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

Brooks-RANGERS NEED SHOT OF YOUTH

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-23-2007, 08:03 AM
  #76
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,456
vCash: 500
Agreed, Melrose...

one difference is the makeup of the teams - McGill had mnay vets (career AHLers) to work with compared to 20-22 year old prospects, which Scoeny has. I still think McGill was a good coach who installed good systems in Hartford which provided a nice foundation for the few that came up through the system.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2007, 08:40 AM
  #77
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr. View Post
But the accusation still stands that Schoenfeld is doing what's good for Hartford, not what's good for NYR prospects. Wasn't that what got McGill canned?

I still stand by McGill's methods. He was charged with producing NHL players in a day and age where stifling defense won games, so what would have been the benefit of preening a players' offensive potential? Additionally, he wasn't working with the kind of talent that Schoeny is.
First of all, you are defenitly right on McGill in the big picture, he defenitly played a style that in general was the way to go.

I really liked him at first, but he made me change my opinion on him basically the 2nd half his last season here. He kind of went from how Tampa and even NJ were playing to how Anaheim were playing at the time (notice that Anaheim completly have changed their approch now). I had no probs with them playing extremely thight and organized, but when they struggled that season he completly abandonded every attempt to have a organized transition game, like for exampel NJD always have had, to go more towards just lifting the puck out. For a play off stretch that might work, but its a helluva challenge to play that way for a longer period of time. Which defenitly were the reason a team like Anaheim would rise and fall so fast. I defenitly don't belive in developing D's that way, its not hard to insert a system like it and there were no reason whatsoever dooing it in HFD.

On HFD of today, I kind of belive that a strong HFD is the best for the prospects. That a HFD that plays a advanced system greatly will benefit prospectsDubinsky and Pck. Guys that have the tools but needs to gain experience playing with the puck, to gain experience in the transition game ect.

At the same time, its defenitly possible that forwards like Korpedo, Dawes and Callahan might benefit just as much from learning to play a thight checking system, but that would defenitly not benefit Dubinsky or the D's.

In the end I think that its a close call either way. But I don't have a problem with Schoney trying to build a strong team, cause I belive that might be the best for our prospects. It goes hand in hand. But if someone beliefs otherwise, I can defenitly understand it.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2007, 08:47 AM
  #78
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
I said it during camp, so I'll mention it again: Brandon Dubinsky looked like a kid that's two years away.
I defenitly agrees with you that he didn't exactly look good in some aspects.

But somewhere around the 20 game mark in the AHL he really started to skate and started to get involved more.

He played great in the attacking zone in the PO's last season. Something he have done in camp for us too, but he have been a no factor as a center in the transition game all the time.

I am 100% sure he was told to especially concentrate on that in HFD, which might have been a reason for his slow start, and now its starting to pay off.

My guess is that he won't be ready this season, but at the same time I don't see a need for Dubinsky to fine tune his offensive game in the AHL, it is at such a high level that he might as well do that in the NHL. He just needs to get his game with the puck in his own end and in the neutral zone in order. He seems to be a slow starter, and then really pick up his game as the year passes, if he can take another jump like he did early in the season somewhere around Febuary I am not holding it impossible that he might might just be ready, and make sense, as a 2nd line C in the NHL. Him beeing a really slow starter might hold him back in camp some, but at the least I can see him really push for a spot this time next season.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2007, 08:53 AM
  #79
schmieder44
Registered User
 
schmieder44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 291
vCash: 500
Lets be realistic... what are the Rangers this year? Cup Contenders? IMO, they arent.... so why not incorporate some youth in the line up. Rotate AHL guys in for 5 games at a time and let them experience the NHL. If they prove themselves and get it done then they stay and help the big club its a win win. Ward, Betts, Hossa, even cullen.... are we really going to miss anything they provide?

schmieder44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2007, 09:02 AM
  #80
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mugerya View Post
While I do believe we badly need to incorporate youth immediately, we won't get anywhere by discussing it for this season. No one will budge on their stance, it's a waste of time. So let's look to next year. What's going to happen? Will the team finally allow for the open competition for spots with the potential for rookies winning them? Will we enter into camp with 8 veteran defensemen or will there be a chance for a Baranka or Giradi or Staal or any youngster (or 2) to win a spot. Will Dawes, Callahan, Dubinsky, Korpikoski, Immonen or Moore have a spot available if they well and truly deserve it or will there be too many vets in the way?

