Player Discussion Alain Vigneault Part IV

[TheTakedown]

Glass going for the big hit on a player that's already picked up while leaving his guy open for an outlet pass is the definition of a useless hit, a hit that does nothing to help the team.

My biggest question is why av finds this to be conducive to successfully hockey. There's no logical explanation for it other than the Love fest for glass... I'm sorry, I'm not illogical, there's no rationale​ for this...

 

[TheTakedown]

He totally oversimplifies that one play to show the overall picture, sorry, that is no better than the amateurs who do this from their moms basement, leaving out all the facets of the one play should be a total giveaway.

And whether I believe Glass is a borderline NHL'er is separate from the analysis of that one play, just pointing out how timing means more than anyone ever gives credit.

All you're doing is cherry picking on parts of that evidence--"THIS METHOD IS FAULTY", however you are not proving why that evidence is faulty, only the method...

That said, you are insinuating that you know Herman is right, and it's you pushing your agenda

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Glass can get gritpoints for hammering the outlet guy, if he covered him as he should've.

It shouldn't be blamed on seeking grit, it should be blamed on Glass making a dumb decision and generally being a poor hockey player.

He times that right, he can blow up the outlet pass recipient, causing a turnover and scoring gritpoints. That's just the wrong read. That does not mean hitting is ineffective or bad, it means making dumb reads is bad. Herman oversimplifies to push his agenda, per usual.

Looks to me like that exactly what Herman is doing?

 

[True Blue]

Why would advanced stats people be against a coach who had coached one of the best possession teams during his tenure?

I have made my statements and gave my reasoning. If I am wrong, so be it and I said that I was wrong.

 

[True Blue]

That said, you are insinuating that you know Herman is right, and it's you pushing your agenda

Not a response to what you are asking Bluenote, but to me to simplify it down that one hits to take away a puck does not tell the whole tale. The Kings do not constantly lead the league in hitting because all they care about is taking the puck away. Yes, taking away the puck is a very good thing but hitting serves many other purposes. Ones not quantifiable. Like getting a team worn down or making people gun shy and getting rid of a puck much sooner then they typically would. To state that the Kings have been leading the league in hits for quite a few years solely to take away pucks is not accurate in my opinion. But that can be discussed in a hitting thread.

Here, again, Sutter over AV. I would have also taken Julien over AV. But those coaches do not play the pond hockey type that Sather seems to love. And that is why I believe that AV is not going anywhere. I think that the style of the team as it is, is what Sather wants.

 

[Trxjw]

Why?

Oooh! I'll answer.

1. The outlet pass is not "made with ease." It's into the players feet. He did actually disrupt the play.

2. Puempel has a chance to give Lindberg support by covering the up-the-boards pass, but instead takes a bad angle and gets caught in no-mans land trying to decide what to do.

3. Kampfer exacerbates things even further by trying to staple a guy to the boards and whiffing, allowing a zone entry and space for the attacker.

I have no doubt you can find a litany of clips where Glass messes up, and yet you have this guy trying to pimp this clip as an example only to show that Glass did actually make a positive impact. Meanwhile 2 of his 4 ice-mates actually make poor decisions and nobody bats an eye.

I can see how that might hurt his narrative though.

 

[silverfish]

Oooh! I'll answer.

1. The outlet pass is not "made with ease." It's into the players feet. He did actually disrupt the play.

2. Puempel has a chance to give Lindberg support by covering the up-the-boards pass, but instead takes a bad angle and gets caught in no-mans land trying to decide what to do.

3. Kampfer exacerbates things even further by trying to staple a guy to the boards and whiffing, allowing a zone entry and space for the attacker.

I have no doubt you can find a litany of clips where Glass messes up, and yet you have this guy trying to pimp this clip as an example only to show that Glass did actually make a positive impact. Meanwhile 2 of his 4 ice-mates actually make poor decisions and nobody bats an eye.

I can see how that might hurt his narrative though.

But the entire sequence starts with Glass avoiding his mark to make a hit that doesn't win possession of the puck back to NYR. It's a tough pass in his feet, and he still has time to corral it and move it up ice because he's unmarked.

 

[Bluenote13]

Not a response to what you are asking Bluenote, but to me to simplify it down that one hits to take away a puck does not tell the whole tale. The Kings do not constantly lead the league in hitting because all they care about is taking the puck away. Yes, taking away the puck is a very good thing but hitting serves many other purposes. Ones not quantifiable. Like getting a team worn down or making people gun shy and getting rid of a puck much sooner then they typically would. To state that the Kings have been leading the league in hits for quite a few years solely to take away pucks is not accurate in my opinion. But that can be discussed in a hitting thread.

Here, again, Sutter over AV. I would have also taken Julien over AV. But those coaches do not play the pond hockey type that Sather seems to love. And that is why I believe that AV is not going anywhere. I think that the style of the team as it is, is what Sather wants.

Well said, thanks for the heavy lifting

Oooh! I'll answer.

1. The outlet pass is not "made with ease." It's into the players feet. He did actually disrupt the play.

2. Puempel has a chance to give Lindberg support by covering the up-the-boards pass, but instead takes a bad angle and gets caught in no-mans land trying to decide what to do.

3. Kampfer exacerbates things even further by trying to staple a guy to the boards and whiffing, allowing a zone entry and space for the attacker.

I have no doubt you can find a litany of clips where Glass messes up, and yet you have this guy trying to pimp this clip as an example only to show that Glass did actually make a positive impact. Meanwhile 2 of his 4 ice-mates actually make poor decisions and nobody bats an eye.

I can see how that might hurt his narrative though.

That's the thing, his bias is obvious... unless you agree with his narrative

 

[Chimpradamus]

For me, the right type of player for the defense group at the time was a pure shot suppressing dman (to replace Stralman's departure).

It would've been better if they acquired a Tanev for example and the package that they gave for Yandle would probably have been enough. (1st + 2nd + Duclair is nuts). The issue with the team wasn't scoring, it was defending from the back-end.

In hindsight, letting Yandle walk was the right move. His contract will be pretty terrible soon. Obviously, it helps that the Rangers essentially replaced his production with a rookie dman.

For the record, when THOSE ****ING INCOMPETENT IDIOTS let Strålman walk FOR NOTHING was the last straw for me when I couldn't feel that much emotional motivation to follow the team. When your generals are alcoholics, what's the chance of success? None. Remember, I was there when they ditched Jagr and decided to sign DRURY, GOMEZ and REDDEN to huge contracts. That's time I will never get back of my life, following those truly horrendeus teams, because they ($ather) thought it was a great idea buying the most expensive items on the markets (as $ather usually did).

They didn't feel Strålman was a solid part of the defensive core... and they just let him walk... and they get paid tons of money for their job. Sure. Sure. That's great. Strålman was just maybe our best defenseman in our best playoff run, but he wasn't that important? Sure... sure... great. Let's replace him with another traditional UFA big name dinosaur and let the NYR fans wait another 50 years for a cup because of their incompetence, while the franchise continues to have a reputation for being a big name Florida Panthers retirement home, with worse weather.

Then add a coach that knows how to attack in the regular season, but not much else. It sells tickets I guess.

My biggest question is why av finds this to be conducive to successfully hockey. There's no logical explanation for it other than the Love fest for glass... I'm sorry, I'm not illogical, there's no rationale​ for this...

Sure there is! "Well, like traditionally, a useless goon is great for protecting your stars and I stick by it, because I'm stubborn and believe in old senses. It's not like having four potent lines have any real meaning in winning hockey games, skating on the leather and shout profanity is what matters if you want to win games. Being useless in any part of the ice isn't important when you can potentially win a hockey fight... that the opponent can decline while your goon gets the instigator (even if they accept the fight). Because yeah, that'll show them how tuff we are! YEAH!"

But seriously? Vigneault is an incredibly overpaid hockey coach considering how flawed he is at his job. The less knowledge I get of how little of influence he has over the created circus that is the NYR at its current state, the more credit I would give him, but I have a feeling he has an big part in forming this mess. A big part of it obviously has to be given to $ather, one of the most useless GMs in NHL history for sure, but still, I'm deeply disappointed how the NYR franchise couldn't form a better playoff push than this mouse fart.

