Player Discussion David Quinn: Part II

[Machinehead]

WTF.. How about we just cut all the excuses and conspiracy theory BS for once and just INSTALL A SYSTEM THAT UTILIZES THE PLAYERS WE HAVE ALREADY?!

Win or lose, I'm sure we can ALL deal with that...BUT..Why it don't happen, you ask?

It's because DQ/JG are stubborn ****ing nitwits.

YES... It's really that ****ing simple..

Can't disagree this time.

I'm not expecting the world from this team. Playing a structure is prerequisite to participating in the National Hockey League.

 

[JHS]

Can't disagree this time.

I'm not expecting the world from this team. Playing a structure is prerequisite to participating in the National Hockey League.

AND something that can be expected from any NHL player regardless of age. Sure veterans will be more consistent but it’s fair to hold an NHL rookie to a standard that is above a Peewee who is just learning the game. By the time they reach the NHL they’ve been taught how to play a system before!

 

[NYR]

Can't disagree this time.

I'm not expecting the world from this team. Playing a structure is prerequisite to participating in the National Hockey League.

Exactly..I feel like the fate of this team is intentionally being compromised.

The first 2 years OK fine, we're retooling/ rebuilding blah blah whatever..But then you sign some heavy contracts yet can't even assemble a competent 4th line?

Wtf is this guy doing already?

 

[Off Sides]

I guess I see systems as more give and take, if they are going to give up less they are going to take less, we'd probably be talking about how they can't score instead of how they can't defend. Of course they should be able to defend a little better, especially in game situation, yet I also am not so sure them playing the trap every time they have the lead or are tied is really the solution to anything.

 

[True Blue]

I don't have this problem with anybody else.

Why don’t you list out points that you are hazy about and I will elucidate

 

[Machinehead]

Why don’t you list out points that you are hazy about and I will elucidate

If your response to "they shouldn't have historically bad shot shares" isn't "they're rebuilding" then what is it?

You brought up a young and untalented roster. If that's not referencing the rebuild, then I'm lost.

 

[Tawnos]

No @Tawnos actually offered insightful comments and we engaged in an actual debate- also notice how much civility we showed with each other even though we did not agree. I enjoyed that debate and I think he did too.

I can’t follow your response. I put forth a very good arguement about playing defensively responsible hockey in front of two young goalies. You responded by saying Columbus is older than the Rangers. I can’t even engage with that.

I think Torts has those guys playing defensively minded. Defense is a MINDSET that is established BY THE COACH!!! That’s the entire point here!!!

Columbus defensive corps ages...

27, 24,22,26 and 29... that’s 25.6 average

Rangers-
25,25, 33, 21,21,24 that’s a 24.8 average—

Please stop with this “defense is too young to play defense!

I offered insightful comments, but you’ve carried on as if I didn’t say anything at all. That’s not having a civil debate. That’s talking past the people who you disagree with.

Please don’t deputize me into that.

 

[stan the caddy]

They should get Laviolette. He's coached against the Rangers for years and his teams play hard. Tons of experience and imo he's never had anywhere near the best team to coach. He's not old either. I think it's crazy to have Quinn coaching this team when he has no experience. The roster has a lot of potential going forward.

 

[JHS]

I offered insightful comments, but you’ve carried on as if I didn’t say anything at all. That’s not having a civil debate. That’s talking past the people who you disagree with.

Please don’t deputize me into that.

I don’t really understand what you mean here. I directly responded to your comments giving you credit for making fair contributions to the thread and in fact even have given you credit for being able to make salient points that often did not agree with mine but somehow that’s still talking past the people I disagree with??I’ve got to be honest here— this place is really becoming almost impossible to have even a simple disagreement. I can’t even give people compliments around here without getting a hard time back.

If you mean “deputize” you as an attempt to make you an ally in my constant struggle with @True Blue- that was not my intent. The guy personally attacks me on here constantly and it’s totally out of line. Not going to apologize for pointing out how it’s totally possible to disagree with someone and still show respect— hence the reference to our debate.

Anyway, this thread is supposed to be about Quinn and his staff— not about the participants in the thread.

 

[True Blue]

You brought up a young and untalented roster. If that's not referencing the rebuild, then I'm lost.

