Larry Brooks: Rangers Are Done

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Also, for people saying that AV has built up a long leash:

Tortorella was fired the year after going to the conference finals (after a 2nd round playoff loss).

Tom Renney was fired midway through the season following back to back trips to the second round (with a patchwork roster).

Colin Campbell was fired midway through the season following a loss in the conference finals.

Roger Neilson was fired midway through the season following the President's Trophy.


All four were fired based on what the team seemed to need moving FORWARD, not based on a lack of respect for what they had one BEFORE.

So the question is not whether or not AV has done good things here. He obviously has. The question is whether or not he is the right guy moving forward, and that's a tougher question (I don't think he is).

And AV outperformed them all, hence a longer leash in my opinion.

 

[tailgunner]

winning the presidents trophy last year got us squat...winning the metro division 2 years ago got us squat...Washington goes into buffalo last week and gets pummeled...really don't care about the regular season at all...lets get into the playoffs healthy and then I like our chances...if we fail, then we can address our issues

 

[mandiblesofdoom]

If there's to be any hope of salvaging the season, or improving the team for the future, then it has to be made clear whose play is likely to improve, whose is not, whose poor play has been most detrimental to the team, and whose replacement would provide the most benefit to the rest of the team.

Exactly. We can't change every player.

It's pretty obvious where to start with this group. All the "everybody needs to improve" begins to sound like an excuse to avoid difficult decisions.

 

[Made Dan]

McDonagh's playing infinitely better than Girardi.

To mention McD in the article was a demonstration of bad faith.

Good is not good enough when better is expected.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Have you ever heard players speak negatively of their treatment on other teams?

Do you believe the Rangers get better food?

Theo Fleury touched on this in his book. Granted, this was 20 years ago, and the Flames were notoriously stingy, but it was night and day the way the Flames treated their players vs the way the Rangers did.

 

[Ori]

AV interview before facing Canucks: http://www.blueshirtsunited.com/video/vigneault-speaks-facing-canucks

AV mentioned it was his responsibility concerning PK & PP, he said they were kind of slow - so they need to work better as an unit 4v5.
I don`t think they had time to practice before this game though - so I guess anything can happen vs Nucks!

pls win 2 pts.

LGR!

 

[MisterUnspoken]

Jesus Christ, I'll never forget that Philadelphia-Tampa game where the Flyers held the puck because of Tampa setting the 1-3-1 trap....to start the game.

I was at that game - it was hysterical

We were all having a great time in the stands - in fact I was a season ticket holder and I kept the ticket stub and wrote on it - 'TB-Philly Standoff' so I'd remember it.

 

[smoneil]

And AV outperformed them all, hence a longer leash in my opinion.

You missed the entire point of my post. There IS no "leash." Front offices don't look back at what a coach has done. They look forward to determine whether or not a coach will be successful in the future. Winning the President's Trophy the previous season means nothing if it starts to look like we'll miss the playoffs THIS season. All of the coaches I listed, based on prior success, SHOULD--by your theory-- have had a longer leash. They didn't, because that's not how it works.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

You missed the entire point of my post. There IS no "leash." Front offices don't look back at what a coach has done. They look forward to determine whether or not a coach will be successful in the future. Winning the President's Trophy the previous season means nothing if it starts to look like we'll miss the playoffs THIS season. All of the coaches I listed, based on prior success, SHOULD--by your theory-- have had a longer leash. They didn't, because that's not how it works.

Oh sorry, well I think your point is BS if that clarifies things.

 

[OverTheCap]

See I think there are some major entitlement issues in that locker room. That's on the players to fix.

This coach is lax in terms of taxing his guys physically but some of these guys perform well under a taskmaster, work them to the bone to break the schnide, then rest them accordingly.

They are too routinized under AV.

They've hit a comfort zone.

For the first time in 6 years you really have to question a total team effort.

It's just not there.

Agreed, I think there could be an entitlement problem as well, especially with our younger players as mentioned previously.

Hayes gets scratched and says he's confident in his abilities rather than taking ownership of his poor play, Fast comes to training camp looking like crap even though the 2nd line RW spot is up for grabs, Kreider's effort is inconsistent as always.

There needs to be a coach or player on the team that holds himself as well as his teammates accountable. Most players on this team seem pretty content to make mistakes and let each other down.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Front offices don't look back at what a coach has done. They look forward to determine whether or not a coach will be successful in the future.

So how do front offices hire coaches if they don't look back? For that matter, how can they determine if a coach will be successful in the future if they don't look at past results?

 

[haohmaru]

You missed the entire point of my post. There IS no "leash." Front offices don't look back at what a coach has done. They look forward to determine whether or not a coach will be successful in the future. Winning the President's Trophy the previous season means nothing if it starts to look like we'll miss the playoffs THIS season. All of the coaches I listed, based on prior success, SHOULD--by your theory-- have had a longer leash. They didn't, because that's not how it works.

That simply isn't true. Tippet, Trotz, Sutter, etc... all retained their jobs after missing the playoffs. If the LA Kings didn't fire Sutter after missing the dance after winning the Cup, what makes you think AV will get tossed after making it to the SCF's and ECF's in consecutive years?

 

[haveandare]

I firmly believe AV should be done here by the end of the year if things don't pick up, if not sooner. I know people disagree and have snarky responses at the ready. Frankly, I don't care. It's my opinion and I'm firm in it at this point. There is no accountability on this team. That's part McD, part Step, part G and Staal, Nash etc - but it's also a bigger responsibility for the coach IMO. He should set the tone of the team mentality. There is also no unified idea behind what kind of game he says he wants to play and who gets the minutes in game. For example, he preaches transitions yet plays Staal over Yandle often and then doesn't play McI, who has a solid breakout, so that G can limp out and play the puck off the glass to the other team.

But, I also think it can be a lot worse. If Therrien gets canned, for example... Honestly, I'd rather have a number of inanimate objects over him. Joking, but not by that much. Boucher with his having Stamkos trap out of the gate. It can be worse. That doesn't mean this current state of affairs should be okay though either.

Doesn't do much good now, but times like this really make me wish this team tried to develop coaches in the AHL rather than having a mediocre HC down there forever with no chance of being a good NHL coach. The team isn't even good with him. Might as well get some top NCAA heads down there and see if any of them really take to the pro game and can turn into something.

 

[haveandare]

That simply isn't true. Tippet, Trotz, Sutter, etc... all retained their jobs after missing the playoffs. If the LA Kings didn't fire Sutter after missing the dance after winning the Cup, what makes you think AV will get tossed after making it to the SCF's and ECF's in consecutive years?

The bolded cannot be overlooked. Actually winning grants a lot of leeway. Almost winning over and over isn't quite the same.

 

[mike14]

That simply isn't true. Tippet, Trotz, Sutter, etc... all retained their jobs after missing the playoffs. If the LA Kings didn't fire Sutter after missing the dance after winning the Cup, what makes you think AV will get tossed after making it to the SCF's and ECF's in consecutive years?

We have very recent history of this club turfing a coach after making the ECF and then a second round exit to the eventual EC champs, with much more flawed roster than the one AV is working with.
If certain players decide they've had enough of listening to him, what makes you think they wont can him?

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

If certain players decide they've had enough of listening to him, what makes you think they wont can him?

Who? Which players? What would be an indication that those players have "had enough of listening to him"?

 

[mike14]

Who? Which players? What would be an indication that those players have "had enough of listening to him"?

Players within the leadership circle of the club. An indication would be the exit interviews, similiar to when Torts got canned...
Im not saying this is about to happen, just pointing out the club has recently fired a coach who was having 'success' so it is not beyind the realms of possibility that they'd do it again

 

[Leetch66]

This was the only GLARING omission I saw...

maybe a mention of Hayes' sophomore slump and Krieder (who's turned it on lately) being a non-factor as well?

Also would've liked to have seen him critic AV for his blatant misuse of Yandle.

I would imagine he has more columns on the way....he should have plenty of writing material for a few columns considering how some have played versus what they are paid....embarrass the SOB's...it is about time the country club got roughed up . Alkurtz.....great post and also many other ones in this thread .

 

[JohnC]

Players within the leadership circle of the club. An indication would be the exit interviews, similiar to when Torts got canned...
Im not saying this is about to happen, just pointing out the club has recently fired a coach who was having 'success' so it is not beyind the realms of possibility that they'd do it again

I don't know about you but I was pretty surprised at the Torts firing when it was announced. Then I think it came out that Hank and Richards had less than good things to say about him in their exit interviews.

 

[smoneil]

Oh sorry, well I think your point is BS if that clarifies things.

I gave four examples from THIS team's history, including two fairly recent examples that involved the current management group. Any reasons why you think it's "BS" when there are examples proving that it isn't?

Also, any particular reason you are taking such a hostile tone? I looked back over my posts, and other than having the temerity to suggest that AV should be fired, I don't see anything I wrote that justifies the attitude from you.

 

[Vitto79]

Brooks needs to complain more . Nucks terrible but good game tonight

 

[smoneil]

So how do front offices hire coaches if they don't look back? For that matter, how can they determine if a coach will be successful in the future if they don't look at past results?

That's not what I was talking about. Obviously a coach's style, reputation and such play in to hiring decisions. I'm talking about FIRING decisions. And there comes a point--like the point we got to with Renney and with Torts, who were BOTH successful here--where it seems like a different approach would be better for the team. That point usually shows up when a team that had been at one level dips down a couple of levels and shows no signs of coming out of it. That's what happened with Renney. That's what happened with Torts. If it seems like a coach isn't likely to pull a team out of a funk, then regardless of what the coach has done in the past, it's time to move on to a new one. Teams don't let a coach screw up the team for an extra six months based on history. Once they think the coach can't solve the problem, they fire the coach.

This isn't outlandish. It happens all the time.

 

[smoneil]

That simply isn't true. Tippet, Trotz, Sutter, etc... all retained their jobs after missing the playoffs. If the LA Kings didn't fire Sutter after missing the dance after winning the Cup, what makes you think AV will get tossed after making it to the SCF's and ECF's in consecutive years?

For starters, the Kings didn't play horribly the year they missed the playoffs. They had a dip, to be sure, but it was also clear that the team under that coach was still doing the kinds of things that could lead to a Stanley Cup.

This team looked like that last year and the year before. Be honest--have they looked like that this season? At all? It's been more than half the season and they still aren't turning it around. You want to give it a little bit longer, that's fine. But there is no way that you blow up a team this talented because the coach stopped being effective.

Again--for everyone who is saying that AV should have a leash because of what he did the last two years and all the players should be shipped out--why does that not apply to those same players who were here the last two years (and then some)?

If you blow it up, you'll need a different coach since AV hasn't had a great track record with youth. Thus, to me, it comes down to the option of keep hoping that AV will find the magical button that has eluded him all season to get this team going, or the option of bringing a new voice to coach the team. I don't think he's going to figure it out if he hasn't already.

 

[nevesis]

“@HartnettHockey: Apparently Zuccarello reads Brooksie. Zucc: "We need the points. We've got to show that Zed is not dead, you know?"”

 

[Mac n Gs]

Lirl I love Zucc so much. Hopefully that lit a fire under all of their *****