A Different Angle on AV

[Dunny]

Next five games are massive. Must win tonight, then a West Coast trip running in to the Union mandated work stoppage weekend.

 

Odds are we'll know all we need to know by Friday and we'll be able to render a judicious opinion on where AV stands.

 

My guess is we're toast in a week, but maybe not!

I know this isn't the point of the OP, but coaching is more of a what have you done for me lately than anything.

[josh]

Your first sentence was flaming/insulting. You know this.

A. Flaming/Harrassment: Flaming is defined here as an insult (or insults) toward another member

 

My words were clearly directed at the post, not the poster, as we are consistently told to do.

:slats:

[Future]

A. Flaming/Harrassment: Flaming is defined here as an insult (or insults) toward another member

 

My words were clearly directed at the post, not the poster, as we are consistently told to do.

:slats:

No it wasn't. Especially not when you follow it up with "wtf dude...are you serious with this shit?"

[Phil]

Occam's razor, folks:

 

AV was brought in to take a mostly veteran group (where it mattered most) over the top. No, he's not a development coach, but he's been consistently painted with the brush of being largely unable to effectively bring along young players the longer he stays.

 

Therefore, he's not the best choice for developing a very young team should the Rangers embrace a rebuild to dramatically lower their average team age (31 currently).

 

 

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

[Giacomin]

Torts and AV were not brought in here to develop players, they were brought here to win.

You say that in the OP... then go on a rant about how he's not a development coach.

 

Josh, you are misreading or imagining things. Do me a favor and reread my OP. In what sentence did I even mention why AV was brought here? What is the sentence? In what sentence did I say why Torts was brought here? I did not opine on any of that. Where are you getting this? It is not true, I did not say it, how do I even engage those accusations?

 

Next, you call my post a rant. Ranting means a long bout of emotional shouting. There was zero ranting or venting, none. I was genuinely wrapped in thought when writing. and was about as composed as Al Pacino was when he encouraged Fredo to relax and go fishing. You are projecting. The team was coming off a win and fine performance. I was happy.

 

At least you are close regarding my thesis that AV is not enough of a teaching coach to lead a largely youthful lineup.

 

Most of the players you listed have the same stigma when they entered the league/draft. AVs not a horse whisperer. And anytime he gets close to trying to develop a player, the whole fucking world goes crazy. (any benching, sitting, moving down the lineup)

 

If you are referring to the young guys mentioned, I fail to see how Buch has the same stigma as Vesey who has the same stigma as Miller who has the same stigma as Kreids or Nieves or Gibbons, etc. I guess if the stigma is that they were all young and inexperienced pros when AV got them. However, AV seems to have one tool in his development toolbox -- less ice time. You even say in defense of AV, whenever he tries to develop by "benching, sitting, moving down". All which all equate to the same remedy, less ice time. Notice that aligns with one of my points in the OP.

 

Maybe the post should be titled, "A Different Angle moving forward", instead of taking shots at AV in hopes that the pitchforkers come in to give you a thumbs up.

 

I'm fine with your title since it is also accurate. Again, you are reading into my motivations and are way off base. I was not taking shots at AV looking to stir the pitchforkers so they'd come and give my insecure self some validation. You could not be more inaccurate and again, out of bounds. \

 

FYI - I've always liked AV. Thought he was a great hire and did an excellent job here, immediately. I like his demeanor, style of play and philosophies. I have been critical of his personnel decisions, his ability to adjust, his in game matchup decisions and my concern that he has not been able to win a Cup with so many good teams. This thread has nothing to do with any of that except for personnel decisions. It was to discuss this coach's fitness to lead a potentially very different roster and youthful rebuild.

 

I think your post went off on a tangent, and my response didnt help (stay on topic). But again, this will happen with every coach. Not every player will be a success.

 

I hope my original post did not go off on a tangent in a way to make it incoherent. I spent time trying to write a cohesive piece that addressed a lot of related ideas about AV coaching a much more inexperienced Ranger team, going forward. Specifically with the assumption that mgmt had become sellers due to a diminished playoff outlook. The angle of interest: Is this the right coach to groom a roster full of kids and other new parts? To assess, I examined his track record here with unfinished youth AND new additions to the team.

