Playoffs 2022-23 ECSF: Hurricanes vs. Devils

[Bieser]

Maybe they can get t-shirts that say.  "We beat  the Rangers 2023"

[Albatrosss]

i got this one.  What a fucking rip off

 

[RichieNextel305]

5 hours ago, Pete said:

Doesn't it go both ways really? 

If Devils fans want to deem the season a success based strictly off of beating the Rangers and owning bragging rights, cool.

 

But, for a Devils player to come out and say after getting trounced in 5-games the very next series? That’s just insane to me.

 

Literally rent free in their heads.

[Sod16]

The thing is, not only do Rangers fans not get as worked up about the Devils as visa versa, the Devils are not even the Rangers most hated rival.  Rangerland did not get a tenth as agitated about the Devils cups as the Islanders cups.  No one is chanting "Scott Stevens Sucks."

 

The Devils had a breakthrough year, but that does not mean that they take the next step the next year.  We can attest to that.

 

They will probably get bound to big contracts with Meier and Brat, and end up in the same kind of straightjacket that the Rangers and many other teams are in.

[Abe Froman]

1 hour ago, CCCP said:

i got this one.  What a fucking rip off

 

They should be sued for false advertising.

[fletch]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

This is true, pretty much what happened to the Devils.

 

But this is not true.

 

Here are some quotes (per ChatGPT) about Woodcroft, from McDavid, which fly in the face of that. No one said this about GG.:

In his first full year as coach, McDavid had a historic season, and the Oilers are much better and have a great chance of going to the WCF. But we can keep acting like coaching doesn't matter.

We keep pretending coaches determine outcomes of games.  When a coach scores a goal or makes a save, I'll concede this point.

[Pete]

54 minutes ago, fletch said:

We keep pretending coaches determine outcomes of games.  When a coach scores a goal or makes a save, I'll concede this point.

 That shouldn't be the barometer. Influencing a game positively should be.

[RJWantsTheCup]

I would be surprised if Carolina wasn't in the finals. 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Sod16 said:

The thing is, not only do Rangers fans not get as worked up about the Devils as visa versa, the Devils are not even the Rangers most hated rival.  Rangerland did not get a tenth as agitated about the Devils cups as the Islanders cups.  No one is chanting "Scott Stevens Sucks."

 

The Devils had a breakthrough year, but that does not mean that they take the next step the next year.  We can attest to that.

 

They will probably get bound to big contracts with Meier and Brat, and end up in the same kind of straightjacket that the Rangers and many other teams are in.

I think there's some definite revisionist history going on LOL.

[fletch]

53 minutes ago, Pete said:

 That shouldn't be the barometer. Influencing a game positively should be.

You and I appear to disagree who is more responsible for the Rangers series loss to the Devils, the players or coaches.  It's a more satisfying narrative to pin the blame on GG.  Now that he's gone we can go back to winning playoff series. 

 

Or we can blame the players, and ask them to play better hockey.  I have to hold the players responsible for their compete level in game 5 and game 7 (except for Shesterkin, who I thought competed well throughout the series).  Yes, coaches are responsible for having a system in place, tactical plan, locker-room culture, deploying players in positions they can be successful - and you can say that lack of faith in GGs preparation/tactics/system etc affected the players ability to compete.  The players still no-showed game 5 and game 7.  Since Torts we've gone through multiple coaches with a consistent issue - players cannot consistently compete for 60 minutes in the playoffs.  Multiple coaches have tried to change the culture and failed.  The primary blame lies with the players - and if you want to assign secondary blame to the coaches, fine.  But I'm tired of management using exit interviews as a decision-making process, undermining coaching authority, and deflecting blame away from holding players accountable for shitty play.  It's been going on for years, and until management stops undermining coaches, it will happen under the next coaching regime, and the one after that.  

[Pete]

11 minutes ago, fletch said:

You and I appear to disagree who is more responsible for the Rangers series loss to the Devils, the players or coaches.  It's a more satisfying narrative to pin the blame on GG.  Now that he's gone we can go back to winning playoff series. 

 

Or we can blame the players, and ask them to play better hockey.  I have to hold the players responsible for their compete level in game 5 and game 7 (except for Shesterkin, who I thought competed well throughout the series).  Yes, coaches are responsible for having a system in place, tactical plan, locker-room culture, deploying players in positions they can be successful - and you can say that lack of faith in GGs preparation/tactics/system etc affected the players ability to compete.  The players still no-showed game 5 and game 7.  Since Torts we've gone through multiple coaches with a consistent issue - players cannot consistently compete for 60 minutes in the playoffs.  Multiple coaches have tried to change the culture and failed.  The primary blame lies with the players - and if you want to assign secondary blame to the coaches, fine.  But I'm tired of management using exit interviews as a decision-making process, undermining coaching authority, and deflecting blame away from holding players accountable for shitty play.  It's been going on for years, and until management stops undermining coaches, it will happen under the next coaching regime, and the one after that.  

GG never made it past 2.5 seasons with a team. Let's not forget that, so let's not act like this is a case of the org pulling his rug out. Other orgs made that same call.

 

Whether or not we agree who deserves more blame, there's blame to go around and everyone should be blamed...But if you are saying that ultimately players need to play better, they aren't going to play better without a better coach.

 

I don't get why we're saying the team burns through coaches...Everyone thought Quinn sucked, but now we're blaming the players for getting him fired and calling them the primadonnas? How's that track? The folks who wanted GG fired have a laundry list of reasons and stats to back it. But for the sake of discussion, let's say there's enough there to see there's a ton of room for improvement, I just don't see why there's no patience to see this team with a coach who most of us (and some media) can agree is competent at least.

[fletch]

'I don't get why we're saying the team burns through coaches'

 

Gallant 2 years

Quinn 3 years

Vigneault 5 years

Tortorella 6 years

Renney 5 years

Sather 2 years

Trottier 1 year

Low 2 years

Muckler 3 years

Campbell 4 years

Keenan 1 year

Smith 1 year

Nielson 4 years

Bergeron 2 years

Esposito 2 years

Webster 1 year

Sator 2 years

Brooks 4 years

Patrick 2 years

Shero 3 years

Talbot 1 year

Ferguson 2 years

Stewart 1 year

Francis 10 years 1966-1975

 

https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/NYR/coaches.html

 

We can nitpick about how long it takes to establish a system, and if management knows that a coach isn't going to work out, it's beneficial to try and find the right coach as quick as possible.  I've artificially set the bar at 5 years.  You can argue that 3 years is a fair chance, in which case there are a lot more coaches that had a reasonable chance to establish a system/culture, work with the GM to acquire the right kinds of players, etc.  But when looking at the coaches that only had 1 or 2 years... some were contract disputes/temporary fill-ins, but there's a whole bunch of misses in there.  Does this look like an organization that has done a good job identifying prime coaching candidates that are able to build toward sustained success (multiple cups in a 5 year window)?  Or does this look like a franchise that has consistently changed course, started over, or lacked direction, due to mismanagement?

[Pete]

1 hour ago, fletch said:

'I don't get why we're saying the team burns through coaches'

 

Gallant 2 years

Quinn 3 years

Vigneault 5 years

Tortorella 6 years

Renney 5 years

Sather 2 years

Trottier 1 year

Low 2 years

Muckler 3 years

Campbell 4 years

Keenan 1 year

Smith 1 year

Nielson 4 years

Bergeron 2 years

Esposito 2 years

Webster 1 year

Sator 2 years

Brooks 4 years

Patrick 2 years

Shero 3 years

Talbot 1 year

Ferguson 2 years

Stewart 1 year

Francis 10 years 1966-1975

 

https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/NYR/coaches.html

 

We can nitpick about how long it takes to establish a system, and if management knows that a coach isn't going to work out, it's beneficial to try and find the right coach as quick as possible.  I've artificially set the bar at 5 years.  You can argue that 3 years is a fair chance, in which case there are a lot more coaches that had a reasonable chance to establish a system/culture, work with the GM to acquire the right kinds of players, etc.  But when looking at the coaches that only had 1 or 2 years... some were contract disputes/temporary fill-ins, but there's a whole bunch of misses in there.  Does this look like an organization that has done a good job identifying prime coaching candidates that are able to build toward sustained success (multiple cups in a 5 year window)?  Or does this look like a franchise that has consistently changed course, started over, or lacked direction, due to mismanagement?

I don't understand what any of this has to do with the team today. A handful played for AV, another handful played for Quinn, and the rest came when GG was here. For the purposes of this conversation, why is anything that happened before Quinn relevant in terms of the players having too much say?

 

When I said the team, I meant this roster of players, not the organization, as it relates to burning through coaches. There seems to be some sentiment on the board that this is a whiny team who's going on its third coach, yet Quinn was universally despised, and enough people felt suspect about Gallant... Like I said, get a good coach because you're not replacing many of these players. 

[Keirik]

13 hours ago, Pete said:

Look, if coaching wasn't important, then 32 teams wouldn't have coaches. They wouldn't be making millions of dollars.

 

Do offensive players know how to create offense? Well maybe they do and maybe they don't, all we can say is that they are individuals who are highly skilled. But when you have five highly skilled individuals on the ice and they're following five different game plans, well then that's a problem.

 

I can't believe after all of the complaints about how often they seem confused, not ready to play, disorganized, and like they've never met each other before, that we're still not seeing that that is because there is no plan.

 

The reason the Rangers look like a collection of high priced names and not like a team is because they didn't have a good coach. They didn't have anyone to make them a team. They didn't have anyone to keep them on the same page.

 

All they had was a guy telling them to play real hard. 

 

Look, the players want to win, And I don't think 22 players went into exit interviews feeling a certain way about the coach if it wasn't the coach who was the biggest problem. I don't think Drury would have canned the coach if the reviews were mixed.

 

You could assemble the most talented orchestra of all time, but unless they have a conductor and unless they have sheet music, they're going to sound like shit. That's the Rangers right now. 

 

I don't think anyone is saying coaching isn't important, but it's a tough take to blame Gallant and praise Brindamour when last year Gallant beat Brindamour including a game 7. It's not all on Gallant at all.  I don't even think it's mostly on Gallant. Some of these players have been in the league far too long to need to be told how to show up in big spots, how to take shots in close games, or how to get thr puck in deep in big moments. 

 .  At some point, we have to look past Gallant and dig a bit deeper here. There are a few serious alarming performances, or lack there of. 

[Long live the King]

1 hour ago, Keirik said:

I don't think anyone is saying coaching isn't important, but it's a tough take to blame Gallant and praise Brindamour when last year Gallant beat Brindamour including a game 7. It's not all on Gallant at all.  I don't even think it's mostly on Gallant. Some of these players have been in the league far too long to need to be told how to show up in big spots, how to take shots in close games, or how to get thr puck in deep in big moments. 

 .  At some point, we have to look past Gallant and dig a bit deeper here. There are a few serious alarming performances, or lack there of. 

 

Ever skater outside of Lindgren has been complained about multiple times since October.  Show up and try harder. Isn't a strategy. 

 

 

Edited May 13, 2023 by Long live the King

[Keirik]

1 minute ago, Long live the King said:

 

Ever skater outside of Lindgren has been complained about multiple times since October.  Show up and try harder. Isn't a strategy. 

 

 

Alright, when you sober up send this again so I can decipher. It’s even past my typo abilities

[Long live the King]

18 minutes ago, Keirik said:

Alright, when you sober up send this again so I can decipher. It’s even past my typo abilities

 

There's no typos.....

 

Just a miss placed auto period after harder.

 

 

Edited May 13, 2023 by Long live the King

[siddious]

9 minutes ago, Long live the King said:

 

There's no typos.....

 

Just a miss placed auto period after harder.

 

 

[Keirik]

1 hour ago, Long live the King said:

 

There's no typos.....

 

Just a miss placed auto period after harder.

 

 

Well, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I’m not sure it holds too much water if you are trying to say I mean “Just try harder.” I bet if you went around the Rangers locker room to every guy over the age of 24 or so and asked how playoff hockey differed from regular season hockey and you’ll get the exact right things said. Gallant can’t force better decisions in the middle of shifts. He has his faults and he deserved to go, but ultimately the players deserve a fuck ton of this blame. Gallant sure didn’t seem to have trouble winning plenty of games including 2 rounds of playoffs last year and a whole regular season too this year. 
 

when it counted, our best players didn’t perform. There is plenty of blame to go around.

[Pete]

7 hours ago, Keirik said:

Well, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I’m not sure it holds too much water if you are trying to say I mean “Just try harder.” I bet if you went around the Rangers locker room to every guy over the age of 24 or so and asked how playoff hockey differed from regular season hockey and you’ll get the exact right things said. Gallant can’t force better decisions in the middle of shifts. He has his faults and he deserved to go, but ultimately the players deserve a fuck ton of this blame. Gallant sure didn’t seem to have trouble winning plenty of games including 2 rounds of playoffs last year and a whole regular season too this year. 
 

when it counted, our best players didn’t perform. There is plenty of blame to go around.

If there's plenty of blame to go around, how come you aren't blaming GG?

 

I also think you're giving the coach a lot of credit where it should really go to the goalie.

 

A coach can't force better decisions in the middle of a shift, but a coach can put a system in place which requires less reading of the play and less decisions to be made by the players, because they all know where they should be going and where the puck should be going.

 

 

[Keirik]

6 hours ago, Pete said:

If there's plenty of blame to go around, how come you aren't blaming GG?

 

I also think you're giving the coach a lot of credit where it should really go to the goalie.

 

A coach can't force better decisions in the middle of a shift, but a coach can put a system in place which requires less reading of the play and less decisions to be made by the players, because they all know where they should be going and where the puck should be going.

 

 

Huh? I’ve literally said it every post that Gallant has faults, needed to go, etc. Saying the players deserve some blame does not mean Gallant deserves none. 

[Pete]

38 minutes ago, Keirik said:

Huh? I’ve literally said it every post that Gallant has faults, needed to go, etc. Saying the players deserve some blame does not mean Gallant deserves none. 

Oh, my bad. Must have gotten you confused.