Player Discussion Alain Vigneault Part VI
- Thread starter Fugazy
- Start date
- Status
Bob Richards
Mr. Mojo Risin'
Loved Oscar. Was sad to see him go. Its cool to see him succeed so far.
I don't think he's going to shoot 28% for the rest of the season.
I don't think he's going to shoot 28% for the rest of the season.
Bob Richards
Mr. Mojo Risin'
Obviously there is a real hierarchy of coaches from good to bad, but in all my years reading this site I do find it rather alarming how many overlap complications bad/once liked coaches have with each other.
-No ability to adjust to in game changes/square peg-round hole method
-Bias against rookies and young players over vets.
-A fascination with one particular player who probably shouldn't even be in the league etc.
Then again, I suppose there is only a finite amount of ways a coach/player can be flawed, though I got my eye on Zac Rinaldo at all times. You never know.
-No ability to adjust to in game changes/square peg-round hole method
-Bias against rookies and young players over vets.
-A fascination with one particular player who probably shouldn't even be in the league etc.
Then again, I suppose there is only a finite amount of ways a coach/player can be flawed, though I got my eye on Zac Rinaldo at all times. You never know.
We should've anticipated the situation and registered him as a defenceman and Holden as a forward. Give them a few meaningless shifts over a couple of games and voila!
Larrybiv
We're CLEAN, we PROMISE!
That is actually BRILLIANT! My 2 questions are.....would that have been regarded as "legal" in the eyes of the NHL and.....
Why couldn't our "braintrust" (lmao) have thought of that?
Upon further thinking......it's just a damned shame that Oscar had those hip injuries, had he not maybe he would've really flourished to the point of placing someone else unprotected. Would he have been a better bet than Hayes? I dunno.
Larrybiv
We're CLEAN, we PROMISE!
Maybe catch a Flames game? Oh yeah, that's right.......that was a few years ago.
Blueshirt Special
Shady Brey
My point is that AV did not play him enough to make a proper eval. I know he was hurt and lost some time there, but we really never saw enough of him when he was healthy.
Larrybiv
We're CLEAN, we PROMISE!
For me, it's as simple as this. Be ready from the drop of the puck. Just about every game we have lost, we have given up the 1st goal (and an early goal, at that!). Now, no hockey fan believes the result of a game can be determined by giving up "just 1 goal", but maybe everyone here will agree that giving up that early 1st goal has seeped into the collective thoughts of each and every Rangers player......eg. "here we go again".
Chasing the game (and score) doesn't allow this team to play to it's capabilities. We have a fast team, but as of right now, NOT a good defensive team. Down 1 zip, before we even get settled in changes the complexion of the game from the getgo.
Just watch the 1st shift AFTER allowing that 1st goal. They aren't pissed off and come hard the next shift. That is on AV, there's no fight! There seems to be no "leadership" offensively which leads me to McD. He is just not the kind of leader that we need.
Goaltending needs to be BIG early on, and Hank simply isn't cutting it. If he makes these saves early, we eventually take the lead and then quite the different result.
I still believe we will right the ship.....still too early, and firing AV (even if we lose to Vegas) would be the wrong move. Despite his misgivings, you don't know what you have until you lose it. See Torts.
Chasing the game (and score) doesn't allow this team to play to it's capabilities. We have a fast team, but as of right now, NOT a good defensive team. Down 1 zip, before we even get settled in changes the complexion of the game from the getgo.
Just watch the 1st shift AFTER allowing that 1st goal. They aren't pissed off and come hard the next shift. That is on AV, there's no fight! There seems to be no "leadership" offensively which leads me to McD. He is just not the kind of leader that we need.
Goaltending needs to be BIG early on, and Hank simply isn't cutting it. If he makes these saves early, we eventually take the lead and then quite the different result.
I still believe we will right the ship.....still too early, and firing AV (even if we lose to Vegas) would be the wrong move. Despite his misgivings, you don't know what you have until you lose it. See Torts.
I would have let Holden go without a second thought. Or was there a set amount of defensemen that needed to be protected?
