Player Discussion David Quinn: Part II

[McRanger]

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.

There is more to the game than shots, that is certainly true. But what goaltending independent metric would you prefer? Lets be honest, shots against is like the most idiot proof statistic there is that shows you are doing something wrong defensively. If you are historically bad at shots you are probably, at the very least, very very bad at defense. That is why I looked at it, its like the first thing you look at when thinking about defense.

Lets face it, its not a coincidence that all of the teams on that list are awful defensively; its basically a list of expansion teams and teams that very shortly fire their coach. And us.

You also have to admit successes and it seems (I could be wrong) that you only want to focus on the negatives.

I'm focusing on the negatives because they are what concern me. And because I think they outnumber the positives by a good deal.

I regret even mentioning "developing" players in my post because I dont think Quinn is responsible for Howden sucking or Kakko coming along slowly or Andersson being crazy but I also dont think he sprinkled magic dust on Fox during training camp to make him the refined player he's been all season.

Otherwise, the offense has certainly come alive and the teams transitioning looks much better. A lot of the actual production is Panarin, but even when they aren't scoring you can see it is working. PP too. We aren't get enough shots or attempts (certainly not enough to think we are going to end 8th in goals for) but at least it looks like its clicking.

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.

This board was ready to dismantle the '13-'14 team and shoot AV to the moon after 3 weeks. We went to the cup that year. Wanting the team to play some semblance of defense after a year and a half isn't an overreaction.

 

[McRanger]

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?

One of the worst teams defensively. As in defense. They are 8th in the league in goals per game. Obviously they are not one of the worst teams overall. My entire discussion with GM is about defense and shots against.

 

[Machinehead]

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.

Zibanejad, Panarin, Kreider, Fast, ADA, and Trouba are not undeveloped talent. Those players alone should be enough to not be historically bad at shot shares.

No question there's a lack of talent through the whole lineup, but there's worse rosters in the NHL right now who are better at it.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

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.

I'm comfortable saying at the very least they'd be fighting for a top 5 spot. I find it hard to imagine where they would be sitting if Panarin went elsewhere.

 

[stan the caddy]

The roster isn't bad at all and the one area where it's weak is the fourth line which is essentially the coach's line. That line looks that way because he wants it to.

 

[JHS]

I would've went with Jozef Balej!

Wow— good call and classic case of “just give him one more year!”

 

[JHS]

There is more to the game than shots, that is certainly true. But what goaltending independent metric would you prefer? Lets be honest, shots against is like the most idiot proof statistic there is that shows you are doing something wrong defensively. If you are historically bad at shots you are probably, at the very least, very very bad at defense. That is why I looked at it, its like the first thing you look at when thinking about defense.

Lets face it, its not a coincidence that all of the teams on that list are awful defensively; its basically a list of expansion teams and teams that very shortly fire their coach. And us.




I'm focusing on the negatives because they are what concern me. And because I think they outnumber the positives by a good deal.

I regret even mentioning "developing" players in my post because I dont think Quinn is responsible for Howden sucking or Kakko coming along slowly or Andersson being crazy but I also dont think he sprinkled magic dust on Fox during training camp to make him the refined player he's been all season.

Otherwise, the offense has certainly come alive and the teams transitioning looks much better. A lot of the actual production is Panarin, but even when they aren't scoring you can see it is working. PP too. We aren't get enough shots or attempts (certainly not enough to think we are going to end 8th in goals for) but at least it looks like its clicking.



This board was ready to dismantle the '13-'14 team and shoot AV to the moon after 3 weeks. We went to the cup that year. Wanting the team to play some semblance of defense after a year and a half isn't an overreaction.

I appreciate this. Again, no one is being unrealistic to expect an NHL rostered player to be capable of playing defense better than historically bad. As was pointed out by @Tawnos, it’s not just on the defense— it’s a team wide issue where defensive responsibility seems to be a secondary priority on the ice even in close games in the closing minutes. I referenced the Columbus game frequently because I was there and I was shocked by how loose the team was playing with under 5 minutes to go. Even Breadman was flying the defensive zone the second the defense got the puck. To me, this highlights what my issue is with the current staff. Defensive responsibility, playing right in close games, managing the puck and keeping it out of high scoring chance areas, making the simple play— are all key elements to building a winning environment. Maybe Quinn’s preaching this, maybe he’s going over this every practice but if that is in fact true— which some on here want us to believe, than the message is not working and or this group can’t just accept the idea of making the tough play, the play that will win hockey games, and prefers the river hockey style because it’s just a more player friendly style. Either way, it’s time for the players who can absolutely be held responsible for knowing how to play hockey correctly accountable and for the coaches to instill a defensively responsible mindset into these young guys before the time passes them by.

 

[ohbaby]

My point about people missing my point is I think this roster would be BETTER with a better coach. You all want to give Quinn credit for making this team what it is and I look at this collection of players and say, we are under performing!

We understand your point completely, and what we are saying is that you're not being fair. You're not considering the age of this team, only the talent. No coach is gonna have success with a team full of youngsters at this level. Why do you think the organization is stressing patience.

 

[JHS]

We understand your point completely, and what we are saying is that you're not being fair. You're not considering the age of this team, only the talent. No coach is gonna have success with a team full of youngsters at this level. Why do you think the organization is stressing patience.

Again I just think that’s being way to soft on these guys and coach. Success is relative. I’m not on here saying Cup or bust- I’m not even saying playoffs or bust. This nebulous definition of what success is for this season is why we are in this debate regarding Quinn. If people have no set standards for how to judge the guy we are going to be all over the place. The organization is preaching patience because it’s a convient way for them to make the fan base passive and lessen the pressure on themselves to produce results!

This team has the talent to make it to the playoffs. They probably won’t and they probably will take the team apart again at the trade deadline so realistically they probably won’t make the playoffs. This team has the talent to play a sound defensive game( look- they are actually starting to play more sound defensively recently.). That’s why I believe they could have played this way sooner.

I think the only way to fairly judge a coach in this situation is-

1. Are we seeing progress in player development and structural learning by the players(some)
2. Is he putting in place a structure that will win games down the road( I don’t think so)
3. Is he developing youth consistently( mixed results here)
4. Is there a consistent approach to holding players accointable( he’s all over the place here
5. Is the team playing up to its potential( I think they are vastly underperforming but again this is where the greatest disagreement is)

So there you go— that’s how I’m defining success this season. I’d encourage others to define what success is for this team this season because it would be interessting to read why others are so forgiving of the obvious issues with this coach.

 

[True Blue]

This team has the talent to make it to the playoffs.

I think therein lies one of the basic fundamental differences between you and most of the people debating with you. And this goes back to the summer arguments.

You saw the signings of Panarin & Trouba and saw playoffs. Most of us saw that as a pie in the sky, everything needs to go right scenario. The much more realistic view is what you are seeing. A team that is likely far
closer to a lottery team than a playoff team.

Those that has completely unrealistic expectations see this team as underachieving. The more realistic view has this team either exactly where it was thought it would be or overachieving.

This is one of (not the only one) major drivers of how you view Quinn, pro or con

 

[True Blue]

Zibanejad, Panarin, Kreider, Fast, ADA, and Trouba are not undeveloped talent. Those players alone should be enough to not be historically bad at shot shares.

No question there's a lack of talent through the whole lineup, but there's worse rosters in the NHL right now who are better at it.

There are not many more rosters that are both as young and as overall low on talent.

 

[Machinehead]

There are not many more rosters that are both as young and as overall low on talent.

Over the sample presented, yes there are.

 

[True Blue]

Over the sample presented, yes there are.

Ok. I'll play. What rosters are younger and less talented?

 

[Machinehead]

Ok. I'll play. What rosters are younger and less talented?

The Senators

I'd argue the Coyotes are less talented than us and they're in the playoff race

 

[True Blue]

The Senators

Before we get into a debate about which team is younger, is this it? THIS is what you have to cite as how people are wrong about the talent level of this team??

 

[McRanger]

Where is there up to date info on the average age of teams? I cant seem to find anything.

 

[Machinehead]

Before we get into a debate about which team is younger, is this it? THIS is what you have to cite as how people are wrong about the talent level of this team??

There are worse teams.

I never said this team is good on paper. They're just not historically bad.

 

[Machinehead]

Where is there up to date info on the average age of teams? I cant seem to find anything.

They privatized that like all the decent analytics.

 

[True Blue]

There are worse teams.

I never said this team is good on paper. They're just not historically bad.

Funny, I never said that this team was historically bad either. I am rebutting the talent level on this team and if that talent level is to be considered playoff contender level.

 

[Machinehead]

Funny, I never said that this team was historically bad either. I am rebutting the talent level on this team and if that talent level is to be considered playoff contender level.

Nobody said playoff contender either.

We just shouldn't be one of the worst teams of the last 30 years at shot shares.

 

[Off Sides]

Where is there up to date info on the average age of teams? I cant seem to find anything.

I just manually did the Rangers, with some qualifiers, without Staal, Smith, Lundqvist, Haley, McKegg their average age is ~22

I know that is not very helpful, I was doing it more so to post something about my expectations of this season tied into them rebuilding.

 

[True Blue]

Nobody said playoff contender either.

We just shouldn't be one of the worst teams of the last 30 years at shot shares.

Ahem....

This team has the talent to make it to the playoffs.

 

[Machinehead]

Ahem....

This team has the talent to make it to the playoffs.

Ok, then it's the coach's fault they've been outshot 3:2 the majority of the season.

 

[True Blue]

Ok, then it's the coach's fault they've been outshot 3:2 the majority of the season.

Not really sure what you are out to try to prove anymore, to be honest.

 

[Machinehead]

Not really sure what you are out to try to prove anymore, to be honest.

That we have historically bad shot shares and we shouldn't. You're the one going around in circles.