Kitchener Rangers 2018-19 Season Thread (Part 3)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kenny Chu

Registered User
Aug 19, 2018
151
39
I disagree regarding the COO, Steve B. I've worked for him and the Rangers, he's phenomenal to work for, strong business savvy. The contributions he has made to this team will have him honoured when he eventually departs, no doubt.

I see your point, but think you missed the mark slightly. I believe its the Board of Directors that needs to be gutted. Its an old boys and girls club. The politics amongst the group is frightening. Its difficult for new blood to get in when some of these people leverage their friendships with other directors to get re-elected, but bring no value. Just collecting their 2 season tickets, showing up for the minimum number of meetings required, and once a month selling some 50/50 tickets....
Saw the Brown article. Agree with his analysis regarding poor scouting, current assessment of talent on the team but he says management should stay. I disagree. His only rational is they work hard and came so close to the finals last year. Mckee has overseen an inconsistent group this year. Sometimes they show up and sometime they don't. Hey that's on the coach. You are responsible for getting the most out of your players that divides great coaches from average ones. I did say if guys are not performing, call up another players and let those guys sit. See it they perform., Its not a right or entitlement to play in the OHL its a privilege. I see a number of the so called leaders on this team with negative plus/minus stats. For me that is unacceptable. Your not a leader if you don't have a commitment to take care of the back end. MM screwed up trading McHugh. A player with a positive plus/minus and decent stats is a really good overall player yet we kept the ones who are defensive liabilities even if they want to play defense and are the veterans, is that a good example for your young players? At some point something got to give and he's got to trade for picks, because having waited he's devalued our tradable picks because our 99's are entering their overage year, they are limited as to the number of games they can play yet trading earlier offsets that consideration. Now we have to wait for the summer. Great mangers foresee sooner the lay of the landscape and act accordingly. MM should have been pulling off trades in the Fall with the roster he had.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EvenSteven

bobber

Registered User
Jan 21, 2013
8,213
5,534
Kitchener Ontario
I disagree regarding the COO, Steve B. I've worked for him and the Rangers, he's phenomenal to work for, strong business savvy. The contributions he has made to this team will have him honoured when he eventually departs, no doubt.

I see your point, but think you missed the mark slightly. I believe its the Board of Directors that needs to be gutted. Its an old boys and girls club. The politics amongst the group is frightening. Its difficult for new blood to get in when some of these people leverage their friendships with other directors to get re-elected, but bring no value. Just collecting their 2 season tickets, showing up for the minimum number of meetings required, and once a month selling some 50/50 tickets....
Oryx I agree with this statement about the directors. It's like a soap opera and there are many behind the back remarks thrown around. It's almost laughable. Most are in it for freebies. They do ask fans they know to vote for them as we have been asked before.
We bought tickets just to watch hockey not get involved in politics.
I worked with a few of them in the past. I know one that had two seats for themselves and two others to give away. We use to have a couple of giveaway seats behind us that were owned by a director that never sat there. Most have no say in hockey operations as far as I know.
Love that Brown mentioned in his article that the scouting needs an over haul.
 

Tim Wallach

Registered User
Oct 9, 2007
3,714
4,226
Kitchener, Ontario
I actually agreed with Brown's article quite strongly. I know the easy answer from the disgruntled crowd is always "fire everyone," but I am taking a more measured look at things. Is it reasonable to expect coaches and GMs to never make mistakes? I think most teams see a range of quality in the moves their team makes and in the way they're coached. It's a thankless job.

I definitely have issues with some of the things McKee does in terms of the same repetitive deployment and under-utilization of the young players. But by and large, the team works hard consistently and has a fantastic PP, which points directly at the coaching. They've fixed many of the PK issues of last year and his comments are usually rational and intelligent. I'd like a little more jam from him at times, but I'm okay with how he and the staff are working. Same for the GM level. He has made mistakes like the Lipanov deal, but with a thin forward group and being early in the season, I can see why he wanted to add help. For the most part he has made strong, level-headed decisions. His biggest failing in my mind has been the utter lack of attention to size and grit. No one needs or wants a goon show in this era, but I hope he's learning that a small team full of passive personalities will get pushed around. I give the GM time to prove he learned that lesson. (And losing Hall didn't help).

For me, there are two major issues: Scouting and goaltending. And how those issues are resolved will determine the success of this franchise. Brown identified both of those as key areas. The scouting has been very poor in my opinion. Some unforgivably bad picks, focused on a few underwhelming Midget programs when far higher end talent was available. And a perceived lack of aggression on working the networks to find American and import gems. Those one or two finds can shift a franchise's fortunes in a hurry. But you can't keep blowing high picks on middling, talent-lacking mid-lineup guys when pure talent beckons.

And the goaltending (with all due respect to our current tandem) has been a big failure of the organization. It's the backbone of any winning team and my biggest concern is that we just haven't developed anyone in that regard. Culina had a good late season run as an OA, but when have we really seen a goalie come in and improve a lot year over year? That is a major gap in the success plan that needs to be addressed.

Most of my disgruntlement comes from wanting to be entertained and be ultra competitive. If you're going to rebuild, fine, but do so with talented kids, not plugs. But the realist in me knows things could be far worse and it's not time to throw out the baby with the bath water. But the bath water badly needs to go.
 

Rangers True Blue

Registered User
Aug 2, 2017
1,675
1,402
I actually agreed with Brown's article quite strongly. I know the easy answer from the disgruntled crowd is always "fire everyone," but I am taking a more measured look at things. Is it reasonable to expect coaches and GMs to never make mistakes? I think most teams see a range of quality in the moves their team makes and in the way they're coached. It's a thankless job.

I definitely have issues with some of the things McKee does in terms of the same repetitive deployment and under-utilization of the young players. But by and large, the team works hard consistently and has a fantastic PP, which points directly at the coaching. They've fixed many of the PK issues of last year and his comments are usually rational and intelligent. I'd like a little more jam from him at times, but I'm okay with how he and the staff are working. Same for the GM level. He has made mistakes like the Lipanov deal, but with a thin forward group and being early in the season, I can see why he wanted to add help. For the most part he has made strong, level-headed decisions. His biggest failing in my mind has been the utter lack of attention to size and grit. No one needs or wants a goon show in this era, but I hope he's learning that a small team full of passive personalities will get pushed around. I give the GM time to prove he learned that lesson. (And losing Hall didn't help).

For me, there are two major issues: Scouting and goaltending. And how those issues are resolved will determine the success of this franchise. Brown identified both of those as key areas. The scouting has been very poor in my opinion. Some unforgivably bad picks, focused on a few underwhelming Midget programs when far higher end talent was available. And a perceived lack of aggression on working the networks to find American and import gems. Those one or two finds can shift a franchise's fortunes in a hurry. But you can't keep blowing high picks on middling, talent-lacking mid-lineup guys when pure talent beckons.

And the goaltending (with all due respect to our current tandem) has been a big failure of the organization. It's the backbone of any winning team and my biggest concern is that we just haven't developed anyone in that regard. Culina had a good late season run as an OA, but when have we really seen a goalie come in and improve a lot year over year? That is a major gap in the success plan that needs to be addressed.

Most of my disgruntlement comes from wanting to be entertained and be ultra competitive. If you're going to rebuild, fine, but do so with talented kids, not plugs. But the realist in me knows things could be far worse and it's not time to throw out the baby with the bath water. But the bath water badly needs to go.

Couldn't agree more. That bath water is overdue for a change.

And yes, it's so easy to play the blame game. McKee and crew despite the issues you mentioned, last season they did coach the Rangers past teams that many were saying....ok...they beat Guelph but they'll never beat Sarnia....then, ok they beat Sarnia but there's no way they will beat the mighty Soo. If it wasn't for Mascherin hitting the crossbar in the 2nd OT of Game 7, Rangers would have been in the finals against Hamilton. Fact not fiction.

And MM is just getting started. OK, Lippy hasn't turned out like MM hoped he would (the Russian was on early national teams and was doing well in Barrie until he was dumped up north where he was not happy). But hey, not every move can prove to be a good one. But when you look how he convinced Vuks AND Segrango to leave U.S. college commitments to play for the Rangers....signed Valade and Langdon (they need to play and are starting to get the chance)....and brought in Macpherson and Cameron....and now Ripoli........MM has been putting his stamp on the team. This next draft will tell the tale. A McTavish would definitely be a step in the right direction. Bigger, stronger, and highly skilled. And I have a feeling that the scouting team is going to be pushed....which way will depend on them.

GOALIE...........no question that this MUST be addressed and maybe it's time for a Euro....depends what's there. Let's face it. Culina was a find that worked out but it could have also gone the other way. Can't count on this every year. Without a stellar goalie in net, the team's already behind the 8 ball.
 

bobber

Registered User
Jan 21, 2013
8,213
5,534
Kitchener Ontario
Couldn't agree more. That bath water is overdue for a change.

And yes, it's so easy to play the blame game. McKee and crew despite the issues you mentioned, last season they did coach the Rangers past teams that many were saying....ok...they beat Guelph but they'll never beat Sarnia....then, ok they beat Sarnia but there's no way they will beat the mighty Soo. If it wasn't for Mascherin hitting the crossbar in the 2nd OT of Game 7, Rangers would have been in the finals against Hamilton. Fact not fiction.

And MM is just getting started. OK, Lippy hasn't turned out like MM hoped he would (the Russian was on early national teams and was doing well in Barrie until he was dumped up north where he was not happy). But hey, not every move can prove to be a good one. But when you look how he convinced Vuks AND Segrango to leave U.S. college commitments to play for the Rangers....signed Valade and Langdon (they need to play and are starting to get the chance)....and brought in Macpherson and Cameron....and now Ripoli........MM has been putting his stamp on the team. This next draft will tell the tale. A McTavish would definitely be a step in the right direction. Bigger, stronger, and highly skilled. And I have a feeling that the scouting team is going to be pushed....which way will depend on them.

GOALIE...........no question that this MUST be addressed and maybe it's time for a Euro....depends what's there. Let's face it. Culina was a find that worked out but it could have also gone the other way. Can't count on this every year. Without a stellar goalie in net, the team's already behind the 8 ball.
I think it's better to have a big skilled team as opposed to a small skilled team. Especially in the play offs when they come out hitting. Maybe it's just my oldtimer brain that keeps thinking of the good old days;)
 

hedgeway

Registered User
Jan 1, 2010
227
99
Waterloo, ON
I think it's better to have a big skilled team as opposed to a small skilled team. Especially in the play offs when they come out hitting. Maybe it's just my oldtimer brain that keeps thinking of the good old days;)

I think most people would prefer that kind of team, but then the risk is going too far the other way and ignoring skill/speed for size.

As with most things in life, there's a balance to be found.
 

bobber

Registered User
Jan 21, 2013
8,213
5,534
Kitchener Ontario
I think most people would prefer that kind of team, but then the risk is going too far the other way and ignoring skill/speed for size.

As with most things in life, there's a balance to be found.

From the Brown blog:
"UPSIZE:
The word coming from London's side of the rink after the Knights beat Kitchener 5-2 on Sunday was that the Rangers offered little pushback. The idea that size doesn't matter anymore is flawed. Hamilton had nine forwards that were taller than six feet last season and won the OHL title. That doesn't mean you only draft trees but you need balance on your roster".


Hedge I like a mix of size but lean more to the average size which I think is around 6'1" in the OHL. I think the NHL has dropped one inch recently but it's still 6'1" 200 pounds on average. My emphasis was on the word "skill" when I mentioned big team. I think the Rangers size and grit was a factor in how far they got into the play offs last year. I guess if a small player has tremendous skill and speed a team would have to acquire him if they are in position to do so. I would like to see more size and grit when opposing teams come into the Aud. Just an opinion.
 

EvenSteven

Registered User
Sep 3, 2009
7,321
6,076
From the Brown blog:
"UPSIZE:
The word coming from London's side of the rink after the Knights beat Kitchener 5-2 on Sunday was that the Rangers offered little pushback. The idea that size doesn't matter anymore is flawed. Hamilton had nine forwards that were taller than six feet last season and won the OHL title. That doesn't mean you only draft trees but you need balance on your roster".

London veteran players gave our 16 year old rookie Langdon a rough ride. Mugged him up pretty good a couple times. Then skated away laughing it up. Zero pushback from Ranger vets.

Can you imagine what would have happened if we'd have done the same with their 16 year old Stranges? Exactly!!

Guelph vets roughed up our Sebrango earlier in the season in a game over in Guelph. Again, no pushback.

When the opposition can, especially in our building, come in and mug our players with zero pushback, it gives the rest of their team an extra spring in their step. London didn't blow us out on the scoreboard on Sunday, but they certainly did in that aspect of the game.
 
Mar 12, 2009
7,358
7,428
Kitchener Rangers have work to do to get back to an OHL final

It's a good assessment of the current talent on the team. It doesn't paint a rosey picture to say the least. I have to say I agree 100% with his assessment regarding scouting. Why has it taken so long for this to come to light?

I still think it's an old boys club. No mention of why Hiebert is hanging around or what he is responsible for. I would say the scouting problems are his fault.
Can't really blame MH alone for the scouting issues when most of the scouting staff have been on staff since before he took over. He takes some blame for keeping things the same. MM is only now slowly starting to review scouting (by adding a couple new scouts and I believe dropping one this season). Spott and Deboer would have put a couple of the current scouts in place. I think it's a matter of some of them being good scouts during Deboer's era, but the game has changed a lot since then and perhaps they are not so good at scouting in modern times.

People are focused on scouting now, but I think we do ok in the early few rounds, it's the lack of getting quality players (outside of McHugh) past round 5 or so has been troubling. Scouting needs tweaking, but not necessarily a complete overhaul. We need to identify who has performed well, who hasn't, and make changed accordingly. That, coupled with the organizations seeming inability to develop players individually makes up for the problems we are facing.
We've drafted some goalies with promise but lately it seems we have trouble getting any of them to report and player development for goalies seems even worse than for skaters. We have a new goalie scout this year so fingers crossed on that front. I'm not sure what Tisi has done to earn the job security he seems to have. People were skeptical of the hire at the time and I don't think he's done anything to prove doubters wrong.

I guess it's just me, but I think the assessments of us getting pushed around and thinking size will fix it, while not invalid, is exaggerated a bit. We've had bigger teams under Spott and getting pushed around/not being aggressive or physical enough has been a complaint dating back to then. London isn't as big as they're being made out on this board from what I've seen. They have a few hard nosed players who are around 6-6'1, but they are more aggressive and physical than some of our players of similar size. IMO it's more a matter of having decent sized guys with and aggressive/physical mindset more than simply adding size to the team.
Under Spott, and perhaps now still, I believe the mandate to the players was to play a "sportsmanlike" game and not to get too involved after the whistle. It's after the whistle more so than during the play that teams take liberties/try to intimidate in my viewings. Simply trying not to engage with them isn't exactly working to our favor the way management probably intends and little changes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Wallach

Jives

Registered User
Jan 6, 2018
773
1,016
I'll have to take everyone's word for it.

Can't open the article as I'm not a Record on line subscriber. I'll see if they unlock it later in the week.

Since I'm on a fixed income, I can't justify subscribing to the Record for the sake of seeing the odd Ranger related article. The rest of the on line paper is lame IMO.

If you are on tweeter and follow Josh Brown you will get the articles. I know I don’t pay for anything but can read all his articles.
 

rangersblues

Registered User
Mar 21, 2010
2,604
2,541
Big skilled team vs small skilled team? How about just a skilled team - period. Most of these smaller guys we're drafting are not turning into high skilled players at the OHL level.

I find it really disturbing, although not surprising what Oryx had to say about the directors too. I still believe that lawyer who was stirring up the crap a few years back was on to something, even if I didn't agree with a lot of what he was saying. There's a lot of rotten apples in that barrel. And anyone who tries rocking the boat will be in for a similar fate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Wallach

MediaCritic

Registered User
Jan 4, 2018
98
79
I actually agreed with Brown's article quite strongly. I know the easy answer from the disgruntled crowd is always "fire everyone," but I am taking a more measured look at things. Is it reasonable to expect coaches and GMs to never make mistakes? I think most teams see a range of quality in the moves their team makes and in the way they're coached. It's a thankless job.

I definitely have issues with some of the things McKee does in terms of the same repetitive deployment and under-utilization of the young players. But by and large, the team works hard consistently and has a fantastic PP, which points directly at the coaching. They've fixed many of the PK issues of last year and his comments are usually rational and intelligent. I'd like a little more jam from him at times, but I'm okay with how he and the staff are working. Same for the GM level. He has made mistakes like the Lipanov deal, but with a thin forward group and being early in the season, I can see why he wanted to add help. For the most part he has made strong, level-headed decisions. His biggest failing in my mind has been the utter lack of attention to size and grit. No one needs or wants a goon show in this era, but I hope he's learning that a small team full of passive personalities will get pushed around. I give the GM time to prove he learned that lesson. (And losing Hall didn't help).

For me, there are two major issues: Scouting and goaltending. And how those issues are resolved will determine the success of this franchise. Brown identified both of those as key areas. The scouting has been very poor in my opinion. Some unforgivably bad picks, focused on a few underwhelming Midget programs when far higher end talent was available. And a perceived lack of aggression on working the networks to find American and import gems. Those one or two finds can shift a franchise's fortunes in a hurry. But you can't keep blowing high picks on middling, talent-lacking mid-lineup guys when pure talent beckons.

And the goaltending (with all due respect to our current tandem) has been a big failure of the organization. It's the backbone of any winning team and my biggest concern is that we just haven't developed anyone in that regard. Culina had a good late season run as an OA, but when have we really seen a goalie come in and improve a lot year over year? That is a major gap in the success plan that needs to be addressed.

Most of my disgruntlement comes from wanting to be entertained and be ultra competitive. If you're going to rebuild, fine, but do so with talented kids, not plugs. But the realist in me knows things could be far worse and it's not time to throw out the baby with the bath water. But the bath water badly needs to go.
I'd like to nominate this as the most intelligent level-headed posts I've ever read on here (sorry everyone else). It's true that things aren't perfect but the easiest thing to do is look for a fire sale or fire everybody approach. The fact is that there are some pretty good people doing some pretty good work right now in Ranger land. I think the issue of size and grit is a really important one and I think MM has recognized that and addressed it when he could like last year trading for Smith. You can't just create a team like that overnight and deals like that aren't around every day but if we watch objectively we see that MM understands that element is necessary to truly contend. The only thing I'd add to this is the silly idea that somehow Steve B's job relies on putting bums in seats. It doesn't and as much as he's a smart business man his first priority with this team is winning hockey games. Sure he loves to see the building full but that's not why he's employed. He also knows the best way to keep the building full is by winning. You can take that to the bank.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Wallach

rangersblues

Registered User
Mar 21, 2010
2,604
2,541
If Steve B's first priority is winning hockey games, his last decade on the job has been a failure for the most part. He has the 2nd biggest budget in the league and we are one of 8 teams that hasn't been to a league final the past 10 seasons. That puts us in the bottom half of the league in terms of on ice success. When you look at who the other 7 teams are (Ottawa, Peterborough, Sudbury, Kingston, Sarnia, Flint, Saginaw), I wouldn't call any of them model OHL franchises by today's standards. You are defined by the company you keep.
 

EvenSteven

Registered User
Sep 3, 2009
7,321
6,076
I think Steve B's job is to oversee the overall operation of the organization. It's up to him to put the right people in place to get the job done.

As a business man, he did that on the business side years ago by putting those bums in the seats. Capping the amount of season tickets was ingenious. It created the need for fans to buy seasons tickets and for those who couldn't get season tickets to buy them long in advance of games to make sure they got into the building.

He did that on the hockey side years ago by poaching Pete DeBoer from Plymouth and handing him the keys to the on ice operation. Another ingenious move. He went out and got the best available guy to run the show.

But since DeBoer left, the hockey side has stagnated. They have never hired the best available since DeBoer. I supported the Spott hiring as there was no reason not to based on him being DeBoer's assistant for years. But it fast became evident that PD he was not.

In order for Steve B to earn his keep, he has to put the best person available in place to run on ice hockey operations. Is MM that guy? The jury is out right now. It's questionable as to whether he even has complete autonomy. It doesn't seem so if MH is still behind the scenes.

What we do know about him is that he came to this team with zero experience in any aspect of coaching or running a team. The year before he was hired, he was still playing hockey. The only qualification he has was that he was Bob MacKenzie's son. The fact that MH is still around leads me to believe that MM is still undergoing on the job training for the position he holds. That may or may not be the case.

I don't see Steve B going anywhere anytime soon. He's basically here as long as he wants to be. There are too many on the board of directors who think the sun shines out of his rear end. He can do no wrong. As long as he can appear at the yearly season ticket holder's meeting and show that the team is in the black, all is good as far as the BOD is concerned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rangersblues

Ward Cornell

Registered User
Dec 22, 2007
6,378
2,550
I think Steve B's job is to oversee the overall operation of the organization. It's up to him to put the right people in place to get the job done.

As a business man, he did that on the business side years ago by putting those bums in the seats. Capping the amount of season tickets was ingenious. It created the need for fans to buy seasons tickets and for those who couldn't get season tickets to buy them long in advance of games to make sure they got into the building.

He did that on the hockey side years ago by poaching Pete DeBoer from Plymouth and handing him the keys to the on ice operation. Another ingenious move. He went out and got the best available guy to run the show.

But since DeBoer left, the hockey side has stagnated. They have never hired the best available since DeBoer. I supported the Spott hiring as there was no reason not to based on him being DeBoer's assistant for years. But it fast became evident that PD he was not.

In order for Steve B to earn his keep, he has to put the best person available in place to run on ice hockey operations. Is MM that guy? The jury is out right now. It's questionable as to whether he even has complete autonomy. It doesn't seem so if MH is still behind the scenes.

What we do know about him is that he came to this team with zero experience in any aspect of coaching or running a team. The year before he was hired, he was still playing hockey. The only qualification he has was that he was Bob MacKenzie's son. The fact that MH is still around leads me to believe that MM is still undergoing on the job training for the position he holds. That may or may not be the case.

I don't see Steve B going anywhere anytime soon. He's basically here as long as he wants to be. There are too many on the board of directors who think the sun shines out of his rear end. He can do no wrong. As long as he can appear at the yearly season ticket holder's meeting and show that the team is in the black, all is good as far as the BOD is concerned.
The issue I have with SB is his statement and that the the OHL is a training ground for the NHL. Hence the hiring of first time coaches and GMs. As a fan I don't care if our coaches, GM or scouts move on. I just want a winner!
 

EvenSteven

Registered User
Sep 3, 2009
7,321
6,076
The issue I have with SB is his statement and that the the OHL is a training ground for the NHL. Hence the hiring of first time coaches and GMs. As a fan I don't care if our coaches, GM or scouts move on. I just want a winner!

An issue I have with Steve B is his response after we were prematurely eliminated in our 50th anniversary season. Spott and the organization went on and on that we were building for a Memorial Cup run. Spott shot blanks at the trade deadline and we never really amounted to anything.

Steve B was asked post game what he thought of the fan base that was let down because of the promise of a Memorial Cup run. Steve said that they were in the business of "entertaining the fans". He said he felt they did that.

That told me that as far as he's concerned, winning comes second.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rangersblues

EvenSteven

Registered User
Sep 3, 2009
7,321
6,076
An issue I have with Steve B is his response after we were prematurely eliminated in our 50th anniversary season. Spott and the organization went on and on that we were building for a Memorial Cup run. Spott shot blanks at the trade deadline and we never really amounted to anything.

Steve B was asked post game what he thought of the fan base that was let down because of the promise of a Memorial Cup run. Steve said that they were in the business of "entertaining the fans". He said he felt they did that.

That told me that as far as he's concerned, winning comes second.

I watched an interview once where the interviewer asked Steve B questions about issues that concerned the fanbase. May or may not have been the same time as above but his answer was a smirk and said something to the effect that there was a reason that they were only fans and there was a reason they were sitting where they were.

I found it incredibly arrogant and disrespectful.
 

OhSheila

Registered User
Aug 28, 2015
601
490
Kitchener
Lots of valid comments here. I think Josh pretty much nailed it.

Right now, the product the Rangers are offering isn't matching the prestige this organization holds.

Comments about scouting, drafting, size and goaltending all make sense to me.

I think MM is going to get things turned around and scouting will be a big part of that. Time to poach some scouts from other teams.
 

rangersblues

Registered User
Mar 21, 2010
2,604
2,541
I admittedly know very little about scouting. My guess is they are paid very little for the amount of time and travel they need to commit. That's without even taking into account their knowledge.
 

bobber

Registered User
Jan 21, 2013
8,213
5,534
Kitchener Ontario
Can't really blame MH alone for the scouting issues when most of the scouting staff have been on staff since before he took over. He takes some blame for keeping things the same. MM is only now slowly starting to review scouting (by adding a couple new scouts and I believe dropping one this season). Spott and Deboer would have put a couple of the current scouts in place. I think it's a matter of some of them being good scouts during Deboer's era, but the game has changed a lot since then and perhaps they are not so good at scouting in modern times.

People are focused on scouting now, but I think we do ok in the early few rounds, it's the lack of getting quality players (outside of McHugh) past round 5 or so has been troubling. Scouting needs tweaking, but not necessarily a complete overhaul. We need to identify who has performed well, who hasn't, and make changed accordingly. That, coupled with the organizations seeming inability to develop players individually makes up for the problems we are facing.
We've drafted some goalies with promise but lately it seems we have trouble getting any of them to report and player development for goalies seems even worse than for skaters. We have a new goalie scout this year so fingers crossed on that front. I'm not sure what Tisi has done to earn the job security he seems to have. People were skeptical of the hire at the time and I don't think he's done anything to prove doubters wrong.

I guess it's just me, but I think the assessments of us getting pushed around and thinking size will fix it, while not invalid, is exaggerated a bit. We've had bigger teams under Spott and getting pushed around/not being aggressive or physical enough has been a complaint dating back to then. London isn't as big as they're being made out on this board from what I've seen. They have a few hard nosed players who are around 6-6'1, but they are more aggressive and physical than some of our players of similar size. IMO it's more a matter of having decent sized guys with and aggressive/physical mindset more than simply adding size to the team.
Under Spott, and perhaps now still, I believe the mandate to the players was to play a "sportsmanlike" game and not to get too involved after the whistle. It's after the whistle more so than during the play that teams take liberties/try to intimidate in my viewings. Simply trying not to engage with them isn't exactly working to our favor the way management probably intends and little changes.
FYI London isn't a huge team like the Battalion or say the Storm but the do have 17 players 6'-6'1". One bigger player 6'4". Four or five more that size than the Rangers. They seem to come in to the Aud with their game face on. The Knights seem to play well defensively as a team. They take away centre ice and seem to have that mastered as other opposing teams have found out. Personally I think Hunter is the best coach in the league. He has a knack of finding ways to win. Our record against them is brutal. Maybe the Rangers should focus on building a team that can compete with them.
With a decent team you are almost guaranteed to meet them in the play offs.
 

Tim Wallach

Registered User
Oct 9, 2007
3,714
4,226
Kitchener, Ontario
I'd like to nominate this as the most intelligent level-headed posts I've ever read on here (sorry everyone else). It's true that things aren't perfect but the easiest thing to do is look for a fire sale or fire everybody approach. The fact is that there are some pretty good people doing some pretty good work right now in Ranger land. I think the issue of size and grit is a really important one and I think MM has recognized that and addressed it when he could like last year trading for Smith. You can't just create a team like that overnight and deals like that aren't around every day but if we watch objectively we see that MM understands that element is necessary to truly contend. The only thing I'd add to this is the silly idea that somehow Steve B's job relies on putting bums in seats. It doesn't and as much as he's a smart business man his first priority with this team is winning hockey games. Sure he loves to see the building full but that's not why he's employed. He also knows the best way to keep the building full is by winning. You can take that to the bank.

Thanks Bill.

I think putting a winning formula together is much harder than the casual observer thinks and it's human nature to focus on what you don't like. If they pick up your garbage on time 100 weeks in a row we say nothing, but if they miss it.... look out!

I think rational planning and identification of weaknesses is all that's needed and we're not as far off as some may think.
 

EvenSteven

Registered User
Sep 3, 2009
7,321
6,076
Question on scouting. Did Deboer bring a head scout with him that eventually left for greener pastures?

Yup. Mike Sadler. But he stepped down as head scout and into semi retirement as our southwestern Ontario scout a few years ago.
 

Hendy

Registered User
Dec 1, 2018
149
224
From the Brown blog:
"UPSIZE:
The word coming from London's side of the rink after the Knights beat Kitchener 5-2 on Sunday was that the Rangers offered little pushback. The idea that size doesn't matter anymore is flawed. Hamilton had nine forwards that were taller than six feet last season and won the OHL title. That doesn't mean you only draft trees but you need balance on your roster".


Hedge I like a mix of size but lean more to the average size which I think is around 6'1" in the OHL. I think the NHL has dropped one inch recently but it's still 6'1" 200 pounds on average. My emphasis was on the word "skill" when I mentioned big team. I think the Rangers size and grit was a factor in how far they got into the play offs last year. I guess if a small player has tremendous skill and speed a team would have to acquire him if they are in position to do so. I would like to see more size and grit when opposing teams come into the Aud. Just an opinion.
You can teach skill and acquire it through practice. You can't teach size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OhSheila
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->