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

Good Larry Brooks column today

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-02-2009, 09:41 AM
  #1
Salz
Registered User
 
Salz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,235
vCash: 500
Good Larry Brooks column today

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02022009...fix_153181.htm


HELP WANTED : Other than Henrik Lundqvist, the Rangers lack a player who appears equipped emotionally or otherwise to be the team's best player, Larry Brooks says.

Salz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 09:46 AM
  #2
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,713
vCash: 500
Same old Larry. Rangers don't have this, they don't have that, never once offering up any solutions nor does he point out the downsides we all know that came with the type of player he's looking for. Great article LAAAR, what it take you 3 vanilla months to write it?

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 10:00 AM
  #3
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
Same old Larry. Rangers don't have this, they don't have that, never once offering up any solutions nor does he point out the downsides we all know that came with the type of player he's looking for. Great article LAAAR, what it take you 3 vanilla months to write it?
There wouldn't be a need for solutions if the mistakes hadn't been made in the first place.

Larry Brooks isn't the GM. He's not running things. He's a sportswriter making an observation, and one that's right on the money at that. How to fix the problem isn't his job, it's his job to point out what the problem is. Maybe, like others, he doesn't have a clue what the solution is, because the situation is such a giant cluster****. What IS the solution when you have players that no one wants who make incredibly large sums of money that no one is willing to pay for?

Nothing Brooks says in this article is off-base.

Quote:
Where is the player an opponent is going to have to worry about stopping in a best-of-seven?
Right on target. There is no such player.

Quote:
Darn right that as bad as Wade Redden has been, Scott Gomez has been immeasurably worse when weighing team need against contribution.
Correct.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 10:05 AM
  #4
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
There wouldn't be a need for solutions if the mistakes hadn't been made in the first place.

Larry Brooks isn't the GM. He's not running things. He's a sportswriter making an observation, and one that's right on the money at that. How to fix the problem isn't his job, it's his job to point out what the problem is. Maybe, like others, he doesn't have a clue what the solution is, because the situation is such a giant cluster****. What IS the solution when you have players that no one wants who make incredibly large sums of money that no one is willing to pay for?

Nothing Brooks says in this article is off-base.



Right on target. There is no such player.



Correct.
Give me a break, its **** we knew already, but since the trade deadline looms, this is what Brooks gives his followers.

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 10:12 AM
  #5
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,895
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Right on target. There is no such player.
They had that guy last year, how did that work out?

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 10:12 AM
  #6
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Isn't this the same article that was posted last week?

Melrose_Jr. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 10:14 AM
  #7
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
They had that guy last year, how did that work out?
Who? Jagr? He was that guy based only on reputation, not on actual play. The 2007-08 Jaromir Jagr was a pretty good player, but he was a pretty big downgrade from the 2006-07 Jagr, and obviously, a tremendous downgrade from 05-06 Jagr.

Besides, I'm not clamoring for his return nor was I this summer.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 10:25 AM
  #8
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,895
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Who? Jagr? He was that guy based only on reputation, not on actual play. The 2007-08 Jaromir Jagr was a pretty good player, but he was a pretty big downgrade from the 2006-07 Jagr, and obviously, a tremendous downgrade from 05-06 Jagr.

Besides, I'm not clamoring for his return nor was I this summer.
I'm talking about Jagr leading the league in scoring in the playoffs when the Rangers were knocked out. So they had the guy that Brooks describes and it still didn't make a difference.

And I've been vocal about liking the fact that Jagr did not come back.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 10:29 AM
  #9
Salz
Registered User
 
Salz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I'm talking about Jagr leading the league in scoring in the playoffs when the Rangers were knocked out. So they had the guy that Brooks describes and it still didn't make a difference.

And I've been vocal about liking the fact that Jagr did not come back.
So what, that doesn't mean it wouldn't help the Rangers to have a difference maker like that Jagr in this lineup. This years team is a lot more disciplined than the team that showed up in the playoffs vs the Devils that season. That team was an absolute disaster. A scary offensive threat could really help this team go far because they play a sound defensive game and have good hustle type players on offense. They need an offensive threat besides Zherdev. Your argument is a logical fallacy.

Salz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 10:32 AM
  #10
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,895
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salz View Post
So what, that doesn't mean it wouldn't help the Rangers to have a difference maker like that Jagr in this lineup. This years team is a lot more disciplined than the team that showed up in the playoffs vs the Devils that season. That team was an absolute disaster. A scary offensive threat could really help this team go far because they play a sound defensive game and have good hustle type players on offense. They need an offensive threat besides Zherdev. Your argument is a logical fallacy.
And I'm saying that maybe its advantage that teams can't key on one guy. This team is more disciplined and they're more resilient.

I'm not saying that they couldn't use more scoring. I am noting that what Brooks describes the team lacking didn't really make a difference last year.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 10:36 AM
  #11
Salz
Registered User
 
Salz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
And I'm saying that maybe its advantage that teams can't key on one guy. This team is more disciplined and they're more resilient.

I'm not saying that they couldn't use more scoring. I am noting that what Brooks describes the team lacking didn't really make a difference last year.
I see. Well I think that team was at least better than this one. I also think it doesn't take away from his point that it would still tremendously help them if they had a top offensive threat. When is Gomez going to have chemistry with a winger already? He's not terrible but like Drury he's not doing nearly enough to deserve that 7 million dollar salary. Sather needs to do something drastic or else it looks like he has screwed us for the next decade. We'll always be 'ok' but never elite with the way this roster is assembled. We kind of look like the Knicks did before their implosion... decent enough to make the playoffs, but not a threat to win a cup. I hope we don't collapse like the Knicks did. Fortunately, Sather is bad, but he's no Layden and Isiah Thomas. Prepare to be a 6-8 seed for awhile unless Slats makes some dramatic moves.

Salz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 11:55 AM
  #12
Vito Andolini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
And I'm saying that maybe its advantage that teams can't key on one guy. This team is more disciplined and they're more resilient.

I'm not saying that they couldn't use more scoring. I am noting that what Brooks describes the team lacking didn't really make a difference last year.
Teams don't key in on one guy because there's no benefit in doing so. No 1 player on our team is so dangerous that the other teams needs to have much of a game plan to stop them. That's not an advantage, that's a lack of top end talent.

Vito Andolini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 12:25 PM
  #13
hpNYR
HF Forecaster
 
hpNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burbank, CA
Country: Armenia
Posts: 7,100
vCash: 500
Great article. I've said all season long, on paper we are garbage---and it is translating onto the ice. We do not have that player that other teams would look at during the game to shutdown.

It used to be Jagr, but no more.

Other teams have that player....some have more than one. We have ZERO. I think every team in the east has one, except us.

hpNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 12:45 PM
  #14
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,568
vCash: 500
I like the article as well.

Despite our record--I am very underwhelmed by our personnel. No size, no grit, no reliable scoring threats, very little personality. Our not being able to score doesn't seem like an aberration after 51 games. It seems very real--and if we can't score in the regular season what makes anyone think we're going to start scoring or even score as much in the playoffs? We're cruising for a real asskicking.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 12:53 PM
  #15
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,457
vCash: 500
Singn'...

It's tough to argue with you about last season because the fact is the team bowed out in the second round. One point that can be made is that while they did have Jagr last season, there seemed to be other pieces to the puzzle that were still missing. One being the Marc Staal we've been seeing a lot of this season compared to last season. One needs to recognize that it's still a team game. That one forward typically isn't on the ice for more than 21-22 minutes and the game is still 60 minutes long. The Rangers didn't have the full team last season to get past the Pens, and one goalie outplayed the other (and let's face it, Fleury was a wildcard who rose to the occasion for if he didn't, it wouldn't matter that Crosby, Malkin, etc. were on the team, they would've gone nowhere).

Those clamoring for Jagr, or a Jagr-type, fall into a couple camps. One camp is the camp that feels that's a role that is missing on this team and not many teams get very far without that guy who night-in and night-out is the focus of other teams' plans. The other camp are those who just need to see offense. They need to see flair. They feel that's the way games are won and don't always think of what may happen on the defensive side of the occasion as a team's ability to succeed is measured based on stats alone, and the stat's that is most recognizable is that for goals.

To be honest, Jagr on Dubi's right again this season would not have been bad for this organization. With Zherdev on Gomez's right on a second line, behind Jagr, it may've been a nice place for the kid to blossom as we won't notice those nights he takes off because most eyes are still focused on Jagr. But of course, it's not known if this team could've afforded Jagr. Not signing Naslund ($4MM) + not signing Rissmiller ($1MM) + a cheaper option for Redden may've gotten you there, but who knows; it was a weird breakup.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 02:25 PM
  #16
offdacrossbar
with the 10th pick..
 
offdacrossbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: da cuse
Country: Tuvalu
Posts: 8,259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
Same old Larry. Rangers don't have this, they don't have that, never once offering up any solutions nor does he point out the downsides we all know that came with the type of player he's looking for. Great article LAAAR, what it take you 3 vanilla months to write it?
too funny.

the article was spot on. and all the kooliade guzzlers will attack the messenger for being what? too... um.... truthful. so its his job to offer up solutions? paaaallleeeezzzzzzzz. he sees this team for what it is, flawed.

uncle larry nailed it. this team has no heart. no emotion. no personality. no fire. its just a bunch of boring underachievers afraid to make a mistake by taking a chance. its tom renneys team.

in life, risk takers are the one who accomplish big things. those who play it safe are destined to be average at best. the same can be said for ice hockey. play it safe and be average.

just making the playoffs isnt a goal. but for some here, its the holy grail.

offdacrossbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 02:31 PM
  #17
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by offdacrossbar View Post
too funny.

the article was spot on. and all the kooliade guzzlers will attack the messenger for being what? too... um.... truthful. so its his job to offer up solutions? paaaallleeeezzzzzzzz. he sees this team for what it is, flawed.

uncle larry nailed it. this team has no heart. no emotion. no personality. no fire. its just a bunch of boring underachievers afraid to make a mistake by taking a chance. its tom renneys team.

in life, risk takers are the one who accomplish big things. those who play it safe are destined to be average at best. the same can be said for ice hockey. play it safe and be average.

just making the playoffs isnt a goal. for some here, its the holy grail.
Heres some cheerleaders for your little ra ra speech

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 03:30 PM
  #18
MikeyLikesHockey
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 603
vCash: 500
First time I have seen Good and Larry Brooks in the same sentence.

MikeyLikesHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 04:39 PM
  #19
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,568
vCash: 500
I really don't think Renney is the crux of the problem. There might be better coaches out there but he is the best coach the Rangers have had since Keenan unless you want to count Tortorella's 3 or 4 games. He is actually a pretty decent coach. This team would be getting killed regularly if it didn't play the disciplined, conservative defensive approach. They don't have the top end talent to run and gun. The real blame should fall on GM Glen for spending way too much money on less than elite players like Captain Chris, Gomez and Redden--the collective performance of which since they've signed has been really underwhelming.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 04:55 PM
  #20
trademasterb*
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 440
vCash: 500
It's hard to argue that Renney isn't at least a suspect as a problem. It's not like Gomez and Drury suddenly forgot how to play. Tyutin is one pace for 34 points. About 9 more than his career high. Maybe it's time to start looking at Renney as a coach who stifles the offense of players.

trademasterb* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 05:11 PM
  #21
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,457
vCash: 500
it's somewhere in the middle (here we go with another Renney thread; poor guy). Glen didn't do a great job bringing in talent. Renney's comfort zone is taking a conservative approach, which people don't like because it doesn't produce great stats. We'll see how this works out.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 06:06 PM
  #22
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,568
vCash: 500
The Sabres team that Drury played for really did have scoring by committee--Pominville, Roy, Vanek, Afinegonov, Briere, Connolly, Dumont, Kotalik--all were legit threats to go 50 points or above. The Rangers don't have anything close to that kind of firepower. Drury isn't being stifled. He's just not good enough without all that support and his linemates aren't good enough offensively either. Gomez is a setup guy. He shouldn't be leading the team in shots on goal--he just doesn't have a linemate who can finish with any regularity so one thing that's happening is he's shooting more than he should. I don't think the production of either of them or Naslund has anything to do with Renney stifling them.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 06:20 PM
  #23
GWOW
Two Pucks, One Cup
 
GWOW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 14,715
vCash: 500
The sad/funny/ironic thing about the 2009 Rangers is that almost every hockey fan with a lick of knowledge of the game or the season's current events say the same things as Brooks did and what a lot of us say on here:

1) Renney has done an admirable job but it might be time for a change

2) The signing of Redden and the overpayment of Rosi were colossal mistakes from a financial point of view

3) The core of Staal, Dubinsky, Henrik, Callahan and Korpedo (with Anisimov, Grachev, DZ and Sangs) is legitimate and will keep the Rangers competitive for years


Add to that the Shanahan issue (which I supported only if used in a limited role) and the Prucha problem (who i don't like but 1.6 million needs to be moved or demoted), and you have a really questionable performance in 2008-09.

But their record is their record. The Rangers are grossly, grossly underachieving but they are on pace for over 100 points.

Jesus Christ. What a weird team.

GWOW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 08:28 PM
  #24
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,457
vCash: 500
eco's - I actually think that Gomez could be the most overrated setup guy in the game. He's good, but I don't see him making linemates better. If Gomez was that good of a setup man, Naslund would be back on track for a 35 goal season instead of being "on pace" for a down season. Perhaps Gomez should be trying to find his linemate a bit more than taking the low percentage shot that has been a trademark of his throughout his career (he's always taken a lot of shots throughout his career). Further, he's such a streaky offensive player. Three times he went three games without a point. You don't hear that a lot from your top line guy who's out there 21+ minutes per game. Perhaps Renney should take a page from the Devils' playbook and not play Gomez on the PK and only have him out there 18-19 minutes per game, focused on what he's supposed to be doing, which is providing offense while not being irresponsible on defense.

I agree on Drury.

But both of these guys are support guys. These aren't the guys you look too in order to lead you to offense.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2009, 08:33 PM
  #25
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,457
vCash: 500
Turcotte - what's wrong with Rozsival's contract? $5MM per seems pretty fair, and four years ain't so much. One needs to ask the question, however, as to why Redden got $6.5MM over 6 seasons. There's a huge disconnect here. Both were UFA. Rozsival played better than Redden in the prior three seasons. One also gets an NMC clause. I can't believe a hometown discount was that great. The Redden contract is a bit disheartening. Hopefully the second half of year one and years 2-6 will be better.

Fletch 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 05:08 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.