Confirmed with Link: Head Coach Vacancy Pt III: How's your spelling? (Eakins/Vigneault/Messier/Gretzky)

[HockeyBasedNYC]

I feel like Sather talked to a lot of the players and had his own thoughts about things and decided to Fire Torts based on the fact that he may have "lost the room" and some players, like Lundqvist and even some of the leadership. His shelf-life was up.

I wouldnt be surprised if they brought in AV, which isnt much a difference system-wise. But Sather never has a plan. You would think the best course of action would be to look at your team and base the system and coach around that. But I guess with a number of "good" coach candidates out there he pulled the trigger so he wouldn't miss out on them - figuring he would worry about that later.

What kind of system is Eakins known for? I'm sure the Rangers will kick the tires, but is it time for a rookie coach for a team that "measures itself on if they've wont the cup" and will "settle for nothing less" (im paraphrasing)?

Seems to me you would want to bring in a coach who has some experience in the NHL and specifically the playoffs, which leads me to believe that AV is the best candidate.

Funny though, that everything the Torts haters were screaming about is going to come right back into the organization. When those of us asked what coach would replace Torts, it really didnt matter then did it? Now it matters and the arguments against Tortorella are looking weaker and weaker imo (no offense to those who wanted him out. Its just the fact of the matter)

 

[Trxjw]

Another defensive coach?

Eakins, Boucher or someone who has not been mentioned. No Ruff. No Vigneault.

Eakins is a defensive coach as well. Not to the extent we saw with Tortorella's system, but he's certainly not a guy who will let people run wild.

Eakins is my first choice, and Vigneault is my second.

 

[Tawnos]

I think people looking for an offensive coach are overcompensating for what we've seen for the last few years. This team's strengths are still going to be it's defense and goaltending. We still need a defensive minded coach. Bringing in someone offensive-first is ignoring the roster that we have.

 

[we want cup]

Funny though, that everything the Torts haters were screaming about is going to come right back into the organization. When those of us asked what coach would replace Torts, it really didnt matter then did it? Now it matters and the arguments against Tortorella are looking weaker and weaker imo (no offense to those who wanted him out. Its just the fact of the matter)

Don't worry, I'm sure we'll find this mythical coach everyone clamored for, who will always be consistent with his lines, will be willing to sacrifice defense for offense, will give rookies who don't play well tons of ice time in important games, will magically turn a so-so group of forwards into an offensive juggernaut, will always divulge what injuries players have, and won't be mean to reporters.

 

[iamitter]

Eakins is a defensive coach as well. Not to the extent we saw with Tortorella's system, but he's certainly not a guy who will let people run wild.

Eakins is my first choice, and Vigneault is my second.

This team isn't talented enough to just run wild and win. We still need a defensive coach, just a different breakout and offensive zone strategy.

Eakins' assistant for special teams is known for a strong PK and poor PP. So at least we'd be used to it.

 

[NYROrtsFan]

To be honest, I don't think any of these guys are any better than Tortorella. I don't have a huge problem with Tortorella, but I think it's useless making a change for the sake of doing so... I'd rather have just kept Torts and go with the continuity of everything. Also with the hope that our best defenseman actually plays.

 

[chosen]

You know exactly what it means. Hasek had an ego (like Hank) Hasek hated got Nolan fired (much like Hank and Torts) Hasek was 32 and in the prime of his career when Ruff was hired. (hank 31 and in the prime of his career)

Despite your comments I still don't know what you mean by he handled Hasek. Is your point that Hasek did not hate Ruff?

 

[TheDave1022]

To be honest, I don't think any of these guys are any better than Tortorella. I don't have a huge problem with Tortorella, but I think it's useless making a change for the sake of doing so... I'd rather have just kept Torts and go with the continuity of everything. Also with the hope that our best defenseman actually plays.

That's fine, but it sounds like players were tired of him. Seems like the change was made based on player feedback.

 

[MetalGodAOD*]

Mark Messier as head coach.

Bran Leetch and Adam Graves as assistant coaches with Leetchy working on special teams.

Mike Richter new GK coach.

If nothing else it would cause a huge stir bringing in a media loved Mark Messier.
Capt Mess to Coach Mess?

God I hope you're joking.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

Despite your comments I still don't know what you mean by he handled Hasek. Is your point that Hasek did not hate Ruff?

My point wasn't Hasek didn't hate Ruff. My point was Ruff can handle a goalie's ego and knows how to coach a hall of fame goalie. I've explained it twice already. If you don't get it or understand I'm sorry.

 

[nyr2k2]

I feel like Sather talked to a lot of the players and had his own thoughts about things and decided to Fire Torts based on the fact that he may have "lost the room" and some players, like Lundqvist and even some of the leadership. His shelf-life was up.

I wouldnt be surprised if they brought in AV, which isnt much a difference system-wise. But Sather never has a plan. You would think the best course of action would be to look at your team and base the system and coach around that. But I guess with a number of "good" coach candidates out there he pulled the trigger so he wouldn't miss out on them - figuring he would worry about that later.

What kind of system is Eakins known for? I'm sure the Rangers will kick the tires, but is it time for a rookie coach for a team that "measures itself on if they've wont the cup" and will "settle for nothing less" (im paraphrasing)?

Seems to me you would want to bring in a coach who has some experience in the NHL and specifically the playoffs, which leads me to believe that AV is the best candidate.

Funny though, that everything the Torts haters were screaming about is going to come right back into the organization. When those of us asked what coach would replace Torts, it really didnt matter then did it? Now it matters and the arguments against Tortorella are looking weaker and weaker imo (no offense to those who wanted him out. Its just the fact of the matter)

I feel like your first and last points directly contradict each other. First, you say that Torts probably lost the team, and his shelf life was up. Then, you say the arguments against him are getting weaker. Which is it? If he had indeed lost the locker room, is there a greater justification than that? Is any additional argument needed?

I don't know who the head coach "should" be. There are some interesting names out there. I happen to be of the belief that Torts was NEVER the right guy for this team, though. Worst case scenario, for me, was maintaining the status quo. I didn't see the team taking the final step under Torts. And who knows, maybe we bring in some shmuck who ruins everything we've built. Gotta try, though. No window is open forever.

 

[OverTheCap]

AV coaches similar to Torts except he is media friendly and less abrasive.

Can't imagine we would see a drastic difference in style of play but it seems like the players had more of an issue with Torts' personality rather than the system he employed. The players would probably enjoy playing for AV but I think it may be a bit of a lateral move systems-wise.

 

[silverfish]

Vancouver fans talking about how AV treats young talent really scares the **** out of me. The Rangers are a young team, I think most people forget about that due to the success the've had. An average age of 27 is about the middle of the pack when it comes to around the NHL numbers, but the core of the team is young and/or in the prime of their career. There is not a single major important piece to the Rangers that is in their decline (unless you're counting Richards, who won't be a Ranger for that much longer).

With that, I'd love to take on a coach who can not only nurture, but teach young talent. That's why I'm leaning Eakins. Ruff as well has a good history with young talent. He put Hodgson to use right away, he gave Grigorenko a shot as an 18 year old. Luke Adam had a ton of time in the NHL, Marcus Foligno is a solid up and comer, Nathan Gerbe developed into a very solid fourth-liner under Ruff.

It's a shame that there's not the coach out there who is the cream of the crop that the Rangers can try to scoop up. Eakins, Ruff, and Boucher though are all VERY solid choices for this team.

I think Messier, and Vigneault would be unwise choices though.

Very excited to see what the weeks coming have in store for the Rangers

EDIT -

OH! And I do have one (very minor) source on all things NYR (mods feel free to PM me and I'll explain, assuming confidentiality on your part)... He thinks it's going to be Gretzky

 

[KingP]

sather still has a job why?

 

[MadHookUp]

I love all the Torts apologists. "He should have had at least a 1/4 of a season! The guy didn't have a training camp! " Um... nor did the other 29 teams. And before the lockout this forum was going on and on about how a lockout would seriously benefit in the Rangers in the sense that Gaborik would be healthy, the team had the system down pat, and we are suppose to be the hardest working/most in shape team in the NHL.

After the Nash trade, MANY people considered us a favorite, if not THE favorite to win the cup. But I guess we forgot all about that.

 

[Tawnos]

Vancouver fans talking about how AV treats young talent really scares the **** out of me. The Rangers are a young team, I think most people forget about that due to the success the've had. An average age of 27 is about the middle of the pack when it comes to around the NHL numbers, but the core of the team is young and/or in the prime of their career. There is not a single major important piece to the Rangers that is in their decline (unless you're counting Richards, who won't be a Ranger for that much longer).

I think fans in Vancouver are overblowing this with Vigneault the same way that fans here overblow that stuff with Tortorella.

When you have a team that's competitive, it's easy to feel like youngsters aren't getting a fair shot. But there are plenty of great examples of Vigneault developing young players to go along with some of the negative ones.

 

[noupf]

Boomer and Carton yesterday.....

So, as I was going to bed last night, i was watching boomer and carton......really, more by accident, I had just finished watching the Detroit vs. NYR game where Coccur and Probert fought. Anyway..... I got to listen to both boomer and carton spout off about how they were either for or against torts getting fired. All of a sudden, boomer starts talking about how he had spoken to a highly respected player and vertan on the rangers squad about two months ago, and he was told that the team had basically turned on torts. The player said that the big core of players had begun to tune torts out and were getting tired of him. now......

