Lafrenière Re-Re-Reset: 2023–24 Edition

[Pete]

26 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

Chris Kreider and Mika Zibanejad both had career years under GG.  Igor had one of the best years a goalie has had recently also.

 

Not to push on the point, because I don't think it's going to happen, but if the Rangers are out early this season that would make Laviolette just as bad a coach as GG and we all know Laviolette is not a bad coach.

No. No. This is just flat out wrong. 

 

It has nothing to do with losing, any team can lose. It's about the way they lost, it's about the lack of adjustments, and it's about everything else that came out after Gallant was let go. Jesus Christ, he wasn't even talking to the team on game days! This shit is inexcusable.

 

Why do you keep trying to defend him? Do you really hate the players that much lol? It's comedy at this point. 

[siddious]

47 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

Chris Kreider and Mika Zibanejad both had career years under GG.  Igor had one of the best years a goalie has had recently also.

 

Not to push on the point, because I don't think it's going to happen, but if the Rangers are out early this season that would make Laviolette just as bad a coach as GG and we all know Laviolette is not a bad coach.

Gg wasn’t a bad coach because of how far they got in the playoffs. Gg was a bad coach because gg was a bad coach. 
 

thebteam succeeded despite him. 

[RangersIn7]

Gallant and his approach and the fact that he was an experienced, veteran coach, is what this team needed when he was hired.

 

He did very well over 2 seasons and the 1 deep playoff run. 
He deserves a lot of credit for that. 

 

But he had his usual disagreements with his superiors.

And they didn’t practice. They were not prepared. 
He did not engage his players enough.

He had the usual disconnect with his players that he’s had elsewhere. 
He failed to provide structure.

He failed to prepare his guys. 
He failed to make adjustments besides shuffling lines. 
 

And despite his success, those are huge outnesses. And that got him fired.  

[Pete]

1 hour ago, RangersIn7 said:

Gallant and his approach and the fact that he was an experienced, veteran coach, is what this team needed when he was hired.

 

He did very well over 2 seasons and the 1 deep playoff run. 
He deserves a lot of credit for that. 

 

But he had his usual disagreements with his superiors.

And they didn’t practice. They were not prepared. 
He did not engage his players enough.

He had the usual disconnect with his players that he’s had elsewhere. 
He failed to provide structure.

He failed to prepare his guys. 
He failed to make adjustments besides shuffling lines. 
 

And despite his success, those are huge outnesses. And that got him fired.  

I Don't really know how much credit he should get. He didn't change any of the lines that Quinn already had any basically just hold the players to go at and play with no plan other than "get pucks deep".

 

Like @siddioussaid, they didn't win because of him, they won despite him. 

 

And frankly, they probably would have been better if he wasn't stifling their creativity and not letting the lines have any continuity. 

 

We have a ton of evidence on record that this dude was absentee. 

Edited April 20 by Pete

[The Dude]

Just a little complaint about one of the knocks on GG. The talk about shuffling the lines and no continuity.  

 

Has Kreider not been stapled to Zibanejad for years? 

 

Was Strome not with Panarin  95% of his stay here? Trocheck too?

 

Kid line? 

 

The D pairings were the exact same pairings up until 2 weeks ago.   

 

Sure GG would shuffle RWs and the 3rd/kid line. But that's kinda because they had little to insert at RW. Dryden Hunt? Kravtsov? Kakko? Blais?  

 

Then when given an extra piece that threw off any balance (Kane) and had the core waiting for their savior to do everything,  they died. 

 

I hope one day, we get to hear what Drury and Gallant were arguing about in game. 

[BrooksBurner]

9 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Just a little complaint about one of the knocks on GG. The talk about shuffling the lines and no continuity.  

 

Has Kreider not been stapled to Zibanejad for years? 

 

Was Strome not with Panarin  95% of his stay here? Trocheck too?

 

Kid line? 

 

The D pairings were the exact same pairings up until 2 weeks ago.   

 

Sure GG would shuffle RWs and the 3rd/kid line. But that's kinda because they had little to insert at RW. Dryden Hunt? Kravtsov? Kakko? Blais?  

 

Then when given an extra piece that threw off any balance (Kane) and had the core waiting for their savior to do everything,  they died. 

 

I hope one day, we get to hear what Drury and Gallant were arguing about in game. 

Y u defendin GG bro?

[RangersIn7]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

I Don't really know how much credit he should get. He didn't change any of the lines that Quinn already had any basically just hold the players to go at and play with no plan other than "get pucks deep".

 

Like @siddioussaid, they didn't win because of him, they won despite him. 

 

And frankly, they probably would have been better if he wasn't stifling their creativity and not letting the lines have any continuity. 

 

We have a ton of evidence on record that this dude was absentee. 

If you preside over something successful, you get the credit for it.

Just like you get the blame for failure 

 

You can still credit the guy for something whilst pointing out his massive shortcomings 

 

I’ll say this though as my operative point on Gallant:

Good coach. Not a great coach.

High- level. Not a champion.

Won a lot. Ultimately lost.

Some very positive traits. Some very negative ones.

And too many issues with upper management and lack of prep/practice/engagement.

Player’s coach. Not detail oriented. 

He was a mixed bag. 
 

Right at the time. Not in 2 years though.

 
 

They knew what they hired.

Its fine.

Move on.

 

What they experienced under Gallant will actually help them in the long run.

 

[Long live the King]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

Just a little complaint about one of the knocks on GG. The talk about shuffling the lines and no continuity.  

 

Has Kreider not been stapled to Zibanejad for years? 

 

Was Strome not with Panarin  95% of his stay here? Trocheck too?

 

Kid line? 

 

The D pairings were the exact same pairings up until 2 weeks ago.   

 

Sure GG would shuffle RWs and the 3rd/kid line. But that's kinda because they had little to insert at RW. Dryden Hunt? Kravtsov? Kakko? Blais?  

 

Then when given an extra piece that threw off any balance (Kane) and had the core waiting for their savior to do everything,  they died. 

 

I hope one day, we get to hear what Drury and Gallant were arguing about in game. 

 

No.  GG played Zib and CK apart for over 300 minutes at 5v5 and Trocheck with so.e combe of CK, Goodrow, Vesey for 200 minutes.

 

Panarin-Trocheck-Laf were together for 866 minutes.  He literally never touched that line.  GG would have shuffled Laf around during a 3 goal in 31 game slump.

[RangersIn7]

3 minutes ago, Long live the King said:

 

No.  GG played Zib and CK apart for over 300 minutes at 5v5 and Trocheck with so.e combe of CK, Goodrow, Vesey for 200 minutes.

 

Panarin-Trocheck-Laf were together for 866 minutes.  He literally never touched that line.  GG would have shuffled Laf around during a 3 goal in 31 game slump.

There are advantages to line shuffling at times, yes.

But it’s not usually immediate and you have to keep guys together. 

[The Dude]

1 hour ago, Long live the King said:

 

No.  GG played Zib and CK apart for over 300 minutes at 5v5 and Trocheck with so.e combe of CK, Goodrow, Vesey for 200 minutes.

 

Panarin-Trocheck-Laf were together for 866 minutes.  He literally never touched that line.  GG would have shuffled Laf around during a 3 goal in 31 game slump.

OK so they were together for a majority of the time. Let's say almost 3/4?  Tro was away from Panarin for like 1/6 of last season You're splitting hairs here. These players were together for very long periods of time.  That's the gist of what I'm saying. 

 

That 20/93 combination is an ongoing thing for atleast 3 straight seasons. Sure. It was broken up here and there. It's back again and it is always back again.  

 

Yes, GG would have moved Lafrenière off that line in a slump. Most coaches would. I don't think this is a bad thing. That's some slump. As was Miller's major slump.  Any coach would make a change there. I don't know why this is exclusive to GG. 

