HFBoards

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

Renney's Future

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-15-2007, 12:25 PM
  #51
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,110
vCash: 500
Ahhhh.

touche...

Fletch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 12:27 PM
  #52
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
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.
Agreed. If we do go for someone else, I don't want a 'name', just someone who's hungry, not the Mike Keenan's.....

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 12:32 PM
  #53
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
Mugerya- This is a very subjective issue, but haven't Renney been able to get this team to work really hard?
The one objective issue is that Renney routinely gives the team optional skates the day after bad loses. Not tough loses or one's we were supposed to win, I'm talking about the 2 to 3 goal lead variety. I'm talking about the loses where our team quit. Anything that qualifies as unacceptable and be honest, we've had plenty of them this season. He has almost never punished this team with skating drills, Schoenfield does it routinely. Whether one style is better than the other is debatable, but I don't see much room for argument when it comes to Renney being soft.

One other problem I have is he seems to be very stubborn. He won't change the PP lineup, he won't bench guys when it is deserved, he won't match lines. He seems deteremined to win games his way. Keep in mind, I was very critical of Renney in the first half, the second half I have noticed a marked improvement in the team's day to day effort. I think Renney will be back next year and as long as the team finishes they way they are playing it will be deserved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyF27 View Post
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.
It this an endorsement for keeping or firing Renney?

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 12:36 PM
  #54
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,487
vCash: 500
IDK, I'm kind of on the fence on the whole issue.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 12:41 PM
  #55
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 19,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
With all due respect Inferno, its a completly diffrent game for a coach to be behind a bench full of players under 22, and to get them motivated, compared to the NHL.

Now I really like how Schoney have developed the kids down there. But to be honest, I don't think he got nearly the tactical understanding of the game that Renney got. Schoney is more old-time, and that got its advantages bringing up kids, since its more about the basics. But the diffrent between that style, and whats successful in the NHL right now is like night and day. All great teams, especially Anaheim, Buffalo and Nashville got really advanced systems.

I defenitly think that the tactical aspects are just as important for the future as beeing able to teach the kids, something I on the other hand think Renney are dooing a good job with.

Anyway, its so important that we can create our own identity here in NY. Just like Detroit got one, just like NJD got one. I know that allot of guys just want someone who can get the players to work hard. But IMO thats shortsighted, cause with that approch their will be 30 teams every year who at any time can challenge us. You need a platform that goes beyond hard work, like Devlis trap, like Detroits system, like Buffalo's transition game, like Anaheims extremely advanced and well drilled forecheck. Its when you got that plattform, which takes years to build, that you can be successful over a long period of time, and really establish yourself as a contender.

I know that allot of people are sceptical about what Renney are trying to build, but I am the complete opposite. He is aiming pretty high, but the outcome got potential to be great. And its defenitly not a "soft" system, Canada where never soft when Renney coached them. We got soft guys now, because we had to choose between leftovers, and it were either soft skilled players, or tough players that had no skill.

Their is actually more room for tough D's in Renney's system then there are in Lindy Ruff's Buffalo. Ruff system is based on extremely fast transition plays, and all his D's needs to be able to move the puck really fast. Renney's system is based on a smart center, and one offensive D, to get a safe transition game through the neutralzone, more like Detroit and Tampa then Buffalo. And got a really hard puckpursuite side when we get the puck down low, with the LW in a reallt special role where he is supposed to dart in first, force a east-west pass, and then be able to jolt back really fast when the center and RW comes in hard. Just recently, like after christmas, we have also started to make a choice too, when to forecheck, and when to trap. Which is great. If the option is to forecheck a D who got the puck under controll behind his own net with support in place, or to back off and trap, the later is better. Though, its also a example of how advanced it can be to inforce a system. Not only most the 5 guys on the ice be able to trapp as a unit, and forecheck as a unit, they have to be able to make the same decision wheter to trap or forecheck on the ice.

