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

Renney's Future

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-15-2007, 09:28 AM
  #26
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,976
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dank View Post
i've wanted to ask this for a while, but didn't want to start its own thread..

who (honestly) would be better and available as coach if/when Renney gets fired?

I personally have no idea, i am asking for sagely advice..

Who? Why? Chances?
I'm not sure either. And that's why I have said along that you can't just call for Renney to be fired. You have to have a replacement in mind that you are a close to certain as you can be will be a better coach than Renney.

Personally I like Renney and think he should be back.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 09:36 AM
  #27
I Am Chariot
One shift at a time
 
I Am Chariot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 14,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyattrocks View Post
Please. Renney is the right coach. Gimme a break. Renney has no clue and is about the worst coach you can have developing young talent. He ruined Dawes. He ruined Immonen. He'll try to ruin Dubinsky.

The Montoya pick was stupid. We already a very good goalie on the way. I'm quite sure he had nothing to do with Prucha. That was Rockstrom. Tyutin is OK. He's certainly not anything close that we were told he would be.
You're Nuts. What are you basing such an opinion on? He hasnt ruined anyone. Infact, he's GREAT at developing players. Just because it hasnt gone as fast as we might like it doesn't mean he's not good. He's made a few mistakes coaching within the game, but as far personel and getting the MOST out of players he's done a great job.

Dawes had his shot. He wasnt ready.. Immomen has had three shots. Are you really that impressed with him that he should play over someone else on the healthy roster? Immomen is a weak skater trying to break into a very fast paced league.

Montoya a weak pick? Thats just craaaazy.

This team does TWO things.

1. They ARE rebuilding, but many of those pieces are still in Hartford. Where they should be at this time.

2. They are playing to compete NOW with a team built around Jaromir Jagr and Henrik Lundqvist

In a perfect world the team would be healthy and we would see the awesome progression of Tyutin, Hossa, Lundqvist, Prucha, Girardi adding to a solid core of vet players like Jagr , Straka, Nylander, Shanny

Renny has this team competeing. How many one goal games have we lost? It sucks, but Renny isnt the one missing the open nets.

If Jagr can't hit an open net, what can a coach possibly do?

__________________
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man
I Am Chariot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 09:48 AM
  #28
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,976
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyattrocks View Post
Please. Renney is the right coach. Gimme a break. Renney has no clue and is about the worst coach you can have developing young talent. He ruined Dawes. He ruined Immonen. He'll try to ruin Dubinsky.

The Montoya pick was stupid. We already a very good goalie on the way. I'm quite sure he had nothing to do with Prucha. That was Rockstrom. Tyutin is OK. He's certainly not anything close that we were told he would be.
1) If Renney is about the worst coach you have developing young talent, explain the previous seven seasons prior to last one. No young talent. No playoffs. Renney has intergrated young players (Hossa, Orr, Prucha, Tyutin, Girardi) and made the playoffs. Worst coach? Sorry we've seen worse and not that long ago.

2) He ruined Immonen? One franchide already quit on him. And he has not shown anything the show that he belongs in the NHL.

3) He ruined Dawes? Rather than play Dawes 5 minutes a night on the fourth line or have him be a healthy scratch when Orr plays, Dawes was sent down to big minutes. That's just the smart thing to do.

4) Ozolinsh, Ward, Ward, Kasparaitis, Hall out. Girardi, Pock, Avery, Mara, Bourret in.

5) On the Montoya pick: nobody knew what Lundqvist was going to be (sure he had success in Europe but that by no means ensures success in the NHL). And it is clear in hindsight that the organization was very concerned about Blackburn's future.

Sorry, I just think you're take is oversimplified and regurgitationg stereotypical things. Right now this team is younger, better and has a brighter future than it did this time last year.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 09:55 AM
  #29
I Am Chariot
One shift at a time
 
I Am Chariot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 14,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
1)Right now this team is younger, better and has a brighter future than it did this time last year.
Hard to believe with all the injuries and blown leads etc, but VERY TRUE.

