Speculation: Do You Want Gerard Gallant Fired?

[KirkAlbuquerque]

he's so stupid it hurts

 

[Trxjw]

Changing coaches is a band-aid on a broken leg. It's not a system issue. Unless a coach is on the extreme end when it comes to hockey systems, their ideas really aren't so drastically different from the next guy that the system change is what makes a difference. It's simply a change that triggers a motivating element in the players.

No coach is going to come in, look at this roster, and think "Yeah, I better put the kid above the guy who scored 50 last year and definitely above the guy who had 96 points." The Rangers have a player personnel problem because they tried to fill holes on their roster before they knew what holes they had. They invested $18m in 30 year olds at arguably the easiest position to fill in hockey: left-handed wingers. And they did it in the first two years after starting a complete rebuild.

If a new coach is going to come in, the Rangers still need to take away the toys they're going to lean on.

 

[cheech70]

Changing coaches is a band-aid on a broken leg. It's not a system issue. Unless a coach is on the extreme end when it comes to hockey systems, their ideas really aren't so drastically different from the next guy that the system change is what makes a difference. It's simply a change that triggers a motivating element in the players.

No coach is going to come in, look at this roster, and think "Yeah, I better put the kid above the guy who scored 50 last year and definitely above the guy who had 96 points." The Rangers have a player personnel problem because they tried to fill holes on their roster before they knew what holes they had. They invested $18m in 30 year olds at arguably the easiest position to fill in hockey: left-handed wingers. And they did it in the first two years after starting a complete rebuild.

If a new coach is going to come in, the Rangers still need to take away the toys they're going to lean on.

Panarin was and is good for this team...he jumped started the rebuild...now that we have some core pieces.... we need to zero in on the fine tuning. Filip is the #2 C period. We need some studs who can score....

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Changing coaches is a band-aid on a broken leg. It's not a system issue. Unless a coach is on the extreme end when it comes to hockey systems, their ideas really aren't so drastically different from the next guy that the system change is what makes a difference. It's simply a change that triggers a motivating element in the players.

No coach is going to come in, look at this roster, and think "Yeah, I better put the kid above the guy who scored 50 last year and definitely above the guy who had 96 points." The Rangers have a player personnel problem because they tried to fill holes on their roster before they knew what holes they had. They invested $18m in 30 year olds at arguably the easiest position to fill in hockey: left-handed wingers. And they did it in the first two years after starting a complete rebuild.

If a new coach is going to come in, the Rangers still need to take away the toys they're going to lean on.

actually, plenty of coaches would and have the balls to bench high paid veterans who are just out for a stroll, not backchecking, taking 2 minute shifts, etc. This fallacy thay all coaches are the same is such cope, look around the league, watch some other teams games and you'll be disgusted at how this team is run.

 

[Trxjw]

actually, plenty of coaches would and have the balls to bench high paid veterans who are just out for a stroll, not backchecking, taking 2 minute shifts, etc. This fallacy thay all coaches are the same is such cope, look around the league, watch some other teams games and you'll be disgusted at how this team is run.

I can watch other teams games? Since when?

 

[Deleted member 23124]

Im starting to belive there is no coach able to get our top guys to play his system, feels like they go on the ice and play however they want whatever the coach says. They know they will outlast any coach if it comes to a conflict, and are immune to get punished.

That says it all -- short, sweet and to the point.

 

[turcotte8]

I found an x-ray of Gallant's head

 

[Do you want ants]

actually, plenty of coaches would and have the balls to bench high paid veterans who are just out for a stroll, not backchecking, taking 2 minute shifts, etc. This fallacy thay all coaches are the same is such cope, look around the league, watch some other teams games and you'll be disgusted at how this team is run.

Which ones that are actually successful?

 

[TopShelfSnipes]

Let's be clear. The dead offense is Gallant's "system"

When they were scoring 3+ goals every game at the start of the year was NOT Gallant's system, which is why he was pounding his fist and talking about the need for defense and structure.

Now they have structure, suck, and can't score. The offense looks as dead, slow, and uncreative as it did at the end of the Tortorella years. Let's whack the puck around the boards in for 50 seconds in the offensive zone, generate nothing but two point wrist shots - one which misses wide, and the other that is easily saved - and call it "offensive zone pressure." No. This system sucks, and they will never score playing on the outside like this.

And the coach's only solution is to put grinders on scoring lines for "balance," and to constantly punish the same players who are doing what they are told. Or to stack one top line with 3 veterans so their stats will look nice, but the other 3 lines produce nothing. Hey, maybe Igor can stand on his head and we can win 2-1! I am good at coaching guyz!

It's asinine, and I want him gone.

And this is not a case of just hating the coach and wanting them fired. This is someone who is sick of coaches who run the joint like middle managers coming in, not communicating with the players, not setting expectations or buy in, actively impeding the team's progress, then doing destructive things to "shake things up" while ignoring all the obvious things that need to be done. This guy is AV 2.0. Same stubornness, same clinging to things that are proven to not work, same scapegoats for everything he doesn't like.

Organizationally, other teams do not do the things the Rangers do and are better for it.

And I am NOT a fan of Drury - I would have much rather continued with JD/Gorton - but our owner is a dipshit, so now the guy that made the worst Rangers trade in ~30 years is going to get another decade to learn on the job, the team will churn through several coaches mired in mediocrity while wasting the generational talents they actually do have, win 0 Cups, and another generation of scoring forwards will be utterly wasted.

Same as it ever was.
And this is why the team remains mired in mediocrity.

 

[duhmetreE]

For the people saying No, I present to you…

Kreider Zibs Kakko had one bad game... after Kreider coming back from injury...

BLOW IT UP

Panarin Zibs has never worked.

The kid line will work this time. They started to look like the Playoffs line from last year imo.

Did I miss the play where Kravtsov did some inexcusable thing on defense?

 

[TopShelfSnipes]

Kreider Zibs Kakko had one bad game... after Kreider coming back from injury...

BLOW IT UP

Panarin Zibs has never worked.

The kid line will work this time. They started to look like the Playoffs line from last year imo.

Did I miss the play where Kravtsov did some inexcusable thing on defense?

No, you didn't. Just "that line" was bad defensively, and yet again Krav was the scapegoat instead of the two veterans with zero chemistry together who are always the ones handling the puck on that failed line.

 

[Deleted member 23124]

Did I miss the play where Kravtsov did some inexcusable thing on defense?

What was unusual was GG going out of his way to tell the press that Kravy was not the problem on that line.

 

[Deleted member 23124]

Let's be clear. The dead offense is Gallant's "system"

When they were scoring 3+ goals every game at the start of the year was NOT Gallant's system, which is why he was pounding his fist and talking about the need for defense and structure.

Now they have structure, suck, and can't score. The offense looks as dead, slow, and uncreative as it did at the end of the Tortorella years. Let's whack the puck around the boards in for 50 seconds in the offensive zone, generate nothing but two point wrist shots - one which misses wide, and the other that is easily saved - and call it "offensive zone pressure." No. This system sucks, and they will never score playing on the outside like this.

And the coach's only solution is to put grinders on scoring lines for "balance," and to constantly punish the same players who are doing what they are told. Or to stack one top line with 3 veterans so their stats will look nice, but the other 3 lines produce nothing. Hey, maybe Igor can stand on his head and we can win 2-1! I am good at coaching guyz!

It's asinine, and I want him gone.

And this is not a case of just hating the coach and wanting them fired. This is someone who is sick of coaches who run the joint like middle managers coming in, not communicating with the players, not setting expectations or buy in, actively impeding the team's progress, then doing destructive things to "shake things up" while ignoring all the obvious things that need to be done. This guy is AV 2.0. Same stubornness, same clinging to things that are proven to not work, same scapegoats for everything he doesn't like.

Organizationally, other teams do not do the things the Rangers do and are better for it.

And I am NOT a fan of Drury - I would have much rather continued with JD/Gorton - but our owner is a dipshit, so now the guy that made the worst Rangers trade in ~30 years is going to get another decade to learn on the job, the team will churn through several coaches mired in mediocrity while wasting the generational talents they actually do have, win 0 Cups, and another generation of scoring forwards will be utterly wasted.

Same as it ever was.
And this is why the team remains mired in mediocrity.

Exactly. I've said it before -- I think it all boils down to Dolan. His unspoken mandate is "MAKE THE PLAYOFFS" -- no matter the cost. And he's only going to hire people who will do exactly what he wants when he wants it. And he found the perfect duo in Sather and Drury.

The coach will never have any real say or authority on how the team is run.....I'm sure they'll be allowed to make recommendations.....and I am sure those "recommendations" will end up in the proverbial circular file before the ink is dry on them. They will be handed players willy-nilly and told to win at all costs (however, don't you dare sit one of the "stars" if they're stinking up the joint because they're the ones people come to see). It's a never ending cycle.

 

[Lion Hound]

Gallant is here for 2 seasons. He took over a club with 14 returning skaters and the same Nertminder. A club that just finished 7th in the Metro and got them to the Conference Finals in his first season. In season 2 his club is sitting 3rd in the stacked Metro division and 6th in the Eastern Conference.

I don't want him fired. Despite some line juggling and some bizarre comments here and there, in all honesty he deserves to be behind the bench here currently.

If they exit quick, if they fall apart. Then there's reason to move him out. In the meantime, there is a really good core of players here and a GM sitting with a decent hand.

I think the club needs a couple of tweaks. If they continue to string wins togethers they will likely head into a 2nd playoff birth. In the playoffs they have a punchers chance. The got a really good chin as well with Igor sitting in Net.

Gallant has 16 Games till the deadline. 36 Games till the end of the Season.

Lets see what he can do to figure out the Middle 6.

 

[DialUp]

Drury had an opportunity to make an Alpha male statement and fire Gallant in front of all those fans at the practice today and he BLEW IT.

 

[Baby Duck Homme]

GG is the Reavo of coaches. He can fire up the room and project some grit. But he is a bit slow and the game may be passing him by.

 

[CLW]

Honest question: if you think Gallant sucks, who's a good coach?

Gallant was regarded (by this board too) as one of the best.

You can't just look at the standings and give me the flavor of the month. Nobody was clamoring for Montgomery or Brunette before this year.

I tend to think they're mostly interchangeable. Every team emphasizes forechecking and royal road. Hockey isn't in a tactically diverse enough meta right now for them to matter that much. And they all have weird habits.

The only one I actually harbor resentment for is AV, and it's not because of performance, it's because he sabotaged his front office by torpedoing acquisitions. Regardless of what you think of guys like Keith Yandle and Eric Staal, that wasn't his decision to make.

I digress. Point is, the next coach is going to either start gangbusters on offense but we'll be 33rd in corsi in a 32 team league, and then we'll either continue to struggle or he'll go back to 2-1 games. Or it'll be the same thing, and he'll end up making the same decisions, because he'll realize that's all we have. Every coach is going to be forced into that because we don't get enough out of the forwards as an organization.

The only potential difference I see, is that if we get a real hardass, he won't put up with "Panarin runs the team" and maybe we get more out of him.

That's not insignificant but it's also not solving all of the problems people want solved.

I don't think the bolded is quite true. Gallant was regarded as "the best" in a specific situation with some very, very slim pickings. If the alternative is Tocchet then yeah "the best" becomes very relative.

Right now it's clear Gallant is not the man to advance this club, so what's the point in keeping him? Going through the motions because there is no real alternative? Imo that's a fallacy.

I know there is a horde of Sam Allardyce's (Dino's with a huge D) to pick from, and the Rangers always end up with one of them, but the Rangers are of the statue as a club they should have a Jürgen Klopp at the helm. "Klopp" in this case meaning smart, adaptive, creative, taking the game to a new level. Out with the old, in with the modern game.

The NHL suffers from serious inbreeding. The Rangers should do what Colorado and Tampa did and find/create their own non-inbred coach. I don't care if they failed with Quinn, he was labeled as a fresh face and a new approach for marketing reasons when in truth he was exactly the opposite - a YAD = yet another dino.

I don't think there's an easy fix and it will be a multi season job to advance the club, especially in the current totally constipated market, but a multi-billion org cycling through the horde of dinos is pathetic, where is the smarts?

 

[CLW]

My bad, I thought you were only citing this year's numbers. I also don't know if I necessarily agree that the system hasn't changed because there's pretty obvious changes in offensive tactics with how much they're generating low-to-high passes off the cycle. I think they've also been better defensively too, but that also could be due to better personnel and injury luck.

You're dead on with the coaching impacts being overrated and the talent being the main driver.

It's both. This club has plenty of talent, top 5 in the league at least, but it's smothered in the crib by outdated thinking that values energizer bunnies along with a ham-fisted, lead-footed approach.

I am hard on Panarin but to be fair to him he has no one to play his game with, Trocheck is not that guy, Chytil is good but also more of a horse than a Panarin player. Zib is another horse whose best 5v5 game is not particularly intricate like Panarin's.

Again using Klopp as an example how he reformed Liverpool, out of an badly outdated approach, brought a new approach based on speed, mobility, skill and collective pressure and players to fit that vision. You need a vision, a talented coach and talented players. That may sound self evident, but a bad coach will fail with both the vision and the talent and that's where we are now with Gallant. And I question the NYR vision but since Drury is still relatively new that remains to be seen.

