Player Discussion Alain Vigneault Part VI

[Tawnos]

By the way, the Rangers are 5th in goals for during AV's tenure. 6th in GA. So, while Lundqvist has certainly been a big factor in his success, the offense that is driven by his system is a huge part of it too. Yes, the team has been deep. But cmon, 5th with a team that has no 70 point performances? One guy that hit over 65 once and two others that hit 60? 4th in GF last year without a guy breaking 60?

How does AV not get the credit for that?

 

[Irishguy42]

By the way, the Rangers are 5th in goals for during AV's tenure. 6th in GA. So, while Lundqvist has certainly been a big factor in his success, the offense that is driven by his system is a huge part of it too. Yes, the team has been deep. But cmon, 5th with a team that has no 70 point performances? One guy that hit over 65 once and two others that hit 60? 4th in GF last year without a guy breaking 60?

How does AV not get the credit for that?

Not going to take part in the arguments here, but I know the phrase "[insert player(s)] did it in spite of AV" will be a prime answer here.

I notice that when something negative happens with the team, it's because of AV, but when a positive happens, it's not because of AV but solely because of the player(s).

 

[Tawnos]

Not going to take part in the arguments here, but I know the phrase "[insert player(s)] did it in spite of AV" will be a prime answer here.

I notice that when something negative happens with the team, it's because of AV, but when a positive happens, it's not because of AV but solely because of the player(s).

I mean, I know. But it's baffling to me.

I do think there's a latent misconception out there that offense isn't really driven by coaching, but defense is 100% driven by coaching.

 

[ManUtdTobbe]

Offense is driven by talent, we've had LOTS of talent up front, we've been one of the deepest teams on F all through AVs tenure.
With that said, AV is not a bad coach offensively, he's OK. He's a bad overall coach though.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

I actually don't consider 15-16 to be an overachiever. That team was a bubble team on paper and performed like it.

Now, 13-14 was a bubble team on paper and went to the Final. 14-15 was a strong team on paper, but not President's Trophy strong. Last year was a bubble team on paper that finished 5th in the East (well inside of the bubble), had the 6th most ROWs in the league and the best road record overall. 3/4 years they outperformed where they should have been.

There's a reason why fans of other teams keep writing the Rangers off every year. It's hard to see because we're all so close to the team.

(Btw, who the hell are you? It doesn't tell us old screen names anymore)

Edit: you know what? The 15-16 team didn't finish the regular season as a bubble team. 4th in the East. The same number of points ahead of 9th as last year. They overachieved too... until the playoffs.

Saying those teams were "bubble teams" is not objective fact. Many people would disagree with you. I know I do, particularly with your classification of the 13-15 Rangers. Those were damn good teams with depth at every position and Lundqvist still in his prime. A team doesn't have to be flawless to not be a "bubble team", although you make it seem that way when you refer to those teams as such.

I don't think AV was doing a bad job at that point in his tenure. Those teams played like well oiled machines that had structure in the offensive zone. They could still cycle and forecheck at that point. Once 15-16 hit, it all fell off the rails, and it's not as if there were a massive roster overhaul between the 2015 playoffs and the start of the 2016 season. Yes, Hagelin was traded, as was Talbot. St. Louis retired. Those weren't game changers, though. They became a team that lived and died off scoring in the rush and Lundqvist's play. It seemed as though any semblance of an established structure was gone, and I haven't seen any structure from this team in two years.

Also, who cares what fans of other teams think? Most of them don't know their ass from their elbow in regards to teams that aren't their own.

 

[Edge]

And I think it's important to note that I don't think AV is some kind of God among coaches, or that he can do no wrong. Frankly, he can do quite a few head scratching things.

However, that's not really unique to him. Even exceptionally successful coaches, Scotty Bowman for example, are going to do things that fans don't like or agree with. That's in no way an attempt to put AV in Bowman's league or compare his level of success to Bowman's, it's merely to illustrate a point that if it can happen to guys who are considered the best of the best, it can happen to anyone.

With that said, I don't think AV is on the hot seat quite yet. They keep playing like this into November and we might have a different story. I would just caution that if AV is replaced, be it by Ruff or someone else, that person is going to have their own favorite players and pitfalls and there will be things to pick apart there too. I'd just be careful what you wish for.

