GeorgeKaplan
Registered User
I’d assume Messier’s Vancouver years and second Rangers stint are a pretty gigantic mark against anyone thinking he’d be a good coach or even front office decision maker
Confirmed with Link: David Quinn - New Rangers Coach (Officially official on 5/23)
- Thread starter Gardner McKay
- Start date
- Status
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
ReggieDunlop68
hey hanrahan!
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
imo the only thing that is a gigantic mark against messier is his lack of coaching anywhere at any level. and that imo is more a sign that mark has zero interest in coaching than to say he couldn't be successful. if he wanted to be a nhl coach then i have no doubt that he could have found a coaching job somewhere to gain experience and put himself on the list of teams looking for a coach
GeorgeKaplan
Registered User
Isn’t there a bunch of stories about him getting players traded from teams because he didn’t like them/“couldn’t win with them?” And the whole getting Linden stripped of the captaincy and helping run the team to the ground in Vancouver?
Edit: Regardless, his seeming lack of desire to put in any time as a coach anywhere besides at the NHL level is the real factor in all of this
I have realized one thing following Messier and the likes: Coaching, and leadership, is about two things: (i) having an idea of what works, (ii) getting people to do what you want. Guys like Messier but also say a Tortorella are experts at (ii). That is why they win Cups. The problem is that the best leaders per automatic becomes the worst leaders if their opinion on (i) becomes outdated, because then they get their teams to do the wrong things a lot and very consistently.
Messier didn't understand the trapping era. He didn't understand how cynical you had to be. He didn't catch up with the modern trends of the game. For him it was about wanting it more than the opponent. It had worked before to a tremendous length. The right approach post 94' was without any single doubt to hit the ice and be extremely disciplined and cynical and rather aim at playing 0-0 than anything else.
Jauffre
Registered Grandmaster
To add: He signed the big money contract with them. Then took #11 even though it was (unofficially) retired after Wayne Maki, who was very well-liked in Vancouver, succumbed to brain cancer.
Then he brought in Keenan and they both basically ripped the team apart until Keenan was fired. Messier didn't play well either. There's a reason why he's hated over there. IMO it probably didn't factor in too much, but still.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,075
- 40,935
I have realized one thing following Messier and the likes: Coaching, and leadership, is about two things: (i) having an idea of what works, (ii) getting people to do what you want. Guys like Messier but also say a Tortorella are experts at (ii). That is why they win Cups. The problem is that the best leaders per automatic becomes the worst leaders if their opinion on (i) becomes outdated, because then they get their teams to do the wrong things a lot and very consistently.
Messier didn't understand the trapping era. He didn't understand how cynical you had to be. He didn't catch up with the modern trends of the game. For him it was about wanting it more than the opponent. It had worked before to a tremendous length. The right approach post 94' was without any single doubt to hit the ice and be extremely disciplined and cynical and rather aim at playing 0-0 than anything else.
The "Wanting it more" is the biggest bullshit ever in sports. No, teams don't win games because they want it more. Especially in the play-offs, there's no such thing as wanting it more.
Well, I do think that everyone wants it about the same (though some people are hypercompetitive, and others just aren't, so it's not always equal), but the underlying sentiment behind "wants it more" is "plays harder." Some guys leave every ounce of energy they have on the ice/pitch/field/whatever and other guys play hard but don't necessarily give it absolutely everything they have. I know this to be true from my own personal experience, and while I certainly never came close to playing professional sports, I assume it's the same at that level as it certainly looks to be the case pretty often. Some guys, and buy extension some teams, it looks apparent that they're just playing with an extra gear.
So, when I hear people say things like Messier wanted it more, I generally interpret it as he just simply gave more effort on every shift than a lot of the guys he played against. Although, as I mentioned, I think there are guys even in the pro game that just don't have their hearts in it quite as much as some of their peers. So maybe he did want it more than those guys.
Quinn has a good track record with young D. Shattenkirk raved about Quinn who was his associate coach at BU and then his head coach at Lake Erie. McAvoy and Grzelcyk raved about him in the Boston Globe column.
The Rangers have all of those young D. Plonk. Hajek. Lindgren. Rykov. Day. ADA. They may be adding more D later this month. Skjei can be better. The development of those players will go a long way to determining how long the Rangers rebuild lasts.
The Rangers have all of those young D. Plonk. Hajek. Lindgren. Rykov. Day. ADA. They may be adding more D later this month. Skjei can be better. The development of those players will go a long way to determining how long the Rangers rebuild lasts.
LORDE
I am Lorde, YA YA YA
I finally voted in the poll. I voted “Love this”
Ultimately because it’s a complete departure from the NYR (and old guard) way of doing things.
I didn’t know nearly enough about Quinn and still really don’t... but as I have said... everything I have read has made me feel very positive and hopeful.
Maybe I’m just naive or a cock-eyed optimist like Billy Mumphrey.
Ultimately because it’s a complete departure from the NYR (and old guard) way of doing things.
I didn’t know nearly enough about Quinn and still really don’t... but as I have said... everything I have read has made me feel very positive and hopeful.
Maybe I’m just naive or a cock-eyed optimist like Billy Mumphrey.
haveandare
Registered User
I am not an Mess advocate, but his playing days have nothing to do with his decision making as a front office person.
eco's bones
Registered User
Three players I've heard or read Messier didn't like and didn't last long with the Rangers--Petr Nedved (who the Rangers later on brought back), Ray Ferraro and Vladimir Vorobiev. I have no idea though whether Messier was solicited for input on any of them by the coaching or management staff. It's quite possible though that he was asked for his opinions on players. Keeping in mind as well that Messier was the leader of the Rangers locker room for some great years and some not so hot ones towards the end of his career.
As far as coaching the Rangers Mark apparently made it well known that he wanted the job when it was given to AV. That's in part why Gorton made it clear right from the beginning that only those with coaching experience need apply. Mark might make a good coach if he put in the work and he might not. Coaching takes a lot of patience--I'm not sure his personality would be a good fit for the job--that's another why someone interested should find out about himself first--whether he's up to it or not.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,075
- 40,935
We agree on that then. Messier doesn't earn a chance as the coach based on his playing career. Every time we need a coach, the internet is full of "Hire Messier" crap though
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
I don't know of any players that Messier ran out of town in Vancouver. I guess he should bear some responsibility for Keenan's moves, being that he was likely brought in because of Messier. But even then, the moves during Keenan's era were unambiguously positive for the franchise, so even if we did attribute them to Messier, it shouldn't be a negative.
Linden wasn't stripped of the captaincy. He called a team meeting and gave up the C to Messier because, by his own account, he thought he would be second guessed a lot if he didn't and he didn't want that burden.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,075
- 40,935
eco's bones
Registered User
Mark was maybe the biggest reason why we won in 1994. When we got him in 1992 it entirely transformed the culture of the team. Not just his own play but he helped inspire players like Leetch, Graves and Richter to higher levels. I think there was a point though where the Cup success and all the glory that went with that went to his head. He was fading by the time the Rangers let him go and he went to Vancouver. When he came back the second time he was still a good player but not a great one and those last couple years he was often injured and very often a perimeter player who avoided a lot of the physical play. The Rangers locker room the second time around was too comfortable and complacent and he was the king of it. It was a good day when he retired. He should have done it at least two years previous. But again--he was the most instrumental factor in our winning the Cup in 1994. First came the good---then came the not so good.....but there was good. Shouldn't forget that.
I can't really speak that much about his time in Vancouver. The thing with Wayne Maki's number, Trevor Linden and other vet Canucks forced out, along comes Keenan and then after he's bought out--he re-signs with the team and then he sues the Canucks for a breach in his contract and wins. Not hard to understand why Canucks fans don't like him.
I can't really speak that much about his time in Vancouver. The thing with Wayne Maki's number, Trevor Linden and other vet Canucks forced out, along comes Keenan and then after he's bought out--he re-signs with the team and then he sues the Canucks for a breach in his contract and wins. Not hard to understand why Canucks fans don't like him.
A piece of advice (!): You gotta love it or be a sadomasochist. You make your own bed, Quinn will likely be here for a long time. If it turns out that you don't like him, you will get plenty of opportunity to find out and time to change your mind. Most likely we all will end up not loving the man, its that way with a coach. And once you start to not like a coach -- he will stand there in the midst of things all the time and you can't help but to think isn't this his fault, isn't that his fault and you will be annoyed every other second you follow this team.
The relationship between a hockeyfan and a coach often becomes the same as the one between a bull and a red blanket. But I wouldn't advice anyone to start to grasp for straws to hate on a coach, its much more fun watching a game and following a team without that red blanket in front of you all the time...
egelband
Registered User
- Sep 6, 2008
- 16,211
- 15,073
My thoughts exactly. Don’t know the guy. Won’t know what kind of coach he for a while. And that’s kind of appealing.
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
Mark Messier lacks the experience to step into the roles we've discussed. That's the beginning and end of the conversation.
Some of the other things, as to who he liked and who he ran out of town, specifically with the Rangers, are filled with a lot of rumor and innuendo that's been discussed (and discounted) on here and abroad several times over. I know the real answers aren't nearly as juicy, but that's most things that "leak" out of the sports world.
Some of the other things, as to who he liked and who he ran out of town, specifically with the Rangers, are filled with a lot of rumor and innuendo that's been discussed (and discounted) on here and abroad several times over. I know the real answers aren't nearly as juicy, but that's most things that "leak" out of the sports world.
- Status