 

[effen]

It's both. This club has plenty of talent, top 5 in the league at least, but it's smothered in the crib by outdated thinking that values energizer bunnies along with a ham-fisted, lead-footed approach.

I am hard on Panarin but to be fair to him he has no one to play his game with, Trocheck is not that guy, Chytil is good but also more of a horse than a Panarin player. Zib is another horse whose best 5v5 game is not particularly intricate like Panarin's.

Again using Klopp as an example how he reformed Liverpool, out of an badly outdated approach, brought a new approach based on speed, mobility, skill and collective pressure and players to fit that vision. You need a vision, a talented coach and talented players. That may sound self evident, but a bad coach will fail with both the vision and the talent and that's where we are now with Gallant. And I question the NYR vision but since Drury is still relatively new that remains to be seen.

Panarin plays with the opposite of speed, mobility, or pressure. Not many coaches are going to look good when their best player is trying to do the opposite of things that work.

 

[CLW]

Panarin plays with the opposite of speed, mobility, or pressure. Not many coaches are going to look good when their best player is trying to do the opposite of things that work.

Panarin is a special case, for better and worse. The Rangers though it was a good idea to bring him in. A special player being paid a special salary to do special things. He needs support that fit his approach was my point. Yet another example of far too many of the club being at crosspurposes with itself.

But that is a discussion for another thread.

 

[huerter]

Right now it's clear Gallant is not the man to advance this club, so what's the point in keeping him? Going through the motions because there is no real alternative? Imo that's a fallacy.

For those of us absolute pigeon morons, can you name the teams in the league that have the man to advance their clubs?

 

[Lion Hound]

Honest question: if you think Gallant sucks, who's a good coach?

Gallant was regarded (by this board too) as one of the best.

You can't just look at the standings and give me the flavor of the month. Nobody was clamoring for Montgomery or Brunette before this year.

I tend to think they're mostly interchangeable. Every team emphasizes forechecking and royal road. Hockey isn't in a tactically diverse enough meta right now for them to matter that much. And they all have weird habits.

The only one I actually harbor resentment for is AV, and it's not because of performance, it's because he sabotaged his front office by torpedoing acquisitions. Regardless of what you think of guys like Keith Yandle and Eric Staal, that wasn't his decision to make.

I digress. Point is, the next coach is going to either start gangbusters on offense but we'll be 33rd in corsi in a 32 team league, and then we'll either continue to struggle or he'll go back to 2-1 games. Or it'll be the same thing, and he'll end up making the same decisions, because he'll realize that's all we have. Every coach is going to be forced into that because we don't get enough out of the forwards as an organization.

The only potential difference I see, is that if we get a real hardass, he won't put up with "Panarin runs the team" and maybe we get more out of him.

That's not insignificant but it's also not solving all of the problems people want solved.

I remember a large portion of the board wanted Gallant above everyone else.

 

[TheDirtyH]

For those of us absolute pigeon morons, can you name the teams in the league that have the man to advance their clubs?

There have been plenty of examples of coaches coming in and getting a stagnant roster going. We just lost to one of them, in case you thought the Bruins were still under Bruce Cassidy. I'm not agreeing Gallant should go or suggesting that I know a better alternative, just saying it's not even difficult to find teams that have found coaches that have made a big difference for their clubs. Winnipeg. Dallas. Boston. Montreal. Philadelphia. Buffalo. Calgary. I mean that's just in the last couple seasons.

 

[huerter]

There have been plenty of examples of coaches coming in and getting a stagnant roster going. We just lost to one of them, in case you thought the Bruins were still under Bruce Cassidy. I'm not agreeing Gallant should go or suggesting that I know a better alternative, just saying it's not even difficult to find teams that have found coaches that have made a big difference for their clubs. Winnipeg. Dallas. Boston. Montreal. Philadelphia. Buffalo. Calgary. I mean that's just in the last couple seasons.

Without Gallant we had 60 points in 56 (88 pt pace) and we improved to 110 and made the ECF. He was a finalist for the Jack. Would you say that Gallant belonged on that list going into this season? Are you suggesting that he has fallen off the list based on the first 46 games where we are on pace for 102 points?

 

[GENESISPuck94]

YES

I don't want him losing his livelihood, I wish him all the well being a fellow human being deserves.

But, he shouldn't be coaching this team. Plain and simple.

The fact he thinks Vesey and Goodrow are top 6 even top 9 players is all we need to know.