Proposal: Who would be YOUR hire as the new Head coach?

[Machinehead]

Hey you never know, maybe Sullivan can bring Crosby with him!

I would very much like that and I don't care if it's the Rongos signing an old star. It's Sidney Crosby.

 

[McRanger92]

Executing it is hard. The roadmap is simple.

Maurice was a retread and a loser when he had teams led by also-rans like Mark Schiefele and Nikolaj Ehlers.

As soon as he got a team with a couple of Hall of Famers up front, now he's a winner.

You're really going against the grain trying to win the Cup without 2-3 HOF forwards. The recipe is really not that much of a secret.

This is a genuine and off topic question but what are the benchmarks for an NHL hall of famer in your opinion? Its kind of easy to know in a sport like baseball where WAR does a good job of encapsulating a players overall achievements. I think it's like 60-70 war gets you into the Hall pretty consistently. I always kinda thought 1000 points was the barometer for a forward but maybe not so much any more. Feel like its more of a matter of "I know what a HOFer is when I see one" in the NHL.

 

[kovazub94]

He was straight up the retread of retreads in the Laviolette tier lol. I remember the reaction to Florida hiring him being very mixed.

He did the genius move of getting hired by a team with a lot of good players already in place in a sport whose results are like 65% predicated on luck.

He’s a fine coach don’t get me wrong but he’s an example of why I think of hockey coaches as closer to baseball managers than football coaches.

Agree. That's why I don't get all the preemptive handwringing about the upcoming coach (as if Drury was appointing Housley lol)...

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

Paul Maurice is my pipe dream hire for NYR. I'm convinced he's the best coach in the sport. Understands playoff and winning hockey to a tee. No easy ice defensively. Every play is hard gapped and highly-contested. Offensive players have freedom to create and they forecheck with force. Team full of nail guns with skill who will beat you up and take your lunch money. His system fits their personnel perfectly. Always a treat to listen to him speak as well. He's decisively out-coached Jon Cooper since arriving in Florida IMO.

Agreed, Maurice is one of the best right now. The two coaches in Florida are in a tier of their own if you ask me.

And I remember when Florida fired Brunette to bring in Maurice the overwhelming response from fans and media alike was that it was a terrible move, Maurice was a dinosaur, Winnipeg went to shit with him and he could never coach a team to a Cup - a clear downgrade from Brunette who had them playing well and coached them to a President's Trophy after taking over from Q.

 

[toNYRico]

Executing it is hard. The roadmap is simple.

Maurice was a retread and a loser when he had teams led by also-rans like Mark Schiefele and Nikolaj Ehlers.

As soon as he got a team with a couple of Hall of Famers up front, now he's a winner.

You're really going against the grain trying to win the Cup without 2-3 HOF forwards. The recipe is really not that much of a secret.

He transformed how the team needed to play so they could win in the postseason. Now look at them. Manhandling everyone. You think just any retread could inherit their roster and have the same success?

 

[toNYRico]

Agreed, Maurice is one of the best right now. The two coaches in Florida are in a tier of their own if you ask me.

And I remember when Florida fired Brunette to bring in Maurice the overwhelming response from fans and media alike was that it was a terrible move, Maurice was a dinosaur, Winnipeg went to shit with him and he could never coach a team to a Cup - a clear downgrade from Brunette who had them playing well and coached them to a President's Trophy after taking over from Q.

Maurice has completely out-classed Cooper since arriving in Florida IMO.

 

[Machinehead]

This is a genuine and off topic question but what are the benchmarks for an NHL hall of famer in your opinion? Its kind of easy to know in a sport like baseball where WAR does a good job of encapsulating a players overall achievements. I think it's like 60-70 war gets you into the Hall pretty consistently. I always kinda thought 1000 points was the barometer for a forward but maybe not so much any more. Feel like its more of a matter of "I know what a HOFer is when I see one" in the NHL.

Yeah, I mean, it's harder to answer, as opposed to baseball where it's like "ok is he on pace for 70 WAR?"

It is kind of "I know it when I see it" and it also depends a lot on position.

I'm sorry if it seems like a non-answer, but like, my whole thing is having good enough talent to actually win the thing. So like, MacKinnon, Crosby, McDavid, Kucherov; I don't have to ask. You know those are slam dunk Hall of Famers. If I asked 1,000 people, they would get 1,000 "yes" votes. I want at least one guy like that.

