HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

is it the coach or the players?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-28-2009, 02:08 PM
  #26
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
that's fair, Pizza...I think of good in relative terms and when one makes a blanket statement like you did, I had to pull out something that's somewhat related.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 02:13 PM
  #27
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 12,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian View Post
The idea that the coach needs to be a screamer/yeller and the ultimate motivator of a team is the biggest farce amongst sports fans.
Thats not the full story with what im talking about.

ITs more than just screaming and yelling. ITs about being the boss. There are times that Renney is walked over, sure, he reaches his players. Thats why hes a players coach.

For fun:

Babcock
Carlyle
Laviolette
Tortorella
Burns
Bowman
Hitchcock
Crawford
Lemaire
Keenan
Ruff
Therrien

Some of the past years cup winners and those who came close, all have a mean streak in them and a distinctly different "flavor" to them when you compare them to Renney. And thats just hockey (Lombardi, Knight, Belichick.. etc)

Farce? Zero correlation? It may not mean everything, for every situation...but hey its the little things that win championships. I happen to believe it plays a role. At his core Renney is a timid man. Nothing against him. He does a good job. But as my signature suggests, he could use a pair, for a number of reasons, to start, he is the coach of a team that plays in Manhattan.


Last edited by HockeyBasedNYC: 01-28-2009 at 02:20 PM.
HockeyBasedNYC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 02:21 PM
  #28
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyBasedNYC View Post
Thats not the full story with what im talking about.

ITs more than just screaming and yelling. ITs about being the boss. There are times that Renney is walked over, sure, he reaches his players. Thats why hes a players coach.

For fun:

Babcock
Carlyle
Laviolette
Tortorella
Burns
Bowman
Hitchcock
Crawford
Lemaire
Keenan
Ruff
Therrien

Some of the past years cup winners and those who came close, all have a mean streak in them. And thats just hockey (Lombardi, Knight, Belichick.. etc)

Farce? Zero correlation? It may not mean everything, for every situation...but hey its the little things that win championships. I happen to believe it plays a role. At his core Renney is a timid man. Nothing against him. He does a good job. But as my signature suggests, he could use a pair, for a number of reasons, to start, he is the coach of a team that plays in Manhattan.
None of this makes sense. From every indication i've gotten from this team they say Renney is the boss. Did you mean Springsteen? Walked over...?

And some of those coaches on your list have a calm demeanor just like Renney.

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 02:32 PM
  #29
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,008
vCash: 500
Fletch, you know I made my point concerning the team vs. the coach. 'How can one be overachieving with respect to the record while one is perfectly represented by the record?" They are both responsible for the record and I mean that both ways. It's a good record but I believe it can be better, or at least the wins can be better as in, more than one regulation win in a month. It's not a complaint, because how do you complain about more wins with our record, it's an observation.

2 things I took issue with the coach: the forecheck and the powerplay. Both have been better since the last road trip started and the team regained their composure and are winning more convincingly. I'll even go so far as to blame the Pitt loss on the players for not even showing up. So basically, I think the coach actually improved his coaching. They're still winning at the same pace or rate, but the wins look better, at least to me. Is it just me or do they look more aggressive out there? They are battling more and after Renney's research during the break and his subsequent comments, I believe he has altered his mentality lately.

That's my opinion, agree or disagree with it, it's fine. Notice that my opinion isn't about entertainment or goals or even wins for that matter, I think it is based on the level of play and the philosophy of the team. So there you go...

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 02:33 PM
  #30
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 12,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
None of this makes sense. From every indication i've gotten from this team they say Renney is the boss. Did you mean Springsteen? Walked over...?

And some of those coaches on your list have a calm demeanor just like Renney.
Herb Brooks could have been said to have a "calm demeanor" off the ice too.

Do you think a guy like Lemaire or Bowman or Keenan would let a guy like Jagr practically run his team and cater to his ego?

Yes, walked over in that sense. There are other ways too.

Not to mention the dozens of penalties Renney could have saved the Rangers by opening his mouth and eyes, the RIGHT way. (he's admitted it himself)

Listen, everyone in here could debate this until our faces turn blue, but i've been around sports all my life (not saying no one else hasn't) and through my experience in playing for dozens of coaches and watching the effect hundreds others have on their teams, im drawing the conclusion that Renney lacks something in this department.

He lacks what I THINK is a innate ability to lead and motivate. Really lead a team by instilling confidence in them through his own actions, just as great leaders on the ice rub off on their teammates. Maybe you don't feel that way about him, or don't think it really matters in the long run, thats fine.

Every team has a breaking point, and when it gets to that point you look to each other and the coach to raise the bar. But i think for this team, in this town and in this league Tom Renney doesnt have the tools to give them the extra "motivation" needed to get them to the next level, whenever that true test comes. And most likely there arent many suitable replacements for Renney right now and he very well could be the best man for the job. Im merely offering that he doesnt have this quality in him

He'll do a fine job for some up until when that test comes, but to me passing that test is awfully important as a coach. There's no coincidence that great coaches have one multiple championships and the crappy ones who haven't, no one even remembers.

Hopefully that makes some sense out of it for you.


Last edited by HockeyBasedNYC: 01-28-2009 at 02:44 PM.
HockeyBasedNYC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 02:38 PM
  #31
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,711
vCash: 500
3 different seasons, 3 different rosters and 3 consecutive playoff appearances. The constants being Renney, Jagr and Lundqvist. Now, with Jagr gone, we're seemingly on our way to a 4th consecutive playoff appearance. Lundqvist deserves a lot of credit for his play, but failing to give Renney a bulk of the credit is suspect at best.

I have my qualms with Renney and his decision making, but I also look at the bigger picture and the results speak volumes about his coaching.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 02:43 PM
  #32
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
It's a little bit of both. This team has absolutely no talent and Renney is coaching them the only way he feels fit. Their most talented player, Zherdev, can't get a shot on goal to save his life. I've never seen someone get their shot blocked as much as this guy.

But at the sametime, Renney makes some real head scratching decisions, as far as who he benches and when and why. And why he can't stick with line combos for more than 1 loss straight.

The guy who is really at fault is Mr. Sather, for putting together this craptastic team.

Balej20* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 02:45 PM
  #33
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
3 different seasons, 3 different rosters and 3 consecutive playoff appearances. The constants being Renney, Jagr and Lundqvist. Now, with Jagr gone, we're seemingly on our way to a 4th consecutive playoff appearance. Lundqvist deserves a lot of credit for his play, but failing to give Renney a bulk of the credit is suspect at best.

I have my qualms with Renney and his decision making, but I also look at the bigger picture and the results speak volumes about his coaching.
That says it all.

Personally, I dont understand the notion that 'Renney has taken the organization as far as he can take it.' Its nothing more than a blanket statement that cant be measured by anything tangible. What his team is doing this year without a first line is quite remarkable.

Bleed Ranger Blue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 02:58 PM
  #34
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
3 different seasons, 3 different rosters and 3 consecutive playoff appearances. The constants being Renney, Jagr and Lundqvist. Now, with Jagr gone, we're seemingly on our way to a 4th consecutive playoff appearance. Lundqvist deserves a lot of credit for his play, but failing to give Renney a bulk of the credit is suspect at best.

I have my qualms with Renney and his decision making, but I also look at the bigger picture and the results speak volumes about his coaching.
Hitting the nail on it's proverbial head.

Pizza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 03:10 PM
  #35
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 24,028
vCash: 50
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
3 different seasons, 3 different rosters and 3 consecutive playoff appearances. The constants being Renney, Jagr and Lundqvist. Now, with Jagr gone, we're seemingly on our way to a 4th consecutive playoff appearance. Lundqvist deserves a lot of credit for his play, but failing to give Renney a bulk of the credit is suspect at best.

I have my qualms with Renney and his decision making, but I also look at the bigger picture and the results speak volumes about his coaching.
Quoted for truth. I'm doing a lot of that in this thread, but some of you guys are stating the facts quite eloquently.

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 03:38 PM
  #36
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyBasedNYC View Post
Herb Brooks could have been said to have a "calm demeanor" off the ice too.

Do you think a guy like Lemaire or Bowman or Keenan would let a guy like Jagr practically run his team and cater to his ego?

Hopefully that makes some sense out of it for you.
I don't buy it for a second. Jagr ran the team??? If Jagr was in such control you think Nylander wouldve been resigned.

Meh, so Renney isn't a hall of fame coach, not like we don't here that enough around here.