 

[East Coast Bias]

The due criticism loses its value when it's delivered in rants that end with "he's the worst coach in the league" or "he's bottom 5 in the league"

Let's be honest. Everyone has their scapegoat. The people defending AV have their own whipping boy.

 

[Off Sides]

If management gave some sort of direction, whatever it may be, and coaching was going in a different direction, I think he may end up on the hot seat. To me at least it sure looks more like the direction is try to be good enough to make the playoffs, but also develop these players, while keeping the teams highest paid and most influential at least somewhat happy, AV has done all those things to this point.

It's not exactly the direction I'd like to see them go, I mean why not just pick a direction, but given those often counter to one another mandates what is he not getting done?

 

[Jersey Girl]

Do the people who want AV gone yesterday think our record would have been better the last four years with a different coach?

 

[Edge]

Do people who want AV gone yesterday think our record would have been better the last four years with a different coach?

I have to admit, I've never quite wrapped my head around that.

I look at the rosters the last five years and I'm not sure I see a substantial upswing with a great many coaches. I think it's certainly possible you'd have someone who got a few more wins, but potentially burnt out his time faster. But I'm not sure I see it as being a difference between winning a cup or two and not.

If anything, I've had more complaints about the roster than the coach. But that's just me.

 

[BBKers]

Do the people who want AV gone yesterday think our record would have been better the last four years with a different coach?

Maybe not overall wins, but I do think we could have gone further in the playoffs with another coach. Quite consistently. But this is only my personally biased opinion, hard to base it on a reality based "what if" facts. We will never know

 

[JohnC]

Adam Cracknell had an end to a shift where his line mates were going for a change so he dumped the puck in and forechecked till the next line came in for reinforcements. Then he went for a change.

I fully expect this coaching staff to coach that right out of him because they haven’t believed in sustained pressure and forechecking for 4 years now.

 

[ManUtdTobbe]

Do the people who want AV gone yesterday think our record would have been better the last four years with a different coach?

Depends which coach. But yes, with an actual good coach we would have had better results imo.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Depends which coach. But yes, with an actual good coach we would have had better results imo.

This is a very oversimplified and easy answer.

 

[Ail]

The only

Do the people who want AV gone yesterday think our record would have been better the last four years with a different coach?

I think the LA series goes to 6 or 7 instead of 5, and they maybe take game 7 against Tampa in the ECF. Would the regular season look too much different, probably not. Assuming of course hypothetical replacement coach doesn't make the same decisions AV did in those situations, which is not a given, but this isn't a question that anyone can definitively answer anyway. I think AV or the coaching staff as a whole made mistakes that potentially cost the team greater success, that is my opinion. That tied with his handling of roster decisions as a whole during his tenure has made me think very little of him as a coach and I'm not confident you can attribute enough of the team's succceses to him to justify the mistakes he has made. Which is if course also subjective and there are people here who believe he made the correct roster decisions, and any other coach would have done the same or similar so the fault lies more on the team.

In any case the discussion of "who would have been better" is a pointless one and detracts from critcisms of the current coach which at the very least can be justified by citing examples of why people believe he is not a good coach. Attempting to write off the possibility that AV did not coach the team well by asking an unanswerable question and then saying you can't suggest anyone who would have done a better job (and somehow back it up) doesn't make for a very convincing argument he did a good job. In the end noone is going to convince each other one way or the other about his past performance. You either believe AV's tenure here was a detriment or a success, and basing that belief solely on record and post-season accolades is a pretty simple way of looking at it.

 

[alkurtz]

There is likely not a single fan base that doesn't complain about how the coach neglects young players.

There isn't a single fan base that doesn't complain about how their manager uses their bullpen.

There isn't a single fan base, where if a team is struggling offensively, where the 2nd string QB is not the most popular player on the team.

There isn't a single fan base, in any sport, where a majority of fans doesn't believe the coach/manager should use a different strategy or question personnel decisions.

