2008 ECF Run: Worst thing that could have happened to us?
With the way this team has played over the last two seasons, it's becoming more and more clear that the 2008 run was merely an abberation (something I think we've all known for a while but have been hesitant to admit). The result of this abberation has been for the front office and the fan base to declare a rebuilding process that was far from over, indeed over.
Just one year removed from being the worst team in the NHL, Homer agressively retooled the team to put them in a position to be competitive again. That 2007-08 team surpassed all expectations in the playoffs, leaving us all feeling that we were on the brink of a cup. Many of us forget how...well...lucky for lack of a better word we were in those playoffs.
We beat Washington in a 7 game series when the two teams (and the whole series) could not have been more equal. While the Flyers deserve credit for gutting it out and winning, that series was more or less a toss up. In Montreal we could have easily gotten swept 4-0 had it not been for Biron and Umberger playing out of their minds. We were outplayed for long stretches of every game in that series yet the aformentioned two players constantly bailed them out. Now again, the Flyers certainly deserve credit for the win because they did play their asses off, but the fact remains that had it not been for two unsuspecting players playing the best week and a half of Hockey of their lives, the Flyers would not have been close in that series. Then came the Ptitsburgh series and we all know how that one turned out...
SInce then the Flyers have been a model of inconsistency. The only prolonged stretch of good play that I can remember was last season before the all-star break. From the second half of last year into this year it has been constant ups and downs. These constant stretches of inconsistency (and at times flat out terrible play) are not a good team playing poorly...its a slightly above average team playing slightly above average hockey.
To try and correct this problem the Flyers brought in a veteran monster defenseman. Management has fired the coach and called out the players for lack of focus time and time again and yet nothing has worked. In my opinion the problem is much more internal than that. Its the general attitude of the team thats followed that 2008 ECF run.
The theme within this team during the 2007-08 season seemed to be a burning desire to prove to the rest of the league that the previous season was an abberation. The Flyers played with a fiery intensity to show that while the franchise had fallen on hard times, they were still going to fight and claw their way back to the competitiveness. It was this attitude that allowed us to survive that 10 game losing streak in the middle of the season, and it was that heart and attitude that allowed us to advance so deep in the playoffs despite being outskilled and outmatched.
Ever since that run the attitude has changed. Instead of a desire to prove the naysayers wrong, it is a calm, collected attitude of "Ok we're close, now it's time to take the next step". Theres nothing wrong with that approach if it indeed is true, however in the Flyers case it is not. I believe in two years or so they will be in a better position to contend. When Richards, Giroux, JVR, and the like have all had more time to grow up. But in the meantime the front office needs to get back to basics with these players. Instead of drilling it into their heads that this is a talented team and they should expect to win the cup, the message should be that each player needs to prove why he should be on the team, on the first scoring line, wearing the C, etc.
This item was written by a member of this community and is not necessarily endorsed by Broad Street Hockey.
16 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I will go one step further than the 2008 ECF. That ridiculous Calder Cup in 2005. If not for that year I don’t think Stevens’ would have ever been considered for the Flyers coaching job. The loyalty which I believe bred this complacent attitude started with him and the relationship to that core of players. And I still think Hitchcock was a victim of that group wanting Stevens’ to coach. If Hitchcock would have had a year or two with this group I think they would have different attitudes. They would hate the shit out of him but different attitudes none the less. This is of course babbling here-say but I feel there is some legitimacy to the notion.
Just Call Me "M"!
Well, it was Richards that openly said that he hated the way Hitch over worked them at practices.
"NO HONOR"
"We will steal the show, jolly Rogers go, we are wolves of the sea."
I have to admit that season was not one of my most interested ones and I missed the transition. But if what you said is true we should have seen this coming a mile away. Now I am actually pissed off a little bit.
Just Call Me "M"!
by MJDII on Mar 26, 2010 10:48 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
He said it, literally, the day he got fired, and said he and others (Carter and Umberger that I know of) went to Homer about it. Yeah, I was pissed at the Hitch firing, especially because it was possibly the worst team the Flyers ever had. But lets be honest, when the Flyers are the worst team in the NHL, no coach is getting to the next season in this town.
"Sugah n' rainbows"
"We will steal the show, jolly Rogers go, we are wolves of the sea."
I really find it hard to believe that third and fourth line players were the reason Ken Hitchcock was fired.
Even if it was only Richards and Carter that pulled the strings, and they are the core of underachievers now, then call them 3rd and 4th liners, I don’t care. They did however anoint this group the next great set of players and have given them total control. Whether or not they got Hitch fired, and I believe that this is a bunch that would be to lazy to play for a guy like that, they probably would be a little different if they didn’t have their buddy coaching. Really that is all I was saying. They needed to break these guys in and instead they pampered their lazy asses.
Just Call Me "M"!
Do underacheivers score 46 goals and final for the Selke? How about a PPG over the past two years?
by orangeandblack20 on Mar 30, 2010 1:57 AM EDT up reply actions
I only look at it as underachievers get knocked out of the first round of the playoffs, And I would have traded all 46 for the open net flub that would have iced game two, which might have changed the whole series. And those guys were a combined -6 in six games with 2 goals and 4 assists. Now they are great young players and the present core of the team, but to not look at them as underachieving at this point and also somewhat unfocused on the job at hand you are just being blindly loyal.
Just Call Me "M"!
Who on this team is going to be a 46 goal scorer and wll be a finalist for the Selke???? The only players who deserve any thing are Pronger with the Norris (and I never had a problem with Pronger, hes been the best player all year) and Boosh with a nice steak dinner from the offense. Everyone else on this team, besides Pronger and Kimmo, has been a liability for a major amount of time for this year.
"Sugah n' rainbows"
"We will steal the show, jolly Rogers go, we are wolves of the sea."
Both guys are still kids. They are both potential 40 goal 100 point guys in the future. To call them underachievers THIS year is silly. Individually, statistically, they have played slightly under a PPG. That to me isn’t underachieving.
by orangeandblack20 on Mar 30, 2010 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Your right only something like missing the playoffs or getting bounced in the first round two years in a row would be underachieving.
Just Call Me "M"!
We can’t beat Pittsburg that is it. We could have won the 1st two rounds and got them in the ECF again lose there it is just the way the match-ups worked out it wasn’t like they ever lost in the playoffs to an inferior team or lost a series they should have won or a series in which they had home ice advantage or actually got a call from the officials.
Are you referring to Richie and Carter as the 3rd liners, if so, thats an irrelevant statement because they were the future stars of the team then, and the organization was doing everything for them.
"Sugah n' rainbows"
"We will steal the show, jolly Rogers go, we are wolves of the sea."
Yes, I am.
That was a team run by Forsberg and Hatcher. Future of the franchise or not, eight games into the season there’s no way a couple of rookies superceded those guys.
Though, if that’s true, at least now I understand why Clarke stepped down. If I know the next 15 years are going to be led by two babies who want the coach fired because they have to work too hard, I’d’ve gotten out of the fucking office, too.

by 



















