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

Tom Renney

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-09-2005, 09:27 AM
  #1
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,467
vCash: 500
Awards:
Tom Renney

Renney seems like a good guy, passionate and dedicated to the game. But is this guy really a good NHL coach? His history is not stellar (and neither was Ron Low's). We hear that he has devised this system but there is no basis to believe that it is successful. All we have heard is that the Wolf Pack played the system better than the Rangers did. But what does that really mean? And if that is the case, how come so few Wolf Pack players will be in the lineup opening night?

I guess my concerns are two-fold:

1) Is Renney really the right guy for this team?

2) Given Sather's complete failure at selecting coaches (himself included), why should by really have faith in Renney as the guy to play a pivotal role in turning this thing around?

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 09:40 AM
  #2
ebn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 248
vCash: 500
I personally think the whole Sather regime is holding up by a thread. That Trottier signning was a disaster. They have to prove that they are doing well with the rebuilt or Sather and everybody else is going to be fired.

ebn is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 09:47 AM
  #3
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Broomfield, CO
Posts: 6,079
vCash: 500
Renney seems to be a place holder to me..

He seems to be a decent teacher and student of the game, but he just doesn't seem to have that persona of being a leader.

I think he'd be a good AHL coach getting kids ready for the show.

Davisian is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 09:47 AM
  #4
Larry Melnyk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Gloomsville, USA
Posts: 4,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Renney seems like a good guy, passionate and dedicated to the game. But is this guy really a good NHL coach? His history is not stellar (and neither was Ron Low's). We hear that he has devised this system but there is no basis to believe that it is successful. All we have heard is that the Wolf Pack played the system better than the Rangers did. But what does that really mean? And if that is the case, how come so few Wolf Pack players will be in the lineup opening night?

I guess my concerns are two-fold:

1) Is Renney really the right guy for this team?

2) Given Sather's complete failure at selecting coaches (himself included), why should by really have faith in Renney as the guy to play a pivotal role in turning this thing around?

Unfortunately, there's no evidence to point to this happening....He was a failure in Vancouver(Messier) and then there was last year, which was pretty much a failure also.....Before the season, all we heard was system, discipline, yada, yada...Other then a few cases, there was little of either...If there was a sysem, it was either a bad system or the coaches couldn't get it through to the players....Either way, it's a poor refelction on their job skills.

All that being said, I'm only talking about Renney the coach, not his skills as personell director or whatever he is because I like some of what I see in that regard........So IF, and it's a big if, the Rangers do give their youngsters a big shot this year maybe Renney is a decent guy to get them acclimated to the game before giving way in a year or two to a better coach while he concentrates on personnel/organization duties? Besides, rebuilding teams almost always get rid of their coaches when they want to go to the next level so Renney, like many of the players, may just be a caretaker/placeholder ....

Larry Melnyk is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 09:51 AM
  #5
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,467
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisian
Renney seems to be a place holder to me..

He seems to be a decent teacher and student of the game, but he just doesn't seem to have that persona of being a leader.

I think he'd be a good AHL coach getting kids ready for the show.

Devils advocate:

OK, so he's a place holder. So is Rucinsky, Rozsival, Straka, Rucchin, Nylander, Malilk, Nieminen and Ward. Place holder for what, exactly?

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 09:53 AM
  #6
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Broomfield, CO
Posts: 6,079
vCash: 500
Place holding the spots until there is some semblence of a developing core, and team identity, Then it will be time to get the right coach to match that identity.


Dn't have much faith that Sather would choose that right coach, but that's pretty much what a placeholder is IMO.

Davisian is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 10:01 AM
  #7
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Or a placeholder until the team shows enough promise to actually attract a more desireable coach. Other than McGill, I'm not sure anyone else out there would have taken the job.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 10:04 AM
  #8
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,467
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisian
Place holding the spots until there is some semblence of a developing core, and team identity, Then it will be time to get the right coach to match that identity.


Dn't have much faith that Sather would choose that right coach, but that's pretty much what a placeholder is IMO.

Continuing....

But how is this team going to develop a core when they can't get spots at the NHL level (and not just on the fourth line.).

I guess my questions is: why get place holders when there are some youngs guys who could potentially fill those roles? What has more value to this team: Straka playing 50 games for the Rangers, scoring 25 goals or Balej playing 70+ games and scoring 18 goals? Why does this team need to have a fourth line with Jason Ward and Nieminen on it when it could have Gireaux, Moore and Murray.

Isn't time to fish or cut bait with these guys?

Back to Renney:

Even if he is a place holder, he still being asked to develop the system for the entire organization to follow. And if that is the case, is he the right man for the job?

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 10:13 AM
  #9
ebn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 248
vCash: 500
What you are forgetting is Balej hasn't proven he can score 18 goals in 70 games yet. In fact most of the Ranger youth hasn't proven they can score 18 goals in 70 games. When they do prove that then you can get rid of some veterans and replace them with yought. But you can't have all unproven yought or you are going to lose almost every game and that's not good for the young palyers moral anyway.

ebn is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 10:13 AM
  #10
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Broomfield, CO
Posts: 6,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Continuing....

But how is this team going to develop a core when they can't get spots at the NHL level (and not just on the fourth line.).

I guess my questions is: why get place holders when there are some youngs guys who could potentially fill those roles?

Isn't time to fish or cut bait with these guys?

Different issues. Of course I agree that there should be more spots for the younger guys, who have played in the AHL for a couple of seasons, and its time to see what they have.

And I would be fine with Renney coaching them, as they get their feet wet in the NHL game.

There's far too many "player" placeholders on this team. I do agree with NOT having a team filled with rookies, but there also has to be enough spots open for guys to fight it out. Clearly there isn't here.



Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Back to Renney:

Even if he is a place holder, he still being asked to develop the system for the entire organization to follow. And if that is the case, is he the right man for the job?

That's the question, but its not so much the "system" that a place holder develops, its the speed, experience and day to day life of an NHL team. A "non" placeholder can come in and change the system, but the core that has developed and matured together will know eachothers tendencies within that new system, and will have a trust built up with one another.

Davisian is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 10:16 AM
  #11
Larry Melnyk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Gloomsville, USA
Posts: 4,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Continuing....


Back to Renney:

Even if he is a place holder, he still being asked to develop the system for the entire organization to follow. And if that is the case, is he the right man for the job?
Develop an organization and a system that it can play, maybe...Implement and teach it, don't think so....

As for the other point, teaching and implementing the system to placeholders on the NHL level, where everything is different and faster , accomplishes little from an org. standpoint (IMO)..Just keeps putting everything off...And who's to say the placeholder strategy won't continue ad nauseum...

Larry Melnyk is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 10:19 AM
  #12
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,467
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebn
What you are forgetting is Balej hasn't proven he can score 18 goals in 70 games yet. In fact most of the Ranger youth hasn't proven they can score 18 goals in 70 games. When they do prove that then you can get rid of some veterans and replace them with yought. But you can't have all unproven yought or you are going to lose almost every game and that's not good for the young palyers moral anyway.

Fine, even if Balej scores 10 goals, wouldn't this team be better served finding out what they really have in him? This team is going to lose a lot anyway.

And I'm not asking for the team to be all unproven youth. But I don't think it's too much to ask that there be at least one young player in each line. And as it stands, that will be by no means the case.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 10:20 AM
  #13
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,467
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Melnyk
As for the other point, teaching and implementing the system to placeholders on the NHL level, where everything is different and faster , accomplishes little from an org. standpoint (IMO)..Just keeps putting everything off...And who's to say the placeholder strategy won't continue ad nauseum...
That's exactly my point.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 10:22 AM
  #14
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,467
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
Or a placeholder until the team shows enough promise to actually attract a more desireable coach. Other than McGill, I'm not sure anyone else out there would have taken the job.

I don't know, MJ, there are only a finite number of number of NHL coaching jobs, someone would take it.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 10:25 AM
  #15
Larry Melnyk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Gloomsville, USA
Posts: 4,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
That's exactly my point.
Yep, just my lonq-winded way of saying I agree with you!

