From the mouth of one of the teams leaders!!!!!

From the mouth of one of the teams leaders!!!!!

faithfullyflyers
faithfullyflyers

February 14th, 2012, 3:01 pm #1

Anyone else see something wrong with this quote from Briere??

Said Briere: "Obviously, we're not happy giving up five or six goals a game. There's a difference in that. I think we can live with giving up two or three goals a game. Once we get in that range of four, five or six, that's when we get in trouble. That's when we need to clamp down a little more on defense."

FIRE THE PHUCKING COACH NOW!!!!!



fff

Quote
Share

WCF
WCF

February 14th, 2012, 3:12 pm #2

Wow, tells you that a lax attitude amongst the veterans is clear and present, we know that many of the vets are not committed to playing defensively responsible or a system in any way, but one of them saying 2-3 goals a game is OK......well it goes along with their lack of success of late. The young guys on this team are NOT the problem.
Quote
Share

faithfullyflyers
faithfullyflyers

February 14th, 2012, 4:00 pm #3

We are "OK" giving up 2-3 goals per game are you phucking kidding me???? What about striving to not give up any goals per game. This team is phucked and you are right WCF it is not the rookies it is not even the vets it's a coaching staff that allows a mentality like that to exist at all let alone preach it as a plan!! In a yr from now PL will get fired, I say that because it always takes them a yr to catch up to what we know already!!

FIRE THE COACHING STAFF NOW!!!


fff
Quote
Share

Icer
Icer

February 14th, 2012, 5:05 pm #4

Anyone else see something wrong with this quote from Briere??

Said Briere: "Obviously, we're not happy giving up five or six goals a game. There's a difference in that. I think we can live with giving up two or three goals a game. Once we get in that range of four, five or six, that's when we get in trouble. That's when we need to clamp down a little more on defense."

FIRE THE PHUCKING COACH NOW!!!!!



fff
that means only giving up - wait for it -

2 or 3 goals a game.

Check it out. San Jose. #5. 2.41 GA/G.

Wouldn't that be nice, to go along with the #2 scoring?

Heck, why not #1 in both scoring and D?

What Briere was saying was that giving up 5 or 5 goals a game is unacceptable (duh!), this team needs to get better, at least above average D.

With 11 rookies, one of the best defensemen in the league gone for the year, to go with a lot of other significant injuries, on a team built for offense, asking for 2-3 GA is actually rather reasonable. Certainly not a reason to fire a coach.
Quote
Share

WCF
WCF

February 14th, 2012, 5:06 pm #5

We are "OK" giving up 2-3 goals per game are you phucking kidding me???? What about striving to not give up any goals per game. This team is phucked and you are right WCF it is not the rookies it is not even the vets it's a coaching staff that allows a mentality like that to exist at all let alone preach it as a plan!! In a yr from now PL will get fired, I say that because it always takes them a yr to catch up to what we know already!!

FIRE THE COACHING STAFF NOW!!!


fff
Yup, they are mediocre at best and unfortunately that includes PL. I had high hopes with him as him came to us as a proven winner, but the staff he has is, to me, a bunch of dregs that have no business coaching (like that PhD candidate Berube!). I am disappointed with PL because it appears that none of these guys have bought into his "system", which seems to be non-existent since the WC when everything started to turn sour. What a joy it is to be a Flyer fan these days, ehh??!
Quote
Share

OutL
OutL

February 14th, 2012, 5:52 pm #6

Anyone else see something wrong with this quote from Briere??

Said Briere: "Obviously, we're not happy giving up five or six goals a game. There's a difference in that. I think we can live with giving up two or three goals a game. Once we get in that range of four, five or six, that's when we get in trouble. That's when we need to clamp down a little more on defense."

FIRE THE PHUCKING COACH NOW!!!!!



fff
They kept John Stevens around when his days should have been numbered & they won't be firing a coach whose team is still #8-9 in the entire league in points. That can change of course with them going in either direction but their point total with them only getting 1/2 of the remaining 52 points available would still be 95. He has things to answer for but that won't be done during this campaign.

Briere? There's a guy who doesn't play a whole lot of 2 way hockey very well and he shouldn't be talking and implying anything about defense or anything else for that matter as he hasn't been doing a whole lot to up the goals scored totals for his team as they continue to lose.


Outs

Quote
Share

faithfullyflyers
faithfullyflyers

February 14th, 2012, 6:07 pm #7

that means only giving up - wait for it -

2 or 3 goals a game.

Check it out. San Jose. #5. 2.41 GA/G.

Wouldn't that be nice, to go along with the #2 scoring?

Heck, why not #1 in both scoring and D?

What Briere was saying was that giving up 5 or 5 goals a game is unacceptable (duh!), this team needs to get better, at least above average D.

With 11 rookies, one of the best defensemen in the league gone for the year, to go with a lot of other significant injuries, on a team built for offense, asking for 2-3 GA is actually rather reasonable. Certainly not a reason to fire a coach.
We disagree!! Except the part about the defensive needs but we need 2 1st pr d-men.

Fire his sorry a_s_s now.


fff
Quote
Share

faithfullyflyers
faithfullyflyers

February 14th, 2012, 6:09 pm #8

They kept John Stevens around when his days should have been numbered & they won't be firing a coach whose team is still #8-9 in the entire league in points. That can change of course with them going in either direction but their point total with them only getting 1/2 of the remaining 52 points available would still be 95. He has things to answer for but that won't be done during this campaign.

Briere? There's a guy who doesn't play a whole lot of 2 way hockey very well and he shouldn't be talking and implying anything about defense or anything else for that matter as he hasn't been doing a whole lot to up the goals scored totals for his team as they continue to lose.


Outs
We will see the same coaching staff next yr. Berube as a coach, ONLY IN PHILLY!!!!

fff
Quote
Share

Outland
Outland

February 14th, 2012, 6:50 pm #9

Maybe Berube needs to take a few guys aside and pummel them like he was known to do in his playing days.

The game has radically changed yet in some respects the Flyers haven't. Is it a change in the coaches or the philosophy that needs altering? Is it both?


Is it the forum posters ?


Outs
Quote
Share

Icer
Icer

February 14th, 2012, 7:45 pm #10

We disagree!! Except the part about the defensive needs but we need 2 1st pr d-men.

Fire his sorry a_s_s now.


fff
is it Lava's fault we don't have the right defensemen?

I agree, the defense has not been good lately. This wasn't the case when the season started. Pronger is now gone. Carle and Coburn have becom Andrew Alberts. Meszaros has tried to do too much to compensate. Lilja has been as expected, a 5-6, but he's had to be a 3-4. On top of it, Bryzy hasn't lived up to expectations.

This team was built for offense, not defense. The GAA was expected to be mid pack. The team was expected to be rebuilding with youth, after unloading the top two starts and a lot of scoring.

Did anyone REALLY expect thsi team to be challenging the Rangers for the top spot? More likely, it was a hope they would make the playoffs. That was before losing a HoF defenseman, and expecting great things from the goalie.

Why does Lava get all of the blame for a 2 week slump, none of teh credit for having an 11 rookie, more than half new roster, rebuilding team actually contending? You guys are gonna be real surprised when he's named and Adams finalist.

And why all the outrage because Briere speaks the truth?

Starting this week, things will improve. In 2 more weeks, they'll be back to winning more than they lose. Be ready for some props for the coach then.
Quote
Share


Confirmation of reply: