Gerard Gallant, Sigh

[Pete]

5 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Ok. Well you can focus on Gallant over a 20 second shift out of the 4th line, and I'll focus on the other 59+ minutes the rest of them had a chance to do anything and didn't.

I made a 2 sentence comment and you jumped out of the woodwork to argue it, so it seems you're pretty focused on it.

[Phil]

This guy sucks. I find myself hoping that Pittsburgh miraculously fires Sullivan every day.

[Ozzy]

4 minutes ago, Phil said:

This guy sucks. I find myself hoping that Pittsburgh miraculously fires Sullivan every day.

 

In before Ozzy makes a comment about Quenneville.....oh sorry...too late!      

 

Hey man, I'd roll with Sully! 

[jamsim1967]

7 hours ago, Pete said:

Stop....Zib, Tank, Kreider, Kane all played 18 mins. Jack Hughes played 24. 

You make it sound like Zib,Tank, Kreider and Kane were all world beaters. These are the guys this team depends on, and they barely showed up (I'd argue that they didn't). I'm sure that if the situation was reversed, and the Rangers were down a game, they might have been out there for significant minutes. But it's only game 4, of a possible 7 games, and I'm sure that went into the thinking process. And with all the minutes Hughes has been getting, at the end of this series he might not be the same. Lets wait and see. 

[Pete]

19 minutes ago, jamsim1967 said:

You make it sound like Zib,Tank, Kreider and Kane were all world beaters. These are the guys this team depends on, and they barely showed up (I'd argue that they didn't). I'm sure that if the situation was reversed, and the Rangers were down a game, they might have been out there for significant minutes. But it's only game 4, of a possible 7 games, and I'm sure that went into the thinking process. And with all the minutes Hughes has been getting, at the end of this series he might not be the same. Lets wait and see. 

I didn't make it sound like anything. I said they played 18 minutes, you were talking about keeping them fresh. They are fresh. It's game 4 and a 1 goal game. This wasn't a blow out where you start resting guys.

[Blue Heaven]

If you're resting your big guns in the last couple of minutes, you're basically throwing in the towel for that game.  

[RJWantsTheCup]

The so called big guns also have an extra day of rest to recover since they don't play until Thursday.

[Sharpshooter]

6 minutes ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

The so called big guns also have an extra day of rest to recover since they don't play until Thursday.

Recover from doing what? 

[RJWantsTheCup]

24 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

Recover from doing what? 

Apparently they were too tired to play the last minute

[Valriera]

I like the intensity he has the team playing with 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

if this were a nursery school 

[jamsim1967]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

I didn't make it sound like anything. I said they played 18 minutes, you were talking about keeping them fresh. They are fresh. It's game 4 and a 1 goal game. This wasn't a blow out where you start resting guys.

Yeah you did. You compared their 18 minutes to Hughes 24 minutes. When Hughes was on the ice, he was noticeable, a difference maker. Zib, Tank, Kreider and Kane, not so much. If they had bothered to show, this series might be over, or the Rangers might be up 3-1. They didn't lose 2 games at home because they were out-coached. They lost because the players named above (as well as a few others) mailed it in. I'm all for going for it, and leaving everything on the ice, but it became increasingly apparent that the players named above were having none of that. So why give them a ton of ice time, for a series that might be going 7 games? If it's going to a 7th, I want my players mentally and physically ready to play that 7th game. Why leave it all on the ice in game 4, when your players aren't interested in any of that?

 

[Pete]

5 minutes ago, jamsim1967 said:

Yeah you did. You compared their 18 minutes to Hughes 24 minutes.

 

What does that have to do with performance? I'm not even discussing performance.

 

I said the 4th line shouldn't be out with under 10 minutes, you said GG could be trying to keep them fresh. I said they are fresh, they played 18 minutes when other top players are playing 24. Then you said "well Hughes was noticeable so he played more", OK great--What's the have to do with the original point: the top players should be fresh at 18 mins each? You're moving the goal posts.

 

Quote

I'm all for going for it, and leaving everything on the ice, but it became increasingly apparent that the players named above were having none of that. So why give them a ton of ice time, for a series that might be going 7 games? If it's going to a 7th, I want my players mentally and physically ready to play that 7th game. Why leave it all on the ice in game 4, when your players aren't interested in any of that?

So let me get this straight...You think GG was resting the players who gave so little effort in Game 4...saving them energy so that when they are called up on game 7 when it's really needed...even though they couldn't even be bothered to show up in game 4?

 

[jamsim1967]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

What does that have to do with performance? I'm not even discussing performance.

 

I said the 4th line shouldn't be out with under 10 minutes, you said GG could be trying to keep them fresh. I said they are fresh, they played 18 minutes when other top players are playing 24. Then you said "well Hughes was noticeable so he played more", OK great--What's the have to do with the original point: the top players should be fresh at 18 mins each? You're moving the goal posts.

 

So let me get this straight...You think GG was resting the players who gave so little effort in Game 4...saving them energy so that when they are called up on game 7 when it's really needed...even though they couldn't even be bothered to show up in game 4?

 

Yes Pete, and I stand by what I said. Do I think he was resting them? Because I'm not on the bench, or in the locker-room I don't know what GG is doing. I, just like everyone else on this board are making guesses. However, why would he give them minutes, when they aren't giving him anything in return? I know I wouldn't. In a game four, where the worst thing that can happen is you go back to New Jersey 2-2, then I say rest them (sit them down) and make sure they are mentally and physically ready for the final games of a series that should not have been this long. 

 

Did they look to you like they wanted to be out there?

 

[Pete]

8 hours ago, jamsim1967 said:

Yes Pete, and I stand by what I said. Do I think he was resting them? Because I'm not on the bench, or in the locker-room I don't know what GG is doing. I, just like everyone else on this board are making guesses. However, why would he give them minutes, when they aren't giving him anything in return? I know I wouldn't. In a game four, where the worst thing that can happen is you go back to New Jersey 2-2, then I say rest them (sit them down) and make sure they are mentally and physically ready for the final games of a series that should not have been this long. 

 

Did they look to you like they wanted to be out there?

 

If he was resting then they'd be sat and the 3rd and 4th line would have been rotating. He was running his regular line shifts with 10 mins to goin a 1 goal game at home where he gets last change. 

 

His fault they lost? No. Was it dumb? Yea. 

[goondman]

19 hours ago, Ozzy said:

 

In before Ozzy makes a comment about Quenneville.....oh sorry...too late!      

 

Hey man, I'd roll with Sully! 

I was gonna bring this up the other day, as i was thinking the same.... 

[Vodka Drunkenski]

17 hours ago, Pete said:

What does that have to do with performance? I'm not even discussing performance.

 

I said the 4th line shouldn't be out with under 10 minutes, you said GG could be trying to keep them fresh. I said they are fresh, they played 18 minutes when other top players are playing 24. Then you said "well Hughes was noticeable so he played more", OK great--What's the have to do with the original point: the top players should be fresh at 18 mins each? You're moving the goal posts.

 

So let me get this straight...You think GG was resting the players who gave so little effort in Game 4...saving them energy so that when they are called up on game 7 when it's really needed...even though they couldn't even be bothered to show up in game 4?

 

LOL
 

I’m still trying to figure out why he would rest his best players in a game they could take a 3-1 series lead, to have them fresh for game 7.  

[Pete]

19 minutes ago, Vodka Drunkenski said:

I’m still trying to figure out why he would rest his best players in a game they could take a 3-1 series lead, to have them fresh for game 7.  

 

But apparently it's because they looked like they "wanted none of it", which is why you'd want them out in crunch time of game 7....refreshed and ready from a regular shift in Game 4?

[Scott]

22 hours ago, Sharpshooter said:

Recover from doing what? 

Jacking off for two games. 

[jamsim1967]

10 hours ago, Pete said:

If he was resting then they'd be sat and the 3rd and 4th line would have been rotating. He was running his regular line shifts with 10 mins to goin a 1 goal game at home where he gets last change. 

 

His fault they lost? No. Was it dumb? Yea. 

You win, onto game 5

[jamsim1967]

4 hours ago, Pete said:

 

But apparently it's because they looked like they "wanted none of it", which is why you'd want them out in crunch time of game 7....refreshed and ready from a regular shift in Game 4?

Sorry, I read this and couldn't let it go.

 

Here's the thing, you don't like Gallant and that's fine, nobody says you have to. When they lose you question him, and when they win, it was in spite of him, even though he wins a lot. And as a Ranger fan, I appreciate that. So, I'm not as quick to throw him under the bus as you. I'm trying to be nice about this, and for whatever reason you can't let this shit go. So instead of me moving the goal posts (which I didn't), why don't you tell us what you would have done differently. However, you and I both know that if Gallant overplays his top 2 lines and they get to a 7th game with barely anything left in the tank and lose ... you will be the first one to blame Gallant for overworking his top two lines.

[Pete]

9 minutes ago, jamsim1967 said:

Sorry, I read this and couldn't let it go.

 

Here's the thing, you don't like Gallant and that's fine, nobody says you have to. When they lose you question him, and when they win, it was in spite of him, even though he wins a lot. And as a Ranger fan, I appreciate that. So, I'm not as quick to throw him under the bus as you. I'm trying to be nice about this, and for whatever reason you can't let this shit go. So instead of me moving the goal posts (which I didn't), why don't you tell us what you would have done differently. However, you and I both know that if Gallant overplays his top 2 lines and they get to a 7th game with barely anything left in the tank and lose ... you will be the first one to blame Gallant for overworking his top two lines.

Dude, let it go. They were getting a regular shift, along with the 4th line. So If I say don't play the 4th line with 10 minutes left, that's like an extra :45 of icetime split between the top 9. But it's also about 2.5-3 minutes of the last 10 where the Rangers aren't going to score because the 4th line had 2 shots for the entirety of the game.

 

He wasn't resting them, and you're falling on your sword over a gues that isn't even a good guess.

 

And yea he's s shit coach at the helm of a really good team with the potential to be great, but he's an idiot so that potential may go unrealized. The world isn't a fair place and I'm under no requirement to give him credit when he wins and blame when he loses. That's just not the way the world works. Winning doesn't make him smart and losing doesn't make him dumb. He's got zero plan for this team when they don't have the puck and sometimes they can overcome it and sometimes they can't but when you have a massive edge in goal 4 out of every 5 games, you're record is going to look better than you are sometimes.

[jamsim1967]

53 minutes ago, Pete said:

Dude, let it go. They were getting a regular shift, along with the 4th line. So If I say don't play the 4th line with 10 minutes left, that's like an extra :45 of icetime split between the top 9. But it's also about 2.5-3 minutes of the last 10 where the Rangers aren't going to score because the 4th line had 2 shots for the entirety of the game.

 

He wasn't resting them, and you're falling on your sword over a gues that isn't even a good guess.

 

And yea he's s shit coach at the helm of a really good team with the potential to be great, but he's an idiot so that potential may go unrealized. The world isn't a fair place and I'm under no requirement to give him credit when he wins and blame when he loses. That's just not the way the world works. Winning doesn't make him smart and losing doesn't make him dumb. He's got zero plan for this team when they don't have the puck and sometimes they can overcome it and sometimes they can't but when you have a massive edge in goal 4 out of every 5 games, you're record is going to look better than you are sometimes.

It's over, and it's cool. And this is probably your best post with your opinion of the last 10 minutes.

[Jdog99]

so how about sutter?

[Blue Heaven]

4 minutes ago, Jdog99 said:

so how about sutter?

[Valriera]

Sutter is the only big name coach worse than Gallant, for THIS team, imo. I actually think he'd help guys like Laf and Kakko because his play style is more suited to what they already do. But this team isn't about those two, and his style would stifle the rest of good years of Mika, Bread, Kreider, and even Fox, that we have left.