Player Discussion David Quinn: Part II

[True Blue]

Yeah Gerard Gallant getting an expansion team in its first year to the Stanley Cup finals is proof that he can't get players to take steps forward?? Seriously-- that's your position.

1) Was that the youngest team in the league?
2) Where is Gallant today?

Seriously. My position is that Gallant would not do any better with this roster.

Trotz has elevated every single Islander player on that roster( and would have done the same here.)

It has been pointed out to you over and over again about how many Rangers have taken significant steps forward. That means that Quinn has some responsibility of elevating their game, no? Or do you believe that under Trotz the players referenced would be that much more developed already?

Wait- I'm now totally confused, you are saying Quinn has done such a great job elevating this roster but then in your next sentence you say the roster is "pretty much lacking." So which is it?

Try to comprehend. Look at the players that have been named. They have taken steps forward. That does NOTHING to change the overall lacking roster or their age.

Quinn has elevated the roster or the roster is lacking.

Questioned and fairly clealry answered. Unless you believe that Trotz would turn McKegg into a top-6 player.

That's as obvious as saying the sun came up today-- but you also are argue that the front office has all this figured out and knows exactly what they are doing with player development.

Yeah....and?

I'm struggling to follow the logic here and how you can possibly use this convoluted logic to defend Quinn and company....

Pretty sure this has been explained to you. Perhaps you need one of the silent majority to explain it?

Look at what Torts is doing in Columbus.

Is Columbus a veteran team or are they the youngest team in the league? Who are their defensemen? How many good defensive players do they have?

 

[Rangers in 7]

just to throw this in here but the rangers current average age is 25.7 which is now the youngest roster in the NHL. to put that in perspective the next youngest team is Columbus at 25.9...if you take out hank the average age drops to 25.18 and that includes a 33 year old haley and a 33 year old staal, if you take those two players its 24.4

this is by far the youngest team in the NHL, what Columbus has done is great but they only have 10 more points then this team and they are lead by a much older core of players, other then werenski, Dubois and Elvis (hahah) most of their young players haven't had much playing time

im not saying Quinn is a great coach right now or that he is doing poorly, but he is dealing with players who are very young

@True Blue @JHS @Tawnos

 

[JHS]

I'm not giving a pass. I'm saying he doesn't have players who are capable of executing the system competently and consistently. The on-ice structure, including a defensive structure, exists for players to grow into playing well. It was put into place last season. The thing now is not to blame the coach for why the players aren't immediately capable of playing within the structure competently and consistently, but to see if the coach is bringing players along to where they'll get there down the road. That's what's been happening.

You're pretty much the only person who thinks this team is under performing. And this is the fundamental difference. Jesper Fast is playing in our ****ing top-6. Brady Skjei is playing on our ****ing first pairing. We have, at most, 10 ****ing forwards capable of playing an NHL shift. We have 2 ****ing forwards who are defensively solid. We have a single ****ing D who is at all capable of shutdown play right now. If anything, the fact that this team is hovering around a playoff spot is evidence of overachieving... albeit overachieving because their top offensive players are dragging them along.

I' still convinced that you only think we're under performing because you didn't like Quinn from the beginning, before he even coached an NHL game. Nothing in this conversation has made me believe otherwise.

That's fair- I really am guilty of holding them to high standards but those standards are my own-- its not self serving to show how Quinn has not gotten them to that standard. It's totally fine to point out the gaps in the roster-- I agree totally with that, but this roster has strengths too!

 

[Off Sides]

The point about the Rangers D being the best in scoring, may go hand in hand with them also giving up a lot in their defensive structure?

 

[McRanger]

I'm at the point where I want the rangers to fire Quinn and hire Gallant just to put an end to this nonsense. Gallant isn't some magic bullet and is being made out to be some legendary coach by the way some speak.

I'm not saying he wouldn't be an upgrade but it isn't going to have as much of an impact on this team as people believe.

I understand your annoyance. Complaints about coaching (along with goaltending) are the easiest to make so they also tend to be the most common and the laziest.

But this team is also a mess defensively. And significantly worse than "we have a young D" messy.

We give up almost 35 shots a game. I'm looking at the last 30 years of hockey, and of the 853 seasons every team has had there are only 16 teams that have given up more shots per game than we have.

The teams ahead of us are an impressive lot. You've got some expansion teams (the first 2 years of the Sharks, the first year of the Thrashers) and some of the worst of the worst (the 14-15 Sabres, the Lindros year Nordiques) and of course the Rangers own entry into history, the year they gutted the team and fired AV. It would take a lot, but a key injury/trade or two and we might be in contention to catch 92-93 sharks for the most shot given up per game in history, a team that lost 71 games in one of the highest scoring years in history. Yay.

And the stats are awful (and the advanced stats are equally tragic) the eye test matches the awful stats: we dont back check, we dont defend the neutral zone or blue line and we are a mess in the D zone. If it weren't the offense going bananas (8th in goals for per game but 23rd in shots, seems legit) and goaltending, this team would be the worst in the league.

So while I can see how these wordy and repetitive discussions can wear on your patience and sanity, these aren't exactly idle concerns people are voicing. With all due respect to the "derp derp derp we hate every coach!" argument, I am surprised more people aren't concerned. I mean we are talking about one of the worst 2 year spans defensively in the last 30 years, which for most of this board is their entire lifetime. And even if you don't care about winning, the fact that the majority of our youth (Howden, Kakko, Hajek, Andersson) have not improved much at all, and a team with a young defense does not appear to be learning how to defend, then that should concern you.

 

[True Blue]

That's fair- I really am guilty of holding them to high standards but those standards are my own-- its not self serving to show how Quinn has not gotten them to that standard.

Perhaps after multiple people have pointed out to you the flaws in your standard, it is time to change the standard to one that better represents reality?

 

[Gardner McKay]

I understand your annoyance. Complaints about coaching (along with goaltending) are the easiest to make so they also tend to be the most common and the laziest.

But this team is also a mess defensively. And significantly worse than "we have a young D" messy.

We give up almost 35 shots a game. I'm looking at the last 30 years of hockey, and of the 853 seasons every team has had there are only 16 teams that have given up more shots per game than we have.

The teams ahead of us are an impressive lot. You've got some expansion teams (the first 2 years of the Sharks, the first year of the Thrashers) and some of the worst of the worst (the 14-15 Sabres, the Lindros year Nordiques) and of course the Rangers own entry into history, the year they gutted the team and fired AV. It would take a lot, but a key injury/trade or two and we might be in contention to catch 92-93 sharks for the most shot given up per game in history, a team that lost 71 games in one of the highest scoring years in history. Yay.

And the stats are awful (and the advanced stats are equally tragic) the eye test matches the awful stats: we dont back check, we dont defend the neutral zone or blue line and we are a mess in the D zone. If it weren't the offense going bananas (8th in goals for per game but 23rd in shots, seems legit) and goaltending, this team would be the worst in the league.

So while I can see how these wordy and repetitive discussions can wear on your patience and sanity, these aren't exactly idle concerns people are voicing. With all due respect to the "derp derp derp we hate every coach!" argument, I am surprised more people aren't concerned. I mean we are talking about one of the worst 2 year spans defensively in the last 30 years, which for most of this board is their entire lifetime. And even if you don't care about winning, the fact that the majority of our youth (Howden, Kakko, Hajek, Andersson) have not improved much at all, and a team with a young defense does not appear to be learning how to defend, then that should concern you.

We're also in a rebuild and most of the teams ahead of us are either entering contention or slowly exiting contention. We are lacking depth. So much so that we are giving Marc Staal regular minutes on defense and Brendan Smith regular minutes on offense. Quinn inherited those two.

I don't know that another coach would be able to get that much more out of this roster. Our two highest skilled players are having career years under Quinn, despite having played with significantly more talent elsewhere (that is at least true for Panarin). While I understand your concern regarding some of our players, lets not ignore what players have blossomed under Quin. Adam Fox is having an outstanding rookie season. DeAngelo is turning into an offensive dynamo right before our eyes. Lindgren has played well. Andersson isn't a Quinn thing, that is an Andersson thing. Kakko is a rookie just needs time, the same way guys like Barkov needed a season to adjust. Hajek needs more seasoning and Howden... this may just be who he is.

I'd like to see how we look next year with a hopefully deeper roster and no Lindy Ruff. Quinn may not be the guy who takes us to the promise land, but he certainly isn't the reason that we are where we are.

 

[Tawnos]

That's fair- I really am guilty of holding them to high standards but those standards are my own-- its not self serving to show how Quinn has not gotten them to that standard. It's totally fine to point out the gaps in the roster-- I agree totally with that, but this roster has strengths too!

Those strengths aren't on the defensive side of the puck, which is where this conversation has been focused.

I think people hear defense and think "defensemen" but our real issue is with the ability of our forwards to play effectively in the D zone. It's causing all kinds of problems in terms of team D, and when you have problems there, it makes everyone involved look bad even when they're not.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

We're also in a rebuild and most of the teams ahead of us are either entering contention or slowly exiting contention. We are lacking depth. So much so that we are giving Marc Staal regular minutes on defense and Brendan Smith regular minutes on offense. Quinn inherited those two.

I don't know that another coach would be able to get that much more out of this roster. Our two highest skilled players are having career years under Quinn, despite having played with significantly more talent elsewhere (that is at least true for Panarin). While I understand your concern regarding some of our players, lets not ignore what players have blossomed under Quin. Adam Fox is having an outstanding rookie season. DeAngelo is turning into an offensive dynamo right before our eyes. Lindgren has played well. Andersson isn't a Quinn thing, that is an Andersson thing. Kakko is a rookie just needs time, the same way guys like Barkov needed a season to adjust. Hajek needs more seasoning and Howden... this may just be who he is.

I'd like to see how we look next year with a hopefully deeper roster and no Lindy Ruff. Quinn may not be the guy who takes us to the promise land, but he certainly isn't the reason that we are where we are.

Good post. The only thing I'd add is Quinn is a young coach who is still developing. As players develop, so, too, will a coach.

 

[JHS]

Those strengths aren't on the defensive side of the puck, which is where this conversation has been focused.

I think people hear defense and think "defensemen" but our real issue is with the ability of our forwards to play effectively in the D zone. It's causing all kinds of problems in terms of team D, and when you have problems there, it makes everyone involved look bad even when they're not.

Yeah this is an excellent point! I really agree that team defense is an area that this team has a lot of work to do. It's fair too to point out how the forwards are not pulling their weight on defense. I will say though, what concerns me is the lack of focus this staff seems to place on team defense. I'll point to the issues this team has with puck management late in games as an example. In the Columbus loss, with 4 minutes left, there were forwards flying the zone, long range passes with little chance of connecting, a lack of "chip and chase" play in the neutral zone as examples of how I am not sure the staff is preaching a defensive responsibility mindset. It's these types of situations that I think are the root of my issue with the staff. I can point to 4 possible points directly the result of this mindset.

 

[McRanger]

We're also in a rebuild and most of the teams ahead of us are either entering contention or slowly exiting contention. We are lacking depth. So much so that we are giving Marc Staal regular minutes on defense and Brendan Smith regular minutes on offense. Quinn inherited those two.

I don't know that another coach would be able to get that much more out of this roster. Our two highest skilled players are having career years under Quinn, despite having played with significantly more talent elsewhere (that is at least true for Panarin). While I understand your concern regarding some of our players, lets not ignore what players have blossomed under Quin. Adam Fox is having an outstanding rookie season. DeAngelo is turning into an offensive dynamo right before our eyes. Lindgren has played well. Andersson isn't a Quinn thing, that is an Andersson thing. Kakko is a rookie just needs time, the same way guys like Barkov needed a season to adjust. Hajek needs more seasoning and Howden... this may just be who he is.

I'd like to see how we look next year with a hopefully deeper roster and no Lindy Ruff. Quinn may not be the guy who takes us to the promise land, but he certainly isn't the reason that we are where we are.

I realize I wrote a long post but I don't think I got my point across.

This team isn't "we are rebuilding" bad or "we are young" bad. Trust me, I know how young everyone is and how bad Staal is.

This team is "we are one of the worst in the last 30 years bad" or "we are one of the worst in Rangers history" bad.

This is a team that is on par defensively with those hilariously bad early 90s expansion teams and in some cases worse than them. The highest scoring year in modern history was 81-82 and the worst defensive team gave up 34.7 shots per game, which is .1 less than the Rangers give up. If we grouped all 100+ teams from 81-86 (which is not only the highest scoring era in modern times but the highest or second highest scoring era of ALL time) the Rangers would be 7th worst. Or you can look at advanced stats which are also atrocious. Or you can use the eye test and see how no one plays any defense, including forwards. Pretty much any metric works.

The only way these results are acceptable is if you think this is one of the worst defenses ever assembled, which seems to me extraordinarily far fetched.

Quinn has been on the job for a year and a half. How long until he "grows into the job" and realizes that the team needs to play defense?

 

[Tawnos]

Yeah this is an excellent point! I really agree that team defense is an area that this team has a lot of work to do. It's fair too to point out how the forwards are not pulling their weight on defense. I will say though, what concerns me is the lack of focus this staff seems to place on team defense. I'll point to the issues this team has with puck management late in games as an example. In the Columbus loss, with 4 minutes left, there were forwards flying the zone, long range passes with little chance of connecting, a lack of "chip and chase" play in the neutral zone as examples of how I am not sure the staff is preaching a defensive responsibility mindset. It's these types of situations that I think are the root of my issue with the staff. I can point to 4 possible points directly the result of this mindset.

You equate "lack of success" with "lack of focus by the coaching staff."

It's a false equivalence. Coaches can preach defensive responsibility all day long, but if the players you have aren't capable of quality defensive play, your team isn't going to play well defensively. If you have a young team who might not be expert at keeping their defensive focus for 60 minutes, you'll see breakdowns late in games, especially when there's the added pressure of it being a tight game with meaning for the standings. This is what people mean when they talk about "learning how to win." The thing is that, for a decent chunk of the roster, their incapability isn't the result of hockey abilities, but rather just because they're young and still learning how. Chytil, in particular, is someone who I think will become a solid defensive player as he gains more experience coupled with his continued improvement in turning that experience into play. He's not there yet.

But my point is that it's impossible, with our knowledge level on what's going on, to tell that the coaching staff isn't preaching defensive responsibility beyond what we hear in interviews and surrounding media... all of which say that Quinn focuses a lot on defensive responsibility. What we're seeing on the ice *could* be a result of not focusing on that, but could also be a result of roster quality... and we know where the roster quality is.

 

[JHS]

You equate "lack of success" with "lack of focus by the coaching staff."

It's a false equivalence. Coaches can preach defensive responsibility all day long, but if the players you have aren't capable of quality defensive play, your team isn't going to play well defensively. If you have a young team who might not be expert at keeping their defensive focus for 60 minutes, you'll see breakdowns late in games, especially when there's the added pressure of it being a tight game with meaning for the standings. This is what people mean when they talk about "learning how to win." The thing is that, for a decent chunk of the roster, their incapability isn't the result of hockey abilities, but rather just because they're young and still learning how. Chytil, in particular, is someone who I think will become a solid defensive player as he gains more experience coupled with his continued improvement in turning that experience into play. He's not there yet.

But my point is that it's impossible, with our knowledge level on what's going on, to tell that the coaching staff isn't preaching defensive responsibility beyond what we hear in interviews and surrounding media... all of which say that Quinn focuses a lot on defensive responsibility. What we're seeing on the ice *could* be a result of not focusing on that, but could also be a result of roster quality... and we know where the roster quality is.

Also very fair- I can't know if he's not focusing on it but I can see what's going on out on the ice and the results speak for themselves. I think you are a bit too soft on these players. They've had the best coaching for years and they know how to defend. Can they execute all the time( obviously no) but it's not like they are first year peewees just learning how to forecheck. I also have to hope this is the “we have not been practicing” version vs “ this is we practice this all the time.” If it’s the later— yikes are we in bad shape.

 

[Gardner McKay]

I realize I wrote a long post but I don't think I got my point across.

This team isn't "we are rebuilding" bad or "we are young" bad. Trust me, I know how young everyone is and how bad Staal is.

This team is "we are one of the worst in the last 30 years bad" or "we are one of the worst in Rangers history" bad.

This is a team that is on par defensively with those hilariously bad early 90s expansion teams and in some cases worse than them. The highest scoring year in modern history was 81-82 and the worst defensive team gave up 34.7 shots per game, which is .1 less than the Rangers give up. If we grouped all 100+ teams from 81-86 (which is not only the highest scoring era in modern times but the highest or second highest scoring era of ALL time) the Rangers would be 7th worst. Or you can look at advanced stats which are also atrocious. Or you can use the eye test and see how no one plays any defense, including forwards. Pretty much any metric works.

The only way these results are acceptable is if you think this is one of the worst defenses ever assembled, which seems to me extraordinarily far fetched.

Quinn has been on the job for a year and a half. How long until he "grows into the job" and realizes that the team needs to play defense?

With respect to the first two statements in bold, those are subjective statements and ones that I largely disagree with.

With regards to the second set of statements in bold, there is more to the game than shots per game. Significantly more. You can't just cherry pick where we are bad and use that as an example of why we are one of the worst NHL teams in history and why Quinn is a failure. You also have to admit successes and it seems (I could be wrong) that you only want to focus on the negatives.

Quinn has been on the job for a year and a half and has seen tremendous roster turnover during that time. He will likely see more this year, although less than last year. We have no depth. We are in transition and with all due respect, I think calling a team that currently sports a winning record one of the worst in Rangers history, simply based on shots against per game, is a gross overreaction.

 

[JHS]

With respect to the first two statements in bold, those are subjective statements and ones that I largely disagree with.

With regards to the second set of statements in bold, there is more to the game than shots per game. Significantly more. You can't just cherry pick where we are bad and use that as an example of why we are one of the worst NHL teams in history and why Quinn is a failure. You also have to admit successes and it seems (I could be wrong) that you only want to focus on the negatives.

Quinn has been on the job for a year and a half and has seen tremendous roster turnover during that time. He will likely see more this year, although less than last year. We have no depth. We are in transition and with all due respect, I think calling a team that currently sports a winning record one of the worst in Rangers history, simply based on shots against per game, is a gross overreaction.

No way is this team one of the worst in history. The talent level is extremely high and, while there are roster gaps that need filling, this team’s overall talent level is high.

Plus, how quickly we forget the dark ages of the 2000’s when the organization was pinning hopes in Blair Betts putting up huge numbers next season...now those were bad seasons with no hope in sight.

 

[Kaapo Bustfreniere]

With respect to the first two statements in bold, those are subjective statements and ones that I largely disagree with.

With regards to the second set of statements in bold, there is more to the game than shots per game. Significantly more. You can't just cherry pick where we are bad and use that as an example of why we are one of the worst NHL teams in history and why Quinn is a failure. You also have to admit successes and it seems (I could be wrong) that you only want to focus on the negatives.

Quinn has been on the job for a year and a half and has seen tremendous roster turnover during that time. He will likely see more this year, although less than last year. We have no depth. We are in transition and with all due respect, I think calling a team that currently sports a winning record one of the worst in Rangers history, simply based on shots against per game, is a gross overreaction.

Exactly. If you have a winning record and are one of the worst teams ever, how good do you have to be to be at least average?

 

[haveandare]

This team is at or above where nearly everyone predicted they'd be before the year started. Yes, there are areas that they are not good in and they should really be aiming to improve in. But overall the team is at or past realistic expectations to start the year.

 

[haveandare]

With respect to the first two statements in bold, those are subjective statements and ones that I largely disagree with.

With regards to the second set of statements in bold, there is more to the game than shots per game. Significantly more. You can't just cherry pick where we are bad and use that as an example of why we are one of the worst NHL teams in history and why Quinn is a failure. You also have to admit successes and it seems (I could be wrong) that you only want to focus on the negatives.

Quinn has been on the job for a year and a half and has seen tremendous roster turnover during that time. He will likely see more this year, although less than last year. We have no depth. We are in transition and with all due respect, I think calling a team that currently sports a winning record one of the worst in Rangers history, simply based on shots against per game, is a gross overreaction.

Not to mention it's pretty silly to be comparing shots against stats over decades as if they league hasn't changed in dramatic ways since then. You can't directly compare much of anything in this league from the 80s or 90s to today.

 

[Thirty One]

No way is this team one of the worst in history. The talent level is extremely high and, while there are roster gaps that need filling, this team’s overall talent level is high.

Plus, how quickly we forget the dark ages of the 2000’s when the organization was pinning hopes in Blair Betts putting up huge numbers next season...now those were bad seasons with no hope in sight.

I do not remember anticipating huge numbers from Blair Betts.

 

[Machinehead]

No way is this team one of the worst in history. The talent level is extremely high and, while there are roster gaps that need filling, this team’s overall talent level is high.

Plus, how quickly we forget the dark ages of the 2000’s when the organization was pinning hopes in Blair Betts putting up huge numbers next season...now those were bad seasons with no hope in sight.

That's exactly why it's alarming.

 

[Machinehead]

Yes, it's a rebuild, but they sucked donkey at shot shares when it wasn't a rebuild.

They've demonstrated repeatedly that they don't care about it as an organization and it's a really dumb thing to not care about.

 

[True Blue]

That's exactly why it's alarming.

It is only alarming when you start to conflate talent with developed talent. Saying that Kakko is extremely talented is a true statement. However, it is nothing but a cheap attempt to obfuscate. There is a world of differnece between being extremely talented and being extremely talented and further along the development curve. When compared to the majority of the NHL, the amount of fully developed talent is lacking. What this team is rich in is undeveloped young talent.

 

[JHS]

I do not remember anticipating huge numbers from Blair Betts.

Honestly no one did but it was the first name that came to mind when I think of those dark years!

 

[TheDirtyH]

Not that I have a horse in this race, but sometimes I do think about how we'd measure against the Red Wings of this season if Panarin had been 'just' a point-per-game player to this point.

 

[Thirty One]

Honestly no one did but it was the first name that came to mind when I think of those dark years!

I would've went with Jozef Balej!