Confirmed with Link: NYR have named David Oliver and Greg Brown as assistant coaches

GoAwayPanarin

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
May 27, 2008
41,060
50,563
In High Altitoad
This was my first thought; and one which I've buried until I get more reason to think it.


Well he for sure didn't book a ticket on his own dime or set his itinerary. Even if he didn't know where Norway was, you would think someone in the organization would be forward thinking enough to say "Hey, Zucc is in Norway and it isn't that far away, you should go see him."

If it was as simple of their schedules not matching up, he could have easily gone that route.
 

Harbour Dog

Registered User
Jul 16, 2015
10,234
12,813
St. John's
Well he for sure didn't book a ticket on his own dime or set his itinerary. Even if he didn't know where Norway was, you would think someone in the organization would be forward thinking enough to say "Hey, Zucc is in Norway and it isn't that far away, you should go see him."

If it was as simple of their schedules not matching up, he could have easily gone that route.

Shhh, my little heart can't take it.
 

haveandare

Registered User
Jul 2, 2009
18,879
7,389
New York
I'm pretty sure Quinn knows where Norway is, and more than that I'm 100% sure that he didn't personally set this itinerary without any input from the rest of the organization. Definitely odd he didn't go to Norway. Could be Zucc wasn't there at the time so the org didn't mention it to him, could be any number of things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cag29

SA16

Sixstring
Aug 25, 2006
13,287
12,577
Long Island
I mean, it's more than just personnel. Tactically, it could improve.

Also, while the PP1 was great, PP2 was...uh...not.

The easiest strategy to improving the PP is just to give the PP1 more minutes. It's not hard skating like 5 on 5 it's mostly relatively stationary play in the offensive zone with small movements here and there.
 

Irishguy42

Mr. Preachy
Sep 11, 2015
26,789
19,036
NJ
The easiest strategy to improving the PP is just to give the PP1 more minutes. It's not hard skating like 5 on 5 it's mostly relatively stationary play in the offensive zone with small movements here and there.
Por que no los dos?
 

Ola

Registered User
Apr 10, 2004
34,597
11,595
Sweden
The rangers system was abysmal since basically av got here. They've hemorrahaged scoring chances at a near historic level of awfulness in that time. Even the best defensive defenseman in the world is going to screw up with the plethora of switches, instantaneous read and reacts and overload protects that they have to deal with.

I don't think we have a historically be dcorps. I think we had a historically bad defensive scheme.

Do I think we'll be good defensively? No.

Do I think we'll be average defensively? I can certainly see that as a possivility...but even then I don't see us being near as awful in the high danger chances against. And with Henrik that alone should keep us from being a bottom 5 team.

Still so many of the best teams in the league play the same system more or less. And we scored a lot of goals thanks to it.

I don’t know, when you don’t have good Ds and you don’t have good forwards you gotta pick your poison. I think we made a good bet, hope that Hank would save our beacon while giving us some hope to be able to get on board.

The Islanders let in 30 goals more than us and finished behind us in the standings. Which team had a better roster?

Truth to be told, I am not so convinced as everyone at this place that we had a great roster but everyone screwed up; coaches and player leaders. I think to a large extent the coaches and leaders we had helped mask deficiencies that we had. Gorton wanted to tear things apart a long time ago, there was a reason for that. We had issues. Big issues.
 

haveandare

Registered User
Jul 2, 2009
18,879
7,389
New York
Still so many of the best teams in the league play the same system more or less. And we scored a lot of goals thanks to it.

I don’t know, when you don’t have good Ds and you don’t have good forwards you gotta pick your poison. I think we made a good bet, hope that Hank would save our beacon while giving us some hope to be able to get on board.

The Islanders let in 30 goals more than us and finished behind us in the standings. Which team had a better roster?

Truth to be told, I am not so convinced as everyone at this place that we had a great roster but everyone screwed up; coaches and player leaders. I think to a large extent the coaches and leaders we had helped mask deficiencies that we had. Gorton wanted to tear things apart a long time ago, there was a reason for that. We had issues. Big issues.
I don't see many other good teams send two guys behind the net leaving someone totally open in front. That was literally a routine happening with this team.

Also, not sure which player leaders did so great, the team came out flat looking like total strangers 50% of the time.
 

JohnC

Registered User
Jan 26, 2013
8,581
6,025
New York
I wanted AV gone until I saw these assistant coaches. I hate them so much I want AV back.

Fire assistant coaches.
 

Filthy Dangles

Registered User*
Oct 23, 2014
28,353
39,702
The easiest strategy to improving the PP is just to give the PP1 more minutes. It's not hard skating like 5 on 5 it's mostly relatively stationary play in the offensive zone with small movements here and there.

Until they lose the draw clean like they always do and have to regroup and go 200 feet and get in on the 3rd zone entry attempt
 

Inferno

Registered User
Nov 27, 2005
29,681
7,949
Atlanta, GA
Still so many of the best teams in the league play the same system more or less. And we scored a lot of goals thanks to it.

I don’t know, when you don’t have good Ds and you don’t have good forwards you gotta pick your poison. I think we made a good bet, hope that Hank would save our beacon while giving us some hope to be able to get on board.

The Islanders let in 30 goals more than us and finished behind us in the standings. Which team had a better roster?

Truth to be told, I am not so convinced as everyone at this place that we had a great roster but everyone screwed up; coaches and player leaders. I think to a large extent the coaches and leaders we had helped mask deficiencies that we had. Gorton wanted to tear things apart a long time ago, there was a reason for that. We had issues. Big issues.

I can't think of a single team that plays man overload like the rangers do. A few play man to man...but we overload leaving a scramblefest all over the zone if we don't get the puck
 

eco's bones

Registered User
Jul 21, 2005
25,986
12,221
Elmira NY
Still so many of the best teams in the league play the same system more or less. And we scored a lot of goals thanks to it.

I don’t know, when you don’t have good Ds and you don’t have good forwards you gotta pick your poison. I think we made a good bet, hope that Hank would save our beacon while giving us some hope to be able to get on board.

The Islanders let in 30 goals more than us and finished behind us in the standings. Which team had a better roster?

Truth to be told, I am not so convinced as everyone at this place that we had a great roster but everyone screwed up; coaches and player leaders. I think to a large extent the coaches and leaders we had helped mask deficiencies that we had. Gorton wanted to tear things apart a long time ago, there was a reason for that. We had issues. Big issues.

Never cared for AV's man on man defensive system. He made it work the first year or so. After that it fell--too many of his D were exposed because of their skating and too many other of his D were exposed because they couldn't defend well enough.

As for personnel--Henrik's a first rate goalie. Arguably McD could be called a No. 1 D--not in any way an elite No. 1 though. Zuccarello's been kind of a 1st liner, Nash--not really and no one else either. Basically we've had loads of 2nd and 3rd line forwards and loads of 3-4 defensemen. The best offenses have guys--sometimes multiple guys putting up 70--80 points every year with maybe a couple 60's thrown in. Our best guys have been topping out in the 50's. Our offensive D's Yandle and Shattenkirk haven't been great defensively. Our stay at home D got slower and slower. Nobody hit anymore.
 

GoAwayPanarin

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
May 27, 2008
41,060
50,563
In High Altitoad
Never cared for AV's man on man defensive system. He made it work the first year or so. After that it fell--too many of his D were exposed because of their skating and too many other of his D were exposed because they couldn't defend well enough.

As for personnel--Henrik's a first rate goalie. Arguably McD could be called a No. 1 D--not in any way an elite No. 1 though. Zuccarello's been kind of a 1st liner, Nash--not really and no one else either. Basically we've had loads of 2nd and 3rd line forwards and loads of 3-4 defensemen. The best offenses have guys--sometimes multiple guys putting up 70--80 points every year with maybe a couple 60's thrown in. Our best guys have been topping out in the 50's. Our offensive D's Yandle and Shattenkirk haven't been great defensively. Our stay at home D got slower and slower. Nobody hit anymore.

It only worked because we had a few lines that still grinded other teams down in the offensive zone. That year was very much like watching a hybrid of torts and AV once they got the kinks worked out.

The further we got away from that (both roster wise and philosophically) the worse the team got. The D getting older certainly didn’t help, but we weren’t playing the same way in year 5 under AV was we were in year 1. I saw a dramatic shift between years 1 and 2 - with a better coach we would have probably won in 2015- that team was stacked.
 

eco's bones

Registered User
Jul 21, 2005
25,986
12,221
Elmira NY
It only worked because we had a few lines that still grinded other teams down in the offensive zone. That year was very much like watching a hybrid of torts and AV once they got the kinks worked out.

The further we got away from that (both roster wise and philosophically) the worse the team got. The D getting older certainly didn’t help, but we weren’t playing the same way in year 5 under AV was we were in year 1. I saw a dramatic shift between years 1 and 2 - with a better coach we would have probably won in 2015- that team was stacked.

Agree. There's something to all that. The St. Louis deal with his mom gave the Rangers an emotional bonding point to rally around. We had guys like Brian Boyle, Dorsett and Carcillo who could add a physical component. Hagelin and Kreider both flying down the left wing--it would have been bad enough for opponents if we only had just one but right side defensemen were having fits keeping up with the both of them.

After that important players started leaving--Stralman, Hagelin, Boyle right off and their replacements weren't as good. AV's defensive system exposed more and more the skating weaknesses of some of our D--particularly among those who had the hardest defensive assignments. The aggression disappeared from our forecheck and the atmosphere around the team got too cozy.
 

Ola

Registered User
Apr 10, 2004
34,597
11,595
Sweden
I can't think of a single team that plays man overload like the rangers do. A few play man to man...but we overload leaving a scramblefest all over the zone if we don't get the puck

Yeah, nobody is saying that our D executed well.

But what I am objecting against is that it’s all on the different coaches we have had (AV included). Yes we pushed it, but what choice did we have? There is no way we even remotely can score enough if we back down and thighten things up defensively, it didn’t add up either but the bet was made on Hank. Sometimes things don’t add up.

But if you want to live in a dream world that we had historically bad coaches go ahead. I know that it fits the narrative.

And just for the record, a lot more teams play exactly like we do than you think. It’s not only Chicago, Babcocks Toronto, Tampa and co, more and more teams is going in that direction.
 

Ola

Registered User
Apr 10, 2004
34,597
11,595
Sweden
Eco- From my POV we were exposed in the Ottawa series and what was exposed was that our CORE offensive leaders just were not good enough period. Stepan, Kreider, JT Miller and co. Our core just could not deliver at all. We had a straight route to the finals going up against a Ottawa with a one legged Karlsson and a worn out Pittsburgh (or maybe not, but...).

These guys get cut a slack because their corsi is OK and others aren’t. But you don’t win a championship with a core that can’t even remotely match what guys like Hoffman and co are doing for your opponent.

And it’s not a one series thing. Just look in the series before that, Rads line was so much better than what our top guys could bring. Radulov.

10 years from now I think we will — laugh — at the notion that our roster should have won multiple cups under AV, when we look back at those rosters.

And this is not in defense of AV, and it’s not in defense of man-man defense that I also have questioned a long time. It’s pros and cons. But it’s pretty typical of Rangerland to just run away with some fictional exaggerated idea where everything should be blamed on one or two guys and or one or two players being the worst ever (not your posts, but in general).
 

Ola

Registered User
Apr 10, 2004
34,597
11,595
Sweden
Never cared for AV's man on man defensive system. He made it work the first year or so. After that it fell--too many of his D were exposed because of their skating and too many other of his D were exposed because they couldn't defend well enough.

As for personnel--Henrik's a first rate goalie. Arguably McD could be called a No. 1 D--not in any way an elite No. 1 though. Zuccarello's been kind of a 1st liner, Nash--not really and no one else either. Basically we've had loads of 2nd and 3rd line forwards and loads of 3-4 defensemen. The best offenses have guys--sometimes multiple guys putting up 70--80 points every year with maybe a couple 60's thrown in. Our best guys have been topping out in the 50's. Our offensive D's Yandle and Shattenkirk haven't been great defensively. Our stay at home D got slower and slower. Nobody hit anymore.

Couldn’t agree more.
 

eco's bones

Registered User
Jul 21, 2005
25,986
12,221
Elmira NY
Eco- From my POV we were exposed in the Ottawa series and what was exposed was that our CORE offensive leaders just were not good enough period. Stepan, Kreider, JT Miller and co. Our core just could not deliver at all. We had a straight route to the finals going up against a Ottawa with a one legged Karlsson and a worn out Pittsburgh (or maybe not, but...).

These guys get cut a slack because their corsi is OK and others aren’t. But you don’t win a championship with a core that can’t even remotely match what guys like Hoffman and co are doing for your opponent.

And it’s not a one series thing. Just look in the series before that, Rads line was so much better than what our top guys could bring. Radulov.

10 years from now I think we will — laugh — at the notion that our roster should have won multiple cups under AV, when we look back at those rosters.

And this is not in defense of AV, and it’s not in defense of man-man defense that I also have questioned a long time. It’s pros and cons. But it’s pretty typical of Rangerland to just run away with some fictional exaggerated idea where everything should be blamed on one or two guys and or one or two players being the worst ever (not your posts, but in general).

Stepan's hockey IQ is really good but his skating always held him back some and ideally you want a center better than him in those areas. That hockey IQ though made up for a lot. We played him as a 1st line center constantly against bigger, stronger, faster guys. It was too much. Kreider's always been a big tease. I will say this--his hockey IQ has improved even as his numbers haven't gotten to the high 50's--60's stage. Still he's not a guy you're going to use on a penalty kill and even with all his physical gifts he's very inconsistent in the power forward game. Miller IMO was a bit smarter than Kreider early on but he's always been prone to the brain dead play.

But really.......the MSG network kept continuing on with this narrative for years that Rick Nash was a really dangerous offensive player when he was not and there is this other narrative that I hear quite a lot around here that Zibanejad, Buchnevich and Kreider are first line forwards---and yeah they're first line forwards if you're going to have a mediocre or worse than mediocre team. Not to get me wrong--I saw some very good signs from all of them last year but it ain't just Corsi or advance stat numbers that is going to tell the tale on whether these guys are legit 1st line players or not. The actual production numbers have got to be there....and until they actually can put up those numbers and until they can actually lead the team at least into the playoffs they are not legit 1st line players in my eyes. The best players take charge--they carry teams on their backs--and that can come from an individuals elite talent or it can come from a forward line's chemistry. We haven't had the elite talent in a long while and we haven't had the chemistry for a good two-three years anyway.

To me---if we're looking at what we have now at forward--Andersson, Chytil and Kravtsov are our most important guys. They represent a new culture--a new team. They are untainted by the past--they have their entire futures ahead of them. Looking down the road Rangers fans might want to envision that in a few years time they will be the guys and the Kreider's, Zibanejad's, Hayes's and maybe even Buchnevich and Skjei might all be playing somewhere else.
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,816
10,389
Charlotte, NC
To me---if we're looking at what we have now at forward--Andersson, Chytil and Kravtsov are our most important guys. They represent a new culture--a new team. They are untainted by the past--they have their entire futures ahead of them. Looking down the road Rangers fans might want to envision that in a few years time they will be the guys and the Kreider's, Zibanejad's, Hayes's and maybe even Buchnevich and Skjei might all be playing somewhere else.

This last part is why Gorton has to be open for business on everyone. Not looking for trades, but if someone wants one of those guys, particularly the first three, see if you cam negotiate that into something that will have an impact when those kids are going to be having an impact.
 

Leetch3

Registered User
Jul 14, 2009
12,932
10,648
This last part is why Gorton has to be open for business on everyone. Not looking for trades, but if someone wants one of those guys, particularly the first three, see if you cam negotiate that into something that will have an impact when those kids are going to be having an impact.

well they have said that everyone except hank is on the table...and imo the only reason why that caveat exists is because hank won't waive his NMC so he can't be moved.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->