HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Nice Article by Brooks in today's post

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-11-2007, 10:54 AM
  #26
Larry Melnyk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Gloomsville, USA
Posts: 4,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas View Post
Sorry, but the 2nd line center position is the biggest reason for the lack of chemistry. Because of the hole at that position, Renney is forced to play players out of position. That impacts chemistry. Cullen is aksed to perform above his capabilities, as is Betts. You'd get the same energy and effort from a Hollweg/Betts/Ortmeyer line that you did from the HMO line last year. The problem remains players being placed in situations that do not take advantage of their respective talents.

I'd also debate the idea that Moore is better defensively. What I would say is that Moore is a better passer.
I agree with you 100% on this thread..The 2nd line C became the Rangers biggest problem the second they decided to hitch their wagon to Cullen FOR THAT POSITION, who was always a soft player and really only had one good year previously...It was a poor personnel decision....

As a result, the 2nd line has been in shambles all year and has had a cascading effects on the other lines...Yes, we need more scoring on the bottom two lines BUT if the 2nd line was scoring, the need for scoring below would be secondary to defense and checking, which I think these guys can provid in the right configurations..

Of course, picking up a 2nd C and slotting Cullen down will make that very possible...Just not sure it will happen....If it doesn't, Renney at least has to reconfigure the 3rd and 4th lines a little...Hall has been abysmall and I don't think either the 3rd or 4th line has an identity......That can change by installing HBO (can be even more high energy then HMO) and some other configuration that could provide more offense...Persoanlly, I would include an offensive kid (or two) from Hartford on this line and let everybody fight..And let Jason Ward also keep members of HBO honest...

Larry Melnyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 12:13 PM
  #27
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Everytime we have a thread on a Brooks article the same people rail on him for old articles and they debate the most trivial points of his article. His main point is completely ignored and talked around.

He is not saying the Dominic Moore is the lone missing ingredient. Jesus that is so obvious it is painful reading this thread... let the biases go so we can actually talk about the reason for the article... Tom Renney Glen Sather.

Renney has been plugging along all season with the same (or lack of a) gameplan. This team has looked essentially the same since game 1, in lineup and in effort/execution. Renney has made the same quotes about the effort and heart and yet he fails to bench a significant player. He has failed to adjust his gameplan. He keeps on playing the same players out of their roles... which is nothing new, hence the Moore/Hall reference. Renney will not bench Hall, Hossa or Malik even though they continue to be some of the most ineffective players on the team. Hossa has come around but why does he get half of a season to prove himself while others (Dawes, Prucha, Pock, Immonen) only get a handful of games. The point is that Renney keeps acting surprised after these types of losses but he fails to act on them. In two months we will have the same soundbite after a similar loss.

Back to Moore/Hall. Brooks highlights this because over the years the Rangers target names, not roles to be filled. They see Cullen with success in one role, but he is cast into another role and it brings the typical failure. Hall has been a role player on his teams but he was signed to be a 2nd line right wing. In hindsight we were all foolish to think that this could ever pan out. The worst thing about the Moore deal is that the domino effect of misplaced personnel is still hindering the team.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 12:31 PM
  #28
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mugerya View Post
Everytime we have a thread on a Brooks article the same people rail on him for old articles and they debate the most trivial points of his article. His main point is completely ignored and talked around.

He is not saying the Dominic Moore is the lone missing ingredient. Jesus that is so obvious it is painful reading this thread... let the biases go so we can actually talk about the reason for the article... Tom Renney Glen Sather.

Renney has been plugging along all season with the same (or lack of a) gameplan. This team has looked essentially the same since game 1, in lineup and in effort/execution. Renney has made the same quotes about the effort and heart and yet he fails to bench a significant player. He has failed to adjust his gameplan. He keeps on playing the same players out of their roles... which is nothing new, hence the Moore/Hall reference. Renney will not bench Hall, Hossa or Malik even though they continue to be some of the most ineffective players on the team. Hossa has come around but why does he get half of a season to prove himself while others (Dawes, Prucha, Pock, Immonen) only get a handful of games. The point is that Renney keeps acting surprised after these types of losses but he fails to act on them. In two months we will have the same soundbite after a similar loss.

Back to Moore/Hall. Brooks highlights this because over the years the Rangers target names, not roles to be filled. They see Cullen with success in one role, but he is cast into another role and it brings the typical failure. Hall has been a role player on his teams but he was signed to be a 2nd line right wing. In hindsight we were all foolish to think that this could ever pan out. The worst thing about the Moore deal is that the domino effect of misplaced personnel is still hindering the team.
The reality is Larry acts like his **** doesn't stink.All Larry does is rail against everyone.The NHL.Tom Renney.Don Maloney.After a while,the act grows tiresome.He didn't really have a problem with the Hall move.Did he write about it when it was made?Now he comes back six months after the trade was made and calls it the most misguided move made by Sather.Regarding the Rangers not using the players properly,that is his excuse for Holik sucking *** as a Ranger.The Rangers didn't use him properly.Never the player's fault.Holik was just like every other mercenary brought in by the Rangers before the lockout,just wanted to collect a check.It's the same act

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 12:34 PM
  #29
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,737
vCash: 500
Quote:
We know. The Rangers' success in signing core Devils as free agents is spotty, at best. Bruce Driver was merely ordinary as a Ranger. John MacLean scored 28 goals in his first season before Glen Sather - no one knows why to this day - later rode him out of town on a rail. And Bobby Holik's plight was settled a week or so into his first training camp when head coach Bryan Trottier announced that he didn't believe in matching lines
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01032007...rry_brooks.htm

Blah,blah,blah

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 12:39 PM
  #30
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mugerya View Post
Everytime we have a thread on a Brooks article the same people rail on him for old articles and they debate the most trivial points of his article. His main point is completely ignored and talked around.
If you're going to make a statement like, "blah blah is the most misguided move of Sather's tenure", expect nothing less than harsh critique of that statement.

As for the rest of the article, what's to discuss? He thinks there's a problem with roles. Who doesn't?

Melrose_Jr. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 12:40 PM
  #31
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,247
vCash: 500
I agree, Rangerboy...

but personally I formulate an opinion on each article, and not articles as a whole. I'm not here to evaluate Brooks as a hockey analyst, because I think you're 100% correct. I do think that he does make good points from time to time and comment on them.

Funny enough, back in 1995 or 1996 when you can e-mail him your trade ideas I sent one that would've sent Healy for Kevin Stevens (at the time, the Rangers were looking for some scoring and toughness from the wing position). He put it in the paper about a month later, I believe after Boston got a backup goalie, and said congratulations, you've come up with a trade idea whereby nobody gets what they needed (he poo-pooed Stevens). Several months pass and he has an article with Stevens in the headline saying the Rangers should go after him. He's like a lot of my research analysts - you only hear about the calls that went the right way, forget about the stock with a strong buy that's $20, goes to $3 then gets taken out at $10 - which they will call a success because they said buy at $3. Round trips don't work.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 12:54 PM
  #32
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,152
vCash: 873
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisian View Post
Dom Moore doesn't have half the awareness or instincts that Betts has.

Adam Hall is literally the LEAST of the Rangers troubles right now.
yet on a worse team in Pitt, he's on pace to double Betts in points while playing the same role? You'd expect that if he were the better player, the numbers would be there to support that and right now they disagree with you.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 01:04 PM
  #33
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,247
vCash: 500
davisian...

are you serious about Moore? The guy always seemed to be near the puck, or on the puck, and I thought he was 1/2 of last season's best PK pair. Where he fell down compared to Betts is mostly faceoff ability, and perhaps the ability to handle an 82-game schedule (although Betts hasn't been able to handle it yet either). I thought that despite going to Harvard, he was an intelligent hockey player.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 01:51 PM
  #34
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,152
vCash: 873
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
are you serious about Moore? The guy always seemed to be near the puck, or on the puck, and I thought he was 1/2 of last season's best PK pair. Where he fell down compared to Betts is mostly faceoff ability, and perhaps the ability to handle an 82-game schedule (although Betts hasn't been able to handle it yet either). I thought that despite going to Harvard, he was an intelligent hockey player.
Even handling the schedule Moore's been better.

