No-brainer to pick Gallant. Does he have some behavioural issues or why is he always available?
Likely due to clashes with the front office in his past jobs in Columbus, Florida, and Vegas.No-brainer to pick Gallant. Does he have some behavioural issues or why is he always available?
drury is our gmDidn't the Rangers fire their GM too? Are they interviewing a coaching candidate without a GM?
drury is our gm
Well FL, before this season, was one of the biggest jokes of the league for almost 2 decades. Maybe Gallant was onto something?Gallant and Florida's front office couldnt get along. Good luck with Dolan, Gerard.
Evason is a new coachAways wondered why they retread coaches that have been fired from other teams over and over instead of making new coaches
Gallant and Florida's front office couldnt get along. Good luck with Dolan, Gerard.
First of all, don't attribute me to any of that stuff you said outside of this topic. You don't know what my opinion is on that.I doubt it. Expansion team was 4 second lines. Panthers had a very good roster actually. Good coach is the one that takes a shitty roster on paper and make them excel like Torts, or Trotz. In other scenarios anybody random from this forum that knows a thing or two could get similar results. People in this day and age follow what is popular and don't see the full picture. Same thing is with goalies that play in front of very good D man (and I praised like gods), but once moved to a bad team those goalies suck.
Likely due to clashes with the front office in his past jobs in Columbus, Florida, and Vegas.
Definitely not something that would prevent me from hiring him, but I can see why NHL GMs would be wary of him if this is true.
So he's Joel Quenneville.Contrary to popular belief, Gallant isn't a great coach. Or should i say, the actual coaching part of it is lacking. He's a great guy though and players like him. But he's sort of a one-trick pony coach' edition.
He lets the players play. He gets them competing which works particularly well when the team already has a chip on their shoulder. He wants his team to attack which is fun.
But when it comes down to adjustments, strategies, shaking lines and all that, i don't feel like he has much to offer. You'll be hearing a lot of "just work hard and compete hard" as tonight's gameplan, or "we don't really worry about them we worry about us". As soon as he finds his lines he's going to stick to them as much as possible. Which again is good for guys to gain chemistry, but when there comes a time things don't work.. we'll, just work harder.
Basically there's a good chance a team like the Rangers would enjoy playing for him. Guys likely perform well individually. Players enjoy playing and you'll see their confidence as a group grow. But unless they win the cup, someone in the playoffs can put a dent in that and once someone has the upper hand it's pretty much over.
There's been a notable difference in Vegas since they got DeBoer, who is more tactically adept and has more depth to his message depending on the situation. Since the magical first season, they were very inconsistent under Gallant and lost a lot of games to teams they should not have as the message got a bit stale. Panthers had the same feel with them following that division title season.
DeBoer's record in the regular season with this team is 56-19-4 and they've been extremely consistent mostly without any extra motivating factors, minus the short time after last years coaching change. They feel like a more mature and reliable hockey team, in this years series against the Avs who kicked their asses a couple times, we always saw subtle adjustments and tactical changes how to do better against a team that was visibly stronger. If i think back to the SCF series vs Washington, i didn't think much was happening to try and turn the tides after it was clear "our game" wasn't going to get it done.
So yeah, that's my personal opinion at least based on what i've seen. Im not saying it's a bad hire. Probably what the Rangers want right now is to catch lightning in a bottle. And some guys can gain confidence on a personal level which only helps their careers. I'd be expecting a fun first year, maybe two, but unless he's evolved as a coach, i wouldn't expect him to work out as a long-term.
We also thought, until two weeks ago, that the Rangers had no interest in parting with Quinn.I thought the Kraken job was in the bag
You need a crystal ball to see something so obvious?
never assume
I think Claude Julien should be the Rangers coach. I doubt Gallant will work out with the Rangers because, he will have the same problems as he did with Vegas, Columbus and Florida but worse.
It'll likely work out better for him in Vancouver considering he'll get the benefit of the doubt over Benning and would likely last longer, but that is if Vancouver moves on from Green.
Julien would be the best fit for the Rangers, that's what I believe.
It’s well documented that Boudreau’s best fit is with a bucket of KFC.Gallant is a great coach. But how will he fit with Dolan?
Isn't it common knowledge that he and management/executives don't get along?
He would probably do better with a more passive ownership/management structure.
I think Bruce Boudreau is a better fit than Gallant for the Rangers.
Yep. I think those events happened concurrently, or just after one another.I guess they announced the hire pretty much at the same time as the firing then.
I knew it couldn't be right that they are looking at a coach without a GM.