It is referencing youth, lack of experience and some awful veteran play. Want to say that is part of a rebuild? Fine. Want to say that it is not? Also fine. But the fact remains that it is a rather large reason for what you are referencing. There are probably multiple reasons why you cannot name another team in your memory banks that ice a defense like this for a full season and was somehow competent. Or just iced a defense like that in general And that is before we get to forwards.

 

[True Blue]

I think it's crazy to have Quinn coaching this team when he has no experience.

What are you going to do when all of the experienced coaches either die out or get too old?

 

[Tawnos]

I don’t really understand what you mean here. I directly responded to your comments giving you credit for making fair contributions to the thread and in fact even have given you credit for being able to make salient points that often did not agree with mine but somehow that’s still talking past the people I disagree with??I’ve got to be honest here— this place is really becoming almost impossible to have even a simple disagreement. I can’t even give people compliments around here without getting a hard time back.

If you mean “deputize” you as an attempt to make you an ally in my constant struggle with @True Blue- that was not my intent. The guy personally attacks me on here constantly and it’s totally out of line. Not going to apologize for pointing out how it’s totally possible to disagree with someone and still show respect— hence the reference to our debate.

Anyway, this thread is supposed to be about Quinn and his staff— not about the participants in the thread.

I think if you looked at your discussion with TB and your discussion with me, minus whatever personal stuff, you'd find that you make the same exact points and many of the same points as my own are being made in response. In other words, it's the same argument and your understanding of the perspective of those who disagree with you hasn't grown at all. That's the root of much of the frustration here.

When I have a conversation with someone where we disagree and other people are around, I don't go to one of those people the next day and have the same exact argument with them. I know that internet message boards are susceptible to repetitive arguments, but it's irritating when it's coming from the same person.

 

[Machinehead]

It is referencing youth, lack of experience and some awful veteran play. Want to say that is part of a rebuild? Fine. Want to say that it is not? Also fine. But the fact remains that it is a rather large reason for what you are referencing. There are probably multiple reasons why you cannot name another team in your memory banks that ice a defense like this for a full season and was somehow competent. Or just iced a defense like that in general And that is before we get to forwards.

A defense like what? We have one of the best right sides in the NHL.

Yes, the left is sub-NHL level, but it's not a historically bad defense.

 

[Athor]

Screeching "they're rebuilding" at anything and everything is not a rebut.

Screeching total season advanced stats is just as bad and pretty disingenuous considering the goals of this team. They started out the season really badly with a ton of turnover & an incredibly young roster. Shocker. They've gotten better as the season's gone on.

 

[True Blue]

A defense like what? We have one of the best right sides in the NHL.

Yes, the left is sub-NHL level, but it's not a historically bad defense.

Who cares about sides? Yes, the right side looks good for the future but that does not really matter right now as DeAngelo is a very poor defender and Fox at this point is not so stout at defending either.

And in the context you mention, again name one other team in memory that for a substantial portion of the season had 3 rookies and a sophomore comprise the top 6? You cannot simply white wash that away. It matters in the context of the point that you are making regarding what is historically bad. I do not know if they are historically bad, but they are pretty damn awful. There are reasons teams do not venture into seasons with 3 rookies making up a D.

 

[Tawnos]

A defense like what? We have one of the best right sides in the NHL.

Yes, the left is sub-NHL level, but it's not a historically bad defense.

Maybe not historically bad, but the defense, in terms of defensive zone play, is pretty bad. Trouba is the only one capable of high quality defensive work in the role he's playing. As impressive as Fox has been as a rookie, he's not amazing in the D zone yet. I believe he will be in a year or two and he's obviously improving as the season goes along. Ditto Lindgren. DeAngelo is, at best, below average in the defensive zone. He makes up for that elsewhere, but that doesn't help when you think about defensive breakdowns, etc. Skjei is playing over his head at the moment. He's above average in the defensive zone when in the correct role, but he's not playing that role. We don't need to discuss Staal.

