Player Discussion Tony DeAngelo - Part II

[True Blue]

Frankly the concept of a building a "winning culture" is ridiculous. Team cultures are all completely different and only determined to be "winning" after they've won. You build a team to win on the ice using a combination of hard work and most importantly skill. If you disregard either for the other you are going to have a tough time, but especially the latter.

Didn't look that way during the dark ages did it?

And that is what we want from Quinn. It doesn't matter whether he threatens, encourages, cajoles or tricks them, he was hired to squeeze WHAT HE CAN out of every player. Its not binary where he either gets the players to act perfect or nothing.

Which is what he is doing. Just so happens that some around here are not loving his methods when it comes to DeAngelo.

Sorry but the idea that a young player is going to risk his ice time (and his career and millions of dollars) so he can emulate the team loaf or the team goof while ignoring the rest of the teams veteran leadership is absurd on multiple levels. Quinn has favorites and blind spots just like every other human on the planet and no one is going to crumble because of them.

Sorry, I do not see the favoritism.

 

[The Mouth]

Tony DeAngeNO

The good - He is the only Ranger D that can make a stretch pass. I like his gumption.
The bad - He is not a good defenseman.

 

[Thirty One]

Tony DeAngeNO

The good - He is the only Ranger D that can make a stretch pass. I like his gumption.
The bad - He is not a good defenseman.

 

[Miamipuck]

Well that's it close the thread, he can make a stretch pass but isn't a good defenseman......Take that to the bank. No other thoughts are required.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Tony DeAngeNO

The good - He is the only Ranger D that can make a stretch pass. I like his gumption.
The bad - He is not a good defenseman.

Is this based on your astute analysis of his play?

 

[LORDE]

Well they wouldn't, which was my point.

If a crappy WR shot himself or a backup backup DE blew his fingers off, they would have been cut with little fanfare, and their careers would likely be over. I would guess "permanently disfiguring yourself" if pretty high on a coaches list of "dont do's".

Which, again, is the point. The better a player is the more crap a coach (or whoever) is willing to put up with and the odds of players emulating others stupidity because they get more slack is minimal.



Except we are talking about how players behave off the ice, so I agree with you? ARE WE? Again, Quinn has stated that ADA has some things to work on, including some maturity issues... the game he was benched after (Philly I believe) was do to something he did while on the bench. SO technically not on the ice I suppose.



Frankly the concept of a building a "winning culture" is ridiculous. Team cultures are all completely different and only determined to be "winning" after they've won. You build a team to win on the ice using a combination of hard work and most importantly skill. If you disregard either for the other you are going to have a tough time, but especially the latter.

Response in BOLD above... also:

Coach is trying to establish a culture of work and professionalism. ADA has had issues in the professional area, Buch in the hard work.

They've both sat games out.

Deservedly so. IF they start doing what the coach asks, they'll both be better players for it.

 

[FireGerardGallant]

Is this based on your astute analysis of his play?

He was right on Pionk

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

I chose the most idiotically simplistic example out there of how great players are treated differently and how the concept of "equal accountability for all" is horse****. The fact that they treated him one way and absolutely would have treated another player differently is the forest, the trees, the shrubs, everything.

(Also LOL at Patrick Kane having a "single instance". That guy is the poster child for off ice behavioral headaches.)

Re-read my comment. I wasn't commenting on the idea of equal accountability for all because YOUR comment wasn't just about that. I agree that some would get a longer leash on some pro sports teams.That wasn't the part of your post that I was responding to.

(Also LOL at Patrick Kane having a "single instance". That guy is the poster child for off ice behavioral headaches.)

I am saying you USED 1 and it was dumb.


You completely failed to address what I actually was saying

 

[Brooklyn Ranger]

Is DeAngelo the most underrated aspect of this rebuild?

The outlook on D takes a massive shift if he is able to take care of what he needs to take care of and play close to his ceiling.

