Player Discussion David Quinn: Part II

[GoAwayPanarin]

How to improve the defense in 2 not so easy steps.

1. Upgrade Skjei
2. Boot Staal.

 

[JHS]

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.

Well listen when multiple people come after my argument I am going to continue to repeat my points. Also, I often add in new points in my responses so as to avoid what you are talking about. I have no idea how this becomes about me. I'm just a poster just like everyone else here.

How does @True Blue not drive you crazy then? His entire post history can be summed up in “this team is young and rebuilding.”

 

[Tawnos]

Well listen when multiple people come after my argument I am going to continue to repeat my points. Also, I often add in new points in my responses so as to avoid what you are talking about. I have no idea how this becomes about me. I'm just a poster just like everyone else here.

How does @True Blue not drive you crazy then? His entire post history can be summed up in “this team is young and rebuilding.”

We’ve been posting together for more than 15 years. Both of us have been driven crazy by each other at various points in there.

I can assure you that his entire post history is not that.

 

[JHS]

We’ve been posting together for more than 15 years. Both of us have been driven crazy by each other at various points in there.

I can assure you that his entire post history is not that.

Got it. Well listen I’m happy to engage in debate and that’s what my intentions are on here. I’ll happily continue to engage with those that are interested— if not that’s cool too.

 

[stan the caddy]

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

There are always plenty of proven coaches out there. Very rarely do teams go to the NCAA for a coach...

 

[Machinehead]

Did the goalposts just move to an entirely different field? Concerned with the defense is completely different from claiming this defense is historically bad & the coach is the reason because our D are offensively capable.
We've lost a bunch of games where we outplayed the opponent statistically. Advanced statistics are heavily driven by offensive outputs because they require shots to have any data point. They have very little utility when it comes to defensive acumen or prevention.



xG numbers are better indicators than CF% (and it's still massively flawed). 25th in a "defensive" rate statistic seems pretty appropriate for this team right now.

The shot metrics are historically bad. That's not my opinion; that's how numbers work.

 

[Machinehead]

Me: "we shouldn't give up 35 shots a game"

HF: *chimpanzee noises*

 

[JHS]

Me: "we shouldn't give up 35 shots a game"

HF: *chimpanzee noises*

Been saying this same thing for 3 months now and I just keep getting hit back with excuses like “the team is young, the d is young, they are rebuilding,” etc.... I wish you more luck than I’ve had making this fairly obvious observation.

Keep fighting the good fight!

 

[Harbour Dog]

Me: "we shouldn't give up 35 shots a game"

HF: *chimpanzee noises*

It makes even less sense than normal to me.

You're literally just stating a fact and that you hope our recent uptick is indicative of progression under Quinn.

I don't agree that we should be pointing any fingers at Quinn yet, but I mean... you're just saying things that are true and then expressing the same hope that the rest of us have.

 

[JHS]

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.

There is evidence of a well structured defensive system working with rookies being played in Columbus just this year. The reason it’s hard to tell with the Rangers is the entire defensive system is almost impossible to figure out because it’s not being clearly implemented. It was obvious what Columbus was doing vs Rangers because Torts has them playing a fail safe NHL neutral zone defensive system( the trap) and has them playing more of a new aged in zone defensive system which is more of a hybrid of puck pressure all the time coupled with a protect the middle of the ice zone( allow the puck to remain outside the dots but swarm the puck the insitant it gets in a high chance area.). Columbus keeps winning games and it’s easy to see exactly why- because Torts is coaching to make sure his team has a chance to win low scoring games since they can’t score and have two rookies in net.

Sometimes this board becomes to focused on what the Rangers are doing and does not learn from what other teams are doing.

My belief on why this team has played below average defensively since Torts left( which I think was a huge reason why they played well under him) is because they’ve had Hank to bail them out( and he often did) so defense never felt like a priority. Well Hank’s best years are behind him and it’s pretty clear the organization is about to hand the reigns to rookie goalies. Defensive responsibility has to be a priority now. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the defensive responsibility level of this team increased dramatically when Hank started to play fewer games.

We will see if this continues or if it goes back to “the only time the Rangers win is when the goalie plays great,” type hockey in the second half.

 

[Athor]

The shot metrics are historically bad. That's not my opinion; that's how numbers work.

I literally just told you how the numbers work & which numbers are better indicators than shots. You're proving my point through this post, that you're ignoring the recent improvement of the team in favor of making them, and the coach, look worse.

 

[True Blue]

Deangelo is the only Sophomore in history to play 180 games and complete a 3 year ELC.

Fox is the first rookie in history to be the cause of a bad statistics despite being the best player statistically.

Lindgren and Hajek are the first rookie pair in history to only play 18 out of 48 games together but somehow count as full time players.

This is DeAngelo's second full season. None of what you are saying changes the fact that Fox, Lindgren and Hajek are in fact rookies.

 

[True Blue]

It's not just one metric.

One, ten, or a hundred. None of that changes the fact that one cannot view things with blinders on and completely ignore mitigating factors as you are doing.

He's accomplished nothing in this league

Pray tell, what do you believe that a coach who has presided over 1.5 years of this roster should have accomplished by now?

 

[True Blue]

There are always plenty of proven coaches out there. Very rarely do teams go to the NCAA for a coach...

That does not address my question. You pointed to his lack of experience. One can only surmise that you meant NHL head coaching experience. There are only X amount of coaches out there that have head coaching experience in the NHL. What are you going to do when all of them die out or get too old? Who will you turn to next if the only good candidates are those that have NHL experience?

Also, since there are proven NHL head coaches out there all the time, why don't we try to hire Ron Low again? Or maybe entice Colin Campbell? Want Jaques Lemaire to coach the team?

 

[True Blue]

Me: "we shouldn't give up 35 shots a game"

HF: *chimpanzee noises*

You: The team should not give up this many shots a game
HF: Have you stopped and to see if there are facts that would give logical rise to this?
You: This defense is historically bad
HF: Sure they started off slowly, but look at where they are trending
You: They should not be this bad
HF: Have you looked at this roster?
You: The team should not give up this many shots a game.
HF: Have you stopped to see if there are facts that would give logical rise to this?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

How to improve the defense in 2 not so easy steps.

1. Upgrade Skjei
2. Boot Staal.

Meh. That might help, but it won't be a magic elixir. I think, sans Staal, the talent level on the blue line is the best it's been in years. This team really just doesn't have many players that excel on the defensive side of the puck, and it shows. That goes for forwards too (and especially). I think you'll see an improvement when this team starts building legitimate depth in their bottom 6. A shooting gallery is tough to avoid when your forward roster is riddled with AHL-level players.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Meh. That might help, but it won't be a magic elixir. I think, sans Staal, the talent level on the blue line is the best it's been in years. This team really just doesn't have many players that excel on the defensive side of the puck, and it shows. That goes for forwards too (and especially). I think you'll see an improvement when this team starts building legitimate depth in their bottom 6. A shooting gallery is tough to avoid when your forward roster is riddled with AHL-level players.

Good post. I think one major knock (and this goes back to the AV years, as well) is the play of the unit of fives seems to lack cohesion when it comes to defending.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Good post. I think one major knock (and this goes back to the AV years, as well) is the play of the unit of fives seems to lack cohesion when it comes to defending.

Yup. And back then, with a more mature and deeper roster, there was an argument to be had about potentially tightening up the defensive play, which may stifle offense, but we're not there yet with this team. Panarin is the offense. The depth is still razor thin. Step 1 is funneling more NHL players into the forward core, particularly a few that can battle in the trenches and work to stifle the opposition's offense from time to time.

 

[McRanger]

This is DeAngelo's second full season. None of what you are saying changes the fact that Fox, Lindgren and Hajek are in fact rookies.

Deangelo has played in 4 NHL seasons. He has played 180 NHL games. He has completed his ELC. He is 24. He is not a sophomore by any standard. He wasn't even a sophomore last year. And he has been, at least statistically in his sheltered role, one of our best defensemen. So please stop using him altogether.

Fox is a rookie and has been, at least statistically, the best defenseman. So using him as an excuse for poor stats is nonsensical. He came to the NHL more polished than pretty much any Rangers rookie skater I've seen in ages.

Lindgren and Hajek have played about a 1/3 of the season together. And Lindgren has better stats than Trouba and Staal. Fox, Deangelo and Lindgren are 3 of the top 4.

And none of those 3 rookies played more than a handful of games, if any, last year.

So. For the nth time. 1) The defense is not constructed as you keep repeating that it is, not this year and not at all last year. And 2) The. Kids. Are. Not. The. Problem. Not counting Hajek anyway, the Hajek/Staal combo has been an absolute shit show. Otherwise Skjei and Trouba are our worst pair. And while they are definitely over matched or miscast in their roles, it would probably be a stretch to say they are one of the worst 1st pairs ever.

To clarify everything: I agree that this defense should be bad. 100%. I just think its likely we are even worse than we have to be, and that coaching is a factor. The defensive numbers since Quinn started are like expansion team bad. They've been significantly better the last month or so, which is great. But considering how impatient we've been with coaches in the past I find the loyalty to him after a year and a half both surprising and, frankly, bizarre.

So, answer a few questions for me, if you can. We all like what Quinn says. But what about his actual coaching does he do well? What part of the execution of his job inspires such loyalty? I'm asking because I wonder if he would have 1/10th the support on these boards that he has if he coached the exact same way but came off less like an old-school-no-nonsense-accountability-Very-Serious-Coach.

 

[True Blue]

Deangelo has played in 4 NHL seasons. He has played 180 NHL games. He has completed his ELC. He is 24. He is not a sophomore by any standard. He wasn't even a sophomore last year. And he has been, at least statistically in his sheltered role, one of our best defensemen. So please stop using him altogether.

Ok, but this IS only his second full season, is it not? Call him apple juice if you want, he is not a veteran presence.

And he has been, at least statistically in his sheltered role, one of our best defensemen. So please stop using him altogether.

If you were deploying him as our best defenseman (Trouba), his defensive statistics would go down the drain. We both know that looking at stats blindly, can obfuscate reality.

Fox is a rookie and has been, at least statistically, the best defenseman. So using him as an excuse for poor stats is nonsensical. He came to the NHL more polished than pretty much any Rangers rookie skater I've seen in ages.

Same here. He IS a rookie, whether you not you want to admit that. And again, start to deploy him like a true top defenseman, and stats go down the crapper.

Lindgren and Hajek have played about a 1/3 of the season together. And Lindgren has better stats than Trouba and Staal. Fox, Deangelo and Lindgren are 3 of the top 4.

Lindgre & Hajek ARE rookies, are they not? And again, same comment as the above three, though not nearly to such a great extent. And really, is comparing a finished Staal to anyone worth the conversation? Aside to illustrate how understaffed it is?

And none of those 3 rookies played more than a handful of games, if any, last year.

So the ARE rookies with little experience who made up half of the starting defense for quire a while this year?

So. For the nth time. 1) The defense is not constructed as you keep repeating that it is, not this year and not at all last year. And 2) The. Kids. Are. Not. The. Problem. Not counting Hajek anyway, the Hajek/Staal combo has been an absolute **** show. Otherwise Skjei and Trouba are our worst pair. And while they are definitely over matched or miscast in their roles, it would probably be a stretch to say they are one of the worst 1st pairs ever.

The. Kids. Are. Not. The. Problem. Only. Because. They. Do. Not. Log. The. Toughest. Minutes. That. The.True. Top. Defenseman. Does.

You really need to revist some of our past defensive pairs if you believe that Skjei and Trouba are among the worst ever. And does that mean that Trouba's play is among the worse ever? Or only when paired with his partner?

To clarify everything: I agree that this defense should be bad. 100%. I just think its likely we are even worse than we have to be, and that coaching is a factor.

I understand. I just disagree. And, for now, where we are going to have to agree to disagree. I do believe that Quinn has a structure. I also believe that the younger players need to learn how to play in it. And I think that they slowly are.

But considering how impatient we've been with coaches in the past I find the loyalty to him after a year and a half both surprising and, frankly, bizarre.

We have never had such a young and inexperienced team, that is also thin throughout the line up and really is not stacked with talent. To me, this team finished last year pretty much where I thought they would. They are currently either at or even surpassing my expectations. I see players playing hard for him and steps forward by younger players and vets alike. From that perspective, there is nothing bizarre about it.

So, answer a few questions for me, if you can. We all like what Quinn says. But what about his actual coaching does he do well? What part of the execution of his job inspires such loyalty? I'm asking because I wonder if he would have 1/10th the support on these boards that he has if he coached the exact same way but came off less like an old-school-no-nonsense-accountability-Very-Serious-Coach.

I just explained what I like.

 

[stan the caddy]

That does not address my question. You pointed to his lack of experience. One can only surmise that you meant NHL head coaching experience. There are only X amount of coaches out there that have head coaching experience in the NHL. What are you going to do when all of them die out or get too old? Who will you turn to next if the only good candidates are those that have NHL experience?

Also, since there are proven NHL head coaches out there all the time, why don't we try to hire Ron Low again? Or maybe entice Colin Campbell? Want Jaques Lemaire to coach the team?

They don't die out, lol. There's always massive coaching turnover. The Islanders of all teams hired a guy that had just won the cup. I floated the idea of Laviolette who's massively experienced and only two years older than boy wonder Quinn.

 

[JHS]

That does not address my question. You pointed to his lack of experience. One can only surmise that you meant NHL head coaching experience. There are only X amount of coaches out there that have head coaching experience in the NHL. What are you going to do when all of them die out or get too old? Who will you turn to next if the only good candidates are those that have NHL experience?

Also, since there are proven NHL head coaches out there all the time, why don't we try to hire Ron Low again? Or maybe entice Colin Campbell? Want Jaques Lemaire to coach the team?

You are literally insufferable. You fail to concede even the most obvious points. Experienced head coaches are the ones organizations turn to when they want to win games. Reference- literally every NHL franchise in history but more specifically - Toronto, Florida just in the past few years.That’s the point here. I can’t make it simpler than that for you. NCAA coaches are coaches teams turn to when all the experienced guys turn them down.

Regardless of the personal nonsense at this point— I GURANTEE your boy David Quinn does not give these guys the absolutely gigantic handful of excuses you give to them in each post— I guarantee he does not go into any locker room and say “oh it’s ok, you are a rookie, continue to miss execute,” I guarantee he challenges them to be better each shift and does not believe for one second that they should be allowed to make mistakes and fail to perform to the level he expects from them( which I believe I prett darn high.) Pleas do us all a favor and stop with the paved pathway of excuses you constantly provide here and buy into the idea that the team should be held to high standards. Otherwise, your defense of Quinn is disingenuous— because you are arguing o this forum the exact opposite of what I’m absolutely confident he is telling his players each game. He’s telling them “they are capable of playing better” where as you want us all to believe “this is the best they can play.”

Whether he’s the guy to get them to play better or whether he has the wherewithal to actually elevate their game is what’s up for debate in my mind. Please, not for a second do I believe that Quinn thinks like you do and is feeding them excuses. He absolutely agrees with those like myself who want this team to be held to a high standard.

 

[stan the caddy]

Gallant is out there too. Took a team of castaways with zero experience playing with each other to the cup in year one. Also only a few years older than Quinn. Has experience coaching three different teams.

We talk about upgrading the roster all the time. That's not an upgrade to the coaching staff?

 

[JHS]

Gallant is out there too. Took a team of castaways with zero experience playing with each other to the cup in year one. Also only a few years older than Quinn. Has experience coaching three different teams.

We talk about upgrading the roster all the time. That's not an upgrade to the coaching staff?

I think this is very interesting to consider. Coaching and elevating the capabilities of the coach needs to be considered in the context of “when” not “if.” To me, it’s absolutely the right move to bring in the experienced coach sooner rather than later. There is currently a real good crop of recently successful NHL coaches without jobs. My sense is that won’t be the case this time next year( just a prediction but Babcock, Gallant, Laviolette are likely not going to sit around unemployed for very long.)

The unfounded loyalty to Quinn may hurt this organization but I’m at least willing to endure the second half of the season. If the team shows marked improvement in the defensive structure, if we see more meaningful player usage, if we see more purposeful usage of accountability and if we see the team playing more responsible with the puck late in tight games, I may be able to see why the organization would overlook these experienced coaches who are out there. If this team still is playing a barely recognizable structure and flips the puck around the ice like a Sunday morning pond hockey game— it’s time for Quinn to go at that point. After 164 games and probably 200 or so practices, I think it’s fair to expect some better results.

 

[True Blue]

They don't die out, lol. There's always massive coaching turnover.

If your only choice is an experienced coach, eventually they die out. Then what do you do?

The Islanders of all teams hired a guy that had just won the cup.

So what? He was not Gorton's choice at all.

I floated the idea of Laviolette who's massively experienced and only two years older than boy wonder Quinn.

You mean the guy that just got fired, with one of the reasons that his players were not taking steps forward? Whose veteran team has all of 4 more wins than Quinn's?

We talk about upgrading the roster all the time. That's not an upgrade to the coaching staff?

Feels like I just had this very conversation somewhere.....hmmmm......