[Giacomin]

I agree with Josh on all points, AV was never brought here to develop, he was brought here to bring the team to the next step. The OP, although lengthy with good points, was delivered poorly in trying to make the actual point of moving forward without AV. I personally want AV gone, not because he doesn?t develop but because he almost never adjusts and I think the voice has gone stale.

 

I made a point to say in my first paragraph that there would be "various good reasons" to fire AV, but they've been talked about ad infinitum. I wanted to examine and discuss a different angle and bring a new discussion to the board. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Giacomin]

Occam's razor, folks:

 

AV was brought in to take a mostly veteran group (where it mattered most) over the top. No, he's not a development coach, but he's been consistently painted with the brush of being largely unable to effectively bring along young players the longer he stays.

 

Therefore, he's not the best choice for developing a very young team should the Rangers embrace a rebuild to dramatically lower their average team age (31 currently).

 

Succinct, perfect. Thanks

 

See Phil, this is why you get paid to write and I never will.

[Long live the King]

When AV took over...

 

...in Montreal, Koivu was 23. Zubris played well at 21-22 before they traded him.

 

...in Vancouver, the Sedins were 26 and had their most productive years under AV. Kesler was 22. Edler was 20. Burrows was a second year player at 25 and had by far his best seasons under AV.

 

...here. We're complaining about Miller who was 20 when AV got here and had increased his production every year? Fast was 22 and has developed into an excellent roll player. Krieder was 22 and increased his goal scoring every year. Brassard (26) had his 2 best seasons under AV. Zuc (26) played 67 games over three seasons before AV got here, but AV gets no credit for the player Zuc is? McD was 24 and played his best under AV. Brady Skjei's rookie season means nothing?

 

I don't understand why AV takes so much heat over Buch. Buch's number are up across the board from last year to this year. He played great last game, setting people up with grade A chances left and right. Seems like he responded to getting shuffled through the lineup. I guess AV, who is around all these guys day in and day out, knows their personalities and what different players respond to better than us...

 

The guy is pretty close to top 10 in wins and points % for coaches all-time. Seems like he's done something right.

[Sod16]

I think you are throwing in some veteran reclamation projects like Stepniak and Dom Moore in with young players in your assessment, and that's really a mix of apples and oranges. Many of the players listed have unique circumstances. I will say this: AV has been quick with the hook on young players and has tended to stick with vets more than many coaches. It must be remembered that a minority of 20 year olds who rate as good prospects actually pan out to much. I do agree that if you are in total rebuild mode, AV would probably not be the ideal coach. I have little stomach for firing him and bringing in an interim (Ron Smith anyone?). I'm ready to let this pan out and see what it looks like on break up day.

 

If I were to point to a single young player who I think AV did not do a good job with, I would have to say Jon Moore. I wasn't happy when they included him in the Yandle deal and I am not surprised that he has become a very solid player.

 

I'm disappointed that Kreider and Miller have not stepped up to the next level, but they are both mercurial figures and I'm not sure either would have stepped up with a different coach. They both have been given more rope than AV has given other young players. I would prefer to just stick Buchnevich and Vescey (phon.) in the top six, leave them there, and see how it works out.

[Rangers4Life]

I made a point to say in my first paragraph that there would be "various good reasons" to fire AV, but they've been talked about ad infinitum. I wanted to examine and discuss a different angle and bring a new discussion to the board. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

It?s not hard to understand however, the premise of your argument is not being able to develop players yet you bring up veterans like Martin St. Louis? What?s there to develop?

[josh]

Josh, you are misreading or imagining things. Do me a favor and reread my OP. In what sentence did I even mention why AV was brought here? What is the sentence? In what sentence did I say why Torts was brought here? I did not opine on any of that. Where are you getting this? It is not true, I did not say it, how do I even engage those accusations?

 

Next, you call my post a rant. Ranting means a long bout of emotional shouting. There was zero ranting or venting, none. I was genuinely wrapped in thought when writing. and was about as composed as Al Pacino was when he encouraged Fredo to relax and go fishing. You are projecting. The team was coming off a win and fine performance. I was happy.

 

At least you are close regarding my thesis that AV is not enough of a teaching coach to lead a largely youthful lineup.

 

 

 

If you are referring to the young guys mentioned, I fail to see how Buch has the same stigma as Vesey who has the same stigma as Miller who has the same stigma as Kreids or Nieves or Gibbons, etc. I guess if the stigma is that they were all young and inexperienced pros when AV got them. However, AV seems to have one tool in his development toolbox -- less ice time. You even say in defense of AV, whenever he tries to develop by "benching, sitting, moving down". All which all equate to the same remedy, less ice time. Notice that aligns with one of my points in the OP.

As in Buch is still Buch, Miller is still enigmatic player he was when he was younger, Kreider is still the fast physical specimen with no brain, etc. I did not mean Kreider is Buch, etc.

 

 

I'm fine with your title since it is also accurate. Again, you are reading into my motivations and are way off base. I was not taking shots at AV looking to stir the pitchforkers so they'd come and give my insecure self some validation. You could not be more inaccurate and again, out of bounds. \

 

FYI - I've always liked AV. Thought he was a great hire and did an excellent job here, immediately. I like his demeanor, style of play and philosophies. I have been critical of his personnel decisions, his ability to adjust, his in game matchup decisions and my concern that he has not been able to win a Cup with so many good teams. This thread has nothing to do with any of that except for personnel decisions. It was to discuss this coach's fitness to lead a potentially very different roster and youthful rebuild.

 

 

 

I hope my original post did not go off on a tangent in a way to make it incoherent. I spent time trying to write a cohesive piece that addressed a lot of related ideas about AV coaching a much more inexperienced Ranger team, going forward. Specifically with the assumption that mgmt had become sellers due to a diminished playoff outlook. The angle of interest: Is this the right coach to groom a roster full of kids and other new parts? To assess, I examined his track record here with unfinished youth AND new additions to the team.

 

As Dunny said, I think we are very close to seeing what will happen moving forward... much closer than the Nash for picks thread. Again, I think most of us are on the same page, (just different paragraphs - if that makes sense.)

 

Obviously, if we rebuild, we need a different coach, different approach.

If we go for it, deadline and/or summer... then we address the AV issue, if it hasnt by then.

[Giacomin]

I don't know how we can criticize how AV has failed to develop players and then use MSL, Yandle, Stralman, Dom Moore, Staal and Lee Stempniak as examples. MSL and Moore were old and declining regardless. Yandle and Staal just weren't system fits, and Stralman left after one season. Stempniak wasn't bad, but wasn't particularly noticeable on the ice. Let's not confuse development with system fit, because that's far more important for vets.

 

Duclair is the only young guy with any talent who has left, he's pretty useless, and AV hasn't had any early draft picks to develop. I think it's a bit unfair to grade a coach on how he develops players when he hasn't had any good picks. Jon Moore is a #3, not a number one, and who knows whether or not AV wanted to keep him around to develop. It's not like he was going to play in the top 4 here. Gibbons sucks, he just had a nice little run there - now has 1 goal in his last 20 games and played fewer than 10 minutes in their last 2.

 

On the flip side, development for Miller, Kreider, Hayes and Skjei has been good. That's all of the real talent he's had to mold, and, other than Miller, I don't think any of them have much more to give. Mac played his best hockey, by far, in the Cup run under AV. People complain about Buch, but young guys playing a couple of games on the 4th line is common. It's part of the growth process. He did the same with JT. If Buch is a 65-point first-line player next year AND plays a stronger two-way game (which is why he gets benched), it's hard to argue much with AV's handling of him.

 

AV's legacy, if you want to call it that, in terms of development, will be defined by Andersson, Chytil and, to some degree, Pionk, DeAngelo, Graves, and Lettieri. Those are the guys who came in under him and will have a chance to grow under him.

 

Future, good criticisms. Had a bad feeling I would not be able to pull off the correlation between developing young players to their potential and helping new vets produce to expectations. I should have simplified the thesis and supporting info, so to narrow the focus.

 

It was hard to resist though. I was intrigued by the common threads between both responsibilities. A crossover issue that reflect on some similar aspects of coaching. For instance, a coach's ability to identify strengths, weaknesses, intricacies of an individuals game and where there is chemistry. Essentially the attribute of good quick self-scouting. And beyond that, the ability to assess and project accurately for a player.

 

Another common aspect of these situations is getting the kids and new vets to play and produce to expectations.

 

When it does not happen in is not always the coaches fault. Often it has nothing to do with the coach. Hence, I took the long view with the largest sample size we have. I started going through every young/inexperienced or new addition, during AV's tenure. I did leave out guys like Dan Boyle (undoubtedly washed-up) or the fringe Megna's of the world. In doing so, I still realize that Eric Staal might have sucked that year, no matter where he went. Or St Louis coincidentally dropped off a cliff due to age, the minute he arrived at the deadline. Or Yandle or Stemp. Individually, you can make a reasonable excuses for any one or two or three, mentioned. Yet, as the list grows, there is something to be learned from it's volume.

 

I did try to be fair and cited Pouliot and Grabs as successes. Though they both had a training camp to adjust. AV has not any regular season success with deadline acquisitions. Maybe there are reasons that have to do with the coach, maybe not, maybe a mix. Yet objectively, deadline successes for AV are nil.

 

Shifting gears, looking solely at the youth, I'll attempt to simplify. The young guys who have played the longest for AV, Kreids and Miller, still seem to not have advanced to where we had all hoped. Given their pedigree and initial skills and impact they had on arrival, they have not hit their potential yet. They have both performed significantly below expectations the last few years of playoffs. I expected more from each. Also expected more from Buch and Vesey at this point. Are you happy with where they are at currently?

Maybe the Flyer game is a good sign for Buch's future slotting. Skjei was terrific the minute he arrived. If anything he may have impressed more if he was given more responsibilities sooner.

 

Gotta bring this to a close for now. BTW, Gibbons got hurt, hence the last two games. Also, Jon Moore has been on the top pair most of the year. I'll take him back in a heart beat.

[Fatfrancesa]

No doubt av did not use or get the most out of Yandle or smith We maybe witnessing the same thing with Shattenkirk, who started well but his play has dropped off a cliff

[Giacomin]

I think you are throwing in some veteran reclamation projects like Stepniak and Dom Moore in with young players in your assessment, and that's really a mix of apples and oranges. Many of the players listed have unique circumstances. I will say this: AV has been quick with the hook on young players and has tended to stick with vets more than many coaches. It must be remembered that a minority of 20 year olds who rate as good prospects actually pan out to much. I do agree that if you are in total rebuild mode, AV would probably not be the ideal coach. I have little stomach for firing him and bringing in an interim (Ron Smith anyone?). I'm ready to let this pan out and see what it looks like on break up day.

 

If I were to point to a single young player who I think AV did not do a good job with, I would have to say Jon Moore. I wasn't happy when they included him in the Yandle deal and I am not surprised that he has become a very solid player.

 

I'm disappointed that Kreider and Miller have not stepped up to the next level, but they are both mercurial figures and I'm not sure either would have stepped up with a different coach. They both have been given more rope than AV has given other young players. I would prefer to just stick Buchnevich and Vescey (phon.) in the top six, leave them there, and see how it works out.

 

Good feedback Sod. Yeah, I just replied to Future about the attempt to draw a correlation between youngsters developing to expectations versus new vets performing to expectations. I agree, there are unique circumstances with many of the individuals.

 

Glad you mentioned the 'quick hook' that is part of what I was getting at. As for the handling of Vesey and Buch, again bingo. Let em run and see what we have. Also, in a rebuild is the priority Holland and Carey and DD ? Shouldn't we at least have Nieves (the one guy who may have a future here) in the lineup? I guess not now. Not when AV thinks those marginal vets give us the best chance to not lose.

 

I'm with you about an interim. Who cares. Let AV make the playoffs and make some noise. If he doesn't breakup day means divorce.

[Future]

It was hard to resist though. I was intrigued by the common threads between both responsibilities. A crossover issue that reflect on some similar aspects of coaching. For instance, a coach's ability to identify strengths, weaknesses, intricacies of an individuals game and where there is chemistry. Essentially the attribute of good quick self-scouting. And beyond that, the ability to assess and project accurately for a player.

That makes a lot of sense as a critique. I think AV is too rigid in his system to allow for all types of players, but I don't think that's particularly unique, and I don't really think that an inability to do

I did try to be fair and cited Pouliot and Grabs as successes. Though they both had a training camp to adjust. AV has not any regular season success with deadline acquisitions. Maybe there are reasons that have to do with the coach, maybe not, maybe a mix. Yet objectively, deadline successes for AV are nil.

AV has had 4 legit deadline acquisitions. MSL, Staal, Yandle, and Smith. 3 of the 4 were excellent immediately after being acquired. The only miss in terms of anything you can point to AV for would be Staal.

Shifting gears, looking solely at the youth, I'll attempt to simplify. The young guys who have played the longest for AV, Kreids and Miller, still seem to not have advanced to where we had all hoped. Given their pedigree and initial skills and impact they had on arrival, they have not hit their potential yet. They have both performed significantly below expectations the last few years of playoffs. I expected more from each. Also expected more from Buch and Vesey at this point. Are you happy with where they are at currently?

Maybe the Flyer game is a good sign for Buch's future slotting. Skjei was terrific the minute he arrived. If anything he may have impressed more if he was given more responsibilities sooner.

I think you're expectations for these guys is too high. Kreider might have a higher ceiling than he's reached, but he is one of the top two or three players in the league at what he does around the net. Miller is purely a playmaker who has a ceiling that's limited by the fact that he never plays with any finishers, not by the coach. Vesey is a middle-six talent and Buch is right on track. Those guys aren't all consistent, but I don't blame the coach for that.

Gotta bring this to a close for now. BTW, Gibbons got hurt, hence the last two games. Also, Jon Moore has been on the top pair most of the year. I'll take him back in a heart beat.

I didn't know Gibbons got hurt, but he's not producing regardless, and he's a regular for the first time in his NHL career at 29. It's not as if AV failed him, he's not good. I don't really care what pairing Moore has been on. With Vatanen in the mix, he's 4th (not 3rd) in TOI. But how long was AV supposed to wait for Moore to develop? What kind of contract was Sather supposed to give him? I think you're also leaving out the fact that AV can't develop a guy if he's not on the roster.

[Giacomin]

It’s not hard to understand however, the premise of your argument is not being able to develop players yet you bring up veterans like Martin St. Louis? What’s there to develop?

 

I gotcha. I guess my premise was he does not develop kids to expectations nor does he help new vets (deadline acquisitions , in particular) meet expectations. Nothing to do with "developing" vets. Feel free to untie the two opinions.

[Giacomin]

That makes a lot of sense as a critique. I think AV is too rigid in his system to allow for all types of players, but I don't think that's particularly unique, and I don't really think that an inability to do

 

AV has had 4 legit deadline acquisitions. MSL, Staal, Yandle, and Smith. 3 of the 4 were excellent immediately after being acquired. The only miss in terms of anything you can point to AV for would be Staal.

 

I think you're expectations for these guys is too high. Kreider might have a higher ceiling than he's reached, but he is one of the top two or three players in the league at what he does around the net. Miller is purely a playmaker who has a ceiling that's limited by the fact that he never plays with any finishers, not by the coach. Vesey is a middle-six talent and Buch is right on track. Those guys aren't all consistent, but I don't blame the coach for that.

 

I didn't know Gibbons got hurt, but he's not producing regardless, and he's a regular for the first time in his NHL career at 29. It's not as if AV failed him, he's not good. I don't really care what pairing Moore has been on. With Vatanen in the mix, he's 4th (not 3rd) in TOI. But how long was AV supposed to wait for Moore to develop? What kind of contract was Sather supposed to give him? I think you're also leaving out the fact that AV can't develop a guy if he's not on the roster.

 

Good counterpoints, great stuff. I disagree a little on how our deadline acquisitions performed the year they got here. Maybe just compared to what I expected, but that's cool.

[Sod16]

Also, in a rebuild is the priority Holland and Carey and DD ? Shouldn't we at least have Nieves (the one guy who may have a future here) in the lineup? I guess not now.

 

This hits the nail on the head. You don't have to even be in a rebuild to limit the number of adhesive patch jobs of players (Holland/Carey/DD/Kampfer/Holden) that you are relying on, especially when the likes of Nieves, Lentierri, Buchanevich, Vescey and perhaps DeAngelo get limited roles or no role at all. It's been quite a while since we've had so many guys on the roster who are highly unlikely to be here on opening night the following season.

[josh]

This hits the nail on the head. You don't have to even be in a rebuild to limit the number of adhesive patch jobs of players (Holland/Carey/DD/Kampfer/Holden) that you are relying on, especially when the likes of Nieves, Lentierri, Buchanevich, Vescey and perhaps DeAngelo get limited roles or no role at all. It's been quite a while since we've had so many guys on the roster who are highly unlikely to be here on opening night the following season.

 

They might be getting a lot more icetime in a month!