Prospect Info: Vitali Kravtsov: Part IX

[EXTRAS]

All hail cwede!

 

[xsniper11x]

Soooo we don't want Crosby... er Ovie... er McDavid

We want? (and yes I used McDavid purposely for his lack of... winning team)

Point being we want talent... but talent in lower leagues doesn't equal talent in the NHL. Let's hope he can play here

Sid, Malkin and Kane are the only young players to storm onto the scene and win something in recent memory. They’re all generational talents. Who else recently? Took Ovie into his 30s, cause while he was racking up goals he wasn’t doing any of the things he did on the way to finally winning his first cup.

Its not about creating stars, it’s about building a championship team. That’s not about developing an individual player, that’s about pushing all players to commit to a certain mentality.

 

[will1066]

This is a very well written post. We are lucky to not have to rush our young players and let them develop even if its on the 3rd line.

The one thing I think that irks most people is Quinn is coaching this like its a win now team. Yes Blackwell was playing well for a while, but this team is rebuilding and is a 27 year old journeymen part of our future? Definitely not.

One of Kakko or Laf should of been up on that line with Strome and Panarin if for anything to try and build chemistry and confidence. Even if playing poorly it allows them to sit next to Panarin or Strome on the bench between shifts and be apart of their discussions re strategy.

I agree it's a well written post

 

[BroadwayStorm]

You're not going to agree with me and that's fine but I don't believe you should have to earn your spot. You should be handed it based on your draft position since this already dictated how dashing, handsome and talented you are. This is not some Disney movie where the underdog gets to play at the end of Rudy. No that shit doesn't happen in New York City. Here you go bankrupt 4 times and they call you a billionaire success. This is a greedy, brainless and backwards materialistic capitalist society. Stop being naïve. Kravtsov to the top line.

 

[nyr2k2]

You're not going to agree with me and that's fine but I don't believe you should have to earn your spot. You should be handed it based on your draft position since this already dictated how dashing, handsome and talented you are. This is not some Disney movie where the underdog gets to play at the end of Rudy. No that shit doesn't happen in New York City. Here you go bankrupt 4 times and they call you a billionaire success. This is a greedy, brainless and backwards materialistic capitalist society. Stop being naïve. Kravtsov to the top line.

I don't think there's any harm in initially putting a young player in an important spot with skilled teammates. You have talented young guys, they're key to the future of your organization, so yeah, put them in a spot to succeed. But, if they look like they're overmatched, like they can't keep up, like they're lost, you bump them back down and let them work their way back. I don't think it benefits the individual player to be put in a sink or swim environment and left to drown, and it doesn't benefit the team, either.

 

[bobbop]

How many of the guys who blame everything on Quinn being a terrible coach do you think are the same guys who blamed everything on AV being a terrible coach?

You should have been here when Tom Renney was the coach.

 

[bobbop]

I'm not a big Quinn fan but it's crazy to suggest he ruins prospects, IMO. I criticized him heavily for how he used Andersson, but now I think maybe Andersson deserved the treatment and just isn't that good. Based on how he handled himself last season and what he has done this season.

You look at a Fox, or a Lindgren. They're great. People always go, "Oh, well they're just really good, and came to the NHL ready." People don't want to credit the coach for helping develop these guys because they were "ready" from the outset. They're better now than they were. No credit to the coach. Yet Lafreniere, who was supposed to be the most NHL-ready player in the draft, when he struggles it's the coach. Kakko, it's the coach. Do I like the way he uses them? Not necessarily, but I don't think he's ruining them. A lot of people killed him for how he handled DeAngelo, and he helped Tony for a season and a half become one of the preeminent PMD's in the game. Chytil, he's a guy who is up and down. Is that on the coach? It's amazing because you read all the complaining about the line combos and usage, and if you listened to the board collectively we'd have 9 guys getting first-line TOI and PP1 time every game. Doesn't work that way. You have a lot of young guys, you have to do a lot of juggling. Sometimes the young guys will get squeezed. The coach is also trying to win and can't just force a lineup of unproductive young players just because we all want Kakko and Lafreniere to play 20 minutes.

So many are so quick to condemn, but refuse to praise. Look, I don't like it when he seems like he forgets about a guy, or overplays a Brett Howden, or how he force-feeds certain guys big minutes. And I don't think he's the coach for this team long term. But he's not nearly as bad as some here portray him to be (and I'm not talking heat-of-the-moment, fire-everyone stuff).

Post of the day

 

[The Crypto Guy]

You should have been here when Tom Renney was the coach.

Nobody beats out Tom Renney. Please don't remind me of him.

 

[The New Russian Five]

Nobody beats out Tom Renney. Please don't remind me of him.

Hey! I was a Renney fan. He had a clear system, for the most part had good personnel management, and let his star players do their thing. He kept things simple.

He also got a lot out of a very mediocre lineup.

 

[RangersFan1994]

Hey! I was a Renney fan. He had a clear system, for the most part had good personnel management, and let his star players do their thing. He kept things simple.