There's no question that DeAngelo has talent, but that talent has come with baggage. I think the Ranger organization recognized that talent-- and were able to get him in the Stephan trade because of those continuing "maturity" issues.

Furthermore, I think the Rangers were committed from the get-go to working with DeAngelo to become an integral part of the lineup. And I don't think they will give up on him either.

But in the end, DeAngelo is going to have to learn to play within himself--there have been too many times where he he has been out of control on the ice. If he can't be reliable, he's not going to make it in the NHL. You can play with snarl and have an attitude, but a player always has to be in control.

 

[Rongomania]

There's no question that DeAngelo has talent, but that talent has come with baggage. I think the Ranger organization recognized that talent-- and were able to get him in the Stephan trade because of those continuing "maturity" issues.

Furthermore, I think the Rangers were committed from the get-go to working with DeAngelo to become an integral part of the lineup. And I don't think they will give up on him either.

But in the end, DeAngelo is going to have to learn to play within himself--there have been too many times where he he has been out of control on the ice. If he can't be reliable, he's not going to make it in the NHL. You can play with snarl and have an attitude, but a player always has to be in control.

He’s made monumental strides this season and he is still very young. Next season will be make or break time for sure and I think he’s going to be part of this big solution we’re all searching for here.

 

[McRanger]

Re-read my comment. I wasn't commenting on the idea of equal accountability for all because YOUR comment wasn't just about that. I agree that some would get a longer leash on some pro sports teams.That wasn't the part of your post that I was responding to.

I am saying you USED 1 and it was dumb.

You completely failed to address what I actually was saying

Your post was like 100 words and 90 of them were you telling me how much you disliked my post.

The other 10 looked like a weird Haiku where you changed the subject.

So I am not really sure where to go from here.

How about another Haiku?

Tony from Jersey,
Why wont you simply "do A"?
Defending you sucks.

 

[McRanger]

Response in BOLD above... ARE WE? Again, Quinn has stated that ADA has some things to work on, including some maturity issues... the game he was benched after (Philly I believe) was do to something he did while on the bench. SO technically not on the ice I suppose.

Assuming ADA's problems are mainly "off ice" problems is giving Quinn the benefit of the doubt.

Even as a pretty flawed player, ADA is one of the better performing D-men we have. If he is benching him because of on ice issues (say, like ADA's bad habits with turnovers) while being unable to see the serious on ice problems in other players he leans on... then the Rangers are in a tremendous amount of trouble.

also:

Coach is trying to establish a culture of work and professionalism. ADA has had issues in the professional area, Buch in the hard work.

They've both sat games out.

Deservedly so. IF they start doing what the coach asks, they'll both be better players for it.

Very true.

And if they do not, and are replaced by inferior players, the Rangers will be all the worse for it. Now and when it matters.

Which is what makes this a crappy situation.

 

[McRanger]

Didn't look that way during the dark ages did it?

If by "winning culture" you mean a good team and a good coach (both things very much absent during the Dark Years) then I love that idea.

If by "winning culture" you mean prioritizing grit and work ethic over skill and the ability to actually score or defend then I do not love that idea.

I would love to say to my daughter "These are the New York Rangers, the hardest working team I have ever seen." but I would really prefer to say "These are the New York Rangers, defending Stanley Cup Champs, they are almost all really hardworking and decent humans aside from a few people who are awful."

Which is what he is doing. Just so happens that some around here are not loving his methods when it comes to DeAngelo.

This has little to do with loving his methods or approving of his methods, I simply doubt if they will be effective.

And I worry that while he is focusing on "getting players to do A" he is missing some other rather important things like fixing the holes in the rest of the teams games.

Sorry, I do not see the favoritism.

Every coach favors certain players while undervaluing others. Its not a shot at Quinn, its simply the reality of coaching.

Pionk and Howden are pretty obvious examples. The two of them were horror shows on the ice for weeks and it took injuries to get both of them in the press box. Fast spent more time on the 1st line than anyone thought possible. And what the hell McLeod was doing in the lineup ever, I will never know.

Maybe this is a radical concept but I think you should be accountable for more than just your ability to follow your coaches directions or be mature. You should also be accountable for doing your job successfully. If Quinn's main concern is making sure everyone is acting like good little soldiers while playing well in NHL games is a secondary concern, then we have a big f**king problem.

 

[Gardner McKay]

He was right on Pionk

And? Broken clocks are also right twice a day.

 

[Brooklyn Ranger]

To that point, why is everyone convinced it's an issue of ADA and DQ, and not DQ responding to thing(s) that are affecting other players on the team as well? The bottom line is that we do not know and it is all speculation, but at the end of the day DQ is the guy that is going to make the decisions so those decisions become associated with him...

Excellent point. There is nothing wrong with a player having different views or a different attitude away from the rink, but hockey is the most team oriented of all the major sports and when players don't fit in on the ice (including practice etc) it becomes a problem

The Rangers are trying to get DeAngelo to do the things he needs to do to fit in on the ice as part of the team. He was getting better (and being rewarded for it with more ice time), but has to do it consistently, every day, every practice, every shift. When he does that he will be part of the core, playing 20+ minutes a night in all situations.

 

[True Blue]

If by "winning culture" you mean a good team and a good coach (both things very much absent during the Dark Years) then I love that idea.

If by "winning culture" you mean prioritizing grit and work ethic over skill and the ability to actually score or defend then I do not love that idea.

I mean the first, but it need not come at the price of discounting grit.

This has little to do with loving his methods or approving of his methods, I simply doubt if they will be effective.

We will then need to agree to disagree

And I worry that while he is focusing on "getting players to do A" he is missing some other rather important things like fixing the holes in the rest of the teams games.

I am pretty sure that the only place that is solely focused on DeAngelo is here.

Pionk and Howden are pretty obvious examples. The two of them were horror shows on the ice for weeks and it took injuries to get both of them in the press box. Fast spent more time on the 1st line than anyone thought possible. And what the hell McLeod was doing in the lineup ever, I will never know.

Quinn has repeatedly stated that he is more than willing to deal with mistakes if the intent is right. The reasons the players are in the line up is that he views their intentions for the better of the team. I do not think it has to do with favoritism.

Maybe this is a radical concept but I think you should be accountable for more than just your ability to follow your coaches directions or be mature. You should also be accountable for doing your job successfully. If Quinn's main concern is making sure everyone is acting like good little soldiers while playing well in NHL games is a secondary concern, then we have a big f**king problem.

How you do your job successfully, is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Igor Shestyorkin]

Tony DeAngeNO

The good - He is the only Ranger D that can make a stretch pass. I like his gumption.
The bad - He is not a good defenseman.

This is the hottest take of the season.

Lmaoooooooooo.

 

[McRanger]

I mean the first, but it need not come at the price of discounting grit.

In a perfect world we would have both, but its not a perfect world and never will be for Rangers fans. Skill often comes at the expense of grit, and former is significantly more important than the latter. Its 2019, I dont think that point can even be argued anymore.

We will then need to agree to disagree

I am glad you are optimistic that at the end of this story Tony D has evolved into a better person or a more mature person or something, and will do exactly what Quinn wants all the time, but I doubt it.

I think the only happy ending is that Quinn and ADA learn to live together. And that probably means Quinn bending a bit because ADA is giving him more where it matters, on the ice.

Which is pretty much how every successful relationship a coach has had with a talented-but-enigmatic-player has gone, like ever.

But personally, I hope you are right.

I am pretty sure that the only place that is solely focused on DeAngelo is here.

Great. I look forward to seeing something that resembles improvement from Pionk, who doesn't seem to be making any coaching directed adjustments despite his game having more holes than Hanks net.

Quinn has repeatedly stated that he is more than willing to deal with mistakes if the intent is right. The reasons the players are in the line up is that he views their intentions for the better of the team. I do not think it has to do with favoritism.

How you do your job successfully, is in the eye of the beholder.

