is it the coach or the players?
View Single Post
01-28-2009, 06:04 PM
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Originally Posted by
good point...of course one can come back and say that quality organizations do have guys come and go and a team should be able to withstand the loss of a guy like Jagr, who by many accounts underperformed last season by a country mile. And the arcitecht is the GM, who replenishes the system with players who make sense, as opposed to what was done in the late-90s and early-00s, when the system was replenished with players who didn't make sense. This is why both Drury and Gomez were signed. And presumably Redden would soften the blow on Toots. Naslund was an upgrade to scoring over Shanny. Zherdev would take some of the pain away from losing Jagr and the maturation of Girardi and Staal helped as would the signing of Kalinin.
You could certainly argue that point, Fletch, but it's one thing to have a couple role players leave and quite another to lose your premier forward.
Renney has watched the Czech core come and go, and has endured two consecutive summers of drastic restructuring. You can say player X will substitute for player Y, but you still have to deal with a host of other issues that don't necessarily translate to statistics. Players have to learn a new system, acclimate themselves to their new surroundings and find chemistry with their new teammates. Renney has somehow managed to hurdle these issues and get us into the playoffs.
When I say is it the coach or players (be it the Rangers or whomever), it's really the perception of the players that determine how good the coach is. If there are a bunch of players on a team that a fan likes and the team isn't doing great, it's the coach's fault (especially if their favorite players aren't playing). Of course when I say like I don't mean that a consensus means they're good, but it's a player that some fans feel should be doing better and getting more chances (best example currently is Prucha, but there are plenty of Rudy-like players that fans across the league root for and it's the coach's fault when they amount to nothning). And there's the opposite too. And there's always an interesting debate as to what the coach really did for a player's development. Let's take the Rangers for instance. If Dubi turns out to be a great player,or Korps, etc., I'm sure Renney supporters will talk about what a great job Renney did to groom them and bring them along. If they don't turn out like that, it will be that it's all on them, that there was a possibility that Korps would be a fourth liner, not a second liner, etc.
I agree with you here for the most part. I
that if there is one thing a majority of people will agree on, it's that Renney does a good job at handling youth. Callahan, Dubinsky, Dawes and Staal have all made great strides in a relatively short matter of time. Korpikoski has been up and down, but it's hard for a coach to manage a roster with a considerable amount of redundant players and the Korpedo hasn't quite blossomed into the forward I think we all hope he can be.
I will, however, admit that Renney has a tendency to play favorites, which is something I'd prefer not to see of course. I can understand that Shanahan more or less played Prucha out of the lineup, but I can't for the life of me begin to comprehend why he's bounced in and out of the roster after having some good stretches of games.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Trxjw