Post-Game Talk: #26 - 03/13/2021 | Rangers @ Bruins | 1:00 PM EST - NHLN, MSG+

[Shesterkybomb]

Nobody has said they're finished products but their development has slowed since they got here. That's a fact. Anybody who says they're not disappointed is lying to you and themselves.

It's literally the job of those running the team to get to the bottom of that.

Expectations were too high in a season where Lafreniere had his biggest layoff from hockey since he started playing trying to jump two league levels. If you don't see improvement in Kakko i don't know what to tell ya.

 

[Machinehead]

I'm not trying to make you "happy" with Lafrenière's season. That's not what I want, because I'm not "happy" with it myself. I just think that pinning the blame on ANYONE misses what's happened here. It only becomes that way if you take out all context and all circumstance.

What you said about Quinn's college experience and about Chytil aren't distortions of reality because they're criticisms. They're distortions of reality because, in one case, it's taking what would indicate a strength of the coach and twisting it's meaning so it seems like a weakness in order to fit it into something you're not happy with, and in the other case, an outright fabrication.

Also, I call bullshit about the inherent bias here being away from criticism. Feeling negatively about the team has been the default position of these boards in the majority of the 15+ years I've come here. I know, because I tend to be an optimist and have been arguing with the pessimists the whole time. That's not what I'm talking about. It's not about positive or negative, critical or uncritical. It's about ignoring the conversation around you in favor of your narrative.

And MH, I hate to break it to you... *you* are one of the usual suspects.

I've got news for you, everyone does that. Everyone thinks they're right and uses the evidence that suits their point. But you're always defending the team so the onus is always on everyone else to prove there's a problem. Disproving is a very easy position to say "hey, I'm being the reasonable one here."

Let's shift it around. What has Quinn done that we should be excited about? What does he provide that previous coaches couldn't or that any other coach couldn't? Your response is either going to be moving the goal posts or cherry-picking the best things, because you'd be trying to prove a point. Everyone does that!

And this isn't even debate about Quinn. It's some semantics garbage about "I don't like the way you're presenting this." You're the usual suspect who always does that and it leads to nothing good.

If you want a progressive, meaningful conversation, then argue the f***ing points instead of defaulting back to your "I don't think you're arguing nice" spiel.

We can't discuss anything anymore without it becoming "oh you're one of those negative people so I'll just attack you instead of the point you're making."

 

[Machinehead]

Expectations were too high in a season where Lafreniere had his biggest layoff from hockey since he started playing trying to jump two league levels. If you don't see improvement in Kakko i don't know what to tell ya.

Kakko needs to score more. Period.

 

[Machinehead]

I'm going to release a book of positive things I've said.

It's going to be called "Nobody Liked That: a Memoir of Posts that Don't Fit the Crazy Man Narrative."

 

[Machinehead]

Over 82 games, lol. Panarin missed what 10 games? If you’re so good at extrapolating please extrapolate how big part of the season he missed so far? And you just saw how important he’s to the whole team - other pieces to fall into place. Zibanejad? Your 1C who was still getting 1C minutes when he honestly should’ve been scratched or get bottom lines minutes for his own sake but couldn’t because Chytil was out. These are the Rangers inarguably two most important forwards and somehow you’re doing mental gymnastics to find issues elsewhere.

And trust me when I tell you - you’d still be miserable if Kakko and Lafreniere were getting points. I’ve been around this place long enough to not be fooled.

How is it mental gymnastics? I've given you hard evidence that literally the only vet struggling is Zibanejad.

Somehow, Zibanejad and just Zibanejad turned into "the kids are struggling because the vets are struggling" but I'll get accused of cherry-picking evidence.

 

[2014nyr]

People say it's easy/lazy but that's sort of part of it in a way.

I think, best case scenario, this guy is just a generic coach and we wouldn't have lost anything. I feel like people act as though we're letting go of a guy that's had a ton of success with this team. That's the part I don't get.

Let's say I'm wrong, and nothing improves post-Quinn. What have we lost? What does Quinn provide that 35 other Joe Schmoes don't?

And more generally, I've always believed that there aren't many difference-making good coaches in the NHL, but there are bad ones. So I've always seen cutting bait as a low-risk move.

to me its about the locker room. a lot of the core "older" guys like mika, buch, kreider, strome have really taken off under him. even panarin has been more productive than ever before. this would be a move that really tells them they don't matter if we dump a guy they think a lot of because 2 kids aren't scoring enough points. to make a move like that on a team that at best was supposed to sneak into the playoffs - and in a one off year like this that really hurt us more than most teams, the random issues and injuries, they're not out of it with half a season. we're right where we expected to be, the contributions just arent what we thought would put us there. theres just nothing you can do to force kakko or laf to grow up faster. all you can do is try to put support for them in place off ice and provide a stable environment/ culture that makes them comfortable growing up in. a coaching change doesn't do that, creating division in the locker room doesn't do that. the production is going to come no matter what if the talent and drive is there, and all indications are its there in both.