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 03:44 PM
  #37
we want cup
We do not Sow
 
we want cup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 10,813
vCash: 500
I'm not gonna quote everything HBNYC said, because there's a lot of it that I think is dead on.

I fully appreciate what Tom Renney has done for this team. I was generally a supporter of his through last season. At this stage, however, I feel Renney's usefulness has expired. He has shown qualities which can instantly prevent any team from being champs:

- An inability to go for the kill. We saw it against Carolina last night, and we've seen it for the last 2 years. When we get a lead of a goal or two, we never kick the other team when they're down. We never deliver that death blow.
- An inability to put together a PP that can cash in consistently and at crucial times. Now while I know we don't exactly have an all star lineup, our PP should be better than Toronto's, Vancouver's, or Florida, and it is absolutely inexcusable that it isn't better than the Islanders'.
- A poor feel for the game, partly manifested in a propensity to over play the 4th line, and to use them at bad times. I like our 4th line, but they aren't so exceptionally strong defensively that they should be thrown out immediately after a goal, and they aren't good enough offensively to come back and put heavy pressure on the other team. Renney also seems to never call a timeout to slow things down and try to get a handle on things. That can be a very useful tool, but for some reason he never seems to use it.
- An inability to adjust when another team is in control. The system never seems to change to adapt to an opponent, no matter how poorly it is working.

Those are just a couple of my issues. Beyond that, there's the sheer defensiveness of our play, but that would probably turn this into another player quality thread, so I won't go into that.

we want cup is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 03:44 PM
  #38
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
I don't buy it for a second. Jagr ran the team??? If Jagr was in such control you think Nylander wouldve been resigned.

Meh, so Renney isn't a hall of fame coach, not like we don't here that enough around here.
exactly....

the "jagr" rangers were split up after two seasons...(actually one if you consider ruchinsky and sykora weren't resigned)

jagr didn't run anything...if he did wouldn't he still be here playing with straka and nylander? did he have imput on things? sure, why wouldn't he, jagr was the captain and i...don't....know...an all time NHL great....why listen to that guy?

don't great coaches "cater" to players egos all the time?

this kindergaten philosphy of "everybody should be treated equal" on a team isn't realistic......does every player respond the same to being yelled at? some players need to be babied and it's a coaches job to push the right buttons with each and every player....isn't it?

Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 03:56 PM
  #39
Thirty One
portnor, pls
 
Thirty One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,779
vCash: 420
for those giving all the credit to the team's defensive ability to Lundqvist: do you know who has the highest save percentage on this team (by a significant margin)?

I am by no means saying Valiquette is a better goalie, but if the team is so mediocre defensively, how a such a marginal goalie putting up a .927 SV%?

Thirty One is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 04:12 PM
  #40
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
trx...

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.

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.


Last edited by Fletch: 01-28-2009 at 04:18 PM.
Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 04:16 PM
  #41
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
-31-...

no offense, but I can't compare Valiquette to Lundqvist. If Valiquette started 40 games this season, then perhaps I'd make a comparison. Of course, often times every dog has his day, and perhaps this is Valiquette's season, and at times, he has been spectacular. This defense is OK, but it gives up a lot of quality chances and second chances. Lundqvist is facing about 20% more shots this season than in prior seasons. Each goalie has had to stand on his head on occasion. The GAA seems to directly correlate to the quality of play of the goalies. It soared for Lundqvist when he (no the defense) faltered as I saw very little difference in the defense early in the season compared to later in the season.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 05:06 PM
  #42
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
I don't agree with many of his decisions, but I think Renney and Lundqvist share most of the credit for the success this team sees.

That said, this team will never win a Stanley Cup with Tom Renney as the coach. But as they are today, they won't win a Stanley Cup with any coach, so I don't see the point in replacing him right now. There isn't much point.

It isn't the coach, and it isn't most of the players. It's Sather and his prize acquisitions that are the problem.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 05:11 PM
  #43
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by we want cup View Post
I'm not gonna quote everything HBNYC said, because there's a lot of it that I think is dead on.

I fully appreciate what Tom Renney has done for this team. I was generally a supporter of his through last season. At this stage, however, I feel Renney's usefulness has expired. He has shown qualities which can instantly prevent any team from being champs:

- An inability to go for the kill. We saw it against Carolina last night, and we've seen it for the last 2 years. When we get a lead of a goal or two, we never kick the other team when they're down. We never deliver that death blow.
- An inability to put together a PP that can cash in consistently and at crucial times. Now while I know we don't exactly have an all star lineup, our PP should be better than Toronto's, Vancouver's, or Florida, and it is absolutely inexcusable that it isn't better than the Islanders'.
- A poor feel for the game, partly manifested in a propensity to over play the 4th line, and to use them at bad times. I like our 4th line, but they aren't so exceptionally strong defensively that they should be thrown out immediately after a goal, and they aren't good enough offensively to come back and put heavy pressure on the other team. Renney also seems to never call a timeout to slow things down and try to get a handle on things. That can be a very useful tool, but for some reason he never seems to use it.
- An inability to adjust when another team is in control. The system never seems to change to adapt to an opponent, no matter how poorly it is working.

Those are just a couple of my issues. Beyond that, there's the sheer defensiveness of our play, but that would probably turn this into another player quality thread, so I won't go into that.
Bascially took the words out of my mouth - beginning with the fact that I too was a Renney supporter up until about 2-3 months ago and then down through all the reasons why I am no longer one.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 05:27 PM
  #44
BRINGBACKAVERY
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hoboken
Posts: 34
vCash: 500
What he is doing without a first line is relying on Henri.

The right coach, not sure who that would be to be honest, could get more out of these players.

BRINGBACKAVERY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 05:31 PM
  #45
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,677
vCash: 500
Another point that should be made:

If you have no problems with Renney and the strategy he has instituted, you cannot take issue with the fact that the players with big contracts aren't putting up big points. As he has said many, many times, Renney is directing the team towards 2-1 wins. If the strategy is to win every game 2-1, it quite literally makes it impossible for Gomez, Drury, Redden and Rozsie to put up the numbers that their detractors would need to see to stop slamming them.

I mean Gomer, for example, would have to play a role in more than half the team's goals in order to exceed the PPG status that many feel he needs to achieve in order to justify his salary. So, by definition, if you are in favor of Renney and the system he dictates, you cannot get on Gomez for being on pace for 60 points - to do otherwise would be an exercise in blatant hypocracy. (Unless of course you expect the other 14 skaters other than the "big four" to average like 9 points each across the board.)

For the record, I am not saying that they have been playing great in the context of the system, but I do believe that Gomez, Drury and especially Rozsie are suffering from a double standard to a degree. (Redden, on the other hand, was flat out horrible - by any standard - until about ten games ago.)

BrooklynRangersFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 05:40 PM
  #46
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
Another point that should be made:

If you have no problems with Renney and the strategy he has instituted, you cannot take issue with the fact that the players with big contracts aren't putting up big points. As he has said many, many times, Renney is directing the team towards 2-1 wins. If the strategy is to win every game 2-1, it quite literally makes it impossible for Gomez, Drury, Redden and Rozsie to put up the numbers that their detractors would need to see to stop slamming them.

I mean Gomer, for example, would have to play a role in more than half the team's goals in order to exceed the PPG status that many feel he needs to achieve in order to justify his salary. So, by definition, if you are in favor of Renney and the system he dictates, you cannot get on Gomez for being on pace for 60 points - to do otherwise would be an exercise in blatant hypocracy. (Unless of course you expect the other 14 skaters other than the "big four" to average like 9 points each across the board.)

For the record, I am not saying that they have been playing great in the context of the system, but I do believe that Gomez, Drury and especially Rozsie are suffering from a double standard to a degree. (Redden, on the other hand, was flat out horrible - by any standard - until about ten games ago.)
This team is like any other, relies on its strengths. If winning means sacrificing personal scoring accolades so be it. I judge these players on the W/L column, same as the GM & Coach.

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 07:04 PM
  #47
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
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.

Quote:
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 hope 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.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 07:18 PM
  #48
NYR94
Registered User
 
NYR94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,761
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NYR94
I guess the obvious/easy/lazy answer is that it's a mixture of both. Now, figuring out exactly what combination of coach and player personnel is the right mix is what every NHL GM spends all year trying to do. It's easier said than done, obviously. But I don't believe that just any coach can lead a talent-laden team to victory. The Red Wings teams that won Cups in 97, 98 and 2002 under Bowman were undeniably immensely talented, but that's not to say that you could have replaced Bowman with any other coach in the league and gotten the same result. I think it takes a particular type of leader to guide the specific mix of personalities and egos. Look at the consistency in the Devils' team style over the years under Lamoriello and the fact that 3 different coaches guided them to championships. If Sutter does it this year, it could be a fourth. But that's not to say that ANY coach could lead NJ to a Cup. For every Lemaire, Robinson and Burns there's a Ftorek, Constantine and Lomoriello.

No one here in particular has done it, but we often hear/read things about how certain teams are somehow coach-(or idiot-)proof, as if anyone could have won with them. And I just don't think that's the case. The talent on the ice has to be there, no doubt, but it won't reach its true potential without the right man at the helm, leading the right players on the ice. And often these coaches need to be given time, more than one season. More than two or three, even. As a coach you need to be able to "sell" your system to your particular group of personnel. And everyone has to buy in, from the stars at the top to the lowly grinders at the bottom. Of course the best way to sell it is to get results in the win column.

The most important thing for Renney and this Rangers team is wins. And that involves playing to your particular team's strengths, like Bluenote13 said. Which is why this current Rangers the team the way it's constructed has found success when it plays a defensive game conducive to winning close, low-scoring games on the strengths of the defense and Lundqvist. I don't worry too much about excitement as far as high scores in the games, as long as they're wins. Winning in itself is exciting. Looking at the standings and knowing that the Rangers are in playoff position is entertaining for me. Yeah, people look at the salaries of players like Gomez and Drury and complain that the statistics don't match the cap hits. But wasn't the purpose of bringing these guys in to be a winning team and not necessarily a high-scoring one? Isn't that what a team is supposed to do? Work together as a unit for the same goal--the win, rather than be a collection of high-paid mercenaries concerned only with personal achievement.

People will always have particular problems with certain aspects of a coach's style, even if the team is winning. Hell, I'm always reading complaints on the Detroit board about the use of certain players like Samuelsson and Lilja by Babcock, and all that Red Wings team does is dominate. Fans will always find something to criticize.

The bottom line is that Renney's teams win, and while they haven't made a big leap in terms of playoff success every year, I don't think it's because the coach's message has become stale and his methods ineffective. This team plays team defense, which is only mentioned in just about every cliche about winning in this league that there is (and rightly so because it's true), and something that this franchise ignored for too long and paid the price for in the standings.

One of the more interesting things about Renney for me is how he's found success with Rangers teams with their good share of veteran players, some of them stars. Because early on I remember hearing how he'd be the right man to focus on developing the Rangers young players coming out of the lockout and I wrongly envisioned him coaching very young teams in a full-blown rebuilding mode. But then I look at the teams and see names like Jagr, Straka, Nylander, Rucchin, Rucinsky, Shanahan, Avery, Cullen, Drury, Gomez and Redden and realize how many established players he's lead while still being able to work younger players from the Rangers sytem into the mix.

When did a Lowe-coached Edmonton team knock off Detroit? I think you mean Dallas. Oilers beat the Stars in 97 in 7 games. Your point still stands, though, that Dallas team was the top seed I believe and Lowe's crew beat them.

NYR94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 07:18 PM
  #49
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
Another point that should be made:

If you have no problems with Renney and the strategy he has instituted, you cannot take issue with the fact that the players with big contracts aren't putting up big points. As he has said many, many times, Renney is directing the team towards 2-1 wins. If the strategy is to win every game 2-1, it quite literally makes it impossible for Gomez, Drury, Redden and Rozsie to put up the numbers that their detractors would need to see to stop slamming them.

I mean Gomer, for example, would have to play a role in more than half the team's goals in order to exceed the PPG status that many feel he needs to achieve in order to justify his salary. So, by definition, if you are in favor of Renney and the system he dictates, you cannot get on Gomez for being on pace for 60 points - to do otherwise would be an exercise in blatant hypocracy. (Unless of course you expect the other 14 skaters other than the "big four" to average like 9 points each across the board.)

For the record, I am not saying that they have been playing great in the context of the system, but I do believe that Gomez, Drury and especially Rozsie are suffering from a double standard to a degree. (Redden, on the other hand, was flat out horrible - by any standard - until about ten games ago.)
That's just the thing; Scott Gomez doesn't have to justify his salary. Since he's been here, he's been exactly what he was advertised to be. The fact that he's not suddenly a PPG player is on the fans for having illusions of grandeur; claiming that once he was released from the confines of the dreaded Jersey trap that he would be a PPG player.

If Scott Gomez ever becomes a PPG center, it will be because of the impeccable chemistry he has with a high-scoring winger, or wingers. He's always been a sorry excuse for a goal scorer, so he's going to rely on the assists column to put up numbers. If the guys around him aren't scoring, he's not going to achieve those high marks. Unfortunately, it's his own contract that's getting in the way of acquiring such a high-grade finisher.

Put a guy like Kovalchuk, Hossa, etc, in the 'Renney System' and I hardly think you'd see a significant drop in production. Frankly, our forwards just aren't of the high-scoring ilk. Naslund is past his prime, but still a solid player. Zherdev has never scored 30+ goals or 70+ points but, until his recent slump, was on pace to do so for the first time in his career. Gomez and Drury need very specific line-mates to maximize their out-put, which we don't have for them, and the rest of the forwards are just average role players or struggling youngsters.

I know everyone wants more goals-- more excitement, but we've seen what happens when this team loses it's commitment to defense. This team doesn't have the firepower to go flat out offense and run-and-gun with teams like Boston or Detroit. We have to shut them down and grind it out, which is boring, but it works for us.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2009, 07:21 PM
  #50
Ian
Mike York fan club
 
Ian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,629
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyBasedNYC View Post
Thats not the full story with what im talking about.

ITs more than just screaming and yelling. ITs about being the boss. There are times that Renney is walked over, sure, he reaches his players. Thats why hes a players coach.

For fun:

Babcock
Carlyle
Laviolette
Tortorella
Burns
Bowman
Hitchcock
Crawford
Lemaire
Keenan
Ruff
Therrien

Some of the past years cup winners and those who came close, all have a mean streak in them and a distinctly different "flavor" to them when you compare them to Renney. And thats just hockey (Lombardi, Knight, Belichick.. etc)

Farce? Zero correlation? It may not mean everything, for every situation...but hey its the little things that win championships. I happen to believe it plays a role. At his core Renney is a timid man. Nothing against him. He does a good job. But as my signature suggests, he could use a pair, for a number of reasons, to start, he is the coach of a team that plays in Manhattan.
Excluding Bowman, the far majority of that list are coaches who won 1 cup, and most who did it on stacked teams. Does that make them significantly better coaches then Renney?

I mean no offense to those coaches, but I think most people on this forum could have brought the 95/96 Avs, 07/08 Wings, 98/99 Stars, etc to the cup finals. When has Renney ever had talent levels that match the ones that were on those teams?

I guess if you want to say he's a better match with a guy like Torts or Laviolette, that's fair. But still, Laviolette was 3/6 in making the playoffs, and Torts was 4/6 with 2 first round losses.

The "other sports" thing is pretty unbalanced too. How about Joe Torre versus Lou Pinella? Tony Dungy versus Jon Gruden? I think college sports is a different animal compared to pro so I won't bother with naming Knight, granted his legacy as a coach has a lot to do with longevity moreso than success year to year (he basically won nothing post-1990, at somewhat higher profile basketball schools).


I mean, I don't understand what you want. Renney is a "timid man"? You say these things like you are in the locker room suiting up for games, like you are Drury's therapist or something.

Lets be honest, these are multi-million dollar earning men, most of which (at least the veterans) who have played on stanley cup teams, or at least SC caliber. What do you want, them to look at Renney with puppy dog eyes when he speaks? There's a reason why most coaches who are considered "hard *****" are having trouble finding jobs, or at least staying at them.

Sure, for my money, there is no better coach than Herb Brooks. But do you think his style of coaching relates to players of this generation? The idea that a coach is somehow going to rally guys like that is extremely far fetched, and it's more about this generation of people than anything.

I mean there were threads just a few weeks ago discussing how Renney "lost" Dubi and Zherdev by benching them for shifts in a single period of a single game.

Let that sink in for a minute, then imagine having a true disciplinarian coach.

Just face it, the age of that kind of coaching is dead like it or not, at least at the pro level.

Now, if you want to bash his strategies, his personal moves, etc, I can respect that, and for the most part would likely agree. Bashing him because he has "no balls," that's beyond ludicrous.

Ian is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:30 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.