75 games in 03-04 - AHL 70 games - NHL 5 games
78 games in 04-05 - AHL
82 games in 05-06 - NHL
40 games this year - on pace for 80

Betts

20 games in 03-04 - NHL - No AHL games
16 games in 04-05 - AHL
66 games in 05-06 - NHL
44 games this year - on pace for a full season

Even if Moore stopped today he'd have almost 100 more games played than Betts and that's assuming that Betts plays a full season this year

Currently over the same time period Moore has played in 275 games and Betts has played in 146 games.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 02:02 PM
  #35
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Endicott
Posts: 6,074
vCash: 500
I shouldn't have to mention that numbers don't tell the story. Especially on two very different teams. and I'm not so sure Pitt is that much worse.

But I do grant that Moore has not nearly been as injury prone as Betts has been.


Moore flies around at a faster speed, but he doesn't seem to be going anywhere, or at least not where he should be. Like I said, and its just from watching both, I think Betts has much better instinct and awareness in his game.

But really we're talking about 2 4th line centers, so I do not think it would have made much of a difference had Betts been traded for the Hall..

Davisian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 02:12 PM
  #36
NYR94
Registered User
 
NYR94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,693
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NYR94
I didn't think Holik and Driver were so bad as Rangers. MacLean had the nice first year, I don't know what happened after that. Most of them were just used incorrectly. But I think Driver played with Samuelsson mostly when he was a Ranger.

1995-96

Leetch-Beukeboom
Samuelsson-Driver
Lowe/Norstrom-Lidster/Karpovtsev

1996-97

Leetch-Beukeboom
Samuelsson-Driver
Cairns/Lidster-Karpovtsev

Can't remember 97-98.

NYR94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 02:37 PM
  #37
TomLaidlaw
Registered User
 
TomLaidlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Transylvania
Country: Romania
Posts: 3,177
vCash: 500
We play Matt Cullen who is a good 3rd line center on the 2nd line flanked by two snipers who need a playmaking center and Cullen isn't a playmaking center. Also, Matt Cullen not playing the point on the PP is a perfect example of this organization not utilizing our players as effectively as they could be. The Canes win the Stanley Cup with Cullen on the point on their PP. We sign Cullen and refuse to use him on the point. Even though we desperately need a PP point man, so much so that we traded for Ozo hoping he would remedy that problem. As mentioned in this thread we misused Bobby Holik. The list goes on and on. Its an organizational problem very simply put we do not put players into the best situation to succeed. Period.

TomLaidlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 02:45 PM
  #38
TomLaidlaw
Registered User
 
TomLaidlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Transylvania
Country: Romania
Posts: 3,177
vCash: 500
The worst part is that it seems like we define roles for players in Hartford and then when they come up here we put them in an entirely different role. Nigel Dawes is a perfect example of this. Nigel has been a goal scorer at every level he has played. We call him up and play him on the 4th line and wonder why he seems out of place. Its because the guy was groomed to be one thing and we are playing him at another thing. Renney has made it very clear how he develops players, if a player is called up from the Wolfpack he is immediatly put on the 4th line, no questions asked. However if the player is acquired via trade he is given the benefit of the doubt and can be put on the 2nd line right off the bat. (Adam Hall this year, Marcel Hossa last year) This baffles me, why not put our young kids in our system in the best possible situation to succeed.

TomLaidlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 02:45 PM
  #39
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,800
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomLaidlaw View Post
We play Matt Cullen who is a good 3rd line center on the 2nd line flanked by two snipers who need a playmaking center and Cullen isn't a playmaking center. Also, Matt Cullen not playing the point on the PP is a perfect example of this organization not utilizing our players as effectively as they could be. The Canes win the Stanley Cup with Cullen on the point on their PP. We sign Cullen and refuse to use him on the point. Even though we desperately need a PP point man, so much so that we traded for Ozo hoping he would remedy that problem. As mentioned in this thread we misused Bobby Holik. The list goes on and on. Its an organizational problem very simply put we do not put players into the best situation to succeed. Period.
I think the entire second unit of the PP is a mess. I would even consider breaking up the first unit and balance out both units.

PP1:

Jagr-Prucha-Hall
Cullen-Tyutin

PP2:

Straka-Nylander-Shanny
Pock/Rachunek-Rozsival

The team needs something to get the second unit going. Especially since it's often the Straka-Nylander-Jagr line that draws the penalty and does not start the PP on the ice.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 02:53 PM
  #40
TomLaidlaw
Registered User
 
TomLaidlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Transylvania
Country: Romania
Posts: 3,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I think the entire second unit of the PP is a mess. I would even consider breaking up the first unit and balance out both units.

PP1:

Jagr-Prucha-Hall
Cullen-Tyutin

PP2:

Straka-Nylander-Shanny
Pock/Rachunek-Rozsival

The team needs something to get the second unit going. Especially since it's often the Straka-Nylander-Jagr line that draws the penalty and does not start the PP on the ice.
It seems like Rachuneck was shooting alot more from the point before he got hurt, which was a good sign. If I was defending our #1 PP unit I would give the points a huge cushion we seem so hesistant to shoot from the points. Straka has been shooting a little more lately but still not enough, Straka has a better slapshot then I gave him credit for, maybe because I never actually saw him use it. reminds me of Tom Poti in that regard, Poti had one of the hardest heaviest shots in the league and NEVER used it, he would always just toss those soft wristers into the dmens chest instead.

TomLaidlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 03:02 PM
  #41
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,737
vCash: 500
John MacLean=bum

He broke Nicklas Sundstrom's arm during game 4 of the 1997 playoffs.It was near the Rangers bench.The play had gone to the other end of the ice.The Rangers were handing the Devils their dinner.Sundstrom hooked MacLean around the arm as both players were going off for a change.MacLean turns around and breaks Sundstrom's arm with a two handed baseball swing.The only video of the incident came from the goal cam and it wasn't a clear view.Brian Burke didn't suspend MacLean.I was sitting in section 402 which is directly across from the Rangers bench and saw the entire incident

Larry Brooks used to work for the Devils-Communications Director.He also worked as a radio analyst for the Devils games on WMCA(570)

Brooks=Devils lover

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 03:24 PM
  #42
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Can't argue that, Melrose. But do we have to do this every time the thread title starts with "Brooks article in the Post today"? We waste the first 30 posts on "Brooks is nothing but a hack and last year he said we should get Kovalchuk".

Even that aside, I try to draw the discussion towards the mismanagement of players, a tired subject yes, but at least it is about the Rangers and not a Rangers beat writer. Where do all of the responses go? Brooks.

Where will the responses of this post gravitate to? Brooks. We get it, 90% of the people hate Brooks, it is understood at this point. What about the Rangers finally?

More importantly, Is Renney going to actually respond tonight? This season? The fact is this team hasn't played with heart or with any regards to defense for the most part this year. He fails to address it when it comes to personnel and benchings. He threatens with such recourse but will he do it?

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 03:27 PM
  #43
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
I'm edgy right now too. I have to fly over the Atlantic and land into gail-force winds. Thank god I'm landing in the country of beer and whiskey. Catch you guys in 10 days.

I still stand by what I said, but normally I'd zip it.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 03:56 PM
  #44
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,247
vCash: 500
You going..

to Ireland? Enjoy, if so, and enjoy anyways.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 03:56 PM
  #45
TomLaidlaw
Registered User
 
TomLaidlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Transylvania
Country: Romania
Posts: 3,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mugerya View Post
Thank god I'm landing in the country of beer and whiskey.
Your landing at Sandis Ozolinshs house?

TomLaidlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 04:44 PM
  #46
shoothepuck
88
 
shoothepuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: upstate
Country: Italy
Posts: 12,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
John MacLean=bum

He broke Nicklas Sundstrom's arm during game 4 of the 1997 playoffs.It was near the Rangers bench.The play had gone to the other end of the ice.The Rangers were handing the Devils their dinner.Sundstrom hooked MacLean around the arm as both players were going off for a change.MacLean turns around and breaks Sundstrom's arm with a two handed baseball swing.The only video of the incident came from the goal cam and it wasn't a clear view.Brian Burke didn't suspend MacLean.I was sitting in section 402 which is directly across from the Rangers bench and saw the entire incident

Larry Brooks used to work for the Devils-Communications Director.He also worked as a radio analyst for the Devils games on WMCA(570)

Brooks=Devils lover
Well said, Brooks should write for the Newark News.

shoothepuck 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 06:32 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.