This team today is Better than any Ranger team we've seen in a long time, and there are more solid prospects on the way. Must be patient

I Am Chariot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 09:55 AM
  #30
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,564
vCash: 500
Actually when Lundqvist was drafted the team was just taking a chance as he hadn't proved anything at that point. They didn't even think he'd turn into what he's turned into. Then as time went on he developed into a world class goalie. At the time when Montoya was drafted no one had ever even heard of Henrik Lundqvist.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 09:56 AM
  #31
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycleandshoot View Post
Hard to believe with all the injuries and blown leads etc, but VERY TRUE.

This team today is Better than any Ranger team we've seen in a long time, and there are more solid prospects on the way. Must be patient
If this team didn't blow all of those leads they'd be pretty much in first. This team has talent coming out the ass, they just can't put it together for 60 minutes it seems.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 10:16 AM
  #32
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyF27 View Post
Actually when Lundqvist was drafted the team was just taking a chance as he hadn't proved anything at that point. They didn't even think he'd turn into what he's turned into. Then as time went on he developed into a world class goalie. At the time when Montoya was drafted no one had ever even heard of Henrik Lundqvist.
Yeah, though we also have to look at the players drafted after Alvaro.

Olez? Whats really his potential? Radek Bonk? 3rd line center? 2nd line center? I don't feel he got a ton of upside. Wolski and Mezaros, sure, we were even pretty high on Mezaros. Though Montoya still have allot of value. And he could be a major pice in a trade for a forward with much higher potential then Olesz.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 10:31 AM
  #33
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Sinign'..

1) One could argue that the talent pool was pretty low in the previous seven years due to the many purges in the years prior, and during that seven-year period. We all poop on Clueless Ron Low, but the guy tried to give chances to the young guys he had. He found a role for Lundmark as a left winger, he brought along Johnsson nicely, he incorporated Kloucek at a young age (was never the same after the knee injury), he gave Purinton a chance who actually looked good under him, he called up guys like Tripp to help-out, but was also mired with guys like Toms, Ulmer and others because the talent pool was so thin - guys not too dissimilar to this season's Isbister (Except Toms was actually more productive). There was also Hlavac, and Dvorak had a nice year under him (was never the same after the knee injury), among others, surprisingly. They may not have amounted to much, but I'm not sure he's really to blame since they mostly played well under him before handing over the reigns to Trottier. Again, the talent really wasn't there.

2) I agree about Immonen to an extent. He didn't ruin Immonen. He made comments that were mostly senseless and almost showed that he either wasn't watching the kid's previous 18 games in the NHL, or he didn't know what to say. You don't find out after 18 games over two seasons, including 6 games when the competition was fierce, that a kid can't play in the NHL. And then after that, you normally do not recall him. The handling of Immonen is very curious to say the lease, but in no way could one say he was ruined by Renney.

3) Again, this ruining stuff doesn't make a lot of sense. We can absolutely scratch our heads and ask why Dawes was played the way he was played. We can ask why Renney says one day he has no problem playing a kid on a fourth line, and then the next when he's sent down that he doesn't want a kid getting limited ice time. We can question why Dawes sat for a long period of for no apparent reason as he would've been better off in HFD, and HFD would've been better off with him. But he's far from ruined.

4) Liike what went out and what came in - which is more Sather - his fault for bringing in, but give credit for getting them out. I don't think Renney had much of a choice since Ozo and Kaspar really weren't cutting it - one could ask why they were even in the lineup at all. I still believe that Hall was misplaced as a Ranger. He wasn't in a position to succeed, but that's not Renney's fault - that's the man who built the team.

5) Agree fully. I didn't like the pick because it's boring to take a goalie in the first round because we all want to see glitz and flair. But at the time, the pick was there and this team needed a goalie and couldn't rely on one guy making it. And heck, what happens if that one guy goes down and misses 15 games next season?