i really think laf was hit in so many ways by how the last year has played out for who he is a a person. hes never really been away from home. if i remember right he didn't even apply for exceptional status, he wanted to stay home and play another year with his friends. he's not a robot like crosby or mcdavid, he's more of a kid in a lot of ways and those things make a bigger impact.

kakko ...look at a guy like barkov who went 3rd overall, was expected to be close to ready made due to his size, had played against men. it was 4 seasons before he really broke out. i dont think any coach would have expedited that much. superstars dont need to be told how to play hockey, there's little things they can pick up to improve marginally. but the big picture impact talent is there or it isnt, and it just took time for him to acclimate to a different game and develop physically. we all want to see them thriving now, but that they aren't doesn't mean theres a quick fix and to me the priority needs to be the overall team and the culture of the locker room. there's been no regression, i think next year is where theres an expectation for serious progress. unless the culture of the room calls for change sooner i think making one does a lot more harm than good.

 

[kovazub94]

...As long as people aren't being toxic (and I don't see that) they have a right to not be happy about things.

I want somebody to explain to me why a group of posters still seem to react to the notion of firing the coach as if it's ridiculous. You've explained why you disagree, and that's fine, but I firmly disagree that being critical of the coach is a "distortion of reality." There are plenty of valid criticisms. There are valid criticisms of the coach that have nothing to do with our top picks!...

First the bolded part maybe should be telling to you.

Second, of course there are valid items to be critical of this coach. But most of the heavy critical arguments thrown against him to support the call for firing are made-up or misdirected.

Once again Lafreniere has been a “victim” of no normal camp and preseason, still his numbers through the first twenty odd games are in line with quite a few other 1OA who turned out very well. Let’s wait and see how he does the rest of the season and into the next to have at least some ground to put some blame on the coach.

Same goes for Kakko. He’s show a significant improvement from season 1. Couple this with how Chytil has been developing and what has developed from Buchnevich under Quinn over a longer time period to evaluate - it blows arguments against the coach as complete fakes.

 

[kovazub94]

How is it mental gymnastics? I've given you hard evidence that literally the only vet struggling is Zibanejad.

Somehow, Zibanejad and just Zibanejad turned into "the kids are struggling because the vets are struggling" but I'll get accused of cherry-picking evidence.

Funny (but not surprising) how you forgot Panarin missing 40% of the season and discounting Zibanejad’s struggles impact. These two are so far ahead of everyone else in terms of the impact on the team, but yeah the vets are fine.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

The lack of production from Kakko last year, and Lafreniere / Kakko this year is a plain fact that is obviously concerning. I struggle to ascribe this lack of results over a pretty significant period of time now to bad luck (be it in selecting overrated prospects or on-ice results). It seems much more likely that there is an issue somewhere in the organization. I have watched a lot of NHL hockey over the years...I don't claim to be an expert but the way these NYR top picks have looked and produced relative to other similarly regarded prospects is at best "fair" and at worst "very concerning."

Maybe I am being overly negative and impatient. Maybe I am failing to given sufficient weight to how different the circumstances are this year. But it's tough to accept that it is just bad luck...bad circumstances...not enough support from vets...however you want to spin it.

 

[Machinehead]

to me its about the locker room. a lot of the core "older" guys like mika, buch, kreider, strome have really taken off under him. even panarin has been more productive than ever before. this would be a move that really tells them they don't matter if we dump a guy they think a lot of because 2 kids aren't scoring enough points. to make a move like that on a team that at best was supposed to sneak into the playoffs - and in a one off year like this that really hurt us more than most teams, the random issues and injuries, they're not out of it with half a season. we're right where we expected to be, the contributions just arent what we thought would put us there. theres just nothing you can do to force kakko or laf to grow up faster. all you can do is try to put support for them in place off ice and provide a stable environment/ culture that makes them comfortable growing up in. a coaching change doesn't do that, creating division in the locker room doesn't do that. the production is going to come no matter what if the talent and drive is there, and all indications are its there in both.

i really think laf was hit in so many ways by how the last year has played out for who he is a a person. hes never really been away from home. if i remember right he didn't even apply for exceptional status, he wanted to stay home and play another year with his friends. he's not a robot like crosby or mcdavid, he's more of a kid in a lot of ways and those things make a bigger impact.

kakko ...look at a guy like barkov who went 3rd overall, was expected to be close to ready made due to his size, had played against men. it was 4 seasons before he really broke out. i dont think any coach would have expedited that much. superstars dont need to be told how to play hockey, there's little things they can pick up to improve marginally. but the big picture impact talent is there or it isnt, and it just took time for him to acclimate to a different game and develop physically. we all want to see them thriving now, but that they aren't doesn't mean theres a quick fix and to me the priority needs to be the overall team and the culture of the locker room. there's been no regression, i think next year is where theres an expectation for serious progress. unless the culture of the room calls for change sooner i think making one does a lot more harm than good.

