Rangers courting Quenville
View Single Post
06-12-2004, 09:58 PM
Join Date: May 2004
Originally Posted by
1. Actually over the years they've had steady but underrated defenseman Ellet, Gill, and others including Bergevin and Hill. Not to mention the emergence of Jackman and Salvador. Certainly just as good of a defense as many teams can get in today's NHL. Heck Especially when rounding out two guys like MacInnis and Pronger.
As for goaltending that kind of contradicts your comments about their defense when season after season whether it was Fuhr, Johnson, Turek or Osgood they ALWAYS put up solid numbers behind the defense and the team.
And the bottom line is that a coach who wins the playoffs often goes in with a guy who before hand was not considered a playoff goalie. Keenan did it with Richter, Detroit with Osgood, Tampa with Khabibulin, etc. etc. etc.
If we gotta start making excuses for that, than not a single thing has changed between the 2004-2005 team and the 1997-98 team.
The point of building a team is to build a team that can win the cup. I like Q but he hasn't shown anything to make me believe that raw young prospects are going to develop under him. To make matters worse his teams haven't achieved anything in the playoffs. So assuming that it takes 4 years to rebuild, we're gonna look for another coach when that time comes? That's not a smart idea.
Torts got a very raw team that was rebuilding and he didn't take any crap from his young guns. If this team is going to do anything it too will have to put together a great young team as well. So that argument kind of solves itself.
You're right there are NO gurantees with McGill. Just like there are no gurantees with any of young players. BUT McGill does have a track records with young talent both at the junior and AHL levels.
Like who? Aside from Garth Murray and maybe Chad Wiseman there isn't one legit NHL scoring threat prospect on that team. Even Murray is questionable.
The team's strength was in it's young defenseman, and a goalie NOT it's young forwards. To me that shows how smart McGill is. He took what he was given and worked with it, something a coach hasn't done with this team for the better part of a decade now.
McGill has made a winner out of EVERY team at EVERY level he has played. Q has made all his teams better, but never great. Roger Nielson had that same problem. We got a guy who knows our team, knows our system and knows who is going to be in this organization and we're gonna pass on him for a guy whose teams never rose above simply being good regular season teams for 8 years.
Sounds like the exact opposite approach of what teams decide when they want to BUILD a winner. And if we're gonna have any success we are indeed going to need to BUILD that team.
Thinking about Stanley Cup at this point will get us at the same point as we are now. I wouldn't bother thinking about winning the Cup for at least another 3 years.
Players like Tyutin, Stals, Moore, and Heerema have not put up the numbers that they should have.
And also Quenneville won with many junk players like Yake, Eastwood, Richer, Pellerin, Finley, Rheume, McAlpine, Persson, Picard, Atcheynum, Poeschek, etc. His team had lots of injury problems over the years. And his defensive system made Turek look better than Brodeur. In 1999-2000 season his team won 51 games and nobody on the team had more than 75 points. I don't see why anyone wouldn't want him to coach here.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Prucha73