1) Boomer wouldnt tell us who he was talking about......but did say however, that by what he had just said on air, you could probably figure it out....

2) Boomer then proceeded to say that he now thinks much less of said player and his level of respect for him has changed....



Does anybody have some insight on this?

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Hasek won two Vezinas and was a hart finalist twice under Muckler.

Ruff had nothing to do with Hasek.

 

[True Blue]

Anyway, I don't understand why so many people are against Ruff--of all the available experienced coaches out there, I think he's the best. His teams always played solid defense and yet could turn around and counter-attack in a NY minute.

He is safest and best choice for this team out of those that are available. Babcock would be second. I cannot see this team being entrusted to someone with zero head coaching experience.

 

[Crease]

We can speculate for days but the only true "veterans" on the team are Lundqvist, Staal, Girardi, and Callahan.

 

[Tawnos]

We can speculate for days but the only true "veterans" on the team are Lundqvist, Staal, Girardi, and Callahan.

Boyle.

 

[silverfish]

So, as I was going to bed last night, i was watching boomer and carton......really, more by accident, I had just finished watching the Detroit vs. NYR game where Coccur and Probert fought. Anyway..... I got to listen to both boomer and carton spout off about how they were either for or against torts getting fired. All of a sudden, boomer starts talking about how he had spoken to a highly respected player and vertan on the rangers squad about two months ago, and he was told that the team had basically turned on torts. The player said that the big core of players had begun to tune torts out and were getting tired of him. now......

1) Boomer wouldnt tell us who he was talking about......but did say however, that by what he had just said on air, you could probably figure it out....

2) Boomer then proceeded to say that he now thinks much less of said player and his level of respect for him has changed....



Does anybody have some insight on this?

Saw that too, but could not figure out for the life of me who he was talking about. Part of my gut says Nash because Booms has had a lot of contact with Nash since he's come to NY (They play golf sometimes).

But really, does it matter? All reports say that the team turned on Torts, and that's enough for me. Boomer is talking about just one player, when in reality it was a handful of players.

 

[iamitter]

Saw that too, but could not figure out for the life of me who he was talking about. Part of my gut says Nash because Booms has had a lot of contact with Nash since he's come to NY (They play golf sometimes).

But really, does it matter? All reports say that the team turned on Torts, and that's enough for me. Boomer is talking about just one player, when in reality it was a handful of players.

Nash isn't a veteran on the Rangers.

 

[Baumer582]

So, as I was going to bed last night, i was watching boomer and carton......really, more by accident, I had just finished watching the Detroit vs. NYR game where Coccur and Probert fought. Anyway..... I got to listen to both boomer and carton spout off about how they were either for or against torts getting fired. All of a sudden, boomer starts talking about how he had spoken to a highly respected player and vertan on the rangers squad about two months ago, and he was told that the team had basically turned on torts. The player said that the big core of players had begun to tune torts out and were getting tired of him. now......

1) Boomer wouldnt tell us who he was talking about......but did say however, that by what he had just said on air, you could probably figure it out....

2) Boomer then proceeded to say that he now thinks much less of said player and his level of respect for him has changed....



Does anybody have some insight on this?

Not for anything, but I have no problem with whatever player(s) disliked Torts... I know I am usually in the minority for this, but I don't look at athletes as cattle or circus clowns who dance for our entertainment. They are not martyrs by any means, and yes, they are the luckiest SOBs in the world because they get paid to do what we'd do for free, but that doesn't mean a coach can treat them like he's R. Lee Ermy in Full Metal Jacket..

A coach should coach his players in a system based on the team's talent as a whole, not as to what he wants because "dammnit, I'm the coach and this is what i want"

I assume Richards is the person Boomer is talking about, and if so, good for Richards... Not saying Richards played well by any stretch, but he came here to be a top-line center and help lead this team. Torts constantly shuffling lines and benching him and others (Hi Gabby!) because they don't block shots/play Selke-like hockey must have been infuriating.


I truly believe that this team, with a calmer, more adaptive coach (not saying I have an answer as to who) will flourish. They're not 1 player away from a Cup, but they're not a mediocre team either.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

Hasek won two Vezinas and was a hart finalist twice under Muckler.


Ruff had nothing to do with Hasek.

You complete missed the point. I never said Hasek was great because of Ruff. Where did I say that? Re-read my posts and tell me where I said that.

Hasek was ready to leave the Sabres before Ruff got hired. Hasek bolted from a playoff game under Nolan. Ruff came in and "handled" the situation with Hasek perfectly. They almost won a cup together....

Ruff is the perfect coach for this team...