Around the League '16-'17 Other Teams' Free Agent Frenzy

[kingsfan28]

Not so awesome anymore.

I think we can bury the greatest playoff performance of all time narrative.

 

[kovacro]

Looks like Papa Lou is getting the ball rolling in the Keeping JT court...Weight and Snow fired. (Never likes Snow) and their coaching staff has been awful.
So I guess when Lou and JT had that initial meeting a couple weeks ago, he got input on exactly what JT would like changed.
Papa Lou is in the GM's seat until they hire one and I'm guessing he has a plan...
And wasn't there some arbitration issue with DeHaan last year? Like a huge gap? He got 1 yr...And Lou tends to be old school, I"m guessing he starts with goaltending. Isles have 4 picks in the first 2 rounds and he might opt to use one to get a goalie and then do something with the defense and if they can shed some $$ thru trades, they ought to go after Carlson.

Heard on a radio interview yesterday, Lou mentioned both Snow and Weight are still with the organization.

I wonder if he dips back into the Leafs organization and poaches Sheldon Keefe as his next coach. Keefe has done a real solid job with the Marlies the last couple of years.

Or maybe he splashes the cash on Trotz.

They are not going to wait on developing a goaltender if JT stays so I think they would target someone like a Grubauer or Rinne in the offseason to show that they are serious about improving.

I hope the Isles can turn it around. Always liked them, guess it's the nostalgia in me going back to watching them in the 80's win those Cups and the talent that roster was brimming with.

 

[King'sPawn]

I understand this. That's why I'm saying he can be considered a good coach, but I think he has the personality of a loser by how he gets completely sidetracked into antics. Washington is beating them because the Knights are being outcoached right now. He's unstable.

Gallant is meta coaching. It's the game outside the game when his team is being beaten.

Sutter would do it in more subtle ways.

A loser coach is one like Tippett, and it showed in the Coyotes lockerroom. The whole "they wear the same colors as the refs" "it's us against the league" is a lot more criminal.

 

[Sol]

Gallant is meta coaching. It's the game outside the game when his team is being beaten.

Sutter would do it in more subtle ways.

A loser coach is one like Tippett, and it showed in the Coyotes lockerroom. The whole "they wear the same colors as the refs" "it's us against the league" is a lot more criminal.

It's a little bit elaborate, sure but everyone sees through it so in nature it's still the same. His team is completely sidetracked, because of his antics.

 

[King'sPawn]

It's a little bit elaborate, sure but everyone sees through it so in nature it's still the same. His team is completely sidetracked, because of his antics.

I guess I disagree. From day one people thought this team wouldn't make the playoffs, and the Caps have stars stepping up. Is this a case of being sidetracked or outclassed?

 

[Sol]

I guess I disagree. From day one people thought this team wouldn't make the playoffs, and the Caps have stars stepping up. Is this a case of being sidetracked or outclassed?

Why can't it be both? The games I watch when Vegas starts losing they start diving and going for cheap plays. Whether we agree or disagree, I'm sure it doesn't help the team to see their coach howling at the refs, and straying away from the game plan.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Why can't it be both? The games I watch when Vegas starts losing they start diving and going for cheap plays. Whether we agree or disagree, I'm sure it doesn't help the team to see their coach howling at the refs, and straying away from the game plan.

Here's the problem that I have, I honestly don't think you can differentiate between a dive and an actual fall, or a cheap play vs an honest play.

You've already demonstrated your knowledge of the game is a bit limited, so you to make outlandish claims about the coaching, yea, you are going to get called on it.

You say Vegas is straying away from their game plan, well, yea, they kind of have to, because it ain't working. Washington figured it out and like KP said, they have stars stepping up, that doesn't mean Gallant isn't a good coach and didn't achieve memorable success though and you are trying to act like it does.

 

[Sol]

Here's the problem that I have, I honestly don't think you can differentiate between a dive and an actual fall, or a cheap play vs an honest play.

You've already demonstrated your knowledge of the game is a bit limited, so you to make outlandish claims about the coaching, yea, you are going to get called on it.

You say Vegas is straying away from their game plan, well, yea, they kind of have to, because it ain't working. Washington figured it out and like KP said, they have stars stepping up, that doesn't mean Gallant isn't a good coach and didn't achieve memorable success though and you are trying to act like it does.

I can see clearly. Your perspective is different from many people so my understanding of hockey isn't limited, your interpretation of it is different first off.

And yeah I get that they have to change the game plan, but trying to dive and beat up your opponent hasn't worked since the super series.

 

[King'sPawn]

Why can't it be both? The games I watch when Vegas starts losing they start diving and going for cheap plays. Whether we agree or disagree, I'm sure it doesn't help the team to see their coach howling at the refs, and straying away from the game plan.

I'll just disagree. I don't think Gallant's tactics are different than any other coach in the same light. Even Sutter would bark at the refs.

The diving is always an issue, but I don't blame that on the coach. I blame it on the league where at worst you get a 4-on-4 situation.

The gooning it up... I can't really blame it all on Gallant. At this point you have to tell the guys to amp their intensity. Some cross the line. He has rats to work with, and you can't convince a pack of rats to stay away from the cheese.

I just think Gallant is the least of the problems, but it could just be a difference of perception.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

Cause he was out for an eternity? Did you forget how he tore it up just before his injury. It was completely reasonable and logical to assume he'd retain some form. You predicted one thing right out of a thousand that you predict wrong. Just because Vegas is in the SCF doesn't make him an amazing coach. He constantly *****es at the refs while losing his cool non stop, and whining to the media. He doesn't have any poise that a winning coach would have. He's never done **** in his career anyways for you to be kissing his ass. His team has lost all composure because of him.

He was more intent sending Reaves out the final few minutes of every game to injure the other team. He is a loser and will remain a loser. Once his team gets eliminated, at least You will still be there with both of your lips glued to his cheeks.


You and GoldenBear have no idea how to make a constructive argument without coming off like complete tools.

Again, you can't make it one post without contradicting yourself. I don't know what to tell ya' at this point, buddy. You've got some serious blinders on.

 

[Sol]

I'll just disagree. I don't think Gallant's tactics are different than any other coach in the same light. Even Sutter would bark at the refs.

The diving is always an issue, but I don't blame that on the coach. I blame it on the league where at worst you get a 4-on-4 situation.

The gooning it up... I can't really blame it all on Gallant. At this point you have to tell the guys to amp their intensity. Some cross the line. He has rats to work with, and you can't convince a pack of rats to stay away from the cheese.

I just think Gallant is the least of the problems, but it could just be a difference of perception.

Did Sutter ever goon It up ? I'm not being rhetorical.

 

[King'sPawn]

Did Sutter ever goon It up ? I'm not being rhetorical.

He didn't have the players Gallant had.

But there were many times the Kings' object was to wear down the opposition, and Brown and Stoll threw questionable hits. That's why for years people felt the Kings were built for playoff hockey.

 

[KINGS17]

He didn't have the players Gallant had.

But there were many times the Kings' object was to wear down the opposition, and Brown and Stoll threw questionable hits. That's why for years people felt the Kings were built for playoff hockey.

Big difference though between hitting everything that moves and doing the kind of stuff Reaves was doing at the end of the last game. As the coach of the Kings, I don't think Sutter ever employed those kind of tactics.

 

[King'sPawn]

Big difference though between hitting everything that moves and doing the kind of stuff Reaves was doing at the end of the last game. As the coach of the Kings, I don't think Sutter ever employed those kind of tactics.

Fair, but my point is Sutter didn't have a plug like Reaves

 

[kingsholygrail]

He had Westgarth.

 

[BigKing]

He pretty much banished Westgarth to the press box.

Sutter had Clifford and Nolan but they were never really goon it up when losing type of guys.

