Br4d

Panarin was the only Ranger not to have a takeaway in the Devil's series. He was not particularly active in the regard in the regular season. My overall point is that you coach what you are given and it's not clear to me that there were major tactical adjustments to be made when your "best" player doesn't appear interested in participating in anything other than carrying the puck and making sharp passes.

Maybe because it feels like when the passing game is taken away by the other team it also feels like Panarin is a big fat zero on the ice?

So, whoever the strategic thinker is, that guy is going to tell Kreider and Panarin to forecheck aggressively and hit their guys every opportunity because that's the way to break down the other team over a series of shifts? This miracle worker is going to tell Zibanejad and Panarin to crash the net because that's the way to open up scoring opportunities against a team that is playing tight in front of the goal? Maybe he'll tell Panarin to dump and chase when the other team is standing him up at the blue line and forcing turnovers? You'll note that there is a name that keeps coming up here.

Panarin isn't going to be in a strong position even with the NMC. Flopping in the spotlight tends to weaken people.

The vet collapse in the series after game 2 was pretty complete. The kids didn't tally anything. It was Igor at the Alamo for most of games 3,4,6 and 7. I don't have a problem with GG getting canned but there is a major vet entitlement problem on this team and it's infecting the kids. If I was GM I would find a way to trade Panarin, period. I'd look really hard at who else might have been here a bit too long and gotten too comfortable. I'd do what I could to sign Tarasenko, making the process of finding a new home for Panarin critical.

It's just a guess but I think the heated altercation that GG and Drury had after game 4 probably flared up again around the end of season interview and the decision to move on was quick and mutual.

Hartford is still in the playoffs. It would be harmful to their chances to create any distraction.

I think you don't fire a coach like GG after these two seasons unless you already know what's next and Knoblauch is the only choice that Drury had control of.

Hiring somebody who was fired in the last year or two is just asking to be moving on again in a season or two. The young first time coach may work out or he may not but he's definitely Drury's choice if he gets hired and so he brings clarity to the situation. Just having a guy in who is willing to ask the young guys why they are doing what they are doing would be valuable.

The move for Tarasenko was a good move although it changed chemistry a bit. Worked really well for about a week and then the diminishing returns set in. It also brought Mikkola who was an effective 3rd pair guy and really bailed the Rangers out a bit when Miller spit. The move for Kane was just a mistake. It created more chemistry problems and it made the Rangers softer up top if that was even possible and it caused another flurry of GG lineup moves. Before either of the trades the best line on the Rangers during the 25 game hot streak was the kids. Why anybody would make moves that would effectively demote them is beyond me. I get that the Rangers thought they were getting tougher for the playoffs but really all they were doing was adding more players that were like the ones they already had.

Knoblauch is probably the best option for the Rangers right now. Other than Quenneville he's the only non-retread. Also he's the best option to work with the young guys, including the guys he just coached down at Hartford. The idea that the next guy has to be able to co-exist with Panarin is ludicrous on the face of it because Panarin just disappeared at a time of great need.

I'd definitely take Tarasenko at 5.3x3

Odds are pretty good he's better than a 40 point guy next season. 21-31-39 doesn't add up to 40 at 22. He's more likely a 49 pt guy + whatever he gets on the PP.

Drury has to win. He doesn't have to win a cup but the Rangers need to be in that top 4 conversation by 2025. Maybe next season they can go 100 pts and out in the first two rounds but the season after they'd better be a favorite to win it all. That means not only does the team have to put up wins but they have to do it the "right" way with real contributions from some of the young guys. If Mika and Kreider are still the heart of the team in 2025 something went wrong.

It would also put a guy that has to work with young players behind the bench. I really think whoever they bring in has to be adept at working with young players. The only way the Rangers get better from where they stand right now is if the young guys grow into leadership positions.

I don't know how he does it but Drury has to find a way to part ways with Panarin now or all the wrong messages get sent to the lockerroom. 6 game pointless streak in the playoffs as the Devils are running over the Rangers demands accountability.

That answer gets you fired because as coach you are expected to guarantee that your players put out on the ice.

The question GG was always going to have to answer was: what will be different next season? There are no good answers to that question.

When your best players do not produce in the playoffs it is going to get you fired.

Wow! I saw the possibility but I didn't really think this would happen. Presumably the Rangers already have the next coach in negotiations and they just delayed GG's firing until they had some certainty on that side. This is a high risk/high reward situation. If the Rangers improve next season the rewards will kick in but if they take a step back I would not want to be Drury.

BTW, just to add to the 19 goals at even strength thing. How many times in his career has Chris Kreider scored 19 even strength goals in a season? The answer is 4 times. His high in even strength goals was 24 this season. He had 23 last season. He had 22 at the age of 25 and he had 21 at the age of 27.

I'd have the sunk cost conversation again but I think you're just never going to get over the #1OA and it's going to poison you against the value that Laffy actually represents. Unless we have to pay Laffy like a #1OA for some reason I have no problem taking the production that he gives at 21 and hoping that he's much better at 24.

Exactly. It was like 2 years ago that Laffy was #2 on the Rangers in even strength goals, after Kreider. It's easy to look at him and say he's a failure but there are facts that contradict that.

Hughes had 11 PP goals and 30 PP points in those 3 years. Yakupov had 15 PP goals and 26 PP points in those 3 years. Lafreniere has 3 PP goals and 6 PP points in his 3 years. Factor all that in and the numbers are: Hughes: 78 points in 166 games. Hughes had 33 even strength goals. Yakupov: 62 points in 192 games. Yakupov had 27 even strength goals. Lafreniere: 85 pts in 216 games. Lafreniere had 44 even strength goals.

Seriously, if you are not a topnotch skater there is no way you should be a top 10 pick. If Laffy was a mediocre skater as a junior there is no way he was ever going to blow away the NHL when he got here. Hoping somebody in a position to do so is making the nonstop suggestion that he find some help on that because skating can always improve and with it the ability to unlock the value that's clearly there.