Who Do You Want to be the Next Head Coach of the NY Rangers?

[Crease]

This will be Drury’s second coach. He’s not hiring a rookie.

 

[bleedblue94]

2 100 point seasons had nothing to do with Gallant getting fired. If that was the criteria he'd still be here. The front office was not on the same page with him going back to last season and the players told management they needed a new voice. Any shmuck can bring a team with Igor in goal to the playoffs. They can win now and later with different style of play and personnel usage. I know I'm fighting a losing battle trying to say things arent all that bad.

Why do you keep just posting stuff that the media says as if it's some sort of crazy insightful stuff? When I say that they just fired a coach that had two consecutive 100 points seasons and that there were still issues, the issues were not the development of the kids, the issues were that they got bounced out in the first round after doubling down on this entire vet group because they're trying to win a cup during the window that they paid these vets heavily during the back end years of their prime. He got fired because they can't waste another year or two and then suddenly be saddled with all these insane contracts with players that are in the downward spin. If he was getting fired because they didn't play the kids enough then that would have been a thing that would have happened mid-season and the speculation of him losing his job mid-season would not have been based around whether the team was winning or losing it would have been based around how he was doing nurturing the youth and making sure they were ready to contribute, which is something I've been complaining about since 2 months after his first game with the team. If he made it through the New Jersey series and had a long-run against Carolina or got to the conference finals again then the team is picking up the 4th year option on his contract and he still coaching here next year regardless of what happened with the kids development good or bad. I know people can't stand the thought of that, but that's the reality. And if people think they just because Turk and Drury got into an argument after a game and that's why he got fired because they lost after that then they don't understand how these things actually work. Coaches, executives, players, everybody within an organization often have blow ups but it's how you respond from the blow up as an individual and as a group. He lost the damn series, that's why you lost his job.

 

[Profet]

Same thing with Sullivan. The Rangers had the guy in their organization. He was let go with Torts in 2013. Ten years later, the Rangers covet Sullivan for the head coaching position. They have the people in their organization and they let them go. These people go somewhere else and they have success. The Rangers want them. It would have been hard to give Sullivan the head coaching job in 2013 because he was connected to Torts. It’s two separate people.

I mean yes... but also they've obviously noticed this.

Drury was basically hired because he would have gotten scooped up to be GM of another org that year.

 

[GENESISPuck94]

If the Rangers don't give Knoblauch a shot it could look pretty bad on them. How would that look to future AHL candidates that have the goal of being an NHL coach.

I'm a believer in giving inside people a shot when they've paid their dues. Drury is where he is because of that. He could pay that opportunity forward and give Knoblauch a shot and allow him to pick his own staff as well. Let him do the job.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Mostly conjecture but the latest from Staple

Total stab in the dark on the top three, but right now, based on the little I’ve heard, I’d go with Laviolette, Mike Babcock and Leach. I believe the Rangers are doing their homework on Babcock, who hasn’t coached since the Leafs fired him three years ago and has serious questions about his behavior and interactions with past players. He is, however, an Xs and Os guy. If that’s what you want after Gallant, Babcock has those skills.

Can’t say who I’d go with. Laviolette was said to have embraced data and what it offers during his time in Washington but the Caps didn’t exactly prove that on the ice during his tenure. And if you want a stern taskmaster, that’s unlikely to be a first-timer behind the bench.

 

[Profet]

If the Rangers don't give Knoblauch a shot it could look pretty bad on them. How would that look to future AHL candidates that have the goal of being an NHL coach.

Like Hartford is a great place to prove that you can coach a team and get a job as an NHL coach? Just maybe not with the Rangers.

I'm a believer in giving inside people a shot when they've paid their dues. Drury is where he is because of that. He could pay that opportunity forward and give Knoblauch a shot and allow him to pick his own staff as well. Let him do the job.

Have you ever worked in an environment where promotions are given strictly based on tenure?

I am all for giving Knoblauch the role, if he is the best person available for this team.

 

[duhmetreE]

Give Sutter a 2 year contract

 

[will1066]

Panarin would need lane keep assist at RW. That shit would beep nonstop

I'll throw in blind spot warning. It beeps every time he even thinks about a prayer pass.

 

[17futurecap]

Peter, do you look at data?

Yes.

Okay, we don’t, so you don’t have to worry about pretending you did.

 

[chosen]

Give Sutter a 2 year contract

Yeah, let's have a player mutiny.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

All the retread options right now suck or won't be coming here.

That may change in a few days.

 

[Kravtsov420]

Please no laviolette for the love of god

 

[savebyrichter94]

I like that they are doing their homework on Babcock, I think he’s the guy worth doing a deep dive on to see what he’s been up to and what he’s been working on since Toronto, seems kind of like a hybrid between tactician and whip cracker with most people appearing to want at least one of those traits in the next coach

 

[Gordon Bombay]

ok.

If you're right, I'll give you props.

IF you're wrong, I'll make you watch every game with Jovo next season.

