Toggle sidebar

2010's HF Team of the Decade- Head Coach Poll and Crowd sourcing thread

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates

Head Coach of the Decade

  • John Tortorella

    Votes: 41 56.2%

  • Alain Vigneault

    Votes: 30 41.1%

  • David Quinn

    Votes: 2 2.7%
  • Total voters
    73
  • Poll closed .
Fitzy

Fitzy

Very Stable Genius
Jan 29, 2009
36,371
24,184
Hello everyone, as hard as it is to believe, another decade has passed. I recall us all really enjoying our 2000-2010 team of the decade poll, and I wanted to get this decade's started early enough so that we have a few days to vote on each position.

I'm opening the voting with the Head Coach, since that is the easiest. What follows below is a list of thoughts/questions/musings I have on the process that I'd like to get your feedback on before we begin in earnest.

1. Last time, we has some controversy over the selection of Marian Gaborik to a RW spot despite his only having played a few dozen NYR games in the decade. We're likely to have the same situation this time around with Panarin. Should we A) Keep the rules consistent and leave any player open for selection no matter how few games or B) Change it up and implement a 50+ game limit for contention?

2. The votes are meant to be a holistic evaluation of NYR (And only NYR) contribution in this decade, and this decade only. So 2006-2009 Girardi and Staal won't count. Does anyone have a good stats source for NYR statistics than can filter by decade?

3. I plan to nominate players based on the position in which they played the largest number of games. For two significant Rangers (Dubinsky and Miller,) I'm unclear what position that is. Does anyone have the stats of the positional breakdown?

4. I'm not going to bother holding a vote for starting goalie. We're gonna go straight to the backup battle between Talbot, Raanta, Georgiev, and Biron.

5. The current plan is a 21 man roster with two forward scratches and one defensive scratch.

6. Pick the best player for each spot, regardless of perceived line chemistry.

7. Does anyone have the link to last decade's team? Would be fun to compare the two when all is said and done.

8. Once the full team is picked, we will have votes for captain and two alternate captains.

9. I'm not letting people who haven't voted see the results because I actually work in polling and it seriously skews the results.

Thoughts?

First spot for voting is the head coach.

John Tortorella- 214GP, 121 wins, 75 losses, 16OTL. Eastern Conference Finals
Alain Vigneault- 410GP, 226 wins, 147 losses, 37 OTL. Stanley Cup Finals
David Quinn- 97GP, 39W, 42L, 14 OTL.
Click to read more...
 
Lias Andersson said:
Go with the 50 games played requirement.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. As much as I'd love to just sew Panarin and Fox onto the 2014 team, they're not really 2010's players.

Dubinsky and Miller I would consider LW but that's just me.

Here's my early stab at it:

Kreider-Stepan-Nash
Gaborik-Zibanejad-St.Louis
Hagelin-Brassard-Zuccarello
Dubinsky-Richards-Callahan

McDonagh-Stralman
Yandle-Klein
Staal-Sauer

I genuinely would like to include Girardi because it feels right, but #6 says "pick the best player." That's in regards to chemistry, but in addition to that, how much are we considering continuity and representativeness of the era?
 
Gaborik played many more games at RW, so that's where he'll be voted on.

It'll make our TOTD a bit skewed to the right, but that's all of NHL history basically.

The defense is gonna look pretty sad for a TOTD.
 
50-game threshold:

Kreider-Zibanejad-Gaborik
Nash-Brassard-Zuccarello
Fedotenko-Stepan-Buchnevich
Hagelin-Richards-Callahan

McDonagh-Stralman
Staal-Girardi
Yandle-DeAngelo

Lundqvist
Raanta
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buchnevich89
Lias Andersson said:
This is really going to emphasize just how much this franchise has leaned on Henrik Lundqvist throughout his career.
Click to expand...

We had a pretty good roster from 2012 to 2016, largely buoyed by trading off all of our draft picks. Outside of that though it's been a pretty mediocre group in front of Hank.

I'm hoping that if I'm still alive at the end of next decade, that a much larger proportion of that roster will be homegrown.
 
In the end, Torts molded those teams to get them to where they got to, even though he only saw half of the success.

The end of AVs tenure does not help him.

Quinn gets an N/A for me, not enough time.
 
Went AV just based on results. The ground work was Torts, but was he ever getting this team any further? Overall I think Torts is a better teacher and an A+ for accountability, but the gum snapper got the team over the hump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReggieDunlop68
Fitzy said:
1. Last time, we has some controversy over the selection of Marian Gaborik to a RW spot despite his only having played a few dozen NYR games in the decade. We're likely to have the same situation this time around with Panarin. Should we A) Keep the rules consistent and leave any player open for selection no matter how few games or B) Change it up and implement a 50+ game limit for contention?
Click to expand...
Definitely a minimum.

Also, AV for me. Torts did a good job and I appreciate him bringing us out of the dark ages, but he was helped along by the development of a lot of good, homegrown talent. Of course he played a big part in developing it. AV took us to a different level, where it felt like we could actually take the play to the opponent, instead of the "bend but don't break" style we so often relied on under Torts. For me, it's AV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jabroni, Cassano, Lias Andersson and 1 other person
Alright, I'll be the one (so far) contrarian. I'm going with Quinn. Certainly, there are aspects I occasionally question as regards who he plays/where they play, but that'll happen with any coach. As for the positives:

1. I like his system by far the best.
2. He has demonstrated an ability to get through to young guys like Buch, ADA, and most recently Chytil, getting them to improve their games.
3. He has a willingness to make more dramatic changes to see what'll work. Sometimes, like with flipping Kreider and Buch, they make me scratch my head, but he did that for all of one game, and then dropped it; whereas moving Trouba off the #1 PP unit to first try ADA, and then a rookie in Fox, is something most coaches wouldn't have done.
4. Despite what you know are serious locker room ramifications, which are doubtless what held AV in check, he had the balls to sit Staal.
 
this is a trick question...the correct answer for coach is D) they all suck and have no idea what they are doing and if we won it was in spite of them.
 
The end of Av's tenure was horrible but the team had most success under him so I went him
 
Last edited:
Also voting Torts. AV got us to the finals, sure, but he also was horrible for the last couple seasons here.

I think Torts helped instill a certain mindset in a wave of younger Rangers players that stayed with the team and defined the decade. Which, ultimately, should be why he's the coach.
 
Torts. When AV got a chance to AV this team, they got worse.

Whats baffling is that I thought AV, after the first 10 games or so of his 1st season did a phenomenal job. Every season after that, it's as if he decided that he wanted to do everything other than what made him so successful in that initial season.
 
ZuccsFluffierFluffer said:
Torts. When AV got a chance to AV this team, they got worse.

Whats baffling is that I thought AV, after the first 10 games or so of his 1st season did a phenomenal job. Every season after that, it's as if he decided that he wanted to do everything other than what made him so successful in that initial season.
Click to expand...

I think AV had better rosters to work with, but Tortorella's system would not have been as conducive to rosters with higher levels of ability.
 
I'll keep this one open a few more hours in hopes of a more definitive vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom