One More Change May Be Necessary...

by mikefive on Sep 20, 2009 11:01 PM EDT

I think the Flyers have the talent to go far this year. I really do. I can't wait for October 2nd, when all the kinks have (hopefully) been worked out and the boys hit the ice for real. With Mike Richards and Danny Briere healthy, with the one-two punch of Kimmo Timonen and Chris Pronger on the blue line, with the fiery and talented Ray Emery in the nets, with solid role-players like Ian Laperriere and (possibly) Blair Betts in the mix, and with long-time guys like Simon Gagne wanting to bring home the Cup, this season could be special.

With that said, it could be a special year but maybe it won't. I will admit that I am losing faith in John Stevens as the coach of this team.

Think of it this way: Give a classically-trained pianist a grand piano and she will make it sing. Give the same pianist a synthesizer and you will notice a difference. The pianist will be fine with actually playing the keys because she knows how to play a keyboard. But she won't know how to program the synth and make it sound interesting or good. This is because she is trained to play a piano expressively, and pianos generate sound much differently than synthesizers do.

Right now I feel like John Stevens is the pianist, and the Flyers are the synthesizer. Stevens knows how to coach a team in a very straightforward way, but I do not have the sense that he really understands what makes his players tick yet. He has not figured out how to get the most from them on a consistent basis, and quite frankly I think that is the largest problem the team is facing now.

I base this on the fact that, despite the fact that the Flyers had a good number of new players in the lineup last night, the team played the same way in the 3rd period that they did down the stretch last season: Too much running around, too much letting the other team dictate the flow of play, too many penalties, too many missed defensive assignments, etc. Next thing you know, the lead is gone and the game is lost - and this was a game which they very much tried to win by playing a bulk of their regulars. As far as the other two games, the Flyers also displayed some old problems: Penalties and inconsistent, lackluster play.

To me, this doesn't mean that the team is bad. It just means that they don't have the right guy steering the ship. I don't care if you're the late-2000s Flyers or the mid-1980s Oilers - if you do not have the right coach, you are not going to succeed. Perhaps the team is just shaking off the rust and regaining its chemistry after the offseason. Perhaps Stevens has not fully implemented his new system yet. Perhaps both he and the Flyers have something brewing after all. Only time will tell, but I feel like Stevens is the biggest question mark.

This item was written by a member of this community and is not necessarily endorsed by Broad Street Hockey.

Tweet Comment 28 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Won’t be surprised if he’s gone by October 2, that’s for sure.

by Ben Feldman on Sep 20, 2009 11:25 PM EDT reply actions

I think I like him too much. He helped turn the Flyers around, but there is little denying the lack of discipline when holding a lead, stupid penalties, and lack of zeal are his fault.

by BroadStreetBully on Sep 21, 2009 1:16 AM EDT reply actions

You want to fire a coach because they lost a preseason game in overtime. Really? Really??

I guess Tuesday and Thursday he should dress the entire starting lineup and make Emery play 60 minutes. Then when someone gets injured and they need a replacement, the call-up from the Phantoms will have no chemistry with the team, have no clue what systems they are playing and fail. And then when Boucher starts a back-to-back to give Emery a night of rest, and gives up five goals because he didn’t get his work in in the preseason, then you can say THAT"s a reason to fire John Stevens.

by MarioD on Sep 21, 2009 1:29 AM EDT reply actions

Yes. We in no way should take notice of his previous regular and post-season record. We should ignore they existed. Indeed, we shouldn’t even bother with pre-season games, since they mean nothing. We should instead hope that things magically solve themselves during the regular season, and if the team lacks discipline and lead control, we should in no way tie this to previous failures of the coaching staff, and address it as a new problem.

Brilliant!

by BroadStreetBully on Sep 21, 2009 2:06 AM EDT up reply actions

John Stevens’ Regular Season Record:

2007: 21-42-11
2008: 42-29-11
2009: 44-27-11

John Stevens’ Post Season Record:

2008: 9-8
2009: 2-4

Nothing about his record suggests he should be fired. In four playoff series, his team was the lower seed every time, and won two of them.

Indeed, we shouldn’t even bother with pre-season games, since they mean nothing.

