retread it means to me that Drury is not secure in his job and needs a coach who is a known commodity and suited to taking a built team and getting them to compete. Vs a first time coach who may experience some growing pains.
Lavy does have a stanley cup, so already he's better than Gallant plus he's lasted more than 3 years in several jobs, something that Gallant has failed to do anywhere.
I like Lavy. His niece played with my daughter in mites (youth hockey). Seems like a great family.
Given how the last set of changes occurred, I'd agree Drury is 1) feeling the heat and 2) remains green for this role and 3) Sather's lurking, it all feels like he's still involved and with too much input. It's a shame. Thank the Hockey Gods for 1994.
not to say it's "false", but the reporting language around this has been extremely soft, and I think it's highly unlikely that they'd actually pursue this route before seeing where the Dubas/Keefe situations land.
They could have interest in Keefe himself, but I guess there remains a remote possibility that Sullivan shakes free from Pittsburgh in a regime change there. (even if those odds are extremely remote, they would do well to wait them out versus rushing into a solution as utterly uninspiring as Lavy).
I've been disappointed not to hear more chatter about Andrew Brunette for the NYR. I don't want to overrate the guy but he's loads more attractive to me than any of the other known/available options with experience.
I'd be fine with Knoblauch but that feels like a move that Dolan would be unlikely to approve with this top-heavy core.
But I get that Drury and Dolan and Sather and everyone would be wary about going with a first-time HC...much to our detriment. It sucks, but they really have a win-now mentality and Drury may be managing for his life.
So yeah, Babcock and Laviolette scream Rangers.
Not thrilled with this but everyone wants fresh blood
True, but to be fair, Quinn didn't have much concrete NHL experience. He just had one year as an assistant coach in the NHL. Jay Leach, Kris Knoblauch, Andrew Brunette...all have way more experience behind an NHL bench.
I think Greg in LI said it well: Quinn was like the Les Miles of college hockey. He kind of lucked into having such talent and top recruits that BU was nearly impossible to fail.
a smart guy. Laviolette? Why not hire Scotty Bowman. Babcock is just a Tortorella clone. Thank-you, NO! Do your research. There are coaches available who might very well be the next Scotty Bowman -- or Kevin Sullivan, for that matter. We know neither Babcock nor Laviolette is that guy. Cast a wide net.
RE: RE: Not thrilled with this but everyone wants fresh blood
I think Greg in LI said it well: Quinn was like the Les Miles of college hockey. He kind of lucked into having such talent and top recruits that BU was nearly impossible to fail.
Close - I said what I read about him made him look like the Mack Brown of college hockey. Terrible coach, but a tremendous recruiter. Always had an incredibly high level of talent so his teams always won a lot of games, but rarely played up to their talent.
just a spinning the wheels candidate indicative of no plan when we fired Gallant. But, every time, I see a retread, I think well that is what they said about Joe Torre, Casey Stengal, and Tom Coughlin. Point is you never know what is going to work in a certain situation.
has Paul Maurice coached? Isn't he doing a great job with Florida in the playoffs?
Quote:
why just not keep Gallant?
Because Gallant really has no system except go out there and play. The team needs structure especially in its own zone. How many times does Shesty have to face shots from the slot? How many times did they just clear the puck to center and give up possession instead of instituting a breakout?
Laviolette may be or may not be the answer, but Gallant's tenure can only take them so far.
I'd rather take a chance on Brunette but PL would not be bad for THIS Ranger team.
Rangers are very top heavy in that they have a lot of guys in their 30s (or close to it) on big contracts. A lot of them with NMC.
If they hire Laviolette, they are giving this group of vets another chance to prove they can win a cup. Like many here, I believe Gallant's weakness as a strategist derailed them. But it could just be that they are easy to defense in playoffs because of guys like Panarin.
If they were going to rebuild with the kids, then I would say Brunette for sure. But if you want to give this group of vets another chance, Laviolette makes sense.
And even though it might seem like an uninspired choice, you can only hire who is available. Laviolette seems like the best of the veteran coaches on the market.
I'd rather take a chance on Brunette but PL would not be bad for THIS Ranger team.
Rangers are very top heavy in that they have a lot of guys in their 30s (or close to it) on big contracts. A lot of them with NMC.
If they hire Laviolette, they are giving this group of vets another chance to prove they can win a cup. Like many here, I believe Gallant's weakness as a strategist derailed them. But it could just be that they are easy to defense in playoffs because of guys like Panarin.
If they were going to rebuild with the kids, then I would say Brunette for sure. But if you want to give this group of vets another chance, Laviolette makes sense.
And even though it might seem like an uninspired choice, you can only hire who is available. Laviolette seems like the best of the veteran coaches on the market.
This is the right answer, IMO.
And if you're Drury and your job is now linked with a coaches success, are you really going to take a chance on a first time or inexperienced head coach?
and it's not like Brunette is some young up and comer, he's 50 years old, *just* 8 years younger than Laviolette.
After three years in FLA they decided to NOT give Brunette the job (after being the interim HC) and hired Maurice to replace Quennville. reminds me of in MTL when Dominic Ducharme took over for Julien and the Habs decided to go in a different direction. In MTL's case they were not a contender which screamed even more first time head coach, and that's what they did (Marty St. Louis) just not Ducharme, lol.
Sometimes you get to know a guy you know his flaws and potential.
Anyway, Vanzetti nailed it IMO - the Rangers are a contender now. They need to win now. so if you are a GM on the hot seat you bring in a coach who gives you the best chance to do that.
Lavy, assuming it's him, also has a decent track record developing young players. In NSH he didn't have many, it was mostly a veteran team, but Filip Forsberg, Roman Josi, and a couple others, really blossomed into stars under his leadership.
Do teams just recycle through the same 6 coaches? Wtf.
Pretty much. It's not so different than in the NBA. I think part of it is that in the NFL, you have a quantifiable way of evaluating the effectiveness of a coordinator by how well his unit does.
For NBA and NHL assistant coaches, a lot of it is a shot in the dark. Sure you have assistant coaches in charge of the "forwards" or "defense" or "powerplay" or "penalty kill", but it's very difficult to determine where the head coach ends and where the assistant coach begins.
I know we're in the mindset that a recycled coach is a bad thing, and I'm definitely intrigued by some of the assistants out there. But I think Laviolette is pretty good. Saying he's living off the reputation of 2006 isn't really fair. He took the Flyers and Nashville to a cup final within the last decade plus. Has anyone seen how much of a dysfunctional mess that Philly franchise is? Not an easy accomplishment. The team has improved year one every place he's gone, other than maybe Washington but that was a tough job given their aging stars and he still won 58% of his games there. Good coach
“Talent doesn’t mean a thing,” Rangers head coach Gerard Gallant said sharply after the loss. “It’s great to have talent, but you’ve got to play together and work together. Obviously, the four games that we lost, we had two goals. That’s the bottom line. You’re not going to win if you get two goals in four games.
“I love to have talent, but you love to have work ethic and more forecheck and stuff like that. We just didn’t get it done.”
This and the widely reported input to Drury's decision to fire Gallant: exit interviews played a significant role and a new voice in the clubhouse was/is needed.
My question is this as to whether Laviolette or Brunette or whoever: if Vanz is right and this top heavy team is win now because of age and NMCs--add to that Drury's moves to add Tara and Kane, a farce in retrospect--what will make this group heed PL or Brunette or whoever if they could not summon the want to and effort in a Game 7 in first round? What makes anyone with a shred of skepticism think that Top 6 and Top 4 will tune in to a new voice if they couldn't/wouldn't strive with work ethic to forecheck and impose their will on the Devils in 2023--was this spring somehow less win now mode than 2024 will be?
So their excuse in exit interviews was "I guess we just tuned him out as to work ethic and forecheck?" The post-game club house was full of mumbling excuses. You guys know that I've been a GG non-supporter for the better part of this season. Experienced voice or new voice, Drury needs to come up with more answers in the clubhouse than getting rid of GG. If the collective unconscious of this team wanted to do Gallant in and tuned him out, what exactly is the secret sauce that will set them free? Did Gallant's double standard somehow backfire? Drury better find out before he makes the hire.
“Talent doesn’t mean a thing,” Rangers head coach Gerard Gallant said sharply after the loss. “It’s great to have talent, but you’ve got to play together and work together. Obviously, the four games that we lost, we had two goals. That’s the bottom line. You’re not going to win if you get two goals in four games.
“I love to have talent, but you love to have work ethic and more forecheck and stuff like that. We just didn’t get it done.”
This and the widely reported input to Drury's decision to fire Gallant: exit interviews played a significant role and a new voice in the clubhouse was/is needed.
My question is this as to whether Laviolette or Brunette or whoever: if Vanz is right and this top heavy team is win now because of age and NMCs--add to that Drury's moves to add Tara and Kane, a farce in retrospect--what will make this group heed PL or Brunette or whoever if they could not summon the want to and effort in a Game 7 in first round? What makes anyone with a shred of skepticism think that Top 6 and Top 4 will tune in to a new voice if they couldn't/wouldn't strive with work ethic to forecheck and impose their will on the Devils in 2023--was this spring somehow less win now mode than 2024 will be?
So their excuse in exit interviews was "I guess we just tuned him out as to work ethic and forecheck?" The post-game club house was full of mumbling excuses. You guys know that I've been a GG non-supporter for the better part of this season. Experienced voice or new voice, Drury needs to come up with more answers in the clubhouse than getting rid of GG. If the collective unconscious of this team wanted to do Gallant in and tuned him out, what exactly is the secret sauce that will set them free? Did Gallant's double standard somehow backfire? Drury better find out before he makes the hire.
The thing that pissed me off about Gallant's quote is that he talks as if he's a mere observer. There are things you can do to create a forecheck, etc.
The work ethic thing isn't a plausible excuse. Do you think people are not working hard in game 7 of the playoffs? Which players? Why are you playing them?
I am glad he's gone. Drury should be too. Maybe if you traded for Domi instead of Kane you would have a better forecheck.
And agree about both of them. Will never happen in Dolan-Slats-Drury world, Emperor without clothes.
Your 2nd para, that was my double standard reference: he had an entire season to right size the Top 6's game, so I guess they felt they could cruise in comfort.
during the shit show in Dallas (Jamie Benn, what were you thinking? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urZghaQzdXg ),
they were discussing the moves of Cassidy to LVK, for better defensive structure, and Montgomery to BOS, for more offense. It got me to thinking about this NYR coaching search. Igor is obviously the team's most important and most top end player. With the team as presently constituted and structured, can the Top 6 really be coached into playing a more responsible, two-way game? Are they capable? Then you have the kind of iffy top four, a lot of variability in their game.
The mistake Drury made at the time of his hiring last year was thinking that the Rangers would be grittier, and harder to play against, if he got the 3rd and 4th lines more of those qualities. But you can't trot out a gritty, forechecking line or two when the top lines as a whole don't have or care to have those qualities on a consistent basis and expect to win in such bi-polar fashion. It has to be across all lines and all pairs, if possible w/o sacrificing the 'talent'. They came close after going up 2-0 vs TBL and pretty much shat the bed after the same vs NJD.
"....But you can't trot out a gritty, forechecking line or two when the top lines as a whole don't have or care to have those qualities on a consistent basis and expect to win in such bi-polar fashion. It has to be across all lines and all pairs...."
That is exactly what TBL did to go to three SCFs. Is Kucherov really a gritty forechecker? Is Brayden Point? Is Stamkos? No. It's the same thing CHI did. Is Patrick Kane really gritty? He has a Conn Smythe.
Most teams are in fact built that way - with skill players on their top line or top PP unit, but grittier better defensive players in the bottom lines.
If you can get a top line filled with Adam Graves-like players - that's awesome, but it's also very rare in the NHL to have players possess skill and physicality.
Now that doesn't mean you don't forecheck and that's probably why Gallant doesn't have a job. It's on the players to move their feet, even the finesse players need to cycle, win battles, defend, and possess the puck, but that lack of effort in the end - when it crosses a whole team like it did on the NYR is no longer on all the players, IMO it falls to the coach.
[Staple] Hearing that the NYR have already interviewed Leafs assistant Spencer Carbery for their coaching vacancy. Carbery in high demand -- Ducks have interest, could be the front-runner for the Caps job. twitter.com
41 Years Old
AHL Coach Of The Year
ECHL Coach Of The Year
Assistant coach of Washington
Assistant coach Toronto (2nd best PP)
Now that doesn't mean you don't forecheck and that's probably why Gallant doesn't have a job. It's on the players to move their feet, even the finesse players need to cycle, win battles, defend, and possess the puck, but that lack of effort in the end - when it crosses a whole team like it did on the NYR is no longer on all the players, IMO it falls to the coach.
I'll accede to your notion about different characteristics in the make-up of lines; my notion is probably naïve, unrealistic, and goes against the grain of team structures. I disagree some with your characterization of TBL, because it seemed to me that, esp. '20 and '21 SCPs as well as '22 their top lines set a tone of keeping their opponents on their back feet. They kept winning possession and zone time. So while a Kucherov may be seen in Panarin-esque light, I don't (or didn't, he's lost a bit) see him or Point in the same light at all. They were doing what you describe in the cited para.
Your characterization of what NYR did not do vs NJD seems to describe a wholesale rejection of GG by the team as a whole. While I had soured on him mid-season--much having to do with his double standard and throwing players under the bus--it's hard for me to see HC = Fail and Players = Not well coached in such black and white terms. Hiring a new voice in the clubhouse seems tantamount to rewarding their failures to perform with the efforts commensurate with their very rich contracts.
every single hockey player at forward is expected to forecheck, period. Everyone single hockey player is expected to cycle, move their feet, win puck battles, posses the puck.
So, I don't want to confuse effort with grit.
Most people when they use grit in relation to hockey it's about players who are defense first, max effort, and that's usually their contribution to the team. I think grit, I think 3rd line or bottom 6. Of course there are players in the top 6 who have both grit and skill - those are your selke guys (Bergeron, Kopitar, Toews, Ryan O'Reilly, Pavel Datsyuk, etc.) but they're rare - it's why there is an award for them.
IMO the Rangers lost because of lack of effort, not lack of grit.
If you watch Brayden Point or Kucherov and say they are gritty players we're not watching the same thing, but if you say they are high effort players, absolutely. So is Panarin (sometimes).
And that's at least partly why the Rangers coach is no longer employed.
I thought the fact he failed to adjust to Ruff's adjustment was damning, but the fact the Rangers as a team, did not counter their opponent's effort was the decision maker.
Lavy does have a stanley cup, so already he's better than Gallant plus he's lasted more than 3 years in several jobs, something that Gallant has failed to do anywhere.
I like Lavy. His niece played with my daughter in mites (youth hockey). Seems like a great family.
They could have interest in Keefe himself, but I guess there remains a remote possibility that Sullivan shakes free from Pittsburgh in a regime change there. (even if those odds are extremely remote, they would do well to wait them out versus rushing into a solution as utterly uninspiring as Lavy).
I've been disappointed not to hear more chatter about Andrew Brunette for the NYR. I don't want to overrate the guy but he's loads more attractive to me than any of the other known/available options with experience.
I'd be fine with Knoblauch but that feels like a move that Dolan would be unlikely to approve with this top-heavy core.
So yeah, Babcock and Laviolette scream Rangers.
True, but to be fair, Quinn didn't have much concrete NHL experience. He just had one year as an assistant coach in the NHL. Jay Leach, Kris Knoblauch, Andrew Brunette...all have way more experience behind an NHL bench.
I think Greg in LI said it well: Quinn was like the Les Miles of college hockey. He kind of lucked into having such talent and top recruits that BU was nearly impossible to fail.
Close - I said what I read about him made him look like the Mack Brown of college hockey. Terrible coach, but a tremendous recruiter. Always had an incredibly high level of talent so his teams always won a lot of games, but rarely played up to their talent.
Because Gallant really has no system except go out there and play. The team needs structure especially in its own zone. How many times does Shesty have to face shots from the slot? How many times did they just clear the puck to center and give up possession instead of instituting a breakout?
Laviolette may be or may not be the answer, but Gallant's tenure can only take them so far.
Rangers are very top heavy in that they have a lot of guys in their 30s (or close to it) on big contracts. A lot of them with NMC.
If they hire Laviolette, they are giving this group of vets another chance to prove they can win a cup. Like many here, I believe Gallant's weakness as a strategist derailed them. But it could just be that they are easy to defense in playoffs because of guys like Panarin.
If they were going to rebuild with the kids, then I would say Brunette for sure. But if you want to give this group of vets another chance, Laviolette makes sense.
And even though it might seem like an uninspired choice, you can only hire who is available. Laviolette seems like the best of the veteran coaches on the market.
Rangers are very top heavy in that they have a lot of guys in their 30s (or close to it) on big contracts. A lot of them with NMC.
If they hire Laviolette, they are giving this group of vets another chance to prove they can win a cup. Like many here, I believe Gallant's weakness as a strategist derailed them. But it could just be that they are easy to defense in playoffs because of guys like Panarin.
If they were going to rebuild with the kids, then I would say Brunette for sure. But if you want to give this group of vets another chance, Laviolette makes sense.