Florida and Vegas did win guys like Barkov, Tkachuk, Eichel, and Stone. Personally, I'd vote for all four, but they're not Sidney Crosby. But now we're talking about having two of those guys.

It's hard to put it in a neat little box but I guess if I had to: either one guy who is a perennial no-doubt Hart candidate, or two guys who are both better than 99% of their position.

Fox is a no-doubt Norris candidate, but I'd really prefer to have this type of thing at forward if I could choose.

Panarin is close to the former (and definitely a 99th percentile player) and Miller is close to the latter, but I don't feel great about it.

And like, I'm not saying we're super far off with those guys but it's also something you either have or you don't. It's not like we have a Celebrini and maybe he breaks out. These guys are 30-something.

 

[Machinehead]

He transformed how the team needed to play so they could win in the postseason. Now look at them. Manhandling everyone. You think just any retread could inherit their roster and have the same success?

Yes.

Once they traded for Tkachuk, David Quinn could have coached them to a Cup. They have the best roster in the league.

 

[Tawnos]

When Bowman started doing the left wing lock, it was a revolution. Some of the great coaches of the past truly introduced new tactics.

Hockey hasn't changed in many years and none of the coaches in the carousel are introducing anything. That's why today's fans look at them from the lens of being a "retread."

There might be some marginal changes to player usage, and there might be some tweaks here and there to varying impact, but nobody is coming in here and rejuvenating the same roster with a fresh vision on how to play the sport. This isn't soccer.

Eh, the reason those guys are retreads is because they largely want to play systems that worked better 10 years ago than they do today. Hockey has changed quite a bit in the last 5 years or so. There are still elements of the high speed puck pressure style that was dominant 5-10 years ago, but nobody plays the game that way anymore, really. Speed and puck pressure are still important, but they're more about cracking open defenses to allow for royal road passes than anything.

 

[Priorae]

Sullivan had Crosby and Malkin in their primes. He’s still probably the best option.

In Crosby’s case I’m waiting impatiently for that prime to end. Dude is ridiculous.

 

[will1066]

I think one of the interview questions for anyone applying for the job is if he has the intestinal fortitude to bench the, let's presume, untradeable and mostly returning core if they don't buy in. What makes Maurice or Sullivan different than Laviolette, who was scared for most of the season to make vet lineup moves?

 

[Levitate]

I would very much like that and I don't care if it's the Rongos signing an old star. It's Sidney Crosby.

would do it even if they weren't contending next year because yeah it's crosby f*** it let's go

 

[Levitate]

I understand your view but we emphasized puck retrieval and making a quality first pass a long time ago. The other things were important (clearing the net, limiting shots, playing the body, etc) but making a good first pass was also stressed.

Sure I just think a lot of defense guys weren't required to make that first pass all that great, and they'd often be paired with a guy who could.
I mean yeah I'm not going back real far here but like...Girardi and Staal couldn't make a first pass to save their lives in the later portion of their careers but were beloved for their shot blocking and "defense" (well beloved by someone at least).

The other side is that forwards gotta make themselves available for passes and clearing attempts and for the past who knows how long Rangers forwards have been shit at that. If you need a superstar D to be able to make outlet passes because your forwards aren't available to receive a pass then there's a bigger issue.



As for coaching,I think that some people go a little far in the "they're just babysitters!" thing, but y eah being a great coach doesn't necessarily mean you're going to win a cup. You need a team of great players and those players to be able to play the kind of system the coach wants and then on top of that you need luck.
The Rangers need a coach here that can command the room a bit and enforce some discipline on a team that has been sorely lacking it, and part of that is some basic team play that they've refused to do consistently

Hes going to Philadelphia. The Tocchet to NYR stuff died with the Sullivan news and was probably a negotiating tactic by Rick's agents from the start. Many such cases.

Sad!

 

[toNYRico]

Would be foolish to rush hiring Sullivan right now with even the (slim) chance of Cooper, Cassidy and / or one of Bednar / DeBoer becoming available.

 

[Levitate]

When Bowman started doing the left wing lock, it was a revolution. Some of the great coaches of the past truly introduced new tactics.

Hockey hasn't changed in many years and none of the coaches in the carousel are introducing anything. That's why today's fans look at them from the lens of being a "retread."

There might be some marginal changes to player usage, and there might be some tweaks here and there to varying impact, but nobody is coming in here and rejuvenating the same roster with a fresh vision on how to play the sport. This isn't soccer.

I think there has been changes to the "meta" over the past decade but like you say, a lot of it has been player usage to the extent of finding and using players who play a certain way that were overlooked in the past and building teams based on puck possession and so forth.

It's funny, talking about Sullivan, that a lot of people give him credit for the "playing fast, stretch the ice" approach that got hot in the mid 20-teens, but it was really AV's Rangers that got that going before Pittsburgh picked it up. And for awhile fast, transition scoring, was a big deal until teams started making it harder. A good transition game is still important but puck pressure and cycling/possession seem to be the name of the game these days.

 

[will1066]

Dave Tippett?

Think he's thinking about Jay Woodcroft

 

[NickyFotiu]

Sure I just think a lot of defense guys weren't required to make that first pass all that great, and they'd often be paired with a guy who could.
I mean yeah I'm not going back real far here but like...Girardi and Staal couldn't make a first pass to save their lives in the later portion of their careers but were beloved for their shot blocking and "defense" (well beloved by someone at least).

The other side is that forwards gotta make themselves available for passes and clearing attempts and for the past who knows how long Rangers forwards have been shit at that. If you need a superstar D to be able to make outlet passes because your forwards aren't available to receive a pass then there's a bigger issue.



As for coaching,I think that some people go a little far in the "they're just babysitters!" thing, but y eah being a great coach doesn't necessarily mean you're going to win a cup. You need a team of great players and those players to be able to play the kind of system the coach wants and then on top of that you need luck.
The Rangers need a coach here that can command the room a bit and enforce some discipline on a team that has been sorely lacking it, and part of that is some basic team play that they've refused to do consistently



Sad!

I can't say how things were done at the NHL level but in college we spent so much practice time with puck retrieval drills to first pass then second pass (whistle blows) over and over and over again. I do understand your point though. Id still kill to have a Rod Langway, Ray Bourque, Scott Stevens, Chris Pronger type of player on our back line. I bet Igor would feel like he won the lottery.

 

[NYR94]

How much of an impact does the coach really have? Are the "best" coaches in the league tactical masterminds or do they have the good fortune of having Barkov, Tkachuk, MacKinnon, Makar, Kucherov, Hedman, etc on their benches. Look at how long Sullivan stayed in PIT or Cooper who's still in TB. Why would you give up coaching some of the best players in the league, future HOFers? These coaches know how good they have it.

Crazy idea: maybe it's the roster and the change from Laviolette to Sullivan or whoever else won't be as impactful as people are hoping it will be. There's only so much a coach can do with what they are given. Rangers fans hoped to find a coach who could unlock the full star potential of Kakko, Laf, Kravtsov, etc. Maybe this is what they are and the coach is not some magic remedy.

The spotlight is squarely on Drury and his roster changes, IMO. Firing the coach has gotten predictable I don't know why anyone falls for this shit anyway. There's a constant coaching carousel in this league where guys are hired and fired based on questionably-earned reputations and vibes. I mean, we've seen coaches on the hot seat just for their teams having a bad PDO stat. Is that really the coach's fault?

Hiring a coach is the easy part. Most of these guys coach fairly similarly anyway. Fixing the roster will be the bigger challenge.

 

[McRanger92]

Yeah, I mean, it's harder to answer, as opposed to baseball where it's like "ok is he on pace for 70 WAR?"

It is kind of "I know it when I see it" and it also depends a lot on position.

I'm sorry if it seems like a non-answer, but like, my whole thing is having good enough talent to actually win the thing. So like, MacKinnon, Crosby, McDavid, Kucherov; I don't have to ask. You know those are slam dunk Hall of Famers. If I asked 1,000 people, they would get 1,000 "yes" votes. I want at least one guy like that.

Florida and Vegas did win guys like Barkov, Tkachuk, Eichel, and Stone. Personally, I'd vote for all four, but they're not Sidney Crosby. But now we're talking about having two of those guys.

It's hard to put it in a neat little box but I guess if I had to: either one guy who is a perennial no-doubt Hart candidate, or two guys who are both better than 99% of their position.

Fox is a no-doubt Norris candidate, but I'd really prefer to have this type of thing at forward if I could choose.

Panarin is close to the former (and definitely a 99th percentile player) and Miller is close to the latter, but I don't feel great about it.

And like, I'm not saying we're super far off with those guys but it's also something you either have or you don't. It's not like we have a Celebrini and maybe he breaks out. These guys are 30-something.

You pretty much described my exact line of thinking

 

[Levitate]

I can't say how things were done at the NHL level but in college we spent so much practice time with puck retrieval drills to first pass then second pass (whistle blows) over and over and over again. I do understand your point though. Id still kill to have a Rod Langway, Ray Bourque, Scott Stevens, Chris Pronger type of player on our back line. I bet Igor would feel like he won the lottery.

man it's so hard to say how some of those guys would have looked in todays NHL. I watched Stevens and Pronger and Bourque but I can't say I remember their breakout passing abilities all that much, but that's mostly because I wasn't looking for those things those days.

I'm sure Bourque would still be great in todays NHL with his skating ability. Pronger still probably had that combo of size strength nastiness and skill that would get him far. Stevens...if we're talking Devils Stevens then I dunno, that's a tough one because I'm trying to remember back to days when I wasn't thinking about what they were doing as much. He was tough, he hit hard, he played defense. Can't remember shit about his ability to pass the puck.

I always did think he was a bit of a paper tiger for how much he'd yap and throw dirty hits but get the shit kicked out of him if he tried to fight

 

[NickyFotiu]

How much of an impact does the coach really have? Are the "best" coaches in the league tactical masterminds or do they have the good fortune of having Barkov, Tkachuk, MacKinnon, Makar, Kucherov, Hedman, etc on their benches. Look at how long Sullivan stayed in PIT or Cooper who's still in TB. Why would you give up coaching some of the best players in the league, future HOFers? These coaches know how good they have it.

Crazy idea: maybe it's the roster and the change from Laviolette to Sullivan or whoever else won't be as impactful as people are hoping it will be. There's only so much a coach can do with what they are given. Rangers fans hoped to find a coach who could unlock the full star potential of Kakko, Laf, Kravtsov, etc. Maybe this is what they are and the coach is not some magic remedy.

The spotlight is squarely on Drury and his roster changes, IMO. Firing the coach has gotten predictable I don't know why anyone falls for this shit anyway. There's a constant coaching carousel in this league where guys are hired and fired based on questionably-earned reputations and vibes. I mean, we've seen coaches on the hot seat just for their teams having a bad PDO stat. Is that really the coach's fault?

Hiring a coach is the easy part. Most of these guys coach fairly similarly anyway. Fixing the roster will be the bigger challenge.

My guesstimate? To win the cup?

75% players, 15% coaching, 10% timing and good fortune.

 

[NickyFotiu]

man it's so hard to say how some of those guys would have looked in todays NHL. I watched Stevens and Pronger and Bourque but I can't say I remember their breakout passing abilities all that much, but that's mostly because I wasn't looking for those things those days.

I'm sure Bourque would still be great in todays NHL with his skating ability. Pronger still probably had that combo of size strength nastiness and skill that would get him far. Stevens...if we're talking Devils Stevens then I dunno, that's a tough one because I'm trying to remember back to days when I wasn't thinking about what they were doing as much. He was tough, he hit hard, he played defense. Can't remember shit about his ability to pass the puck.

I always did think he was a bit of a paper tiger for how much he'd yap and throw dirty hits but get the shit kicked out of him if he tried to fight

I think Stevens fought Beck when he was a rookie. I was like wow. He was also scorer back then. You don't win all those cups with Stevens dominating minutes if he can't make a quality first pass. Now you and I may look at that pass in different ways. For me that first pass will often be one of the shortest passes. Needs to be tape to tape in stride (unless the guy is standing on the boards).

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Would be foolish to rush hiring Sullivan right now with even the (slim) chance of Cooper, Cassidy and / or one of Bednar / DeBoer becoming available.

Bednar would move to the bottom of my list.

 

[will1066]

I can't say how things were done at the NHL level but in college we spent so much practice time with puck retrieval drills to first pass then second pass (whistle blows) over and over and over again. I do understand your point though. Id still kill to have a Rod Langway, Ray Bourque, Scott Stevens, Chris Pronger type of player on our back line. I bet Igor would feel like he won the lottery.

Igor did win the lottery. @SnowblindNYR

 

[cheech70]