Speculation: Rangers Head Coach Search (Laviolette being finalized? According to Vince and Friedman)

[TopShelfSnipes]

Yup. It's fine to be a likeable head coach. I don't believe in the "we need a whip cracker" idea for the next coach. But if the players don't respect you then you're screwed.

This was inevitable with Gallant. I guess I can't blame Drury for hoping that would work for this team after Quinn, but it was always going to go this way. He hasn't won shit at this level and has no history to draw from that would make a player feel like they should respect what he has to say. The team knew he had a shelf life and that just compounds how quickly they'd tune him out.

Makes it all the more apparent to me that the players on this team are too comfortable. If they want to change the dynamic of the room, then they need to start with the guys who are putting on the jersey each night. A new coach isn't going to fix the attitude these guys have when they step onto the ice.

Exactly, we don't need a whip cracker. We need a skilled communicator who is transparent, fair, treats everyone equally, and constantly competing to outwork his players. In other words, the opposite of backstabbing, hush-hush dysfunctional/toxic MSG Corporation culture, as helmed by James Dolan.

Washington looks like it got that in Carbury.

Can't wait to what empty, platitude repeating suit we do settle with at this point because other than the Tarasenko trade (which was to make up for his awful Buchnevich trade), I see nothing about Drury that inpires confidence.

 

[bhamill]

(Raises Hand too). Totally agree. There were a bunch of us on here that were very vocal before and after the trade about how poor of a team building decision it was. Did we keep shouting about our frustrations after every game? No. At some point, it is what it is. And at that point, be hopeful and pray you're wrong.

But everything Chabot said was something that many of us on here had already said AT THE TIME. Tho, the whole Gallant's a modern head coach thing is a bit of BS. But Drury deserving the vast vast vast majority of the blame is correct. If Drury was laying this at the hands of Gallant, he is a horrible horrible GM. Not only because it means he's a terrible manager of people but he's a terrible self-evaluator. Often the best way to lead means looking in the mirror first.

Obviously the most concerning part of that interview was about there being a bunch of players on the team that refused to play a style of hockey that works in the playoffs going back to last season. I'm not entirely sure who Chabot is referring to. I think we can all infer it may start with Panarin and based on the game 6 scratch, we know Gallant would add in Kakko. But after that there are a lot of guys on the team who don't exactly play with the fire and jam one needs in the playoffs. I could see him referring to Foxy or Miller or even Kreider who chooses when he wants to bring the snarl (rarer and rarer).

But point stands, whoever the new coach is, needs to get these guys to play a meaner, more aggressive, dirtier style come playoffs. And Drury needs to get his head out of his a-hole. My opinion of him at the moment couldn't be much lower, frankly.

If there's one thing we've learned from the Torontos of the world. You can't merely just ask everyone else on the team around your first line talent to play a playoff brand. You need the whole roster to sacrifice and play that way. You need a leader who is going to elbow someone in the face when the whistle blows. That's why Mess was more effective in the playoffs overall than Gretzky. That's why Tkachuk and Mackinnon are more successful than Matthews. That's why Crosby has been more effective than McDavid. Playoffs are really not about modern hockey or modern thought. Its really as simple as the playground in the 1970s. It's Neanderthal lizard brain level thinking. Apologies to Lizards and Neanderthals.

One team is going to be the bigger bully, the other team is going to get bullied more. Win the physical/mental upper hand and 9 times out of 10 you're winning the series. The fact that we couldn't do that against the current version of the New Jersey Devils was very very very telling. And Drury, god love him, traded for a few Mike Gartners at the deadline as opposed to traded them away. I have grown to think Mike Keenan was a total POS but he knew what it took to get over the hump just for one season.

I agree with a lot of your post, but Tarasenko and Mikkola are nowhere near Gartner types. Kane at his cost was a deal almost EVERY GM would have made. But there was a reason for that low cost, he was one legged.

 

[bhamill]

Crosby had Z until the end.

Cirelli smashed Z in the TB series

But Hischier took out Z on even strength altogether. 2 shot on goal at even strength the entire series

And Gallant never used the last line change to alter that matchup...

