Who Will Be the Next Coach?

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

Stars are paid for what they do in the regular season. That's how the league works. There are stars who never even make the playoffs. Should they just play for free? Come on. Be rational, if not logical. Also judging a guy by one season (which happened to be his worst here) is just peak cherry picking. Judge him by his body of work or nat at all. It's been the best UFA signing in NY in recent sports history.

Players are paid based on how good they are and how much they contribute to a teams success. Panarin is paid >10% of the team's cap and he's not doing the heavy lifting when it matters. I don't care about his regular season stats if he falters when it matters. He's been really good so far, my argument is that he won't take us further than this. My evidence? Panarin's play in the playoffs FOR THE RANGERS and the fact that he's only been past the 1st round twice in his career. If Panarin was making 3m and we had loads of cap space then this wouldn't be a discussion, but when we're discussing Panarin we obviously have to take into consideration the contract he's on. That's how it works in a cap league.

 

7 minutes ago, Pete said:

He had one or 2 bad playoffs his entire career. What's bad for your standards is not bad by many others.

This is wrong. He had 1 PP assists in 4 games when Chicago got swept in 2017, he was bad in the bubble and he was horrible this year. He was bad last year too although his point tally was OK.

 

1 time has he gone past the 1st round and put up points close to his regular season PPG. That was in Columbus in 2019 (5g, 11p in 10 games). His first year in Chicago and Blue Jackets he had OK playoffs (only going by points here, I don't think I watched any of the games), but ultimately lost in the 1st round.

 

five 1st round exits, one 2nd round exit and one ECF exit. In the regular season he has a 1.12 PPG and +138(!) over 590 games. In the playoffs he has a 0.81 PPG and -16 in 57 games.

 

I'm having a hard time calling those playoffs numbers anything other than bad.

[siddious]

The more I think about this the more I wanna see either knob or brunette get it. (Leach and a few others seem intriguing too)

win now is a stupid reason to not hire someone who has a bright future here- I also argue whether this team is even in a “win-now” status anyway, but that’s a different discussion.

 

none of the retreads, even laviolette offer much that gets me excited. 

laviolette? Okay the best of the bunch but hasn’t had great success in recent years. 
 

Bruce? Basically gallant 2.0 except better interviews

 

sutter? No and not a serious contender from

whay I’ve read.

 

go for talent and smarts.. those always find a way. 

 

 

[Long live the King]

1 hour ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

Players are paid based on how good they are and how much they contribute to a teams success. Panarin is paid >10% of the team's cap and he's not doing the heavy lifting when it matters. I don't care about his regular season stats if he falters when it matters. He's been really good so far, my argument is that he won't take us further than this. My evidence? Panarin's play in the playoffs FOR THE RANGERS and the fact that he's only been past the 1st round twice in his career. If Panarin was making 3m and we had loads of cap space then this wouldn't be a discussion, but when we're discussing Panarin we obviously have to take into consideration the contract he's on. That's how it works in a cap league.

 

This is wrong. He had 1 PP assists in 4 games when Chicago got swept in 2017, he was bad in the bubble and he was horrible this year. He was bad last year too although his point tally was OK.

 

1 time has he gone past the 1st round and put up points close to his regular season PPG. That was in Columbus in 2019 (5g, 11p in 10 games). His first year in Chicago and Blue Jackets he had OK playoffs (only going by points here, I don't think I watched any of the games), but ultimately lost in the 1st round.

 

five 1st round exits, one 2nd round exit and one ECF exit. In the regular season he has a 1.12 PPG and +138(!) over 590 games. In the playoffs he has a 0.81 PPG and -16 in 57 games.

 

I'm having a hard time calling those playoffs numbers anything other than bad.

 

How did we even get here?

 

There are 13 skaters with over $10 million AAV.  Only MacKinnon, Doughty, and Kopitar have won a cup.  Here is what Panarin's peers have won.

 

Tavares.  Made the playoffs 8 out of 15 seasons.  Only been to the second round twice.  Never been to a Conference Final.

 

Matthews and Marner.  Finally made it to the second round on their 7th try and looks like it's ending there.

 

Karlsson.  Only made the playoffs 6 out of 15 seasons.

 

Pastrnak.  1 Cup Final loss.  2 second round exits and 2 first round exits.

 

Huberdeau.  11 seasons.  4 playoff appearances. 1 second round.

 

Barkov.  10 seasons.  5 playoff appearances. 2 second rounds.  Maybe more this year.

 

McDavid.  8 seasons.  3 missed playoffs 2 first round exits.

 

Eichel.  8 years.  This is his first playoffs.  Maybe they make it past the second round.

 

 

Even Stamkos took forever to win a cup.  I'll even exclude his rookie year.  Took him 11 years to win a cup (really 12 because he missed the playoffs for the first one.)  4 missed playoffs.  Swept out of the first round twice.

 

 

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, Long live the King said:

 

How did we even get here?

 

There are 13 skaters with over $10 million AAV.  Only MacKinnon, Doughty, and Kopitar have won a cup.  Here is what Panarin's peers have won.

 

Tavares.  Made the playoffs 8 out of 15 seasons.  Only been to the second round twice.  Never been to a Conference Final.

 

Matthews and Marner.  Finally made it to the second round on their 7th try and looks like it's ending there.

 

Karlsson.  Only made the playoffs 6 out of 15 seasons.

 

Pastrnak.  1 Cup Final loss.  2 second round exits and 2 first round exits.

 

Huberdeau.  11 seasons.  4 playoff appearances. 1 second round.

 

Barkov.  10 seasons.  5 playoff appearances. 2 second rounds.  Maybe more this year.

 

McDavid.  8 seasons.  3 missed playoffs 2 first round exits.

 

Eichel.  8 years.  This is his first playoffs.  Maybe they make it past the second round.

 

 

Even Stamkos took forever to win a cup.  I'll even exclude his rookie year.  Took him 11 years to win a cup (really 12 because he missed the playoffs for the first one.)  4 missed playoffs.  Swept out of the first round twice.

 

 

Looking at team playoff success in a vacuum is not a good measure for evaluating an individual player’s ability to contribute to team playoff success moving forward. You have to do the leg work to determine if the player is playing well despite the losing, and can be a part of winning in the future, or if the player is actively contributing to losing. We all know Panarin is the latter. Either the team will be a metaphorical hamster wheel, or Drury will find a way to sweet talk Panarin into leaving.

[RichieNextel305]

 

[jsm7302]

So many different options to figure out how to make this machine roll. Hope they find the right guy to fire this thing on all cylinders.

Edited May 12, 2023 by jsm7302

[Br4d]

26 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Looking at team playoff success in a vacuum is not a good measure for evaluating an individual player’s ability to contribute to team playoff success moving forward. You have to do the leg work to determine if the player is playing well despite the losing, and can be a part of winning in the future, or if the player is actively contributing to losing. We all know Panarin is the latter. Either the team will be a metaphorical hamster wheel, or Drury will find a way to sweet talk Panarin into leaving.

 

The real problem is the Rangers are soft and with a few exceptions (Zibanejad, Trocheck, Fox, Lindgren, Trouba, maybe Kakko) not all that interested in defense.

 

Panarin sets a really bad example for the Rangers as one of the team leaders.  It's not so much that he is bad defensively as that he is generally uninterested in playing defense.  He's quite capable of being a strong defensive player but that side of his game rarely shows up.

 

Then you have the problem that he is largely a perimeter player and that some of the Rangers younger players seem to regard him as a player worth emulating and he's just generally bad for the group development.

[Scott]

Jay Leach will forever be known for knocking the bottom out of Kathryn Tappen during her prime. For that I give him a rousing standing ovation, other than that I truly don't see a guy from the minors succeeding with this particular group especially if he's not Knob who would elicit (sp) a golf clap.

[Long live the King]

32 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Looking at team playoff success in a vacuum is not a good measure for evaluating an individual player’s ability to contribute to team playoff success moving forward. You have to do the leg work to determine if the player is playing well despite the losing, and can be a part of winning in the future, or if the player is actively contributing to losing. We all know Panarin is the latter. Either the team will be a metaphorical hamster wheel, or Drury will find a way to sweet talk Panarin into leaving.

 

Ok great.  So to come full circle.  Parain contributed the same as everyone on that list until he got Gallanted.

[Br4d]

3 minutes ago, Long live the King said:

 

Ok great.  So to come full circle.  Parain contributed the same as everyone on that list until he got Gallanted.

 

Panarin didn't get Gallanted.  He just got fit into a roster with too many players with his basic traits and then his contributions were both downgraded because other people could do those things too and the things he didn't do well were highlighted because not enough guys did those things either.

 

This Rangers collapse was more roster composition than coaching.  When the Rangers needed to assert some physical control on the ice they weren't able too because they had too many finesse players stick-checking and too many players not playing at the speed the Devils were.

 

I'll bet GG and Drury got really heated after game 4 when Drury was talking about adjustments and GG was asking why everybody did the same thing.

[Pete]

3 hours ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

Players are paid based on how good they are and how much they contribute to a teams success. Panarin is paid >10% of the team's cap and he's not doing the heavy lifting when it matters. I don't care about his regular season stats if he falters when it matters. He's been really good so far, my argument is that he won't take us further than this. My evidence? Panarin's play in the playoffs FOR THE RANGERS and the fact that he's only been past the 1st round twice in his career. If Panarin was making 3m and we had loads of cap space then this wouldn't be a discussion, but when we're discussing Panarin we obviously have to take into consideration the contract he's on. That's how it works in a cap league.

 

This is wrong. He had 1 PP assists in 4 games when Chicago got swept in 2017, he was bad in the bubble and he was horrible this year. He was bad last year too although his point tally was OK.

 

1 time has he gone past the 1st round and put up points close to his regular season PPG. That was in Columbus in 2019 (5g, 11p in 10 games). His first year in Chicago and Blue Jackets he had OK playoffs (only going by points here, I don't think I watched any of the games), but ultimately lost in the 1st round.

 

five 1st round exits, one 2nd round exit and one ECF exit. In the regular season he has a 1.12 PPG and +138(!) over 590 games. In the playoffs he has a 0.81 PPG and -16 in 57 games.

 

I'm having a hard time calling those playoffs numbers anything other than bad.

Did you watch the Hawks at all in 2017? I don't think you did, but I did, they were a one-line team. Panarin Kane and Anisimov were the only line that could score and they got shut down by a team that went to the finals and took Pitt to 6 games that year.

 

You can look at numbers and that's fine, but they aren't the only part of history here. Some of us go beyond the numbers and look at why they are the way they are.

 

But I have no intention of going back and forth over and over, Panarin is here and GG ain't and I'm looking forward to that.

[Br4d]

2017 is an NHL eternity ago.

 

Did you know that the 6 game scoreless streak against the Devils was the longest of Panarin's career?

[The Dude]

9 hours ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

What Panarin did 4-5 years ago on a totally different team is irrelevant. He's shown on 3 different occasions with two different coaches on THIS TEAM that he just can't do it. In the bubble he had Strome and Fast, last year he had Strome and Copp, this year he had Trocheck and Kane/Tarasenko and he for some reason just can't play with our best center.

 

But a new coach will magically turn him into a playoff player at 32? Good luck with that.

He CAN play with their best center  though. But our best center needs his soul mate Kreider by his side in order to perform or to not sulk. 

 

If just ONE of: Kreider, Panarin or Lafrenière (or Trocheck), could just move over to the RW, it would solve a shit ton of problems. 

 

I don't understand how the fact that Panarin HAS had success in the playoffs with 2 top of the line coaches, who instill structure, just gets glossed over, along with his 16 points in 20 playoff games last year in what is deemed a bad post season (and it was).. 

 

This team desperately needs a coach with an open mind and a gameplan to fall back on.  That's ultimately why Gallant was fired with a great record. He didn't have any actual set gameplan as a stencil. I'm sure he gave instructions before games, during stopages, and in-between periods. But "try harder and take the body more"  can only get you so far. 

[The Dude]

3 hours ago, RichieNextel305 said:

 

Not one winning season in the AHL, with zero surprise prospects that were coached up beyond expectations, to the NHL. 

 

Drury hand picked him. And? He hasn’t done anything to earn the job.  Seriously. Why should he get the job?  Nothing worth noting about the Wolfpack in 4 (yes I understand that 2 of those seasons,  there were no playoffs, but the divisional record wasn't really good) years. Why?  I'm missing something,  and if someone could fill me in on why exactly Knoblauch is getting so much chatter, I'd appreciate it.  

 

It's equal to giving the job to Ken Genander over Torts or AV back in those years, just because he's been a good soldier in the organization despite not winning anything and not developing much if anything. 

 

You'd think winning would be part of a resume for an AHL coach who is being considered for an NHL gig.  I guess not. 

Edited May 12, 2023 by The Dude

[BrooksBurner]

25 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Not one winning season in the AHL, with zero surprise prospects that were coached up beyond expectations, to the NHL. 

 

Drury hand picked him. And? He hasn’t done anything to earn the job.  Seriously. Why should he get the job?  Nothing worth noting about the Wolfpack in 4 years. Why?  I'm missing something,  and if someone could fill me in on why exactly Knoblauch is getting so much chatter, I'd appreciate it.  

 

It's equal to giving the job to Ken Genander over Torts or AV back in those years, just because he's been a good soldier in the organization despite not winning anything and not developing much if anything. 

 

You'd think winning would be part of a resume for an AHL coach who is being considered for an NHL gig.  I guess not. 

 

 

[RichieNextel305]

45 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Not one winning season in the AHL, with zero surprise prospects that were coached up beyond expectations, to the NHL. 

 

Drury hand picked him. And? He hasn’t done anything to earn the job.  Seriously. Why should he get the job?  Nothing worth noting about the Wolfpack in 4 (yes I understand that 2 of those seasons,  there were no playoffs, but the divisional record wasn't really good) years. Why?  I'm missing something,  and if someone could fill me in on why exactly Knoblauch is getting so much chatter, I'd appreciate it.  

 

It's equal to giving the job to Ken Genander over Torts or AV back in those years, just because he's been a good soldier in the organization despite not winning anything and not developing much if anything. 

 

You'd think winning would be part of a resume for an AHL coach who is being considered for an NHL gig.  I guess not. 

I was quoting it more for the Babcock tidbit, lol.

[The Dude]

21 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

 

OK. So this doesn't answer my question along with my observations. 

 

Jon Cooper has won titles in 3 other leagues, including the AHL.  There's a ladder to climb. Knoblauch hasn't climbed it. 

[Pete]

2 hours ago, Br4d said:

2017 is an NHL eternity ago.

I didn't bring it up.

 

Quote

Did you know that the 6 game scoreless streak against the Devils was the longest of Panarin's career?

Did you know that dogs and bees can smell fear?

[BrooksBurner]

16 minutes ago, The Dude said:

OK. So this doesn't answer my question along with my observations. 

 

Jon Cooper has won titles in 3 other leagues, including the AHL.  There's a ladder to climb. Knoblauch hasn't climbed it. 

You asked what has he done to be considered for the spot. That post summarized it. If your criteria is AHL or NHL title is required then no, he doesn’t have it. But he has plenty on his resume to be strongly considered for an NHL head coach position, here or elsewhere.

[siddious]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

OK. So this doesn't answer my question along with my observations. 

 

Jon Cooper has won titles in 3 other leagues, including the AHL.  There's a ladder to climb. Knoblauch hasn't climbed it. 

Ok fine fair points about knoblauch. I know drury is high on him. Maybe as an assistant?

 

hownabout brunette? Led the panthers to the presidents trophy after quenville and look how good the devils look this season after he joined them as an assistant. 

[The Dude]

42 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

You asked what has he done to be considered for the spot. That post summarized it. If your criteria is AHL or NHL title is required then no, he doesn’t have it. But he has plenty on his resume to be strongly considered for an NHL head coach position, here or elsewhere.

I'm missing the plenty.

 

Won at the Jr level over 6 years ago (and somehow lost every year he had McDavid) ..... That's all.

 

Are we looking at every Jr and college coach who has won a championship? That's plenty?  Sorry man. I feel like there should be more to the resume. 

 

 

[The Dude]

13 minutes ago, siddious said:

Ok fine fair points about knoblauch. I know drury is high on him. Maybe as an assistant?

 

hownabout brunette? Led the panthers to the presidents trophy after quenville and look how good the devils look this season after he joined them as an assistant. 

I'd rather him over Knoblauch, only because of the success he had with Florida and supposedly with the Devils.

 

From what I see his resume isn't stacked. He's one of the guys that got one of those "advisor " roles, then immediately jumped onto the NHL coaching staff a year later.  So I'm leery,  but also intrigued,  because I like the way Florida plays/played and like the gritty speed of the Devils. I just can't tell if it's more about the team make ups than it is Brunette. 

 

Of the non "retreads" he's the one I like, but that may just be because I've actually seen his work on the ice. BUT those rosters are a bit different than the current Rangers. It COULD work though. 

[BrooksBurner]

20 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I'm missing the plenty.

 

Won at the Jr level over 6 years ago (and somehow lost every year he had McDavid) ..... That's all.

 

Are we looking at every Jr and college coach who has won a championship? That's plenty?  Sorry man. I feel like there should be more to the resume. 

 

 

He’s had success at every level of coaching. It seems you just look for titles as the only qualifier, and he still has a title at two different levels. Having a Calder Cup on the resume isn’t a requirement to being an excellent NHL head coach.

[The Dude]

21 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

He’s had success at every level of coaching. It seems you just look for titles as the only qualifier, and he still has a title at two different levels. Having a Calder Cup on the resume isn’t a requirement to being an excellent NHL head coach.

Well... Yeah?

 

Titles is winning. Thats the gauge man.  If titles don't matter,  why get rid of Gallant and why bring up his (Knoblauch) 2 titles at other levels? 

 

Best option is the guy that actually wins at every level. 

 

He's been coaching in the AHL for 4 years and his record isn't that good. So, no. Not success at every level.  I'm pretty sure I can go find a random coach that won a title in 2 Jr leagues that isn't in any discussion at all.  

 

You're saying hes won at every level,  yet his record with Hartford hasn't anything to brag about and I'm not going to act like I know much about Jr leagues, but the OHL and WHL are the same levels.  Right?  So at 2 (3 if you count his Flyers assistant gig) levels. He's  only won at 1 level. Not all. 

 

Yes, he has Hartford in the playoffs. His team finished 13th in the standings and 5th in his division. Is that success? 

 

Maybe my opinion changes a bit if he drags that pile of slop to an AHL title this year. 

 

I'm hoping they fill the job before then. These quality names aren't going to be available long. 

Edited May 13, 2023 by The Dude

[Br4d]

You guys do all realize that Mike Keenan never sniffs that cup in '94 without Mark Messier, right?

 

Bringing in a vet HC to get over the top isn't going to work unless the Rangers find their Messier also.

 

Knoblauch at least gives us a shot with the kids and he also gives us closure if he can't get it done because he and Drury and Murphy all go in the wash.