When you put all of that together with the lack of defensive capabilities among the forwards, you're going to have issues. And you're going to look very disorganized at times, which is our perceived lack of structure. The youth is improving, and as they do so does the team D performance.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

The team is young but I don't know how anyone can say the "structure" is any good

Gorton should be forcing Quinn to fire all his assistants this summer and get some guys in here that are actually good at what they do

 

[Tawnos]

The team is young but I don't know how anyone can say the "structure" is any good

Gorton should be forcing Quinn to fire all his assistants this summer and get some guys in here that are actually good at what they do

Yeah, well the issue I take with this is that I don't think it's possible to tell the difference between a young, overall defensively incompetent squad failing to execute a structure and said structure being poorly designed. There's evidence, though, that the defensive strategy they're employing has the potential to be good once the players are capable of executing.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

I honestly felt that our structure has been much better since Vancouver and in feeling that i think Quinn is finally getting through to the dmen and they are starting to do what he wants. But that's my opinion

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Yeah, well the issue I take with this is that I don't think it's possible to tell the difference between a young, overall defensively incompetent squad failing to execute a structure and said structure being poorly designed. There's evidence, though, that the defensive strategy they're employing has the potential to be good once the players are capable of executing.

The same could be said that there's almost a decades worth of evidence that the current defensive strategy being used by Lindy Ruff won't be successful regardless of what the players do

 

[McRanger]

I guess I see systems as more give and take, if they are going to give up less they are going to take less, we'd probably be talking about how they can't score instead of how they can't defend. Of course they should be able to defend a little better, especially in game situation, yet I also am not so sure them playing the trap every time they have the lead or are tied is really the solution to anything.

This is correct, there usually is a give and take. If you are a hard forechecking team that has defense supporting your pressure, you are more likely to give up an odd man rush. If you are a trap/counterattack team, you make things miserable for teams moving the puck but risk spending little time in the O zone if things don't work out. If you play a D zone scheme that involves a lot of pressure and shifting, you risk defensive mix ups, but you are in a better position to start a rush. Etc.

But I can't see any successful strategy that doesn't involve things like back checking or defending the blue line. Actually, scratch that, those things aren't even strategic, they're just the basics of defensive hockey. And the whole point of a Very Serious Coach is that, even if the team is devoid of talent and can't do anything else, they will do those little things.

 

[Tawnos]

The same could be said that there's almost a decades worth of evidence that the current defensive strategy being used by Lindy Ruff won't be successful regardless of what the players do

Assistant coaches don't do the heavy lifting in designing the defensive strategy. The head coach does that.

 

[Machinehead]

Screeching total season advanced stats is just as bad and pretty disingenuous considering the goals of this team. They started out the season really badly with a ton of turnover & an incredibly young roster. Shocker. They've gotten better as the season's gone on.

What are the goals of this team, exactly?

Having the puck occasionally should be one. (And yes, they've been better)

Who cares about sides? Yes, the right side looks good for the future but that does not really matter right now as DeAngelo is a very poor defender and Fox at this point is not so stout at defending either.

And in the context you mention, again name one other team in memory that for a substantial portion of the season had 3 rookies and a sophomore comprise the top 6? You cannot simply white wash that away. It matters in the context of the point that you are making regarding what is historically bad. I do not know if they are historically bad, but they are pretty damn awful. There are reasons teams do not venture into seasons with 3 rookies making up a D.

Again, Ottawa and Detroit just this year.

You're acting as if this is a historically bad roster. It isn't.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Assistant coaches don't do the heavy lifting in designing the defensive strategy. The head coach does that.

I'd be absolutely shocked if Ruff didn't have a big say in what they're doing

 

[Machinehead]

Maybe not historically bad, but the defense, in terms of defensive zone play, is pretty bad. Trouba is the only one capable of high quality defensive work in the role he's playing. As impressive as Fox has been as a rookie, he's not amazing in the D zone yet. I believe he will be in a year or two and he's obviously improving as the season goes along. Ditto Lindgren. DeAngelo is, at best, below average in the defensive zone. He makes up for that elsewhere, but that doesn't help when you think about defensive breakdowns, etc. Skjei is playing over his head at the moment. He's above average in the defensive zone when in the correct role, but he's not playing that role. We don't need to discuss Staal.

When you put all of that together with the lack of defensive capabilities among the forwards, you're going to have issues. And you're going to look very disorganized at times, which is our perceived lack of structure. The youth is improving, and as they do so does the team D performance.

Sure, you're going to have issues.

And even then, I think the first 35-40 games of this season were still below reasonable expectations.