Ok, great, this is a good point. Very nice!

Most of our vets have excelled under Quinn. I can't deny that. I will say that I think it goes back to my criticism that -by college standards- he's always been a vet coach. And if that's what he is, I think we have to ask ourselves what's more important.

And it's not that I'm looking for somebody to make them grow up faster. I just want them to not go backwards. They have. I'm sorry, I don't know what to tell you. They were supposed to be out-of-the-box top six forwards. Others have pointed this out: did the entire hockey world get it wrong or just the Rangers? Happens once, maybe the former. Happens twice, way more likely the latter.

And it isn't just "well we all feel disappointed but let's see how it plays out." No. If you do that as a fan, whatever. What else can you do? But if the front office isn't at least asking why this happened, then they're not doing their jobs.

People talk about this one and that one that started slow and then turned into a star, and I get that, but in terms of production, Lafreniere and Kakko are even way behind those guys. I mean, it hasn't been slightly disappointing, it has been historically bad compared to players in the same context. Again, I don't know what to tell you. It is what it is. Especially for Kakko who didn't step into that weird covid season.

And look, yes, I see the improvement with Kakko. I think some of what he's capable of is very exciting especially compared to last year. But his production has gone backwards from last year. He has to score. That's it. I'm sorry but I don't want Sam Bennett with that pick. I don't want a guy who carves out an ok career as a third liner. The offense has to get better. I'm spitting cold takes here.

Again, as a fan, what can you do? But from a front office perspective, this is not a "just be patient" scenario. The development of forwards has to improve and they have to address it, whether it's Quinn or not. We did the rebuild to develop elite forwards. If not, we could have just signed aging stars and lost in the playoffs like we've been doing forever.

 

[TominNC]

Theyre not going to. Collectively, they feel Georgie screwed the whole team by enticing the altercation with Tony. Okay, call me crazy, but no one can tell me that hasn't crossed many players minds. Could have and should have been avoided, one way or the other. Btw, WHO blew the whistle? Cant imagine Kreider running to Mommy and Daddy saying his brother got into a fight with bis other brother from another mother.
Seriously, who told?

You're crazy

 

[Tawnos]

I've got news for you, everyone does that. Everyone thinks they're right and uses the evidence that suits their point. But you're always defending the team so the onus is always on everyone else to prove there's a problem. Disproving is a very easy position to say "hey, I'm being the reasonable one here."

Let's shift it around. What has Quinn done that we should be excited about? What does he provide that previous coaches couldn't or that any other coach couldn't? Your response is either going to be moving the goal posts or cherry-picking the best things, because you'd be trying to prove a point. Everyone does that!

And this isn't even debate about Quinn. It's some semantics garbage about "I don't like the way you're presenting this." You're the usual suspect who always does that and it leads to nothing good.

If you want a progressive, meaningful conversation, then argue the f***ing points instead of defaulting back to your "I don't think you're arguing nice" spiel.

We can't discuss anything anymore without it becoming "oh you're one of those negative people so I'll just attack you instead of the point you're making."

What? I just addressed your points two posts back and you flat out ignored it. I addressed your points yesterday too, but clearly you forgot the ones you didn't ignore in the first place. Like I said.... all of the "what has Quinn done" or "how is Quinn good" stuff has been answered ad nauseum. Many, many, many times. And they've been stated directly to you. Same with everything you just said "nice points!" to. I shouldn't have to remind you of them AGAIN. That is *literally* what I was talking about. I'm 100% sure that if I did run down the list again, you'd be wondering again tomorrow. I know your criticisms, and others. Tell me, without sarcasm or passive-aggressiveness, what my answer to that would be. You know what? Maybe don't, because if you can't, your stance here is more than suspect... and if you can, then you're just a jerk. I have been harping on the way you and others argue a lot more lately, it's true. That's because I have the foolish hope that it might change and the quality of this place will go back to what it was. Luckily for me, I do have other outlets to have good conversations about the Rangers and hockey, with all kinds of disagreements and arguments. It's just too bad this one has almost entirely stopped being one of them.

For me, there's plenty to be critical of Quinn about. For example, he absolutely sticks with line combinations that aren't working for far too long and, in this case, he went back to one that hasn't been working all season. Recent example is KZB, although my frustration with that is somewhat mitigated by being intrigued by the kids' line. Guys who have earned their place with him get a long leash, and sometimes that leash is probably too long. Zibanejad is the current one there. He doesn't realize when his team is rattled and doesn't usually use timeouts to calm them down, which he should've done a few times over the last week. I think he probably wasn't as fully on the same page with Andersson and Kravtsov regarding their assignments to Hartford, which is a rare communication screw up for him. Luckily, it looks like the Kravtsov situation was resolved (and there may have been other factors in the Andersson one). And the amount of times we're getting poor execution from the players this season is definitely on him. The powerplay is an example of that. And why is Chytil still not getting PP time? The fundamental problem I have with saying "what can another coach do" is that another coach might not have the same weaknesses, but they'll have just as many.

