Player Discussion David Quinn: Part VI

[yrrebbor]

He MUST go.

 

[tomobson]

Justified? Is the rebuild completed? Were the Rangers going for Stanley Cup this year? I feel like we went around the full circle.

I think you're going around in circles on your own. I don't know where you're pulling this stanley cup thing from I definitely never mentioned it. Players knowing their roles on a team is coached. Either he's been miscasting players, or he hasn't communicated them their roles, or they don't trust what he's coaching. Did the roster have some holes...yes. Could another coach have done a better job patching them up? Yes. We wouldn't have won the stanley cup but we would have shown improvement even if it didn't show up in the standings and maybe that would have been enough to keep Sather/Dolan at bay. Maybe he'd agree that the team was given a rough hand this season because he saw an actual team out there instead of a mishmash of players doing whatever they want. Quinn for some reason has repeatedly admitted that the team won't play his system and it definitely showed on the ice.

 

[chosen]

I think you're going around in circles on your own. I don't know where you're pulling this stanley cup thing from I definitely never mentioned it. Players knowing their roles on a team is coached. Either he's been miscasting players, or he hasn't communicated them their roles, or they don't trust what he's coaching. Did the roster have some holes...yes. Could another coach have done a better job patching them up? Yes. We wouldn't have won the stanley cup but we would have shown improvement even if it didn't show up in the standings and maybe that would have been enough to keep Sather/Dolan at bay. Maybe he'd agree that the team was given a rough hand this season because he saw an actual team out there instead of a mishmash of players doing whatever they want. Quinn for some reason has repeatedly admitted that the team won't play his system and it definitely showed on the ice.

What is improvement that doesn't show up in the standings? Losing a game 3-0 instead of 4-0?

 

[Synergy27]

Now that the season is officially over, can we all at least agree that it would have been better spent focusing on the kid from day one? Can we all agree that allowing the kids to fail in more prominent roles would have been a better strategic move than ekeing out a couple of extra wins on the back of a journeyman’s hot streak?

Something tells me we won’t all agree.

 

[tomobson]

What is improvement that doesn't show up in the standings? Losing a game 3-0 instead of 4-0?

Hmm, yea that's it for sure...

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Keep forgetting about him but you make a nice point here. I could be swayed on Hartley.

And the Russian factor can be a positive

 

[kovazub94]

I think you're going around in circles on your own. I don't know where you're pulling this stanley cup thing from I definitely never mentioned it. Players knowing their roles on a team is coached. Either he's been miscasting players, or he hasn't communicated them their roles, or they don't trust what he's coaching. Did the roster have some holes...yes. Could another coach have done a better job patching them up? Yes. We wouldn't have won the stanley cup but we would have shown improvement even if it didn't show up in the standings and maybe that would have been enough to keep Sather/Dolan at bay. Maybe he'd agree that the team was given a rough hand this season because he saw an actual team out there instead of a mishmash of players doing whatever they want. Quinn for some reason has repeatedly admitted that the team won't play his system and it definitely showed on the ice.

No, we’re going in circles because we started with premise that Gorton (fully aware) didn’t provide Quinn with players capable to fulfill required roles.

 

[chosen]

Hmm, yea that's it for sure...

Or you can say how a team improves without improving their record.

Or not.

 

[chosen]

Now that the season is officially over, can we all at least agree that it would have been better spent focusing on the kid from day one? Can we all agree that allowing the kids to fail in more prominent roles would have been a better strategic move than ekeing out a couple of extra wins on the back of a journeyman’s hot streak?

Something tells me we won’t all agree.

For what you're saying to be correct, the development of the kids would have to have been Pejorative Slured in some ways for their future.

Which of the kids' careers do you believe were negatively impacted?

 

[JHS]

This would be Quinn’s 4th season with the team if he’s back next year. That’s the mark of a successful coach. He has not been successful.

With an owner mad at the direction of the team and a new GM I can’t see how it makes sense to bring back a coach that can’t honestly be viewed as a success. Even if he had gotten the team to the playoffs somehow, under these set of circumstances, it would be hard to see bringing that version of Quinn back. This version— no playoffs, team that’s soft, lacking leadership— seems like an obvious restart in terms of the staff.

