Post-Game Talk: Devil VII

[mas0764]

So, a guy who utterly dominated his age group before the NHL couldn't process information quickly?

Beyond absurd.

The only thing that changed was almost everyone was faster than him at the next level.

You went to football to make a point about hockey?

But since you brought it up, the Bears failures can be traced to their drafts, injuries, and bad luck, but most of all due to their inability to get a great QB.

NFL teams almost never win without great QBs.

As someone who presumably watches the NFL, I would have thought you knew that.

The Bears have drafted QBs high and failed to develop them. It's not that they've missed on 6 first round QBs in a row. They don't have the culture to develop them.

It's one example. Anyone could come up with many more in any sport. Yes, there are teams that do not develop talent well and we are one of them.

Regarding Lafreniere, no, it was not the "only thing that changed was that everyone was faster than him." Here's a thought, maybe everyone here has better hockey sense than him?

Lafreniere was playing against slower guys just like Jack Hughes was. They both dominated lesser competition.

Hughes has gotten better, Lafreniere hasn't. It's about more than footspeed, or no slow player would ever be good in the NHL, which isn't true. There are plenty of very good forwards who are the same speed as Lafreniere.

Not that his speed isn't a weakness, but it's not the main reason he has failed to crack 40 points. Also.... players can get faster. They can work on their skating. Maybe the team needs to step in and direct it's prospects to work on that?

No, we just have to hear that "the NHL isn't a developmental league," and so our prospects stagnate while every other team has their prospects get better and develop. Maybe it's in the water, our guys just turn to lazy assholes in NY? Again, Occam's Razer. Too much commonality. The simplest explanation isn't that 4 top 10 forwards were all misidentified, including 2 "can't miss" guys. The simplest explanation is that we've f***ed them up.

 

[chosen]

I don’t disagree but we didn’t win that lottery. It’s like saying if we had gotten the 1st overall pick with mcdavid we’d be a better team….

The point was when the Rangers got lottery-lucky, they really didn't get lucky at all.

 

[mrmovies779]

Its going to be such a joy watching the Hughes brothers terrorize us for the next 10+ years while winning multiple Cups

 

[mandiblesofdoom]

Hughes would've been developed as 3rd line center behind Zibanejad and Strome however, with no #1PP time. Take that into consideration.

He'd learn the importance of throwing a hit after the puck is gone.

 

[Brutananadilewski]

Lol, what are we offering? We have nothing that equals a Bedard.

No, but we could offer a package.

 

[qwertyaas]

He'd learn the importance of throwing a hit after the puck is gone.

He'd learn how to forecheck. The Rangers development special. Learn the defensive side of the game prior to learning to be an offensive threat.

Responsibility and all that.

Or, mediocrity.

The issue is, we were forced into that since we never had good top end talent and that was the players we drafted. We are no longer there and acting like we're still in 2009.

That and Rangers care about $$$. Being mediocre leaves money on the table. But always making a push means your young talent can't open up and take risks. It's a catch22.

 

[Brief Candle]

We can reset right now.

Fire Gallant. Fire Drury. I'd like to say get rid of Sather but that's not any more possible than firing Jerry Jones from the Dallas Cowboys.

Clean out the front office and development. Try to insulate the new front office from Sather as much as possible. Change development philosophies.

Trade Trouba, Kreider, Goodrow, Trocheck and Panarin. Let Kane and Tarasenko walk. I'll listen to offers for Shesterkin if it blows me away.

Your team next year revolves around Zibanejad, Lafreniere, Kakko, Chytil, Othmann, Vesey, Cuylle, and some 1 year free agents. Your D is Fox, Lindgren. Schneider, Jones, Robertson.

Get back into the lottery. Plan to spend another 3 years there. Get more and more assets.

You have enough here that your young core can still be good once you've found a couple true stars that are on Hughes' level.

I'd actually hold on to Goody. Other than that, pretty much agree. I could make an exception for Troch, only because he's quick and will bang/crash. Miller, as others have said, is part of the solution, imo. Having a few vets on the team isn't a bad thing, provided they do their f***ing jobs.

It's funny how we fell right back in to the typical New York Rangers trap: Trying to buy our way to a cup. Yet, what got us there were a lot of home-grown players. We really need people up top who are committed to this philosophy and aren't weak enough to be swayed by Dolan.

 

[mandiblesofdoom]

This is all true, but aside from saying "Bring in new staff" -- here on a message board we will want to debate on-ice personnel direction.

Of course we need to bring in staff committed to developing offensive skill. We have to clear out the dinosaur ideas that lead us to value trading up for Braden Schneider because he's big but not bothering to secure a Dawson Mercer or Anton Lundell when we desperately need scoring forwards. All that is true.

But say we do that..... say we bring in the new staff...

What do you want the new staff to do vis-a-vis roster construction?

I say tear it down and find new kids to start over with. The new staff isn't fixing Trouba, Kreider and Panarin before they are ancient.

Find some 18 year olds and go from there.

why not both?

 

[will1066]

Its going to be such a joy watching the Hughes brothers terrorize us for the next 10+ years while winning multiple Cups

And then he's the face of every Chipotle you see in the Tri State. Pain.

 

[Machinehead]

I honestly wouldn't even mind Brunette with a Jacques Martin-esque defensive coordinator. At least there would be a semblance of a plan on offense. The desire to play Instagram hockey is a cancer that runs deep and the last 2 coaches have failed to address it because they weren't respected by the veterans(Quinn) or let it spread to the rest of the team (Gallant). If no change is made at Head Coach i might agree with you that theirs no hope for next year.

And with Quinn, it was a lot of shouting, but at the end of the day, every time Panairn had a laugher, Quinn responded by giving him 23 minutes.

When the benchings happen, it's usually because the whole team doesn't look good, and that's why it's usually low-hanging fruit like Kakko.

It was a lot of empty calories behind the bench, and Edge warned that Gallant would basically keep the same system and culture, just he's a nicer guy and brings a bit of swagger, which he did. Year one is over now.

You need to have specific standards and discipline players when they don't do specific things, not yell at Kakko because the team is getting outshot by Anaheim again. Nobody responds to that.

And all players "respect" the coach on a certain level and will say the right things. It's the lizard part of the brain you have to get into. They have to know in their fibers not to f*** around.

I think you would actually like Panarin if we had a structure. Torts loves the guy. It doesn't make him a bad professional or a bad teammate that he needs a structure. It makes him human.

 

[mas0764]

I'd actually hold on to Goody. Other than that, pretty much agree. I could make an exception for Troch, only because he's quick and will bang/crash. Miller, as others have said, is part of the solution, imo. Having a few vets on the team isn't a bad thing, provided they do their f***ing jobs.

It's funny how we fell right back in to the typical New York Rangers trap: Trying to buy our way to a cup. Yet, what got us there were a lot of home-grown players. We really need people up top who are committed to this philosophy and aren't weak enough to be swayed by Dolan.

We had that in Gorton and he was fired.

Dolan is the real problem. Dolan and his attachment to Sather.

Unfortunately for the New York Rangers, their fans, and our chances at winning a Cup in our lifetimes (well, really the owner's lifetime), the chances of that real problem changing for the better are essentially nil.

So what else can we do? What's the next solution that might work given that we have to operate with one arm behind our back?

And with Quinn, it was a lot of shouting, but at the end of the day, every time Panairn had a laugher, Quinn responded by giving him 23 minutes.

When the benchings happen, it's usually because the whole team doesn't look good, and that's why it's usually low-hanging fruit like Kakko.

It was a lot of empty calories behind the bench, and Edge warned that Gallant would basically keep the same system and culture, just he's a nicer guy and brings a bit of swagger, which he did. Year one is over now.

You need to have specific standards and discipline players when they don't do specific things, not yell at Kakko because the team is getting outshot by Anaheim again. Nobody responds to that.

And all players "respect" the coach on a certain level and will say the right things. It's the lizard part of the brain you have to get into. They have to know in their fibers not to f*** around.

I think you would actually like Panarin if we had a structure. Torts loves the guy. It doesn't make him a bad professional or a bad teammate that he needs a structure. It makes him human.

This is why I'm not 100% sure Panarin is gone.

He has very real warts but is still a unicorn.

Can we fix the offensive shit show and then see what we have? Of course it's getting too late. Too many 30 year olds.

The window is slamming shut because we never opened it with enough young forward talent.

 

[will1066]

And with Quinn, it was a lot of shouting, but at the end of the day, every time Panairn had a laugher, Quinn responded by giving him 23 minutes.

When the benchings happen, it's usually because the whole team doesn't look good, and that's why it's usually low-hanging fruit like Kakko.

It was a lot of empty calories behind the bench, and Edge warned that Gallant would basically keep the same system and culture, just he's a nicer guy and brings a bit of swagger, which he did. Year one is over now.

You need to have specific standards and discipline players when they don't do specific things, not yell at Kakko because the team is getting outshot by Anaheim again. Nobody responds to that.

And all players "respect" the coach on a certain level and will say the right things. It's the lizard part of the brain you have to get into. They have to know in their fibers not to f*** around.

I think you would actually like Panarin if we had a structure. Torts loves the guy. It doesn't make him a bad professional or a bad teammate that he needs a structure. It makes him human.

What did I just read?

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

It's time to admit that Drury and Sather were wrong.

Gorton had the right idea, but screwed up too much of it. And JD, when he came in, was wrong.

BACK TO THE LOTTERY.

You don't know who to blame, do you.

 

[Machinehead]

What did I just read?

That Quinn shouted a lot instead of actually coaching and Gallant sneers at the tablet a lot instead of actually coaching.

 

[chosen]

The Bears have drafted QBs high and failed to develop them. It's not that they've missed on 6 first round QBs in a row. They don't have the culture to develop them.

It's one example. Anyone could come up with many more in any sport. Yes, there are teams that do not develop talent well and we are one of them.

Regarding Lafreniere, no, it was not the "only thing that changed was that everyone was faster than him." Here's a thought, maybe everyone here has better hockey sense than him?

Lafreniere was playing against slower guys just like Jack Hughes was. They both dominated lesser competition.

Hughes has gotten better, Lafreniere hasn't. It's about more than footspeed, or no slow player would ever be good in the NHL, which isn't true. There are plenty of very good forwards who are the same speed as Lafreniere.

Not that his speed isn't a weakness, but it's not the main reason he has failed to crack 40 points.

Just to be clear, you don't believe the Bears would be vastly different if they got Mahomes? If any of the QBs they took were that level they would have risen elsewhere.

I think almost everyone here would say that Lafreniere's biggest weakness by far, is a lack of speed.

There are some players who excel without some speed, but that number shrinks every season. They have become the exceptions to the rule.

To rise to the level Lafreniewre did, he had to have a very good hockey IQ. That he has now lost that makes no sense.

 

[LOFIN]

Nonsensical post. but you do realize he didn't start his NHL career on the top line in NJ.

Players with skillsets like Hughes will rise to the top quickly wherever they play.

Comparing the skills of any of the Rangers kids to Hughes is laughable.

He didn't, but they quickly threw him there because they didn't have to win games, they could focus on developing players. With the Rangers, they did two fundamental mistakes with Kakko. One was keeping him up during his first season, when he should've been in the AHL. Second, they didn't force-feed him minutes and responsibility long enough to learn in the NHL-level. He was stuck in the middle-6 role (still is), and that's what he has become.

Hughes is a great player, but if you are blind to the mistakes done by this organization when it comes to developing talent, I don't know what to tell you. If it was just one player you could put it on him. But it's not.

 

[will1066]

That Quinn shouted a lot instead of actually coaching and Gallant sneers at the tablet a lot instead of actually coaching.

Maybe right, but on the accountability issue alone Panarin is the problem.

 

[Rangers in 7]

Just a few things I’d like to touch on that have already been said

1. Laf played poorly this series, but at least in games 6 and 7 he looked good. I’m not absolving him and have commented on him in his player discussion thread. He is not getting traded. Calling for him to get traded is ridiculous when he’s making under 2.5 mil and still paced for 40 points. I understand the disappointment in him but he’s not the reason we lost.

2. I’ve seen a lot of hate on Kane during this playoff run, but at least he was creating chances and skating. You can live with a few defensive turnovers. He played significantly better than panarin and zib. I’d take him back if he would take 3-4 mil a season over 3 years. Play him on the PP and third line. He can still put up 70 points on this team.

3. Chytil was a complete no show this playoff and I thought he was worse than both Kakko and laf. I thought Kakko played well. He absolutely needs to start putting pucks in the net though.

4. Miller is either the best defensemen I’ve ever seen or an absolute trainwreck. During the series it looked like he was stuck handling a hand grenade. He’s young so I’d still give him some time.

5. Panarin and zib — I’ve never seen two 90 point players look so bad over a 7 game series. Panarin has (without checking) like the 3rd highest cap hit in the league and had 2 f***ing secondary assists in 7 games. That is atrocious. I’ve seen all the Hughes vs laf. But panarin is paid to be a superstar, laf is not. You don’t seen mcdavid, draistal, McKinnon looking this f***ing bad in a playoff series. He is paid to be the best player on the ice. I’ve seen a lot of people saying zib gets a pass this playoffs. But he was just as bad. Constantly getting out worked. I’d have serious discussions about him as well.

6. I’ve seen a lot of posters on here exclaim that the devils will be some super team going forward. Does everyone forget the oilers had like 9 top three picks in a row. Have mcdavid and draistal and still look terrible? Their goaltending will continue to be a problem going forward. 3 f***ing years ago we had the best prospect pool in the nhl and look where we are. The grass isn’t always greener on the other side and not every player they have is going to be a star. Even hughes was largely invisible during this series and nothing they have in the system is better than him. We still should have won this series Going forward we will both be good teams, but there is no way they will be able to afford all of their young players. It just doesn’t work that way. Cool your jets on the devils being some super team.

I have like 10 more points but I doubt you guys want to hear me rant for another 10

 

[mas0764]

I kind of got those trades (even though I was skeptical it would work) because I think Drury saw we need a little skill (which we did - Goodrow playing too many minutes) and we needed offense, which we sure as f*** did.

So I don't know, maybe he kind of sees it.

As we found out, and as I already knew, the trouble with offense is more nuanced than just having good players. We don't have the right players and we don't have an offensive scheme.

Its kind of why you need young players though. You are right, offense is about more than just having talent to plug in and say go.

But that's why you need more Kakkos and Lafrenieres. Not necessarily first and second overall picks, but you need the kind of young talent you find in the top 10 of the draft who can be molded and grown into a coherent system, like the Devils have done.

We don't have that even though our tit-for-tat talent comparison should stack up favorably against NJ. Ours are aging dogs and everyone knows you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

 

[Rangers in 7]

The point was when the Rangers got lottery-lucky, they really didn't get lucky at all.

I don’t disagree with you

 

[qwertyaas]

He didn't, but they quickly threw him there because they didn't have to win games, they could focus on developing players. With the Rangers, they did two fundamental mistakes with Kakko. One was keeping him up during his first season, when he should've been in the AHL. Second, they didn't force-feed him minutes and responsibility long enough to learn in the NHL-level. He was stuck in the middle-6 role (still is), and that's what he has become.

Hughes is a great player, but if you are blind to the mistakes done by this organization when it comes to developing talent, I don't know what to tell you. If it was just one player you could put it on him. But it's not.

The other thing with players of Hughes caliber, is the team adjusts their play to cater to them. Which helps them excel even more.

We don't do that, but again, we don't have the young talent to do that either.

 

[Machinehead]

While I'll be the first to tell you that results on the ice are very random game to game, I just don't buy that roster building is a zero-sum game where you either get the good players or you get the bad players and nothing can improved.

There are franchises that have won a series or two since the lockout. There are also franchises that are succeeding with multiple cores in that same timeframe. There are well-run and poorly-run pro sports organizations.

While we're certainly not one of the "poorly-run" teams and have won our share of games, we have areas for improvement and those weaknesses are real.

 

[Machinehead]

Maybe right, but on the accountability issue alone Panarin is the problem.

Coaches have gotten him to buy in before.

 

[mrmovies779]

Schmid is a great example of being able to win in the playoffs without needing a superstar goalie if the team in front of you is good enough.That being said,I love Igor and he deserved so much better..2 goals scored total in our 4 losses...amazing

 

[chosen]

He didn't, but they quickly threw him there because they didn't have to win games, they could focus on developing players. With the Rangers, they did two fundamental mistakes with Kakko. One was keeping him up during his first season, when he should've been in the AHL. Second, they didn't force-feed him minutes and responsibility long enough to learn in the NHL-level. He was stuck in the middle-6 role (still is), and that's what he has become.

Hughes is a great player, but if you are blind to the mistakes done by this organization when it comes to developing talent, I don't know what to tell you. If it was just one player you could put it on him. But it's not.

Why do so many young players excel as rookies? It can't be development.

The only advantage they have is that if their team stinks, they'll play a ton of minutes.

Players learn things like positioning and the tricks of the trade. They don't learn speed and offensive explosiveness.

I find it near impossible to believe that anyone thinks Hughes wouldn't be great on any team and that Lafreniere would be great somewhere else.