

Diehard Exclusive


Unlock Your Full Philadelphia Flyers Experience
This premium content is a Philadelphia Flyers Diehard exclusive.
Diehard Level 1
Most Popular
Diehard Pro Level
You're on a higher plan. Contact us to switch down.
Cancel anytime. No questions asked.
You're already a Diehard! Manage your subscription from your dashboard.
Already a Diehard?
Sign In

8 Comments (5 conversations)
guadzilla
Well articulated post and i agree with most of the points there.
2 things, however:
1) While i agree that development should be the single most important attribute that the new coaching team brings to the place, a lot of that will come from the assistant coaches, as they are the ones who actually handle the day-to-day task of coaching and developing players.
2). “the under-25 crew tends to be less willing than past generations to simply accept coaching directives because they came from a coach”
While this may be true in the broader context of the world today, but i dont know how much of a truism that is in the world of hyper competitive, motivated athletes who are at the pointy end of things in their chosen sport. Or rather, let me qualify that: I agree that most of them will only accept directives from coaches whose knowledge/motives they respect (not like) – but that is true of most athletes anyway.
guadzilla
One addendum – and i could be showing my age here: “Lack of competitiveness” is a deal breaker when it comes to competitive sports. The sport is littered with stars with crazy unfulfilled potential – and lack of competitiveness (read: lack of desire to be great) is the cause of most of them, from Daigle to Mogilny and a lot more. Do you want a star player, getting paid big bucks, to lack competitiveness? How does that work out in the playoffs? And you most certainly dont want your depth forwards to be like that either.
That said, I do think that that different players also show their competitiveness in different ways. John LeClair was one of the toughest, most competitive players ever and he NEVER played dirty or dropped gloves even once. So you can’t conflate “competitiveness” with “throws his body around” or whatever. Linked to that: different players need different approaches to flourish – and while learning to deal with some conflict is helpful, it isnt always the most efficient for everyone. So a good coach will recognize all of this and not use a single approach for everyone, or also apply a single standard of competitiveness to every player.
All that said and done, as a general rule of thumb, I dont think teams should be making allowances for players who lack competitiveness.
dandandandandan
Are any of the coaches in the “nah” tier under serious consideration? They do make Tocchet looks better in comparison, but I feel like he’s still at the lower end of the feasible hires.
Chris
Jay Woodcroft, with Brad Shaw in the same role (with a nice bump in pay) would be a fantastic start to the coaching staff IMO. I would have zero problem with that outcome.
Chris
welp…no Jay Woodcroft.
John Starbuck
Not just a well articulated analysis, but one that includes Charlie’s personal opinions as well. Excellent post, Charlie.
Having had the experience of being the hiring decision maker, where you live with your choices, both good and bad, I tend to fall into the Trust Briere-Jones camp. Choosing a coach is a huge responsibility, especially with a team that is the face of Philly based Comcast. No doubt Dan Hilferty who was a CEO of Blue Cross will be involved in the hiring process, not for the hockey stuff, but for the decision process…in an “Explain your work” kind of way.
I started cheering the 1967 Flyers, so yeah, I’m an official OG. My coaching decision? In Danny I Trust.
guadzilla
That’s probably the most reasonable take for a fan – give them the benefit of the doubt.
Jason
I’m against Tocchet not because of his history with the team (the “too insular” argument) but because of his system. Going back to dump-and-chase would kill the creativity and development of this team’s most skilled players, especially Michkov.