I do *not* support everything the team does. I also thought we got too little for Stepan, paid too much for Nash, and shouldn't have acquired Yandle in the first place. I think maybe it seems like I do because things are relentlessly negative here and that's usually what I argue against. I will also explain things when I think I understand what the front office or coach is doing, even if I don't agree with it. Tanner Glass debates are a good example of "here's what they're thinking, and I get it," but as I stated many times, I would've preferred just about anyone else in the lineup.

Answer me this: what can Quinn do to stop Lafrenière from doing the kinds of things that I mentioned yesterday regarding him hesitating on puck pursuit? What can Quinn do but keep on drilling it into him and expect that, over time, he'll improve? What can any coach? Would it make you happy if he sat Kakko or Lafrenière in the press box or sent them to Hartford? It wouldn't make me happy if he did that and I don't think it would do either guy any good, so there's really no point.

I don't know why I wrote this much

 

[Machinehead]

What? I just addressed your points two posts back and you flat out ignored it. I addressed your points yesterday too, but clearly you forgot the ones you didn't ignore in the first place. Like I said.... all of the "what has Quinn done" or "how is Quinn good" stuff has been answered ad nauseum. Many, many, many times. And they've been stated directly to you. I shouldn't have to remind you of them AGAIN. That is *literally* what I was talking about. I'm 100% sure that if I did run down the list again, you'd be wondering again tomorrow. I know your criticisms, and others. Tell me, without sarcasm or passive-aggressiveness, what my answer to that would be. You know what? Maybe don't, because if you can't, your stance here is more than suspect... and if you can, then you're just a jerk. I have been harping on the way you and others argue a lot more lately, it's true. That's because I have the foolish hope that it might change and the quality of this place will go back to what it was. Luckily for me, I do have other outlets to have good conversations about the Rangers and hockey, with all kinds of disagreements and arguments. It's just too bad this one has almost entirely stopped being one of them.

For me, there's plenty to be critical of Quinn about. For example, he absolutely sticks with line combinations that aren't working for far too long and, in this case, he went back to one that hasn't been working all season. Recent example is KZB, although my frustration with that is somewhat mitigated by being intrigued by the kids' line. Guys who have earned their place with him get a long leash, and sometimes that leash is probably too long. Zibanejad is the current one there. He doesn't realize when his team is rattled and doesn't usually use timeouts to calm them down, which he should've done a few times over the last week. I think he probably wasn't as fully on the same page with Andersson and Kravtsov regarding their assignments to Hartford, which is a rare communication screw up for him. Luckily, it looks like the Kravtsov situation was resolved (and there may have been other factors in the Andersson one). And the amount of times we're getting poor execution from the players this season is definitely on him. The powerplay is an example of that. And why is Chytil still not getting PP time? The fundamental problem I have with saying "what can another coach do" is that another coach might not have the same weaknesses, but they'll have just as many.

I do *not* support everything the team does. I also thought we got too little for Stepan, paid too much for Nash, and shouldn't have acquired Yandle in the first place. I think maybe it seems like I do because things are relentlessly negative here and that's usually what I argue against. I will also explain things when I think I understand what the front office or coach is doing, even if I don't agree with it. Tanner Glass debates are a good example of "here's what they're thinking, and I get it," but as I stated many times, I would've preferred just about anyone else in the lineup.

Answer me this: what can Quinn do to stop Lafrenière from doing the kinds of things that I mentioned yesterday regarding him hesitating on puck pursuit? What can Quinn do but keep on drilling it into him and expect that, over time, he'll improve? What can any coach? Would it make you happy if he sat Kakko or Lafrenière in the press box or sent them to Hartford? It wouldn't make me happy if he did that and I don't think it would do either guy any good, so there's really no point.

I don't know why I wrote this much

I just had what I thought was a very constructive exchange with another poster where I addressed all of their points and made some concessions. This does happen and it happens all the time. When it doesn't, that's always my fault.

If I'm guilty of not addressing your points, it's because it always comes back to the same thing. At a certain point, I think some people only want to read nice things about the Rangers. I can't help you with that.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

I'm not trying to make you "happy" with Lafrenière's season. That's not what I want, because I'm not "happy" with it myself. I just think that pinning the blame on ANYONE misses what's happened here. It only becomes that way if you take out all context and all circumstance.

What you said about Quinn's college experience and about Chytil aren't distortions of reality because they're criticisms. They're distortions of reality because, in one case, it's taking what would indicate a strength of the coach and twisting it's meaning so it seems like a weakness in order to fit it into something you're not happy with, and in the other case, an outright fabrication.

Also, I call bullshit about the inherent bias here being away from criticism. Feeling negatively about the team has been the default position of these boards in the majority of the 15+ years I've come here. I know, because I tend to be an optimist and have been arguing with the pessimists the whole time. That's not what I'm talking about. It's not about positive or negative, critical or uncritical. It's about ignoring the conversation around you in favor of your narrative.

And MH, I hate to break it to you... *you* are one of the usual suspects.

The people blindly defending the Rangers have been way more irrational and dishonest for a few seasons now. I thought about muting MH a few times tbh but I see him at least TRY to be fair fairly often.

I don't see that attempt to be reasonable with certain guys on the "desperately defend everything the NYR do" side. What I usually see is them lazily making arguments with no substance and nitpicking something that completely misses the point while relying on strawmen and similar fallacies to waste everyone's time. Or they just laugh off opposing viewpoints no matter how reasonably they're presented. Then they pat each other on the back for a job well done and you realize you've been wasting your time with people who have nothing to offer except dishonesty and frustration.

There are also guys who are hyper critical who are equally dishonest like NYR, usekakkorightquinn, snowblind, etc. I no longer bother looking at their posts either...except occasionally snow. He's too funny.

There are a lot of people who i disagree with but I only put people on ignore if I see them being exceptionally dishonest. I had you on ignore. Maybe I jumped the gun on that but if you want this place to be better like you're saying in your other post you should consider if you're helping or hurting that by desperately defending the NYR no matter how reasonable the criticism.

And I KNOW I'm on a ton of ignore lists too bc I have no patience for BS anymore and have no problem arguing someone to death. So I am not saying I'm some kind of angel.

 

[Machinehead]

The people blindly defending the Rangers have been way more irrational and dishonest for a few seasons now. I thought about muting MH a few times tbh but I see him at least TRY to be fair fairly often.

I don't see that attempt to be reasonable with certain guys on the "desperately defend everything the NYR do" side. What I usually see is them lazily making arguments with no substance and nitpicking something that completely misses the point while relying on strawmen and similar fallacies to waste everyone's time. Or they just laugh off opposing viewpoints no matter how reasonably they're presented. Then they pat each other on the back for a job well done and you realize you've been wasting your time with people who have nothing to offer except dishonesty and frustration.

There are also guys who are hyper critical who are equally dishonest like NYR, usekakkorightquinn, snowblind, etc. I no longer bother looking at their posts either...except occasionally snow. He's too funny.

I was literally told the point I made last night wasn't worth responding to so I said to myself "ok lol" and went to bed. And now he's mad that I didn't refute "your post is not worth responding to."

If you're gonna get mad at me for harping on things, I can be guilty of that. If you're gonna get mad at me for stepping away and not saying anything, well, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Tawnos]

I just had what I thought was a very constructive exchange with another poster where I addressed all of their points and made some concessions. This does happen and it happens all the time. When it doesn't, that's always my fault.

If I'm guilty of not addressing your points, it's because it always comes back to the same thing. At a certain point, I think some people only want to read nice things about the Rangers. I can't help you with that.

Right, you do that, but again, the problem isn't having the conversation to start out with. It's pretending you didn't the next day or next time you come around.

I just got done making a post in which I criticized Quinn, Sather, Gorton, and AV. I have no problem reading or saying negative things about the Rangers when they're warranted.

Regarding your response to @2014nyr, I think you're right. The front office needs to have their finger on the pulse of what's going on. The thing is... I think they do. JD in particular is not someone who is likely to be sitting back in this, or any, situation that he's in charge of. And it doesn't sound like they believe, based on the things we've heard, that a coaching change is the right move right now. What you want to be happening is probably already the reality, and they have a different conclusion than you.

Regarding Kakko, his production hasn't actually regressed. His p/60 5v5 is higher than it was last year, but he's getting less PP time this year (one of my criticisms of Quinn). While his rookie season wasn't in Covid, this year he's still definitely dealing with the same adversity as Lafrenière. More, in fact, because was also on Covid protocol once with a false positive and then again with the virus.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

I was literally told the point I made last night wasn't worth responding to so I said to myself "ok lol" and went to bed. And now he's mad that I didn't refute "your post is not worth responding to."

If you're gonna get mad at me for harping on things, I can be guilty of that. If you're gonna get mad at me for stepping away and not saying anything, well, I don't know what to tell you.

I feel like this deserves a response but I'm too ignorant of the convo to have anything worth even half a shit to say in regards to that particular little back and forth lol. But I get walking away from a frustrating convo, that's for sure...so that's my pearl of wisdom? Christ I shoulda just stuck with hitting 'like' and shutting the hell up

 

[Machinehead]

Right, you do that, but again, the problem isn't having the conversation to start out with. It's pretending you didn't the next day or next time you come around.

I just got done making a post in which I criticized Quinn, Sather, Gorton, and AV. I have no problem reading or saying negative things about the Rangers when they're warranted.

Regarding your response to @2014nyr, I think you're right. The front office needs to have their finger on the pulse of what's going on. The thing is... I think they do. JD in particular is not someone who is likely to be sitting back in this, or any, situation that he's in charge of. And it doesn't sound like they believe, based on the things we've heard, that a coaching change is the right move right now. What you want to be happening is probably already the reality, and they have a different conclusion than you.

Regarding Kakko, his production hasn't actually regressed. His p/60 5v5 is higher than it was last year, but he's getting less PP time this year (one of my criticisms of Quinn). While his rookie season wasn't in Covid, this year he's still definitely dealing with the same adversity as Lafrenière. More, in fact, because was also on Covid protocol once with a false positive and then again with the virus.

Last night you posted a bunch of guys comparing their production to Laf's and I said that I thought it was worth mentioning that all of the guys you listed (except for one) played for teams that are terrible at development. You said it wasn't worth mentioning. Ok, so you just dismissed my argument and at a certain point you think what you think and I think what I think. So I just let it lie.

Today I was talking with other posters about David Quinn, and you're upset that I dismissed your post that wasn't directly about David Quinn.

What you said is that not every 2OA is a gamebreaker. Ok. They're not. What do you want me to say to that? What does that have to do with what we expect from Kaapo Kakko as an individual?

I don't know what you want from me.

 

[2014nyr]

Ok, great, this is a good point. Very nice!

Most of our vets have excelled under Quinn. I can't deny that. I will say that I think it goes back to my criticism that -by college standards- he's always been a vet coach. And if that's what he is, I think we have to ask ourselves what's more important.

And it's not that I'm looking for somebody to make them grow up faster. I just want them to not go backwards. They have. I'm sorry, I don't know what to tell you. They were supposed to be out-of-the-box top six forwards. Others have pointed this out: did the entire hockey world get it wrong or just the Rangers? Happens once, maybe the former. Happens twice, way more likely the latter.

And it isn't just "well we all feel disappointed but let's see how it plays out." No. If you do that as a fan, whatever. What else can you do? But if the front office isn't at least asking why this happened, then they're not doing their jobs.

People talk about this one and that one that started slow and then turned into a star, and I get that, but in terms of production, Lafreniere and Kakko are even way behind those guys. I mean, it hasn't been slightly disappointing, it has been historically bad compared to players in the same context. Again, I don't know what to tell you. It is what it is. Especially for Kakko who didn't step into that weird covid season.

And look, yes, I see the improvement with Kakko. I think some of what he's capable of is very exciting especially compared to last year. But his production has gone backwards from last year. He has to score. That's it. I'm sorry but I don't want Sam Bennett with that pick. I don't want a guy who carves out an ok career as a third liner. The offense has to get better. I'm spitting cold takes here.

Again, as a fan, what can you do? But from a front office perspective, this is not a "just be patient" scenario. The development of forwards has to improve and they have to address it, whether it's Quinn or not. We did the rebuild to develop elite forwards. If not, we could have just signed aging stars and lost in the playoffs like we've been doing forever.

i completely get its concerning how low the production has been. the organization should absolutely be doing everything they can to support the kids develop - and i do think the rangers bend over backwards to create a positive environment for them. but i just don't see how quinn is the problem. not when you've seen development in other players / the overall team. how much impact do you think edmonton or pitt had on crosby / mcdavid? they recognized they had superstars and let them run, but other than being able to spot the ocean from a boat those kids were actually just readymade. to me changing coaches puts basically 2 players ahead of the team. it changes the locker room dynamic. it creates a culture that resume is prioritized over contribution. i hate that they aren't producing like we all wanted / expected but i don't see any good from changing coaches because of it. again if in another year we're still in no mans land i think its an appropriate time for that change to come into play. at the end of the day as it relates to them, there's only so much you can do. they need to actually take control and become the players they expect to be. no coach was teaching pavel brendl to work harder and no coach was preventing crosby from becoming the best player in the world. to me the best answer is patience.

 

[Machinehead]

i completely get its concerning how low the production has been. the organization should absolutely be doing everything they can to support the kids develop - and i do think the rangers bend over backwards to create a positive environment for them. but i just don't see how quinn is the problem. not when you've seen development in other players / the overall team. how much impact do you think edmonton or pitt had on crosby / mcdavid? they recognized they had superstars and let them run, but other than being able to spot the ocean from a boat those kids were actually just readymade. to me changing coaches puts basically 2 players ahead of the team. it changes the locker room dynamic. it creates a culture that resume is prioritized over contribution. i hate that they aren't producing like we all wanted / expected but i don't see any good from changing coaches because of it. again if in another year we're still in no mans land i think its an appropriate time for that change to come into play. at the end of the day as it relates to them, there's only so much you can do. they need to actually take control and become the players they expect to be. no coach was teaching pavel brendl to work harder and no coach was preventing crosby from becoming the best player in the world. to me the best answer is patience.

