Post-Game Talk: Mouse

[chosen]

Brunette joined and brought the Florida game with him. That's why they got him. Not hard to figure out.

Brunette is responsible for the play of Hughes, Bratt, Hischier etc,?

I have just never been high on him. I see the potential. I just dont think he will ever reach it. He makes the same boneheaded plays over and over again.

Maybe a good coach would do wonders for him.

Last season he played great under the current coach.

 

[chosen]

McDavid would be an 80 point player for the Rangers. I would bet anything.

You believe that Panarin could score 96 points and that McDavid would be an 80 point player on the Rangers?

That's your worst opinion, ever.

 

[chosen]

There's *checks notes* the director of player development?

He has an entire staff. The coach has an entire staff. There's teammates. The GM makes massive decisions on these guys (whether or not to send them to the minors, back to juniors, when/if to pull the plug on a guy). He has an entire staff. The president and owner set the culture of the team (which I think is the biggest issue here). Scouts determine not just who's the best but who's a good fit for your team and culture.

Then there's your AHL team. Your AHL team has every one of the above.

This is like 200 guys and a full-blown institution with a culture and values and you're not buying that the Rangers are bad at it because you're hung up on one guy, the head coach.

YOU'RE the guy who is hung up on coaches. I don't think they make much of a difference.

All of those positions have changed many times over through the years. The most important position on every team is the GM, unless you have an idiotic owner, like the Rangers do.

 

[duhmetreE]

Brunette joined and brought the Florida game with him. That's why they got him. Not hard to figure out.

I didn't realize Brunette joined the Devils. Makes sense now. I knew there approach changed just couldn't put it together. Swarm the neutral zone with a purpose and high danger scoring areas. Rocket science for some dated hockey heads

Teams dont change this drastically because 'players develop'. The entire team is playing different.

Quennville is the obvious and uncomfortable answer to our question

 

[Machinehead]

YOU'RE the guy who is hung up on coaches. I don't think they make much of a difference.

All of those positions have changed many times over through the years. The most important position on every team is the GM, unless you have an idiotic owner, like the Rangers do.

I haven't said anything about the coach except maybe I don't like some his lines. Hey ho.

I don't know what conversation you're reading.

 

[chosen]

I haven't said anything about the coach except maybe I don't like some his lines. Hey ho.

I don't know what conversation you're reading.

What I'm talking about is you have disliked every Rangers coach that I know of and I know you like Sutter, but that's about it.

You don't like his lines. I get that. What do you like about him?

 

[Machinehead]

What I'm talking about is you have disliked every Rangers coach that I know of and I know you like Sutter, but that's about it.

You don't like his lines. I get that. What do you like about him?

Torts was fine (but limited, and I think everyone is of the opinion that Torts goes so far and runs out of steam) and I liked Renney.

What do I like about Gallant? He wins. He wins games consistently enough that it's not a coincidence. I think he probably deserves some nod for Kreider producing his best offensive seasons even as his physical skills are aging away. Our analytics are better, you know I like that.

I wouldn't say I dislike every Rangers coach. It's more so that I dislike hockey coaching. I feel that while other sports have innovated, hockey still has a lot of the same old tropes.

For example, every coach is going to have a toy (or two or three) that he plays way too much or way too high in the lineup because (you're not gonna like this) they think bad players are doing "stuff" like "creating space" or "being responsible" or whatever other tropes. There are ways to measure this and most of these players are doing nothing. Hockey has that "grinder" culture that other sports don't have; a penchant for players who work hard because they have to, because they're not good enough. Granted, the NBA has what you would call "glue guys" but they tend to be good at tangible things like rebounding and defense. Most coaches' toys around the league just suck.

Maybe hockey is just unique in having this type of player, or maybe it's just primitive thinking. You could argue either way. I certainly think it's the latter.

I don't think things I disagree with are right just because every coach does them. That's appeal to authority, simple as that. I also have an understanding that every coach is going to do the things Gallant does that most people complain about and I don't blame Gallant for the lack of development. There's plenty of other schmucks around the league saying "I like my lineup" while the house burns down and the cat runs away, and those organizations' young players are fine.

 

[Machinehead]

Also it's just fun to meme about coaches. They're all silly grandpas.

 

[chosen]

Torts was fine (but limited, and I think everyone is of the opinion that Torts goes so far and runs out of steam) and I liked Renney.

What do I like about Gallant? He wins. He wins games consistently enough that it's not a coincidence. I think he probably deserves some nod for Kreider producing his best offensive seasons even as his physical skills are aging away. Our analytics are better, you know I like that.

I wouldn't say I dislike every Rangers coach. It's more so that I dislike hockey coaching. I feel that while other sports have innovated, hockey still has a lot of the same old tropes.

For example, every coach is going to have a toy (or two or three) that he plays way too much or way too high in the lineup because (you're not gonna like this) they think bad players are doing "stuff" like "creating space" or "being responsible" or whatever other tropes. There are ways to measure this and most of these players are doing nothing. Hockey has that "grinder" culture that other sports don't have; a penchant for players who work hard because they have to, because they're not good enough. Granted, the NBA has what you would call "glue guys" but they tend to be good at tangible things like rebounding and defense. Most coaches' toys around the league just suck.

Maybe hockey is just unique in having this type of player, or maybe it's just primitive thinking. You could argue either way. I certainly think it's the latter.

I don't think things I disagree with are right just because every coach does them. That's appeal to authority, simple as that. I also have an understanding that every coach is going to do the things Gallant does that most people complain about and I don't blame Gallant for the lack of development. There's plenty of other schmucks around the league saying "I like my lineup" while the house burns down and the cat runs away, and those organizations' young players are fine.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Your Torts analysis differs from something I heard the other day. I don't remember who it was.

They said that Torts usually doesn't do well when he goes to a new team, but that the team gets better during his tenure. I didn't do any follow-up of my own it, but I assume he's correct.

 

[Machinehead]

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Your Torts analysis differs from something I heard the other day. I don't remember who it was.

They said that Torts usually doesn't do well when he goes to a new team, but that the team gets better during his tenure. I didn't do any follow-up of my own it, but I assume he's correct.

No, I think that's also probably true. Torts has a nice sweet spot right around the second year. And then he usually doesn't make it out of the fourth.

He gets shit done during that window. I don't know if he's a winner in this day and age just because of the system he plays and the league we're in but he sets a nice foundation for a team.