Player Discussion David Quinn: Part II

[WojtekWolski86]

@WojtekWolski86 Awesome handle. Are you a big fan?

I wanted to name my son Wojtek but my wife wanted none of that. Not too many Poles in the league, especially ones that played for us. Plus I figure my luck, if I picked a current player they would get hurt or get traded lol.

 

[RGY]

No coach is perfect. Quinn is no different. He has made some bad decisions with the PP structure. The team has taken an abundance of Too Many Men penalties. He has a sick obsession with Brett Howden. Hajek should be sent to the minors for some work on his game, although playing under a better defensive coach could certainly help.

The people that want to give Quinn a “D” also criticize him for not challenging Lindy Ruff while acknowledging Ruff is a problem. Ruff is the defensive coach. I believe he is the PK coach as well. And when Quinn was hired, Gorton and company kept Ruff on board with the thought that he would probably help with the transition to the NHL. The problem with that is Lindy Ruff has not been successful adjusting to the changing landscape of the NHL game. He has been part of the PROBLEM for why the team defense is so damn poor in their own end. Its complete mayhem. And these “critics” want to nail DQ to the wall (because that what a “D” grade indicates) for not telling Ruff how to coach defense. Maybe Gorton and JD should step up and fire Ruff. Get him out of the equation.

And then if the team is still horrendous defensively, after a sample size of more than a few games of course, then you can be more critical of Quinn.

This thread is cherry picking at its finest for the narratives to be laid out by some here. DQ has not been perfect, but a lot of good has happened since he has taken over. Buchnevich and DeAngelo are prime examples of young players that we were not sure would ever take the next step and they have. Strome has been above his career norm since he came over and that was before Panarin. Zibanejad needs no explanation. Chytil being sent down was the right move. There are plenty of positives for a Coach who took over a team that was going to finish at the bottom of the standings last season before he was even hired. A team that started to strip it down with the trade of Stepan. Then McDonagh. Nash. Miller. Continuing with Zucc and Hayes.

I guess DQ would have needed to turn water into wine just to earn a “C” with some of you...

 

[JHS]

What does it matter that Trotz led a star laden Caps team to a Cup victory? Who cares? That in itself is not a reason to hire him for THIS team, as at last check it is the youngest team in the league with a lot less stars.

YOU brought up Nashville as a way to laud what he did. So I am asking you, as that is what you seem to be hanging your hat on, would you be ok if the Rangers missed the playoffs for another 4 years after this one and would not win a series until Kakko was 30?

The question was if you believed that Trots would make this team materially better. Please address.

Ok trying again-- Yes I think Trotz would make this team better in every possible way. Your ignoring of a cup winning team is literally comical. Way more talented teams failed to win the cup. The Caps played over their heads during that cup run.

Regarding Nashville-- if Trotz did not have an ability to develop an organization why would an expansion team keep him around for over 10 years??? I honest;y can't even believe you keep trying to prove the opposite that somehow an inability to get an under talented Nashville organization into the playoffs is somehow a prediction of what's to come for the his hypothetical coaching career as a Rangers coach. Listen, one of the best general managers in NHL history, Lou Lamoriello agrees with me-- he hired Trotz literally a week after he became available.

If you want to support your argument( which I'm having almost an impossible time following at this point) why don't you point to success Quinn has had? Why do you keep trying to undercut my fairly obvious and straight forward critique by increasingly grasping at straws and making illogical leaps( like Trotz's coaching career would literally mirror itself with the Rangers as it did with Nashville?) You like to ask people questions and demand an answer. So here's my question, What has Quinn done well as an NHL coach? Be specific

 

[Inferno]

Strome on the top unit makes no sense at all. It completely neutralizes half the ice and makes the unit very predictable because their only play is to pass it to the left side. I don't care if the 4th forward on the PP is Chytil, Kakko, or Buchnevich but it needs to be one of the three. It's like he just kept Strome there after Mika came back because he scored some points while Mika was hurt not realizing the construction of the unit with all of them was obviously not going to work.

Yep. Totally agreed.