Larry Melnyk is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 10:30 AM
  #16
ebn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 248
vCash: 500
<i>Fine, even if Balej scores 10 goals, wouldn't this team be better served finding out what they really have in him? This team is going to lose a lot anyway.

And I'm not asking for the team to be all unproven youth. But I don't think it's too much to ask that there be at least one young player in each line. And as it stands, that will be by no means the case.</i>

I don't agree with you. There competition for eight spots including backups in this years training camp. If Balej or any other youth wants the job they have to beat out the other candidates. If Balej cant't prove he is better than Ward or Ortmeyer than excuse me he shouldn't have a job. This goes for any other Rookie who can't prove he is better than Ward or Ortmeyer.

ebn is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 10:34 AM
  #17
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,676
vCash: 500
renney has a lot of coaching experience outside of the NHL. he coached junior hockey for awhile and won championships, and he's long been a part of Team Canada

but yeah his stint in vancouver didn't go too well, though there's various reasons for that that people give...i don't really want to make excuses myself

but his time with the rangers as coach is hard to judge...he didn't have any real control over the team as assistant coach, and didn't have enough games as the head coach to really get a good idea of what he'll do...the team had given up by that point, but i do take issue with how much icetime he gave mccarthy

but i agree with people who are calling him a placeholder...he'll be here to get things going and once the rangers seem like they have some kind of core and semblence of being a team, he'll be replaced and go back to his main duties in the organization

Levitate is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 10:36 AM
  #18
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,467
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebn
I don't agree with you. There competition for eight spots including backups in this years training camp. If Balej or any other youth wants the job they have to beat out the other candidates. If Balej cant't prove he is better than Ward or Ortmeyer than excuse me he shouldn't have a job. This goes for any other Rookie who can't prove he is better than Ward or Ortmeyer.
So lets say, for argument sake that Immonen, Lundmark, Balej and Murray out play Nylander, Straka, Rucinsky and Nieminen, what then? These guys are going to earn top line spots while Straka, at 3M is relegated to the third or fourth line? Do you really seeing that being the case? No way, it's the same old same old.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 10:50 AM
  #19
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 SingnBluesOnBroadway
I don't know, MJ, there are only a finite number of number of NHL coaching jobs, someone would take it.
Nobody wanted it when Sather had had enough and Renney was given the job by default. What's changed since then?

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 10:55 AM
  #20
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,467
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
Nobody wanted it when Sather had had enough and Renney was given the job by default. What's changed since then?

Do you mean after the end of the 03-04 season?

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 11:04 AM
  #21
HAPPY HOUR
Registered User
 
HAPPY HOUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
So lets say, for argument sake that Immonen, Lundmark, Balej and Murray out play Nylander, Straka, Rucinsky and Nieminen, what then? These guys are going to earn top line spots while Straka, at 3M is relegated to the third or fourth line? Do you really seeing that being the case? No way, it's the same old same old.
IF that turns out to be the case, than you would be happy,no? The chances of Immonen, Lundmark,and Balej being able to handle first line minutes is remote at best IMO. And Murray? He was a third-liner for Hartford last year. What if for example : Immonen plays great: Lundmark flops AGAIN, and Balej scores 15goals and 35points? You still would need Straka ,Rucinsky,etc tp play at least 15 to 19 minutes a game. Lets get away from mocking the inept Rags management for one sec and tell me what NHL org. would ice an nhl team RIGHT NOW that consists over 80% prospects. May be Washington, but I would take there prospects over ours any day. Broadway I agree with you that playing our prospects is our ultimate goal, but right now there aren't many if any that you good reasonably expect to play first lin minutes.

HAPPY HOUR is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 11:14 AM
  #22
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,467
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by happy hour
IF that turns out to be the case, than you would be happy,no? The chances of Immonen, Lundmark,and Balej being able to handle first line minutes is remote at best IMO. And Murray? He was a third-liner for Hartford last year. What if for example : Immonen plays great: Lundmark flops AGAIN, and Balej scores 15goals and 35points? You still would need Straka ,Rucinsky,etc tp play at least 15 to 19 minutes a game. Lets get away from mocking the inept Rags management for one sec and tell me what NHL org. would ice an nhl team RIGHT NOW that consists over 80% prospects. May be Washington, but I would take there prospects over ours any day. Broadway I agree with you that playing our prospects is our ultimate goal, but right now there aren't many if any that you good reasonably expect to play first lin minutes.

I would be happy if that is the case and they get those spots but I ain't sure that would be what happens it it played out that way.

Other teams have iced teams with prospects and, quite frankly, had more success than the Rangers. They might finish the season with fewer points, but better draft position.

What good does having Jagr playing with Nylander and Straka do? Why not let a kid play with them and benefit from having veteran linemates? If this is Lundmark's make or break season (and it should be) why not give him the best chance to succeed and play him with Jagr? I just don't see what good it does or even what purpse it serves to have the top two lines filled with nothing but vets.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 11:15 AM
  #23
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,676
vCash: 500
I believe this argument has been done several times already...

Levitate is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 11:22 AM
  #24
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebn
What you are forgetting is Balej hasn't proven he can score 18 goals in 70 games yet. In fact most of the Ranger youth hasn't proven they can score 18 goals in 70 games. When they do prove that then you can get rid of some veterans and replace them with yought. But you can't have all unproven yought or you are going to lose almost every game and that's not good for the young palyers moral anyway.
How do you prove that you can score 18 goals in 70 games if you are not put into such a position? When Colarado or Detroit brings up a rookie that is supposed to be an offensive player, they put into a position to succeed. To wit, when Hedjuk & Tanguy were rookies they played with Sakic on essentially the 2nd line. When Datsyuk was brought up, he had Brett Hull has his linemate. When the Rangers bring up youngsters that are supposed to be scorers, they get buried on the 4th line with players who are incapable of either finishing or setting up. You seem to want a player like Balej to prove himself capable of scoring 18 goals, and then to be placed with the vets on the top 2 lines. But you are not putting him into a position to succeed.
Players like Balej and Lundmark are the two most likely candidates to be NHL 2nd liners. But to see if they can or cannot become regular 2nd liners, one needs to place them into a position that allows for them to succeed, as opposed to playing them with 4th liners and then wondering why they are not showing progress.
Again, no one is suggesting that they be handed spots, but why not have tried to play them with the likes of a Straka or Jagr to see if they can handle it? Instead, what has happened is that the veterans clogged up the top 2 lines, leaving at least one of the two to play with players that will not complement them.

True Blue is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 11:32 AM
  #25
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
As far as Renney goes

I have no confidence in him whatsoever. There are many, many reasons for this. First of all, Sather seems incapable to hire any coaches that would tell him that there will be no walkie-talkies during games. All of his coaches seem to be an extension of himself....utterly clueless.
I know that Hartford was SUPPOSED to be playing the same style as the big team, but was that really the case? Why did all of the forwards and defensemen called up from Hartford look better prepared to play that the veterans? Why do the big club forwards forsake their defensemen and rush up ice, while the Hartford yutes seem to not abandon their defensive responsibilities? Why did the big club defensemen run around their own zone like chickens with their head cut off, but the Hartford d-men patiently held their own ends and did not commit similar blunders?
When I hear Renney talk of playing "an attacking style", that frightens me becuase McGill DID NOT have Hartford playing it that way. Maybe that is one of the reasons he got fired.
Renney does not have a good track record. He was abominable during his stint as coach in Vancouver. His "system" did not work with a bunch of very talented Vancouver kids.
Frankly, I see Sather when I see Renney. During the last played season, why on Earth was Hlavac playing with Jagr during the last 10 games of the year? It was clear that he was not coming back? Why wasn't such a role entrusted to a Balej or Lundmark? At a minimum, it would have provided a glimpse of whether or not either could have handled such a role. But Renney made his reasoning clear when he came out and said that even at the end of a loosing year, winning and loosing were very important. It was far more important to him to win meaningless games then it was to see what the youngsters can do.
And what happened this year? In what is supposed to be a rebuilding year, the team is constructed in an eerily similar manner that it has been during every single year of Sather's tenure. Either Renney's thinking is 100% along the same lines as Sather's or he is just another yes-man and will allow Sather to coach from the rafters.

True Blue is offline  
Closed Thread

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 07:25 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.