Player Discussion David Quinn: Part II

[NYR]

He's talking about the player on pace for 40+ points, which is on par with his most productive seasons

Shattenkirk, now that his adrenaline rush has come to pass only has 28 points and is back to his same old antics.
2 assists in his last 13 games.
He'll be completely irrelevant come playoff time.
I couldn't be more happy that he's now another teams problem..

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Shattenkirk, now that his adrenaline rush has come to pass only has 28 points and is back to his same old antics.
2 assists in his last 13 games.
He'll be completely irrelevant come playoff time.
I couldn't be more happy that he's now another teams problem..

Ok, so when a player has 13 good games, it is a small sample size bur when a player has 13 so-so games, it's enough to judge?

 

[BroadwayStorm]

I want someone here to explain to me what this guys system actually is... I'm serious.

 

[NYR]

Ok, so when a player has 13 good games, it is a small sample size bur when a player has 13 so-so games, it's enough to judge?

Oh c'mon.. You've seen what he did here.
What had he ever done in the playoffs other than be a detriment to his team?
What has he done for the NYR other than show up out of shape and got injured because of it?
He couldn't keep up with the pace, got scratched and got completely outplayed by little kids.
There's nothing you're gonna say that will ever convince me that he's an NHL defenseman .

 

[NYR]

I want someone here to explain to me what this guys system actually is... I'm serious.

It's one sided nonsense.
Throw everything at the net and f*** all the rest..

 

[aufheben]

I want someone here to explain to me what this guys system actually is... I'm serious.

A quick look at David Quinn's defensive zone structure - Blue Seat Blogs

David Quinn's forechecking system: An aggressive/passive hybrid - Blue Seat Blogs

The NY Rangers defense system is to give up the blue line, and it's by design

David Quinn and changing the Rangers' net front presence in the defensive zone - Blue Seat Blogs

Relevant: shot rates last 25

 

[Blue Blooded]

A quick look at David Quinn's defensive zone structure - Blue Seat Blogs

David Quinn's forechecking system: An aggressive/passive hybrid - Blue Seat Blogs

The NY Rangers defense system is to give up the blue line, and it's by design

David Quinn and changing the Rangers' net front presence in the defensive zone - Blue Seat Blogs

Relevant: shot rates last 25

Here is the 5-game rolling average:

 

[Tawnos]

A quick look at David Quinn's defensive zone structure - Blue Seat Blogs

David Quinn's forechecking system: An aggressive/passive hybrid - Blue Seat Blogs

The NY Rangers defense system is to give up the blue line, and it's by design

David Quinn and changing the Rangers' net front presence in the defensive zone - Blue Seat Blogs

Relevant: shot rates last 25

Weird. Especially weird that those descriptions are from the beginning of Quinn’s tenure and we’re seeing the same structure today with recent improvements in the results.

Super weird.

 

[True Blue]

Pretty funny how lately there has been the sounds of crickets on this thread. Guess Quinn will become an idiot again after the tdl?

 

[JHS]

A quick look at David Quinn's defensive zone structure - Blue Seat Blogs

David Quinn's forechecking system: An aggressive/passive hybrid - Blue Seat Blogs

The NY Rangers defense system is to give up the blue line, and it's by design

David Quinn and changing the Rangers' net front presence in the defensive zone - Blue Seat Blogs

Relevant: shot rates last 25

Can I just point out that I’ve articulated pretty clearly all these systems exactly as were described here throughout this thread and I’ve tried to show how these systems are flawed for a young team. Especially the forecheck system. As it is described in the link and can be witnessed each and every game, the hybrid nature of Quinn’s system requires the f3 to make reads and decisions on the when to attack the puck in the offensive zone and when to retreat. That’s a heavy ask of a roster that is mostly made up of inexperienced players. It requires them to make quick decisions and one mistake creates substantial numbers of odd man rushes( hmmmm haven’t we watched that for the entire two seasons or more accurately up until the past 10 games...). A more beneficial system for a young team is a 2-1-2 system where the f1 is hard on the puck, the second forward looks to support the first forward on a tie up but wants to really support the forecheck by moving to either cut off the first pass or move hard on the puck once that first pass is made. The third forward in this case then becomes a third defensemen playing a half a zone away from the puck and who’s main responsibility is to slow the puck carrier down through the neutral zone. Notice the key difference here is no one is being asked to make any “read and react” type decisions and this system always has a minimum of 3 defenders between the puck and the goal they are defending.