Personally, I think that AV is a top 10, even top five, coach in this league. Of course, I disagree with how he uses players, but I've disagreed with every coach and every manager of every team in any sport that I have been a fan of. As they say, hindsight is always 20/20. Yes, some decisions make you shake your head, but no matter who the coach, it has always been this way.

One thing that never comes into the discussion, certainly because we never really see it...we just intuit it. A good percentage of a coach/manager's job is not the on ice, on field stuff: it is the off ice stuff: handling 20+ disparate personalities and what goes on in the locker room, practice, team meals, the airplane....the ups and downs of a long season in results driven business where careers are finite. My impression, and this is just an impression, is that AV does a fine job here. Certainly, there are players (as there would be in any business with workers) who like him, hate him, and talk behind his back, etc. Casey Stengel once said the the key to success as a manager was to keep the 25% of the players who hate you away from the 25% who are on the fence (or something like that: the percentages might be off).

Sometimes we overvalue and fall in love with our own players. There is an enormous amount of talent in this league. I look at our team and, honestly, I'm not all that impressed. There are many teams with as much or more talent than us. We have a lot of good and very good players, but few outstanding difference makers. The heart of the team, HL, is aging. Without him we have come back to the pack. And yet, somehow we always make the playoffs. Last we, we overachieved. We are also trying to retool on the fly. AV is dealing with a really narrow balancing act. I think he is doing a fine job. From what I can sense, for what it is worth, I thing that he is on the same page as JG. They are trying to forge a team out of the pieces that they have. Yes, we can carp at what he does, that is the right of every fan, but I think, when we look at the big picture, he is doing a really fine job.

That doesn't mean that AV can't be fired. He likely will be is the team is out of playoff contention come January/February. Firing managers and coaches is the norm in every sport. AV has already coached this team for a long time, outlived a coaches normal lifetime. Sometimes, a different voice and tone is needed. It may be here, but not yet. But to disparage AV as an idiot, as incompetent, is misguided. I really don't think anyone else would have gotten more out of this team that AV has.

 

[Ail]

This is a very oversimplified and easy answer.

When the question posed is unanswerable to any degree of certainty, does the complexity of the answer really matter?

 

[Cassano]

I actually don't consider 15-16 to be an overachiever. That team was a bubble team on paper and performed like it.

Now, 13-14 was a bubble team on paper and went to the Final. 14-15 was a strong team on paper, but not President's Trophy strong. Last year was a bubble team on paper that finished 5th in the East (well inside of the bubble), had the 6th most ROWs in the league and the best road record overall. 3/4 years they outperformed where they should have been.

There's a reason why fans of other teams keep writing the Rangers off every year. It's hard to see because we're all so close to the team.

(Btw, who the hell are you? It doesn't tell us old screen names anymore)

Edit: you know what? The 15-16 team didn't finish the regular season as a bubble team. 4th in the East. The same number of points ahead of 9th as last year. They overachieved too... until the playoffs.

100% spot on, I agree with it entirely.

DrRecchi was my previous alias.

 

[ManUtdTobbe]

This is a very oversimplified and easy answer.

They question lent itself to such an answer.

 

[True Blue]

You can criticize anyone you want BUT if you are capable of doing a better job than why not do it? I have coached over 2000 games but I would look like a complete amatuer at the NHL level so I know I personally couldn't do a better job.

When did we decide that the right answer it equating criticism to being a professional NHLer? Does criticizing Girardi last year mean that this board is chock full of NHL defensemen?

 

[Mac n Gs]

AV is a good coach, but my biggest gripe is tailoring his style of play to the personnel he’s given. Offensively, he’s a brilliant coach and it’s impossible to deny that given the results he gets on the ice. I get annoyed with him because I hate how he coaches defensive hockey. We’ve beaten this horse to death, but the man-to-man system he wants to play needs everyone in sync always and leaves very little room for error. A tiny communication breakdown can leave someone wide open, and we’ve seen this happen repeatedly these last few years. With how the league has changed so much regarding speed, defensive hockey needs to be kept simple and structured. You need all guys in zone and in position to pressure the puck. You’ll still force turnovers and get your counterattack, but you’ll be less prone to teams outnumbering you down low and getting chances off in the slot. In the neutral zone, our biggest issues stem from our forecheck and breakout schemes. We send three guys deep on the forecheck, but down use our third man in to block the outlet up the middle. That overcommitment allows teams to beat you with numbers down low to break your forecheck and outnumber you in transition. On our zone exits, the man-to-man doesn’t leave people in position for that short outlet under pressure, so we chip it up the walls and hope our wingers can touch it to the guy that finally gets open in the middle. More often than not, we’ll see this picked off by the opposing dman, and we’re stuck in the zone for extended shifts.

Lastly, the PK. The soft, passive overload is such a stupid system now that gives teams way too much time to set it up and pull off royal road chances. The only forward we have that consistently pressures the point man is Grabner, and go figure he’s our best PKer. Otherwise, we’re reliant on someone picking off a pass to catch the other team on a counterattack. Defensive hockey today is all about pressure and taking away space from your opponent. Pitt’s won two Cups with it, Toronto and Carolina execute it perfectly, and more teams are starting to follow suit. I just don’t get how AV hasn’t at least tried to adapt a hybrid version of this in some fashion. We’ve seen countless times how teams can nullify us by owning our halfboards and negating our rush attack. He’s a smart guy, and the personnel is there now to run this style. He needs to do it.

 

[NickyFotiu]

When did we decide that the right answer it equating criticism to being a professional NHLer? Does criticizing Girardi last year mean that this board is chock full of NHL defensemen?

TB I do not want to fight with you. As I previously said you can criticize anyone that you like. I have disagreed with some things coaches do but I still realize they are 200 times better as a coach than I am. I'm merely making a general statement that anyone who thinks they can do a better than AV should go do it. I personally know I could not. Your question regarding Girardi is an apples to oranges question in my view because playing is a physical skill while coaching is mental.

 

[SA16]

The reason all fanbases complain about coaches is because the majority of them are not very good and all do the same things incorrectly. They keep getting jobs because they have experience and some have won which very often just has to do with the quality of their players.

Easiest thing to use to show this is 2 point conversions and fourth downs in football. It's already been objectively proven that coaches don't go for either nearly enough and they still make this mistake because they are way too risk averse and worried about getting blasted by the media if they try a more aggressive strategy and it fails even if it's correct. Another one is sacrifice bunting in baseball which has been shown should almost never occur yet they still do it all the time (obviously not considering the pitcher bunting which is a good strategy given they are mostly all inept hitters).

That's why I've said before whenever we hire a new coach my preference is for it to be someone completely new such that my reaction when it is announced is "who?". Any name you recognize as being a former nhl coach/assistant etc. is almost surely to be more of the same.

 

[IamNotADancer]

Just to be clear, you want to give credit to Vignault for his players scoring goals but want to absolve him of any blame for not playing certain players?

There is a difference between actively scoring a goal and preventing a player to play. Why should AV get credit for what a player does on the ice? The only thing Vignault can and can't do during the game is ice the players or bench them. If he benches players that shouldn't be benched and ices players that shouldn't be iced then you can be assured he can be blamed for it. I've lost my patience with this open mouth bubble gum eating buffoon last year, theres none left on my part. Not sure if Ruff is the better option but at this point I don't think the team would look any worse with Ruff as the HC.

 

[Tawnos]

The reason all fanbases complain about coaches is because the majority of them are not very good and all do the same things incorrectly. They keep getting jobs because they have experience and some have won which very often just has to do with the quality of their players.

Easiest thing to use to show this is 2 point conversions and fourth downs in football. It's already been objectively proven that coaches don't go for either nearly enough and they still make this mistake because they are way too risk averse and worried about getting blasted by the media if they try a more aggressive strategy and it fails even if it's correct. Another one is sacrifice bunting in baseball which has been shown should almost never occur yet they still do it all the time (obviously not considering the pitcher bunting which is a good strategy given they are mostly all inept hitters).

That's why I've said before whenever we hire a new coach my preference is for it to be someone completely new such that my reaction when it is announced is "who?". Any name you recognize as being a former nhl coach/assistant etc. is almost surely to be more of the same.

I think this whole thing is a load.

You can’t separate coaching success from player success.