I hear you. I just think Quinn is very into the whole "you have to earn things" outlook and sometimes, especially during a rebuild, letting kids f*** up to gain confidence is the better way to go.

At even strength, I really can't complain, but Lafreniere basically doesn't get meaningful powerplay time. He gets his 10 seconds chasing a clear with the second unit.

It's doubly annoying with our first unit being trash anyway. It's not like he's being kept off the ice by a 28% powerplay.

 

[Tawnos]

Last night you posted a bunch of guys comparing their production to Laf's and I said that I thought it was worth mentioning that all of the guys you listed (except for one) played for teams that are terrible at development. You said it wasn't worth mentioning. Ok, so you just dismissed my argument and at a certain point you think what you think and I think what I think. So I just let it lie.

Today I was talking with other posters about David Quinn, and you're upset that I dismissed your post that wasn't directly about David Quinn.

I don't know what you want from me.

I was going to say that this seems to be a misunderstanding. I did dismiss your point, but I gave you a good reason for it. That there are plenty of guys who played for teams who continue to be terrible at development who were really good right off the bat, so saying that most of those teams are bad at development doesn't inform anything. I didn't say it wasn't worth responding to: I responded to it. If I had left out the part where I said "no, that's not with mentioning" I still would've made the same point. If I worded it in a way that ended the conversation, I apologize.

You keep repeating that Lafrenière and Kakko were supposed to be out-of-the-box top-6 players. I showed you that 1OAs very often are not. Then I showed you that 2OA are even more often not. Did the Rangers promote them as being that way? Absolutely. So did every team that put a 1OA or 2OA directly into the lineup, and as we've seen, they were often overhyping them too. Hell, John Tavares was billed as a possible generational forward, but in his rookie season he was 261st in p/60 among forwards who played half the games (Lafrenière is currently 292). Although, Tavares isn't exactly the best example because he got a SHIT ton of PP time and scored 25 points there (seriously, he played over 4 minutes per game on the PP). He was NOT ready to be a true 1st or 2nd line C though. It's impossible to know how these two guys would look if they been getting PP1 time, but the Islanders didn't have any forwards on the team with the talent of Panarin, Zibanejad, Buchnevich, or even Kreider. The Rangers do, so it's a different situation.

At this point, we shouldn't still be referring to these guys by their PR descriptions.

 

[Machinehead]

I was going to say that this seems to be a misunderstanding. I did dismiss your point, but I gave you a good reason for it. That there are plenty of guys who played for teams who continue to be terrible at development who were really good right off the bat, so saying that most of those teams are bad at development doesn't inform anything. I didn't say it wasn't worth responding to: I responded to it. If I had left out the part where I said "no, that's not with mentioning" I still would've made the same point. If I worded it in a way that ended the conversation, I apologize.

You keep repeating that Lafrenière and Kakko were supposed to be out-of-the-box top-6 players. I showed you that 1OAs very often are not. Then I showed you that 2OA are even more often not. Did the Rangers promote them as being that way? Absolutely. So did every team that put a 1OA or 2OA directly into the lineup, and as we've seen, they were often overhyping them too. Hell, John Tavares was billed as a possible generational forward, but in his rookie season he was 261st in p/60 among forwards who played half the games (Lafrenière is currently 292). Although, Tavares isn't exactly the best example because he got a SHIT ton of PP time and scored 25 points there (seriously, he played over 4 minutes per game on the PP). He was NOT ready to be a true 1st or 2nd line C though. It's impossible to know how these two guys would look if they been getting PP1 time, but the Islanders didn't have any forwards on the team with the talent of Panarin, Zibanejad, Buchnevich, or even Kreider. The Rangers do, so it's a different situation.

At this point, we shouldn't still be referring to these guys by their PR descriptions.

You definitely make some valid points insofar as, when you really dig into the production per minute, Lafreniere probably hasn't been that far off the pace. I'm more disappointed by Kakko's production, but sure, same deal. And you're right that the billing doesn't matter. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how they're billed, how fast they develop, or what anybody else does for any other team. It matters what they do for the Rangers long-term.

My concern is just that they lack...OOMPH. Again I don't know how else to describe it but I think you know what I mean. Like I said before, I think Quinn is more into the approach of playing it long, teaching them this and that before you take the reigns off. But when it looks like players lack confidence, you'd like to see the coach build it more. That's why I bring up Quinn.