 

[Inferno]

Rangers should be running an I power play.

Fox at the top. Panarin and kakko on wings, zibenajad in the middle, kreider in front.

It's obvious. It's painfully obvious. You've got zibenajad free to take the quick pass shot just like oshie. You've got kakko to make plays a la backstrom. Fox or Ada at the top is perfect to run things through. Panarin is dangerous either way... The seam pass opens up too with him there. And kreider in front for tips or to retrieve corner pucks. It's so effing obvious.

 

[JHS]

No coach is perfect. Quinn is no different. He has made some bad decisions with the PP structure. The team has taken an abundance of Too Many Men penalties. He has a sick obsession with Brett Howden. Hajek should be sent to the minors for some work on his game, although playing under a better defensive coach could certainly help.

The people that want to give Quinn a “D” also criticize him for not challenging Lindy Ruff while acknowledging Ruff is a problem. Ruff is the defensive coach. I believe he is the PK coach as well. And when Quinn was hired, Gorton and company kept Ruff on board with the thought that he would probably help with the transition to the NHL. The problem with that is Lindy Ruff has not been successful adjusting to the changing landscape of the NHL game. He has been part of the PROBLEM for why the team defense is so damn poor in their own end. Its complete mayhem. And these “critics” want to nail DQ to the wall (because that what a “D” grade indicates) for not telling Ruff how to coach defense. Maybe Gorton and JD should step up and fire Ruff. Get him out of the equation.

And then if the team is still horrendous defensively, after a sample size of more than a few games of course, then you can be more critical of Quinn.

This thread is cherry picking at its finest for the narratives to be laid out by some here. DQ has not been perfect, but a lot of good has happened since he has taken over. Buchnevich and DeAngelo are prime examples of young players that we were not sure would ever take the next step and they have. Strome has been above his career norm since he came over and that was before Panarin. Zibanejad needs no explanation. Chytil being sent down was the right move. There are plenty of positives for a Coach who took over a team that was going to finish at the bottom of the standings last season before he was even hired. A team that started to strip it down with the trade of Stepan. Then McDonagh. Nash. Miller. Continuing with Zucc and Hayes.

I guess DQ would have needed to turn water into wine just to earn a “C” with some of you...

I actually agree with almost all of this except for the last part where you just had to take a shot at me. Ruff is a huge problem! I've said this over and over again but the head coach has got to step in and fix the problems. As is evident, when David Quinn stepped in and told Ruff to focus the team on the PK during practices, the team improved. The head coach's job is to dictate how practice time is used. He creates the practice schedule! Maybe Lindy had been going to Quinn for weeks asking for time during practice and he could not get it because Quinn wanted to work on breakouts, or the powerplay. We can't know-- but either way, I do hope you understand that assistants don't get to just decide what gets worked on during practices.

I look at a grade of a C as saying a coach is performing "average." If you compare Quinn to other coaches, I don't believe he is average because of the glaring and obvious coaching mistakes that are occurring. An average NHL coach has his team in position to succeed more often than not. Above average coaches have their teams ready to play and implement structures the work for his team. An excellent NHL coach always has his team prepared, responds to and communicates clearly with the players and his team has success. As I've also said before, Quinn is actually not very far away from being an excellent coach-- I think he is a clear communicator and he does set clear examples but his team is currently not successful-- and by my accounts, they are not successful because of structural issues and horrible player management. I actually think he's closer to being an excellent coach than a terrible coach but things he's directly responsible for ( structures and player usage) are far below average. If he improves on this, I will certainly applaud the teams success!

 

[True Blue]

I gave Quinn a "B" rating at this point.

There are things I like, things I don't like. But overall, there are more things I like than don't like. I also think this team has overachieved a bit, and that says something considering that Zibanejad has missed half the season thus far.

This is exactly where I am at. And no, I do not believe that anyone else could really get much more out of THIS group.

 

[True Blue]

I guess DQ would have needed to turn water into wine just to earn a “C” with some of you...

Am beginning to think that if Quinn walked on water, the detractors would say "See, I told you he could not fly".

 

[Mikos87]

This team is an effective 4th line, and a better defensive structure away from competing.

It's not that far. Special teams, matchups, ice time, and defensive schemes, controlled breakouts, and zone entries: that's all coaching, and these are all categories where I think Quinn falls short.

As much as I like Quinn as a values driven leader, I think he's surrounded by sub par Xs & Os.

Not rolling 4 lines is going to fatigue the team, and the wheels will fall off in the last 25 games. I would like to see this team ice and NHL caliber 4th line and have player in proper roles, but am not holding my breadth with this bunch.

 

[True Blue]

Ok trying again-- Yes I think Trotz would make this team better in every possible way. Your ignoring of a cup winning team is literally comical. Way more talented teams failed to win the cup. The Caps played over their heads during that cup run.

Are you really going to compare the personnel top to bottom of last year's Cap team to this year's Rangers??

Tell me. How much better do you believe that Trotz would make the Rangers? Would they currently have 5-7 more wins?

Regarding Nashville-- if Trotz did not have an ability to develop an organization why would an expansion team keep him around for over 10 years??? I honest;y can't even believe you keep trying to prove the opposite that somehow an inability to get an under talented Nashville organization into the playoffs is somehow a prediction of what's to come for the his hypothetical coaching career as a Rangers coach.

Once again. You pointed to Nashville as the reason to hire Trotz. Now answer, would you then be happy if the Rangers did now win their first playoff series until Kakko was 30?

Listen, one of the best general managers in NHL history, Lou Lamoriello agrees with me-- he hired Trotz literally a week after he became available.

To coach the Islanders. A far different team and situation. Not THIS Rangers team. You have no idea if Lou would agree with you here. We do know that Gorton does disagree with you on this one.

If you want to support your argument( which I'm having almost an impossible time following at this point) why don't you point to success Quinn has had?

He was pretty successful in evaluating and coaching young kids in Boston. He was also an assistant at the NHL, 3 years in the AHL, and a former first round pick. For this Rangers team, I have no need for anything else on the resume.

Why do you keep trying to undercut my fairly obvious and straight forward critique by increasingly grasping at straws and making illogical leaps( like Trotz's coaching career would literally mirror itself with the Rangers as it did with Nashville?)

If you bring up Nashville, you need to look at it entirely before sighing records of success. And that does not even touch the subject that while bad, they were not a young team like this.

You like to ask people questions and demand an answer. So here's my question, What has Quinn done well as an NHL coach? Be specific

I see veterans getting better and I see more young players getting better than not. I see accountability. I see players buying into what he is selling. I see players getting communicated and the message clearly getting through so that there is no confusion. I see a team overachieving. Is that specific enough?

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

This team is an effective 4th line, and a better defensive structure away from competing.

It's not that far. Special teams, matchups, ice time, and defensive schemes, controlled breakouts, and zone entries: that's all coaching, and these are all categories where I think Quinn falls short.

As much as I like Quinn as a values driven leader, I think he's surrounded by sub par Xs & Os.

Not rolling 4 lines is going to fatigue the team, and the wheels will fall off in the last 25 games. I would like to see this team ice and NHL caliber 4th line and have player in proper roles, but am not holding my breadth with this bunch.

How much is this on Quinn, and how much is due to the fact that the roster isn't quite there yet (and even if it were, would still need a couple of years of development)?

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Not sure who this is but it pretty much speaks to what I've been saying..

This screenshot really convinced me that 'the system' and the coach is garbage

 

[SA16]

This team is an effective 4th line, and a better defensive structure away from competing.

It's not that far. Special teams, matchups, ice time, and defensive schemes, controlled breakouts, and zone entries: that's all coaching, and these are all categories where I think Quinn falls short.

As much as I like Quinn as a values driven leader, I think he's surrounded by sub par Xs & Os.

Not rolling 4 lines is going to fatigue the team, and the wheels will fall off in the last 25 games. I would like to see this team ice and NHL caliber 4th line and have player in proper roles, but am not holding my breadth with this bunch.

Do you really think the team is going to be fatigued due to the lack of a 4th line? Panarin is playing 40 seconds/game more than last year. Zibanejad 20 seconds more. Buch 1:30 more (which also has a lot to do with him not getting 4th line time this year). Kreider 25 seconds more. Lemieux 1 minute more. The only one with a real significant TOI increase is Strome and that's due to an injury. I hardly think that additional 1 shift/game is going to make an impact down the line. If Chytil can't handle going from 13:47/game last year to 16:30 then he shouldn't even be in the league.

 

[JHS]

Are you really going to compare the personnel top to bottom of last year's Cap team to this year's Rangers??

Tell me. How much better do you believe that Trotz would make the Rangers? Would they currently have 5-7 more wins?

Once again. You pointed to Nashville as the reason to hire Trotz. Now answer, would you then be happy if the Rangers did now win their first playoff series until Kakko was 30?

To coach the Islanders. A far different team and situation. Not THIS Rangers team. You have no idea if Lou would agree with you here. We do know that Gorton does disagree with you on this one.

He was pretty successful in evaluating and coaching young kids in Boston. He was also an assistant at the NHL, 3 years in the AHL, and a former first round pick. For this Rangers team, I have no need for anything else on the resume.

If you bring up Nashville, you need to look at it entirely before sighing records of success. And that does not even touch the subject that while bad, they were not a young team like this.

I see veterans getting better and I see more young players getting better than not. I see accountability. I see players buying into what he is selling. I see players getting communicated and the message clearly getting through so that there is no confusion. I see a team overachieving. Is that specific enough?

Got it- I think we now see each others points here and I'm pretty tired beating a dead horse here. I think Trotz would have this team playing about 3-5 games better. I can point to numerous games where the Rangers were not competitive and not invested from the start. I think Trotz would have his teams better prepared to play and better able to compete from the start. When we look at a comparison like this, its often impossible to quantify.

I just want to clarify-- I don't look at Trotz time in Nashville as the reason for why he should be hired. My point all along has been if the Rangers would have waited to hire a coach than Trotz would have been available and would have been a much more established choice.

One thing to clarify about Quinn, as I've said, I don't think he's a terrible coach. I think he has flaws and all I've done is point out those flaws. I'm not rooting against the guy or the team. I want the Rangers to be successful. As I've made clear though, if given the choice I would always hire the best candidate based on track record-- not someone I think would fit a "role." I think this boils down to perspective-- I look long term on this and am not so concerned with the here and now.

 

[Thordic]

Considering our current roster, I give him a B.

Ruff needs to go, that much is obvious, but I think the team has been somewhat better than I expected them to be this year. It's a young team that is learning as they go. That's not DQs fault, that's just what the team is doing. So you are going to have issues with consistency and mental toughness, that's a given.

But as many times as there have been bad games, we've seen some real bright spots. I think overall his approach and system can be effective, the team just needs to grow together a bit. I'm guessing (hoping) that this years speed bumps are gone by next season and the ship starts turning around.

 

[Machinehead]

I gave him a D and that's the first D this team has seen all season.

We still absolutely suck at everything that was a problem under AV. 5 on 3? Still sucks. Start to games? Still suck. Defense? Worse. Analytics? Worse. Compete level? People are still complaining about it. (I personally don't see it as an issue but the same people complaining about it are giving Quinn a good grade)

Ok, so the roster blows. We can't just go on results. After all, Quinn is a development coach.

One problem: who's developing? Andersson is dead in the water. Howden is a f***ing disaster. Hajek has run head-first into a wall. We had to get Chytil away from Quinn for him to make strides. Kakko is the worst player in the league at even strength. I'm not asking for our prospects to all be amazing but I'm not seeing anybody progress.

 

[DanielBrassard]

Rangers should be running an I power play.

Fox at the top. Panarin and kakko on wings, zibenajad in the middle, kreider in front.

It's obvious. It's painfully obvious. You've got zibenajad free to take the quick pass shot just like oshie. You've got kakko to make plays a la backstrom. Fox or Ada at the top is perfect to run things through. Panarin is dangerous either way... The seam pass opens up too with him there. And kreider in front for tips or to retrieve corner pucks. It's so effing obvious.

Which is what they have been doing all season, they have been running the 1-3-1. I sort of see what he is doing with running the PP through Panarin on the right wall optimally, feeding Zibanejad for 1 timers and Strome in the bumper as the "Oshie" but ADA and Fox are not shooting threats up top and Panarin is not a shooting threat either on that side of the ice which limits what they can do. Winnipeg uses/used 4RH shots with Wheeler playing Panarin's role and Trouba/Byfuglien at the point and it was effective.

 

[haveandare]

I gave him a D and that's the first D this team has seen all season.

We still absolutely suck at everything that was a problem under AV. 5 on 3? Still sucks. Start to games? Still suck. Defense? Worse. Analytics? Worse. Compete level? People are still complaining about it. (I personally don't see it as an issue but the same people complaining about it are giving Quinn a good grade)

Ok, so the roster blows. We can't just go on results. After all, Quinn is a development coach.

One problem: who's developing? Andersson is dead in the water. Howden is a ****ing disaster. Hajek has run head-first into a wall. We had to get Chytil away from Quinn for him to make strides. Kakko is the worst player in the league at even strength. I'm not asking for our prospects to all be amazing but I'm not seeing anybody progress.

TDA has progressed a lot. Buchnevich has progressed a lot. Chytil has progressed a lot and it's pretty silly to say that it's all from things he learned in 9 AHL games considering he'd played almost 50 last year also. Kakko has progressed from where he started, which is how you gauge progression. Fox has only gotten better since coming to the team. Hajek has had some bad games after having some good games, and he's playing in a position he wouldn't have been able to even sort of survive in a year ago.

And if we're using "people are complaining about it" as proof that something is a problem, were always going to have hundreds of problems because people whine and moan on here about literally everything all the time.

 

[Harbour Dog]

I am right between B and C. There are a bunch of minor personnel decisions that I question, but ultimately I'm glad he's the coach and I hope he still has the guys ears when we're a better team.

 

[Machinehead]

TDA has progressed a lot. Buchnevich has progressed a lot. Chytil has progressed a lot and it's pretty silly to say that it's all from things he learned in 9 AHL games considering he'd played almost 50 last year also. Kakko has progressed from where he started, which is how you gauge progression. Fox has only gotten better since coming to the team. Hajek has had some bad games after having some good games, and he's playing in a position he wouldn't have been able to even sort of survive in a year ago.

And if we're using "people are complaining about it" as proof that something is a problem, were always going to have hundreds of problems because people whine and moan on here about literally everything all the time.

Yes, Fox, ADA, Buchnevich; it's a bit concerning that the guys who have progressed the most had much of their developmental years away from Quinn.

I don't think Kakko has gotten better at all. He looked just as helpless game 24 at 5v5 as he did game 1.

Hajek isn't sort of surviving. He's getting his teeth kicked in every night. He's actually a couple of weeks older than Adam Fox. We should be seeing more from him.

Like I said, I don't really care, I'm just confused as to how Quinn is getting mostly passing grades and yet there seems to be a consensus on here that this team doesn't compete hard enough. That's 100% on your coach.

Our young players, in aggregate, have not been impressive this year. Take Fox out, and they've downright failed.

I think the Artemi Panarin Show is masking how ugly this season has been.

 

[aufheben]

TDA has progressed a lot. Buchnevich has progressed a lot. Chytil has progressed a lot and it's pretty silly to say that it's all from things he learned in 9 AHL games considering he'd played almost 50 last year also. Kakko has progressed from where he started, which is how you gauge progression. Fox has only gotten better since coming to the team. Hajek has had some bad games after having some good games, and he's playing in a position he wouldn't have been able to even sort of survive in a year ago.

And if we're using "people are complaining about it" as proof that something is a problem, were always going to have hundreds of problems because people whine and moan on here about literally everything all the time.

Add Zibanejad, Lemieux, Lindgren, arguably Smith and Strome. Skjei is having a good season. Shit even Panarin is having his best season.

I see players improving and a team that is above .500 while missing their 2nd best player for half the season.

My main issue with Quinn is the passive 2-1-2 in the D-zone. When the defensemen are defending the red line and blue line, attacking the points, the team looks better. I don’t know why Quinn prefers the passive zone system at this point, but I think the aggressive system will be this team’s identity in the future.

 

[True Blue]

Yes, Fox, ADA, Buchnevich; it's a bit concerning that the guys who have progressed the most had much of their developmental years away from Quinn.

What I am confused about is where do you believe these players were developing? Buchnevich developed a lot under AV? Fox developed his entire game in Harvard, did he? Maybe DeAngelo developed what he needed in Phoenix?

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

I gave him a good solid B. A lot to like. I am confused by his unwillingness to try Anderson with better players. I worry what will happen to Lindgren once Staal is ready to return. I also don't get why the fourth line is being filled with the likes of Haley, Smith et al rather than kids.

 

[True Blue]

My main issue with Quinn is the passive 2-1-2 in the D-zone. When the defensemen are defending the red line and blue line, attacking the points, the team looks better. I don’t know why Quinn prefers the passive zone system at this point, but I think the aggressive system will be this team’s identity in the future.

Can't disagree with this. But just as the team is going to be learning and growing, so too is a rookie head coach. Or so I believe.

Is Quinn perfect? Far from it. There are things that I disagree with. But, to me, he is pretty much extracting blood from a stone to have THIS team have the record where it is given that 1) how long they were missing their most important player and 2) how young they are. I mean how many other teams are icing a defense that has 3 rookies and essentially one sophomore? Or have kids playing big roles that cannot legally drink? Or kids that are barely legal to drink?

 

[McRanger]

Nashville was used to show what he can do with young teams and the success that he had in rebuilding teams. It was pointed out that while Nashville was bad, it was not really a young team. And as thus should not be lauded as "Look at how well he develops young players".

When touting a coach's success with a team that is building, you do not think how long it took to win in the playoffs is a pretty important aspect of success?

Are you talking about developing players or winning? Because the main point of your argument seems to be that these are two distinct things, the former of which is suppose to be Quinn's specialty, and now they seemed to be haphazardly smashed back together out of convenience.

Not that it matters, he pretty clearly can do both. Obviously Trotz can develop players, he's been an NHL coach for 20 years. Even the best teams have player that need developing and if a coach isn't doing that he is not staying employed for 2 straight decades. And obviously he can win. He just won a cup a year and a half ago.

I'm not sure what's funnier: the absurdity of having to defend a coach who has won 2 Jack Adams trophies and a cup in the last 3 years or the grossness of defending the current coach of the Islanders. Barf.

Again, when debating a "Gorton should have make all efforts to hire Trotz. Just look at what accomplished in Nashville" argument, bringing up how long it took to win something in the playoffs is fair game. This has nothing to do with Panarin. If you want to laud Trotz at the help of a very young team and what he accomplished, why would that be degrading him?

No one, certainly not me, is not debating whether or not Trotz is a good coach or that he has been successful. Whether or not he was the right coach for THIS Rangers team has been and continues to be a debate for whatever reason. As is the gnashng of teeth when people believe that Gorton made such a colossal mistake by targeting Quinn and not Trotz.

The argument shouldn't be "Gorton should have make all efforts to hire Trotz. Just look at what accomplished in Nashville".

The argument should be "Gorton should have made all efforts to hire Trotz. He is a proven coach and he is a better coach."

Now there is a pretty easy counter to that argument: "Trotz probably didn't want to come to the Rangers". That's the smart response to any "Why didnt we hire Trotz?!?" questions and the easiest way to shut down a prolonged and tedious discussion before it begins. Going this route allows us to bypass the "we don't need the best coach, we need a development coach!" argument and and lets us all avoid us having to pretend that a good coach and a development coach don't do the same things.