So for me, the system Renney are trying to install here, the platform he is trying to build, is enough alone for me to want him to stay. When he is done, then we can start talking about what coach is the best to motivate the team, or what coach is the best game coach.
and yet many people, including myself say the Rangers overcomplicate their game. Seriously though, i think Schoenfelds more north american styled game would work just fine in New York. how many times do we say, shoot the puck? how many times do we say, get a guy in front and get ugly goals. you can create the most advanced offensive or defensive games in the world, but hockey is still about instinct, the more you have to think, the more opportunity there is for mistakes. I like simple games, call me an idiot if you want, thats fine, but i still feel playing more like schoenfeld and less like the way the rangers are currently playing is the way to go.

now a more important question would be are the guys executing the style of play the Rangers want?

what I find really interesting is how when Jagr takes the puck along the right boards, draws in 3 guys, does a quick circle back and passes it to the right point who in turn passes it to the left point, that "play" looks like a perfect way to get off a point shot w/ relatively high odds that the shot will get on net, and you could have a guy like jagr, or whoever else is down low roll into a position to deflect it in, or try to get dirty goals. but inevitably the point shot DOESNT come from the guy on the left wing boards, the puck continues to be treated like a hot potato until a perfect play is available. there are tons of plays like these that i can imagine Renney is drawing up to get shots, but the team doesnt shoot. whose fault is that though? is it the players for not doing what the coach (may be) is telling them, or is it the coach for not benching or further setting up penalties for not doing what is expected of them.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 02:31 PM
  #56
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,288
vCash: 500
Inferno-

Schonfield are using the exact same system in HFD as Renney does in the NHL. It have just been mapped down and faxed to HFD. And its defenitly a big reason for the success HFD are having, allot of other teams down there are plaing like its in the stoneages, HFD's gameplan is realy superior. They aren't that great if you look at the roster, but they quit often reallt dominates the games down there.

McGill was fired for kind of abondoned that system, he used the same forecheck as we do, but wanted his D to just lift the puck out.

A big reason for why Schoney was appointed as coach were because it were hard to find a good coach who were willing to come in to HFD and use a system that wasn't his.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 02:36 PM
  #57
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,110
vCash: 500
Did McGill abandon the system?

I thought this was pretty much the system McGill was using.

There seems to be a few versions as to why McGill was fired...I remember reading that some players, especially JOrts, were quite shocked when it happened.

Fletch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 04:10 PM
  #58
johnny_rudeboy
Registered User
 
johnny_rudeboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Karlstad
Country: Sweden
Posts: 11,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post

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.
And then they say Renney doesnt have a system. Just that it is a work in progress. Getting rid of Renney would be a very big mistake. If there is some attitude missing from the bench, get in an old school assistent to do the yelling.

johnny_rudeboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 04:58 PM
  #59
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
I thought this was pretty much the system McGill was using.

There seems to be a few versions as to why McGill was fired...I remember reading that some players, especially JOrts, were quite shocked when it happened.
The season before McGill were fired I think he really implemented Renney's system well. I got some games with HFD from that time, and HFD plays really well as a team. Of course its the AHL, pre rulechanges, and McGill had a pretty darn good roster at that level.

Though McGill didn't get any results in the PO's, baby Pitts had darn good team too. The year after HFD struggled pretty much in the regular season, they got the wins, but with their roster more should have been expected. McGill then started to handcuff his D's, wanted them to play more like Calgary did. Nothing wrong with that at that time, especially if you wanted to get wins. But it have never been a good way to develop D's. In the PO's that year HFD's D's didn't pass the puck often. They just sent it out off the boards.

I think McGill did a really good job with Orts, Holly, Moore and Co. They had a really good forecheck. But especially with the redline removed, there is no way you can have any kind of success without a puckmoving blueline. Nobody can argue against that.

Before Renney came on we really didn't have a system at all in the organization. I think the thought all along were that Slats would give it one last shot with the big stars we had, while McGill started implementing Renney's system in HFD. Renney were in charge of developing the kids, and there were reported in how he at the time empizied on getting them tactically schooled at his camp and how HFD also tryed to really focus on his X and O's so that the kids knew what they where dooing when they got up. When McGill where brought on it were talked about how he where a good X and O guy who could implement Renney's ideas in HFD.


Last edited by Ola: 03-15-2007 at 05:05 PM.
Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 05:06 PM
  #60
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,110
vCash: 500
His teams...

seem to play a very disciplined, defensive brand of hockey. Labarbera's numbers were ridiculous.

Fletch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 05:40 PM
  #61
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
seem to play a very disciplined, defensive brand of hockey. Labarbera's numbers were ridiculous.
Old rules though.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 07:17 PM
  #62
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 19,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
Inferno-

Schonfield are using the exact same system in HFD as Renney does in the NHL. It have just been mapped down and faxed to HFD. And its defenitly a big reason for the success HFD are having, allot of other teams down there are plaing like its in the stoneages, HFD's gameplan is realy superior. They aren't that great if you look at the roster, but they quit often reallt dominates the games down there.

McGill was fired for kind of abondoned that system, he used the same forecheck as we do, but wanted his D to just lift the puck out.

A big reason for why Schoney was appointed as coach were because it were hard to find a good coach who were willing to come in to HFD and use a system that wasn't his.
all i can say is, from the ~dozen games ive seen this year from the pack, and every single ranger game ive seen since Renney started I can say the systems look NOTHING alike. perhaps the execution is better in HFD than here, but there it looks very north-south, dump the puck and chase it if there is no entry, etc. here its very east west, regroup if there is no entry into the zone, lots of cross ice passes trying to find the perfect play.

to me, the teams look nothing alike.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 07:58 PM
  #63
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by inferno272 View Post
all i can say is, from the ~dozen games ive seen this year from the pack, and every single ranger game ive seen since Renney started I can say the systems look NOTHING alike. perhaps the execution is better in HFD than here, but there it looks very north-south, dump the puck and chase it if there is no entry, etc. here its very east west, regroup if there is no entry into the zone, lots of cross ice passes trying to find the perfect play.

to me, the teams look nothing alike.
Please Inferno, does line 2-4 in NY play less North American then HFD does?

Its a diffent league playing against teams that plays completly diffrent styles. Many teams in the AHL have huge problems handling the new rules, there is 3-4 Derian Hatchers on most teams down there. The results are that they collapse down around their own net, and practically hands over the attacking zone.

Inferno, the grass is always greener elsewhere when it comes to Renney, right?...

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 08:12 PM
  #64
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,370
vCash: 500
my take on some of the issues regarding coaching...

1. renney's never and i mean never had a problem with getting this team to work hard. his problems arise with getting consistent execution of his system and line combos/d-pairings.

2. his strength has been development. ppl can nitpick over a player here and there, but he's gotten results out of the young guys and if they weren't listening to him(lundmark, and for a lot of this season pock) they don't get the time. you can argue whether pock should be playing the whole season or not but the fact is he's looked a whole lot better in his recent stint that at points earlier.

3. i have believed for a while that he's under a "make the playoffs or you're out as coach" edict. it's just not as broadcasted out loud as with previous coaches here, which should be a compliment.

4. while i wouldn't shed a tear if he's out, i think he's already accomplished what he set out to do when he was hired as coach. he's brought a ton of respect and pride back in the logo and is easily seen as the shining light of management. a part of me thinks he should be back so he can coach a presumably more healthy jagr and what should be an even more talented team next season when i hope expectations will be high again.

5. however, if he's not back i'm on record as giving a call to pat quinn. please don't laugh.

BwayBshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2007, 09:55 AM
  #65
True Blue Bleed Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
seem to play a very disciplined, defensive brand of hockey. Labarbera's numbers were ridiculous.
Yes....hope they continue to do so and lock down a style here. I really don't think we've had a set identity all year

True Blue Bleed Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2007, 01:28 PM
  #66
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyCaptain11 View Post
my take on some of the issues regarding coaching...

1. renney's never and i mean never had a problem with getting this team to work hard. his problems arise with getting consistent execution of his system and line combos/d-pairings.
Come on. Never? This team has never had a problem working hard? I'll have to go ahead a disagree here. Hardworking teams don't lose half of their games after gaining a 2 goal lead. http://hockeyrodent.com/ (11th paragraph) I'm not saying they get out worked everynight but just looking at the stats and you know the effort isn't always there. And personally I felt like the first 2 months of the season this team played like they were entitled to the wins. Just my opinion though.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2007, 01:30 PM
  #67
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyCaptain11 View Post
my take on some of the issues regarding coaching...

1. renney's never and i mean never had a problem with getting this team to work hard. his problems arise with getting consistent execution of his system and line combos/d-pairings.

2. his strength has been development. ppl can nitpick over a player here and there, but he's gotten results out of the young guys and if they weren't listening to him(lundmark, and for a lot of this season pock) they don't get the time. you can argue whether pock should be playing the whole season or not but the fact is he's looked a whole lot better in his recent stint that at points earlier.

3. i have believed for a while that he's under a "make the playoffs or you're out as coach" edict. it's just not as broadcasted out loud as with previous coaches here, which should be a compliment.

4. while i wouldn't shed a tear if he's out, i think he's already accomplished what he set out to do when he was hired as coach. he's brought a ton of respect and pride back in the logo and is easily seen as the shining light of management. a part of me thinks he should be back so he can coach a presumably more healthy jagr and what should be an even more talented team next season when i hope expectations will be high again.

5. however, if he's not back i'm on record as giving a call to pat quinn. please don't laugh.
You had me all the way up until PQ. He's a flounder.

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2007, 01:56 PM
  #68
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mugerya View Post
Come on. Never? This team has never had a problem working hard? I'll have to go ahead a disagree here. Hardworking teams don't lose half of their games after gaining a 2 goal lead. http://hockeyrodent.com/ (11th paragraph) I'm not saying they get out worked everynight but just looking at the stats and you know the effort isn't always there. And personally I felt like the first 2 months of the season this team played like they were entitled to the wins. Just my opinion though.
A pretty typical argument these days.

It ought to be just as natrual to say that its defenite proof that we are a hardworking team since we so often comes out of the gate and outwork better teams and takes a 2-0 lead.

We have blown some leads that we should have kept, no doubt, like against Florida and Tampa, but on several occasions we have lost 2 periods with 2-3 goals against better teams, why should that prove that we aren't working hard? Better teams usually scores more goals in hockey, Detroit/Pittsburgh/NJD/Ottawa have done that against us, after getting outworked in the 1st.

All someone need to do is watch this team play, are we getting outworked? Defenitly not. Misstakes and more misstakes have lost thoose leads. Hockeyplayers that are in over their head makes misstakes.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2007, 02:03 PM
  #69
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,110
vCash: 500
MyCaptain..

I think losing leads late is sometimes a sympton of not playing hard for a full 60 minutes. We've said it way too much this season that this team either comes out flat or loses steam at some point.

Fletch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2007, 04:41 PM
  #70
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
A pretty typical argument these days.

It ought to be just as natrual to say that its defenite proof that we are a hardworking team since we so often comes out of the gate and outwork better teams and takes a 2-0 lead.

We have blown some leads that we should have kept, no doubt, like against Florida and Tampa, but on several occasions we have lost 2 periods with 2-3 goals against better teams, why should that prove that we aren't working hard? Better teams usually scores more goals in hockey, Detroit/Pittsburgh/NJD/Ottawa have done that against us, after getting outworked in the 1st.

All someone need to do is watch this team play, are we getting outworked? Defenitly not. Misstakes and more misstakes have lost thoose leads. Hockeyplayers that are in over their head makes misstakes.
How come they aren't in over their heads in the first period? How come they are great for 30-40 minutes but become mistake prone in the final stetch? I'm not buying this. It would be one thing if the guys were getting beat around the entire game, but they show how they can play if they apply themselves. That is how they get the leads, that is how they dominate play. Just look at our failure to win those games with a 2 goal lead. No one in the league is close to us in this particular feat. Not even the teams that clearly suck. Not even the average teams, which I think we can all agree that this team falls within.

Look, something's wrong with us late in games. If you don't want to blame it on work ethic than you have to put it somewhere. Mental toughness? System? Mistakes? It doesn't all fall on Renney but to absolve him is silliness. I don't want to imply that this is what you are saying but it is out there in some of these posts.