The problem I see within the next couple of seasons our imporved drafting will create a situation where alot of youngsters will be knocking on the door. A nice problem to have but is it practical to have such a young team. Do we want a d-corp made up of 4 players with less than 2 years experience? Do we want 7 or more forwards with the same amount of experience? Will the execs ever actually allow it or will they just sell off the youngsters in an attempt to land that one superstar that will fill the seats? I feel like their conservative approach now will lead to an unhealthy situation in a few years when we can no longer ignore the youth from below.
Its not that I don't belive that we "needs" to incorporate youth this season. I agrees 100% with everything you say. Though the problem comes when there is a risk for the youth to regress if incorporated. Like if we would play Baranka and he aren't ready.

Though there is defenitly a reason for concern about a "logjam". Putting a kid in a position to have success is A and O. What if Staal, Pck and Baranka all are ready next season, or if 3 of Pyatt, Korpikoski, Callahan and Dawes all could challenge for a spot?

At the same time, the clock is certainly ticking for our vets. There could defenitly be a new overhaul in 2-3 years, if not sooner, you never know with someone like JJ. This were the place he really wanted to be in, is that still the case?

Then it can come in handy to be able to take in 5-6 players again.

Another factor that I am not sure to be happy about or not, is that its amazing how healty we have been the last 1.5 seasons. I mean, what we experienced late in the regular last season is what many teams go through the entire year. Usually if you were the 8th D for a team, you would know that you would play atleast 25 games because of injurys.

At the same time, we have allot of great kids comming through the system now, Staal, Sauer, Baranka, Pck, Pyatt, Korpikoski, Dawes, Callahan and Dubinsky, thoose after them still have allot to prove. Even the odds for a 1st round pick like Sanguetti aren't that great. I listed 9 names, if only 6 of them make it its 2 per year over 3 years, which isn't a problem at all. We brought up 5 and a half last season.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2007, 10:02 AM
  #81
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Common, Larry... You should know that kids could only be helpful if environment is conducive for thier introduction. Otherwise they got burnt. Only teams with good goalies could afford young players that are not clear cut. If goalie is average, than the rock solid defense should be in place. Otherwise you get another Flyers situation.

I think we are doomed unless some miracle happen this season... At some point they will have to play kids, but only after any playoff hope is over. The only way to get to playoffs is to run vets for what is worth and pray Lundqvist will get back to last year form.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2007, 11:23 AM
  #82
Shadowtron
Registered User
 
Shadowtron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
Common, Larry... You should know that kids could only be helpful if environment is conducive for thier introduction. Otherwise they got burnt. Only teams with good goalies could afford young players that are not clear cut. If goalie is average, than the rock solid defense should be in place. Otherwise you get another Flyers situation.

I think we are doomed unless some miracle happen this season... At some point they will have to play kids, but only after any playoff hope is over. The only way to get to playoffs is to run vets for what is worth and pray Lundqvist will get back to last year form.
Absolutes! Gotta love'em -

Shadowtron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2007, 12:26 PM
  #83
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bathgate View Post
Mugerya: We can't incorporate all the youth at one time. Under the perfect scenario, one to three rookies are incorporated each year. Next year, Staal, Dubi, AND ANOTHER MAY QUALIFY. However, why can't Immonen, Baranka ,Dawes, or Callahan receive a shot this year. Is our defense so stellar that Baranka can't unseat A defenseman? Is our offense so dynamic that a Dawes Immonen or Callahan can't help. I'm tired of waiting for our veterans with no upside potential "leading the way."Renney has become a gutless coach!
I'm with you as far as this season and your assesment of the youth v. vets. I don't want to advocate rushing guys to their detrement but I just don't see hw anyone in this organization knows who is ready and who isn't. They scratch youth after promising games and send them down after solid stretches. They refuse to look at Staal for the 10 game allowance, they won't give kids enough time to acclimate and adjust to the NHL... perform right away or be damned with you. Meanwhile Malik gets a 40 game cushion.