Having your own standards for success that don't align with objective success (in this case, playing well on the ice) is just a fancy way of saying favoritism.

Like I've said before, if the goal is accountability I do not see how icing players who can't do their job successfully helps that goal.

 

[nyr2k2]

Having your own standards for success that don't align with objective success (in this case, playing well on the ice) is just a fancy way of saying favoritism.

Like I've said before, if the goal is accountability I do not see how icing players who can't do their job successfully helps that goal.

In my company, all the evaluations come to me. Our sales guys, obviously mission #1 is selling our software solutions. But the managers often fill the evaluations with other goals that are aimed at building good sales people (particularly our junior sales people)--focus on memorizing and understanding the collateral, sharpen up on your Challenger and Sandler, recommit yourself to utilizing our sales model and methodologies, etc. They're all secondary to actually closing sales, but the purpose is to establish the foundation for these younger guys to become great sales people.

That's the whole point, I think, of what Quinn is trying to do. He has plans for his young guys and if they adhere to the plans, in theory, they become better at their jobs and eventually the team succeeds. At my company, if one guy isn't great at his job but is doing everything the manager asks and is clearly working on improving himself according to the objectives provided, he's going to be just fine. If there's another guy who is making more sales but is offering all these discounts and telling people the software can do this, that and the other thing without consulting implementations to see if it actually can, and ignoring his personal objectives as stated by the manager, he's going to find himself on a PIP even if he's making a bunch more sales.

Accountability does't have to equal good play. You eventually reach a point where the quality of play becomes more important, but during a rebuild I think establishing the culture and building the foundation are even more important.

 

[offdacrossbar]

In a perfect world we would have both, but its not a perfect world and never will be for Rangers fans. Skill often comes at the expense of grit, and former is significantly more important than the latter. Its 2019, I dont think that point can even be argued anymore.



I am glad you are optimistic that at the end of this story Tony D has evolved into a better person or a more mature person or something, and will do exactly what Quinn wants all the time, but I doubt it.

I think the only happy ending is that Quinn and ADA learn to live together. And that probably means Quinn bending a bit because ADA is giving him more where it matters, on the ice.

Which is pretty much how every successful relationship a coach has had with a talented-but-enigmatic-player has gone, like ever.

But personally, I hope you are right.



Great. I look forward to seeing something that resembles improvement from Pionk, who doesn't seem to be making any coaching directed adjustments despite his game having more holes than Hanks net.



Having your own standards for success that don't align with objective success (in this case, playing well on the ice) is just a fancy way of saying favoritism.

Like I've said before, if the goal is accountability I do not see how icing players who can't do their job successfully helps that goal.

this post and your answers are breath of fresh air. you seem to be one of the very few who can identify the wishy washy message quinn sends with his selective enforcement of ADA.

to me its not overly complicated. quinn wants his players to be the best players they can be. fair enough. in his own words, he seems to equate ADA's attitude and demeanor and maturity to his play i.e., if quinn can help ADA change himself- be less yappy, more mature and more "in control", then ADA's play will improve blah blah blah... something like that.

not buying it. by all accounts, tony seems well liked, isn't a locker room cancer, isnt in and out of the press acting like a clown and hasn't yet EVER done anything so egregious that he has hurt the team.

neal pionk seems like a really nice guy. like real nice. his play on the ice, however, especially 5v5 blows chunks. bad. check the corsi. its not pretty.

the bolded above hits the nail on the head. period.

well said

 

[Off Sides]

In my company, all the evaluations come to me. Our sales guys, obviously mission #1 is selling our software solutions. But the managers often fill the evaluations with other goals that are aimed at building good sales people (particularly our junior sales people)--focus on memorizing and understanding the collateral, sharpen up on your Challenger and Sandler, recommit yourself to utilizing our sales model and methodologies, etc. They're all secondary to actually closing sales, but the purpose is to establish the foundation for these younger guys to become great sales people.

