[brooks] Rangers to Add "Muscle and Grit" for Next Season

Nothing about the Rangers loss to Carolina indicates toughness was an issue. Mental toughness? Sure. But needing a bruiser? Hell no. The Rangers lost because their offense never showed up and they were constantly playing without the puck. The fact that they consistently led in hitting is indicative of that. Throwing a bruiser into the mix doesn't solve that problem. A physical forward who can wear down the opposition would be great but not at the expense of being a capable hockey player which someone like Micheal Haley is not.

The Rangers are easy to play against because their plan of attack is simple. They're scary on the rush with an overreliance on their powerplay unit. That's basically it. Clog the neutral zone and stack up at the blue line and they can't for the life of them figure out how to produce offense. Carolina did exactly that. To put it into perspective, Sebastian Aho played just 16 minutes in both games 2 and 3. Brind'Amour didn't even need to use his top line matchup to contain Zibanejad and Panarin because a team effort was good enough to do it.

You can't punch a puck into the net so I'm not sure what getting tougher really accomplishes.

Nothing about the Rangers loss to Carolina indicates toughness was an issue. Mental toughness? Sure. But needing a bruiser? Hell no. The Rangers lost because their offense never showed up and they were constantly playing without the puck. The fact that they consistently led in hitting is indicative of that. Throwing a bruiser into the mix doesn't solve that problem. A physical forward who can wear down the opposition would be great but not at the expense of being a capable hockey player which someone like Micheal Haley is not.

 

The Rangers are easy to play against because their plan of attack is simple. They're scary on the rush with an overreliance on their powerplay unit. That's basically it. Clog the neutral zone and stack up at the blue line and they can't for the life of them figure out how to produce offense. Carolina did exactly that. To put it into perspective, Sebastian Aho played just 16 minutes in both games 2 and 3. Brind'Amour didn't even need to use his top line matchup to contain Zibanejad and Panarin because a team effort was good enough to do it.

 

You can't punch a puck into the net so I'm not sure what getting tougher really accomplishes.

Yes. And this is the same reason a team like CBJ competes so well in the playoffs. Need to generate offense other ways against teams like this, and the Rangers were incapable of doing it.

A big part of it is coaching in these situations.

Yes. And this is the same reason a team like CBJ competes so well in the playoffs. Need to generate offense other ways against teams like this, and the Rangers were incapable of doing it.

 

A big part of it is coaching in these situations.

It's as simple as being good at grinding away at a chip and chase type game. It's not fun hockey but it can be effective and it wears down opposition. The Rangers respond to adversity by overcomplicating and trying to out-skill opposition. That, unfortunately, permeates throughout the lineup from top to bottom. The bottom-six doesn't take any different of an approach from the top-six. It's all the same shit. The Rangers had maybe two sustained possessions in Carolina's zone that I can remember over the course of the series because they're so bad at cycling and maintaining possession in the offensive zone. It's actually embarrassing.

Call it grit, grinding, sandpaper, muscle, etc.. Bottom line is the 2019-20 Rangers were too soft. Sounds like LAF is capable of playing a physical game for a highly skilled forward. Hopefully some of our young D guys have a needed nasty streak. You could see Trouba and Smith turned it up a notch with playoff intensity.

Good thing is the veteran guys with those qualities are usually available. Bad thing is you need cap space and ice time for them to be effective.

Call it grit, grinding, sandpaper, muscle, etc.. Bottom line is the 2019-20 Rangers were too soft. Sounds like LAF is capable of playing a physical game for a highly skilled forward. Hopefully some of our young D guys have a needed nasty streak. You could see Trouba and Smith turned it up a notch with playoff intensity.

 

Good thing is the veteran guys with those qualities are usually available. Bad thing is you need cap space and ice time for them to be effective.

Agreed on Lafreniere. It's another reason why he's the perfect player for them to draft. He brings a brand of physicality and chippiness that isn't often associated with a player of his skillset.

I'll have to disagree on Trouba and Smith, though. They brought intensity but sometimes too much of it. You can't go chasing for hits which has been a problem of Trouba's throughout his career. Staal was guilty of it this playoff too. Those are the three slowest Rangers defensemen. Miss a hit or target the wrong guy and suddenly there's an odd-man rush. Physicality needs to be well-implemented.