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 11:17 AM
  #34
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,976
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
1) One could argue that the talent pool was pretty low in the previous seven years due to the many purges in the years prior, and during that seven-year period. We all poop on Clueless Ron Low, but the guy tried to give chances to the young guys he had. He found a role for Lundmark as a left winger, he brought along Johnsson nicely, he incorporated Kloucek at a young age (was never the same after the knee injury), he gave Purinton a chance who actually looked good under him, he called up guys like Tripp to help-out, but was also mired with guys like Toms, Ulmer and others because the talent pool was so thin - guys not too dissimilar to this season's Isbister (Except Toms was actually more productive). There was also Hlavac, and Dvorak had a nice year under him (was never the same after the knee injury), among others, surprisingly. They may not have amounted to much, but I'm not sure he's really to blame since they mostly played well under him before handing over the reigns to Trottier. Again, the talent really wasn't there.

5) Agree fully. I didn't like the pick because it's boring to take a goalie in the first round because we all want to see glitz and flair. But at the time, the pick was there and this team needed a goalie and couldn't rely on one guy making it. And heck, what happens if that one guy goes down and misses 15 games next season?
1)The young talent may not have been there but the NHL talent was and the team didn't make the playoffs.

5) I don't neccesarily like taking goalies in the first round but it's hard to knock the Montoya pick.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 11:27 AM
  #35
WheresBarnaby
Registered User
 
WheresBarnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 2,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycleandshoot View Post
Hard to believe with all the injuries and blown leads etc, but VERY TRUE.

This team today is Better than any Ranger team we've seen in a long time, and there are more solid prospects on the way. Must be patient
Exactly, the Rangers org. has done a complete 180 degree turn from their old ways. We've got a good future ahead of us even if this year's not the year. We've some great personel right now, (with everyone healthy) but more importantly I don't think they expect anything to be handed to them, and that's way different from the old days of assembling an all star team, and just expecting them to gel. There are still issues, but this team is much better than last year's, even though we may not make the playoffs.

WheresBarnaby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 11:33 AM
  #36
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Didn't think...

the NHL talent was there, especially when you compare to today. Each season had its share of problems. Goaltending over those many years was inconsistent at best. You had old guy after old guy come in. There were Kamensky, Fleury, and the like. There was the reliance on Lindros, who was one hit away from retirement in each game he played. You had a 40+ year old Messier playing 20+ minutes because nobody was stepping it up. You had Nedved, who was Nedved - good one day, Nedved the next. Those teams that were constructed seemed to be constructed with little sense, little synergy. These past two seasons' team are flawed, but had a healthy Jagr and Lundqvist. I can say with confidence that one of Low's team would've made the playoffs had Lindros stayed healthy, even with the goaltending they had. It makes such a difference and the confidence resonates throughout the lineup, from second line to fourth line and back on the defense.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 11:52 AM
  #37
bathgate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 874
vCash: 500
Singn, Fletch: I have not loved Renney this year. I think he overused Jagr, Straka, Nylander and Shanny early on. The big four suffered in the second half. The use of Prucha is a mystery. The kid was terrific on the power play last year and again has shown is ability on the pp with Shanny hurt. Immonen did not receive enough of a chance imo. Malik has been inconsistent and should have been benched on a number of occasions. I am happy the kids are now getting a chance. However, some deserved the opportunity earlier in the year rather than now when the playoffs hang iN the balance. The Devs seem to give meaningful minutes to the kids. WHY NOT US?
Imo it seems Renney coached not to lose.

bathgate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 11:58 AM
  #38
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
I actually agree 100%, bathgate...

although I would never say Renney's a bad coach. I do say that I don't believe he's gotten the best out of this team. There are coaches out there who can, guys like Ruff, Nolan and others. I believe he analyzes the game better than most, but doesn't always have the right answers.

As for who'd be better who's available...honestly, off the top of my head I can't think of anyone. I can't think of many coaches off the top of my head these days anyways (although I actually think Schoenfeld would do a better job). And it may not just be Renney - are his assistants that good? Pelino runs the PP, and that has run hot and cold like no other. Not a bad percentage, but lumpy as all heck, and that has had an effect on this team's results this season.

Renney's not a huge deal to me in the end. I'm not overly negative towards him, but not overly positive either. He's definitely done some good, little bad, and could be better in many other areas. Fine. It definitely could be worse.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 12:04 PM
  #39
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,976
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bathgate View Post
Singn, Fletch: I have not loved Renney this year. I think he overused Jagr, Straka, Nylander and Shanny early on. The big four suffered in the second half. The use of Prucha is a mystery. The kid was terrific on the power play last year and again has shown is ability on the pp with Shanny hurt. Immonen did not receive enough of a chance imo. Malik has been inconsistent and should have been benched on a number of occasions. I am happy the kids are now getting a chance. However, some deserved the opportunity earlier in the year rather than now when the playoffs hang iN the balance. The Devs seem to give meaningful minutes to the kids. WHY NOT US?
Imo it seems Renney coached not to lose.
I'm not saying he's been perfect. But he has his teams giving an honest effort pretty much every night. He has made some curious decisions but the team seems to buy into his system. And he's had the most success of any coach since Campbell.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 12:11 PM
  #40
ruckus*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 3,554
vCash: 500
I don't understand people who want Renney fired. Yes, there are areas he isn't perfect. Who is though? Yes, there is always room for improvement. But does anyone remember how pitiful this team has been since '97? This organization was a complete mess and it wasn't going to be fixed overnight. All Renney has done is taken a team that was projected to finish dead last in the NHL and get them to the playoffs (they should have won the division too) and come back this year, with a team that I think we all knew wasn't as good as they played last year and has them right back in the thick of things with injuries all over the place and kids on the ice. If you want Renney to go, my guess is you haven't been watching this team for the past 10 years. Because he's taking us in the right direction.

ruckus* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 12:16 PM
  #41
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by robruckus View Post
I don't understand people who want Renney fired. Yes, there are areas he isn't perfect. Who is though? Yes, there is always room for improvement. But does anyone remember how pitiful this team has been since '97? This organization was a complete mess and it wasn't going to be fixed overnight. All Renney has done is taken a team that was projected to finish dead last in the NHL and get them to the playoffs (they should have won the division too) and come back this year, with a team that I think we all knew wasn't as good as they played last year and has them right back in the thick of things with injuries all over the place and kids on the ice. If you want Renney to go, my guess is you haven't been watching this team for the past 10 years. Because he's taking us in the right direction.
You can say that, but you can also say that Renney inherrited a team that had Jagr about to play an MVP season, Henrik Lundqvist breaking out as a world class goalie and Petr Prucha having a breakout rookie season. That and inherriting a team that Glen Sather/Don Maloney built.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 12:20 PM
  #42
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Personally....

the last 6, 7, or 10 years, whichever timeframe you use, is meaningless to me. Because other teams lacked players, coaches, or whatever, doesn't mean I should be happy about the general direction or coaching today. I like to look at the today and tomorrow when evaluating this team, not where it was yesterday. I had always said that I didn't think the Rangers went from a basement dweller to being a playoff contending team last year as I fully believed that the whole NHL was a restart because there was very little continuity from team to team due to the year off and all the movement. So what happened in the Rangers' last season was meaningless to me.

Further, I couldn't give a rat's behind about projections. Look at teams like Carolina, Buffalo, Edmonton and others last season - where were they projected? I don't think many had Carolina making the playoffs, let alone win the Cup, or had Edmonton in the Conference Finals. Nobody knew last season what to expect, and personally, I threw out all predictions.

As for this team - this team is better than last season's team. Unfortunately, so are other teams and last season's team wasn't as good as it was the first 2-3 months of the season. This team is still a .500 team (mediocre) - they're 43-51 since the Olympics. I still believe they could be better. I personally am not calling for Renney to be fired, and never had, but also thought there may've been better coaching choice out there to start last season (Nolan being at the top of my list, and he's making me want him here even more - I think he gets the best out of his players).

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 12:25 PM
  #43
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,976
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyF27 View Post
You can say that, but you can also say that Renney inherrited a team that had Jagr about to play an MVP season, Henrik Lundqvist breaking out as a world class goalie and Petr Prucha having a breakout rookie season. That and inherriting a team that Glen Sather/Don Maloney built.
Maybe Renney had something to do with those things?

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 12:26 PM
  #44
Blueshirt Special
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Blueshirt Special's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,162
vCash: 500
I don't think we should be talking about getting rid of Renney.

Certainly you can find some fault for things this year if you go looking, but I don't think you can "blame" him for us being in the situation we are in. (ie; on the playoff bubble).

I think it does more harm than good to get rid of him this year. A head coach has to be given sufficient time to mold a team and develop his program. We need continuity.

That said, I DO think that next season is his make-or-break year. I would expect to make a serious run for the Eastern Conference Finals in '07-'08. Meaning we get to at least game 7 of the 2nd round.

Blueshirt Special is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 12:27 PM
  #45
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,799
vCash: 500
Fleetch and Singing- On the past years, we can't only look at the coaches, management must be part of it too.

Nobody came here and said, "I'll get you to the PO's -- in 3 years". Looking back, I have no doubt in my mind that thats what should have been done.

I am not talking about Pittsburgh type of rebuild, but thats how a team have to be coached, and we didn't have a platform to start from, since we were left at the station when the rest of the teams started to play after systems and started to trapp. We were minus 3 years.

I don't really think one can say that we had the players, but not the team game. Its a team game, thats the only thing that matters.

Right now, I think we got a jumpstart with the new rules, were everyone kind of started on minus, and at this point, I feel we kind of are on par with league avg when it comes to our team game. Some aspects are really good, like the transition game, like our balance between forechecking and holding on to the puck -- we can dominate on time. Not suprisingly we are behind in allot of other areas, all which origns from us not beeing together as a group for long enough time.

Id like to see the work we have started now be continued for atleast 2 more years, while the kids are brought up and allot of empizise are put on how we play as a team by the people in charge, with allot of empizise on X and O's and developing.

And especially to develop continuity in the organization. With fast and hardworking LW's, with smart 2-way centers with some speed, with RW's that are really strong along the boards. With a mix of stay athome D's and puckmoving D's.

Thoose aspects are so important. Before we could have something like Rucinsky-Holik-Kovalev, Carter-Lindros-Nedved, Simon-Mess-Baranaby = a complete mess. If we have continuity, and a LW in the NHL is injured, there will be 4 LW's in the AHL who are used to playing in exactly that role, with the same types of linemates. That jump will be so much easier. Detroit and NJD have had that continuity for a long time, and drafted by it. I defenitly think thats a good reason for why they have been so successful at developing their picks.


Last edited by Ola: 03-15-2007 at 12:33 PM.
Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 12:32 PM
  #46
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
ola...

I think the jumpstart occured with the cap and strike too. Having a year off and massive player movement created an opportunity for a team built with complementary players, and players who have played together before, helped a team like the Rangers. That was smart on Sather's part. You had Nylander who played with Jagr. Jagr, Straka and Rozsival played together. Adding in Czechs such as Ruca, Prucha and Malik made sense too, based on style and comfort. That, plus Lundqvist, who unlike many goalies played the prior season, was the core of the team. Many of the others were support guys/grinders and manned the bottom two lines and second and third pairings.

That team was smartly put together to get to where they got in a short period of time.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 12:43 PM
  #47
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,976
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
Fleetch and Singing- On the past years, we can't only look at the coaches, management must be part of it too.

Nobody came here and said, "I'll get you to the PO's -- in 3 years". Looking back, I have no doubt in my mind that thats what should have been done.

I am not talking about Pittsburgh type of rebuild, but thats how a team have to be coached, and we didn't have a platform to start from, since we were left at the station when the rest of the teams started to play after systems and started to trapp. We were minus 3 years.

I don't really think one can say that we had the players, but not the team game. Its a team game, thats the only thing that matters.

Right now, I think we got a jumpstart with the new rules, were everyone kind of started on minus, and at this point, I feel we kind of are on par with league avg when it comes to our team game. Some aspects are really good, like the transition game, like our balance between forechecking and holding on to the puck -- we can dominate on time. Not suprisingly we are behind in allot of other areas, all which origns from us not beeing together as a group for long enough time.

