Let's Talk About Gerard Gallant

[Morphinity 2.0]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

NYR playoffs in GIF form:

 

 

Here comes Igor

[Ozzy]

...More like

 

 

[Pete]

5 hours ago, jsrangers said:

Not sure the GG never admits to making mistakes is accurate. I believe during his last presser he did in fact say he made mistakes this year and could be better and it was a learning year for all. ( not his exact words, but definitely the point he was making I believe maybe to Molly?). He didn't obviously view the Kakko scratch/Strome deal as one of them. One coach walks away every year not being questioned much if at all. Ours got a team well beyond expectations even while making some mistakes along the way. 

And then press him on individual points and he doesn't address them. He's smug.

 

But then people somehow hate Jon Cooper LOL.

[Pete]

3 hours ago, Nashley Tisdale said:

I hope management and the coaching staff really takes a critical look at this team's performance this season and doesn't just pat themselves on the back for over-achieving. They got caved in pretty much every game of the regular season (sans the last ~15 games) and got caved even harder  in the playoffs. Their defensive performance against Pittsburgh was downright embarrassing. They got totally exposed and quite frankly got lucky Pittsburgh's best player, who was simply owning them every time he stepped on the ice, wasn't 100% healthy for the latter part of the series. They slightly improved as the playoffs went on, but at the cost of offensive production - and eventually that killed them.

 

I highly doubt the strategy for this team was, "Give up tons of grade A chances, and have Igor bail us out," but that's basically what it turned into on a nightly basis. So hopefully they're asking themselves, "Why did we have to lean so heavily on Igor?" 

It's been this way all year, you are right. The were not a good team defensively. It was Igor and only Igor. Offensively, it was the PP and only the PP. They have some skilled individuals on forward and defense who when highlighted can make great plays, but collectively they did perform well as a team and this chart shows that in spades.

[jamsim1967]

On 6/12/2022 at 10:16 AM, Pete said:

The players love him and he motivates them for sure, but he's not a good coach. A 50 goal season from Krieder/great PP, and a Vezina season from Igor masked a lot of issues with the team.

 

I would not consider a team that can't score 5v5, gets next to nothing from it's youth, bleeds high danger chances against, to be "well coached".

 

You know there is going to be drop off next year, it's a question of how much. They can't just keep relying on Igor and the PP, or every season is going to end like this one did...And likely much sooner.

Or, in his first year, he took a team that can't score 5v5, got next to nothing from it's youth, and gave up far to many high danger scoring chances to game 6 of the ECF.

 

They lost the series in game 3, their weaknesses were on display in games 4, 5 and 6 against the two time defending champion. It sucks, but there is no shame in that.

 

Yeah they have a lot of issues, but Ranger hockey was fun again. Now hopefully he and Drury sit down and begin addressing some of those weaknesses and make this team good for the long haul. If it's with someone else behind the bench, so be it.

 

 

 

 

[Capt]

People will try to pass credit around.  Igor is the reason this team did what it did.  Period.  Coaching had nothing to do with it.  

[Pete]

26 minutes ago, jamsim1967 said:

Or, in his first year, he took a team that can't score 5v5, got next to nothing from it's youth, and gave up far to many high danger scoring chances to game 6 of the ECF.

 

They lost the series in game 3, their weaknesses were on display in games 4, 5 and 6 against the two time defending champion. It sucks, but there is no shame in that.

 

Yeah they have a lot of issues, but Ranger hockey was fun again. Now hopefully he and Drury sit down and begin addressing some of those weaknesses and make this team good for the long haul. If it's with someone else behind the bench, so be it.

 

 

 

 

I think you're misplacing the credit and giving it to the coach when it's really the goalie who deserves it, and secondarily the power play who operate despite the coach not because of the coach. 

[jamsim1967]

31 minutes ago, Pete said:

I think you're misplacing the credit and giving it to the coach when it's really the goalie who deserves it, and secondarily the power play who operate despite the coach not because of the coach. 

We really aren't going to know that until the next year or two. As of right now, GG in his first year, took the Rangers, with all their weaknesses to the ECF.

 

Not saying you're wrong, just prefer to look at it from a different angle. Ranger hockey was fun again, and GG has to get some of the credit. 

[Pete]

8 minutes ago, jamsim1967 said:

We really aren't going to know that until the next year or two. As of right now, GG in his first year, took the Rangers, with all their weaknesses to the ECF.

 

Not saying you're wrong, just prefer to look at it from a different angle. Ranger hockey was fun again, and GG has to get some of the credit. 

I think your second paragraph really has nothing to do with the first, we actually really do know who deserves the credit for this year at all the statistics show it. 

 

Gallant didn't take anybody anywhere, it was Igor and if you look at every possible metric measure there is no way to argue that point. 

 

I will go far as to say there is no statistical difference between Quinn and Gallant but there might be a happiness metric somewhere in there. 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Pete

[jamsim1967]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

I think your second paragraph really has nothing to do with the first, we actually really do know who deserves the credit for this year at all the statistics show it. 

 

Gallant didn't take anybody anywhere, it was Igor and if you look at every possible metric measure there is no way to argue that point. 

 

I will go far as to say there is no statistical difference between Quinn and Gallant but there might be a happiness metric somewhere in there. 

Second paragraph was an olive branch.

 

Coaches win Stanly Cups with great goalie's all the time, doesn't make them less of a coach. Wanna know why? Because they won. A great goalie is nothing more than a piece of the puzzle. Admittedly, they need a few more pieces of that puzzle. Lets see what he does in year two.

 

Did GG get more with less?

[Keirik]

We were within two wins of getting to the Stanley Cup finals and still some of you guys have a false narrative of it being all on the goalie and nothing to do with the coach, everyone else, etc.

 

My god lol 

[Gravesy]

6 hours ago, Keirik said:

We were within two wins of getting to the Stanley Cup finals and still some of you guys have a false narrative of it being all on the goalie and nothing to do with the coach, everyone else, etc.

 

My god lol 

I mean, the previous coach had Igor Shesterkin and the same PP. Admittedly Igor wasn't as incredible last season, but when you go from not even making the playoffs to a dominant regular season team reaching the ECF the coach gets some credit. 

[Pete]

9 hours ago, jamsim1967 said:

Second paragraph was an olive branch.

 

Coaches win Stanly Cups with great goalie's all the time, doesn't make them less of a coach. Wanna know why? Because they won. A great goalie is nothing more than a piece of the puzzle. Admittedly, they need a few more pieces of that puzzle. Lets see what he does in year two.

 

Did GG get more with less?

Yes they win with great goalies but usually not getting massively outplayed. 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Gravesy said:

I mean, the previous coach had Igor Shesterkin and the same PP. Admittedly Igor wasn't as incredible last season, but when you go from not even making the playoffs to a dominant regular season team reaching the ECF the coach gets some credit. 

You realized GG kept Quinn's lines and PP right? And the team bled shots same as under Quinn. 

 

He gets credit for something, I'm just not really sure what it is. Maybe just letting them have fun again. 

[Pete]

7 hours ago, Keirik said:

We were within two wins of getting to the Stanley Cup finals and still some of you guys have a false narrative of it being all on the goalie and nothing to do with the coach, everyone else, etc.

 

My god lol 

Incorrect. All on the goalie and the power play. As was the case all year. 

[Gravesy]

25 minutes ago, Pete said:

You realized GG kept Quinn's lines and PP right? And the team bled shots same as under Quinn. 

 

He gets credit for something, I'm just not really sure what it is. Maybe just letting them have fun again. 

Maybe. Could be all intangible stuff. Still, to all intents and purposes the same team was massively superior under GG than with Quinn. So something he did worked. 

[Pete]

1 minute ago, Gravesy said:

Maybe. Could be all intangible stuff. Still, to all intents and purposes the same team was massively superior under GG than with Quinn. So something he did worked. 

Oh, 100%.

 

But I'll just reiterate that if I told you a team produced nothing at 5v5, got massively outshot all year, got next to nothing from their youth, would you call that team "well coached"? I wouldn't.

 

Sometimes the cake turns out pretty good because you're using premium ingredients, but that doesn't make you a good chef.

 

I was neither here nor there on the GG hire, and the team had some success obviously, but again...Seeing him in action it's very easy for me to understand why he's never made it 3 full seasons with any team.

[Keirik]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

Incorrect. All on the goalie and the power play. As was the case all year. 

Lol okay. I just don’t agree with your opinion. Yeah, the guy nominated for the Jack Adams did absolutely nothing despite us having 52 wins and 110 points, then also getting us to within 2 games of a cup appearance. We never lost more than 3 games in a row all year until the semi finals where we fell short. 
 

man o man do I miss Quinn. We had such a good thing going with mediocrity, benching Hank for long stretches at the end of his career, benching other players with little rhyme or reason to it, and players fighting each other. 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Keirik said:

Lol okay. I just don’t agree with your opinion. Yeah, the guy nominated for the Jack Adams did absolutely nothing despite us having 52 wins and 110 points, then also getting us to within 2 games of a cup appearance. We never lost more than 3 games in a row all year until the semi finals where we fell short. 
 

man o man do I miss Quinn. We had such a good thing going with mediocrity, benching Hank for long stretches at the end of his career, benching other players with little rhyme or reason to it, and players fighting each other. 

Who cares about Quinn? We're talking about Gallant.

 

I mean if you will call a team that's produced nothing at 5v5, got massively outshot all year, got next to nothing from their youth, "well coached", yea...I don't agree with that.

 

Torts coached his team to just about the same point, with a much less talented roster and people bitched about him and said he sucked. It depends on what you give the coach credit for. I don't give GG credit for Igor being ungodly and the PP having massive talent.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Pete

[Cr00zng]

44 minutes ago, Pete said:

Who cares about Quinn? We're talking about Gallant.

 

I mean if you will call a team that's produced nothing at 5v5, got massively outshot all year, got next to nothing from their youth, "well coached", yea...I don't agree with that.

 

Torts coached his team to just about the same point, with a much less talented roster and people bitched about him and said he sucked. It depends on what you give the coach credit for. I don't give GG credit for Igor being ungodly and the PP having massive talent.

I don't disagree, especially since I didn't like Gallant much for various reasons, but... The fact is that they did advance to the ECF and were close to make it to the SCF, we should give him some credit. And yes, Igor had been great and the main reason for getting this far. Probably more so than the HC, or any other players. Although Georgiev had been pretty good when he played...  

 

On the other hand, Gallant was not on the ice, maybe we should blame the players, other than Igor of course, for not playing up to their potentials and their efforts had not been that the playoff requires. While I hated during the playoff calling disappearing players "pussies", it's been well deserved in most cases... As they say, it takes two two tango, maybe the players didn't want to change from the former coach system and they had been too relaxed during the game, who knows....

 

I think on the first page you've posted about a fallback in performance/standing/etc., for the next season. I do agree to that as well, they may make the playoff next season but won't go far...

[Stephen]

22 hours ago, Pete said:

It's been this way all year, you are right. The were not a good team defensively. It was Igor and only Igor. Offensively, it was the PP and only the PP. They have some skilled individuals on forward and defense who when highlighted can make great plays, but collectively they did perform well as a team and this chart shows that in spades.

Not only that but that we weren't good 5 on 5, and it showed against Tampa. 

[Keirik]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Who cares about Quinn? We're talking about Gallant.

 

I mean if you will call a team that's produced nothing at 5v5, got massively outshot all year, got next to nothing from their youth, "well coached", yea...I don't agree with that.

 

Torts coached his team to just about the same point, with a much less talented roster and people bitched about him and said he sucked. It depends on what you give the coach credit for. I don't give GG credit for Igor being ungodly and the PP having massive talent.

I agree, we are talking about Gallant and how he took a team that finished middle of the pack the year prior and barely over .500 into the 6th most wins in the entire NHL in his first year all while losing Buchnevich. We gained some good toughness and a coach that knows what he’s doing. Are we perfect? Nope. Have we proved the likes of you wrong all year? Yup. It was a fun ride. Overachieved a bit and gained a fuck ton of experience which is exactly what we needed oit of this year. 

[BrooksBurner]

Here's something Gallant deserves credit for, even if he was forced into it a bit at first.

 

PP from Beginning of Season -> 12/14 (28 games): 23.5% (8th in league)

PP from 12/15 -> End of Season (54 games):  26.3% (4th in league)

 

That might seem like a somewhat small increase, but it turned a good PP into a visibly lethal PP. Panarin used to be on the left boards with Strome on the right boards and Zibanejad in the middle as a bumper/one timer option. Panarin got hurt for a game and a half. Zibanejad got slotted into the one timer position on the left boards, but looked very dangerous just in that short time as he has in the past. Instead of Gallant switching it back to what it was two games later, which I'm pretty confident Quinn would have done as the original PP configuration that was not maxing out everyone's strengths was his idea (I harped on him about this for a long time), Gallant kept it. He moved Panarin over to the other side and Strome to the bumper position. Zibanejad was not playing very well before the switch (5 goals, 16 assists, 21 points in 28 games). I remember reading shit from people who were already trashing the contract extension during that time period.

[Pete]

3 hours ago, Keirik said:

I agree, we are talking about Gallant and how he took a team that finished middle of the pack the year prior and barely over .500 into the 6th most wins in the entire NHL in his first year all while losing Buchnevich. We gained some good toughness and a coach that knows what he’s doing. Are we perfect? Nope. Have we proved the likes of you wrong all year? Yup. It was a fun ride. Overachieved a bit and gained a fuck ton of experience which is exactly what we needed oit of this year. 

I don't see how you "proved the likes of me wrong". They lost for all the reasons I said they would LOL. 

 

They couldn't score five on five, the power plays dried up, Igor had some games where he was human and they got knocked out by a better team. 

 

But since you're going to be snarky and don't want to carry on the conversation like an adult, we can cut it off here. 

[Keirik]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

I don't see how you "proved the likes of me wrong". They lost for all the reasons I said they would LOL. 

 

They couldn't score five on five, the power plays dried up, Igor had some games where he was human and they got knocked out by a better team. 

 

But since you're going to be snarky and don't want to carry on the conversation like an adult, we can cut it off here. 

100% incorrect and wow on the revisionistic history. At least own up to it.  All year you kept saying they can't keep this up all year and be successful. In the beginning of the year it was all about how it's not a recipe for long term success in the regular season which was wrong.  Then it switched to no way they can have playoff success which was also wrong. The team proved you wrong night in and night out all the way to 2 wins away from a cup appearance.

 You don't get to have a revisionist history and now claim that you were right all along. Come on, youre better than that. 

 

And for the record, I didn't prove you wrong. Gerard Gallants team did. Would it be something to do every season? Of course not, but it certainly worked very well for a good coach that also learned a lot about his team after thrbseason they had.