 

[JHS]

What is improvement that doesn't show up in the standings? Losing a game 3-0 instead of 4-0?

Wow- if this is the only way you determine improvement than it’s not worth engaging in actual discussion. Just like I pointed out in my response to your wild assumption that no coach can improve a team in face offs, well coached teams make steady improvement in ways that are clear when you see them but don’t always show up in results.

Like this years Rangers clearly improved in defensive zone coverage— but because of horrific execution with the puck early in the season( a sign of an unprepared team— and every team did not have the usual pre-season) got so far behind the rest of the division— they could not recover.

So you can now see how progress, while not always reflected in wins and losses, is possible.

 

[chosen]

Wow- if this is the only way you determine improvement than it’s not worth engaging in actual discussion. Just like I pointed out in my response to your wild assumption that no coach can improve a team in face offs, well coached teams make steady improvement in ways that are clear when you see them but don’t always show up in results.

Like this years Rangers clearly improved in defensive zone coverage— but because of horrific execution with the puck early in the season( a sign of an unprepared team— and every team did not have the usual pre-season) got so far behind the rest of the division— they could not recover.

So you can now see how progress, while not always reflected in wins and losses, is possible.

My wild assumption is dead-on accurate. Players almost never go from bad on faceoffs to good on faceoffs. If it was a skill that could be taught effectively, there would be huge swings in faceoff percentages, and there aren't.

What you're calling an unprepared team, I'm calling the team with the least experience in the league. That's the type of team that needs a pre-season and lots of practices. Teams filled with veterans need that a whole lot less. True or not?

In the end, it's always about a team's record, not about some make-believe idea of minute degrees of perceived improvement.

Everyone always side-steps my central questions:

• Before the season, where did you think the Rangers would finish? Almost everyone thought they wouldn't make the playoffs. A few thought they might sneak in.
• If you were told before the season that the team's best goal-scorer would lose eye-hand coordination for half the season, and that their best player would miss a big chunk of the season because he feared his family members might be murdered, and that ADA would miss almost the entire season, would you have thought them more likely to make the playoffs or be a lottery team?

This nonsensical idea that they underachieved is merely a way for some to let out their frustrations that their own outlandish expectations didn't come to fruition. Too many fans live in a fantasy world.

This team is right on schedule to being a top-tier team despite the incessant whining of those that claimed they had the patience for a rebuild but turned out to have no patience at all.

 

[JHS]

My wild assumption is dead-on accurate. Players almost never go from bad on faceoffs to good on faceoffs. If it was a skill that could be taught effectively, there would be huge swings in faceoff percentages, and there aren't.

What you're calling an unprepared team, I'm calling the team with the least experience in the league. That's the type of team that needs a pre-season and lots of practices. Teams filled with veterans need that a whole lot less. True or not?

In the end, it's always about a team's record, not about some make-believe idea of minute degrees of perceived improvement.

Everyone always side-steps my central questions:

• Before the season, where did you think the Rangers would finish? Almost everyone thought they wouldn't make the playoffs. A few thought they might sneak in.
• If you were told before the season that the team's best goal-scorer would lose eye-hand coordination for half the season, and that their best player would miss a big chunk of the season because he feared his family members might be murdered, and that ADA would miss almost the entire season, would you have thought them more likely to make the playoffs or be a lottery team?

This nonsensical idea that they underachieved is merely a way for some to let out their frustrations that their own outlandish expectations didn't come to fruition. Too many fans live in a fantasy world.

This team is right on schedule to being a top-tier team despite the incessant whining of those that claimed they had the patience for a rebuild but turned out to have no patience at all.

I'm assuming you've not played a lot of hockey in your day because, your assumption of faceoffs not being a skill that can be taught is 100% inaccurate. Like painfully obviously inaccurate to anyone whose played hockey at any higher level. I guess when all the NHL teams run faceoff drills and have guys stay for extra practice on faceoffs afte practices must just do it because they agree with you that it's not a coachable skill?? In fact, many teams higher skill coaches just to work on faceoffs... again guess they agree that it's not something that can be improved.