And while I don't want to rush anyone...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
Its not that I don't belive that we "needs" to incorporate youth this season. I agrees 100% with everything you say. Though the problem comes when there is a risk for the youth to regress if incorporated. Like if we would play Baranka and he aren't ready.
we really don't know whether or not he's ready. A 5 game stint with Ward or Roszival wouldn't handicap his career. And this is really the root of my frustration. It is so blaringly obvious that Malik is ineffective and a hinderance on this team but Renney still favors him over the "risky" proposition of a Wolfpack defenseman getting some time. This front office has nothing in the sack when it comes to making the tough decision to ultimately bench the old in favor of the new. They want the easy solution: everyone who is currently on the roster will be the answer to the problems. They also have delusions of competing for a cup this year.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2007, 12:33 PM
  #84
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Baranka is in his second pro season.By all accounts,Baranka should be playing with the big club
you are correct. He played one playoff game in Hartford at the end of the 04-05 season and I misread that as a year. Even so, he is by no means an AHL neophyte.

xander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2007, 03:34 PM
  #85
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xander View Post
well that depends on the kid. I don't know why anyone would want to promote Dubinsky right now.
Because he's a centerman. That is likely "their" first and only reason for wanting him up at this time.

"He's got some potential as a 2nd line center, so why not bring him up to see if he can magically scoot into that role?"

From my viewpoint this isn't an Immonen we're talking about here; not a 23, soon to be 24 year-old, kid; not a player with 3-4 years of pro experience; not a player who's time and opportunities are beginning to steadily diminish.

You bring him up now and his performance, good or bad, will forever taint his reputation with the franchise. That, to me, is somewhat unfair. There is a lot of responsibility that follows the 2nd line center position and I don't think he needs that at this time.

I'd also like to point out that for as much as the Devil's system may have worked for them, it might not necessarily work with what we're building here. It's alright to pluck kids off of your farm team if they're just coming into the same system as one more of the already many interchangeable parts. That's not what the Rangers are doing.

Valuable lessons in teamwork, leadership, and winning can and need to be learned in Hartford - in addition to the development of skill.

The fan in me would like to argue that some players like Jessiman should be given more opportunity in the AHL. However, my good hockey sense tells me that if Jessiman were as good and deserving of the "first-round" reputation some people still associate him with he'd have earned it with his play in Hartford. He hasn't. Yes, to certain extents it's about giving guys a look and giving guys an opportunity, but if they continually fail to produce you can't just point to decreased icetime.

Ah, there it is...produce. Maybe if Jessiman were doing other things well he could grind out a niche for himself on the team, but he's not (not from what I'm hearing at any rate). He's got to do SOMETHING right for him to remain on the team...he can't just rest on his draft position.

Once you become property of an organization your draft status is irrelevant.

BigE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2007, 04:03 PM
  #86
MidnightRanger
Registered User
 
MidnightRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 1,469
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to MidnightRanger
I think the Rangers made a mistake by not addressing the second line center position. It contributed to Pruchas stunted growth. I mean how can get a rookie who scored 30 goals last year, granted more than half on the powerplay, and not get him a center to feed him the puck. I understand Shannahan has taken minutes and goals away from Prucha, but still it has become clear Cullen is a third line player, granted a very good one that can help you win, but he is not an offensive presence that can help Prucha or Dawes or any young winger we might want to insert in the second line. It also contributes to Brendan's slump. Now I think Dubinsky should be given a shot if anything to show him what he needs to work on. I know one thing about him and it is that he is HUNGRY. I don't think bringing him up too soon is going to hurt him, on the contrary it will accelerate his development by showing him he's not ready and he is not the type to hurt his confidence. On the contrary I think it would make him burn more and want to fix his flaws faster. Which can of course lead to the dark side but lets cross our fingers.

MidnightRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2007, 10:35 PM
  #87
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,302
vCash: 500
You know, something else that this article made me think about (and I don't believe it's been addressed in this thread): the Rangers handling of the Jessiman situation.

I mean, if this were the Devils, would they be forcing him to play on the top line in the A rather than sending him down to the ECHL? Obviously losing more games but hopefully accelerating his development? Larry obviously seems to think so - and much as it pains me to say this... I agree with him.

Makes a lot more sense than first cutting his ice time when he started out slow and then eventually demoting him.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2007, 11:01 PM
  #88
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
Where do you draw the line, though? When is enough, enough? Why stifle someone else just because Hugh happens to be a first round selection?

As I said earlier: once you become property of an organization, your draft status should (and in this case is) irrelevant.

Even if Hugh is contributing in areas other than scoring he's going to be retained on the Hartford squad. So ask yourself why he's being sent down. You can't just hand a player ice time and reward poor play with more ice time in hopes that the kid will suddenly snap out of it.

I think it speaks volumes that he's been sent down twice now in the last two years. I also think it speaks volumes that there is a clear difference in his production between the ECHL and AHL. It has nothing to do with ice time and everything to do with his capacity to play the game. It's that much faster, that much rougher, and you've got way less time and space to play. Nobody is going to back off of you in the AHL, let alone the NHL.

BigE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2007, 12:49 AM
  #89
KreiMeARiver*
Have Confidence
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UES
Posts: 6,621
vCash: 500
The team right now is old, slow, and the big 4 aside...average at best..

KreiMeARiver* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2007, 05:01 AM
  #90
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,859
vCash: 500
Looks like Larry will get his wish.Tom Renney,Don Maloney and three Rangers scouts(Frank Effinger is probably one of them)were at the Pack's practice yesterday

Quote:
Renney said the Rangers' most pressing needs are a better power play "with more diversified looks," more depth at center and a well-rounded defenseman who can help quarterback the power play. He said a lack of consistency has led to bad starts and finishes.
Quote:
Callahan, Dawes, center Brandon Dubinsky and defensemen Daniel Girardi and Ivan Baranka are the most likely to join the Rangers. The Rangers would have to put a player or players on waivers because they're at the 23-man limit.

"We're a year-and-a-half into rebuilding, sort or redefining the New York Rangers," Renney said. "So we have to be very observant and aware of what's going on [in Hartford], pay close attention to the growth of these players and make sure the fast track is not something we identify with"
http://www.courant.com/sports/hockey...adlines-hockey

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2007, 05:12 AM
  #91
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
You know, something else that this article made me think about (and I don't believe it's been addressed in this thread): the Rangers handling of the Jessiman situation.

I mean, if this were the Devils, would they be forcing him to play on the top line in the A rather than sending him down to the ECHL? Obviously losing more games but hopefully accelerating his development? Larry obviously seems to think so - and much as it pains me to say this... I agree with him.

Makes a lot more sense than first cutting his ice time when he started out slow and then eventually demoting him.
Quote:
I want the people running the Rangers to decide what's best for the Rangers; not the person who runs Hartford. (Is it better for the Rangers organization or is it better for the 2006-07 Wolf Pack to have Hugh Jessiman playing in the ECHL right now?)
Jessiman was sent to Charlotte because he was not getting the icetime in Hartford.It seems wins and losses are more important to Jim Schoenfeld than developing players.My pet peeve with Schoenfeld is the handling of Al Montoya.Hartford has had three games in three nights/days twice in the last month.Both times Schoenfeld has started Steve Valiquette twice in the three games in three games.Valiquette was given four starts to Montoya's two starts.The Valiquette starts were back to back.Why?Which player has the better future with the organization?It's not Valiquette.Wins and losses are important to Schoenfeld than developing players.See Brad Isbister


Last edited by RangerBoy: 01-24-2007 at 06:09 AM.
RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2007, 07:15 AM
  #92
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
Where do you draw the line, though? When is enough, enough? Why stifle someone else just because Hugh happens to be a first round selection?

As I said earlier: once you become property of an organization, your draft status should (and in this case is) irrelevant.

Even if Hugh is contributing in areas other than scoring he's going to be retained on the Hartford squad. So ask yourself why he's being sent down. You can't just hand a player ice time and reward poor play with more ice time in hopes that the kid will suddenly snap out of it.

I think it speaks volumes that he's been sent down twice now in the last two years. I also think it speaks volumes that there is a clear difference in his production between the ECHL and AHL. It has nothing to do with ice time and everything to do with his capacity to play the game. It's that much faster, that much rougher, and you've got way less time and space to play. Nobody is going to back off of you in the AHL, let alone the NHL.
BigE, if he was given every chance to succeed for a year or two and then was repeatedly sent down, I'd agree with you.

But as RangerBoy points out directly above this post, my understanding was that after the first week, when Hugh didn't immediately start lighting the lamp, he was relegated to the AHL equivalent of a 4th line player (kinda like Renney's done with Prucha). After not scoring there for the Pack for two months, he was THEN sent down to the Checkers. I think that Larry's, RB's and my point is that if the Devils were running his development, he'd be left on the top line (or at least the second line) for the better part of a season or more before he was dropped.

Frankly, I look at his dramatically better stats in the ECHL as proof of this fact, not evidence that he isn't ready for the A. I mean if the kid goes down to the next lower level and is immediately head and shoulders above (no pun intended) everyone else, doesn't that indicate that he should be given more of a chance in the AHL, rather than cut loose every time he slumps? Certainly this is what we're all saying about guys like Callahan, Immonen and Dawes when it comes to promotions/demotions from the Pack to the Rangers... isn't it?

BrooklynRangersFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2007, 07:20 AM
  #93
alkurtz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mahopac, NY
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Regarding next year: what makes anyone think that it will be any different? We're still going to be married to the Jagr-Straka-Nylander (if he resigns) trio, which means Ranger management will try to "win the Cup," vets will be signing as free agents this summer, and kids will be at Hartford. This is not a knock on Jags and crew, I wish others had their drive and work ethic.
Meanwhile today will bring the proof of the pudding. Rumors aside, when the Rangers practice tomorrow will anyone be up from the Pack? Will anyone be gone? In many ways this is as important a day for the future of this team as the days before the trade deadline in the last year before the lockout.
Will it be more of the same or will there be change in direction?

alkurtz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2007, 08:15 AM
  #94
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 BrooklynRangersFan View Post
BigE, if he was given every chance to succeed for a year or two and then was repeatedly sent down, I'd agree with you.

But as RangerBoy points out directly above this post, my understanding was that after the first week, when Hugh didn't immediately start lighting the lamp, he was relegated to the AHL equivalent of a 4th line player (kinda like Renney's done with Prucha). After not scoring there for the Pack for two months, he was THEN sent down to the Checkers. I think that Larry's, RB's and my point is that if the Devils were running his development, he'd be left on the top line (or at least the second line) for the better part of a season or more before he was dropped.
If the Devils were running his development, I can tell you for sure Brad Isbister would not be taking up his spot on the roster.

But honestly, I'm torn. If the orgnization as a whole just doesn't see Jessiman as a guy who's going to make it to the NHL in any capacity, then maybe you are better off with a guy like Isbister playing alongside your prospects. Ok, he's no Ken Gernander in terms of veteran AHL leadership, but he's a semi-skilled player with NHL experience on a young team largely new to pro hockey. That's worth something to Callahan, Dubinsky, et al, right? Certainly more of a benefit than an unproductive Jessiman, no?

I also have a hard time believing that "the evil" Jim Schoenfeld has so much authority in the organization that he can tell Sather that he's got no use for Hugh. If nothing else, you'd think Sather would want to save some face by throwing every resource he's got at Jessiman's development despite how it affects the Wolfpack as a whole. If there isn't a mandate from the top that Hugh plays no matter what, I think that also says something about how his future is viewed by the Rangers.

Melrose_Jr. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2007, 08:18 AM
  #95
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,456
vCash: 500
Rangerboy...

to expand, he recently started Valiquette back-to-back. I've been quite upset about his treatment of Montoya too. Seemed as though the team in front of him doesn't respond well, or hasn't played well, and thus Valiquette is getting more starts. And here are the stats:

Valiquette - GAA 2.27, 91.1% save, 23.3 shots per game, 26 games
AlMo - GAA 2.43, 91.0% save, 24.8 shots, 23 games.

The numers are significantly different, although Montoya seems to face more shots per game, so it's disappointing that Schoeny has put so much confidence in Valiquette. Perhaps he's being seriously evaluated in anticipation of a Weekes trade, who may have more value out there than losing him for nothing at the end of the year and the Rangers will have to ride Lundqvist into, and within the playoffs anyways. I dunno. You never know what this group is thinking.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2007, 08:24 AM
  #96
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,456
vCash: 500
Hugh...

seems to have been given many chances, but hasn't taken advantage of him. Heck, he's been sent to the ECHL and if he can't shine there, why would anybody think he'd shine in the AHL? I'd guess that the organization has not seen the progress in his play and that he'd be better served getting quality minutes in the AHL, perhaps playing with Bruce Graham, and see if he can get something going before getting going in the AHL.