 

I'll agree all day that GG had a short leash with kids. But let's not forget that he DID give Lafrenière chances. Lafrenière played RW in the top 6, last season too. I don't remember if it was with Panarin or Zibanejad. I believe it was Panarin.

 

GG tried Kakko with Panarin. Chytil with Panarin. Chytil was getting more and more opportunities as time went on and trust was earned. 

 

Why is it left out that he gave Miller a top 4 job and got the best production out of him?  Gave Schneider the spot over Nemeth,  Hajek and others. Played Jones more than Laviolette did? 

 

I'm not sure what any other coach would do with these players besides give them more rope.

 

GGs bigger issue was barely any practice and not giving the team a system to fall back on. That's where GG failed along with not being able to make adjustments to the gameplan. 

 

GG did a lot wrong. I wouldn't say line shuffling (to break players skids) was his worst trait.  His patience in keeping said switch was a problem. 

 

It's been a pattern with whomever the coach is. It's typically just a rotation of top 6 RWs, and a spot to plant the kids that weren't taking those RW spots until one did. And here we are. Still needing a RW or 2 if you're not sold on Kakko. 

 

The Rangers shuffled RW 1 and the entire 3rd and 4th lines this year. It has to be done if it's not working. I'm not even sold that this current incarnation of line 3 is even any good.  

 

 

[Pete]

8 hours ago, The Dude said:

OK so they were together for a majority of the time. Let's say almost 3/4?  Tro was away from Panarin for like 1/6 of last season You're splitting hairs here. These players were together for very long periods of time.  That's the gist of what I'm saying. 

 

That 20/93 combination is an ongoing thing for atleast 3 straight seasons. Sure. It was broken up here and there. It's back again and it is always back again.  

 

Yes, GG would have moved Lafrenière off that line in a slump. Most coaches would. I don't think this is a bad thing. That's some slump. As was Miller's major slump.  Any coach would make a change there. I don't know why this is exclusive to GG. 

 

I'll agree all day that GG had a short leash with kids. But let's not forget that he DID give Lafrenière chances. Lafrenière played RW in the top 6, last season too. I don't remember if it was with Panarin or Zibanejad. I believe it was Panarin.

 

GG tried Kakko with Panarin. Chytil with Panarin. Chytil was getting more and more opportunities as time went on and trust was earned. 

 

Why is it left out that he gave Miller a top 4 job and got the best production out of him?  Gave Schneider the spot over Nemeth,  Hajek and others. Played Jones more than Laviolette did? 

 

I'm not sure what any other coach would do with these players besides give them more rope.

 

GGs bigger issue was barely any practice and not giving the team a system to fall back on. That's where GG failed along with not being able to make adjustments to the gameplan. 

 

GG did a lot wrong. I wouldn't say line shuffling (to break players skids) was his worst trait.  His patience in keeping said switch was a problem. 

 

It's been a pattern with whomever the coach is. It's typically just a rotation of top 6 RWs, and a spot to plant the kids that weren't taking those RW spots until one did. And here we are. Still needing a RW or 2 if you're not sold on Kakko. 

 

The Rangers shuffled RW 1 and the entire 3rd and 4th lines this year. It has to be done if it's not working. I'm not even sold that this current incarnation of line 3 is even any good.  

 

 

He tried things for a period and if he didn't like what he saw (No one really knew what he liked anyway), then it was right back to previously used combinations. 

[Pete]

10 hours ago, RangersIn7 said:

If you preside over something successful, you get the credit for it.

Just like you get the blame for failure 

 

You can still credit the guy for something whilst pointing out his massive shortcomings 

 

I’ll say this though as my operative point on Gallant:

Good coach. Not a great coach.

High- level. Not a champion.

Won a lot. Ultimately lost.

Some very positive traits. Some very negative ones.

And too many issues with upper management and lack of prep/practice/engagement.

Player’s coach. Not detail oriented. 

He was a mixed bag. 
 

Right at the time. Not in 2 years though.

 
 

They knew what they hired.

Its fine.

Move on.

 

What they experienced under Gallant will actually help them in the long run.

 

The president gets credit when gas is cheap and the stock market is good, even though there's nothing that he does that controls either of those things. 

 

That's about the extent I'll give GG "credit". He just happened to be here when things that probably would have happened anyway, happened to happen. 

[RangersIn7]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

The president gets credit when gas is cheap and the stock market is good, even though there's nothing that he does that controls either of those things. 

 

That's about the extent I'll give GG "credit". He just happened to be here when things that probably would have happened anyway, happened to happen. 

That’s all I’m giving him credit for as well.

 

 

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

The president gets credit when gas is cheap and the stock market is good, even though there's nothing that he does that controls either of those things. 

 

That's about the extent I'll give GG "credit". He just happened to be here when things that probably would have happened anyway, happened to happen. 

Then why were the Rangers not a playoff team before he got here? And why did a drafted group of players who never played together in Vegas make the Finals with him?

[Br4d]

5 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Then why were the Rangers not a playoff team before he got here? And why did a drafted group of players who never played together in Vegas make the Finals with him?

 

Because podcasts...

[Pete]

8 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

Because podcasts...

You should try listening to some. You need the education. 

[Pete]

14 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Then why were the Rangers not a playoff team before he got here? And why did a drafted group of players who never played together in Vegas make the Finals with him?

He just happened to be there when things that probably would have happened anyway, happened to happen. 

 

If he's such a phenomenal coach how come he never lasts more than two seasons?

[RangersIn7]

54 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Then why were the Rangers not a playoff team before he got here? And why did a drafted group of players who never played together in Vegas make the Finals with him?

 

48 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

Because podcasts...

Gallant is a mixed bag. 
Does well for a couple of seasons and loses the room and the front office.

 

Hes a good coach. He’s had success.

Just don’t ever see him winning a Cup. 

[Pete]

20 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

 

Gallant is a mixed bag. 
Does well for a couple of seasons and loses the room and the front office.

 

Hes a good coach. He’s had success.

Just don’t ever see him winning a Cup. 

I would be surprised to see him coaching in the league again.

 

The Islanders turned to a guy who hasn't been in the league for 10 years to be their coach. Oilers had an opening. Devil's had one. St. Louis had one. Jackets hired Babcock before calling GG.

 

He's a fraud and the book is out. 

Edited April 21 by Pete

[JJ in VA]

Oh, but back to Laffy:

 

Today starts the day he re-writes his chapter in this revisionist thread.   Laffy 2+ points today.   

 

 

 

 

 

[Long live the King]

2 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

Then why were the Rangers not a playoff team before he got here?

 

Because the team was rebuilding and full of 19-22 year olds.  Also even though Panarin sucks, they were 22-14-6 with him and 5-9 without him.

 

 

Quote

And why did a drafted group of players who never played together in Vegas make the Finals with him?

 

Mainly beacuse Pittsburgh is stupid and choose Matt Murray over Fleury.   Why did Vegas fire him and go on to win the cup without him?

[Br4d]

Everybody fires GG because you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

 

That and he apparently is willing to bitch to management when things don't go right.

 

Never bitch to management because you're replaceable and often it is easier to fire you than to fix the things that are systemically wrong in the situation.

[Br4d]

7 hours ago, JJ in VA said:

Oh, but back to Laffy:

 

Today starts the day he re-writes his chapter in this revisionist thread.   Laffy 2+ points today.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laf looked really good tonight.  One of the fastest guys on the ice and throwing hits all over the place.

[Pete]

4 hours ago, Br4d said:

Everybody fires GG because you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

 

That and he apparently is willing to bitch to management when things don't go right.

 

Never bitch to management because you're replaceable and often it is easier to fire you than to fix the things that are systemically wrong in the situation.

Don't bitch to management when you suck at your job. 

[Keirik]

2 hours ago, Br4d said:

 

Laf looked really good tonight.  One of the fastest guys on the ice and throwing hits all over the place.

He really did. It's refreshing, but some of us were also believers for quite a while. Kid is doing some awesome things out there.