 

[UnSandvich]

And Gallant never used the last line change to alter that matchup...

Yeah that's something i found infuriating throughout Gallant's tenure. Last change can be a huge tactical advantage, but only if you f***ING USE IT

 

[McRanger92]

Who the hell is John Chabot and why do we care what he says about the Rangers?

Also Drury being compared to Chiarelli? What planet am I on? What move has Drury made to hurt the long term outlook of the team? I get people are frustrated with the end of last season but that sounds like just saying outlandish things to get a reaction.

 

[duhmetreE]

Cuylle and possibly Othmann. But maybe a hard edged veteran.
I don't agree with the level of softness being attributed, at least not physically. The team hits and more than a few players willingly go into the dirty areas, but we do need some MEANNESS. Even with his monster hits, I don't consider Trouba mean and he is probably closest.

We need a 'rah rah' leader of men. Ryan Reaves but a better hockey player.

 

[gravey9]

I agree with a lot of your post, but Tarasenko and Mikkola are nowhere near Gartner types. Kane at his cost was a deal almost EVERY GM would have made. But there was a reason for that low cost, he was one legged.

I agree totally re: Mikkola and Motte. And we can all agree re: Kane.

Tarasenko is where I am torn. On the one hand, he brought a lot of good qualities. He was a shoot first guy, he is quite stout along the boards at times. He was heady. But where I felt like he wasn't a good fit was his foot speed. He had a very hard time playing at the pace that Zibby and Kreids played at at 5v5. That unit struggled mightily to play as one cohesive unit. They were terribad at retrieving and cycling. And I don't think Tara fit on any other line. I think it's possible something could have been figured out if we had a whole season. And if Kakko could have been moved up the lineup. But having only a few weeks (and then adding Kane) it just never fully meshed. And for me, tarasenko wasn't a great deadline pickup. It was too disruptive ultimately because it didn't fully work. It kinda worked. And really didn't. Depending on the game/shift.

In any case, Tara can be quite successful in many situations and is still a very very good player. And I found him incredibly likable. But on some level, and this is going to sound weird, Vatrano was a better fit -- at least at 5v5.

I think when you have star players, you build around them. You don't just collect them. Throwing more star power with Panarin is sadly not the answer it seems. Putting Fast on his line or Vesey or Copp worked far better than Tara or Kane. Tro, Panarin, Vesey was the closest thing to a successful unit during the regular season. (Though to be fair, not sure that line had enough in the playoffs either which is why a deadline move made a lot of sense)

So, very torn on Tarasenko as the deadline add.

Adding Kane was such an FU to the coach and the team. It was like, I see you haven't figured out how Tara fits yet. Here's Patrick F'ing Kane. A guy who needs the puck all the time to be successful. And can't really take any contact. And needs a line to revolve around him and do all the dirty work. Good luck!!!!

So, was Tarasenko the right fit? I am not convinced. If he stayed, could he fit better in 2023-2024, I could see it. But the lines would need to greatly shift.

I don't know that this team needed to add a star player at the deadline. The 2012-14 Rangers who had a lunch pail identity and just needed some scoring? Yes.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Everyone shit on Reaves, and I get it to a point... but he added a much needed swagger to the team last season.

This team needs at the bare minimum two alpha types infused into the roster.

Ive said it before. When playing 5 on 5 were both out skilled and out physicalled. Good teams can be physical or skilled. Great teams can be both. At 5 on 5 we were neither.

 

[Trxjw]

Exactly, we don't need a whip cracker. We need a skilled communicator who is transparent, fair, treats everyone equally, and constantly competing to outwork his players. In other words, the opposite of backstabbing, hush-hush dysfunctional/toxic MSG Corporation culture, as helmed by James Dolan.

Washington looks like it got that in Carbury.

Can't wait to what empty, platitude repeating suit we do settle with at this point because other than the Tarasenko trade (which was to make up for his awful Buchnevich trade), I see nothing about Drury that inpires confidence.

I actually think Drury has had significantly more positives than negatives. His 2022 deadline in particular was practically a master class in how to load up for a playoff run. He added speed, special teams, grit, secondary scoring, blue line depth, and managed to do it all in a way that didn't detract from his lineup and every guy he added managed to fit in tremendously well.

The Buchnevich deal looks gross in retrospect but I can forgive him for that one since his hand was a bit forced. Had we gotten the Blais that showed up back in St Louis after the Tarasenko trade, I don't think people would've been as upset. He played like the 50 point shit disturber the Rangers thought they were getting originally.

That being said, I'll definitely ding him for 3 pretty significant missteps: Hiring Gallant, signing Goodrow to that ridiculous deal, and the Kane trade. All three went about exactly as well as I thought they would and now we're in a rough spot because of them.

I'm going to give Drury the benefit of the doubt until I see how the next coach does with the team. The one guy I absolutely do not want is Laviolette. There's absolutely nothing there that indicates an upward trend in what he can get out of a team, or that he's a guy who will help the kids take a step forward and hold veterans accountable.

 

[duhmetreE]

I actually think Drury has had significantly more positives than negatives. His 2022 deadline in particular was practically a master class in how to load up for a playoff run. He added speed, special teams, grit, secondary scoring, blue line depth, and managed to do it all in a way that didn't detract from his lineup and every guy he added managed to fit in tremendously well.

The Buchnevich deal looks gross in retrospect but I can forgive him for that one since his hand was a bit forced. Had we gotten the Blais that showed up back in St Louis after the Tarasenko trade, I don't think people would've been as upset. He played like the 50 point shit disturber the Rangers thought they were getting originally.

That being said, I'll definitely ding him for 3 pretty significant missteps: Hiring Gallant, signing Goodrow to that ridiculous deal, and the Kane trade. All three went about exactly as well as I thought they would and now we're in a rough spot because of them.

I'm going to give Drury the benefit of the doubt until I see how the next coach does with the team. The one guy I absolutely do not want is Laviolette. There's absolutely nothing there that indicates an upward trend in what he can get out of a team, or that he's a guy who will help the kids take a step forward and hold veterans accountable.

you forgot Nemeth disaster

 

[huerter]

Tarasenko was a disaster in isolation but DeAndre Kane relative to Patty Kane.

 

[Levitate]

The wording that came out from Brooks or Vincent (can't remember who) was that in the post season interviews players "asked for more help".

You can be a nice guy and give players a long leash, but you still need to have some sort of system and an idea for what you are doing. It's obvious Gallant had no idea, and just told the guys to "go out and play". Well, that just doesn't work at this level, when other teams have systems to fall on and are actually coached to play in a certain way. And it doesn't require a dick to coach like that. Guys like Tortorella, Sutter and Babcock are well know POS, coaching a system. Guys like Cassidy (from what I've understood) and Bednar also have a very systematic approach, but their player management style is completely different.

Some players might need a bit of a hard ass to get the most out of. For some players, that just breaks them. That's why guys like Tortorella and Sutter usually seem to have a shelf-life. Eventually players get sick of getting yelled at.

Yeah agree with this. And i Know people will say "well the players should have just taken up that leadership and got it done!" but like...cmon, putting it all on a player or players to design the system and nail down details and then get other players to execute it is unreasonable across and entire team, and literally what a coach is supposed to be doing!
It's likely a point of contention and disagreement but I'm of the opinion that in todays NHL needing to have some of those details nailed down is an incredibly important part of being a good team that can win in the playoffs. Some people say X's and O's aren't as important but I disagree in as much as you really need a strong structure for the players to play within. Then within that structure, let them find their ways to be creative.
We all wonder why Boston has been so tough to play against for years or why even the Islanders are such a pain in the ass even though they lack overall talent. They have strong structures to their game so the players know how to use each other and can work within that. The Rangers had no structure and over and over you saw guys just not know where teammates were or have any idea what they should be doing .

Crosby had Z until the end.

Cirelli smashed Z in the TB series

But Hischier took out Z on even strength altogether. 2 shot on goal at even strength the entire series

what's frustrating to me is that a lot of the time it looked like Zibanejad was holding back and just doing the "I need to be responsible, I'm going up against top guys, I need to not give anything up" and just sacrificed his offense in order to be a "two way" player. When he realized "shit I need to score goals" he did a lot better and took the game ot the other guys
Basically, you can't sit back and play defense and not expect to get caved in by the other team. You need to be the one on the attack and ZIbanejad wouldn't do that for long stretches

 

[17futurecap]

Tarasenko was a disaster in isolation but DeAndre Kane relative to Patty Kane.

Disaster class at five on five in that Devils series.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Sullivan. Didn't someone once call him the Rangers' coaching wet dream?

Dubas already said he was staying

I agree with a lot of your post, but Tarasenko and Mikkola are nowhere near Gartner types. Kane at his cost was a deal almost EVERY GM would have made. But there was a reason for that low cost, he was one legged.

Almost every other GM would have done due dillegence on the hip injury and passed on him. A simple check up would have shown him to be injured.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Yeah agree with this. And i Know people will say "well the players should have just taken up that leadership and got it done!" but like...cmon, putting it all on a player or players to design the system and nail down details and then get other players to execute it is unreasonable across and entire team, and literally what a coach is supposed to be doing!
It's likely a point of contention and disagreement but I'm of the opinion that in todays NHL needing to have some of those details nailed down is an incredibly important part of being a good team that can win in the playoffs. Some people say X's and O's aren't as important but I disagree in as much as you really need a strong structure for the players to play within. Then within that structure, let them find their ways to be creative.
We all wonder why Boston has been so tough to play against for years or why even the Islanders are such a pain in the ass even though they lack overall talent. They have strong structures to their game so the players know how to use each other and can work within that. The Rangers had no structure and over and over you saw guys just not know where teammates were or have any idea what they should be doing .

what's frustrating to me is that a lot of the time it looked like Zibanejad was holding back and just doing the "I need to be responsible, I'm going up against top guys, I need to not give anything up" and just sacrificed his offense in order to be a "two way" player. When he realized "shit I need to score goals" he did a lot better and took the game ot the other guys
Basically, you can't sit back and play defense and not expect to get caved in by the other team. You need to be the one on the attack and ZIbanejad wouldn't do that for long stretches

Thats the issue i was hoping we had solved when we had Barron, he's a guy who could have taken a lot of those tough defensive matchups with some time. Chytil is never gonna be that guy unless he commits to it, and Trochek is kind of a hybrid but not someone i want against Crosby. Unfortunately Zib is stuck taking those matchups and it hurts his production, same thing when we had Nash, he was more concerned about defense and it affected his offense.

 

[n8]

Who the hell is John Chabot and why do we care what he says about the Rangers?

Also Drury being compared to Chiarelli? What planet am I on? What move has Drury made to hurt the long term outlook of the team? I get people are frustrated with the end of last season but that sounds like just saying outlandish things to get a reaction.

It's not Chiarelli levels of bad but trading Buchnevich instead of signing him set us up for a lot of future failure.

Kreider-Zib-Buch was a dominant line that really clicked and since Buch was let go, we've been on a never-ending search to fill that spot. We paid for Vatrano. We paid for Tarasenko. We paid for Kane. all rentals. none were permanent solutions. another summer, same problem.

I would have signed Buch but not given him a NTC so we could control our cap destiny. Trading him would have been an option if we found we absolutely needed the cap for pending RFAs

 

[HockeyBasedNYC]

WHY

 

[Gardner McKay]

WHY

Huh?

 

[HonestGabe]

WHY

Elaborate

 

[RangersFan1994]

Rangers should have let Drury go when they let Gallant go

 

[UnSandvich]

WHY

BECAUSE

 

[Ruggs225]

WHY

Why why delilah

 

[EdJovanovski]

If we all just stay home and wear our masks, just 2 weeks to find a coach

 

[Killem Dafoe]

WHY

You scaring me

 

[will1066]

If we all just stay home and wear our masks, just 2 weeks to find a coach