriers and Frost were better on the entire team than Brink. For a rookie and a smaller player. He held his own defensively. This is the NHL and you have to expect ups and downs with a young player. There was no reason, on a supposedly rebuilding team for Brink and other young players to sit as much as they did. The reason they did is the head coach favors certain types of players and he always will. You're implying that Brink did not put in the work? If so that is false.

You keep going back to this telling them. That's not how coaching works. It's not talk. It's repetition through drills and video and other coaching tools. This idea of taking away ice time to a player who is competitive and playing with effort is counter productive and old school nonsense. Taking away ice time is punitive and should only be used if a player is showing signs of not being competitive, of not working or playing hard. If you're a coach and the single biggest tool you have is benching or scratching players, then you're not a very good development coach. Top teams and top development coaches simply don't wield that hammer to the level that Tortorella does. The coach them and work through the growing pains and don't kill a players confidence. They allow them to pay freely and know that a mistake or two is not going to send them to the bench or the press box. Young developing players make mistakes. You coach them through it and teach them and you don't have to hold them accountable when they make mistakes. Slowly but surely, Tortorella's methods will lose the team. We've already seen signs of it. Especially when the team realizes that Tortorella's system and style of play is not winning hockey.

How about as a coach when you don't hold veterans accountable for the same mistakes that you hold young players accountable for? When vets make repeated mistakes but keep on getting ice time? Does that lead to losing a team? Why is that? For the very reason that he thinks that's how you win. By playing Ryan Poehling 19 minutes as the 1C in a must win game. While benching better and more talented players. That's how you keep the room?
- MJL

Seriously dude?! It’s not talk? So they just put on the game tape and sit there silently? They just run players through drills without saying anything? When I say telling them it covers a broad lense, don’t be obtuse over little things like that.

All coaches have certain things they want every player doing. You don’t bench a kid because he tried to pull off a fancy toe drag and failed, that discourages creativity. But if a kid continually blows defensive zone coverages or doesn’t make the simple play at the blueline to get the puck out after endless drills and video sessions there absolutely needs to be accountability. I saw it as a player and a coach. I’ve seen coaches tell, explain in video sessions, draw on the board, run drills, bag skate, and yell until they were blue in the face and as long as the players still got their ice time nothing changed. I’ve also seen a coach teach something, a player not follow direction, they sit a few shifts and then it’s never an issue again.

Why was there never an issue with Tyson Foerster, who at 22 years old was the 2nd youngest player on the team, but there were with other players?

That’s just factually incorrect. Clarke tried to upgrade all over the lineup throughout his tenure. He wasn’t always successful but to say he didn’t prioritize those positions is wrong. Three of his first 4 moves were addressing those issues. His first trade was acquiring Kevin Haller, 3rd move trading back for Hextall, and 4th move trading leading scorer Recchi to get Desjardins. In 97 he got Paul Coffey who had 26pts in 37 games for them. In subsequent years, he acquired Vanbiesbrouk, Cechmanek, Dan McGillis, Kim Johnsson, etc. Clarke almost had a deal for Ray Bourque. Bourque himself said he he was told it was a done deal, he was going to Philly.

Not everything was successful but your characterization is false.
- Schmojo

Clarke famously couldn't develop a dman to save his life and all their homegrown goalies turned out to be strictly mid.

With most of the trade capital going towards Zhamnov, Oates, Gratton, Daigle, Comrie, etc it's no surprise that Clarke could only manage to trade for dmen who were either secondary talents or way over the hill.

And as good as Rico was he was still not anywhere close to the kind of HOF blueliners that the best teams at the time had. And while Joni was good at the start the team didn't give him enough off ice support and he turned into a head case.

In net... having Belfour and Cujo available and coming away with 35-yo Beezer has to be one of the biggest UFA disappointments in team history. Burke was 37 when Clarke brought him in. Hackett 35. Clarke just never took the position seriously enough.

Seriously dude?! It’s not talk? So they just put on the game tape and sit there silently? They just run players through drills without saying anything? When I say telling them it covers a broad lense, don’t be obtuse over little things like that.


- Schmojo

Seriously dude! You're the guy who keeps using the phrase. I'm explaining to you the numerous factors of coaching and tools that you use to you know, actually coach a player. Rather then the ineffective and archaic coaching tool of using ice time punitively in player development that you keep preaching.

Morgan Frost as an example would be a better and more advanced player today, If Tortorella and Yeo before him would've stopped screwing with him. He's done the same with Zamula and Brink and played lesser players than all of them. God knows how he'll treat Michkov. I pray that Tortorella is gone when he comes over.

All coaches have certain things they want every player doing. You don’t bench a kid because he tried to pull off a fancy toe drag and failed, that discourages creativity. But if a kid continually blows defensive zone coverages or doesn’t make the simple play at the blueline to get the puck out after endless drills and video sessions there absolutely needs to be accountability. I saw it as a player and a coach. I’ve seen coaches tell, explain in video sessions, draw on the board, run drills, bag skate, and yell until they were blue in the face and as long as the players still got their ice time nothing changed. I’ve also seen a coach teach something, a player not follow direction, they sit a few shifts and then it’s never an issue again.


- Schmojo

Here is what you're not getting. Tortorella is sitting some players and not others when they have the very same issues. Not every young player is the same. They all have strengths and weaknesses. Some have a higher hockey IQ defensively and away from the puck. You act like it's a simple case of the player just not following direction rather than it being a development issue. Where the players needs the experience and repetition of game play to get to click in. Some will get it faster than others. Some players will handle harsher coaching better than others. Unless a player is completely obstinate and unwilling to listen and isn't putting the work in to get better. Has a negative attitude, then sitting them and having them play under the constant threat of benching, sapping their confidence, is poor coaching. Coaches who do that as their primary tool, do that because they're just not good at player development,

Why was there never an issue with Tyson Foerster, who at 22 years old was the 2nd youngest player on the team, but there were with other players?
- Schmojo

Foerster has a higher hockey IQ and a more developed game away from the puck. Like I said, every player is different and they all should be coached differently. Foerster struggled offensively. Why should a player struggling offensively not be punished in the same way that a player who is struggling defensively. Foerster was allowed to play through his struggling period offensively and knew that he was going to keep on getting ice time. Over time, he improved offensively. See how that works? There was no quick hook for Foerster like there is for numerous other players.

Let me ask you this. For the majority of the past season.Owen Tippett's defensive play and away from the puck play was putrid. Why was he not subject to being benched or scratched? While a player like Frost who is significantly better away from the puck defensively, was scratched how many times? I know why, do you?

Foerster has a higher hockey IQ and a more developed game away from the puck. Like I said, every player is different and they all should be coached differently. Foerster struggled offensively. Why should a player struggling offensively not be punished in the same way that a player who is struggling defensively. Foerster was allowed to play through his struggling period offensively and knew that he was going to keep on getting ice time. Over time, he improved offensively. See how that works? There was no quick hook for Foerster like there is for numerous other players.

Let me ask you this. For the majority of the past season.Owen Tippett's defensive play and away from the puck play was putrid. Why was he not subject to being benched or scratched? While a player like Frost who is significantly better away from the puck defensively, was scratched how many times? I know why, do you?
- MJL

If you believe what’s come out since, it was Hextall who made the Patrick pick against the scouting staffs wishes. It does make sense because Hexy for the most part drafted safer 2-way player types than ever really risking a pick.

I honestly feel like Hexy’s tenure is when this organization really changed. Snider was supposedly on board for a rebuild but Hexy never did a true rebuild, instead opting for a middle ground and they’ve been stuck there ever since. I’m not sure Snider would have ever been patient enough for a true rebuild but we’ll never know. It does feel like there’s still this chase to live up to Snider but they’ll never be able to do that. You can still honor Snider and Flyers traditions while recognizing that in the cap era you have to build your team differently than before.
- Schmojo

Not sure I agree with that 100%

From what I remember, when Hextall came in the cap was a mess, bloated contracts and the team needed to do a tear down. Hextall got the Flyers to where they had cap space, and was moving out bloated contracts. The JVR signing was done because Hextall was getting pressure to make it "go time", when the team was still 2 years away.Hextall wanted more time, and team wouldn't give it to him.

Not defending everything that happened, but I believe Hextall was forced into trying to make the team competetive before they were ready.

I also don't believe everything that has come out since. I think Clarke is full of shlt, and needs to just shut up.

Not sure I agree with that 100%

From what I remember, when Hextall came in the cap was a mess, bloated contracts and the team needed to do a tear down. Hextall got the Flyers to where they had cap space, and was moving out bloated contracts. The JVR signing was down because Hextall was getting pressure to make it "go time", when the team was still 2 years away.Hextall wanted more time, and team wouldn't give it to him.

Not defending everything that happened, but I believe Hextall was forced into trying to make the team competetive before they were ready.

I also don't believe everything that has come out since. I think Clarke is full of shlt, and needs to just shut up.
- TheFreak

I agree 100%

I don’t believe they’ve ever been offered a 1st for him. I think the 1st rumored in that bigger STL deal was more for the fact STL was getting Sanheim and Laughton, who knows what else.
- Schmojo

What is a good offer? The front office did not say we would like xy and z. They told you that there was not a good offer. So I will ask again, what is a good offer?

I agree 100%
- MJL

defend to the end cliff. soon as saint Ronnie is mentioned your like Beetlejuice, you appear. though in reality you never left.

your dad was in full control. He had complete say. He choose the path he choose. so stop making excuses. He failed. simple as that. he had no plan. all he did was try to straddle the fence.

Not sure I agree with that 100%

From what I remember, when Hextall came in the cap was a mess, bloated contracts and the team needed to do a tear down. Hextall got the Flyers to where they had cap space, and was moving out bloated contracts. The JVR signing was down because Hextall was getting pressure to make it "go time", when the team was still 2 years away.Hextall wanted more time, and team wouldn't give it to him.

Not defending everything that happened, but I believe Hextall was forced into trying to make the team competetive before they were ready.

I also don't believe everything that has come out since. I think Clarke is full of shlt, and needs to just shut up.
- TheFreak

clarke tells is like it is, for better or worse. There is zero reason for him to make that up. all he got is the names wrong. Been verified numerous times the scouts were not all nboard with patrick.

did hextall as the assistant gm have a hand in any of those contracts? I believe yes he did. one andy mac for example.

saint ronnie was a total failure at the nhl level with the moves he made.

clarke tells is like it is, for better or worse. There is zero reason for him to make that up. all he got is the names wrong. Been verified numerous times the scouts were not all nboard with patrick.

did hextall as the assistant gm have a hand in any of those contracts? I believe yes he did. one andy mac for example.

saint ronnie was a total failure at the nhl level with the moves he made.
- hello it's me 2050

There was also zero reason to make it public that the management team was not all on the same page. None at all, and I thought it just showed how much of a mess the team was in that a player who has been retired for 30 years is still involved in the front office.

I agree, his time here was not good, but it was also incomplete as things were rushed by the upper ups. Hextall had a hand in negotiations, but the contract signing was Homers. If Hextall can be blamed as GM for picks and decisions, as the last word and deciding person, same can be said on Homer.

