Is Rick Tocchet the Problem in Philadelphia?

Philadelphia’s collapse has raised questions about Rick Tocchet’s system. But the more important issue may be how that system handles the young offensive talent the Flyers are supposed to be building around.

Philadelphia is eight games into the 2026–27 season without a win. At 0–5–3, the Flyers have made the worst start in franchise history.

The results are difficult enough. The underlying performance is worse.

Philadelphia is struggling to create offense, maintain possession and spend enough time in the attacking zone. The team’s power play remains ineffective, and its most promising offensive players are receiving limited opportunities.

Rick Tocchet cannot be blamed for every failed breakout or missed defensive assignment. But when a team struggles this comprehensively, the coach’s system and personnel decisions deserve scrutiny.

Especially when the club’s most important young players are receiving limited opportunities to change the situation.

The Michkov problem

Matvei Michkov is the clearest example.

As a rookie in 2024–25, he recorded 63 points in 80 games while averaging 16:41 of ice time.

Under Tocchet in 2025–26, his average dropped to 14:50. His production declined to 51 points in 81 games.

The reduction was substantial for a player entering what should have been an important development year.

The difference becomes even more apparent when his usage is broken down by head coach.

The Michkov Coaching Effect

How has Matvei Michkov’s role changed under three different Philadelphia coaches?

Regular-season statistics. Power-play ice time under Tortorella: Natural Stat Trick. GP refers to games played by Michkov under each coach.

Compared with Tortorella, Michkov averaged 1:29 less ice time per game under Tocchet, a reduction of approximately 9%. His power-play usage fell by 41 seconds per game, or 24%.

The contrast with Brad Shaw is even more pronounced. During Shaw’s nine games as interim head coach, Michkov averaged 19:36 per game, including 3:05 on the power play. His production reached 1.33 points per game.

Under Tocchet, his overall ice time fell by 4:46 per game compared with the Shaw period, while his power-play time declined by 54 seconds.

Nine games under Shaw are far too few to establish a reliable long-term production level. Match conditions, linemates and individual shooting percentages also influence these results.

But the deployment differences are substantial.

Michkov has not simply experienced a decline in scoring. He has received fewer opportunities to generate offense, including on the power play, where his playmaking ability should be particularly valuable.

Against Carolina on October 11, Michkov played 12:54. Veteran checking forward Noel Acciari played 15:06.

That does not establish that Michkov deserved every additional shift. It does raise a reasonable question about Philadelphia’s priorities when the team is struggling to generate scoring chances.

Michkov’s development has not been entirely smooth. His conditioning, defensive work and adjustment to playing on his opposite wing have all been discussed publicly.

Those are legitimate coaching concerns.

But development requires repetition. Offensive players need opportunities to create plays, make mistakes and learn from the consequences.

Restricting minutes may reduce immediate risk. It also reduces the number of situations in which a young player can improve.

The Flyers need to determine whether Michkov’s reduced role is helping him become a better player or simply making him a less influential one.

Martone is becoming another test case

Porter Martone’s early NHL experience makes the situation more difficult to dismiss.

Martone produced 10 points in his first nine regular-season games last spring, averaging 17:02 of ice time.

He entered 2026–27 with expectations of an expanded offensive role.

Instead, his average through seven games fell to 13:35. Against Seattle on October 13, he played just 11:31.

The sample is small, and the decline in production is real. Martone has one point through eight games.

Yet the reduction in opportunity creates a familiar problem when evaluating young players: is production falling because the player is struggling, or because his role is becoming less conducive to production?

Both can be true.

A player receiving fewer offensive-zone opportunities, shorter shifts or less time alongside skilled linemates will generally have fewer opportunities to generate points.

Martone does not need guaranteed first-line minutes. But he needs a consistent role long enough for the coaching staff to evaluate what works.

Frequent line changes make that evaluation harder.

Is there a pattern with Tocchet?

The criticism did not begin in Philadelphia.

During his time in Vancouver, Tocchet repeatedly emphasized that ice time had to be earned through preparation, execution and commitment to the team’s structure.