That's the whole point, I think, of what Quinn is trying to do. He has plans for his young guys and if they adhere to the plans, in theory, they become better at their jobs and eventually the team succeeds. At my company, if one guy isn't great at his job but is doing everything the manager asks and is clearly working on improving himself according to the objectives provided, he's going to be just fine. If there's another guy who is making more sales but is offering all these discounts and telling people the software can do this, that and the other thing without consulting implementations to see if it actually can, and ignoring his personal objectives as stated by the manager, he's going to find himself on a PIP even if he's making a bunch more sales.

Accountability does't have to equal good play. You eventually reach a point where the quality of play becomes more important, but during a rebuild I think establishing the culture and building the foundation are even more important.

I think another part of Quinn's job would be dealing with difficult players, whether they be prospects, rookies, vets. Which has to go along with some level of living with whatever makes them difficult. Sure what that level of living with it has to be set somewhere, just it's not going to be set at the same place for every different player. So I'm not sure there is really an ideal end goal that can be accomplished. The Vets are always going to get more slack, the more talented players will too, the guys the coach thinks are providing intangibles as well.

Another part will eventually be to ice the best roster possible, regardless of how much weight teams and coaches put on intangibles, in the playoffs past the first round we see that they know that talent gives them a better chance to win as they end up scratching those intangible players for those who are more talented.

Not trying to say the regular season versus playoffs, a rebuild versus contender, are the same things and I get a coach treating them differently, more trying to say it's an evolving job and that goes along with coaching being able to move their goal posts as it goes on. In which case the more ADA plays, the better he does, the more the goal posts are likely to be moved, yet if he pushes it too far of course I expect an attempt made at reeling him back in.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

DeAngeNO, Stionk, McIlBust....Such poetry with words, not hard to see how he has 3/4 million viewers on his Podcast

 

[Mike in Houston]

DeAngeNO, Stionk, McIlBust....Such poetry with words, not hard to see how he has 3/4 million viewers on his Podcast

I like his podcast. Jim and Eddie make me laugh.

 

[True Blue]

to me its not overly complicated. quinn wants his players to be the best players they can be. fair enough. in his own words, he seems to equate ADA's attitude and demeanor and maturity to his play i.e., if quinn can help ADA change himself- be less yappy, more mature and more "in control", then ADA's play will improve blah blah blah... something like that.

This is actually not accurate. Or at least makes effort at obfuscation. Quinn was quite content that DeAgelo was "yappy" to the Boston bench and said as much.

not buying it. by all accounts, tony seems well liked, isn't a locker room cancer, isnt in and out of the press acting like a clown and hasn't yet EVER done anything so egregious that he has hurt the team.

What he had DEFINITELY not done most of the year is adhere to the standards that ALL of management has laid out for him.

neal pionk seems like a really nice guy. like real nice. his play on the ice, however, especially 5v5 blows chunks. bad. check the corsi. its not pretty.

Quinn has laid it out. It is all about intentions this year. You clearly wish it was not so.

 

[True Blue]

In a perfect world we would have both, but its not a perfect world and never will be for Rangers fans. Skill often comes at the expense of grit, and former is significantly more important than the latter. Its 2019, I dont think that point can even be argued anymore.

No one is arguing that skill is not important. But that does not mean that other things are not. But that is neither here nor there as far as the debate about ADA is.

Which is pretty much how every successful relationship a coach has had with a talented-but-enigmatic-player has gone, like ever.

There also examples of players who had to change and it has been for the better.

Great. I look forward to seeing something that resembles improvement from Pionk

You and me both

Having your own standards for success that don't align with objective success (in this case, playing well on the ice) is just a fancy way of saying favoritism.
No, it is saying that on ice skill and how smooth you skate are not the standard bearers of accountability.

Like I've said before, if the goal is accountability I do not see how icing players who can't do their job successfully helps that goal.

There are many things that go into doing one's job and how one goes about the business of doing ones job. Icing players who do not do that teaches them to be accountable for their actions.