Toggle sidebar

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
noupf said:
I find it funny that BR was on pace for a 70 point season and people really think hes the problem. Might not have been having a great season, but my god people......he was on pace for 70 pts in an 82 game season.

:shakehead
Click to expand...

You do realize that almost 1/3 of his points this season came in the last 6 games of the season?

Against the following powerhouse teams:

Panthers
NJD
Canes
Buff

:help:

:shakehead:shakehead:shakehead
 
UlfSamuelsson said:
Haha nah, just a big fan of his. But does anyone know his coaching style? Don't follow SEL as closely as I'd like to.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what Ulfie's coaching style in the SEL is like--and given the different size rinks, am not sure it matters--but he was an assistant coach in Phoenix for several years, so that's the kind of style I'd look for. However, I doubt he's in the running--although it certainly would be an outside the box pick and one I would be willing to like.
 
Richter Scale said:
They were in the top half of the league in goals for this year. 17 teams were below them. They were tied for 12th in the league. 2.7 goals per game average.

Last year it was similar. 17 teams below them. They were 13th in the league in goals for. 2.76 goals per game average.

This myth that Torts killed offense is ridiculous. Was it great? No – but who cares? It was arguably near good enough; defense and goaltending wins championships. Was the offense as bad as people seem to think it was? Hell no. And if people are expecting this team to explode offensively next year now that Torts is gone… unless there a significant change in personnel – you’re in for a big surprise.

The team’s scoring woes have had more to do with a lack of offensively creative personnel than the coach. Shockingly, Sather made some moves at the deadline this year that may have helped that to a degree. Is it any shock that in the 13 games after the trade deadline, with an infusion of some creativity and skill on the roster, that the team’s goals per game jumped to 3.6? They had an easier schedule in the following 13 games for sure – but in the previous 17 games the Rangers played against the same teams they played in their final 13 games, their average goals per game was 2.24. If you’re worried that includes more games against better competition (like Pitt)… An alternative way to look at it is, if you take the average goals per game the Rangers scored against the same opponents before the trade deadline, and weight them according to the distribution of 13 games played against each after, their goals per game shrinks to 2.12. So what changed? Was it Torts? Or the players? I don’t get why this is so difficult for people to accept.

Torts had some major issues - primarily the PP and the defensive zone scheme. But he really didn’t stop these players from being creative offensively or getting points on the scoreboard.
Click to expand...


Spot on. It truly amazes me that people can think we are a "few system tweaks away" from being an elite offensive team. Or that this roster should even be ran that way.
 
The "How's your spelling?" title will force me to post this here:

Man the Spelling Bee is intense. I was initially pulling for Christal because she likes Star Wars, but now that she's out I'm hopping on the Vanya Shivashankar bandwagon. She just kills it. Knows all the origin derivatives. She's a phenom. Pretty much the LeBron James of the Scripps National Spelling Bee.
 
I know this would not happen, and know it most likely would not work out but I think it would be cool to have Messier as the HC and Leetch/Graves as the assistants
 
HatTrick Swayze said:
Spot on. It truly amazes me that people can think we are a "few system tweaks away" from being an elite offensive team. Or that this roster should even be ran that way.
Click to expand...

Well, it was group think. A specific few posters (I'm sure you all can identify them pretty easily) jumped on Torts, they poisoned everyone here on him by basically lying about stats, etc. and you now have people that have no idea what he actually accomplished. Kind of a shame, really.

I have a feeling it started outside of HFboards and was brought in (since you see a lot of the same absurdist talk on Yahoo, etc.) but I may be wrong on that.
 
HatTrick Swayze said:
Spot on. It truly amazes me that people can think we are a "few system tweaks away" from being an elite offensive team. Or that this roster should even be ran that way.
Click to expand...

I for one don't think we're "elite" in any way except goaltending after the defense corps had some really idiotic episodes this year. But I think with some tweaks we can be more potent on offense.
 
Jonathan. said:
A few tweaks like adding a playmaker or three?
Click to expand...

No, not even *adding* or *subtracting* players. But I mean just a different way to work in the Neutral and Offensive zones. I don't think we need any more playmakers. We need a shooting LW though. But I won't argue that here so we don't derail. But I think that if the Rangers employ a system that doesn't rely too much on dumping and chasing and/or constant dependency on boards, our offense will at least be a little bit more potent/frequent.
 
I am going to hold all criticisms of MDZ to just that, criticisms that stand alone. Four years in and he's had his share of highs and lows and various circumstances that highlights his strengths and weaknesses and much of it was a product of John Tortorella's game. I hope whoever the new coach is gives DZ and our D in general as much freedom as he needs to explore his offensive upsides. Next year is going to be huge for the future of this team because of the role the defense is going to play. It's hard to win championships when you don't incorporate your D into all facets of the game.
 
HatTrick Swayze said:
Spot on. It truly amazes me that people can think we are a "few system tweaks away" from being an elite offensive team. Or that this roster should even be ran that way.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I'm completely on board with a coaching change at this point. The Rangers regular season offense has been a misunderstood animal since early last year. The prototypical game in the NHL today is a 3-2 one. Last season, the Rangers were in the top few teams in games with 3+ goals scored and top few in 2 or less goals allowed. That's how they were the number 1 seed in the East.

The problem, from my point of view, isn't that they can't be successful offensively in the regular season under Tortorella. The problem is that in the playoffs, the games get tighter. After last year's playoff and this one, I question whether or not Tortorella OR his system were flexible enough to adapt to playoff hockey. To open the guys up just that tiny little bit that allows the natural intensity of the games to translate to doing the things needed to win. That's what you need. Maybe Tortorella would've been able to get his group there, but I hadn't seen any evidence of it yet. Instead, what I saw this year was a group who was too tentative with the puck and who was unable to react to momentum shifts. It all ties back into why we led in either 10 games out of the 12 in the playoffs and still only won 5. Guys were playing to not make mistakes instead of playing to create their own chances.

I'm not looking for a team that scores a ton more goals, but I am looking for a team that's more dynamic with the puck on their sticks. That would allow for some channeling of intensity come playoff time.
 
UlfSamuelsson said:
Ok serious question and coincidentally my name...
Ulf samuelsson assisted with the Coyotes for two seasons under Tippett.
Now head coach of Modo Hockey. Understand they finished slightly above expectations
He probably won't even be mentioned realistically,
but think of some of the young swedes for the future, not to mention the ones on the team.
Does anyone know his coaching style? He played defense during his career. Was a Ranger (that matters to some). Yes, he was a cheap shot artist lol.....

Still think Dallas Eakins would be the guy, but depending on coaching style, not the worst candidate.
Click to expand...

I would be very, very interested to see that.

Sweden doesn't have a lot of kids playing hockey, yet percentage wise, if you're a Swede, you have a better chance of making it to the NHL than anyone else playing the game. That says a hell of a lot for their coaching.

You can see it in international tourneys and with the Swedes here in the league. Virtually everyone has a solid set of skills and a tremendous understanding of the game and high hockey sense.

It might be a great way of both bringing in new blood with a fresh perspective of the game, while still having a strong resume and NHL experience.
 
Guess What said:
No, not even *adding* or *subtracting* players. But I mean just a different way to work in the Neutral and Offensive zones. I don't think we need any more playmakers. We need a shooting LW though. But I won't argue that here so we don't derail. But I think that if the Rangers employ a system that doesn't rely too much on dumping and chasing and/or constant dependency on boards, our offense will at least be a little bit more potent/frequent.
Click to expand...

I don't see it. I don't think this team is just a minor tweak or two away, man.
 
Jonathan. said:
I don't see it. I don't think this team is just a minor tweak or two away, man.
Click to expand...

I don't think we're winning the cup either unless the bottom 6 and our youths are infused and used right, and we get a solid left wing scorer. But I think with a system change we would look better and score more consistently, thus making the team look at least a little better. Instead of just relying on the other team to make mistakes because they all had to collapse and block shots.

But I fully agree with you that we're not that close. But being more offensively sound is a start!
 
Tawnos said:
This is exactly why I'm completely on board with a coaching change at this point. The Rangers regular season offense has been a misunderstood animal since early last year. The prototypical game in the NHL today is a 3-2 one. Last season, the Rangers were in the top few teams in games with 3+ goals scored and top few in 2 or less goals allowed. That's how they were the number 1 seed in the East.

The problem, from my point of view, isn't that they can't be successful offensively in the regular season under Tortorella. The problem is that in the playoffs, the games get tighter. After last year's playoff and this one, I question whether or not Tortorella OR his system were flexible enough to adapt to playoff hockey. To open the guys up just that tiny little bit that allows the natural intensity of the games to translate to doing the things needed to win. That's what you need. Maybe Tortorella would've been able to get his group there, but I hadn't seen any evidence of it yet. Instead, what I saw this year was a group who was too tentative with the puck and who was unable to react to momentum shifts. It all ties back into why we led in either 10 games out of the 12 in the playoffs and still only won 5. Guys were playing to not make mistakes instead of playing to create their own chances.

I'm not looking for a team that scores a ton more goals, but I am looking for a team that's more dynamic with the puck on their sticks. That would allow for some channeling of intensity come playoff time.
Click to expand...

Nice and reasonable response. Hope that is what we get at this point. I don't think it's ridiculous to expect that a new philsophy could make the Rangers a bit more productive. Reading some posts though, it would appear the only thing holding the Rangers back from being the 80s Oilers was John Tortorella.
 
People are being too negative. It looks like we're not close but you'd be surprised how fast a team can get there. One more scorer could put us in contention again. We were just in contention last year.
 
Machinehead said:
People are being too negative. It looks like we're not close but you'd be surprised how fast a team can get there. One more scorer could put us in contention again. We were just in contention last year.
Click to expand...

This, but I'm kind of worried about the bottom 6 and our 6/7 D man situtation. Rag tag bottom 6 guys until reinforcements arrive from Sweden and the A
 
Guess What said:
This, but I'm kind of worried about the bottom 6 and our 6/7 D man situtation. Rag tag bottom 6 guys until reinforcements arrive from Sweden and the A
Click to expand...

Bottom 6 situation isn't as bad as it seems.

Check it out, if we can sign a good left winger and get a halfway decent center, we can finally get a real 3rd line, bump our 3rd liners down to the 4th line, and get rid of the AHL cannon fodder. Another key is we need to get Kreider playing well. Potentially we could have something like....

Scoring LW-Stepan-Nash
Hagelin-Brassard-Callahan
Kreider-Decent 3rd line center-Zuccarello
Dorsett-Boyle-Asham/Haley

That's not bad. The problem is the 3rd line, or lack thereof. Right now we have a 1st line, a 2nd line, a 4th line, and an AHL line. We need a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. If we get that 3rd, we can bump the 4th down, and problem solved.

The free agent market for LW sucks: the only options are Brunner, or signing Horton and moving Nash to LW. A trade might be in order.

Potential solutions at 3C include: Antropov, Lapierre, or Zubrus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom