View Single Post
02-16-2013, 02:26 AM
Bort Sampson
Registered User
Bort Sampson's Avatar
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hammock District
Country: United States
Posts: 1,169
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by dbr2 View Post
Firing a coach in a shorten season makes little to no sense.
Why though?

Do you think the coaching change is just for this season?

If they're changing coaches, it's to make progress. When that occurs isn't really apparent, but the sooner the change is made, the sooner the progress can occur.

Why would they wait until the off-season to change coaches? So they can bring in new players into camp, AND a new coach, and be put into a transition state for the entire next season?

It actually makes a lot of sense to change coaches as quickly as possible, especially when it seems inevitable. On a personal level, I like Laviolette. From someone who watches a hell of a lot of hockey and studies coaching styles in team systems, what he's doing isn't working. The personnel argument doesn't work, either. A team that can get a lead should be able to hold a lead. A team shouldn't be scored on habitually in the first minute or few minutes of a game. These are recurring problems. This team has been known for mounting comebacks. That's cute and all, real inspiring, but it's a sign of unpreparedness, and it has never been addressed.

With that said, Homer is as much to blame as Laviolette, as is Snider. You can't just keep turning over players and expect consistent results, let alone progress. These players need time to develop and play together. When that happened, and they made a big splash for a big time performer, the team went to the Cup Final and was within 4 periods of bringing home a Cup. After that, ******** happened (teams don't trade away their captains, usually), and we changed our organizational philosophy back to "win now". "Win now", from the Flyers' standpoint, seems to be filling in apparent holes with hypothetical solutions. That doesn't cut it. Good teams develop from within. Teammates develop together. No one develops in isolation.

Personally, I'd like to see some kind of defensive coaching additions rather than the subtraction of Laviolette. No trades, nothing. Let them play it out. If they play defensive and fail, they fail, but at least we know who can cut it in which role and who can't. If Laviolette can't adjust his system and refuses, then he has to go, but I'd like to see something done to preserve his job because he's a hell of a motivator and I don't think he's lost their ear at all.

Bort Sampson is offline