 

[Sol]

He didn't have the players Gallant had.

But there were many times the Kings' object was to wear down the opposition, and Brown and Stoll threw questionable hits. That's why for years people felt the Kings were built for playoff hockey.

Kings played the grind game and if they did throw questionable hits it wasn't in sequence. It was rare. I'm watching Vegas players go for cheap shots left and right When they begin to lose. Even McNabb wasn't this dirty as a king.

Sutter never resorted to cheap tactics like Gallant.

You don't think Clifford could play that game if the coach asked him to? Even carcillo was pretty tame in his short stint. Even Nolan.


I think the rare cheap shots is one thing but to make it part of your game plan is pretty cheap.

 

[Sol]

I remember the sharks resorting to after the fight brawls during the reverse sweep. They became unhinged and begun to lose the next three games after game 4.

I personally don't remember the last time a coach won a cup by employing cheap tactics. Some have come close.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

Let's be honest here: Stoll and Brown always played with an edge. Every coach employs those kinds of players. It was a bit more than "hitting everything that moves." Stoll, particularly, was always cup checking guys and generally attempting to aggravate. It's one of the reasons he was so effective in that checking role on the third line. Lombardi said it best: every army has their criminals.

Comparing the peak Kings to the current Knights is a bit disingenuous to start, though. Those Kings teams were clearly superior, and famous for their atypical composure. The only other championship team I can think of who matched that level of composure were the late 00s Red Wings. It's very unusual - even for championship teams - to play on that even of a keel.

 

[Sol]

Didn't Lombardi make that comment when he got Carcillo?

I think Gallant is a good coach when he's focused on the game. Where I think he's a loser is when he resorts to cheap tactics, and his cheap tactics are costing his team right now.

Stoll and brown have always played like that, the difference is Sutter wasn't whining to the refs and losing composure. Lastly, the Kings weren't going around trying to sell calls.


King had players who played on the edge, sure. And I want to know when that comment was made.. I think he got Carcillo for that reason cause Lombardi thought the Kings were soft.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Why can't it be both? The games I watch when Vegas starts losing they start diving and going for cheap plays. Whether we agree or disagree, I'm sure it doesn't help the team to see their coach howling at the refs, and straying away from the game plan.

To be fair they've been diving all playoffs. The gooning it up thing is relatively new as none of them had the balls to try it against the previous teams unless there was a ref there to save them.

 

[Sol]

To be fair they've been diving all playoffs. The gooning it up thing is relatively new as none of them had the balls to try it against the previous teams unless there was a ref there to save them.

I've seen it in all their games though. McNabb alone cross checked Kopitar in the face and then elbowed him.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I've seen it in all their games though. McNabb alone cross checked Kopitar in the face and then elbowed him.

The Haula incident too. But I thought you were referring Gallant's use of Reaves and line changes to put their 'thugs' out to goon it up at the end a la Ducks.

 

[Sol]

The Haula incident too. But I thought you were referring Gallant's use of Reaves and line changes to put their 'thugs' out to goon it up at the end a la Ducks.

I'm going all inclusive. But yeah, I don't think I've seen a team win who's employed a tactic like that. The coach gets distracted, the players get distracted, and are playing to hurt the opposition rather than tying up the score. It's cheap, only a loser employs that.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

I don’t think the Knights are losing because of their antics. It’s the other way around. Their antics are a result of their losing.

And they’re losing for a number of reasons:

1. They’re a system team, and Trotz has picked apart their system with east-west passing, constant backdoor pressure, and an old school four man neutral zone trap.

2. The Knights do not have the artillery to match Washington’s big guns. Ovechkin, Kuznestov, etc. are simply a tier above anyone on the Knights. They were outskilled by the Jets, too, but their system prevailed. With Trotz countering the system, the Knights have no rearguard, and therefore their lack of skill is exposed.

The frustration and goonery is just peripheral. They’re simply outmatched right now.