I get patience, and to an extent, there's no choice. But I just don't want the Rangers to be over-patient and chalk up potential real problems to "well, it's a rebuild, we have to wait" which could potentially bring long-term development damage on an individual level and as a team. The reason I bring up those teams who struggle with it is because I don't want to end up one of those teams with all those pieces that just can't figure it out, like Edmonton, Buffalo, Florida; go on down the list. Perhaps you just trust the Rangers more in this regard.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

I hear you. I just think Quinn is very into the whole "you have to earn things" outlook and sometimes, especially during a rebuild, letting kids f*** up to gain confidence is the better way to go.

At even strength, I really can't complain, but Lafreniere basically doesn't get meaningful powerplay time. He gets his 10 seconds chasing a clear with the second unit.

It's doubly annoying with our first unit being trash anyway. It's not like he's being kept off the ice by a 28% powerplay.

for real, i didn't complain too much about Kakko getting dropped from PP1 last year because it ended up being the best PP our team has had in 15 years. This year theres no f***ing excuse. The 1st unit is abysmal.

 

[DanielBrassard]

I was going to say that this seems to be a misunderstanding. I did dismiss your point, but I gave you a good reason for it. That there are plenty of guys who played for teams who continue to be terrible at development who were really good right off the bat, so saying that most of those teams are bad at development doesn't inform anything. I didn't say it wasn't worth responding to: I responded to it. If I had left out the part where I said "no, that's not with mentioning" I still would've made the same point. If I worded it in a way that ended the conversation, I apologize.

You keep repeating that Lafrenière and Kakko were supposed to be out-of-the-box top-6 players. I showed you that 1OAs very often are not. Then I showed you that 2OA are even more often not. Did the Rangers promote them as being that way? Absolutely. So did every team that put a 1OA or 2OA directly into the lineup, and as we've seen, they were often overhyping them too. Hell, John Tavares was billed as a possible generational forward, but in his rookie season he was 261st in p/60 among forwards who played half the games (Lafrenière is currently 292). Although, Tavares isn't exactly the best example because he got a SHIT ton of PP time and scored 25 points there (seriously, he played over 4 minutes per game on the PP). He was NOT ready to be a true 1st or 2nd line C though. It's impossible to know how these two guys would look if they been getting PP1 time, but the Islanders didn't have any forwards on the team with the talent of Panarin, Zibanejad, Buchnevich, or even Kreider. The Rangers do, so it's a different situation.

At this point, we shouldn't still be referring to these guys by their PR descriptions.

Please show your evidence for this claim.

 

[Tawnos]

You definitely make some valid points insofar as, when you really dig into the production per minute, Lafreniere probably hasn't been that far off the pace. I'm more disappointed by Kakko's production, but sure, same deal. And you're right that the billing doesn't matter. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how they're billed, how fast they develop, or what anybody else does for any other team. It matters what they do for the Rangers long-term.

My concern is just that they lack...OOMPH. Again I don't know how else to describe it but I think you know what I mean. Like I said before, I think Quinn is more into the approach of playing it long, teaching them this and that before you take the reigns off. But when it looks like players lack confidence, you'd like to see the coach build it more. That's why I bring up Quinn.

I get patience, and to an extent, there's no choice. But I just don't want the Rangers to be over-patient and chalk up potential real problems to "well, it's a rebuild, we have to wait" which could potentially bring long-term development damage on an individual level and as a team. The reason I bring up those teams who struggle with it is because I don't want to end up one of those teams with all those pieces that just can't figure it out, like Edmonton, Buffalo, Florida; go on down the list. Perhaps you just trust the Rangers more in this regard.

I think the big thing that separates us from Edmonton, Buffalo, and Florida is that we have a better prospect pool than any of those teams did, and those prospects are at different positions. Part of that is because we had more/better assets to sell at the deadlines (a result of starting the rebuild earlier on the team's downswing that most teams do). None of them ever had a group of 6 young defensemen of the caliber of Fox, Lindgren, Miller, Lundkvist, Schneider, and Robertson. Yes, those last 3 haven't made the NHL yet, but it's a numbers game.

All a front office and coaching staff can do is give young players the foundation and support they need to become the best players they're capable of becoming. The rest is going to be up to the player's talent and personal drive. I think if you asked Buchnevich (yes, he was still young when Quinn arrived), Howden, Chytil, Pionk, Fox, Lindgren, and Hajek if they've done that, they'd all say yes. With the exception of Howden, all of those players improved during their time under Quinn. I think DeAngelo falls into that group, but was done in by his personality. There have been hiccups and there will likely be more. Andersson is one.

If the coaching staff is giving the players enough foundation and support, which I feel like the evidence of the above players shows they are, and Lafrenière/Kakko have the talent and personal drive we think they have... it will all be fine with those guys in the long run.