Don't get me wrong..I didn't like most of Hextalls drafting, and his signings and trades left much to be desired. But he had a plan, free up cap space, draft, draft, draft, and add UFA's when the team was ready and he was trying to stick to it when it got rushed by those above him. It was doomed from the beginning. Fletcher didn't have a clue, let alone a plan. We are still in wait and see mode, but so far the Briere era is all about lying to the fans. Replacing Hextall with Fletcher was pure incompetance on behalf of the Flyers front office. Clarke then came out about Hextall and the draft...which to me felt like a jab at Hextall, and to defend the hiring of Fletcher, which everyone knew when it was done would be a disaster.

clarke tells is like it is, for better or worse. There is zero reason for him to make that up. all he got is the names wrong. Been verified numerous times the scouts were not all nboard with patrick.

did hextall as the assistant gm have a hand in any of those contracts? I believe yes he did. one andy mac for example.

saint ronnie was a total failure at the nhl level with the moves he made.
- hello it's me 2050

I wonder how many times teams around the league make picks when not all the scouts are on board with said prospect.

Just my guess, but I highly doubt every pick, but the Patrick pick, league wide was unanimous with every team that year.

Clarke and the Flyers just chose to make it public that there team of professionals were not all on the same page.

There was also zero reason to make it public that the management team was not all on the same page. None at all, and I thought it just showed how much of a mess the team was in that a player who has been retired for 30 years is still involved in the front office.

I agree, his time here was not good, but it was also incomplete as things were rushed by the upper ups. Hextall had a hand in negotiations, but the contract signing was Homers. If Hextall can be blamed as GM for picks and decisions, as the last word and deciding person, same can be said on Homer.

Don't get me wrong..I didn't like most of Hextalls drafting, and his signings and trades left much to be desired. But he had a plan, free up cap space, draft, draft, draft, and add UFA's when the team was ready and he was trying to stick to it when it got rushed by those above him. It was doomed from the beginning. Replacing him with Fletcher was pure incompetance on behalf of the Flyers front office. Clarke then came out about Hextall and the draft...which to me felt like a jab at Hextall, and to defend the hiring of Fletcher, which everyone knew when it was done would be a disaster.
- TheFreak

Really the only blemish on Hextall's drafting was how the Patrick pick turned out. Which was bad luck in my opinion. The rest of his drafting was decent and average. He missed on 3 firsts but otherwise he drafting was solid. I think he drafted a dozen NHL players in 5 drafts including two starting goaltenders, the teams current best defenseman and forward as well as numerous solid players. People love to say that Hextall overruled the scouts and didn't listen to them with the Patrick pick. Which is true, it's the GM who makes the final call but on the O'Brien pick, do you think Hextall listened to the scouts there or was that Hextall having tunnel vision to a player that he likely did not see play much and overruling the scouts again?

There was also zero reason to make it public that the management team was not all on the same page. None at all, and I thought it just showed how much of a mess the team was in that a player who has been retired for 30 years is still involved in the front office.

I agree, his time here was not good, but it was also incomplete as things were rushed by the upper ups. Hextall had a hand in negotiations, but the contract signing was Homers. If Hextall can be blamed as GM for picks and decisions, as the last word and deciding person, same can be said on Homer.

Don't get me wrong..I didn't like most of Hextalls drafting, and his signings and trades left much to be desired. But he had a plan, free up cap space, draft, draft, draft, and add UFA's when the team was ready and he was trying to stick to it when it got rushed by those above him. It was doomed from the beginning. Fletcher didn't have a clue, let alone a plan. We are still in wait and see mode, but so far the Briere era is all about lying to the fans. Replacing Hextall with Fletcher was pure incompetance on behalf of the Flyers front office. Clarke then came out about Hextall and the draft...which to me felt like a jab at Hextall, and to defend the hiring of Fletcher, which everyone knew when it was done would be a disaster.
- TheFreak

having the scouts disagree is a good thing to me. They all have differing opinions. Doesn’t indicate they are mess in any way. Its constructive to voice your opinion in that draft room.

I don’t agree things were “rushed”. He just isn’t qualified t be a GM at the NHL level.

Sorry he had no plan. Drafting isn’t a plan. It is what every team in every sport does.

It may have been a jab and to me so what. In time he will take a “jab” at fletcher. I have zero doubt about that.

Really the only blemish on Hextall's drafting was how the Patrick pick turned out. Which was bad luck in my opinion. The rest of his drafting was decent and average. He missed on 3 firsts but otherwise he drafting was solid. I think he drafted a dozen NHL players in 5 drafts including two starting goaltenders, the teams current best defenseman and forward as well as numerous solid players. People love to say that Hextall overruled the scouts and didn't listen to them with the Patrick pick. Which is true, it's the GM who makes the final call but on the O'Brien pick, do you think Hextall listened to the scouts there or was that Hextall having tunnel vision to a player that he likely did not see play much and overruling the scouts again?
- MJL

lol your defense of saint ronnie is embarrassing cliff. his drafting was average. yep bad luck always an excuse when fits your narrative.

so he got nhl players out of most of his 1st rd picks. Should he get a pat on the back for that? that is no great shakes really imo.

How many 2nd rd whiffs did he have? Any mid to late round players?

so now ronnie likely never saw JOB play, any facts to back that up?

having the scouts disagree is a good thing to me. They all have differing opinions. Doesn’t indicate they are mess in any way. Its constructive to voice your opinion in that draft room.

I don’t agree things were “rushed”. He just isn’t qualified t be a GM at the NHL level.

Sorry he had no plan. Drafting isn’t a plan. It is what every team in every sport does.

It may have been a jab and to me so what. In time he will take a “jab” at fletcher. I have zero doubt about that.
- hello it's me 2050

No he did have a plan. Instead of throwing stupid money at over the hill guys like Homer was doing, he stopped doing that. He tried to build from the draft and then compliment once his picks were ready. Build a proper foundation and add as needed. It was responsible, and set the Flyers up. When Fletcher took over, he had tonnes of draft picks, lots of cap space, and room to build.

Fletcher traded for the rights to Hayes, then signed and over paid by quite a bit for him. He traded needless assets for Risto, and then trade assets to get rid of Ghost. He then sent more picks out for TDA.

Fletcher flogged off picks, lots of 2nds and a first rounder for subpar players,then overpaid to keep the,. The exact opposite of what Hextall was trying to build. Everything Hextall had cleaned up and set the team up for a better future was undone by Fletcher shortly after he arrived.

Most here would have no problem with Hextall if Patrick lived up to his hype.

No he did have a plan. Instead of throwing stupid money at over the hill guys like Homer was doing, he stopped doing that. He tried to build from the draft and then compliment once his picks were ready. Build a proper foundation and add as needed. It was responsible, and set the Flyers up. When Fletcher took over, he had tonnes of draft picks, lots of cap space, and room to build.

Fletcher traded for the rights to Hayes, then signed and over paid by quite a bit for him. He traded needless assets for Risto, and then trade assets to get rid of Ghost. He then sent more picks out for TDA.

Fletcher flogged off picks, lots of 2nds and a first rounder for subpar players,then overpaid to keep the,. The exact opposite of what Hextall was trying to build. Everything Hextall had cleaned up and set the team up for a better future was undone by Fletcher shortly after he arrived.

Most here would have no problem with Hextall if Patrick lived up to his hype.
- TheFreak

No doubt. Even with the mistakes made and 1st round misses. Hextall left the team in a far better situation than when he started. It was ridiculous for the brass to think that it could be turned around in the time that Hextall was the GM. It took a good two years, if not more, just to get the cap cleaned up.

No doubt. Even with the mistakes made and 1st round misses. Hextall left the team in a far better situation than when he started. It was ridiculous for the brass to think that it could be turned around in the time that Hextall was the GM. It took a good two years, if not more, just to get the cap cleaned up.
- MJL

your dad is not a good nhl GM. That is fact cliff. Accept it.

He did an average at best job with the flyers. why cant you admit it and stop defending his sub par job.