The giving up the defensive blue line is absolutely even more absurd and it’s why the team has given up an extreme number of shots over and over again. The style of defending has essentially been underutilized since the invention of the curved stick blade but somehow this coach wants to pretend it’s 1950’s era hockey where shooters somehow can’t create offense off the rush.

So by highlighting his systems you’ve actually just proven what a number of us who can see the systems and how they fail the team have been saying all along.

 

[True Blue]

So by highlighting his systems you’ve actually just proven what a number of us who can see the systems and how they fail the team have been saying all along.

I know that this guy has me on "ignore", but once again, all that is happening is the talking past a person.

It takes time for the kids to grow and learn, look at the slow improvement....

Quinn's systems fail the team.............

Wow. Some people will simply not be satisfied with anything or anyone. That or just cling on to a narrative just to try to prove a point that most dispute.

 

[Off Sides]

Last couple games I have not seen the both defenders and a forward overload behind their own net. Not sure if that was just due to the other team not employing a two man chase behind the net, or if it was the Rangers unlearning AV tactics, yet it seemed encouraging.

 

[Tawnos]

Last couple games I have not seen the both defenders and a forward overload behind their own net. Not sure if that was just due to the other team not employing a two man chase behind the net, or if it was the Rangers unlearning AV tactics, yet it seemed encouraging.

In this system, that kind of thing is the result of bad reads. Either of the D or the center is supposed to be covering the front of the net nearly all the time in a hybrid zone like this, so when you’d end up with 3 guys below the goal line, it’s the result of a bad switching read or an otherwise poor choice. So while the symptom is the same as in AVs system, the cause is different.

The Jets were using a 2 man forecheck.

 

[Tawnos]

Can I just point out that I’ve articulated pretty clearly all these systems exactly as were described here throughout this thread and I’ve tried to show how these systems are flawed for a young team. Especially the forecheck system. As it is described in the link and can be witnessed each and every game, the hybrid nature of Quinn’s system requires the f3 to make reads and decisions on the when to attack the puck in the offensive zone and when to retreat. That’s a heavy ask of a roster that is mostly made up of inexperienced players. It requires them to make quick decisions and one mistake creates substantial numbers of odd man rushes( hmmmm haven’t we watched that for the entire two seasons or more accurately up until the past 10 games...). A more beneficial system for a young team is a 2-1-2 system where the f1 is hard on the puck, the second forward looks to support the first forward on a tie up but wants to really support the forecheck by moving to either cut off the first pass or move hard on the puck once that first pass is made. The third forward in this case then becomes a third defensemen playing a half a zone away from the puck and who’s main responsibility is to slow the puck carrier down through the neutral zone. Notice the key difference here is no one is being asked to make any “read and react” type decisions and this system always has a minimum of 3 defenders between the puck and the goal they are defending.

The giving up the defensive blue line is absolutely even more absurd and it’s why the team has given up an extreme number of shots over and over again. The style of defending has essentially been underutilized since the invention of the curved stick blade but somehow this coach wants to pretend it’s 1950’s era hockey where shooters somehow can’t create offense off the rush.

So by highlighting his systems you’ve actually just proven what a number of us who can see the systems and how they fail the team have been saying all along.

What you and others have been saying that we disagree with is either that there is no defensive structure or that the structure doesn’t promote defensive responsibility. What those articles make clear is that it isn’t true. It might not be the way you want, but the central argument is fundamentally untrue.

I’ve acknowledged that the other part of the argument, being wrong for young players, is more of a matter of approach. I just don’t think your approach is actually any better for long term development. But you have no interest in more complex questions of group dynamics, so there’s no discussion to be had.

 

[Off Sides]

In this system, that kind of thing is the result of bad reads. Either of the D or the center is supposed to be covering the front of the net nearly all the time in a hybrid zone like this, so when you’d end up with 3 guys below the goal line, it’s the result of a bad switching read or an otherwise poor choice. So while the symptom is the same as in AVs system, the cause is different.

The Jets were using a 2 man forecheck.

I'd say in any system there should be someone covering the front of the net who is not a wing, and if it is a case of bad reads the Rangers have been bad at reading for many years.

 

[Tawnos]

I'd say in any system there should be someone covering the front of the net who is not a wing, and if it is a case of bad reads the Rangers have been bad at reading for many years.

Its not really the case in a more purely man-to-man like we ran under AV. The idea being that if you’re covering the players, you’re naturally covering the front when someone is there. In theory that works fine. And as has been pointed out, the assumption of that system was that any breakdowns would be covered up by the goaltending.

 

[Off Sides]

Its not really the case in a more purely man-to-man like we ran under AV. The idea being that if you’re covering the players, you’re naturally covering the front when someone is there. In theory that works fine. And as has been pointed out, the assumption of that system was that any breakdowns would be covered up by the goaltending.

In theory that may work fine, in practice it caused many situations where the Rangers three behind their own net lost the puck battle to two and the opposing man in front was left uncovered and in good position to both receive a pass and get a great scoring chance.

I have seen less of that recently. I attribute that to either coaching has affected it, the teams the Rangers played recently have not employed a similar approach, or the players have been better with their reads, and there are some changes in role among the D recently. Perhaps it's a combination of those things.

 

[JHS]

What you and others have been saying that we disagree with is either that there is no defensive structure or that the structure doesn’t promote defensive responsibility. What those articles make clear is that it isn’t true. It might not be the way you want, but the central argument is fundamentally untrue.

I’ve acknowledged that the other part of the argument, being wrong for young players, is more of a matter of approach. I just don’t think your approach is actually any better for long term development. But you have no interest in more complex questions of group dynamics, so there’s no discussion to be had.

So, the coach should take 0 responsibility for establishing flawed systems? I can't agree with that. A coaches number one job is to put his players in positions to be successful-- Quinn is not doing that--that's how I read those articles.

 

[Tawnos]

So, the coach should take 0 responsibility for establishing flawed systems? I can't agree with that. A coaches number one job is to put his players in positions to be successful-- Quinn is not doing that--that's how I read those articles.

Wow you almost caught me in that twist of my logic.

 

[haveandare]

Can I just point out that I’ve articulated pretty clearly all these systems exactly as were described here throughout this thread and I’ve tried to show how these systems are flawed for a young team. Especially the forecheck system. As it is described in the link and can be witnessed each and every game, the hybrid nature of Quinn’s system requires the f3 to make reads and decisions on the when to attack the puck in the offensive zone and when to retreat. That’s a heavy ask of a roster that is mostly made up of inexperienced players. It requires them to make quick decisions and one mistake creates substantial numbers of odd man rushes( hmmmm haven’t we watched that for the entire two seasons or more accurately up until the past 10 games...). A more beneficial system for a young team is a 2-1-2 system where the f1 is hard on the puck, the second forward looks to support the first forward on a tie up but wants to really support the forecheck by moving to either cut off the first pass or move hard on the puck once that first pass is made. The third forward in this case then becomes a third defensemen playing a half a zone away from the puck and who’s main responsibility is to slow the puck carrier down through the neutral zone. Notice the key difference here is no one is being asked to make any “read and react” type decisions and this system always has a minimum of 3 defenders between the puck and the goal they are defending.

The giving up the defensive blue line is absolutely even more absurd and it’s why the team has given up an extreme number of shots over and over again. The style of defending has essentially been underutilized since the invention of the curved stick blade but somehow this coach wants to pretend it’s 1950’s era hockey where shooters somehow can’t create offense off the rush.

So by highlighting his systems you’ve actually just proven what a number of us who can see the systems and how they fail the team have been saying all along.

Another thought about the forecheck system is that if you start it now when the stakes for wins and losses are relatively low, the young guys get plenty of experience making those reads, studying their mistakes, and learning how to make better reads in the future when the team is really trying to win. Avoiding learning experiences isn't a very good way to learn.

I agree on giving up the blue line. It's odd though, one of the older articles talks about leaving 2 guys back to defend the blue line and then a newer one says they give it up on purpose. Plus, in play we see guys try to break up plays at the blue line fairly often - Lindgren especially stands out as someone who steps up and throws hits and the blue line whenever possible.

 

[JHS]

Another thought about the forecheck system is that if you start it now when the stakes for wins and losses are relatively low, the young guys get plenty of experience making those reads, studying their mistakes, and learning how to make better reads in the future when the team is really trying to win. Avoiding learning experiences isn't a very good way to learn.

I agree on giving up the blue line. It's odd though, one of the older articles talks about leaving 2 guys back to defend the blue line and then a newer one says they give it up on purpose. Plus, in play we see guys try to break up plays at the blue line fairly often - Lindgren especially stands out as someone who steps up and throws hits and the blue line whenever possible.

But this is where I fear for player development. We know that players who make mistakes second guess future decisions much more and I struggle to see how that makes them develop the confidence to make better choices in the future. Failing to make correct reads should not be part of the development process. What Quinn should be doing is putting his players in spots where they can succeed, not asking to make on ice decisions they are not ready to make.

 

[aufheben]

Can I just point out that I’ve articulated pretty clearly all these systems exactly as were described here throughout this thread and I’ve tried to show how these systems are flawed for a young team. Especially the forecheck system. As it is described in the link and can be witnessed each and every game, the hybrid nature of Quinn’s system requires the f3 to make reads and decisions on the when to attack the puck in the offensive zone and when to retreat. That’s a heavy ask of a roster that is mostly made up of inexperienced players. It requires them to make quick decisions and one mistake creates substantial numbers of odd man rushes( hmmmm haven’t we watched that for the entire two seasons or more accurately up until the past 10 games...). A more beneficial system for a young team is a 2-1-2 system where the f1 is hard on the puck, the second forward looks to support the first forward on a tie up but wants to really support the forecheck by moving to either cut off the first pass or move hard on the puck once that first pass is made. The third forward in this case then becomes a third defensemen playing a half a zone away from the puck and who’s main responsibility is to slow the puck carrier down through the neutral zone. Notice the key difference here is no one is being asked to make any “read and react” type decisions and this system always has a minimum of 3 defenders between the puck and the goal they are defending.

The giving up the defensive blue line is absolutely even more absurd and it’s why the team has given up an extreme number of shots over and over again. The style of defending has essentially been underutilized since the invention of the curved stick blade but somehow this coach wants to pretend it’s 1950’s era hockey where shooters somehow can’t create offense off the rush.

So by highlighting his systems you’ve actually just proven what a number of us who can see the systems and how they fail the team have been saying all along.

I’m just answering the guy’s question. There are parts of the defensive system that drive me nuts. However, the Rangers have been getting better as the season has progressed.

Since Dec. 1st: 18th CF%, 20th xGF%, 21st HDCA/60
Since Jan. 1st: 14th CF%, 13th xGF%, 15th HDCA/60

 

[Inferno]

Funny thing is...usually the crap teams have those numbers head the other direction once the other teams are in playoff tune-up mode.

 

[haveandare]

But this is where I fear for player development. We know that players who make mistakes second guess future decisions much more and I struggle to see how that makes them develop the confidence to make better choices in the future. Failing to make correct reads should not be part of the development process. What Quinn should be doing is putting his players in spots where they can succeed, not asking to make on ice decisions they are not ready to make.

I definitely wouldn't say we know that. People learn from mistakes. These players didn't get to the NHL by being unable to learn.

How do you think "development" happens if you also think that making mistakes doesn't help players improve?

 

[True Blue]

How do you think "development" happens if you also think that making mistakes doesn't help players improve?

Don't you know? Under Trotz, there are no mistakes and no missed reads. His magical powers are so that the second players step on the ice, all mistakes are done with.