That philosophy was not reserved for young players. Established forwards also faced reduced minutes and public criticism when their performances fell below expectations.

Nils Höglander offers an interesting example.

He scored 24 goals in 2023–24 while averaging only 12:06 per game. Tocchet praised his development but continued to emphasize forechecking, puck management and consistency.

The result was a productive young forward operating in a comparatively small role.

That does not prove Tocchet was holding Höglander back. It does demonstrate how closely his approach links opportunity to specific elements of a player’s game.

There are counterexamples, too.

During Philadelphia’s 2026 playoff run, Tocchet used an all-rookie line featuring Martone, Denver Barkey and Alex Bump. He publicly defended their development after difficult performances against Carolina.

He has also spoken positively about young players taking initiative and seeking additional coaching.

Calling Tocchet categorically unwilling to play young players would therefore be inaccurate.

The more defensible criticism concerns the type of player who earns his trust and the conditions under which offensive talent receives additional responsibility.

Tocchet appears more comfortable rewarding predictable, structurally disciplined hockey than accepting the volatility that accompanies creative offensive play.

That is a coaching preference, not necessarily a flaw.

It becomes a problem if it prevents the team from using its most talented players effectively.

Philadelphia’s system is not producing enough offense

Tocchet has a legitimate argument in his favor.

Philadelphia improved from 76 points in 2024–25 to 98 points last season and reached the second round of the playoffs.

Defensive structure was an important part of that improvement.

But the Flyers’ offensive problems were never fully resolved.

Their power play ranked last in the NHL in 2025–26 and converted just three of 36 opportunities during the playoffs.

Tocchet acknowledged those shortcomings in May and discussed improving puck possession, offensive-zone entries and execution.

The early results this season suggest those changes have not yet delivered.

Philadelphia is frequently defending, struggling to transition through the neutral zone and generating too few dangerous possessions.

When the system is failing, insisting on the same requirements for individual opportunity becomes harder to justify.

At some point, the coach must adapt to the players available rather than asking every player to fit the preferred system.

The fantasy consequences

From a fantasy perspective, the most significant concern is the relationship between offensive potential and actual deployment.

Michkov and Martone do not need to score immediately for their fantasy outlooks to improve.

They need reliable opportunities.

For FHI, the important indicators are:

• Deployment: Are their even-strength minutes increasing? Are they receiving consistent power-play assignments?
• Role stability: Are their linemates and responsibilities becoming more predictable?
• Underlying process: Are they creating more shots and scoring chances per minute when given opportunities?
• Expected production: Is their projected output improving because their underlying play is stronger, or simply changing with ice time?
• Organizational commitment: Does the coaching staff continue to invest in them when mistakes occur?

This distinction matters.

A player with strong offensive ability but limited deployment may have considerable unrealized fantasy value.

But unrealized value does not produce fantasy points.

Until Philadelphia changes how it uses its young forwards, projected production must account for the possibility that their minutes will remain constrained.

So, is Tocchet the problem?

Part of it, increasingly.

The Flyers’ current problems extend beyond coaching. Roster construction, injuries, goaltending, individual performances and the quality of their opponents all matter.

Tocchet also deserves credit for last season’s progress.

But his responsibility is not limited to maintaining defensive structure.

Philadelphia needs its young offensive players to develop into the foundation of a competitive team.

Michkov has already demonstrated NHL scoring ability. Martone has shown that he can produce against NHL competition. Other young players are competing for opportunities.

The organization cannot evaluate their ceilings solely through limited minutes and constantly changing assignments.

Tocchet does not have to abandon his standards.

He does need to demonstrate that his system can accommodate the talent the Flyers have assembled.

Right now, Philadelphia is neither winning games nor generating enough offense to justify its conservative deployment.

That is a difficult combination for any coach to defend.

And if the Flyers continue to struggle while their most promising young forwards remain underused, the questions about Tocchet will only become harder to answer.

Data through October 13, 2026. Sources: NHL.com, Hockey-Reference, Natural Stat Trick, Reuters and Philadelphia Flyers reporting. Coaching-period statistics are descriptive and do not independently establish causation.