The team had a number one pick, and number two pick, the leading assist and possibly( likely) defensmen in points--possible Norris Trophy Winning player and a statistical top 10 NHL goalie all on the roster this season. Your conclusion that this season should be considered, exactly as it turned out- is the definition of literal. If you said to anyone before the season started that the Rangers would have a potential Norris winning defenseman, a top 10 NHL goalie, both Laf and Kappo on pace to score 20 goals, Mica on pace to put up realistically in line career season, Artemi to play to the back of his card and then say, but the team won't make the playoffs, I think the logical reaction from most people would be "huh?" Looking back at what people thought before the season is a self serving narrative too. Few experts thought the Penguins would make the playoffs and now they are in first. That team overachieved-- the Rangers did not.

 

[Entrancemperium]

Just have this feeling that we're all getting our hopes up and then we'll find out that Quinn will keep his job.

 

[duhmetreE]

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

I just don't see how you can fire your team President and GM citing "results" as your reason, and not also fire the coach.

The same coach who has been here longer than the aforementioned fired President.

Quinn is gone.

If he isn't, than this is no more than a Jimmy Dolan temper tantrum with no plan.

 

[Dr. Ogrodnick]

I just don't see how you can fire your team President and GM citing "results" as your reason, and not also fire the coach.

The same coach who has been here longer than the aforementioned fired President.

Quinn is gone.

If he isn't, than this is no more than a Jimmy Dolan temper tantrum with no plan.

Exactly. The owner wants the team to go in a different direction. Promoting the assistant GM who has been here for the whole rebuild and retaining the coach isn't a new direction, its as close to the same direction as you can get while still firing someone.

 

[chosen]

I'm assuming you've not played a lot of hockey in your day because, your assumption of faceoffs not being a skill that can be taught is 100% inaccurate. Like painfully obviously inaccurate to anyone whose played hockey at any higher level. I guess when all the NHL teams run faceoff drills and have guys stay for extra practice on faceoffs afte practices must just do it because they agree with you that it's not a coachable skill?? In fact, many teams higher skill coaches just to work on faceoffs... again guess they agree that it's not something that can be improved.

The team had a number one pick, and number two pick, the leading assist and possibly( likely) defensmen in points--possible Norris Trophy Winning player and a statistical top 10 NHL goalie all on the roster this season. Your conclusion that this season should be considered, exactly as it turned out- is the definition of literal. If you said to anyone before the season started that the Rangers would have a potential Norris winning defenseman, a top 10 NHL goalie, both Laf and Kappo on pace to score 20 goals, Mica on pace to put up realistically in line career season, Artemi to play to the back of his card and then say, but the team won't make the playoffs, I think the logical reaction from most people would be "huh?" Looking back at what people thought before the season is a self serving narrative too. Few experts thought the Penguins would make the playoffs and now they are in first. That team overachieved-- the Rangers did not.

1. I played college hockey, but that's totally irrelevant to this discussion.

2. Shesterkin performed as expected. Many picked him as part of the conversation for ROY.

3. If you believe Laf and Kakko performed better statistically than expected, you're alone in that belief.

4. If faceoffs can be taught effectively, why don't players get better?

5. If you don't believe that Mika's 1st half performance negatively affected the Rangers place in the standings, you might be alone in that, too.

6. If you knew before the season that Fox would have a Norris type year in addition to what happened to their best forward, their best goal scorer, and their highest scoring defenseman, and you would have thought that would net to a better season, I would have laughed at that idea. Funny thing is, you would have, too.

 

[Kodiak]

My wild assumption is dead-on accurate. Players almost never go from bad on faceoffs to good on faceoffs. If it was a skill that could be taught effectively, there would be huge swings in faceoff percentages, and there aren't.

What you're calling an unprepared team, I'm calling the team with the least experience in the league. That's the type of team that needs a pre-season and lots of practices. Teams filled with veterans need that a whole lot less. True or not?

In the end, it's always about a team's record, not about some make-believe idea of minute degrees of perceived improvement.

Everyone always side-steps my central questions:

• Before the season, where did you think the Rangers would finish? Almost everyone thought they wouldn't make the playoffs. A few thought they might sneak in.
• If you were told before the season that the team's best goal-scorer would lose eye-hand coordination for half the season, and that their best player would miss a big chunk of the season because he feared his family members might be murdered, and that ADA would miss almost the entire season, would you have thought them more likely to make the playoffs or be a lottery team?

This nonsensical idea that they underachieved is merely a way for some to let out their frustrations that their own outlandish expectations didn't come to fruition. Too many fans live in a fantasy world.

This team is right on schedule to being a top-tier team despite the incessant whining of those that claimed they had the patience for a rebuild but turned out to have no patience at all.

Faceoffs are a skill that can be taught, and at the NHL level, it seems that experience is a huge factor. If you look at the top 10 players in faceoff percentage this year (min. 400 faceoffs), you notice a couple of things:

1. They are older players. The average age of the top 10 is 32.
2. Every one of them were below 50% on faceoffs in their rookie seasons. Many spent 3-5 years below 50% before their percentage jumped over 50%.

Here are some examples:

Jordan Staal was 37% in his rookie season, then had 4 more seasons below 50%. Then he had two seasons around 50-51% before he took another step forward and his last 8 seasons have been over 54%.
Jordan Staal Stats and News

Anze Kopitar started at 46% in his first year, then ~49% for 4 years, then ~52-53% for 6 years, and then 54%+ for 4 years.
Anze Kopitar Stats and News

Steven Stamkos's first 8 (!) seasons were below 50% before he took a big leap in forward at age 26.
Steven Stamkos Stats and News

 

[chosen]

I just don't see how you can fire your team President and GM citing "results" as your reason, and not also fire the coach.

The same coach who has been here longer than the aforementioned fired President.

Quinn is gone.

If he isn't, than this is no more than a Jimmy Dolan temper tantrum with no plan.

Quinn is probably gone AND this was no more than a Dolan tantrum.

 

[chosen]

Faceoffs are a skill that can be taught, and at the NHL level, it seems that experience is a huge factor. If you look at the top 10 players in faceoff percentage this year (min. 400 faceoffs), you notice a couple of things:

1. They are older players. The average age of the top 10 is 32.
2. Every one of them were below 50% on faceoffs in their rookie seasons. Many spent 3-5 years below 50% before their percentage jumped over 50%.

Here are some examples:

Jordan Staal was 37% in his rookie season, then had 4 more seasons below 50%. Then he had two seasons around 50-51% before he took another step forward and his last 8 seasons have been over 54%.
Jordan Staal Stats and News

Anze Kopitar started at 46% in his first year, then ~49% for 4 years, then ~52-53% for 6 years, and then 54%+ for 4 years.
Anze Kopitar Stats and News

Steven Stamkos's first 8 (!) seasons were below 50% before he took a big leap in forward at age 26.
Steven Stamkos Stats and News

You realize of course that other players went down in faceoff percentage, yet they all get the same coaching.

 

[Ruggs225]

I think Quinn actually did a great job at getting players to improve their individual game. We saw alot of players making strides, becoming better defensively.

however, Quinn was terrible at making the “team” better. His system is awful, and it looked like players never new where they were supposed to be or if they should commit to forechecking. His scheme for breakouts was horrific as well.

and his player usage leaves alot to be desired.

he just isnt a coach that will make a team better, and for that he needs to be removed.

 

[Bacon Artemi Bravo]

After hearing Drury, Quinn is definitely gone.

 

[Crease]

After hearing Drury, Quinn is definitely gone.

What did Drury say?

 

[Quinnisinoverhishead]

I think Quinn actually did a great job at getting players to improve their individual game. We saw alot of players making strides, becoming better defensively.

however, Quinn was terrible at making the “team” better. His system is awful, and it looked like players never new where they were supposed to be or if they should commit to forechecking. His scheme for breakouts was horrific as well.

and his player usage leaves alot to be desired.

he just isnt a coach that will make a team better, and for that he needs to be removed.

I really don't understand when people say Quinn did a great job at improving players individual games. Who actually improved from the beginning of the season, to the end? Only one player (Lafraniere) He had a 10 month layoff from playing any real hockey... odds were Laff was going to figure it out regardless.
Why are people giving him credit for the summer training regimen of kakko, and buchnevich. Both actually regressed as the season went along. K'Andre Miller got worse.. Who got better?