The only people “bothering” with pre-season games are on this site. They do, very much in fact, mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I can’t wait till the season starts and you want to demote players for failing to score in the pregame skate.

by MarioD on Sep 21, 2009 2:40 AM EDT up reply actions

I like what stevens did for the team these past years, he should only get fired if he loses control of the locker room, loses respect from the players and loses games…

by fitzy first on Sep 21, 2009 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions

agreed

let’s fire him if he deserves to be fired, shall we? coaches are oftentimes scapegoats anyway. Insofar as Stevens goes, the guy isn’t the one on the ice taking penalties. A player is a player — who’s to say Hartnell wouldn’t have taken even more penalties if not for Stevens’ brilliant coaching?

when you bring in undisciplined players who have a style of play for the past 20-odd years that dictates they’ll do things like stick high or hook or charge or whatever, the best you can hope for is to curb it. The Flyers, by virtue of our personnel, and not by virtue of lack of coaching talent, will be a team that takes a lot of minors this year.

by Alon on Sep 21, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Insofar as Stevens goes, the guy isn’t the one on the ice taking penalties. A player is a player — who’s to say Hartnell wouldn’t have taken even more penalties if not for Stevens’ brilliant coaching?

Fair enough, but Stevens can take ice time away from players who don’t hustle or who take too many lazy penalties. He did this to Joffrey Lupul and Scott Hartnell in early November last year, and the team got the message at least for a little while. I think they had a 16- or 17-game streak where they only had one regulation loss between November and December. My problem is that Stevens did not do this again in February when the bad habits started to return. If he had, maybe the year would have ended differently.

The Flyers, by virtue of our personnel, and not by virtue of lack of coaching talent, will be a team that takes a lot of minors this year.

But even Stevens said that he wants the team to take less minor penalties this year. I think that’s something that he and Homer agree on. I doubt that they thought, “Well since we’ve got Pronger and Laperriere now, it’s okay for us take more minors since we’re going to anyway.”

I agree with you that Stevens does not take the penalties, and he can only coach who he’s got. Believe it or not, I want him to succeed here. I think he brings a lot of good things to the table as a coach. But his glaring weaknesses, to me, are his inconsistent doling out of discipline on his own players, and his “too textbook” system of play. Neither of these help the Flyers.

Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?

by mikefive on Sep 21, 2009 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions

humm

But even Stevens said that he wants the team to take less minor penalties this year. I think that’s something that he and Homer agree on. I doubt that they thought, "Well since we’ve got Pronger and Laperriere now, it’s okay for us take more minors since we’re going to anyway."

Sure, I doubt that they said specifically that they wanted to take more minors, but I do not doubt that they weighed the pros/cons — would they be okay taking more minors with the significant improvements to overall defense those two guys represent? They would be idiots not to have weighed this. Obviously, they came to the conclusion that it was a worthwhile trade.

And sure, Stevens can take away ice time, but that streak might just as much have been due to luck and reversion to the mean after our craptacular opening as due to benching a single player or benching two players for 1/10th of their ice time (1-2 minutes). Show me evidence that having more Hartnell in our lineup gives us fewer wins, and I’ll retract every one of my statements and reevaluate my entire life.

by Alon on Sep 22, 2009 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions

You're missing the point.

You want to fire a coach because they lost a preseason game in overtime. Really? Really??

First of all, I said that I’m losing faith in Stevens. I didn’t say he had to be fired five minutes ago. Note the word “may” in the title of my post.

Second, keep in mind that Stevens was directed to bring in a new, more aggressive system of play. When I think of aggressive play I think of Detroit, who protect 3rd-period leads by keeping the puck in their opponents’ end of the ice and forechecking. I don’t think of sitting back and running around in one’s own end. That’s how they lost last year, that’s how they went on the 10-game losing streak two years ago, and that’s how they’re losing now. The players change but the result remains the same. I don’t care if it’s September or February – that’s a problem.

And speaking of timing, I think it does matter in one sense – bad habits which are allowed to fester now will snowball through the season. The games don’t count for anything, but the way they are won or lost does. At least I think so.

Again, maybe Stevens hasn’t revealed everything to us yet. I don’t know. But given the lapses we’ve seen this team go through during Stevens’ tenure, I have my doubts.

Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?

by mikefive on Sep 21, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions

John Stevens is certainly walking on thin ice. I think he’s got a great ability in developing players, but I am not so certain he knows how to push their buttons and inspire them in certain situations.

The game the other night wouldn’t be much of a concern, if it was a one time occurance. I’m talking about the Leafs coming back and tieing the game late in the third period.

It is preseason, but that has been a chronic problem the past 2 seasons.
His win loss record is not shabby, but it could be better, if he was able to motivate his players when the team has the lead.

If you look at the 2009 Pittsburgh series, in the Quarter Finals of the post season. Of the 4 games the Flyers lost, they had a lead. Late in Game 2 they had a 1 goal lead and in Game 6 they had a three goal lead. The Flyers hold on to both those leads, they win the series 4 games to 2, as opposed to the othe way around.

So, yeah it’s preseason, but the way they lost to Toronto is a concern, because it’s happened in the regular seasons and post seasons of the past.

by FlyersGoalies1and27 on Sep 21, 2009 3:45 AM EDT reply actions

Exactly my point.

I should have made that clearer in my original post. Thanks for helping out.

Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?

by mikefive on Sep 21, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions

new NHL

I don’t blame John for the teams ability to protect the lead or the lack there of I blame the NHL. they don’t want teams to sit back and protect the lead with traps, a 1-2-2 and such like the good defensive teams have done in the past. They want “exciting” fast past offensive hockey all the time and the officials seem to have this in mind. If you are down by a goal with 5 minutes to go in the 3rd I guarantee your team will be getting a powerplay and good chance to tie it up. The days of only losing 1 or 2 games a year when you begin the 3rd with a lead are over. I don’t have the stats to back it up but I am confident if someone took the time to do some research you will find of lot and game tying PP goals with under 5 minutes to play. The refs during the Hitchcock era would only goal a penalty int the 3rd if a scoring chance was denied not some tap of the stick on the hip hooking call at center ice. This is a league wide issue Stevens is not the only one but as Flyers that is all we see. So if this is your only issue with John a little perspective might help see things more clearly.

by chrislanci on Sep 21, 2009 10:43 AM EDT reply actions

+1 good point – new rules = crazy sh*t, remember being up up 3-0 against the pens, game 6?

this makes a great goalie even more valuable to a team. i thought last year we lost a lot of games because marty let in some bad goals.

by fitzy first on Sep 21, 2009 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions

bullshit. Even if the “new rules” were to blame for our late game failures (I personally think that is a ridiculous argument) its still up to the team to adapt to them. just about every quality team in the NHL has learned how to protect a lead late in the game, even if the refs are allegedly conspiring against the team trying to play defense. its up to the flyers and john stevens to make adjustments and learn how to protect a lead within the rules. lets hope they figure that out soon.

by njh3293 on Sep 21, 2009 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions

I would check that stats “no lead is safe” A 5 on 3 powerplay with under 5 minutes to go in a game was unheard of. A 5 on 3 powerplay in general were extremely rare now you get or give up one practically every other game. If I told you 10 years ago the Flyers would lose a overtime playoff game on a 5 on 3 PP goal you would have laughed in my face.

by chrislanci on Sep 21, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions

Absolutly agree.

I don’t like this watered-down version of the NHL when compared “old hockey.” However, this is how it is. These are the rules and they are not going to change. They cannot be an excuse especially now that it has been 4 years since the lock-out and the rule changes. There is no reason not to have adjusted and begun to play with the league restrictions in mind. It comes down to the coach to adjust and tweak a teams style of play that garners success. Steven’s has yet to do that and I don’t think he is capable of it honestly. I feel like he has been getting by on talent alone. Look at Detroit. They are a wonderfully skilled team but they also have a brilliant system in place that one might attribute their recent success to.

It frustrates me because I know the Flyers have the talent and skill and mix of leadership and youth to be the best team in this league, but until they learn how to play strong system implemented by a coach, they can only go so far. I hope Stevens is able to reroute the ship and get that system in place, but I am not going to hold my breath waiting for it.

by Mitchell Green on Sep 21, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes!

There is no reason not to have adjusted and begun to play with the league restrictions in mind. It comes down to the coach to adjust and tweak a teams style of play that garners success.

Thank you. A coach should coach to his team’s strengths. The Flyers ain’t the Red Wings, but they can skate and play skilled hockey. They can keep offensive pressure through the forecheck, and they can hit as well as any team in the league.

Think of our most exciting wins this year, and I guarantee that those were games where we were tied or losing in the 3rd period. We won those games because we played to our strengths all the way through. We did not play strongly for 40 minutes and then sit back for the last 20. That doesn’t work. If you’re going to “protect the lead” by letting the opposition come to you in the 3rd, you should spend at least the first 12 minutes of the period forechecking, generating scoring chances and wearing the opponent down in his own end of the ice. Then, when given the chance to set up in your zone, the opponent has a lot less left in the tank.

Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?

by mikefive on Sep 21, 2009 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions

A coach should coach to his team’s strengths.

Then what in the world do you want from him?? Last year’s team was very strong offensively and atrocious defensively. If you’re coaching to strengths, then you don’t try to play shutdown hockey, you try to score more goals with a lead late in the game.

Yet you want to fire him because they blow leads late in the game. You can only have it one way.

by MarioD on Sep 21, 2009 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions

You've answered your own question.

If you’re coaching to strengths, then you don’t try to play shutdown hockey, you try to score more goals with a lead late in the game.

