Friedman Peter Laviolette Is Next Rangers' Head Coach; Signs 3-Year Deal

[The Dude]

I mean, they traded for Tarasenko first. Reason being he's an excellent player and has a bond with Panarin.

 

What does Gallant do? Puts Tarasenko on Zibanejads line. Keeps him there for about 3 games max, then plays him with Panarin for maybe a game or 2. Then it was a free for all as far as what that dummy did with the lines. Nevermind futzing with the PP to make it terrible.

 

Gallant jumbled the lines even before they got Kane.  There was about what? 4 or more games the Rangers played with an 11 man roster, due to cap gymnastics and Miller spitting on someone? The lines were chaos in that time frame. Nevermind how absolutely stupid it got when Kane finally arrived and underwhelmed. 

 

As bad as it was... They were winning. Had the coach not caused some unnecessary chaos and an uncomfortable situation, the players could have gone into the playoffs with a better mindset and comfort level,  by knowing who they were playing with. 

 

The Gallant firing will always be weird. That record is unquestionably good. But a lot of his decisions cost this team a chance to win it all. This year especially. If that's a fireable offense,  I think there would be more coach's out of work. I wasn't a fan of the hire, but for a guy who couldn't implement a system,  he did really good. 

 

It can be argued that Drury didn't help. That window of playing short a player did Gallant zero favors. Things could have been done to prevent that gap. There were players on the roster that didn't need to be and ultimately went on and through waivers  or were moved anyway (Hajek,  Leschyshyn,  Carpenter earlier, Blais should have been put on a rehab/conditioning assignment to start the year, Reaves getting an extension when acquired didn't help but he did rectify that by trading him kinda early) Had those players been sent down months prior instead of hoping someone would call and ask for Hajek or anyone,  that roster chaos doesn't happen. 

 

Gotta wonder how much Gallant resented Drury for forcing him to play short a man. That relationship probably really soured at that time and it likely escalated. 

[The Dude]

39 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

To be fair, I think the people who want to hard ball Panarin to that degree are suggesting to do it under the scenario where the Rangers want to trade him but Panarin is being completely inflexible about it. It’s not a move that’s made in a vacuum just to hate on the guy. 

No. I read the comment. I read all the comments. It's a no matter what the situation is,  it's shit on Panarin and force him out by making him uncomfortable. 

 

As if putting up 96 points with Dryden Hunt as his RW isn't uncomfortable enough. Or having your team aquire 2 star players he has a connection with and NOT playing him with them consistently isn't uncomfortable. 

 

It's never ending and it's reaching new levels of being out of hand. 

 

From move him so Lafrenière can take over the team, to play him on the 4th line and get production out if him there, to just get rid of him. 

 

96 points. Ryan Strome.... Dryden Hunt. 2 months of Copp who moved from center to wing for a playoff run where Panarin "underwhelmed " with 16 points in 20 games ( I believe Copp was also playing hurt no? As was Strome). 

 

92 points- 29 goals playing with very little chemistry along side of Trocheck and no constant RW. Led the team in high danger chances in the playoffs by far but is the problem. 

 

Would I rather have a Tkachuk? Yes. Is that a possibility? No. So, I'll roll with one of the best players on the planet and NOT hand over the keys to a 1OA bust, just to say we have a little bit better cap situation. 

 

Time to talk Panarin up instead of down. Realize what he's actually done with what little he has been given as support. 

[Ozzy]

9 minutes ago, The Dude said:

No. I read the comment. I read all the comments. It's a no matter what the situation is,  it's shit on Panarin and force him out by making him uncomfortable. 

 

As if putting up 96 points with Dryden Hunt as his RW isn't uncomfortable enough. Or having your team aquire 2 star players he has a connection with and NOT playing him with them consistently isn't uncomfortable. 

 

It's never ending and it's reaching new levels of being out of hand. 

 

From move him so Lafrenière can take over the team, to play him on the 4th line and get production out if him there, to just get rid of him. 

 

96 points. Ryan Strome.... Dryden Hunt. 2 months of Copp who moved from center to wing for a playoff run where Panarin "underwhelmed " with 16 points in 20 games ( I believe Copp was also playing hurt no? As was Strome). 

 

92 points- 29 goals playing with very little chemistry along side of Trocheck and no constant RW. Led the team in high danger chances in the playoffs by far but is the problem. 

