Gerard Gallant, Sigh

[Sod16]

1 hour ago, Br4d said:

We should all take a moment to reflect on Mika turning into a top 5 2 way Center and Fox becoming a Norris Trophy winner and Shesty hitting at his apparent peak and Kreider taking it to another level as we skewer GG for his lack of coaching skills.

 

Mika 41 goals in 57 games before GG arrived.  Fox won Norris before GG arrived.  GG, like his predecessors, simply delegates to Benoit re goalies.

[Jdog99]

And the salt in the wound is the guy on the other bench last night, ruff, clearly does have a  winning system in place (has in the past too, with buffalo)...and we could've given him the reigns post quinn.

[Scott]

21 minutes ago, Phil said:

Maybe not, but the Rangers deserve a real coach.

 

16 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

But we need to win a Cup with this core

 

 

 

 Not in anyway arguing that! Don't think they need to fill the seat with a  guy who is a pos human being. I'm sure they could do better at the end of the year I would think guys would become available who fit the X/O systems and decent human being categories. I do think Toe Blake would struggle many nights with this team getting them to play anything close to 60 mins. I don't think it's all on Gallant in any way, wanna say we need to change it up even if they go on a deep run this year, sure have at it. 

Edited March 31, 2023 by jsrangers

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, Jdog99 said:

And the salt in the wound is the guy on the other bench last night, ruff, clearly does have a  winning system in place (has in the past too, with buffalo)...and we could've given him the reigns post quinn.

 

Rangers wanted Rod Brind'Amour or Mike Sullivan. They settled for Gallant after it was clear neither man was leaving their orgs.

[Scott]

Ruff is the guy Devils fans boo'd out of the building the first month of the season and many still think he's not the right guy to bring them to the next level. You can probably count on one hand how many teams are thrilled with their head coach. It's a job that comes with a short fuse with orgs that have expectations of winning in almost every case.

Edited March 31, 2023 by jsrangers

[BrooksBurner]

13 minutes ago, jsrangers said:

 

 Not in anyway arguing that! Don't think they need to fill the seat with a  guy who is a pos human being. I'm sure they could do better at the end of the year I would think guys would become available who fit the X/O systems and decent human being categories. I do think Toe Blake would struggle many nights with this team getting them to play anything close to 60 mins. I don't think it's all on Gallant in any way, wanna say we need to change it up even if they go on a deep run this year, sure have at it. 

I hear you man, I was just being a bit facetious. To be honest, I didn’t follow the Blackhawks scandal too deeply, so I won’t speak to it. It seems some feel Q being suspended for a couple of years is an appropriate punishment, others not so much, but I couldn’t say.

[Ozzy]

Some team is going to give that guy a second chance.  I hope it's us.  I didn't follow the Chicago thing either, so I have no idea whether he's guilty or not.  But Evender Kane and a few others have had second chances.  JQ is a very good coach, and I think if anyone's gonna strike...why not us?

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

All of this. You see it on full display in games when they play controlled opponents like the Devils, Canes, and Isles, who even play structured offense. Look at last night's game as a prime example. I'd tell you to count the number of times the Devils were able to set up prime scoring chances from the middle of the ice, but you'd lose fucking count. Because there was no adjustment made. Gallant probably told them "play better!" and they kinda, sorta did, a little, but still lost.

 

He's a cheerleader, not a coach.

When I was 10 playing rec roller hockey one of the dads was on the bench to change the lines and make sure no one stayed out too long and everyone got a chance to play.

 

That's GG>

[Scott]

29 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I hear you man, I was just being a bit facetious. To be honest, I didn’t follow the Blackhawks scandal too deeply, so I won’t speak to it. It seems some feel Q being suspended for a couple of years is an appropriate punishment, others not so much, but I couldn’t say.

Yeah, actually personal friends with one of the Hawks assistant coaches behind the bench at the time who flew under the radar for most of it until late in the discovery when his name came out as one who knew and he famously  choose to do absolutely nothing other than go to dinner when he was actually exposed within the entire Hawks org. We would get together a few times each summer as he lived here at the Jersey shore. Never quite looked at him the same way, never believed he would be the kind of guy to look the other way. His whole mantra coming up through the ranks was team/family. Also fairly close with their orgs goalie coach (he lived with us for a few months two seasons in a row when he was in the ECHL) at the time who truly knew nothing. They both left the org prior to Quenneville knowing it was going to eventually blow up into something they could never defend. The assistant coach was an up and coming name who was absolutely going to get his shot, he ran off back to the AHL for a year and then took and long term deal at a shitty college program knowing he was cooked. The goalie coach has bounced around in the NHL spending a few years in Buffalo and then Seattle for a year before getting let go after a year there,

Edited March 31, 2023 by jsrangers

[The Dude]

Just hoping Laviolette gets fired and stands by, waiting to land the Rangers job if it becomes available.  

 

This is the way. 

[Br4d]

I don't know how you let Quenneville coach in the NHL again.  When winning is the only thing that matters you're better off losing.

[Scott]

delete. beating a dead horse on my part.

Edited April 1, 2023 by jsrangers

[Sharpshooter]

Bump. Yeah, it's on the players sime for sure, but Gallant still sucks. So there.

[fletch]

To counter:

The first rule for the coaches of a team is to stay out of the way.  In doctor terms, do no harm.  Coaches can make quiet adjustments before, during, and after games.  Organizations can have systems, cultures, and accountability in place, and put players in positions where they can be successful.

 

We are in the era of cult of personality coaches.  I loved the Torts press conferences because I knew how much he cared and the pressers were always entertaining.  Barry Trotz never gets tired of reminding us how smart he is.  John Cooper would still be a good coach but not a brilliant genius if he didn't have Stamkos, Kucherov, Vasilevskiy, Hedman, etc.

 

Rangers fans can always be grateful that Mike Keenan was the coach when NYR finally ended the long Stanley Cup drought.  You can think about (your favorite coach) and whether they would have won zero, one, or multiple cups with that roster, and never know the answer.

 

The argument against the Tortorellas, the Keenans, the Scotty Bowmans is that they have a limited shelf-life before they grind down the players and there are increasing rebellions and tune-outs until the coach gets axed.  You may get maximum from a team for 1, 2, maybe even 3 years before the modern athlete says enough.

 

You can fault GG for in-game management: not calling a time out, or disliking line combinations, or disliking line juggles selected, or dislike when he starts Halak over Shesterkin, or whatever.  You observe, look at the advance stats, whatever.  But I think the criticism has gone way too far when we suggest that coaches are determining the outcome instead of players.  As a youth coach for many years, you put players in positions that they can be successful, provide structure and culture, and let the athletes achieve.

 

The odds are the Rangers won't win the Cup this year, because there are 16 teams going full out for the same goal.  But we do have the talent, the organization, the structure, and the goaltending where we can win the Cup this year.  We are a contender this year.  And it's up to the players (and puck luck) to determine whether we get bounced in the first round or win the Cup.  Everything had to break right for us to comeback and beat the Penguins last year, otherwise the narrative would have been a lot different.  Hopefully this team has learned that you can't ease into a series and expect to advance.

[Br4d]

There's an argument to be made for switching head coaches every 3 or 4 seasons and going back and forth between a player's coach and a disciplinarian.  Each archetype corrects the flaws of the other and then wears on the system until further correction is needed after a few seasons.

 

I think Bill James did a study on this effect in baseball in one of his early abstracts, maybe 1984 or 1985.

[fletch]

22 minutes ago, Br4d said:

There's an argument to be made for switching head coaches every 3 or 4 seasons and going back and forth between a player's coach and a disciplinarian.  Each archetype corrects the flaws of the other and then wears on the system until further correction is needed after a few seasons.

 

I think Bill James did a study on this effect in baseball in one of his early abstracts, maybe 1984 or 1985.

 

I think this is a fair argument if you are a contender but haven't won a championship, or if you have a rebuilding project that is going slower than expected.  If you have a player's coach, then a disciplinarian will increase accountability and maximize production.  If you have a disciplinarian, a player's coach will stop grinding down the players and restore enthusiasm for playing.   Organizations, players, and fans respect success.  A championship and/or several deep playoff runs validates your system.  No one wants to talk about how much luck determines which of two pretty evenly matched teams wins a game and ultimately a playoff series.  Or what becomes an intangible rallying cry, or how a team becomes a team of destiny or a hot team on a run, however you want to look at it. 

 

We like to think measurable factors determine outcomes.  But in life, luck plays a role.  A job opening comes down to the 2 best candidates, who are (almost) equally qualified.  One candidate gets the job, the other candidate is still looking.  The employer may (or not) have to provide a justification for the ultimate choice.   But maybe one candidate had a cool tie, or a candidate had bad breath, or a candidate sweated more, or a candidate looked like an ex.  After the decision is made, the employer can point to one aspect of the resume as the deciding factor, when (subconsciously or consciously) the decision was a coin flip with an unmeasurable being the deciding factor.

[siddious]

18 hours ago, The Dude said:

Just hoping Laviolette gets fired and stands by, waiting to land the Rangers job if it becomes available.  

 

This is the way. 

Always liked him. 

[Slobberknocker]

he's another western meathead canadian whose idea of the game has passed him by.  i'd kill to have cooper coaching this team.  even sutter when he's let go from calgary.  we lost to tampa last year because cooper changed tactics and we had no answer other than gallant to say "hes my friend"
 

ill go to my grave believing playing for the rangers while its the greatest thing in the world makes guys soft.  too much coddeling goes on in that building.  took a guy like messier to actually beat it and even he almost failed.

 

so annoying because this is really almost an all star team.

 

p.s.  cane can make some hay here if he steps up.  his interviews are worth watching and not full of the usual hockey b.s. quotes.

[Cr00zng]

18 hours ago, Slobberknocker said:

p.s.  cane can make some hay here if he steps up.  his interviews are worth watching and not full of the usual hockey b.s. quotes.

Talk the talk isn't winning hockey games and it certainly seems like that he cannot walk the walk. Or as the old saying goes....
 

Those he can, do; those can't, teach....

 

Disclaimer: Please don't take me wrong, the last sentence isn't applicable to teachers...

[4EverRangerFrank]

I’ve worked with some teachers who couldn’t teach and were just riding the job for the state pension.  Geezus what a poor excuse to work with kids. GTFO!

[jamsim1967]

None of us know what's said behind closed doors. That being said, Gallant is a players coach, who believes that at the NHL level the players should be responsible enough to show up ready to play. While he does say some stupid things, can't argue with the results. When the players mail it in, I blame the players more than the coach.

[siddious]

3 hours ago, jamsim1967 said:

None of us know what's said behind closed doors. That being said, Gallant is a players coach, who believes that at the NHL level the players should be responsible enough to show up ready to play. While he does say some stupid things, can't argue with the results. When the players mail it in, I blame the players more than the coach.

Gallant does strike me as the kind of guy who would he purposefully obtuse and repetitive with the media in order to protect his guys. 
 

with that said the disaster that is the rangers defensive zone coverage speaks for itself. 

[jamsim1967]

2 hours ago, siddious said:

Gallant does strike me as the kind of guy who would he purposefully obtuse and repetitive with the media in order to protect his guys. 
 

with that said the disaster that is the rangers defensive zone coverage speaks for itself. 

I think we are going to see a trend, where coaches begin talking about their team and their lack of playing hard.

 

And as for the Rangers defense, it looks like they want their defenders attacking the goalkeeper, and when they do someone is supposed to recognize and then drop back and defend. The only problem is that they have a hard time dropping and defending. That's the way it looks anyway. 

[jamsim1967]

6 hours ago, 4EverRangerFrank said:

I’ve worked with some teachers who couldn’t teach and were just riding the job for the state pension.  Geezus what a poor excuse to work with kids. GTFO!

Have you ever read anything by John Taylor Gatto?

[Br4d]

20 minutes ago, jamsim1967 said:

I think we are going to see a trend, where coaches begin talking about their team and their lack of playing hard.

 

And as for the Rangers defense, it looks like they want their defenders attacking the goalkeeper, and when they do someone is supposed to recognize and then drop back and defend. The only problem is that they have a hard time dropping and defending. That's the way it looks anyway. 

 

The Rangers cycle endlessly in the offensive zone.  It's like watching a powerplay attack at even strength.

 

One of the things that happens when you keep sending the puck back to the blueline is that the guys stationed there are watching the puck more than the status of the people most likely to break up ice.

 

We see a Ranger's defenseman overwhelmed at the blueline and forced into a race back into their own zone fairly often at this point.  Typically it is Trouba who can't quite keep up or Miller who can.  Less often it is Lindgren or Fox, Fox because of his mobility and stickhandling and Lindgren because he is more likely to recognize a problem and start the retreat earlier in the process.  When the third pair is out the cycling is less intense because nobody in their right mind gives one of those guys a 50/50 puck back at the blueline.