Besides, no team or coach can state that his team is never outworked. That's a load of bull. 82 games is a long season and no team ever can make a claim like that.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2007, 09:26 PM
  #71
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mugerya View Post
Come on. Never? This team has never had a problem working hard? I'll have to go ahead a disagree here. Hardworking teams don't lose half of their games after gaining a 2 goal lead. http://hockeyrodent.com/ (11th paragraph) I'm not saying they get out worked everynight but just looking at the stats and you know the effort isn't always there. And personally I felt like the first 2 months of the season this team played like they were entitled to the wins. Just my opinion though.
ok i'll admit mugerya to be technical, they don't always work hard.

but...

by and large, even dating back to last season, they come to play and they bust their butts.

i think most of the blown 2-goal leads are the results of other teams' coaches making good adjustments against us AND failure by the players who need to be clutch to execute at both ends of the ice/renney failing to get the team to be consistent(which shouldn't be interpreted as the team being lazy).


Last edited by BwayBshirt: 03-16-2007 at 09:37 PM.
BwayBshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2007, 09:37 PM
  #72
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
I think losing leads late is sometimes a sympton of not playing hard for a full 60 minutes. We've said it way too much this season that this team either comes out flat or loses steam at some point.
fletch, i honestly think the rangers inability to hold leads/score enough goals or occasionally come out flat is more a reflection on renney than anything else. i don't think the rangers have a system that will either completely shut down an opponent when we get a lead or will keep the peddle to the metal when we get on top. as for earlier in the season i think our team was lord-almighty slow and i don't think that it's a fluke that as the season as progressed and as the team has dropped the dead weight in terms of quickness, speed, and skating that this team has started games so well since january.

BwayBshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2007, 10:01 PM
  #73
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
You had me all the way up until PQ. He's a flounder.
lol i know bluenote, quinn seems like an awkward choice but i'll attempt to plead my case anyway.

first off, i have said plenty enough times that i think renney is not the coach to put us over the top. maybe i'm wrong but i think he's what i'd call "the bridge" to someone even better. renney has served his purpose in my eyes and if he was demoted back to full time front office duty i'd definitely accept that and at this point even embrace it since i've come to respect the guy for facing the music all the time and he seems to know his stuff in terms of player development.

now on to quinn *deep breath*.

i see quinn similarly to pat burns before the latter took the new jersey job. quinn is a good head coach. he gets his teams to play as hard and as tough as anybody in the league...2 things that should instantly satisfy a ton of ppl in this forum. he's coached in big cities before and he's charismatic, so he understands how to handle the media and public and how to deal with any pressure from either.

not to generalize our european friends, but quinn has had experience dealing with big-time euro stars (bure, sundin) so he can probably get along with jagr well. quinn's system, while flawed, is able to showcase an entertaining, attack style of offense while also relying on a simplistic approach to defense...stuff which should appease jagr and co. while not putting our d-men in awkward positions. quinn gets production from the lower lines and d-men, the special teams perform well season to season under him where he's been, and he immediately wins the trust of most of the players who play for him.

it also shouldn't be undervalued that quinn has never won a cup, has a reportedly close relationship with slats, and i don't think he's done coaching. like keenan a "lifetime" ago i'm sure the itch to put that on his resume is right on the skin like a rash. now i'm not saying he'd take the ranger job because it appears he might be in love with staying in canada. but unless i see someone better out there with all the intangibles (and don't give me any devil retreads because burns and jagr would last all of 2 seconds, robinson has serious health issues to deal with and ftorek i wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole) quinn would be my choice.

*exhales*

BwayBshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2007, 12:18 AM
  #74
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyF27 View Post
The big concern IMO is finding a coach who Jagr is willing to play for.
Why should that have to be the concern?

Jagr should be a damn captain, instead of being a selfish piece of ****.

This is EXACTLY WHY this team sucks, because it's all for one, and not one for all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stuart View Post
BTW his draft input looks to be pretty good.

the article is 3 yrs old. that is a lifetime ago...

the Rangers are playing the hardest they have played since the Messier glory days, Why? ANything to do with the coach????
If you want to go with 2002, (what it says up top) it would be 5 years old, not 3.

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.
I can't say he ruined Immonen, and the verdict is still out on Dawes. Dawes still has a legitimate shot to become an NHL'er, and a solid one at that. So far, he's doing the right thing with Dubi.

I hate Renney, I think he's a terrible coach, but if there's one thing he can do, it's evaluate young talent. Since he came into our organization, the prospect depth has increased tenfold, to become one of the best organizations in terms of that category.

