Player Discussion David Quinn: Part V

[HockeyBasedNYC]

Let's be honest about this though. Some of that was also probably due to Quinn managing the situation as to how the game was being played out. Which, again, most coaches in his position would probably do.

True. Being up allowed him to put that kid line out more. May have been different had the game been tight. We will see how it moves going forward.

 

[Harbour Dog]

All of the above. Then he walked on the ice and peed on logo at center ice.

Typical Quinn apologist, leaving out the ritual sacrifice of a puppy between periods.

 

[bleedblue94]

I posted this breakdown in the VK thread, but I wanted to post it here bc after I broke this down it really was bothering me.

I am not a DQ hater at all, but things like this bother me.

4-1 game after 20 minutes, 5-1 midway through the 2nd and this is how the ice time goes for the big young talent on the team:

KK
1st 4:49
2nd 4:20
3rd 5:34
2nd+3rd period mean per 20: 4:57 (8 seconds more per period than 1st)
projected ice per 60 based on above number: 14:51
actual total ice time: 14:43
difference from actual vs projected ice per 60 based on actual 2nd + 3rd TOI: 8 seconds

Laf
1st 4:36
2nd 4:34
3rd 5:24
2nd+3rd period mean per 20: 4:59 (23 second more per period than 1st)
projected ice per 60 based on above number: 14:57
actual total ice time: 14:52
difference from actual vs projected ice per 60 based on actual 2nd + 3rd TOI: 5 seconds

VK
1st 3:49
2nd 3:17
3rd 3:57
2nd+3rd period mean per 20: 3:37 (actually 12 seconds less than he got in the first!!!)
projected ice per 60 based on above number: 10:51
actual total ice time: 11:03
difference from actual vs projected ice per 60 based on actual 2nd + 3rd TOI: minus 12 seconds

Chytil
1st 4:48
2nd 4:06
3rd 5:52
2nd+3rd period mean per 20: 4:59 (11 seconds more per period than 1st)
projected ice per 60 based on above number: 14:57
actual total ice time: 14:46
difference from actual vs projected ice per 60 based on actual 2nd + 3rd TOI: 11 seconds

4-1 after the first and 5-1 midway through the game to me is a terrific opportunity to get these kids more ice. Most of the extra ice time you see from the 3rd probably came from the shift where they got pinned in their zone and chytil icing the puck before the penguins goal. A TOTAL OF 12 SECONDS more projected ice time per 60 based for these 4 players based on what they played in the 2nd and 3rd periods of a 4-1 game, and Kravtsov pacing for less ice time.​

 

[kovazub94]

True. Being up allowed him to put that kid line out more. May have been different had the game been tight. We will see how it moves going forward.

Let's toast to more 8:4 type of blowouts then that keeps (almost) everyone (almost) happy!

 

[CLW]

Let's toast to more 8:4 type of blowouts then that keeps (almost) everyone (almost) happy!

It's like in chess, you don't analyze a game where your opponent made 3 critical errors and you won easily. You look at games where you had problems and analyze those to see where you can improve. Not every opponent is going to play to your strengths and give you 131209832 free odd man rushes inside the first 10 minutes to give you a cushy score. See how the same team struggled to break down lowly Buffalo who played with more structure.

 

[Tawnos]

I posted this breakdown in the VK thread, but I wanted to post it here bc after I broke this down it really was bothering me.

I am not a DQ hater at all, but things like this bother me.

4-1 game after 20 minutes, 5-1 midway through the 2nd and this is how the ice time goes for the big young talent on the team:

KK
1st 4:49
2nd 4:20
3rd 5:34
2nd+3rd period mean per 20: 4:57 (8 seconds more per period than 1st)
projected ice per 60 based on above number: 14:51
actual total ice time: 14:43
difference from actual vs projected ice per 60 based on actual 2nd + 3rd TOI: 8 seconds

Laf
1st 4:36
2nd 4:34
3rd 5:24
2nd+3rd period mean per 20: 4:59 (23 second more per period than 1st)
projected ice per 60 based on above number: 14:57
actual total ice time: 14:52
difference from actual vs projected ice per 60 based on actual 2nd + 3rd TOI: 5 seconds

VK
1st 3:49
2nd 3:17
3rd 3:57
2nd+3rd period mean per 20: 3:37 (actually 12 seconds less than he got in the first!!!)
projected ice per 60 based on above number: 10:51
actual total ice time: 11:03
difference from actual vs projected ice per 60 based on actual 2nd + 3rd TOI: minus 12 seconds

Chytil
1st 4:48
2nd 4:06
3rd 5:52
2nd+3rd period mean per 20: 4:59 (11 seconds more per period than 1st)
projected ice per 60 based on above number: 14:57
actual total ice time: 14:46
difference from actual vs projected ice per 60 based on actual 2nd + 3rd TOI: 11 seconds

4-1 after the first and 5-1 midway through the game to me is a terrific opportunity to get these kids more ice. Most of the extra ice time you see from the 3rd probably came from the shift where they got pinned in their zone and chytil icing the puck before the penguins goal. A TOTAL OF 12 SECONDS more projected ice time per 60 based for these 4 players based on what they played in the 2nd and 3rd periods of a 4-1 game, and Kravtsov pacing for less ice time.​

4-1 after the first period isn't a blowout. If anything, it's a situation where you need to be careful not to let the other team back into the game. A 3 goal lead can disappear in a hurry, especially since the Rangers have been prone to giving up multiple goals in very short periods of time... and here you have 2/3 of the game left. Didn't we give up 3 goals to the Penguins in like 2 minutes earlier in the season? (I checked, it was March 7, and it was 3 goals in 1:01). At that point, the right move is to stay the course. As for 5-1 midway through the second... it wasn't. The Rangers made it 5-1 and the Penguins scored 16 seconds later, making it 5-2. So it's still a situation where the amount of time left and the 3-goal lead isn't enough to change your ice time allocation too much. Obviously that calculation changed as the game progressed, which is justifiable.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

I think it's pretty clear at this point that the organization's idea of development doesn't hinge solely on ice-time or line mates. Right or wrong, they have different plans for these guys than people do here. Why not be patient and see where these players are next season? Kakko made a huge leap from year 1 to year 2, I'm sure Laff and Kravtsov will be no different.

 

[bleedblue94]

4-1 after the first period isn't a blowout. If anything, it's a situation where you need to be careful not to let the other team back into the game. A 3 goal lead can disappear in a hurry, especially since the Rangers have been prone to giving up multiple goals in very short periods of time... and here you have 2/3 of the game left. Didn't we give up 3 goals to the Penguins in like 2 minutes earlier in the season? (I checked, it was March 7, and it was 3 goals in 1:01). At that point, the right move is to stay the course. As for 5-1 midway through the second... it wasn't. The Rangers made it 5-1 and the Penguins scored 16 seconds later, making it 5-2. So it's still a situation where the amount of time left and the 3-goal lead isn't enough to change your ice time allocation too much. Obviously that calculation changed as the game progressed, which is justifiable.

I can agree with a lot of what you are saying but I think you still have room for more ice time for them. These aren't players that are fresh from the AHL that you need to worry will singlehandedly nuke the lead/game. The trends there and in other blowout/one sided games are frustrating for me, but I understand not everyone will agree and I am fine with that. The post wasn't to say DQ is unilaterally wrong, it is just to say I wish he would be more creative with TOI than what is listed above in these kinds of games.

 

[Off Sides]

4-1 after the first period isn't a blowout. If anything, it's a situation where you need to be careful not to let the other team back into the game. A 3 goal lead can disappear in a hurry, especially since the Rangers have been prone to giving up multiple goals in very short periods of time... and here you have 2/3 of the game left. Didn't we give up 3 goals to the Penguins in like 2 minutes earlier in the season? (I checked, it was March 7, and it was 3 goals in 1:01). At that point, the right move is to stay the course. As for 5-1 midway through the second... it wasn't. The Rangers made it 5-1 and the Penguins scored 16 seconds later, making it 5-2. So it's still a situation where the amount of time left and the 3-goal lead isn't enough to change your ice time allocation too much. Obviously that calculation changed as the game progressed, which is justifiable.

March 7th

1st goal against, Marino. On ice for the Rangers, Miller, Trouba, Strome, Kreider, Rangers PK had just ended and whoever was in the box probably had not even stepped out of it at time of goal.

2nd goal against, Kapanen. On against, Miller, Rooney, Chytil, (back when Rooney was taking face off for Chytil) Gauthier, Trouba.

3rd goal against, Crosby. On ice PDG, Lemieux, Howden, Lindgren Fox.

Other than Chytil (1 against) and Gauthier (who did not play last night) none of the forward kids were on for any of those 3 quick goals against.




If anything if they want to prevent goals against using that game as an example, don't play Trouba.

 

[Tawnos]

March 7th

1st goal against, Marino. On ice for the Rangers, Miller, Trouba, Strome, Kreider, Rangers PK had just ended and whoever was in the box probably had not even stepped out of it at time of goal.

2nd goal against, Kapanen. On against, Miller, Rooney, Chytil, (back when Rooney was taking face off for Chytil) Gauthier, Trouba.

3rd goal against, Crosby. On ice PDG, Lemieux, Howden, Lindgren Fox.

Other than Chytil (1 against) and Gauthier (who did not play last night) none of the forward kids were on for any of those 3 quick goals against.




If anything if they want to prevent goals against using that game as an example, don't play Trouba.

The players who were on the ice for those really has nothing to do with my point, which was that the Penguins are capable of scoring goals quickly like that and the Rangers are capable of giving them up. Glad you spent all that time though.

 

[Tawnos]

I can agree with a lot of what you are saying but I think you still have room for more ice time for them. These aren't players that are fresh from the AHL that you need to worry will singlehandedly nuke the lead/game. The trends there and in other blowout/one sided games are frustrating for me, but I understand not everyone will agree and I am fine with that. The post wasn't to say DQ is unilaterally wrong, it is just to say I wish he would be more creative with TOI than what is listed above in these kinds of games.

That's fair, although I'm not exactly sure what more creative would look like. He can certainly have been less creative, like Knoblauch was in the Flyers blowouts (note: not being critical of Knoblauch)

 

[True Blue]

Why not be patient and see where these players are next season?

Freaking out and ranting is much easier than seeing the long game.

 

[kovazub94]

4-1 after the first period isn't a blowout. If anything, it's a situation where you need to be careful not to let the other team back into the game. A 3 goal lead can disappear in a hurry, especially since the Rangers have been prone to giving up multiple goals in very short periods of time... and here you have 2/3 of the game left. Didn't we give up 3 goals to the Penguins in like 2 minutes earlier in the season? (I checked, it was March 7, and it was 3 goals in 1:01). At that point, the right move is to stay the course. As for 5-1 midway through the second... it wasn't. The Rangers made it 5-1 and the Penguins scored 16 seconds later, making it 5-2. So it's still a situation where the amount of time left and the 3-goal lead isn't enough to change your ice time allocation too much. Obviously that calculation changed as the game progressed, which is justifiable.

Completely, agree. I'd actually give props to the team and the coaching staff for not letting up and / or playing scared every time Pens tried to get closer (don't they have a reputation for the best comeback stat this season)?

 

[kovazub94]

I think it's pretty clear at this point that the organization's idea of development doesn't hinge solely on ice-time or line mates. Right or wrong, they have different plans for these guys than people do here. Why not be patient and see where these players are next season? Kakko made a huge leap from year 1 to year 2, I'm sure Laff and Kravtsov will be no different.

Yup. Once again the point being is that Quinn might have a different approach from posters here but his record with prospects (and young vets) is what earns him a benefit of a doubt instead of being called an idiot or a clown.

 

[EdJovanovski]

Does Quinn still suck?

 

[Kodiak]

If you watched last night's game on NBCSN, you heard Brian Boucher pretty much address our board directly.

I'll paraphrase:
"I know Rangers fans want to see these kids get more ice and maybe get spread throughout the lineup, but I like what Quinn's done here. With the kid line, he can shelter the young players and let them gain confidence against lesser competition, and then earn their way up the lineup."

Take that for whatever it is worth.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

Yup. Once again the point being is that Quinn might have a different approach from posters here but his record with prospects (and young vets) is what earns him a benefit of a doubt instead of being called an idiot or a clown.

And it's probably not just Quinn. I'm sure Gorton, JD, Drury all feel this is the way to go.

 

[kovazub94]

And it's probably not just Quinn. I'm sure Gorton, JD, Drury all feel this is the way to go.

The whole front office is a bunch of lazy idiots and clowns.

 

[Number 9]

Does Quinn still suck?

big time

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

The whole front office is a bunch of lazy idiots and clowns.

Don't forget sabateurs.

 

[Off Sides]

The players who were on the ice for those really has nothing to do with my point, which was that the Penguins are capable of scoring goals quickly like that and the Rangers are capable of giving them up. Glad you spent all that time though.

Just clarifying who was on ice when the Rangers gave up those goals so quickly, not the kids.

 

[Tawnos]

Just clarifying who was on ice when the Rangers gave up those goals so quickly, not the kids.

It’s not about kids vs vets. It’s about the mental state of the whole team.

 

[Off Sides]

It’s not about kids vs vets. It’s about the mental state of the whole team.

I feel like it's about ice time.

If coaching wants to play the vets in a close game, where the kids get less, okay he does that.

If coaching still can't find ice time for those who should be developing when they are winning by 3-4 goals, it leads to the question, when then is the proper game situation for them to get more ice time?

Using a game where they gave up some quick goals against in the past leads me to question who was on ice during those goals? I mean before I made the post I thought maybe you were correct and it was the kids who were on ice for those goals and that would lead to coaching not trusting them even when up by 3 or 4 goals.

 

[kovazub94]

Don't forget sabateurs.

Team Putin lieutenants.

 

[Tawnos]

I feel like it's about ice time.

If coaching wants to play the vets in a close game, where the kids get less, okay he does that.

If coaching still can't find ice time for those who should be developing when they are winning by 3-4 goals, it leads to the question, when then is the proper game situation for them to get more ice time?

Using a game where they gave up some quick goals against in the past leads me to question who was on ice during those goals? I mean before I made the post I thought maybe you were correct and it was the kids who were on ice for those goals and that would lead to coaching not trusting them even when up by 3 or 4 goals.

I never said the kids were on the ice for those goals... and this still has nothing to do with the point I made. I only mentioned that game because it was against the same opponent, and it was also the most egregious example, but I can think of several other times where the team has given up 2 goals in a short stretch of time. They gave up 2 goals in 2 minutes on March 30th. They gave up 3 goals in 5 minutes on March 28th. They gave up 2 goals in under 3 minutes on March 23rd. They gave up 2 goals in under 3 minutes on March 19th. That’s as far back as I’m willing to look right now.

It doesn’t matter who was on the ice for those. When you have a team who is prone to those issues, and that team is going, then staying the course was the right move with a 3 goal lead with 40 minutes to go in the game.

And by the way, Quinn DID find more ice time for the kids when the game looked out of reach for the Penguins.