I wouldn’t mind watching a game with his uncle

 

[alkurtz]

This is a tough call. With every recent hire, they was a valid reason for hiring them. Renney, to restore stability and accountability after the horrid hires of Low, Muckler, Trottier, et.al. Torts: to make us tougher to play against and take us to the next level. AV: to free the offense. DQ: a young coach for a young team. GG: to bring in a veteran coach after DQ's perceived failures. What do we want now? I think Drury's comments show that even he is confused. Do we bring in a first time coach with a team with, for better or worse, strong veteran leadership, a team that is built to win now? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me (and I personally would not mind bringing in Knoblauch or someone similar, I think). Do we bring in a retread coach but one who is experienced? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. What I would really like to find is a fairly young coach who had some early success but eventually failed and was fired. Someone who is looking for their second job, who learned from their first job and internalized what went right and wrong. Classic example was Sullivan: early success in Boston, then failure. Went back to being an assistant coach but when hired for his second job, became a top coach. Anyone like this out there? For the first time, I have no personal favorite that I would like to see hired. I'm as clueless as everyone else, including, scarily, Drury.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

This is a tough call. With every recent hire, they was a valid reason for hiring them. Renney, to restore stability and accountability after the horrid hires of Low, Muckler, Trottier, et.al. Torts: to make us tougher to play against and take us to the next level. AV: to free the offense. DQ: a young coach for a young team. GG: to bring in a veteran coach after DQ's perceived failures. What do we want now? I think Drury's comments show that even he is confused. Do we bring in a first time coach with a team with, for better or worse, strong veteran leadership, a team that is built to win now? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me (and I personally would not mind bringing in Knoblauch or someone similar, I think). Do we bring in a retread coach but one who is experienced? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. What I would really like to find is a fairly young coach who had some early success but eventually failed and was fired. Someone who is looking for their second job, who learned from their first job and internalized what went right and wrong. Classic example was Sullivan: early success in Boston, then failure. Went back to being an assistant coach but when hired for his second job, became a top coach. Anyone like this out there? For the first time, I have no personal favorite that I would like to see hired. I'm as clueless as everyone else, including, scarily, Drury.

If Toronto loses, Keefe.

 

[cheech70]

Why do you keep just posting stuff that the media says as if it's some sort of crazy insightful stuff? When I say that they just fired a coach that had two consecutive 100 points seasons and that there were still issues, the issues were not the development of the kids, the issues were that they got bounced out in the first round after doubling down on this entire vet group because they're trying to win a cup during the window that they paid these vets heavily during the back end years of their prime. He got fired because they can't waste another year or two and then suddenly be saddled with all these insane contracts with players that are in the downward spin. If he was getting fired because they didn't play the kids enough then that would have been a thing that would have happened mid-season and the speculation of him losing his job mid-season would not have been based around whether the team was winning or losing it would have been based around how he was doing nurturing the youth and making sure they were ready to contribute, which is something I've been complaining about since 2 months after his first game with the team. If he made it through the New Jersey series and had a long-run against Carolina or got to the conference finals again then the team is picking up the 4th year option on his contract and he still coaching here next year regardless of what happened with the kids development good or bad. I know people can't stand the thought of that, but that's the reality. And if people think they just because Turk and Drury got into an argument after a game and that's why he got fired because they lost after that then they don't understand how these things actually work. Coaches, executives, players, everybody within an organization often have blow ups but it's how you respond from the blow up as an individual and as a group. He lost the damn series, that's why you lost his job.

My friend who knows said..... when series was tied ...if Rangers lose.... GG is gone..... period. And that's that! PS ...trying to find out who next coach is...nothing yet

 

[chosen]

My friend who knows said..... when series was tied ...if Rangers lose.... GG is gone..... period. And that's that! PS ...trying to find out who next coach is...nothing yet

If that's true, Drury is truly a moron.

 

[chosen]

If Toronto loses, Keefe.

Great idea!!!

He has done worse than Gallant with better personnel.

This is a tough call. With every recent hire, they was a valid reason for hiring them. Renney, to restore stability and accountability after the horrid hires of Low, Muckler, Trottier, et.al. Torts: to make us tougher to play against and take us to the next level. AV: to free the offense. DQ: a young coach for a young team. GG: to bring in a veteran coach after DQ's perceived failures. What do we want now? I think Drury's comments show that even he is confused. Do we bring in a first time coach with a team with, for better or worse, strong veteran leadership, a team that is built to win now? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me (and I personally would not mind bringing in Knoblauch or someone similar, I think). Do we bring in a retread coach but one who is experienced? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. What I would really like to find is a fairly young coach who had some early success but eventually failed and was fired. Someone who is looking for their second job, who learned from their first job and internalized what went right and wrong. Classic example was Sullivan: early success in Boston, then failure. Went back to being an assistant coach but when hired for his second job, became a top coach. Anyone like this out there? For the first time, I have no personal favorite that I would like to see hired. I'm as clueless as everyone else, including, scarily, Drury.

You've been around as long as me.

You should have reached the conclusion that coaches don't matter.

 

[Machinehead]

Having an adaptable offense isn't that hard. Just have a system and have talent. The stars will know when to make plays. When the entire culture is them making plays, then it looks like shit.

 

[TheGreenTBer]

Other: @Machinehead

I'm assuming his first move would be to hire AV as assistant coach

 

[Machinehead]

Great idea!!!

He has done worse than Gallant with better personnel.

This is true, honestly.

And Toronto's main issue has also been offense going dry.

I don't see the appeal to Keefe outside of being perceived as "not an old guy" (even though he's a veteran and a big name coach at this point).

 

[Machinehead]

I'm assuming his first move would be to hire AV as assistant coach

Yes, just to have him do nothing and then blame losses on him.

 

[TheGreenTBer]

Yes, just to have him do nothing and then blame losses on him.

Bite your tongue, he does stuff...

...as in, he laughed at Vernon Fiddler's Bieksa impersonation that one time

 

[CLW]

This is true, honestly.

And Toronto's main issue has also been offense going dry.

I don't see the appeal to Keefe outside of being perceived as "not an old guy" (even though he's a veteran and a big name coach at this point).

Toronto's "offense" seems to be to have 4 guys setting up Matthew's shot.