Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Rangers Fire David Quinn, All Assistants; Keeping Benoit Allaire


siddious

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 441
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 cups as an assistant in Pittsburgh

 

Fair point Josh.

 

Question for the audience, if Sullivan were to get canned today would he be a slam dunk choice or would his 2 cup wins as a head coach be chalked up to anyone could've won with that roster etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really understand the hate for Tocchet. If they choose him over Gallant so be it. Lots of guys have been picked over him, so there's gotta be a reason.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

I don't get the hate either. Seems like the easy target to hate for some unknown reason. Tocchet is just as highly coveted as anyone else on the list. He's won the cup 3 times. I mean, no, he didn't win the cup in his 4 seasons in Phoenix... but does that actually mean anything? None of these other coaches would have either. It's amazing how well PHX has done considering the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with Tocchet....

 

Tough dude

Tough player

Pretty good assistant

Lots of playoff experience both as a player and assistant coach

 

I'd still favor Quenneville or Brind'amour, but I have no issues with slick Rick! :thumbs:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get the hate either. Seems like the easy target to hate for some unknown reason. Tocchet is just as highly coveted as anyone else on the list. He's won the cup 3 times. I mean, no, he didn't win the cup in his 4 seasons in Phoenix... but does that actually mean anything? None of these other coaches would have either. It's amazing how well PHX has done considering the circumstances.

 

They made the playoffs one time, and that was due to the play-in round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They made the playoffs one time, and that was due to the play-in round.

 

PHX doesn't have enough money to give the players food. They were on the cusp in 19 and made the play-in in 20. Again, considering the circumstances, that's pretty good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is they presumably fired Quinn because they want a guy who can get them to the next step - which is winning in the playoffs. Tocchet hasn't coached a team to anything beyond .500 and has hardly any playoff experience as a head coach. If they wanted a .500 coach, they should have kept Quinn because he did that just fine.

 

It's great he did well with the Penguins as an assistant. But I'm more interested in what he did as a head coach and he really didn't excel at any point. Yes, the Yotes are not a great team in many ways, but I'd be more interested to see if he made the team perform greater than the sum of its parts and he just didn't do that. You could argue Gallant did that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is they presumably fired Quinn because they want a guy who can get them to the next step - which is winning in the playoffs. Tocchet hasn't coached a team to anything beyond .500 and has hardly any playoff experience as a head coach. If they wanted a .500 coach, they should have kept Quinn because he did that just fine.

 

It's great he did well with the Penguins as an assistant. But I'm more interested in what he did as a head coach and he really didn't excel at any point. Yes, the Yotes are not a great team in many ways, but I'd be more interested to see if he made the team perform greater than the sum of its parts and he just didn't do that. You could argue Gallant did that.

 

Have you looked at the Yotes' roster?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is they presumably fired Quinn because they want a guy who can get them to the next step - which is winning in the playoffs. Tocchet hasn't coached a team to anything beyond .500 and has hardly any playoff experience as a head coach. If they wanted a .500 coach, they should have kept Quinn because he did that just fine.

 

It's great he did well with the Penguins as an assistant. But I'm more interested in what he did as a head coach and he really didn't excel at any point. Yes, the Yotes are not a great team in many ways, but I'd be more interested to see if he made the team perform greater than the sum of its parts and he just didn't do that. You could argue Gallant did that.

 

I don't disagree that Quinn has just as much head coaching success but you have to take into account their entire careers. Quinn wasn't an NHL player. Was an assistant for what, one year? Head coached in the AHL for one year? Rick Tocchet has been in the NHL in some form or another for 37 years.... I guess you can boil it down to "he hasn't had head coaching success" but that seems incredibly reductive. He's won the cup 3 times.

 

I just don't understand what fans want. People moaned that Julien, JT and Babcock were on the short list but then also complain that Tocchet doesn't have have a winning pedigree. It seems like you just want Gallant at this point, who hasn't won shit. Ever. At any point in his NHL career.

 

And that's fine if the only one you want is Gallant, but don't pretend it's because everyone else sucks.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do like any guy whose nickname is "The Rocket." Fielding a competitive team in that mess known as Arizona is as impressive as winning a cup with say Tampa.

 

As for Tocchet's cups, I draw no inference that a guy who was a player on cup winning teams with Mario, Jagar, Francis and Samuelson will be likely to win cups as a coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree that Quinn has just as much head coaching success but you have to take into account their entire careers. Quinn wasn't an NHL player. Was an assistant for what, one year? Head coached in the AHL for one year? Rick Tocchet has been in the NHL in some form or another for 37 years.... I guess you can boil it down to "he hasn't had head coaching success" but that seems incredibly reductive. He's won the cup 3 times.

 

I just don't understand what fans want. People moaned that Julien, JT and Babcock were on the short list but then also complain that Tocchet doesn't have have a winning pedigree. It seems like you just want Gallant at this point, who hasn't won shit. Ever. At any point in his NHL career.

 

And that's fine if the only one you want is Gallant, but don't pretend it's because everyone else sucks.

 

You could say it's reductive, but I'd say you're giving him too much credit. His relevant experience for a head coaching position is as a head coach. He's had two cracks at it, separated by quite a number of years so he could "pay his dues." The end result was largely the same.

 

And to anyone giving him props for making his team competitive is setting the bar too low. The Rangers want to do more than just compete around the bubble, especially if they ever want to come out of a stacked Eastern Conference. Coaching .500 hockey is the bare minimum level of success in the NHL considering it's a league that gives away points like they're going out of style.

 

Not that he's the only guy I like, but just as an example, a guy like Gallant showed improvement over the course of his career and, again, helped a team be greater than the sum of its parts twice(!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously anything short of the bastard genetic mashup of Bowman, Brooks, Keenan, and Brindamour is unacceptable.

 

Our choices are two highly respected coaching candidates who have consistently done better than the team indicates they should. The biggest issues I have are...

 

1 - Gallant has had one big run and little more. Tocchet has had numerous deep runs as an assistant.

2 - Tocchet's never managed the level of young talent this team has. Gallant actually has (in Florida).

3 - Gallant has been unceremoniously fired with winning records twice now.

4 - It remains to be seen what either of these coaches does with actual superstar players. Zibanejad is the best center either of them have ever had (yes, Tocchet had 19 year old Stamkos and Gallant had 19 year old Barkov). Panarin is the best player either of them has ever had. Fox is the best defenseman either of them have ever had. Hell, Shesterkin is the best goalie either of them have ever had. We know what they do when they've got "sum of their parts" sort of teams, but that's not where we are.

 

The thing I'd probably keep harping on is that coaching is even more voodoo than goaltending. Aside from Trotz, who else is left with real coaching pedigree? Paul Maurice? Are we jumping up and down to get Peter DeBoer here? Cassidy is still on his first post-lockout full coaching job, Brindamour is on his first, Bednar is on his first, Ducharme is terrible but is on his first, Jon Cooper is on his first too.

 

There's no "been there" aspect. There's not really a rhyme or reason - it's right guy, right place, right time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and I said greater than the sum of its parts - implying the parts are not good.

 

I know. You said, "I'd be more interested to see if he made the team perform greater than the sum of its parts and he just didn't do that."

 

He did do that though. His first year they had 29 wins, took them then to 39 wins, then a bubble birth. This with the best player being 45 point Clayton Keller. How is that not having the team far out perform what you would expect the shitty roster to accomplish?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could say it's reductive, but I'd say you're giving him too much credit. His relevant experience for a head coaching position is as a head coach. He's had two cracks at it, separated by quite a number of years so he could "pay his dues." The end result was largely the same.

 

And to anyone giving him props for making his team competitive is setting the bar too low. The Rangers want to do more than just compete around the bubble, especially if they ever want to come out of a stacked Eastern Conference. Coaching .500 hockey is the bare minimum level of success in the NHL considering it's a league that gives away points like they're going out of style.

 

Not that he's the only guy I like, but just as an example, a guy like Gallant showed improvement over the course of his career and, again, helped a team be greater than the sum of its parts twice(!).

I don't think we need a coach that makes the team more than the sum of its parts. We have plenty of talent here, it's about a system. There's a bunch of individual parts who are all performing well, but they're not a team.. yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously anything short of the bastard genetic mashup of Bowman, Brooks, Keenan, and Brindamour is unacceptable.

 

Our choices are two highly respected coaching candidates who have consistently done better than the team indicates they should. The biggest issues I have are...

 

1 - Gallant has had one big run and little more. Tocchet has had numerous deep runs as an assistant.

2 - Tocchet's never managed the level of young talent this team has. Gallant actually has (in Florida).

3 - Gallant has been unceremoniously fired with winning records twice now.

4 - It remains to be seen what either of these coaches does with actual superstar players. Zibanejad is the best center either of them have ever had (yes, Tocchet had 19 year old Stamkos and Gallant had 19 year old Barkov). Panarin is the best player either of them has ever had. Fox is the best defenseman either of them have ever had. Hell, Shesterkin is the best goalie either of them have ever had. We know what they do when they've got "sum of their parts" sort of teams, but that's not where we are.

The thing I'd probably keep harping on is that coaching is even more voodoo than goaltending. Aside from Trotz, who else is left with real coaching pedigree? Paul Maurice? Are we jumping up and down to get Peter DeBoer here? Cassidy is still on his first post-lockout full coaching job, Brindamour is on his first, Bednar is on his first, Ducharme is terrible but is on his first, Jon Cooper is on his first too.

There's no "been there" aspect. There's not really a rhyme or reason - it's right guy, right place, right time.

 

Kinda why I originally listed off a bunch of newer names. It was also why I suggested moving Drury behind the bench last season or so.

 

Even when I look around now, I keep coming back to old players, maybe Drury played with them. I just think a guy less than 40 years removed as a player is going to be able to help the kids more. I'm sure Drury remembers coming up as a kid and developing, and watching others do the same. Especially with the lack of leadership on the team, they need someone thats been in the trenches more recently and can relate to them. Not an old dude who has been saying the same thing for 50 years. It's like taking personal career advice from a guy thats been in congress for that long - he's too far removed from the life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...