Gallant done

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Messiah717 said:
Yup, and then none of it will matter if they don't get the roster right. Trying to overkill on offense clearly wasn't the right move.
Click to expand...
Same page totally - and that is why I am really passionate about letting Laf, Chytil, Kakko be in the top 6, or trade them while they still have value (not saying trade all 3, but cannot have them all outside the top 6 - at least 2 need to be top 6 players).

When you have those guys on the 3rd line it F's up the flow, the makeup, the structure, everything. I wrote before the playoffs we'll go as these kids go, and they went...absolutely no where. And you could say the same about the run last season when they had a very good playoff run together as a trio.

When you have that type of 3rd line either they put up points and give you an advantage, or they don't and they kill you because your 3rd line is a soft mismatch that doesn't add anything.

That makeup has to change as step one IMO.
 
As for who will replace Gallant, the name that most insiders mention is Joel Quenneville.

Darren Dreger reported that Quenneville hasn’t been cleared by the NHL to return after his role in the Chicago Blackhawks scandal involving Kyle Beach. Dreger added that it’s a strong possibility he will return after a hearing with the NHL. The 64 year-old won three Cups with Hawks.

Other potential candidates include Peter Laviolette, Darryl Sutter, Andrew Brunette, Todd Reirden, and Mike Babcock.

Update: “Just looking for the right fit. Not going to limit ourselves right now to any specific style or type of coach. Want to be as thorough as we can be. Don’t have a set date in mind as of yet; just want to get the right person, whenever that is.” – Chris Drury


It will not be Reirden or Brunette, we all know that. It will be 1 of the big 4 Cup winning coaches, and to me the clear leader should be JQ. Not sure who I'd put next, but it shouldn't matter. JQ or bust IMO.
 
I think they sign Motte again for 2-3y and go with a 4th line of maybe Cuylle/Goody/Motte, unless of course they trade Goodrow, but i don't really see that this year.
 
Ranger71 said:
I think they sign Motte again for 2-3y and go with a 4th line of maybe Cuylle/Goody/Motte, unless of course they trade Goodrow, but i don't really see that this year.
Click to expand...
I will go on record and say Goodrow does get moved. He is the most likely person to go to give us some cap relief to re-sign RFA's, and have even a tiny bit of flexibility. And his NMC is limited, so I say Drury finds a way to move Goodrow - another mistake by Drury BTW - always too much money for what he adds.
 
The issue with Quenneville is not only that the league has to clear him first but how do you really feel about his role in covering up sexual assault?
 
Interesting article by Brooks says Quenneville is not in the mix - which I don't like. Is that because technically he still needs to be reinstated, so sure he is not a candidate at the moment, or is he just not a candidate period. A little unclear in Brooks' article.

Also some big shots at Gallant IMO, which is why I never wanted him from the start and said so (once he got the job of course I supported him and wanted him to have a fair shake).

Per Brooks - Gallant came with a reputation as an old-school players’ coach who was lacking in X’s and O’s and motivational skills. That is exactly how it played out.

The 59-year-old was an instant breath of fresh air in the room the way he dealt with the veterans who had felt smothered by Quinn’s style and personality that he had developed at Boston University. Gallant treated his players like professionals. He was protective of his athletes, rarely singling out any for public criticism. He believed in keeping everything within the room. He was appreciated for his approach.

Gallant was not a rah-rah motivational speaker, preferring to leave that assignment to the leadership group within the room. After Game 1 of the Devils series, the Rangers scored one first-period goal the rest of the way, that by Chris Kreider at 19:35 of Game 6. The Blueshirts came out flat in all three games at the Garden and in Games 5 and 7 at the Rock.

And Gallant was not a wizard when it came to X’s and O’s. He did not make in-game or game-to-game strategic adjustments quickly or effectively enough. The Rangers’ breakout system was wanting. They lacked structure in their own end. Their forecheck was, well, there is no need to belabor the point, but there effectively was none against New Jersey after appearing intermittently during the season.

We saw his shortcomings with making adjustments (outcoached by Ruff), way too many times they came out flat, he seemed to very rarely at best hold any player accountable. We need a coach that will hold players accountable, star or kid. If the players think it is too tough, so be it. The crap we see in the playoffs and lack of shooting and structure has to end. We haven't had structure since the SCF run under AV with Torts' structure. No surprise that was the best season since we still had the Torts discipline, without his over the top BS, and a players coach in AV. It was the perfect blend for that one season.

Here is the bottom line on Gallant, and why no one should feel bad or say this was the wrong move - the wrong move was actually hiring him in the first place - there is a reason why this guy has yet to make it through three full seasons in any of his four NHL head-coaching gigs. That is a huge statement when you factor in he made an SCF in Vegas, and an ECF in NY, and STILL hasn't made it through three full seasons anywhere. This was a move that had to be made - period.

https://nypost.com/2023/05/06/behind-gerard-gallants-departure-and-whats-next-for-blueshirts/
 
If JQ is out, not sure where they go. Brooks and Walker both mention Knoblauch, but I really struggle to think Drury hires a coach with zero NHL head coaching experience as his do or die hire to win a Cup, seems highly unlikely to me, especially with multiple SC winning coaches available.

Maybe Laviolette? I always liked him, but his teams have not won a playoff series since 2018. Sutter just failed big in Calgary, and is a Torts like guy with his attitude. Babcock was a disaster in Toronto. Messier? Maybe they go off the radar, really not sure if it won't be JQ. I think it is wide open.

I would prefer someone with NHL coaching experience, and I do not want to hear or see the words players coach. Has to be balanced, and not afraid to hold players accountable, especially stars.
 
Honestly, when I read up on Quenneville again and had the story refreshed I want nothing to do with him. He pulled a Joe Paterno act and pretended nothing happened because the team was making a run. Shouldn't coach in the NHL ever again quite frankly.
 
Not a crazy take - I admit I have not read up on it very deeply, if it is that bad of a coverup, or a bury your head in the sand situation, that is no good.

If JQ is not a candidate, it will be very interesting to see where Drury goes, because he has to get this hire right. All of our recent coaches have had big flaws, the two players coaches being the worst IMO - AV and Gallant no discipline and no structure (Gallant was better than AV to be fair).

That should be the place to start as mentioned, no players coaches allowed...
 
There's no doubt they need the right man to be the next head coach. They cannot be going through guys every two years and have no stability. A good amount of their failure is also on Drury. Nobody mentions it but getting a less than 100% Kane is a bad look. Especially considering some of the gymnastics it took to fit him on the roster. I didn't think it was necessary after getting Vlad. The team needed a rugged body not a player whose best years are obviously behind him.
 
Same page - you know my opinion on Drury, as I have posted it very clearly in here. I didn't think it was a good hire, and I believe he is in over his head. This summer is his last shot to get it right IMO - coach and right mix of players.

The Kane thing is so interesting to me. When a player of that stature wants to be on your team, and truth be told we didn't give up a lot, how do you say no? With that being said, if he is/was hurt, and it was known he wasn't near 100%, maybe you do pass. But even if you do, not sure it mattered.

The Tara/Mikkola trade was a good deal - they both played well here. When Drury made that deal, no clue he would be getting Kane also, and even still you probably make that trade anyway to really go for it, and add a D upgrade in Mikkola.

Here is why I don't think it matters, we had no cap space anyway. If people think we are doing all the gymnastics we did to get a Bertuzzi let's say, after we traded for Tara/Mikkola, it wasn't happening. Kane was a perfect storm of a big name guy, and full control of where he went/only wanted the Rangers or bust. That type of deal was not happening for anyone else, especially without a guaranteed 1st being in the mix.

So unless you say we shouldn't have done the Tara/Mikkola deal, and remember you would be saying that not knowing Kane was coming, I cannot kill Drury for how it played out. Cconsidering we got a clear D upgrade in the Tara deal, it would be hard to pass that deal up at the time. And when we dealt for Kane it was add Kane, or maybe a small 4th line upgrade. So not sure it really mattered. The only major 2nd guess is should we have passed on the Tara/Mikkola deal and instead focused on a gritty guy like a Bertuzzi type - which no guarantee we get BTW.

To be clear though, since it didn't work out Drury deserves to be knocked for his DL work, as it failed miserably. And fair or unfair it is his job to better the team, and he did not, and of course he also has more info than we do to make the right decisions.
 
It looks like only Mess and I read the JQ story, I don't know if he'll be reinstated so quickly if ever, especially to benefit the Rangers. I think the writing was on the wall with GG when the stories came out about the heated argument with Drury. It is amazing how little accountability there is regarding the players. Whatever GG wasn't be it motivator or disciplinarian, the guy won games and took the Rangers close enough to taste the Cup with a new gritty strategy only to see Drury revert to the old Rangers way and panic sign aging vets while sacrificing that grit. There is no way in hell these princesses will respond to a whip cracker, Drury has to make a significant roster change or two at the top.
 
Used to be the Captain's job to whip the team up into a frenzy for the game and Trouba had a few great leadership moments during the regular season but his postseason quiet optimism was frustrating. I would love to get a peek at those player exit reports where they place their responsibility for postseason choking on the player's coach's shoulders. The Fstix were close to the Cup and lost a few tough battles to the Bolts and made a coaching change, now they scrape into contention last week of the season only to be shown the door early. There needs to be a roster shakeup or the same crap will happen to the new coach,
 
Yeah, the Quenneville thing gets ugly when you read it. Knoblauch from the Pack would be my choice. The fact he won games down there in itself was a miracle considering his roster. The run he's got the team on now is impressive.
 
You write a lot of good stuff I mostly agree with Panzer, but you seem to be a little more partial towards Gallant, and there we don't fully align.

I will be very fair and acknowledge that results wise he was solid here. Two good regular seasons, and one good post-season run. That is solid.

Also I think it is a laughable joke the players would have anything negative to say about Gallant, they should focus on their embarrassing no show and look in the mirror, that is a joke.

And I agree that Drury constructed a questionable roster, and no doubt in my mind Drury should be on the clock now to get it done this summer, or he is gone next summer (over his head IMO).

With that all said, Gallant has major flaws. I saw just about no structure or discipline from his team. He held just about no one accountable. His team came out flat often. His team no showed and no emotioned 3 of their last 4 playoff games. He made almost no adjustments until game 6, which was too late (he was outcoached by Ruff). All bad stuff IMO.

I will also add that to me it is absolutely 100% telling that despite making the SCF in year one in Vegas, despite making the ECF in year one in NY, he still has yet to finish 3 full seasons in any of his 4 coaching jobs. There has got to be a reason for that. Multiple Pres/GM's said thanks for the success, but we need to change, and quickly after you had success. To me that screams there is something there. My guess is it's all the things I wrote above.

And BTW - this is another knock on Drury as Gallant never should have been hired. He is a higher level version of AV IMO. Good guy, no system, no discipline, let the players motivate and police themselves. These are grown men, and in theory that could/should work, but it usually doesn't and your coach needs to be tough and pressing the right buttons, with structure and a system. I am guessing that is what the players said in their exit interviews, or at least their words got Drury to that conclusion, this guy didn't hold players accountable or have a system, it was a country club, and that won't work. And if they complain about the next guy being too tough, then I say F them, because that is what's needed - along with roster moves no doubt as you wrote. They don't need a nut back there like crazy Torts, but they do need someone who will be tough, with structure and a system, and hold these players accountable.

Huge off-season for Drury to prove he's not in over his head.
 
The no show loses very simply sealed Gallant's fate. Yes, the players do share in the blame but you can't fire players. The one thing you can point to is Gallant's refusal or inability to change things up to match what the Devils were doing after losing the first two games. That's inexcusable and it's what gets a coach fired.
 
As for JQ, my take is this. What he did was so wrong, and he needs to be held accountable as well. The questions are does he have remorse and feel apologetic for what he did/his role, and did he take the necessary steps to show that? And if yes, should his coaching career be over forever because of his role?

Interesting discussion I think. One that it appears the Rangers will stay away from as it could/would create a bit of a sideshow, and lead to a lot of questions and scrutiny, that is probably best avoided by them.
 
Also, this team also had a similar end the previous season against Tampa. At that point and it wasn't unreasonable for people to say well the team was gassed after two seven game series. What played out against New Jersey couldn't be ignored.
 
NYR Fan said:
As for JQ, my take is this. What he did was so wrong, and he needs to be held accountable as well. The questions are does he have remorse and feel apologetic for what he did/his role, and did he take the necessary steps to show that? And if yes, should his coaching career be over forever because of his role?

Interesting discussion I think. One that it appears the Rangers will stay away from as it could/would create a bit of a sideshow, and lead to a lot of questions and scrutiny, that is probably best avoided by them.
Click to expand...

He may get another chance somewhere but this club doesn't need that kind of distraction and bad press. Not in the biggest media market. It was scumbag behavior and it's not 100% Bettman would allow it right now.
 
Very fair Mess - big picture, gassed or not, in the past two playoff series Gallant's teams have blown 2-0 leads, and in both game 3's had the lead as well, and still lost both series.

I know on the surface that's a not good thing, but not major. I say go look at the %'s of teams winning series after leading 2-0, they are high, and his teams have blown two straight such series. Not good, and that is a real bad major sign.
 
I hear you - everything I have read is if JQ has taken the right steps, Bettman will let him back in after basically two years off, but is the right spot NYC and the coverage that comes with it - I'd say no. And the Rangers search is wide open.
 
If Q is out of consideration my next choice would be Andrew Brunette
 
The most telling stat you can look to is take the last three games against Tampa last year and the four loses against NJ this year. They scored a total of five goals in those seven playoff games.
 
The Kane trade was a bit of a failure, but I wouldn't say that about Tarasenko/Mikkola who did a pretty solid job. 91 was really one of the only guys who showed up in the series. Drury knew Kane was only 77%, but he sort of had to make that move.
 
Yes Chuck, I'm partial to GG the way you're unreasonably negative about Trocheck because GG won games and had success few other Rangers coaches have had. Several players enjoyed career years while GG coached including our slow developing youth which is surprising considering several armchair QBs here ridiculously claim he has no offensive structure. I get the firing of GG, normally a GM has a replacement in mind when he fires a coach, but as long as Drury finds a suitable replacement all's good. It will be interesting to see how the new coach performs, missing the playoffs is not an option and you have to get to the Cup otherwise you're no better if not worse than GG, big shoes to fill.
 
I am not sure a good healthy back and forth hockey discussion needs to include a shot at me about my feelings on Trocheck (I am also not sure who Chuck is), but okay so be it.

And I am not negative on anyone, Trocheck is who he is. A good solid player, who struggles to consistently finish the many chances he gets. I don't think he is way better than Copp and Strome. He is better yes, but I am not sure he is worth 2 more years than each - 5 to 7 (with a limited NMC), and a higher AAV than Strome (with two additional years). But even with that being said Trocheck is a good solid player - I won't say anything different than that.

Don't be so angry with the subtle little jabs - I get a lot of people in here feel the way to be is on the offensive, but sometimes there can be good hockey talk in a positive no agenda way, even when people respectfully feel a little differently.

All good.
 
Ranger71 said:
The Kane trade was a bit of a failure, but I wouldn't say that about Tarasenko/Mikkola who did a pretty solid job. 91 was really one of the only guys who showed up in the series. Drury knew Kane was only 77%, but he sort of had to make that move.
Click to expand...
The Tara/Mikkola deal was a very good deal when looked at on the surface. Tara played well here, actually showed up in the Devs series for the most part, and Mikkola was a good upgrade for the 3rd pair. So yes good deal, but at days end a large part of judging these DL deals is how the team did, and that was a failure, so it brings Drury's overall DL grade way down. Last year his DL grade was very good. His summer grade was way down. And his coach grade was also way down, considering he fired him after two years.

Overall not a good grade for Drury, and he needs to improve it this summer.
 
The bottom line is fair or unfair the way the Rangers lost here often times gets coaches fired.

I also read something that said Gallant's 4th year was basically a team option. If they knew they weren't comfortable picking that up it was better to cut bait now instead of having him be a lame duck next year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top