Id like to see the work we have started now be continued for atleast 2 more years, while the kids are brought up and allot of empizise are put on how we play as a team by the people in charge, with allot of empizise on X and O's and developing.

And especially to develop continuity in the organization. With fast and hardworking LW's, with smart 2-way centers with some speed, with RW's that are really strong along the boards. With a mix of stay athome D's and puckmoving D's.

Thoose aspects are so important. Before we could have something like Rucinsky-Holik-Kovalev, Carter-Lindros-Nedved, Simon-Mess-Baranaby = a complete mess. If we have continuity, and a LW in the NHL is injured, there will be 4 LW's in the AHL who are used to playing in exactly that role, with the same types of linemates. That jump will be so much easier. Detroit and NJD have had that continuity for a long time, and drafted by it. I defenitly think thats a good reason for why they have been so successful at developing their picks.
I don't like Sather. I don't think he came here and did what he said he would do. It's taken too long to get to where we are now (especially when you factor in that we went 7 sevens out of the playoffs.)

That said, if management has been the same, a lot does come down on the coaches and Sather's choice of coaches.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 12:50 PM
  #48
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,799
vCash: 500
At one time during the preseason we had these 3 lines in HFD and 2 lines in the NHL.

The AHL:
Korpikoski - Dubinsky - Moore
Callahan - Helminen - Jessiman
Petruzalek- Falardeau - Weller

The NHL:
Prucha - Straka - Hall
Dawes - Cullen - Ward


It were preseason, and Jagr were out, and they didn't stuck long. But I still love it, all players at each positions are almost identical with each other. Really fast hardowing LW's, smart 2-way centers and big RW's.

I think we have aquired all these players either with Renney as VP of player personall or with him as the coach.

If Renney is fired for a struggling PP unit in combination of a missed PO now, who in their right mind would ever come here to NY again and focus on the future to this extent?

I mean, this is a example of all decisions we have made which maybe hurts us a bit now -- you know not taking the BPA, or signing BPA, but signing players that fits into a system that only will be in place at full force 3-4 years after they were made. But on the other hand, will really start paying off maybe 4-5 years from now, when we have been able to build after that model for longer period of time.

Young players in NJD and Detroit so often succeds because they are handpicked for one spot, they are never asked to do more then necessary. They are then given time in the minors to play in exactly that enviorment, so that once they got a shot its like they have been playing their for years.

Its also sets a benchmark for young kids. They know what they have to be able to do, they are already asked to do it in the AHL. Their are players just like them already in the NHL. It also makes it so much easier to replace injured guys, or players lost to UFA ect. Something I think is a must in a cap enviorment.

Before when we drafted Malhotra to come here and be that steady 2-way center that we didn't have, nobody really new with who he would play, or how he would do. But we figured we needed someone like him.

Look at Tom Pyatt now. He will go into a line up in the AHL in a LW-role exactly the same as the one used in the NHL. He will play with team same types of centers and RW's that we have in the NHL. If/when we decide its time to move one of Straka/Prucha/Avery/Hollweg, we will have a player with the same style in the minors. Pyatt will be able too come up to the NHL and play with the same types of linemates that he is used to from the AHL. He will be asked to do the same job.

Pyatt will have extremely much better conditions to establish himself in the NHL, compared to what Malhotra had.


Last edited by Ola: 03-15-2007 at 01:05 PM.
Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 12:53 PM
  #49
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
I agree SBOB...

I'll continue to say that Sather should not have been the guy to start last season as GM. Don't care about the result, but considering the job he had done up until that point, he deserved to be canned.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 12:56 PM
  #50
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,976
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
I'll continue to say that Sather should not have been the guy to start last season as GM. Don't care about the result, but considering the job he had done up until that point, he deserved to be canned.
I'll do you one better. I would have made Sather coach the team after he fired Trottier and give him the ultimatum that he needs to make the playoffs or he's out.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 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 07:42 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.