MJ - Isbister's not great by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not only about winning. I was pissed earlier in the year when Dawes was sitting in the press box in New York when he could've been helping a young Hartford team, and particularly help out two young centermen (Immonen and Dawes), who struggled early in the season, and I'd guess that the lack of depth on wing had a little big to do with that. Dawes is not playing with Callahan and Immonen. That enables Isbister and Byers to play with Dubinsky. I think that helps Dubinsky's development moreso if he was paired with a guy like Jessiman and dealing with his struggles. You need to juggle certain players' development to achieve optimal results.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2007, 08:47 AM
  #97
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 Fletch View Post
I think that helps Dubinsky's development moreso if he was paired with a guy like Jessiman and dealing with his struggles. You need to juggle certain players' development to achieve optimal results.
That's what I was thinking too Fletch. If what's good for Jessiman isn't what's good for other Ranger prospects, then it's not good for the organization either.

Melrose_Jr. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2007, 08:48 AM
  #98
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
to expand, he recently started Valiquette back-to-back. I've been quite upset about his treatment of Montoya too. Seemed as though the team in front of him doesn't respond well, or hasn't played well, and thus Valiquette is getting more starts. And here are the stats:

Valiquette - GAA 2.27, 91.1% save, 23.3 shots per game, 26 games
AlMo - GAA 2.43, 91.0% save, 24.8 shots, 23 games.

The numers are significantly different, although Montoya seems to face more shots per game, so it's disappointing that Schoeny has put so much confidence in Valiquette. Perhaps he's being seriously evaluated in anticipation of a Weekes trade, who may have more value out there than losing him for nothing at the end of the year and the Rangers will have to ride Lundqvist into, and within the playoffs anyways. I dunno. You never know what this group is thinking.
The first three games in three nights segment
January 5-Montoya
January 6 7pm start on the road-Valiquette
January 7 4pm start at home-Valiquette

Second segment
January 19-Montoya
January 20 7pm start on the road-Valiquette
January 21 4pm start at home-Valiquette

Schoenfeld went with Valiquette back to back games with the 2nd game being a late afternoon game after a night of riding the bus

It makes no sense

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2007, 09:02 AM
  #99
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
In my opinion it's just one huge balancing act.

You want to enstill a winning mentality within these players.

You want to enstill discipline and attention to detail in these players.

You want to give all players an opportunity to succeed and develop.

So sometimes tough decisions need to be made. You maybe sacrifice one player's development for that of the entire team (or even just multiple players). In the case of Hugh, it's **** or get off the pot. What does any team in any league tell everyplayer from the outset of camp: "come ready to play and be physically and mentally prepared." It's obvious that Hugh wasn't ready, and so why should he be favoured over someone that was, just because he was drafted in the first round 3 years ago? What did he do last year or the year before that tells anyone that this is out of the ordinary? Nothing. So why make an exception for him and hurt the progress of others in the process?

Some of these moves don't make sense because we just don't have all of the information. I'm not saying don't even bother analyzing the situation. What I am saying is that you also have to look at the assumptions you're making when you get into your analysis. Larry makes some good points, but he's clearly tainted the glasses that you're now using to view this entire sitaution. The same Larry that many of you have not hesitated to criticize in the past and will not hesitate to do so in the future.

I'll be back. Good discussion.

BigE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2007, 09:53 AM
  #100
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,606
vCash: 500
BigE- I have never really had any problems with Brooks. I think the biggest beef people have with him is his traderumors, he reports some crazy ones at times, but so what. IMO thats better then nothing, if someone is out there spreading bogus rumors its for a reason atleast, and it can be speculated around what that reason is.

Brooks opinions is also just opinions, everyone got one. Put five coaches in NY, and we would see five diffrent lineups. If Brooks goes on a tirade to get us to sign Elias, he is entiteld to that, I don't care.

I do like that he got a helluva lot of bigger intergrity then many reporters around the team.

Ola 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 02:31 AM.

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.