He belongs as director of scouting, not as head coach. He can't coach for ****, but he can evaluate talent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedrngrblue View Post
My short list:
Schoenfeld
Craig McTavish
Larry Robinson
Robbie Ftorek

I don't know about availability, but those guys have alot to offer in my opinion.
Robinson, the guy is perfect for this team.

Preaches defense, is a proven winner, and is not afraid to be a disciplinarian if held to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
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.
You're completely right there, but there are better coaches out there. Coaches who hold their players accountable for their mistakes and lack of effort. Coaches who play to win, instead of playing not to lose. Coaches who won't give into the selfish demands of one egotistical superstar player. But then again, that's something that has started from the top. Dolan wants those demands to be met, therefore Sather has no choice to meet them, therefore Renney has no choice as well. But somewhere along the line, the chain must be broken. The head coach should have the final say, he is a direct determinator of the on-ice product.

Quote:
2) He ruined Immonen? One franchide already quit on him. And he has not shown anything the show that he belongs in the NHL.
I still think he can be an NHL'er. Foot speed is something that can be worked on. But from what I've seen of him, he's played well. I don't think he'll be the player that some - including myself - thought he could be, but he could still be a servicable 3rd liner.

Quote:
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.
I agree, but with a lack of scoring, something had to be changed up. You don't put Colton Orr in the lineup when you're having troubles on the power play and at even strength.

Quote:
4) Ozolinsh, Ward, Ward, Kasparaitis, Hall out. Girardi, Pock, Avery, Mara, Bourret in.
Sather, not Renney. Sather makes the trades, not Tom Renney. Avery and Mara were traded for. Pock was signed as UFA in March of 04, if I'm correct. Girardi was another signee. Sure, Renney may have had them playing, but it was Sather's decision to call them up. Renney gave them some ice time, and they played well. Girardi was a bi-product of Renney's hand being forced him due to injuries, as well as Pock. Otherwise, we wouldn't have seen these two.

Quote:
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.
It was the right pick. He was the BPA, and he filled a glaring need at the time with Blackburn's future being up in the air as you mentioned. If that wasn't the case, we'd be stuck with Chris Holt as our goaltending gem... that doesn't bode for a bright future.

Quote:
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.
I completely agree with you here, but I just too much credit has been given to Renney.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Maybe Renney had something to do with those things?
I think the highlighted part says it best.

Christer Rockstrom scouted both Lundqvist and Prucha. Rockstrom was a Ranger scout before Renney came into the organization. Jagr was brought by Sather. Is Renney partially responsible for Jagr's play? Yes, as he lets him freewheel, and do whatever he wanted to without reprocussions. But that's just it, he has no handle on Jagr, and it's basically Jagr's team. That's not good. It's just how it was for those 7 years, Singn. You remember as well as anyone, that it was ALWAYS Messier's team. That the coaches that were brought in were just puppets at Messier's disposal. They were too scared to do a damn thing, because they were in awe of Messier, just as Renney is too scared to say anything that might upset Jagr, because he's in awe of him. That, and Jagr will cry, and leave games with undisclosed injuries like he did the other night. I feel Prucha he is a little more responsible for. Lundqvist, not really, as we all knew that Weekes would eventually be ousted from the #1 spot at some point last year, none of us just saw it coming that early. Renney wasn't responsible for Lundqvist's or Jagr's skill or play. Lundqvist was just given the time and he went with it. Was Renney responsible for that much? Yes, but anyone with a brain would have given Lundqvist the go at some point that season.

Renney has done his good with scouting, but beyond that extent, he hasn't done a whole lot. He had one good half of a year, and then the team unravelled, and he had no answer for it. No answer for anything when Jagr's play decreased. No answer for anything when Henrik was hurt. No answer for when people were able to get good line matchups against Jagr.

A good coach can coach around those obstacles. Lindy Ruff in Buffalo... look at the injuries they've sustained. They've lost more games in manpower than any team in the league and they're still 1st in the East.

CM Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2007, 04:41 AM
  #75
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,370
vCash: 500
i know robinson is at least a good, if not great, hockey mind. but i can't embrace the thought of a coach whose patience is constantly short-tempered at his own players, who gets easily frustrated at even the slightest mistakes, and who it seems doesn't have the health necessary to coach this team.

BwayBshirt 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 09:08 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.