Player Discussion Alain Vigneault Part VI

[Machinehead]

Guys, you can’t separate the quality of the team from the performance of the coach. Every single thing the team does is a credit to the coach or a strike against him. That’s part of what coaching is about.

There are plenty of examples in history of highly talented and deep teams who don’t do well because of bad coaching. The Rangers under AV did for a while and that’s to his credit.

The Rangers did in 2014 and 2015 and yes, that's to his credit. That's also three years ago and coaches have a shelf life.

The Rangers have been awful since 2015-16 and Lundqvist is the only reason anybody thinks otherwise. I think your shelf life has expired after three awful seasons.

 

[Tawnos]

The Rangers did in 2014 and 2015 and yes, that's to his credit. That's also three years ago and coaches have a shelf life.

The Rangers have been awful since 2015-16 and Lundqvist is the only reason anybody thinks otherwise. I think your shelf life has expired after three awful seasons.

No disagreement on the expired shelf life.

But the success of the goalie is a credit to the coach too.

And the team continually overachieves offensively.

 

[kovazub94]

No disagreement on the expired shelf life.

But the success of the goalie is a credit to the coach too.

And the team continually overachieves offensively.

Better than under Torts = overachieved offensively? Or you have other examples?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

No disagreement on the expired shelf life.

But the success of the goalie is a credit to the coach too.

And the team continually overachieves offensively.

Correct.

Im not even in full-throated defense of AV as I might've been 2-3 years ago. I think, particularly, the shelf life argument is a valid one and its almost a no brainer at this point considering the Rangers are clearly rebuilding.

My issue, as has been the case for years now, is the complaints are myopically tailored to his faults - so much so that the good he has done is virtually completely whitewashed. This man is not a bad coach. I'd even go as far to say that if you complain about him incessantly, you'll complain in the same way about 99% of coaches out there.

 

[True Blue]

I'd even go as far to say that if you complain about him incessantly, you'll complain in the same way about 99% of coaches out there.

Excellent. But please answer my questions.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Excellent. But please answer my questions.

Spoiler alert - Im not going to answer your questions, because I don't think its constructive to take 5 years of hockey and try to address "the same mistakes being made." I can't square such a simple solution for such a chaotic game -- its especially useless when none of the positive elements of AV as coach as considered, ever.

 

[Machinehead]

No disagreement on the expired shelf life.

But the success of the goalie is a credit to the coach too.

And the team continually overachieves offensively.

This is just a bizarre notion.

 

[McRanger]

No disagreement on the expired shelf life.

But the success of the goalie is a credit to the coach too.

And the team continually overachieves offensively.

Assuming this is true, do you consider overachieving offensively a pro for AV or a con?

In other words are we praising his system for producing few shots but a lot of goals via a high shooting percentage or are we saying that anomalous production masked some of the systems deficiencies?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Assuming this is true, do you consider overachieving offensively a pro for AV or a con?

In other words are we praising his system for producing few shots but a lot of goals via a high shooting percentage or are we saying that anomalous production masked some of the systems deficiencies?

Its a good question. It also brings me back to the end of the Torts days when the complaints were just the opposite (focus on 6-man D was drying up the offense).

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

This is just a bizarre notion.

It's not if you view these players as human beings, at least once in a while.

 

[Machinehead]

It's not if you view these players as human beings, at least once in a while.

What could AV possibly be offering Henrik Lundqvist to make him a better goaltender?

Benoit Alliare, yes. But we're talking about AV.

Yeah facing the most high-danger chances over the last three years has been great for Hank! Wish I was that guy!

 

[YoSoyLalo]

6 more games

6 more miserable games

 

[True Blue]

Spoiler alert - Im not going to answer your questions, because I don't think its constructive to take 5 years of hockey and try to address "the same mistakes being made." I can't square such a simple solution for such a chaotic game -- its especially useless when none of the positive elements of AV as coach as considered, ever.

Do you or do you not see the same mistakes being made? If not identical, then similar?

True or false to players changing? True or false to the assistant coaches changing? You can answer. It's ok.

 

[nyr2k2]

What could AV possibly be offering Henrik Lundqvist to make him a better goaltender?

Benoit Alliare, yes. But we're talking about AV.

Yeah facing the most high-danger chances over the last three years has been great for Hank! Wish I was that guy!

Lundqvist's success is due to his immense natural talent. He can thank Allaire, and maybe some other influential coaches he had in his youth, for helping him become so successful. But AV? Come on. AV made his on-ice life hell. Do we also thank Torts and Renney, two other coaches who were pretty successful? Should we thank Sather? I'm sure they all said nice things to him over the years to feel good as a person. Who cares?

 

[Thirty One]

Lundqvist's success is due to his immense natural talent. He can thank Allaire, and maybe some other influential coaches he had in his youth, for helping him become so successful. But AV? Come on. AV made his on-ice life hell. Do we also thank Torts and Renney, two other coaches who were pretty successful? Should we thank Sather? I'm sure they all said nice things to him over the years to feel good as a person. Who cares?

Perry Pearn is probably reading this and feeling left out.

 

[nyr2k2]

Perry Pearn is probably reading this and feeling left out.

Good ol' Perry Pearn. PP. IIRC, the first guy to be blamed for ruining the PP, ironically.

 

[Thirty One]

Good ol' Perry Pearn. PP. IIRC, the first guy to be blamed for ruining the PP, ironically.

Weird that he became a much better PP coach when he went to Montreal.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Do you or do you not see the same mistakes being made? If not identical, then similar?

True or false to players changing? True or false to the assistant coaches changing? You can answer. It's ok.

I see a defensive system that, when working well, is designed to spring offense and transition. It has not been working well in recent years due to a multitude of reasons.

That said, I also see consistently good offensive production from squads that do not generally have elite offensive players.

People talk about AV leaning on their best player in Lundqvist like it's a bad thing. It's absurd.

Im praying the Rangers find that just right Goldy Locks coach that can balance offensive production and defensive responsibility. But most often, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ELITE POSITIONAL PLAYERS LIKE THE RANGERS, we're going to live by one sword and die by the other.

 

[Off Sides]

I just don't like any of the coaches beside the goalie guru. All of them are either annoying me currently or have in the past and I would like to break up with them.

 

[nyr2k2]

People talk about AV leaning on their best player in Lundqvist like it's a bad thing. It's absurd.

Who said it was "bad" to rely on Lundqvist? I mean we can have a discussion about being overly-reliant on your goaltending, but that's not what you said, so we'll just stick with bad. I don't believe anyone thinks it's bad to ask your best player to help carry your team. I think most people here would agree that's a pretty reasonable philosophy, whether your best player is Crosby, Ovechkin, Burns, Karlsson, or Lundqvist. Your best players have to do more, and that's fine. Again, overreliance is a different story though.

 

[Chimpradamus]

The Rangers did in 2014 and 2015 and yes, that's to his credit. That's also three years ago and coaches have a shelf life.

The Rangers have been awful since 2015-16 and Lundqvist is the only reason anybody thinks otherwise. I think your shelf life has expired after three awful seasons.

You're too easy on him. You don't consider the time delay. In 2014/2015, Tortarella's remnants of a functioning defensive system still lingered in the reactional responses of the players. When they had been effectively drilled into Vigneault's system, that's when everything went to crap.

Maybe that's not entirely true, but I will never understand the coaching philosophy of having a man to man defense with an overload pressure at the same time. Never.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Who said it was "bad" to rely on Lundqvist? I mean we can have a discussion about being overly-reliant on your goaltending, but that's not what you said, so we'll just stick with bad. I don't believe anyone thinks it's bad to ask your best player to help carry your team. I think most people here would agree that's a pretty reasonable philosophy, whether your best player is Crosby, Ovechkin, Burns, Karlsson, or Lundqvist. Your best players have to do more, and that's fine. Again, overreliance is a different story though.

I've seen an abundance of posts that say, unequivocally, that the sole reason AV achieved any level of success here his first 2 years is his goaltender saved his ass. That argument is absurd on many levels.

Overly-reliant is a nuanced argument that is much more moderate and realistic.

 

[True Blue]

I see a defensive system that, when working well, is designed to spring offense and transition. It has not been working well in recent years due to a multitude of reasons.

That said, I also see consistently good offensive production from squads that do not generally have elite offensive players.

People talk about AV leaning on their best player in Lundqvist like it's a bad thing. It's absurd.

Im praying the Rangers find that just right Goldy Locks coach that can balance offensive production and defensive responsibility. But most often, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ELITE POSITIONAL PLAYERS LIKE THE RANGERS, we're going to live by one sword and die by the other.

Ok. That explains your view. You see a system that works well.

That said, I also see consistently good offensive production from squads that do not generally have elite offensive players.

People talk about AV leaning on their best player in Lundqvist like it's a bad thing. It's absurd.

Im praying the Rangers find that just right Goldy Locks coach that can balance offensive production and defensive responsibility. But most often, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ELITE POSITIONAL PLAYERS LIKE THE RANGERS, we're going to live by one sword and die by the other.

Please explain the playoffs

People talk about AV leaning on their best player in Lundqvist like it's a bad thing. It's absurd.

Im praying the Rangers find that just right Goldy Locks coach that can balance offensive production and defensive responsibility. But most often, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ELITE POSITIONAL PLAYERS LIKE THE RANGERS, we're going to live by one sword and die by the other.

No. People talk about Henke in the context that having a system that is wholly dependent on your goalie standing on his head each and every night as being a bad thing.

Im praying the Rangers find that just right Goldy Locks coach that can balance offensive production and defensive responsibility. But most often, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ELITE POSITIONAL PLAYERS LIKE THE RANGERS, we're going to live by one sword and die by the other.

And I'm praying that the Rangers find just the right coach who will put his players in positions of success and be able to adapt to what is actually happening on the ice as opposed to what is drawn up in his head as to how things should work in theory.

 

[Chimpradamus]

I've seen an abundance of posts that say, unequivocally, that the sole reason AV achieved any level of success here his first 2 years is his goaltender saved his ass. That argument is absurd on many levels.

Overly-reliant is a nuanced argument that is much more moderate and realistic.

I agree, the defense wasn't utter trash for the first couple of years. When it played Vigneault's system to the teeth, that's when not even the generational goalie couldn't make a difference to save the circus on the ice.

It worked somewhat longer in Vancouver, because then teams weren't as mobile, fast, puck moving and modern as in today, a circumstance Vigneault seems to ignore for some professional reason, his system worked. Even so well that he didn't even push to draft and trade up to his own standards of the system. But when the game changed, Vigneault got sacked, because his team bombed. After NYR learnt how to play his outdated system, they also bombed. Go figure.

Either Vigneault will press F5 and update, or he's outdated as a coach. I've never seen a coach be so dominated to other coaches than Vigneault. Now the modern hockey is here in full effect and Vigneault's stubborn idea of coaching is a total disaster.

Modern teams give eachother high fives when they will play against Vigneault, because they will have a field day.

 

[Mac n Gs]

I just wish I could understand how a guy that is such a brilliant offensive mind is such a bad defensive coach, but maybe that’s a bad idea/wording on my part.