Post-Game Talk: RANGER @ tame

[Pawnee Rangers]

This is a great point. Reavo also contributes to the " We all look out for each other" mindset that successful teams have. I can't wait to see how this translates when crunch time plays out given that these guys have now been around Reavo for 2 seasons. This is also why giving Reaves a multi year contract made a lot of sense because it shows the organization values physical play.

People complaining about Reaves just want to complain. He makes virtually nothing compared to other contracts and I'm willing to bet everyone in that locker room loves having him. I think Gallant just needs to keep him fresh and not play him every game. And good for him going after Foligno last night. Deterrent, non-deterrent, whatever. He still has the ability to hold the other team accountable when they do stupid shit. You didn't hear a peep out of Wilson last season. I don't think that's a coincidence.

 

[JHS]

People complaining about Reaves just want to complain. He makes virtually nothing compared to other contracts and I'm willing to bet everyone in that locker room loves having him. I think Gallant just needs to keep him fresh and not play him every game. And good for him going after Foligno last night. Deterrent, non-deterrent, whatever. He still has the ability to hold the other team accountable when they do stupid shit. You didn't hear a peep out of Wilson last season. I don't think that's a coincidence.

Yup and good on the coaching staff for putting Reaves out there during a shift he could stand up for Miller on Foligno. That's an underrated aspect of retaliation- the tough guys need to be given a chance to do that.

 

[bhamill]

A fair assessment, but I don't recall you saying that Gallant did a good job last season. If you did that, it's an honest mistake that I missed it.

Some of the others coming at me ALWAYS say everything would be so much better if only they were in charge.

Sorry, but people who believe that just aren't very bright.

Dunning Kruger Effect.

 

[duhmetreE]

Reaves played 7 minutes. that's fine. When it starts getting into the low teens it's problematic

 

[bhamill]

View attachment 593942

Came here to post this. Everybody played their part.

 

[pld459666]

Critiquing personnel choices doesn't mean I, or anyone else, think they'd be a better coach. To come to that conclusion is astonishing.

Surely you are not insinuating that posters have not done exactly the opposite of what you laid out above??

Not verbatim, but the insinuation that the moves THEY suggest would be better indicate, to me, they would be better at the job.

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

This loser is complaining about Shesterkin's pad sizes. God Wild fans are such whiners

This shit again?

Back to the old “muh Lundpads” excuses

f***ing losers

 

[duhmetreE]

Surely you are not insinuating that posters have not done exactly the opposite of what you laid out above??

Not verbatim, but the insinuation that the moves THEY suggest would be better indicate, to me, they would be better at the job.

that's a major leap

some might be hyperbolic to prove their point. It would be like me saying @EdJovanovski actually believe Kravtsov is the best player in the league and will score 200pts.

 

[EdJovanovski]

 

[TominNC]

Yep, in a game like this with everyone playing well, give it to Reaves when he does the dirty job for the boys.

 

[Brother Mouzone]

I see the asylum residents have had time to digest the win to come up with things to trash it.

The infamous "This is a bad hockey team" thread was started during a game that they were winning 2-0 with a new coach and system and a 5-2-2 record ............

 

[TominNC]

But "what we watched," is subjective. We each saw different things or had different interpretations of those things. You've heard of coaches being upset after a win because such-and-such wasn't good enough? Bill Parcells and all, saying how even wins used to eat him alive? Why do you think that is?

Analytics help tell the story of a game, even wins where you weren't very good. And just like there were wins that were not sustainable before analytics, analytics help express those wins-where-you-still-need-to-get-better. Sometimes you win but someone smarter than you or I - a coach like Bill Parcells, for example - would say "You gotta get better at this or you aren't going to keep winning."

The concept isn't new, just the recording of the measurements are.

The analytics aren't necessarily "ignoring what we watched." Maybe you are just not seeing the bad things during some of these wins. Like, maybe "poster on a message board of a team he likes is glossing over his favorite teams flaws?" Not possible? Odd because it happens on the boards on this website for the Flyers, Devils, Islanders, etc, all the time.... And it comes off as pretty "Old man yelling at clouds," to be complaining about analytics in this day and age when most of the teams have departments devoted to it.

*to be clear, I am not referring to our 2-0 start, I had many complaints about our 5v5 play last year though and I will stand by that it was very well founded criticism.

I hear you, but it's frustrating to read complaints about the team when they keep winning. The hating on the coach, the complaining about different aspects, nitpicking everything.

I'm here for the entertainment of the team winning. If we win but take only 45% of faceoffs, ok. If we win because Shesty kept what should have been a 4-3 loss and turns it into a 3-2 win, ok. So the eye test is , did I get to see them win. Last year was even more of an outlier because when a team outplays metrics then there is a LOT more of complaining while winning. I'm a 90-10 watching vs reading stats kind of fan. So yeah, I don't mesh well with the 50-50, 60-40 types, never mind the ones who seem like they only read the data sheet.

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

this is a game this team usually loses. we were all but run out of the building in that first 10 minutes. I am very impressed at how they settled down and turned the game on its head for the last 50.

Minnesota are likely the nastiest and most physical team in the league but this game is a reminder of how overrated that is. That physical play really diminishes in impact when the game is quick and you're puck chasing. They landed lots of hits and got some crowd roars but a lot of that went out the window the minute the Rangers got that second goal. They never recovered. Minnesota were viciously outshot and outchanced the last 50 minutes, they really didn't have much time or opportunity to "change the momentum" with their physical play. And the Rangers, quietly, gave it back with interest (Reaves beating up Foligno, Trouba absolutely blasting that Wild player by the boards, Reaves' hit on Addison, Lindgren's big check on Hartman, Kreider giving Eriksson-Ek a facefull of lumber making him somehow even uglier). We wound up outhitting the Wild and that's in a game where we had the puck more often than not. I'm just saying that games like this are good to remember when we inevitably whine about not being tough enough when losing.

Goes without saying but the kids were fantastic. Chytil seems to be more of a grinder and puckhound type which I think he needs to be to succeed. Laf's puck work was nothing short of outstanding. Kakko's dips and turns are electric and giving him the time and space that his speed can't. Schneider outside of getting dummied by Kaprizov that one shift in the first was really strong against a pretty rough matchup. Jones had some tough hiccups, especially his play that led to Boldy's second goal, but I want him to learn from those mistakes and not get a sub for Hajek as a result.

It was a really fun game. This team's offensive confidence is through the roof right now and for two teams that have nothing to do with each other on game 2, it was very intense.

I don’t agree that physicality is overrated. I just think we are built to handle it, and most other teams are not. You said yourself that we were more physical than them, and we wound up winning.

The wild will absolutely be able to bully teams out of their building this year, just not us.

I do agree that physicality is not of paramount importance, but it’s still very important, and it’s very difficult to be a winner without it.

 

[cheech70]

 

[Raspewtin]

I don’t agree that physicality is overrated. I just think we are built to handle it, and most other teams are not. You said yourself that we were more physical than them, and we wound up winning.

The wild will absolutely be able to bully teams out of their building this year, just not us.

I do agree that physicality is not of paramount importance, but it’s still very important, and it’s very difficult to be a winner without it.

Well what is built to handle it? I think most of this board would agree Pitts was not a team that could handle it, but after the Rangers ran out of gas trying to pulverize them in game 1, they took over the game. Being able to handle big hits and stuff isn't about giving it back, it's about letting them chase the puck to quench their bloodthirst while you make plays.

I think we associate "physical play" way more with what the Wild did in the first 10 minutes than what the Rangers did the last 50. Plays that appear impactful, send a guy flying, throwing slashes, etc. The Rangers took control of the game and strategically used their physical play and sticks to keep the Wild from getting back in, which flies in the face of the "set the tone" or "turn the game around" that physically impactful play supposedly has.

I'm just saying if the Rangers lost that game we'd probably blame their lack of physicality for it, while in reality they perfectly executed it.

 

[cheech70]

Pretty simple...we need a couple of guys who can play wing in the top 6. We have drafted a 1oa and a 2oa who happen to play wing. Last night could be the start of something beautiful..

 

[hackeyman]

I'm glad you like the coach so much. I like what he has done in these 2 games. Especially with Laf moving up. We will not agree on last years decisions and that's fine. I give Igor a lot more credit than GG for much of our success last year. You are entitled to give credit however you want.

I like Kakko (and Laf)too. He's (edit they)going to do just fine. I will be surprised and disappointed if he(edit they) does not become a good top 6 player for this team(and it will be somewhat of a failure on Gallant's part if he(edit they) doesn't).
When I ponder the "difference" of something I ask "what's different?" . The answer to that question is Gallant. Igor was here as the starting goalie the year before. In fact most of the team was intact with the absence of Buch. Gallant is the difference. Look at it this way......the personel (players) on the team didn't change much .....key pieces ...lost Buch gained Reaves(a Gallant piece)........but the character/ personality of the team did....... they went from too soft getting pushed around, frustrated,lose leads, give up, lacking defence,individual effort to tough as f***, never quit, work ethic, defence 200ft. game,team first effort, and having fun doing it. Now let's ask the question differently ......who is responsible for the change in the personality/character off this team. Shesty or Gallant ?

 

[Psycho for Perreault]

I like Kakko (and Laf)too. He's (edit they)going to do just fine. I will be surprised and disappointed if he(edit they) does not become a good top 6 player for this team(and it will be somewhat of a failure on Gallant's part if he(edit they) doesn't).
When I ponder the "difference" of something I ask "what's different?" . The answer to that question is Gallant. Igor was here as the starting goalie the year before. In fact most of the team was intact with the absence of Buch. Gallant is the difference. Look at it this way......the personel (players) on the team didn't change much .....key pieces ...lost Buch gained Reaves(a Gallant piece)........but the character/ personality of the team did....... they went from too soft getting pushed around, frustrated,lose leads, give up, lacking defence,individual effort to tough as f***, never quit, work ethic, defence 200ft. game,team first effort, and having fun doing it. Now let's ask the question differently ......who is responsible for the change in the personality/character off this team. Shesty or Gallant ?

If Shesty was average, we wouldn't have made the playoffs. GG would be the first person to say he has no say over anything goalie related. Did GG do a great job with getting them to focus on a 200 ft game? Absolutely. But it's a "false narrative" to say GG was more responsible for our success than Igor. That's just bananas.
The first half of the year Shesty literally had us winning games we had NO BUSINESS winning even with the personnel changes, character changes, not being soft and all the other things you said.

 

[mas0764]

I hear you, but it's frustrating to read complaints about the team when they keep winning. The hating on the coach, the complaining about different aspects, nitpicking everything.

I'm here for the entertainment of the team winning. If we win but take only 45% of faceoffs, ok. If we win because Shesty kept what should have been a 4-3 loss and turns it into a 3-2 win, ok. So the eye test is , did I get to see them win. Last year was even more of an outlier because when a team outplays metrics then there is a LOT more of complaining while winning. I'm a 90-10 watching vs reading stats kind of fan. So yeah, I don't mesh well with the 50-50, 60-40 types, never mind the ones who seem like they only read the data sheet.

It probably comes down to personality type for someone to be able to just enjoy winning versus being bothered by winning in a way you think will bite you down the line (ie as I cited Bill Parcells). Bill retired multiple times because he couldn't enjoy the wins anymore because he saw them all as flawed. Another football coach, Mack Brown, after he was fired at Texas, stayed out of coaching for a long time for the same reason. When he came back to North Carolina in 2018 he swore that he would enjoy the wins from then on, otherwise he wouldn't be able to make it.

I think there is a fine line between being overly nitpicky (or a step further, actively trolling a coach you don't like), versus honest, good faith apprehension that the team can't accomplish it's goals. I've certainly been accused of being overly nitpicky (or trolling) but I see myself more along the lines of having genuine concern. But that concern stems from not being happy with seeing a Conference Finals team for what, the 4th time in the last 10 years? We get to the conference finals kind of a lot. Yawn. I want to win; this team has one trophy in 80 years. To me, the difference between losing the conference finals versus losing the opening round versus not even making the playoffs is minimal. I've witnessed all those other things many times. Why would I care if we lose in the first or second round because we trade Kreider away for a massive futures package? I've seen that outcome like 10 times, I'm not scared of it. I'm scared of not winning a Cup in the next 10 years and continuing to have everyone laugh at us for botching a rebuild.

I would say, therefore, that you probably also get some bright-line divergence on this subject between the people who just want to enjoy winning hockey versus the people who say winning a Cup is all that matters. For the former, being a bottom feeder is intolerable and they'll do anything to avoid it, while trying to move towards winning a Cup if possible. For the latter, they are willing to sacrifice more down seasons if they think they can improve their odds at winning a Cup or two.

The issue plaguing this board is that they were just really not very good last year at 5v5, which historically says you have zero chance at a Cup, but then also put up one of their best seasons in history, which historically coincides with long playoff stays, so these two camps are at odds.

Once we get over the sniping from last year's disagreements as this season progresses, I suspect there will be a bit more harmony because I think the kids are progressing and the underlying numbers should improve. I mean, even the win against the Wild, analytics had it at what, 50-50? It's not last year where we got caved and still won.... this time it was "even" and we won. Improvement.

 

[hackeyman]

If Shesty was average, we wouldn't have made the playoffs. GG would be the first person to say he has no say over anything goalie related. Did GG do a great job with getting them to focus on a 200 ft game? Absolutely. But it's a "false narrative" to say GG was more responsible for our success than Igor. That's just bananas.
The first half of the year Shesty literally had us winning games we had NO BUSINESS winning even with the personnel changes, character changes, not being soft and all the other things you said.

Shesty has been above average since he came in the league. The players played better in front of him last year than the year before.

 

[Clark Kellogg]

Tough way to make a living. Essh

 

[Chytilmania]

That's the only logical conclusion?

The irony and the arrogance.... I have no clue what you're saying and nor do I care to continue with your illogical strawman arguments.

If I order a steak, medium, and it comes out blue and raw, I can't say anything because I'm not a better chef than the one who cooked it? If I hire a carpenter to do the trim on my house, and it's not flush? If I mention something, I'm all of a sudden a better carpenter? If we want Gallant to play our #1 and #2 picks in the top6, we must be better coaches? What you're saying is complete and utter non sense.

Just stop complaining and nagging about other posters opinion EVERY THREAD.

I’m going to complain you ordered your steak medium.

 

[mas0764]

Surely you are not insinuating that posters have not done exactly the opposite of what you laid out above??

Not verbatim, but the insinuation that the moves THEY suggest would be better indicate, to me, they would be better at the job.

I'm not insinuating, I'm flat out saying that sometimes the moves I, or others on this board, suggest are better.

It does not mean in the slightest that I think I'm better at the job. It means coaches are sometimes wrong (sometimes more than just "sometimes") and it is sometimes easy for the fans to see their errors and the correct solutions.

 

[will1066]

Tonight's GDT locked? Did I miss something? I leave y'all for a couple of hours and...

 

[mas0764]

Now I will say, in actuality, that I do think I, or others on this board, could be a good general manager, if we had the right connections that you obviously cannot acquire without being in the league for a long time first.

Implementing a team building philosophy and the minutia it entails (contract negotiation, the math involved in salary cap management, managing personalities, etc) are things that lots and lots of lawyers, accountants, managers, executives, etc, are absolutely capable of handling.

Coaching is different. I'm pretty sure I could be a GM though. What I, and many others on this board, lack is the ten year playing career to establish good rapport with other GMs, coaches, agents and players.