Yes. And this is the same reason a team like CBJ competes so well in the playoffs. Need to generate offense other ways against teams like this, and the Rangers were incapable of doing it.

 

A big part of it is coaching in these situations.

The rangers need to get tougher.

The rangers need to play with more willingness, all of them.

And they need to be tougher to play against, their own players, plus they need an additional roster player for that as well.

The rangers need to get tougher.

The rangers need to play with more willingness, all of them.

And they need to be tougher to play against, their own players, plus they need an additional roster player for that as well.

Absolutely, but there needs to be an adjustment. Can't keep trying to carry the puck across the blue line or long stretch passes blue line to blue line, cross ice, etc.

Nothing about the Rangers loss to Carolina indicates toughness was an issue. Mental toughness? Sure. But needing a bruiser? Hell no. The Rangers lost because their offense never showed up and they were constantly playing without the puck. The fact that they consistently led in hitting is indicative of that. Throwing a bruiser into the mix doesn't solve that problem. A physical forward who can wear down the opposition would be great but not at the expense of being a capable hockey player which someone like Micheal Haley is not.

 

The Rangers are easy to play against because their plan of attack is simple. They're scary on the rush with an overreliance on their powerplay unit. That's basically it. Clog the neutral zone and stack up at the blue line and they can't for the life of them figure out how to produce offense. Carolina did exactly that. To put it into perspective, Sebastian Aho played just 16 minutes in both games 2 and 3. Brind'Amour didn't even need to use his top line matchup to contain Zibanejad and Panarin because a team effort was good enough to do it.

 

You can't punch a puck into the net so I'm not sure what getting tougher really accomplishes.

I agree, it wasn't really the toughness that was the issue. It was way too few games to really evaluate what happened. Luck certainly wasn't on our side. I felt like Panarin gave a half assed effort.

Feels like our forward roster is lacking versatility and good defensive ability. Need more forwards that can play all 3 positions.

as far as coaching and system goes we were by far less prepared and less fired up. Carolina did their homework on us, we did not do any on them. We need more quality players on our 3rd/4th lines than trash that Carolina threw away. Stop plugging those lines with just anybody.

That's filed under "harder to play against"

It's not one or the other though. The coach dictates style of play too. I think Quinn can grow as a coach in the NHL too.

It's not one or the other though. The coach dictates style of play too. I think Quinn can grow as a coach in the NHL too.

He absolutely can. People miss that point sometimes. Coaches need time to grow and develop too, just like players. He seems to have all the tools to be a successful coach in today’s NHL. The talk of him getting replaced after 2 seasons is absurd. The roster isn’t complete and ready to win yet. And additionally, even with a sloppy showing and early exit, you have to put it in context. Carolina is a better team than them and while this is true for every team, they didn’t play for 4 1/2 months, so it should not come as a surprise if a team isn’t sharp. And they were a bubble team to begin with

He absolutely can. People miss that point sometimes. Coaches need time to grow and develop too, just like players. He seems to have all the tools to be a successful coach in today’s NHL. The talk of him getting replaced after 2 seasons is absurd. The roster isn’t complete and ready to win yet. And additionally, even with a sloppy showing and early exit, you have to put it in context. Carolina is a better team than them and while this is true for every team, they didn’t play for 4 1/2 months, so it should not come as a surprise if a team isn’t sharp. And they were a bubble team to begin with

Agreed. The coach replacement talk is insane. The team has performed ahead of schedule for where we should be at this stage. A but of luck with respect to landing Panarin, sure, but Quinn has done a pretty nice job with the roster given to him the last 2 seasons. I haven't agreed with everything he's done, but he has definitely earned some time and leeway based on overall team performance.

I think at minimum he gets 2 more seasons. Next year would have to be an utter shitshow otherwise.

Agreed. The coach replacement talk is insane. The team has performed ahead of schedule for where we should be at this stage. A but of luck with respect to landing Panarin, sure, but Quinn has done a pretty nice job with the roster given to him the last 2 seasons. I haven't agreed with everything he's done, but he has definitely earned some time and leeway based on overall team performance.

 

I think at minimum he gets 2 more seasons. Next year would have to be an utter shitshow otherwise.

Imo Quinn evolving is part of the rebuild similarly to the young players developing. I don’t think you can quibble with the results; they’ve been fine. Maybe even a couple of shots under par this year.

He still needs to prove he can develop and implement a system that wins in the NHL. He still needs to prove he can impart an identity on his team. His Rangers team so far is a bit of a pond hockey team that wins when the stars show up, and lose when they don’t. They’re nothing like the team he said they were going to be from an identity pov. Some of that is down to personnel.

But my feeling is he’s very good with the players and he’s got more than enough money in the bank. He’s here for a while yet and rightly so.

Imo Quinn evolving is part of the rebuild similarly to the young players developing. I don?t think you can quibble with the results; they?ve been fine. Maybe even a couple of shots under par this year.

He still needs to prove he can develop and implement a system that wins in the NHL. He still needs to prove he can impart an identity on his team. His Rangers team so far is a bit of a pond hockey team that wins when the stars show up, and lose when they don?t. They?re nothing like the team he said they were going to be from an identity pov. Some of that is down to personnel.

But my feeling is he?s very good with the players and he?s got more than enough money in the bank. He?s here for a while yet and rightly so.

Especially the parts about a discernable system and team identity.

Imo Quinn evolving is part of the rebuild similarly to the young players developing. I don’t think you can quibble with the results; they’ve been fine. Maybe even a couple of shots under par this year.

He still needs to prove he can develop and implement a system that wins in the NHL. He still needs to prove he can impart an identity on his team. His Rangers team so far is a bit of a pond hockey team that wins when the stars show up, and lose when they don’t. They’re nothing like the team he said they were going to be from an identity pov. Some of that is down to personnel.

But my feeling is he’s very good with the players and he’s got more than enough money in the bank. He’s here for a while yet and rightly so.

why do we need a coach at the cusp of competing that still has to prove and implement a system that can win the Cup?

why do we need a coach at the cusp of competing that still has to prove and implement a system that can win the Cup?

Why do we need a coach that has tried and failed multiple times at the NHL level? Goes both ways. It's a weak argument.

Why do we need a coach that has tried and failed multiple times at the NHL level? Goes both ways. It's a weak argument.

If a coach came close multiple times he has more of a clue what needs to be done to with the Cup. In Laviolette's case he won it and 2 times lost in the finals. So according to you we don't need a "has been loser" like Laviolette to replace our "unknown x-factor" Quinn? You don't see any reason to upgrade the coaching staff because we will not win a Cup anyway this season, so who cares let's get a better draft position?

If a coach came close multiple times he has more of a clue what needs to be done to with the Cup. In Laviolette's case he won it and 2 times lost in the finals. So according to you we don't need a "has been loser" like Laviolette to replace our "unknown x-factor" Quinn? You don't see any reason to upgrade the coaching staff because we will not win a Cup anyway this season, so who cares let's get a better draft position?

I'm sorry but I tuned out at Laviolette. I think I've swatted that argument away enough.

If a coach came close multiple times he has more of a clue what needs to be done to with the Cup. In Laviolette's case he won it and 2 times lost in the finals. So according to you we don't need a "has been loser" like Laviolette to replace our "unknown x-factor" Quinn? You don't see any reason to upgrade the coaching staff because we will not win a Cup anyway this season, so who cares let's get a better draft position?

The fact of the matter is there is not one player on this roster that underachieved this season except Kakko. The entire roster played at or over potential.

I really have no idea what you think changing the coaching staff would accomplish. Quinn has the right to learn and grow the same as any other player does.

lol ok, whatever

Translation: I'm making an argument that doesn't have a leg to stand on so I'll just bow out.

no translation is I am wasting my time and the arguments against mine are idiotic. Like this: "The coaching staff will upgrade itself via experience."

no translation is I am wasting my time and the arguments against mine are idiotic. Like this: "The coaching staff will upgrade itself via experience."

Wasn't that exactly your argument for hiring a younger coach? Sick self burn.