How such an historical franchise, that with such an ease can attract any player and with such economy, doesn't have more success than this, only forms as a conclusion the NYR management has always been pretty ****ing awful and really bad at their job.

 

[ManUtdTobbe]

Well said, thanks for the heavy lifting




That's the thing, his bias is obvious... unless you agree with his narrative

Your bias towards Herman is very obvious to me.

I'm not even a big fan of Herman, think he's a bit too arrogant, but damn.

 

[silverfish]

Your bias towards Herman is very obvious to me.

I'm not even a big fan of Herman, think he's a bit too arrogant, but damn.

Same. Anyone who screenshots HF posts about himself and then complains about it is, well, yeah.

But, in this instance, I think it's a good example of Glass making a bad read and showing a hit that wasn't productive

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

For the record, when THOSE ****ING INCOMPETENT IDIOTS let Strålman walk FOR NOTHING was the last straw for me when I couldn't feel that much emotional motivation to follow the team. When your generals are alcoholics, what's the chance of success? None.

They didn't feel Strålman was a solid part of the defensive core... and they just let him walk... and they get paid tons of money for their job. Sure. Sure. That's great. Strålman was just maybe our best defenseman in our best playoff run, but he wasn't that important? Sure... sure... great. Let's replace him with another traditional UFA big name dinosaur and let the NYR fans wait another 50 years for a cup because of their incompetence.

Then add a coach that knows how to attack in the regular season, but not much else. It sells tickets I guess.

It was McDonagh and that isn't even up for debate.

Letting him walk was dumb though.

 

[Raspewtin]

no..

 

[Trxjw]

But the entire sequence starts with Glass avoiding his mark to make a hit that doesn't win possession of the puck back to NYR. It's a tough pass in his feet, and he still has time to corral it and move it up ice because he's unmarked.

It's a two-man forecheck. Glass helps put pressure on the puck carrier while the F3 makes a read to see if the puck is going to come up the strong side or through the middle. He makes a bad read and isn't able to help keep the puck in. If he made the right play, then the Rangers either win the puck at the blue line or are able to break up any momentum on the rush from Ottawa.

This is pointing the finger at Glass for his teammate making a bad read.

 

[Tawnos]

It's a two-man forecheck. Glass helps put pressure on the puck carrier while the F3 makes a read to see if the puck is going to come up the strong side or through the middle. He makes a bad read and isn't able to help keep the puck in. If he made the right play, then the Rangers either win the puck at the blue line or are able to break up any momentum on the rush from Ottawa.

This is pointing the finger at Glass for his teammate making a bad read.

Right. Also, Hermans initial supposition is incorrect. "The Rangers are trying to prevent a zone exit." That is not the way the Rangers look at that scenario. "Preventing a zone exit" would be a passive disposition. What they're trying to do is create a turnover, which requires an active disposition.

I know that sounds like a distinction without a difference, but it requires a total change in mentality.

 

[Mordeth]

That whole Glass discussion is kinda pointless considering we don't know exactly what tactics were used. I agree with Tawnos here, it seems to me they were trying to create a turnover by stressing the puck carrier to either move the puck into a position where a Ranger could get it(F3 for example), or to steal it from the puck carrier.

Preventing a Zone exit is alot more passive and it would see the Ranger players further back.

So pulling 1 example out of the hat, out of "context" in a way, considering we don't exactly know what the plan was, is kinda silly by Herman.

I would put it under the hat of an AV tactic. Wether its a good one could be discussed tho.

 

[Tawnos]

That whole Glass discussion is kinda pointless considering we don't know exactly what tactics were used. I agree with Tawnos here, it seems to me they were trying to create a turnover by stressing the puck carrier to either move the puck into a position where a Ranger could get it(F3 for example), or to steal it from the puck carrier.

Preventing a Zone exit is alot more passive and it would see the Ranger players further back.

So pulling 1 example out of the hat, out of "context" in a way, considering we don't exactly know what the plan was, is kinda silly by Herman.

I would put it under the hat of an AV tactic. Wether its a good one could be discussed tho.

It's completely an AV tactic. Largely the same idea created the game 4 MSL OT goal against Montreal in 2014. When guys are making the right reads and the players are skating hard at the puck, it's very effective.

 

[Mordeth]

I am not the one confusing efficiency for effort. Mordeth is. He is the one who claims that effort is his preferred method of evaluating the team. That's his right, I guess. However, the goal isn't to be the team with the most effort. The goal is to win the Stanley Cup. On that basis, Vigneault should be evaluated by the team's efficiency. Not by its effort.

I am again going to ask for how we are evaluating "effort." You speak of it as if it is an objective, universal measure. It is not. I am very confident that if you asked 30 different people what "effort" is you would get 30 different answers.

First of all, don't put words in my mouth. I am not confusing those two at all. They are widely different things. And a super efficient team would be awesome, but without underlaying effort(in some form) i doubt that comes to play. Effort is not measurable in terms of stats, i never ever stated it was. If you can't see effort while watching the game however, maybe you aren't looking hard enough? And i said it was MY own preference to evaluating the team. Some people have the stats, some have other things, but to me effort speaks volumes.

The team with the most effort usually gets pretty far in sports. So does the most efficient team. The perfect would of course be a combo of those. But i doubt efficiency leads to effort, it's more the other way around. But hey, those are my own opinion. And we can argue this forever if you want, but it's kinda pointless. So lets just agree to agree that we both want NYR to win and get as far as possible.

 

[TheRightWay]

First of all, don't put words in my mouth. I am not confusing those two at all. They are widely different things. And a super efficient team would be awesome, but without underlaying effort(in some form) i doubt that comes to play. Effort is not measurable in terms of stats, i never ever stated it was. If you can't see effort while watching the game however, maybe you aren't looking hard enough? And i said it was MY own preference to evaluating the team. Some people have the stats, some have other things, but to me effort speaks volumes.

The team with the most effort usually gets pretty far in sports. So does the most efficient team. The perfect would of course be a combo of those. But i doubt efficiency leads to effort, it's more the other way around. But hey, those are my own opinion. And we can argue this forever if you want, but it's kinda pointless. So lets just agree to agree that we both want NYR to win and get as far as possible.

Interesting claims. Do you have any evidence that backs them up?

 

[Cassano]

For the record, when THOSE ****ING INCOMPETENT IDIOTS let Strålman walk FOR NOTHING was the last straw for me when I couldn't feel that much emotional motivation to follow the team. When your generals are alcoholics, what's the chance of success? None. Remember, I was there when they ditched Jagr and decided to sign DRURY, GOMEZ and REDDEN to huge contracts. That's time I will never get back of my life, following those truly horrendeus teams, because they ($ather) thought it was a great idea buying the most expensive items on the markets (as $ather usually did).

They didn't feel Strålman was a solid part of the defensive core... and they just let him walk... and they get paid tons of money for their job. Sure. Sure. That's great. Strålman was just maybe our best defenseman in our best playoff run, but he wasn't that important? Sure... sure... great. Let's replace him with another traditional UFA big name dinosaur and let the NYR fans wait another 50 years for a cup because of their incompetence, while the franchise continues to have a reputation for being a big name Florida Panthers retirement home, with worse weather.

Then add a coach that knows how to attack in the regular season, but not much else. It sells tickets I guess.

Yes, so you agree with me that management is as much to blame as the coaching staff.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

The Kings hit to get the puck back, they don't hit to hit.

I would love to see the Hits/60WOP numbers. That would show the difference between hitting to regain possession and hitting when there is a better decision (stick check etc)

 

[Savant]

Get Sutter

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Get Sutter

I have defended AV a lot, but Sutter is one of 5 coaches I prefer over AV. The others being Laviolette, Julien, Quenneville and Babcock

 

[cwede]

Get Sutter

AV got his extension, and another hundred point season.
So this won't happen.

but it's not a bad idea
crappy season, but Quick was hurt, and they just didn't score ...

 

[True Blue]

AV got his extension, and another hundred point season.
So this won't happen.

but it's not a bad idea
crappy season, but Quick was hurt, and they just didn't score ...

AV is not going anywhere. The Rangers never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.