 

Would I rather have a Tkachuk? Yes. Is that a possibility? No. So, I'll roll with one of the best players on the planet and NOT hand over the keys to a 1OA bust, just to say we have a little bit better cap situation. 

 

Time to talk Panarin up instead of down. Realize what he's actually done with what little he has been given as support. 

 

You sir, just scored a million points in the Ozzy Book!

 

Only one thing....Yukon hits pay dirt under Laviolette this year!

[LindG1000]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

I mean, they traded for Tarasenko first. Reason being he's an excellent player and has a bond with Panarin.

 

What does Gallant do? Puts Tarasenko on Zibanejads line. Keeps him there for about 3 games max, then plays him with Panarin for maybe a game or 2. Then it was a free for all as far as what that dummy did with the lines. Nevermind futzing with the PP to make it terrible.

 

Gallant jumbled the lines even before they got Kane.  There was about what? 4 or more games the Rangers played with an 11 man roster, due to cap gymnastics and Miller spitting on someone? The lines were chaos in that time frame. Nevermind how absolutely stupid it got when Kane finally arrived and underwhelmed. 

 

As bad as it was... They were winning. Had the coach not caused some unnecessary chaos and an uncomfortable situation, the players could have gone into the playoffs with a better mindset and comfort level,  by knowing who they were playing with. 

 

The Gallant firing will always be weird. That record is unquestionably good. But a lot of his decisions cost this team a chance to win it all. This year especially. If that's a fireable offense,  I think there would be more coach's out of work. I wasn't a fan of the hire, but for a guy who couldn't implement a system,  he did really good. 

 

It can be argued that Drury didn't help. That window of playing short a player did Gallant zero favors. Things could have been done to prevent that gap. There were players on the roster that didn't need to be and ultimately went on and through waivers  or were moved anyway (Hajek,  Leschyshyn,  Carpenter earlier, Blais should have been put on a rehab/conditioning assignment to start the year, Reaves getting an extension when acquired didn't help but he did rectify that by trading him kinda early) Had those players been sent down months prior instead of hoping someone would call and ask for Hajek or anyone,  that roster chaos doesn't happen. 

 

Gotta wonder how much Gallant resented Drury for forcing him to play short a man. That relationship probably really soured at that time and it likely escalated. 

 

First off, it is wildly confusing seeing you with @josh's avatar. 

 

I think Vince's most recent podcast clarifies a lot of the bold for me in his first segment (bits and pieces from like 17 minutes to 32 minutes). I left hearing his description of how the org operated under Gallant and I think it's beyond a fireable offense. A coach that has little interest in getting to know his players, who runs short practices, who doesn't meet with players 1 on 1 often, who doesn't motivate players between periods or between games, who isn't creative or thoughtful about how to manage in-game changes or systemic changes when the basics don't work, who doesn't work to understand his player's unique strengths and weaknesses aside from in-game - this is the description of a bad coach. This is actually the description of an utterly abysmal coach.

 

This is the manager at your company who does absolutely fucking nothing, churns employees over and over until he finds people who are competent without him and not ambitious enough to try and oust him, and when the team exceeds expectations, beats his chest like it was his doing.

 

Gallant took the most talented team we will ever ice - period, stop - and mismanaged it into a first-round crash-and-burn. He's been responsible for stewarding and shepherding four absolutely critical now-and-future cogs in Laf, Kakko, Chytil, and Miller - and three of them have either stalled completely or have barely met logical expectations. He's had players succeed here largely in spite of him, and I think all of this throws gasoline on @Pete's working offseason theory that a coaching change will make a decent difference in this team's chances of succeeding. 

[BrooksBurner]

9 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I mean, they traded for Tarasenko first. Reason being he's an excellent player and has a bond with Panarin.

 

What does Gallant do? Puts Tarasenko on Zibanejads line. Keeps him there for about 3 games max, then plays him with Panarin for maybe a game or 2. Then it was a free for all as far as what that dummy did with the lines. Nevermind futzing with the PP to make it terrible.

 

Gallant jumbled the lines even before they got Kane.  There was about what? 4 or more games the Rangers played with an 11 man roster, due to cap gymnastics and Miller spitting on someone? The lines were chaos in that time frame. Nevermind how absolutely stupid it got when Kane finally arrived and underwhelmed. 

 

As bad as it was... They were winning. Had the coach not caused some unnecessary chaos and an uncomfortable situation, the players could have gone into the playoffs with a better mindset and comfort level,  by knowing who they were playing with. 

 

The Gallant firing will always be weird. That record is unquestionably good. But a lot of his decisions cost this team a chance to win it all. This year especially. If that's a fireable offense,  I think there would be more coach's out of work. I wasn't a fan of the hire, but for a guy who couldn't implement a system,  he did really good. 

 

It can be argued that Drury didn't help. That window of playing short a player did Gallant zero favors. Things could have been done to prevent that gap. There were players on the roster that didn't need to be and ultimately went on and through waivers  or were moved anyway (Hajek,  Leschyshyn,  Carpenter earlier, Blais should have been put on a rehab/conditioning assignment to start the year, Reaves getting an extension when acquired didn't help but he did rectify that by trading him kinda early) Had those players been sent down months prior instead of hoping someone would call and ask for Hajek or anyone,  that roster chaos doesn't happen. 

 

Gotta wonder how much Gallant resented Drury for forcing him to play short a man. That relationship probably really soured at that time and it likely escalated. 

 

The initial line game 1 for Tarasenko was actually Panarin-Zibanejad-Tarasenko. They played a pretty good game, and Tarasenko scored a goal on a nice feed from Panarin. The next game was against Carolina, and the Rangers were getting their shit pushed in the first half of the game despite a "close score" on the scoreboard. In particular, that top line was getting manhandled. Gallant moved Panarin on a line with Trocheck and Vesey, and Panarin scored 4 goals (all 5v5) in 22 minutes of game time. The next game with Trocheck and Vesey, Panarin tacked on another 2 goals at 5v5.

 

Gallant's greatest sin wasn't "not forcing" Panarin with Tarasenko or later Kane, it was that he didn't stick with the Panarin-Trocheck-Vesey line for longer. It was Panarin's best line combination all year by a country mile. Would it have made a difference in the playoffs? Maybe. Maybe not, but it would have had a better chance of succeeding than the forced combinations Gallant had to really choose from post-Kane trade. Kane slotted with Panarin-Trocheck as soon as he was brought in, and that was later changed when it wasn't working. Gallant got fired anyway, but slotting Vesey over Tarasenko or Kane at the top would have been a death sentence. He did what anyone in his position would have done. He played the stars that his GM went and traded for. Then got fired anyway when it didn't work.

 

 

[The Dude]

18 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

 

You sir, just scored a million points in the Ozzy Book!

 

Only one thing....Yukon hits pay dirt under Laviolette this year!

Hits the dirt is more like it. I don't believe in that kid one bit. I want him gone. Sorry Oz.

 

He either shifts to RW, or he gets dealt for a RW. He has no place here to grow as a LW. I'd even experiment with putting him at center. In my book, he's run out of time to show something of substance. 

 

Keep on believing though. I'm done with him. He actually annoys me just looking at him. LOL. Leave it to me to be super positive in one post then ultra negative in the next. 

 

 

[BrooksBurner]

9 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Hits the dirt is more like it. I don't believe in that kid one bit. I want him gone. Sorry Oz.

 

He either shifts to RW, or he gets dealt for a RW. He has no place here to grow as a LW. I'd even experiment with putting him at center. In my book, he's run out of time to show something of substance. 

 

Keep on believing though. I'm done with him. He actually annoys me just looking at him. LOL. Leave it to me to be super positive in one post then ultra negative in the next. 

 

 

 

I can't even imagine the thought process behind sticking with a $12M 32 year old player who can't cut it in the playoffs over a 21 year old who is tied for 2nd (with Panarin!) on the team in 5v5 goals in the past 3 years. It would be peak, but typical, Rangers franchise stupidity.

[LindG1000]

10 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Hits the dirt is more like it. I don't believe in that kid one bit. I want him gone. Sorry Oz.

 

He either shifts to RW, or he gets dealt for a RW. He has no place here to grow as a LW. I'd even experiment with putting him at center. In my book, he's run out of time to show something of substance. 

 

Keep on believing though. I'm done with him. He actually annoys me just looking at him. LOL. Leave it to me to be super positive in one post then ultra negative in the next. 

 

 

 

Nope. I'm done hating on any of the kids. They've been completely undeveloped for two years under Gallant and getting someone who does even half of what a competent, real coach does on a day-to-day basis is going to matter a lot here. 

 

He's been the problem. The Vince pod makes it goddamn crystal clear how shit a coach he was. We hired a fucking buffoon of a leader at a critical developmental linchpin for these kids and now we have to hope that Laviolette can get them back on track.

[The Dude]

23 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

First off, it is wildly confusing seeing you with @josh's avatar. 

 

I think Vince's most recent podcast clarifies a lot of the bold for me in his first segment (bits and pieces from like 17 minutes to 32 minutes). I left hearing his description of how the org operated under Gallant and I think it's beyond a fireable offense. A coach that has little interest in getting to know his players, who runs short practices, who doesn't meet with players 1 on 1 often, who doesn't motivate players between periods or between games, who isn't creative or thoughtful about how to manage in-game changes or systemic changes when the basics don't work, who doesn't work to understand his player's unique strengths and weaknesses aside from in-game - this is the description of a bad coach. This is actually the description of an utterly abysmal coach.

 

This is the manager at your company who does absolutely fucking nothing, churns employees over and over until he finds people who are competent without him and not ambitious enough to try and oust him, and when the team exceeds expectations, beats his chest like it was his doing.

 

Gallant took the most talented team we will ever ice - period, stop - and mismanaged it into a first-round crash-and-burn. He's been responsible for stewarding and shepherding four absolutely critical now-and-future cogs in Laf, Kakko, Chytil, and Miller - and three of them have either stalled completely or have barely met logical expectations. He's had players succeed here largely in spite of him, and I think all of this throws gasoline on @Pete's working offseason theory that a coaching change will make a decent difference in this team's chances of succeeding. 

 

 

Oh I KNOW a coaching change will improve things. There's holes all over how Gallant worked. I'm nitvsure I buy all the stuff you brought here though. Especially the not getting to know his players personally or meeting 1 on 1. I'm pretty sure there's examples of him talking about players and their personal lives. He's talked about conversations he's had with multiple players, ranging from Kravtsov, Blais and others. He's known as a players coach and one of the boys. So again I don't buy some of the stuff the media puts out there.

 

Let's remember one thing. Gallant wasn't especially kind to the media here  Very stand off-ish and kinda douchey. Always a wise ass answer, in a condescending way. Not personable in the least. So, with that said, I think a bit of media fabrication gets loaded ontop of the plain truth, which is--

 

Gallant didn't have the X's and O's mind to make what he had work, when an obstacle got in the way.  I felt he was good at finding players strong points,  but couldn't always implement their uses into his game plan. He's impatient and hard headed. That's why he isn’t a great coach. That's why he got fired. 

[Pete]

34 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

First off, it is wildly confusing seeing you with @josh's avatar. 

 

I think Vince's most recent podcast clarifies a lot of the bold for me in his first segment (bits and pieces from like 17 minutes to 32 minutes). I left hearing his description of how the org operated under Gallant and I think it's beyond a fireable offense. A coach that has little interest in getting to know his players, who runs short practices, who doesn't meet with players 1 on 1 often, who doesn't motivate players between periods or between games, who isn't creative or thoughtful about how to manage in-game changes or systemic changes when the basics don't work, who doesn't work to understand his player's unique strengths and weaknesses aside from in-game - this is the description of a bad coach. This is actually the description of an utterly abysmal coach.

 

This is the manager at your company who does absolutely fucking nothing, churns employees over and over until he finds people who are competent without him and not ambitious enough to try and oust him, and when the team exceeds expectations, beats his chest like it was his doing.

 

Gallant took the most talented team we will ever ice - period, stop - and mismanaged it into a first-round crash-and-burn. He's been responsible for stewarding and shepherding four absolutely critical now-and-future cogs in Laf, Kakko, Chytil, and Miller - and three of them have either stalled completely or have barely met logical expectations. He's had players succeed here largely in spite of him, and I think all of this throws gasoline on @Pete's working offseason theory that a coaching change will make a decent difference in this team's chances of succeeding. 

Listening to this podcast basically confirmed every theory I had, and basically evaporated every argument in support of Gallant. It was quite entertaining.

 

Vince literally said that all he was doing was telling them to dump it in. That was his plan for zone entries. Meanwhile the rest of the NHL knows that you should try to be gaining the zone with control, and not throwing the puck in for a 50-50 battle every single time you have it.

 

It was kind of shocking to me, but at the same time not shocking at all. If they weren't dumping the puck in, he had no other play for them.

 

Was also not surprised to hear that the players loved his hands off approach, but by the second year it was clear that they wanted to be challenged and they wanted to be coached.

 

So much for the theory that GG was trying to coach them and they weren't listening. This guy was literally a 400 level Ranger fan. Change it up! Get pucks deep! Shoot it!

[Pete]

18 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Panarin scored 4 goals (all 5v5)

Oh wow, I thought he couldn't do anything it even strength! Especially against one of the best defensive teams in the league!

[Pete]

6 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

I can't even imagine the thought process behind sticking with a $12M 32 year old player who can't cut it in the playoffs over a 21 year old who is tied for 2nd (with Panarin!) on the team in 5v5 goals in the past 3 years. It would be peak, but typical, Rangers franchise stupidity.

Until you watch both players play and then you realize, that's why we watch players play. 

 

He can cut it in the playoffs. You're just still big mad about the devil series. You got to let it go homie. 

[LindG1000]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

Listening to this podcast basically confirmed every theory I had, and basically evaporated every argument in support of Gallant. It was quite entertaining.

 

Vince literally said that all he was doing was telling them to dump it in. That was his plan for zone entries. Meanwhile the rest of the NHL knows that you should try to be gaining the zone with control, and not throwing the puck in for a 50-50 battle every single time you have it.

 

It was kind of shocking to me, but at the same time not shocking at all. If they weren't dumping the puck in, he had no other play for them.

 

Was also not surprised to hear that the players loved his hands off approach, but by the second year it was clear that they wanted to be challenged and they wanted to be coached.

 

So much for the theory that GG was trying to coach them and they weren't listening. This guy was literally a 400 level Ranger fan. Change it up! Get pucks deep! Shoot it!

 

I'm angry after listening to that podcast. GG took the single best team we will ever ice - Kane, Tarasenko, Panarin, Zibanejad, Shesterkin, Fox, Kreider, Miller - just a deluge of talent - and just buried it in six feet of shit. 

 

It's a completely blown championship opportunity because our coach could have been outfoxed by a bantam player and outmanaged by a McDonalds shift lead. Dude's just showing up and cashing 6-figure checks every two weeks.

[Pete]

5 minutes ago, The Dude said:

 

 

Oh I KNOW a coaching change will improve things. There's holes all over how Gallant worked. I'm nitvsure I buy all the stuff you brought here though. Especially the not getting to know his players personally or meeting 1 on 1. I'm pretty sure there's examples of him talking about players and their personal lives. He's talked about conversations he's had with multiple players, ranging from Kravtsov, Blais and others. He's known as a players coach and one of the boys. So again I don't buy some of the stuff the media puts out there.

 

Let's remember one thing. Gallant wasn't especially kind to the media here  Very stand off-ish and kinda douchey. Always a wise ass answer, in a condescending way. Not personable in the least. So, with that said, I think a bit of media fabrication gets loaded ontop of the plain truth, which is--

 

Gallant didn't have the X's and O's mind to make what he had work, when an obstacle got in the way.  I felt he was good at finding players strong points,  but couldn't always implement their uses into his game plan. He's impatient and hard headed. That's why he isn’t a great coach. That's why he got fired. 

I'm not sure why you wouldn't buy it. Vince is probably the beat reporter closest to the team, certainly closer than Staple. He's not going to risk his credibility by making shit up. 

 

Throwing a coach under the bus is the best way to get people NOT to give you stories. 

Edited June 15, 2023 by Pete

[The Dude]

19 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

The initial line game 1 for Tarasenko was actually Panarin-Zibanejad-Tarasenko. They played a pretty good game, and Tarasenko scored a goal on a nice feed from Panarin. The next game was against Carolina, and the Rangers were getting their shit pushed in the first half of the game despite a "close score" on the scoreboard. In particular, that top line was getting manhandled. Gallant moved Panarin on a line with Trocheck and Vesey, and Panarin scored 4 goals (all 5v5) in 22 minutes of game time. The next game with Trocheck and Vesey, Panarin tacked on another 2 goals at 5v5.

 

Gallant's greatest sin wasn't "not forcing" Panarin with Tarasenko or later Kane, it was that he didn't stick with the Panarin-Trocheck-Vesey line for longer. It was Panarin's best line combination all year by a country mile. Would it have made a difference in the playoffs? Maybe. Maybe not, but it would have had a better chance of succeeding than the forced combinations Gallant had to really choose from post-Kane trade. Kane slotted with Panarin-Trocheck as soon as he was brought in, and that was later changed when it wasn't working. Gallant got fired anyway, but slotting Vesey over Tarasenko or Kane at the top would have been a death sentence. He did what anyone in his position would have done. He played the stars that his GM went and traded for. Then got fired anyway when it didn't work.

 

 

Your chart shows that Panarin played litte with Kane or Tarasenko.  It's oddly high in minutes with Lafrenière. I know they started the season together but I don’t think it lasted more than 5-7 games. So with that said, all combinations of Panarin with Tarasenko or Kane are below that Lafrenière mark. 

 

So, I'm either completely wrong on the Lafrenière on Panarins RW experiment and it was like 15-20 games,  or ....  I dunno. Seems very off. 

 

Point is. Gallant was so wishy-washy with the lines. Even when things worked he had to change things. Almost as if getting Zibanejad or Kreider in a happy spot was more important than getting top performance out of Panarin or anyone else for that matter. 

 

He definitely had no feel for ingame pulse of his players. If the 1st line didn't have it on any given night, but the kid line or 4th line was buzzing. Didn't matter.  If a lower line player draws 3 PPs with awesome effort and is getting defenders off their game. No extra icetime or PP appearance for that guy.. 

 

Just a strange man. 

[BrooksBurner]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

Oh wow, I thought he couldn't do anything it even strength! Especially against one of the best defensive teams in the league!

 

You missed the part where that was in the regular season.

 

5 minutes ago, Pete said:

Listening to this podcast basically confirmed every theory I had, and basically evaporated every argument in support of Gallant. It was quite entertaining.

 

Vince literally said that all he was doing was telling them to dump it in. That was his plan for zone entries. Meanwhile the rest of the NHL knows that you should try to be gaining the zone with control, and not throwing the puck in for a 50-50 battle every single time you have it.

 

It was kind of shocking to me, but at the same time not shocking at all. If they weren't dumping the puck in, he had no other play for them.

 

Was also not surprised to hear that the players loved his hands off approach, but by the second year it was clear that they wanted to be challenged and they wanted to be coached.

 

So much for the theory that GG was trying to coach them and they weren't listening. This guy was literally a 400 level Ranger fan. Change it up! Get pucks deep! Shoot it!

 

Lol what? Effective forechecking teams are able to dump the puck in and chase, force turnovers, establish possession. On opposition zone exit attempts, they are able to force neutral zone turnovers and immediately dump it right back in. It keeps the opponent on their heels, and makes them consistently turning to go play the puck in their own zone. I never saw the Rangers do any of this. Not once. It sounds like they didn't listen to their coach and didn't want to alter their individual approaches.

 

1 minute ago, Pete said:

I'm not sure why you wouldn't buy it. Vince is probably the beat reporter closest to the team, certainly closer than Staple. He's not going to risk his credibility by making shit up. 

 

Vince is a bit of a mouthpiece for the org, so you're hearing one side of a story. He's like the CNN or Fox News outlet for the Rangers.

[Pete]

Just now, BrooksBurner said:

 

You missed the part where that was in the regular season.

 

 

Lol what? Effective forechecking teams are able to dump the puck in and chase, force turnovers, establish possession. On opposition zone exit attempts, they are able to force neutral zone turnovers and immediately dump it right back in. It keeps the opponent on their heels, and makes them consistently turning to go play the puck in their own zone. I never saw the Rangers do any of this. Not once. It sounds like they didn't listen to their coach and didn't want to alter their individual approaches.

 

 

Vince is a bit of a mouthpiece for the org, so you're hearing one side of a story. He's like the CNN or Fox News outlet for the Rangers.

Keep spinning baby!

 

Gallant was terrible, its been confirmed. Drury runs a tight ship, they're not feeding Vince a narrative. 

 

Take the L.

 

[BrooksBurner]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Your chart shows that Panarin played litte with Kane or Tarasenko.  It's oddly high in minutes with Lafrenière. I know they started the season together but I don’t think it lasted more than 5-7 games. So with that said, all combinations of Panarin with Tarasenko or Kane are below that Lafrenière mark. 

 

So, I'm either completely wrong on the Lafrenière on Panarins RW experiment and it was like 15-20 games,  or ....  I dunno. Seems very off. 

 

Point is. Gallant was so wishy-washy with the lines. Even when things worked he had to change things. Almost as if getting Zibanejad or Kreider in a happy spot was more important than getting top performance out of Panarin or anyone else for that matter. 

 

He definitely had no feel for ingame pulse of his players. If the 1st line didn't have it on any given night, but the kid line or 4th line was buzzing. Didn't matter.  If a lower line player draws 3 PPs with awesome effort and is getting defenders off their game. No extra icetime or PP appearance for that guy.. 

 

Just a strange man. 

 

You're not. xGF is only part of the story. Have to weight actual production GF% too. Lafreniere on the line wasn't leading to actual production, though the xGF hints at maybe over some more time it might do so. Goodrow and Kane were trainwrecks. Tarasenko was OK.

[Ozzy]

33 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Hits the dirt is more like it. I don't believe in that kid one bit. I want him gone. Sorry Oz.

 

He either shifts to RW, or he gets dealt for a RW. He has no place here to grow as a LW. I'd even experiment with putting him at center. In my book, he's run out of time to show something of substance. 

 

Keep on believing though. I'm done with him. He actually annoys me just looking at him. LOL. Leave it to me to be super positive in one post then ultra negative in the next. 

 

 

 

20 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

Nope. I'm done hating on any of the kids. They've been completely undeveloped for two years under Gallant and getting someone who does even half of what a competent, real coach does on a day-to-day basis is going to matter a lot here. 

 

He's been the problem. The Vince pod makes it goddamn crystal clear how shit a coach he was. We hired a fucking buffoon of a leader at a critical developmental linchpin for these kids and now we have to hope that Laviolette can get them back on track.

 

17 minutes ago, Pete said:

Listening to this podcast basically confirmed every theory I had, and basically evaporated every argument in support of Gallant. It was quite entertaining.

 

Vince literally said that all he was doing was telling them to dump it in. That was his plan for zone entries. Meanwhile the rest of the NHL knows that you should try to be gaining the zone with control, and not throwing the puck in for a 50-50 battle every single time you have it.

 

It was kind of shocking to me, but at the same time not shocking at all. If they weren't dumping the puck in, he had no other play for them.

 

Was also not surprised to hear that the players loved his hands off approach, but by the second year it was clear that they wanted to be challenged and they wanted to be coached.

 

So much for the theory that GG was trying to coach them and they weren't listening. This guy was literally a 400 level Ranger fan. Change it up! Get pucks deep! Shoot it!

 

Everyone gets a clean slate with me this season...EVERYONE!

 

Gallant is gone, and we now have a direction, a plan, and some intensity on the way.

 

@The Dude Dude man!!  I'm asking you to give my boy, and all the rest a clean slate, and see what they do over the first half of this season in a structured system.  I'm going to bet he's a different player than what you saw.....and I bet the team, once it grasps what the hell is going on, buys in, and turns a huge corner.

 

This roster is good...probably the best in the NHL at the moment.

 

Your guy Laviolette is going to make my Yukon a force in this league.  Yeah I didn't see it either, but the kid didn't have a prayer under Gallant, from what's coming out now.

 

Clean Slate, and let's get it rockin', baby!!!

[The Dude]

18 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

I can't even imagine the thought process behind sticking with a $12M 32 year old player who can't cut it in the playoffs over a 21 year old who is tied for 2nd (with Panarin!) on the team in 5v5 goals in the past 3 years. It would be peak, but typical, Rangers franchise stupidity.

Because the 21 year old is a bust and only scored 7 more goals than a part time 4th liner who played in 24 less games averaging almost half Lafrenières icetime .

 

One player is capable of putting up 96 points while playing with Ryan Strome and Dryden Hunt. The other can't can't break the 20 goal mark while the opposition is concentrating on the 96 point player.

 

What'd Lafrenière do in the playoffs? You wanna talk about not cutting it in the playoffs? If you're dead set on having to get rid of Panarin,  it's NOT because you think things will improve with Lafrenière. 

 

The objective of getting rid of Panarin should be to improve the team. Not to level out cap space for a team handing the keys over to the 1OA bust, because you don't like Panarin.  

 

I have to debate the case of keeping an all world talent,  Vs a 3rd year, 1 OA bust, that people are currently debating on whether or not to give a bridge contract to?  

 

Kid getting a bridge contract.

All world talent.  

 

I really have to explain this? 

[LindG1000]

Just now, Ozzy said:

 

 

 

Everyone gets a clean slate with me this season...EVERYONE!

 

Gallant is gone, and we now have a direction, a plan, and some intensity on the way.

 

@The Dude Dude man!!  I'm asking you to give my boy, and all the rest a clean slate, and see what they do over the first half of this season in a structured system.  I'm going to bet he's a different player than what you saw.....and I bet the team, once it grasps what the hell is going on, buys in, and turns a huge corner.

 

This roster is good...probably the best in the NHL at the moment.

 

Your guy Laviolette is going to make my Yukon a force in this league.  Yeah I didn't see it either, but the kid didn't have a prayer under Gallant, from what's coming out now.

 

Clean Slate, and let's get it rockin', baby!!!

 

I'm with you on the clean slate. What Vince passed on from players and from his impressions about that locker room screams that the issue was not the players.

[BrooksBurner]

4 minutes ago, Pete said:

Keep spinning baby!

 

Gallant was terrible, its been confirmed. Drury runs a tight ship, they're not feeding Vince a narrative. 

 

Take the L.

 

 

Yeah. They aren't feeding a narrative. Just making sure to leak only a single parsed out, unverifiable comment from a couple of these "internal" player interviews. Buying into the full on scapegoating of the coach is so gullible. I tip my cap to Drury for playing his cards right here with the media.

[LindG1000]

5 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Yeah. They aren't feeding a narrative. Just making sure to leak only a single parsed out, unverifiable comment from a couple of these "internal" player interviews. Buying into the full on scapegoating of the coach is so gullible. I tip my cap to Drury for playing his cards right here with the media.

Someone's mad that Ol' Uncle Larry didn't get the scoop.

[BrooksBurner]

9 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

Someone's mad that Ol' Uncle Larry didn't get the scoop.

 

Vinny is a hack!

 

Moll is the future.

[The Dude]

35 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

Nope. I'm done hating on any of the kids. They've been completely undeveloped for two years under Gallant and getting someone who does even half of what a competent, real coach does on a day-to-day basis is going to matter a lot here. 

 

He's been the problem. The Vince pod makes it goddamn crystal clear how shit a coach he was. We hired a fucking buffoon of a leader at a critical developmental linchpin for these kids and now we have to hope that Laviolette can get them back on track.

I mean. They all got favorable matchups. They didn't earn PP time. When they were handed PP time... Nothing. 

 

Not sure what he was supposed to do. Lesser players have done more with lesser opportunities than what the kids have gotten. 

 

Maybe there's off ice conditioning or practice drills that could have helped their growth? But in game, it's not like they weren't given opportunity. Their icetime went up, they got PP time, and it's still not very impressive, besides how hot Chytil got and Kakkos strength and aggressiveness with the puck. 

 

Gallant was a bad coach. I get it. I agree. He claimed he wasn't here to develop kids. Yet gave them a lot of icetime at the end of the day. These kids should have been showing more than they have.  Kakko and Lafrenière especially. To me that's half and half blame. I don't fully blame Gallant for their lack of progress. The kid friendly coach Quinn got even less out of them. 2 coaches. Little results.

 

Gallant got Miller to where he's at. Everyone gushes over him. He's busting down the door for PP time. What have the forwards done to force the issue? 

 

I'm certainly interested in seeing what Laviolette can do with the young players. They're not prospects anymore. They now have a clean slate with a coach who has used young players in top roles in the past. I think Chytil and Kakko can and will improve. I think Lafrenière just is what he is. Which, right now is very Meh. I don't want to invest anymore time in him. I don't even think he wants to invest much more time here. The expectation and the disappointment will never go away. He's gotta go.