The team is at long last what AV wanted all along. A homogeneous group that wants nothing else but pond hockey, with no memory of what a body check is. In short, any remainder of Torts is gone and the team is completely remade in AV's image. The only issue for him is that he does not have a top-5 goalie to bail him out now. If Henke was stealing games, AV would happy with the offense.
Mac n Gs
Drury plz
- Jan 17, 2014
- 22,840
- 13,580
We had to to 7-3-1 because of Staal’s NMC. There was really no way around losing Lindberg, and I still choose Fast over him ten times out of ten
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
Revel
Dark Sky Enthusiast
A+ for creativity!
I wonder if the NHL has rules in place to prevent this from occurring? (i.e. - If a player spent 75% of his time as a Forward the prior season...he could not be registered as a D-man).
In any case, kudos on a great idea.
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
All Gorton had to do was what nearly every other team did and offer GMGM peanuts so he would take someone else. I wasn't impressed with his use of leverage. Of course the Rangers would have given up the first they used to take Chytil instead so we're probably better off anyway.
SA16
Sixstring
Wouldn't exactly be peanuts it would have been like trading a 2nd round pick to keep a 4th line center.
haveandare
Registered User
Inferno
Registered User
then they'd take someone else..Grabner..Fasth..Raanta.
they arent taking nobody.
so whats worse....losing OL...or Losing Fasth + a 3rd.
I'd rather lose OL
haveandare
Registered User
I could be totally wrong here, but couldn't we have given them a third to have them pick some garbage AHLer?
Chimpradamus
Registered User
I don't understand how Vigneault can keep his job after the Vegas game. Sure, it was a win, but it was an incredibly ugly win. Lundqvist allowed 4 goals, despite making a ton of heroic saves and looking really sharp. The man to man defense was, as basically always, simply torn to shreds by a speedy opponent. The dice of the Vigneault lineup machine ended up on the KZB line, which saved the game.
How many games must it take before management understands Vigneault and his f***ing man to man defense needs to go? It's brutal, it's like watching a train wreck every night. All the man to man defense can defend against is Arizona and I'm sorry, but there are 30 other teams out there.
How many games must it take before management understands Vigneault and his f***ing man to man defense needs to go? It's brutal, it's like watching a train wreck every night. All the man to man defense can defend against is Arizona and I'm sorry, but there are 30 other teams out there.
Maineice11
Registered User
I thought after that game he would be relieved of his coaching duties, but I think it has been delayed because of the NYC attack because that would add a lot of emotions on top of emotions the players already feel. And, I read this yesterday...
https://www.sny.tv/rangers/news/wha...-the-rangers-and-what-they-might-do/260214484
From what i have read about Gorton over the couple of years since he became GM, I understand him to be someone that is patient, which is a positive and negative, you avoid making knee jerk decisions that would cause more harm than good, but then you can also wait too long and not do as well in a trade as you could have. So as much as I want AV gone, I have been seeing problems in his system and the lack of emotions in games over the last couple seasons, I can understand Gorton's thought process. I would have to think if they can not win 2 games in a row soon, AV will be relieved of his coaching duties.
haveandare
Registered User
Coaches wear out. It’s happening here. A trade won’t change that. I like JG a lot most of the time but making a trade to avoid a coaching change here is a really dumb idea. AV lasted a long time by modern NHL standards, but it’s time to move on.
Maineice11
Registered User
I 100% agree with you. It is time for a new voice in that room.
He kept his job because of the result, not the performance. It should be the other way around really.
... and like I've said before - they won't fire AV, because firing AV would be admitting it was a mistake to extend the gum addicted doofus in the first place.
... and like I've said before - they won't fire AV, because firing AV would be admitting it was a mistake to extend the gum addicted doofus in the first place.
Larrybiv
We're CLEAN, we PROMISE!
May be so, but the ideal time for him to go would've been BEFORE extending him. Seems the players weren't "all aboard" with him getting that extension. Something like.....we have him for another 2 years? Or, "I don't mind, he's kind of easy on us".
That's unacceptable from a players standpoint. Seems there is not enough accountability for some players and too much for some others. What I think is .....Veterans get passes, rookies and the likes get destroyed. Needs to be more middle ground, but what do I know?
- Status