He also got a lot out of a very mediocre lineup.

Renney was a good coach. Id take him back in a heartbeat if he wanted too get back to the Rangers if we had a opening. he is a smart guy too.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

How can people get on Renney when he was the first coach to get us out of the dark ages? Do you not remember Ron Low?

 

[duhmetreE]

I'm not a big Quinn fan but it's crazy to suggest he ruins prospects, IMO. I criticized him heavily for how he used Andersson, but now I think maybe Andersson deserved the treatment and just isn't that good. Based on how he handled himself last season and what he has done this season.

You look at a Fox, or a Lindgren. They're great. People always go, "Oh, well they're just really good, and came to the NHL ready." People don't want to credit the coach for helping develop these guys because they were "ready" from the outset. They're better now than they were. No credit to the coach. Yet Lafreniere, who was supposed to be the most NHL-ready player in the draft, when he struggles it's the coach. Kakko, it's the coach. Do I like the way he uses them? Not necessarily, but I don't think he's ruining them. A lot of people killed him for how he handled DeAngelo, and he helped Tony for a season and a half become one of the preeminent PMD's in the game. Chytil, he's a guy who is up and down. Is that on the coach? It's amazing because you read all the complaining about the line combos and usage, and if you listened to the board collectively we'd have 9 guys getting first-line TOI and PP1 time every game. Doesn't work that way. You have a lot of young guys, you have to do a lot of juggling. Sometimes the young guys will get squeezed. The coach is also trying to win and can't just force a lineup of unproductive young players just because we all want Kakko and Lafreniere to play 20 minutes.

So many are so quick to condemn, but refuse to praise. Look, I don't like it when he seems like he forgets about a guy, or overplays a Brett Howden, or how he force-feeds certain guys big minutes. And I don't think he's the coach for this team long term. But he's not nearly as bad as some here portray him to be (and I'm not talking heat-of-the-moment, fire-everyone stuff).

TBF our defenseman have cooked for 3 years in college. ( KAM 2 and it's beginning to show ) Comparing that to d+1 forwards is not 1:1.

Hopefully Kravtsov comes out like our defensemen, he's our first d+3 forward since Kreider

Is he teaching them to play as if they were freshman? Possibly. It's not my issue either way. I just don't like certain things that this coach has direct control over. IMO that starts to bleed in other areas.

 

[kovazub94]

How can people get on Renney when he was the first coach to get us out of the dark ages? Do you not remember Ron Low?

Is this our baseline for measurement? Isn't it too Low...

 

[Ruggs225]

How can people get on Renney when he was the first coach to get us out of the dark ages? Do you not remember Ron Low?

i see u a low, and raise u a trottier

 

[SnowblindNYR]

i see u a low, and raise u a trottier

Ron Low has a special place in my heart since he was the coach when I first started watching. I remember there being a hockey show with this guy/girl talking about hockey and they gave Low a platform to talk about the PK and he was talking about how they force teams to shoot from the point (I guess under the theory that the Rangers would prevent screens and tip-ins), anyway in the end he said "if you're doing it like this, you're doing it right". Only problem is that the PK was last in the league that season.

 

[Ola]

I'm not a big Quinn fan but it's crazy to suggest he ruins prospects, IMO. I criticized him heavily for how he used Andersson, but now I think maybe Andersson deserved the treatment and just isn't that good. Based on how he handled himself last season and what he has done this season.

You look at a Fox, or a Lindgren. They're great. People always go, "Oh, well they're just really good, and came to the NHL ready." People don't want to credit the coach for helping develop these guys because they were "ready" from the outset. They're better now than they were. No credit to the coach. Yet Lafreniere, who was supposed to be the most NHL-ready player in the draft, when he struggles it's the coach. Kakko, it's the coach. Do I like the way he uses them? Not necessarily, but I don't think he's ruining them. A lot of people killed him for how he handled DeAngelo, and he helped Tony for a season and a half become one of the preeminent PMD's in the game. Chytil, he's a guy who is up and down. Is that on the coach? It's amazing because you read all the complaining about the line combos and usage, and if you listened to the board collectively we'd have 9 guys getting first-line TOI and PP1 time every game. Doesn't work that way. You have a lot of young guys, you have to do a lot of juggling. Sometimes the young guys will get squeezed. The coach is also trying to win and can't just force a lineup of unproductive young players just because we all want Kakko and Lafreniere to play 20 minutes.

So many are so quick to condemn, but refuse to praise. Look, I don't like it when he seems like he forgets about a guy, or overplays a Brett Howden, or how he force-feeds certain guys big minutes. And I don't think he's the coach for this team long term. But he's not nearly as bad as some here portray him to be (and I'm not talking heat-of-the-moment, fire-everyone stuff).

Yeah, but I think this type of reasoning is flawed to the extent that it shouldn’t exist.

We should never chalk a kid that comes in and does well or a kid that comes in and perform under expectations as pluses or negatives on the coach that has been around them for a few months. Really, it’s totally ridiculous, for obvious reasons. Like count the fraction of “face time” a NHL coach have had with a kid he has been around a few months with the total face time that kid have had with players that have helped him and it’s less than a fraction of a percent. It’s complete nonsense, it’s childish and ridiculous, and still something we see in like the NYPost, they will have had zero impact on the kids skating, conditioning, stickhandling, shooting etc etc etc.

Another thing is that you cannot snooze a kid’s development for a couple of years. You improve by getting to play to your strength. If you coach Erik Karlsson his rookie year and let him play to his strength — you have done a good job (in hindsight). Many coaches would have handcuffed him completely — that wouldn’t have been good work. Keeping a kid like Puljujarvi around on a 4th line mostly from when he was 18-21 wasn’t good at all. If a kid isnt ready he shouldn’t be in the NHL.

Top 3 picks are special if they are too good for the alternatives. They are not there across the board but more than ready in other areas. Do you play them in a minor role for 3 years and hope that they won’t be hurt by it or support them where they need support and let them play to their strengths (like many teams does) or something in betwee? These type of things should be discussed.

 

[kovazub94]

Yeah, but I think this type of reasoning is flawed to the extent that it shouldn’t exist.

We should never chalk a kid that comes in and does well or a kid that comes in and perform under expectations as pluses or negatives on the coach that has been around them for a few months. Really, it’s totally ridiculous, for obvious reasons. Like count the fraction of “face time” a NHL coach have had with a kid he has been around a few months with the total face time that kid have had with players that have helped him and it’s less than a fraction of a percent. It’s complete nonsense, it’s childish and ridiculous, and still something we see in like the NYPost, they will have had zero impact on the kids skating, conditioning, stickhandling, shooting etc etc etc.

Another thing is that you cannot snooze a kid’s development for a couple of years. You improve by getting to play to your strength. If you coach Erik Karlsson his rookie year and let him play to his strength — you have done a good job (in hindsight). Many coaches would have handcuffed him completely — that wouldn’t have been good work. Keeping a kid like Puljujarvi around on a 4th line mostly from when he was 18-21 wasn’t good at all. If a kid isnt ready he shouldn’t be in the NHL.

Top 3 picks are special if they are too good for the alternatives. They are not there across the board but more than ready in other areas. Do you play them in a minor role for 3 years and hope that they won’t be hurt by it or support them where they need support and let them play to their strengths (like many teams does) or something in betwee? These type of things should be discussed.

Ola, this is not meant to be a snarky response but when you are going to be NYR HC - this could be your approach.

Quinn has his and I completely agree that you can't judge its effectiveness based on a couple of months worth of a sample. Extending the sample to at least a couple of years - I like Quinn's record so he's free to continue to apply it as far as I'm concerned. Is the front office taking the same position? He has his job for now and we don't hear that he's on the chopping block so I guess there's support there. Right or wrong we will need a few years to figure out what will become of Lafreniere, Kakko and Kravtsov and how much of it will be due to Quinn's approach.

 

[The New Russian Five]

i see u a low, and raise u a trottier

Double raise you, Glen Sather behind the bench.

 

[Brief Candle]

Double raise you, Glen Sather behind the bench.

I call and raise you all John Muckler.

 

[True Blue]

You're not going to agree with me and that's fine but I don't believe you should have to earn your spot. You should be handed it based on your draft position since this already dictated how dashing, handsome and talented you are. This is not some Disney movie where the underdog gets to play at the end of Rudy. No that shit doesn't happen in New York City. Here you go bankrupt 4 times and they call you a billionaire success. This is a greedy, brainless and backwards materialistic capitalist society. Stop being naïve. Kravtsov to the top line.

What an absolutely stupid take. And while there have been some real beauties here this year, every now and then one needs to really highlight some that stand out by themselves.

 

[TheDirtyH]

Top 3 picks are special if they are too good for the alternatives. They are not there across the board but more than ready in other areas. Do you play them in a minor role for 3 years and hope that they won’t be hurt by it or support them where they need support and let them play to their strengths (like many teams does) or something in betwee? These type of things should be discussed.

This is the question, right? It's not whether Quinn is good or bad at developing prospects at large, but whether his approach has differed from others and especially on a player by player basis.

 

[Ola]

This is the question, right? It's not whether Quinn is good or bad at developing prospects at large, but whether his approach has differed from others and especially on a player by player basis.

Exactly, my point is just, (a) we cannot evaluate a coach by setting up two columns, one with kids performing well and one with kids not performing well.

(b) How a coach handles a kid must of course still be evaluated, but a lot more nuanced.

@nyr2k2 Appologizes, reading my post again it came across as an attack on you, that wasn’t my intention! I agree with you.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Wahlstrom with another. Kraz had better make an impact.

 

[kovazub94]

Wahlstrom with another. Kraz had better make an impact.

Please bring up Wahlstrom again if Kravtsov doesn’t score in his first game.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Please bring up Wahlstrom again if Kravtsov doesn’t score in his first game.

Sensitive?