And even though it might seem like an uninspired choice, you can only hire who is available. Laviolette seems like the best of the veteran coaches on the market.
This is the right answer, IMO.
And if you're Drury and your job is now linked with a coaches success, are you really going to take a chance on a first time or inexperienced head coach?
and it's not like Brunette is some young up and comer, he's 50 years old, *just* 8 years younger than Laviolette.
After three years in FLA they decided to NOT give Brunette the job (after being the interim HC) and hired Maurice to replace Quennville. reminds me of in MTL when Dominic Ducharme took over for Julien and the Habs decided to go in a different direction. In MTL's case they were not a contender which screamed even more first time head coach, and that's what they did (Marty St. Louis) just not Ducharme, lol.
Sometimes you get to know a guy you know his flaws and potential.
Anyway, Vanzetti nailed it IMO - the Rangers are a contender now. They need to win now. so if you are a GM on the hot seat you bring in a coach who gives you the best chance to do that.
Lavy, assuming it's him, also has a decent track record developing young players. In NSH he didn't have many, it was mostly a veteran team, but Filip Forsberg, Roman Josi, and a couple others, really blossomed into stars under his leadership.
Pretty much. It's not so different than in the NBA. I think part of it is that in the NFL, you have a quantifiable way of evaluating the effectiveness of a coordinator by how well his unit does.
For NBA and NHL assistant coaches, a lot of it is a shot in the dark. Sure you have assistant coaches in charge of the "forwards" or "defense" or "powerplay" or "penalty kill", but it's very difficult to determine where the head coach ends and where the assistant coach begins.
More great asset management. Drury is lucky the Penguins had to play an AHL goaltender, otherwise he'd have nothing to hang his hat on.
“I love to have talent, but you love to have work ethic and more forecheck and stuff like that. We just didn’t get it done.”
This and the widely reported input to Drury's decision to fire Gallant: exit interviews played a significant role and a new voice in the clubhouse was/is needed.
My question is this as to whether Laviolette or Brunette or whoever: if Vanz is right and this top heavy team is win now because of age and NMCs--add to that Drury's moves to add Tara and Kane, a farce in retrospect--what will make this group heed PL or Brunette or whoever if they could not summon the want to and effort in a Game 7 in first round? What makes anyone with a shred of skepticism think that Top 6 and Top 4 will tune in to a new voice if they couldn't/wouldn't strive with work ethic to forecheck and impose their will on the Devils in 2023--was this spring somehow less win now mode than 2024 will be?
So their excuse in exit interviews was "I guess we just tuned him out as to work ethic and forecheck?" The post-game club house was full of mumbling excuses. You guys know that I've been a GG non-supporter for the better part of this season. Experienced voice or new voice, Drury needs to come up with more answers in the clubhouse than getting rid of GG. If the collective unconscious of this team wanted to do Gallant in and tuned him out, what exactly is the secret sauce that will set them free? Did Gallant's double standard somehow backfire? Drury better find out before he makes the hire.
Came here for this. I need something hopeful to hold on to.
Quote:
“Talent doesn’t mean a thing,” Rangers head coach Gerard Gallant said sharply after the loss. “It’s great to have talent, but you’ve got to play together and work together. Obviously, the four games that we lost, we had two goals. That’s the bottom line. You’re not going to win if you get two goals in four games.
“I love to have talent, but you love to have work ethic and more forecheck and stuff like that. We just didn’t get it done.”
This and the widely reported input to Drury's decision to fire Gallant: exit interviews played a significant role and a new voice in the clubhouse was/is needed.
My question is this as to whether Laviolette or Brunette or whoever: if Vanz is right and this top heavy team is win now because of age and NMCs--add to that Drury's moves to add Tara and Kane, a farce in retrospect--what will make this group heed PL or Brunette or whoever if they could not summon the want to and effort in a Game 7 in first round? What makes anyone with a shred of skepticism think that Top 6 and Top 4 will tune in to a new voice if they couldn't/wouldn't strive with work ethic to forecheck and impose their will on the Devils in 2023--was this spring somehow less win now mode than 2024 will be?
So their excuse in exit interviews was "I guess we just tuned him out as to work ethic and forecheck?" The post-game club house was full of mumbling excuses. You guys know that I've been a GG non-supporter for the better part of this season. Experienced voice or new voice, Drury needs to come up with more answers in the clubhouse than getting rid of GG. If the collective unconscious of this team wanted to do Gallant in and tuned him out, what exactly is the secret sauce that will set them free? Did Gallant's double standard somehow backfire? Drury better find out before he makes the hire.
The thing that pissed me off about Gallant's quote is that he talks as if he's a mere observer. There are things you can do to create a forecheck, etc.
The work ethic thing isn't a plausible excuse. Do you think people are not working hard in game 7 of the playoffs? Which players? Why are you playing them?
I am glad he's gone. Drury should be too. Maybe if you traded for Domi instead of Kane you would have a better forecheck.
Your 2nd para, that was my double standard reference: he had an entire season to right size the Top 6's game, so I guess they felt they could cruise in comfort.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urZghaQzdXg ),
they were discussing the moves of Cassidy to LVK, for better defensive structure, and Montgomery to BOS, for more offense. It got me to thinking about this NYR coaching search. Igor is obviously the team's most important and most top end player. With the team as presently constituted and structured, can the Top 6 really be coached into playing a more responsible, two-way game? Are they capable? Then you have the kind of iffy top four, a lot of variability in their game.
The mistake Drury made at the time of his hiring last year was thinking that the Rangers would be grittier, and harder to play against, if he got the 3rd and 4th lines more of those qualities. But you can't trot out a gritty, forechecking line or two when the top lines as a whole don't have or care to have those qualities on a consistent basis and expect to win in such bi-polar fashion. It has to be across all lines and all pairs, if possible w/o sacrificing the 'talent'. They came close after going up 2-0 vs TBL and pretty much shat the bed after the same vs NJD.
"....But you can't trot out a gritty, forechecking line or two when the top lines as a whole don't have or care to have those qualities on a consistent basis and expect to win in such bi-polar fashion. It has to be across all lines and all pairs...."
That is exactly what TBL did to go to three SCFs. Is Kucherov really a gritty forechecker? Is Brayden Point? Is Stamkos? No. It's the same thing CHI did. Is Patrick Kane really gritty? He has a Conn Smythe.
Most teams are in fact built that way - with skill players on their top line or top PP unit, but grittier better defensive players in the bottom lines.
If you can get a top line filled with Adam Graves-like players - that's awesome, but it's also very rare in the NHL to have players possess skill and physicality.
Now that doesn't mean you don't forecheck and that's probably why Gallant doesn't have a job. It's on the players to move their feet, even the finesse players need to cycle, win battles, defend, and possess the puck, but that lack of effort in the end - when it crosses a whole team like it did on the NYR is no longer on all the players, IMO it falls to the coach.
41 Years Old
AHL Coach Of The Year
ECHL Coach Of The Year
Assistant coach of Washington
Assistant coach Toronto (2nd best PP)
I'll accede to your notion about different characteristics in the make-up of lines; my notion is probably naïve, unrealistic, and goes against the grain of team structures. I disagree some with your characterization of TBL, because it seemed to me that, esp. '20 and '21 SCPs as well as '22 their top lines set a tone of keeping their opponents on their back feet. They kept winning possession and zone time. So while a Kucherov may be seen in Panarin-esque light, I don't (or didn't, he's lost a bit) see him or Point in the same light at all. They were doing what you describe in the cited para.
Your characterization of what NYR did not do vs NJD seems to describe a wholesale rejection of GG by the team as a whole. While I had soured on him mid-season--much having to do with his double standard and throwing players under the bus--it's hard for me to see HC = Fail and Players = Not well coached in such black and white terms. Hiring a new voice in the clubhouse seems tantamount to rewarding their failures to perform with the efforts commensurate with their very rich contracts.
So, I don't want to confuse effort with grit.
Most people when they use grit in relation to hockey it's about players who are defense first, max effort, and that's usually their contribution to the team. I think grit, I think 3rd line or bottom 6. Of course there are players in the top 6 who have both grit and skill - those are your selke guys (Bergeron, Kopitar, Toews, Ryan O'Reilly, Pavel Datsyuk, etc.) but they're rare - it's why there is an award for them.
IMO the Rangers lost because of lack of effort, not lack of grit.
If you watch Brayden Point or Kucherov and say they are gritty players we're not watching the same thing, but if you say they are high effort players, absolutely. So is Panarin (sometimes).
And that's at least partly why the Rangers coach is no longer employed.
I thought the fact he failed to adjust to Ruff's adjustment was damning, but the fact the Rangers as a team, did not counter their opponent's effort was the decision maker.