Exactly my point. Notice this from my post above:

Think of our most exciting wins this year… We won those games because we played to our strengths all the way through. We did not play strongly for 40 minutes and then sit back for the last 20.

So, to answer your question, I want Stevens to implement the more intense system he was directed to implement. If the Flyers forecheck in the 3rd period and take time and space away from their opponents, they will get scoring chances and bury one or two. Then, during the last 5-8 minutes, they can commit to solid team backchecking. In other words, I want Stevens to have the Flyers protect leads by increasing them, as you said. They can do this by playing their system for the entire 60 minutes of hockey.

What’s infuriating to me is that the Flyers are a different team in the 3rd period when they have a lead. They get away from the aggressive style which gave them the lead in the first place, and too often it costs them. It is Stevens’ responsibility to adjust the team’s playing style when they have a 3rd-period lead, and it is the team’s responsibility to follow up on it.

Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?

by mikefive on Sep 21, 2009 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions

One more thing...

Please stop saying this:

you want to fire him

Notice the title of the original post: “One More Change May Be Necessary.” In other words, if the Flyers do NOT work out all of their kinks in the preseason, then the organization should keep its coaching options open. Stevens needs to do what he was told and implement a new, more aggressive system. If he can do this, he will stay and no one will be happier for him than me. If not, he should be let go or given a different role.

So no, I don’t want to fire John Stevens outright. I want him to do what he was told to do. If he can not or does not, THEN he should be let go.

Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?

by mikefive on Sep 21, 2009 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions

You wrote a five hundred word treatise on all the things he allegedly does wrong and never once acknowledged any accomplishments. Giving it a misleading title doesn’t actual make your argument something it isn’t.

by MarioD on Sep 22, 2009 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions

Please.

Would my post have been any better if I threw in an independent clause such as “I know Stevens has done some good things during his tenure” before I launched my criticism?

Here is how I write:

Topic: John Stevens

Main Idea: The Flyers MAY need to get a new coach if John Stevens does not do what he was instructed to do.

Support For My Argument

Conclusion

I don’t see anything misleading about that.

I understand that, through your education, you have been trained to thoroughly examine all sides of an argument. This necessitates much detail. There is a rationality and completeness to that approach which is commendable.

However, please keep in mind that this is a sports blog. We present our sides of each argument and go from there. If everyone is so thorough, then fewer people contribute because everything has been said already. We get fewer viewpoints and, in my mind, have less fun. And isn’t that why we’re here – because we enjoy talking about the Flyers?

In short, I understand how you approach your arguments here, and why you do so. That’s all well and good, but it does not mean that the rest of us have to follow suit. Our less-than-exhaustive approaches do not make our arguments less valid.

I’m not trying to attack you or anyone else here, but let’s lighten up and have some fun. The puck drops for real in nine days.

Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?

by mikefive on Sep 23, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

All I’m saying is that using the word “may” instead of “should” doesn’t change the fact that the next 500 words are calling for his head.

To the extent that Travis paraphrased you as: “…so does that problem mean John Stevens should be out as coach?” Your article clearly answers that question in the affirmative.

As far as effort and all that, I’m not criticizing anything you wrote. I think your title was fine until you started claiming it meant you weren’t calling for his head. Speaking generically about fanposts, I think it’s just common courtesy that if you’re going to write something you expect people take the time to read, you think about it first, and proofread it at least once. You can edit these things over and over for a reason… and this sites own guidelines say:

What makes a good FanPost?

    * Make It Substantial.
    * Make It Timely.
    * Make It Coherent.

Again, not saying you missed any of those targets, just that there are certainly expectations set out there.

by MarioD on Sep 23, 2009 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions

Also, this is fun to me. Maybe not other people’s idea of fun, but I enjoy researching hockey and calculating salaries and discussing the relative merits of GVT and whatnot. Not saying anyone should feel the same, buy it is fun to me.

by MarioD on Sep 23, 2009 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions

+1

by Mitchell Green on Sep 23, 2009 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions

people thought i was crazy for saying this!

And here you are stealing my thoughts! puts on tin foil hat

Notice that last year when they played well they were aggressive. They pursued the puck, stay strong on the forecheck, then they win. They do not have the defensive make up to sit back and ride a lead. As has been said, the flyers are strong offensively. The new system they are going to (the up-tempo one for this year) plays more to their strengths than the passive one they seemed to fall back on last year. if Stevens can get them to play that style, we’ll see good things.

But I fully expect that if they start the way they did last year… We’ll have a new coach. But I won’t say I’m hoping or expecting it.

by Mike B on D on Sep 23, 2009 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions