Toggle sidebar

Confirmed with Link: Rangers Name Alain Vigneault Head Coach

  • Thread starter Thread starter *Bob Richards*
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Machinehead said:
Still scares the **** out of me. After 4 years of Torts I want a guy who really wants to attack.
Click to expand...

I think the Rangers would be foolish to hire someone who is offense first. The team's strength resides in their D and G and teams win by playing up their strengths. That doesn't mean I want stale hockey, like we've been seeing. But the coach has to fit the roster.
 
Tawnos said:
I think the Rangers would be foolish to hire someone who is offense first. The team's strength resides in their D and G and teams win by playing up their strengths. That doesn't mean I want stale hockey, like we've been seeing. But the coach has to fit the roster.
Click to expand...
completely agree. That's why I am surprised nobody wrote an article about it yet. You'd think the local scribes would have had time to write something to that effect by now given the scarcity of news.
 
Tawnos said:
I think the Rangers would be foolish to hire someone who is offense first. The team's strength resides in their D and G and teams win by playing up their strengths. That doesn't mean I want stale hockey, like we've been seeing. But the coach has to fit the roster.
Click to expand...

An offensive coach would fit the roster. We have Henrik Lundqvist. Teams with elite goaltenders should open it up and let their goalie handle the consequences.
 
Brian Boyle said:
Do we have the offensive personnel to accomplish that, though?
Click to expand...

We're not scoring anyway, we might as well try to possess the puck. Sitting back because we're afraid we can't score is only gonna make things harder on Hank and the D. It's not really about the offense, it's about Hank. Hank is better against good chances anyway. Most of the goals that beat him are chintzy. I'd rather let him handle a run and gun than collapse and let the other team set up.

And no we might not have the finishers to put up alot of goals, but it isn't just about goals. Hockey is a two-way street. Offense is defense and vice versa. Playing ultra-defensive just means defending more. Defending more inherently means giving the other teams more looks at our net. So I think a more offensive approach would help our defense.

Of course more aggression involves risks. The beauty of having a Lundqvist is being able to take those risks.

And do I think we're gonna be a high-scoring team? No. We lack finishers. But I absolutely believe we have enough grit and speed to keep the puck in their zone, I believe we have talented enough defenders to get the damn thing back instead of running away as soon as they get the puck, and I believe we have enough passing ability to move the damn thing up the ice like a real ****ing hockey team instead of constantly dumping. I don't think we're gonna be the Pittsburgh Penguins but I do think we have enough skill to add one goal here and there so it's not a constant 2-1 grind.
 
Last edited:
I don't know maybe I'm crazy but I wouldn't mind seeing Messier as head coach with Leetch as an assistant coach.

Messier has never coached before but what if comes naturally to him? There's always the possibility his great leadership on the ice could carry over to coaching. He isn't Gretzky, he hasn't been given a chance. We don't even know what he could be capable of.

Leetch although not the best captain but his offensive instincts are amazing. Have him as an assistant with a lot less pressure and perhaps putting him in charge of this chronically inept Rangers power play would be the solution.
 
Fitzy said:
It will be nice to be able to go back to watching press conferences without having to worry for the safety of the reporters.

I understand dismissing dumb questions, absolutely. But Tortorella was discriminatory in his treatment. If it was a loss, and he was miffed, he more or less made it impossible for the reporters to do their jobs.
Click to expand...

Personally, I can't think of anything about a coach that means less to me than the tenor of his press conferences.

At first, I was a little bummed that Torts got fired. As painful as the team was to watch on some nights, the end results were pretty good. Great season last year, then a 6th finish and a first round win this year without Staal or Clowe and with Richards worse than ever.

Then, I came to accept it and start hoping that Sather would take this seriously, play it smart, and end up with a better coach.

Now, Eakins has been hired without the Rangers even talking to him, and Messier is getting an interview.

I really feel like Sather is going to blow this.
 
Machinehead said:
And do I think we're gonna be a high-scoring team? No. We lack finishers. But I absolutely believe we have enough grit and speed to keep the puck in their zone, I believe we have talented enough defenders to get the damn thing back instead of running away as soon as they get the puck, and I believe we have enough passing ability to move the damn thing up the ice like a real ****ing hockey team instead of constantly dumping. I don't think we're gonna be the Pittsburgh Penguins but I do think we have enough skill to add one goal here and there so it's not a constant 2-1 grind.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
At least make the game worth watching.
Those 2-1 games were getting on my nerves tbh. Half the game, the team is on its heels, the other half it's in its own zone.
A missed goal is a big deal, we get so few chances. Every defensive mistake is magnified, the difference between winning and losing.
 
Only at Hockeysfuture are posters just as pissed off about missing out on a 'young,' unproven coach as they are about trading away draft picks..
 
Add a new a name to the list; John Stevens
From Brooks
The Rangers, who had been in touch with AHL Marlies coach Dallas Eakins before he was snapped off the market by the Oilers, may seek to speak with Kings assistant John Stevens, the former Flyers head coach in whom Vancouver has decided interest.
Click to expand...
 
I like the idea of Stevens after reading this post on the LA board:

deeshamrock said:
I liked him and didn't mind the fact the media and some fans thought he was too staid . Philly fans like fire.
He won a Calder Cup (AHL Champ) with the Phantoms and worked well with the younger players. Something that he continued when he moved up from the Phantoms to the parent club Flyers
He led them to the ECF in 2008 and although Richards played every game in 2009 and had his best year, he blew out both shoulders and needed surgery on both, thus the Flyers were out fast that year I the playoffs. They got off to a slow start in 2009 and Ed being impatient, fired him. And I think it was because he was too laid back and Ed wanted a coach more like him, and there was Lavvy available.

He was criticized by thje local media (imagine that) for being too close to his players, esp the young guys and there were plenty. And that those young guns needed a firmer hand. He was esp close to Richards (and said when Richards was traded to the Kings he was almost like a son to him) and I think that him being fired affected Richards for awhile and Lavvy was 360 in the other direction. Richards maintained a close relationship after Stevens left and having John on the Kings made his transition ALOT easier.

But he got results, he taught his players how to defend their zone first and it never hurt the skilled players, they got offensive results, Carter scored a bunch and Gagne and Richards did as well > ( Between the 3 of them 2008-09 they put up over 100 goals Lupol, Hartnell and Knuble added close to 80) Richards best years offensively were with Stevens. Carter put up 46 goals and 84 points under JS.

I still think they got rid of him because they wanted Lavvy. I think had they given Stevens more time that year, he would have had the same results. A good part of that team was Stevens team and for me, the reason they went deep in 2010 was not because of Lavvy's system as much as it was the way those forwards (from stevens0 could defend their zone. Richards, Carter and Gagne were all good 2 way players and that was a big difference on that 2010 team. Now their all gone for the most part and the Lavvy Flyers can't even defend their own shadow.

A lot of the Kings success is tied to his defense and PK work. And if not in Vancover (which I think is not a good fit, given the team there) where ever he lands, he'll do well.
Click to expand...
 
Brian Boyle said:
I like the idea of Stevens after reading this post on the LA board:
Click to expand...

Interesting tidbid about special teams

Stevens is known for having teams with great power play production. The Flyers finished above 20% with the extra man in three of the four years (the exception being his first year behind the bench) and were among the League leaders in shorthanded goals as well - which is good, because one thing Stevens hasn't been afraid of is dressing tough guys, with the Flyers among the top-five teams in majors and penalties per game in each of the four seasons he coached there.
Click to expand...
 
Kwayry said:
Interesting tidbid about special teams
Click to expand...

wow...

You think Sather gives it a shot? I'd love to see this guy at least get an interview..

Also, wouldn't worry about the Messier hype... I think that was media rumor thrown out there to keep us occupied, and eyes off the organization (on rumors instead).

That said, I am doubtful Messier will be seriously considered.. How often do you get an interview that the company doesn't actually want to give, but is done for the hell of it? I know I've been on a few myself, and I'm the mere age of 23... I don't think Gorton/Sather will actually go through with hiring him as HC...

Lastly, I believe we have a decent relationship with the Kings, no? Furthermore, the fact that Stevens literally came out of nowhere, and now Brooks speculating Sather may talk to him? Maybe this is what Sather has been waiting for
 
Of the coaches the Rangers are reportedly interested in, AV, Ruff, Mess, Stevens...Stevens would be my pick 100%.
 
Brian Boyle said:
Do we have the offensive personnel to accomplish that, though?
Click to expand...

I think offense and defense goes hand in hand nowadays, so I don't think we got much option.

You can only do so much offensively unless you have the personell. In the broad picture, it takes elite talent to be an elite scoring team. Its of course possible to build a team on which you managed to get several offensively talented but flawed in other areas-players to function. But you definitely need to be able to win momentum and stay up ice to be able to defend with decent results in the NHL today.

We will need alot of things on our roster. We will need size. We will need speed. We will need toughness. We will need play making ability on the PP. It remains to be seen how some of our D's react to a coach that let them actually pass the puck, and how much of their passing game litterary have been destroyed while playing under Torts, but we will also need puckmoving ability from the blueline.

My point is just, I do not think we can look at what roster we have when we decide how to play. There aren't many options.
 
The Rangers were one of the better even strength teams in the league the last two seasons. Had the coaching staff been able to formulate at least marginally effective tactics on the power play this team could have challenged the Kings in the finals last year and possibly the conference final again this season. The putrid power play skews things. This team is not devoid of skill. While they have holes, they aren't crap. A coach who knows how to adapt and knows how to reach individual players should be able to get more from.this club.

Eakins and Boucher were my picks but with Eakins gone and Boucher not in the mix, Stevens all the way.

No more collapsing in our own end. No more giving away possession willingly. Attack. Flow. Creativity. Get rid of the slow elephants (Pyatt and Clowe) and have a team that can skate. Build the identity on relentless pressure and speed.
 
I'm ready to throw caution to the wind, say **** it to questions about us having the roster to play a wide open game, let the D and Lundquist take care of themselves and go with a coach willing to take big offensive risks. We've had what feels like a decade of tight defense first hockey in NY (which I actually love) but it's time for a change. What's the worst that could happen that hasn't already happened? Miss POs - check. Squeeze in and get slammed - check. Lead the conference and still get bounced - check.

Let's have some mother****ing fun out there next season.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom