Gerard Gallant, Sigh

[Br4d]

The real question is going to be how hard the Rangers work.

 

Right now the workers are Zibanejad, Trocheck, Kid line, 4th line, Fox, Lindgren and Trouba.

 

In order for the Rangers to go far everybody else is going to have to step up to those levels.  Any slack is going to get punished.  Unforced errors are going to get punished.  People along for the ride are going to get punished.

 

Everybody has to work to get by the Devils, the Canes, the Bruins and whoever comes out of the West.

[SaveByRichter35]

Would it be so hard to at least bring in some kind of "defensive specialist" as an "advisor" for the coaching staff or some shit?

[SaveByRichter35]

Or force Gallant's hand.  Either he replaces his defensive assistants or he himself gets replaced.

[skunkman]

Four pages of bitching about a  Coach that has coached back to back 100 point seasons?

[Br4d]

But don't you know that the Rangers should be where the Bruins are right now if they only had a real coach?

[Pete]

2 hours ago, Br4d said:

But don't you know that the Rangers should be where the Bruins are right now if they only had a real coach?

You're trying for sarcasm, but it's much closer to reality. 

[Br4d]

4 hours ago, Pete said:

You're trying for sarcasm, but it's much closer to reality. 

 

It's total sarcasm.  You get a season like the Bruins are putting together this year about once a generation.  Then that team might do it again the next year.

[BrooksBurner]

3 hours ago, Br4d said:

 

It's total sarcasm.  You get a season like the Bruins are putting together this year about once a generation.  Then that team might do it again the next year.

 

If you mean literally setting a record, sure, but in today's NHL, teams getting 120s+ is no longer a rare occurrence.

[Sod16]

2 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

If you mean literally setting a record, sure, but in today's NHL, teams getting 120s+ is no longer a rare occurrence.

 

The Bruins season is nothing special by historical standards.  You need to remember that current point totals are bloated by 3X3 OT and SO points.  The Bruins regulation record in 79 games is 51-12-16, which would be good for 118 points by the traditional measure.  Between 1971 and 1978, the regular season leader had more than that in six of eight seasons in 78 games.  

[Br4d]

6 hours ago, Sod16 said:

 

The Bruins season is nothing special by historical standards.  You need to remember that current point totals are bloated by 3X3 OT and SO points.  The Bruins regulation record in 79 games is 51-12-16, which would be good for 118 points by the traditional measure.  Between 1971 and 1978, the regular season leader had more than that in six of eight seasons in 78 games.  

 

First of all, that charge would be lead by the Canadiens who put together exactly the kind of seasons the Bruins are having this year.  That's one of the generational teams, alongside the Red Wings that have had this type of season.

 

However the big difference between the Bruins and all the other teams of recent years is that their GF/GA is exceptional by comparison.  They're 2nd in the NHL in scoring while also 1st by a wide margin in least goals allowed and also allowing a historically low number of goals.  The last team that put together as good a defensive performance as the Bruins this season was the Blues about a decade ago.  That team scored 70+ goals less than the Bruins or about a goal a game.

Edited April 9, 2023 by Br4d

[fletch]

6 hours ago, Sod16 said:

 

The Bruins season is nothing special by historical standards.  You need to remember that current point totals are bloated by 3X3 OT and SO points.  The Bruins regulation record in 79 games is 51-12-16, which would be good for 118 points by the traditional measure.  Between 1971 and 1978, the regular season leader had more than that in six of eight seasons in 78 games.  

I've thought about this, and it still is a special season.  Agreed, point totals are inflated compared to historical point system.  Win total is not inflated, except you've gotten rid of ties - so presumably a few of the SO games the Bruins had this year would have ended up as ties or OT losses.  Conversely, a few of the SO games would have been decided in a 20 minute OT - likely with more Bruin wins.  Regardless, the win total is impressive.

 

Quick reference for franchise point totals per year.

https://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/franchise_points.html

 

Most ties in a season: 24

https://records.nhl.com/records/team-records/ties-1917-2004/team-most-ties-one-season

 

Fewest ties in a season: 1

https://records.nhl.com/records/team-records/ties-1917-2004/fewest-ties-one-season

 

Unfortunately, I couldn't find any page that generated average ties in a system, and I'm too lazy to compute by going season by season.  It wouldn't take much work to look at the highest point seasons and check ties and other aberrations compared to the current point system.

[RangersIn7]

38 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

First of all, that charge would be lead by the Canadiens who put together exactly the kind of seasons the Bruins are having this year.  That's one of the generational teams, alongside the Red Wings that have had this type of season.

 

However the big difference between the Bruins and all the other teams of recent years is that their GF/GA is exceptional by comparison.  They're 2nd in the NHL in scoring while also 1st by a wide margin in least goals allowed and also allowing a historically low number of goals.  The last team that put together as good a defensive performance as the Bruins this season was the Blues about a decade ago.  That team scored 70+ goals less than the Bruins or about a goal a game.

The goaltending they’ve gotten out of Ullmark and Swayman has been otherworldly and, quite honestly, an unsustainable anomaly.

 

Thats what would scare me if I were the Bruins.

Getting that level of play from those 2, neither of whom are elite.

That and the total lack of playoff experience they have.

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, Br4d said:

 

First of all, that charge would be lead by the Canadiens who put together exactly the kind of seasons the Bruins are having this year.  That's one of the generational teams, alongside the Red Wings that have had this type of season.

 

However the big difference between the Bruins and all the other teams of recent years is that their GF/GA is exceptional by comparison.  They're 2nd in the NHL in scoring while also 1st by a wide margin in least goals allowed and also allowing a historically low number of goals.  The last team that put together as good a defensive performance as the Bruins this season was the Blues about a decade ago.  That team scored 70+ goals less than the Bruins or about a goal a game.

Be all that as it may, what is special about the Bruins roster? They have one elite producing forward, Pastrnak. Trocheck would be 2nd on that team in offensive production. We call him a 2C here. They are where they are because of coaching, not because of an overload of talent. The Rangers would be much higher than where they are, with coaching. They shouldn’t be chasing inferior rosters like the Canes and Devils. That’s bizarro world.

Edited April 9, 2023 by BrooksBurner

[Pete]

7 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Be all that as it may, what is special about the Bruins roster? They have one elite producing forward, Pastrnak. Trocheck would be 2nd on that team in offensive production. We call him a 2C here. They are where they are because of coaching, not because of an overload of talent. The Rangers would be much higher…with coaching. They shouldn’t be chasing inferior rosters like the Canes and Devils. That’s bizarro world.

Agreed. The Rangers are one of the few NHL playoff bound rosters you look at and say "How are they only third in their conference?"

 

As far as coaching these days, in terms operationalizing a core team strategy that everyone plays to a man, it's really Brind'Amour, Cassidy, Montgomery, Bednar, and Cooper...Then a long list of meh. They get the most of their rosters and don't hide behind elite goaltending. In fact, the Rangers are the antithesis of the way all these teams operate.

 

So yea, it's not at all far fetched to think that if Brind'Amour was coaching this team, they might be record setting.

[Br4d]

2 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

Be all that as it may, what is special about the Bruins roster? They have one elite producing forward, Pastrnak. Trocheck would be 2nd on that team in offensive production. We call him a 2C here. They are where they are because of coaching, not because of an overload of talent. The Rangers would be much higher than where they are, with coaching. They shouldn’t be chasing inferior rosters like the Canes and Devils. That’s bizarro world.

 

Honestly I don't know that it's true that the Rangers would be higher than they are with a more system oriented coaching staff.

 

Have you ever considered that GG was hired precisely because the Rangers brass thought they had a veteran entitled roster that might require the kind of player's coach that GG represents?

 

Panarin, Kreider, Trouba, Zibanejad, Strome, the various rentals, etc.  The Rangers had a lot of cap space tied up in players they could not move at the time they hired GG.  We needed those guys to play well and without a lot of disruption.  During GG's tenure there has never been room for culture clash on the team.  There was no "my way or the highway" possibility available.

Edited April 9, 2023 by Br4d

[Br4d]

3 hours ago, RangersIn7 said:

The goaltending they’ve gotten out of Ullmark and Swayman has been otherworldly and, quite honestly, an unsustainable anomaly.

 

Thats what would scare me if I were the Bruins.

Getting that level of play from those 2, neither of whom are elite.

That and the total lack of playoff experience they have.

 

The Bruins do several things very well.  They win a lot of face-offs and they can easily put a couple of very good FO guys on the ice at a critical point to protect against getting tossed.  They defend in front of their goal excellently.  It's almost textbook defense with a chaser on the puck, 3 guys in the slot top to bottom to prevent crossers and another guy on the boards near the goal to keep play confined to one side of the ice.

 

I was watching one of their games recently and it was just staggering how well they skated, almost in formation, in the defensive zone.

[Br4d]

The thing to realize is that if coaching was what produced seasons like the one the Bruins are having then we'd have one of these teams almost every season.  There are a bunch of good coaches in the NHL.

 

What's producing the Bruins season is a good roster top to bottom with no holes, a lot of injury luck this season, and then some good coaching factored in on top of that.

 

They've got a strong veteran presence, a young superstar blossoming in front of our eyes and a very strong work ethic out of the roster in general.  This season this is one of the locker rooms you don't want to walk into if your ole cost your team the game.

[Jdog99]

2 hours ago, Br4d said:

What's producing the Bruins season is a good roster top to bottom with no holes...

 

Its likely the coaching/structure/style of play thats making their roster 'look' so complete

Edited April 9, 2023 by Jdog99

[Sod16]

7 hours ago, fletch said:

I've thought about this, and it still is a special season.  Agreed, point totals are inflated compared to historical point system.  Win total is not inflated, except you've gotten rid of ties - so presumably a few of the SO games the Bruins had this year would have ended up as ties or OT losses.  Conversely, a few of the SO games would have been decided in a 20 minute OT - likely with more Bruin wins.  Regardless, the win total is impressive.

 

The win totals are totally inflated.  Historically, only regulation wins were wins.  The Bruins have 51 regulation wins, which is totally ordinary by historical standards.  It isn't that some of the Bruins OT or SO wins would have been ties in the past, EVERY OT or SO win would have been a tie in the past.

 

 

[fletch]

15 hours ago, Sod16 said:

The win totals are totally inflated.  Historically, only regulation wins were wins.  The Bruins have 51 regulation wins, which is totally ordinary by historical standards.  It isn't that some of the Bruins OT or SO wins would have been ties in the past, EVERY OT or SO win would have been a tie in the past.

 

 

 

I'm not sure why you're so eager to poo-poo a significant accomplishment.  It's always difficult to compare eras.  If you want to go back to when goalies didn't wear masks and there were only 6 or 12 teams in the league and say those seasons were more impressive, fine. I'll disagree.  And I'll take any playoff team from this year and say they would beat your historical team in a 7 game series.  The teams are better now- the athletes are more skilled with the puck, the players are better conditioned, the systems are more sophisticated, and in-game management has been fine-tuned.  Bruins had a target on their back, with 31 teams with different strategies to combat their success, and the opponents largely failed.

[jsm7302]

17 hours ago, Sod16 said:

The win totals are totally inflated.  Historically, only regulation wins were wins.  The Bruins have 51 regulation wins, which is totally ordinary by historical standards.  It isn't that some of the Bruins OT or SO wins would have been ties in the past, EVERY OT or SO win would have been a tie in the past.

 

 

1975-1978 Montreal Canadians are still the record holders by those standards. I agree with the fact that changing the gaming format certainly changes the formula for the record books. Not really fair to keep them all in the same category.

[Sod16]

8 hours ago, fletch said:

 

 

 

8 hours ago, fletch said:

 

I'm not sure why you're so eager to poo-poo a significant accomplishment. 

I  don't want to poo-poo an accomplishment.  I just don't want to exagerate it, as they do on the NHL Network by constantly ballyhooing "records" that are not records at all.  The Bruins are having the best regular season over the past 10 years.  That's a nice accomplishment, but not a "record" in any real sense.

[goondman]

Peter Loviolette is available!

[Ozzy]

14 hours ago, goondman said:

Peter Loviolette is available!

 

I hear ya, Goondman....I still prefer Queneville though.  Despite all the bullshit, he's going to get another chance again, and I want it to be with us.

[BrooksBurner]

6 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

 

I hear ya, Goondman....I still prefer Queneville though.  Despite all the bullshit, he's going to get another chance again, and I want it to be with us.

If that happens I think Kane re-signs cheap and Toews comes on board cheap