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, 05:27 PM
  #51
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Going with youth does not mean having young guys on the fourth line. You need to get young guys playing a lot of minutes, important minutes, minutes on the PP and the PK. You need to put them in a situation where they have the best chance to succeed and in situations where they can make mistakes. This team is not set up like that right now.

Consider — did this team really need:

Rullier AND Purinton AND Strudwick?
Rozsival AND Malik?
Ward AND Nieminen?
Straka AND Rucinsky?
putting our young guys in the best chance to succeed may mean making sure they play smart, albeit limited, hockey. making mistakes is not smart and might serve to hurt their psyches more than help.

also, of all the comparisons you did, the only one i'd agree about being as really questionable is straka and rucinsky. the other players are significantly younger, none outside of malik if i remember correctly are signed "long-term", and at this point they are no-risk, possible reward guys.

BwayBshirt is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 05:44 PM
  #52
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,837
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
They had to. It's that simple. They had to play York.

It's the "same old same old" in that the team went out and signed a number of FAs. If you want kids competing for kids for jobs, thats fine. But to ask a kid to compete against a vet who is slated to earn 3M is just unrealistic. Where is the rebuilding? The team still has guys who are 33 and 33 and 32 (Straka-Nylander-Jagr) as their top line. With guys who are 34 and 34 (Rucinsky and Rucchin) on the second line. How is that rebuilding?
Explain "had to"? If you mean that they had to because he was better then the competition, and Sunny was better then the competition, and Kim J was better then the competition, and Marc Savard were better then the competeition among others compare them with guys like Milan Hejduk and Alex Tanguay who also where better then the competition. Don't you think that if ice time was all it would take to develop players like Hejduk and Tanguay a few coaches/GM's in the league would discover what you claims to have discoverd and play a young kid on the top line all the time???? (and don't bring up the fact that Lundmark was a 1st round pick, there are 30 of them every year, enough to go around and then some...)

The facts are that the NYR have just about given every young player that even remotely had the prospect to become a NHL player allot of icetime, too much ice time if you ask me. Lundmark was given ice time without deserving it, that if anything have screwed him up.

How do you know that wouldn't be the case for the rest if we started this line up:
Jessiman-Lundmark-Jagr
Dawes-Immonen-Balej
Giroux-Betts-Prucha
Murray-Moore-Ortmayer


The result would be that where unable to play anykind of system, a team that would be unable to create anykind of winning attitude, a team where the players all would have a extremely ****** rookie season in the NHL. What would we accomplish? Yes a few guys like Giroux, Murray and Moore would get experience of playing on the worst team in the league, this would surely be extremely valuble for us in the future, right?

Ola is online now  
Old
09-09-2005, 05:52 PM
  #53
Large_Farva*
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,322
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Large_Farva*
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway

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.
Plain and simple.. You just don't do that! You don't put a guy who will be a 50 point man at best on put a pile of pressure on him by placing him on the top line without even earning it.

Large_Farva* is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 05:54 PM
  #54
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,025
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyCaptain11
putting our young guys in the best chance to succeed may mean making sure they play smart, albeit limited, hockey. making mistakes is not smart and might serve to hurt their psyches more than help.

also, of all the comparisons you did, the only one i'd agree about being as really questionable is straka and rucinsky. the other players are significantly younger, none outside of malik if i remember correctly are signed "long-term", and at this point they are no-risk, possible reward guys.

Disagree. If you let young guys make mistakes, you hope the learn from them and then get better. Look at Wright and Reyes. Both have made a ton of errors. But they have been given a vote of confidence and steadily improved. Kids need experience and minutes.

IMO, a scenario to succeed means that if a guy is projected to be a scorer, put him with someone who can help him reach that potential, not with fourth line grinders.

Again, my comparisons are based on need for both players. I have to believe that there is a prospect here that can go what Jason Ward will.

And isn't it interesting that the comparison you agreed with is two top two line players....

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 05:55 PM
  #55
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,025
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Large_Farva
Plain and simple.. You just don't do that! You don't put a guy who will be a 50 point man at best on put a pile of pressure on him by placing him on the top line without even earning it.
First of all, how do you know that Balej is a max 50 point guy (which would have been 6 short of the team lead last season). If you know that, please oh please, tell tomorrows lottery numbers.

It worked in Detroit, Colorado, New Jersey, Philadelphia. Yep, hockey is different here.

Play guys where they belong. Joesf Balej does nothing for this team playing 5 minutes a night on the fourth line. I'm not a big Balej guy but he success or his failuer on the top two lines means more to this team than playing fourth line minutes does.


Last edited by SingnBluesOnBroadway: 09-09-2005 at 06:13 PM.
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 06:03 PM
  #56
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,025
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola
Explain "had to"? If you mean that they had to because he was better then the competition, and Sunny was better then the competition, and Kim J was better then the competition, and Marc Savard were better then the competeition among others compare them with guys like Milan Hejduk and Alex Tanguay who also where better then the competition. Don't you think that if ice time was all it would take to develop players like Hejduk and Tanguay a few coaches/GM's in the league would discover what you claims to have discoverd and play a young kid on the top line all the time???? (and don't bring up the fact that Lundmark was a 1st round pick, there are 30 of them every year, enough to go around and then some...)

The facts are that the NYR have just about given every young player that even remotely had the prospect to become a NHL player allot of icetime, too much ice time if you ask me. Lundmark was given ice time without deserving it, that if anything have screwed him up.

How do you know that wouldn't be the case for the rest if we started this line up:
Jessiman-Lundmark-Jagr
Dawes-Immonen-Balej
Giroux-Betts-Prucha
Murray-Moore-Ortmayer


The result would be that where unable to play anykind of system, a team that would be unable to create anykind of winning attitude, a team where the players all would have a extremely ****** rookie season in the NHL. What would we accomplish? Yes a few guys like Giroux, Murray and Moore would get experience of playing on the worst team in the league, this would surely be extremely valuble for us in the future, right?

Had to in that they needed a center. Savard was traded.

The facts are that the NYR have just about given every young player that even remotely had the prospect to become a NHL player allot of icetime, too much ice time if you ask me.

Name 'em.

How do you know that wouldn't be the case for the rest if we started this line up:
Jessiman-Lundmark-Jagr
Dawes-Immonen-Balej
Giroux-Betts-Prucha
Murray-Moore-Ortmayer


I'm not calling for an all kid line up. But what would be wrong with something like this:

Dawes-Nylander-Jagr
Straka-Lundmark-Balej
Giroux-Rucchin-Nieminen
Wiseman-Moore/Betts-Ortmeyer

My point is this: what does this team really have to lose by playing kids with vets on the top two lines? Many of us said that we would rather watch a team of young hungry kids play than old, overpaid vets. Well, we've got those old and overpaid vets.


Last edited by SingnBluesOnBroadway: 09-09-2005 at 06:08 PM.
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 06:11 PM
  #57
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Disagree. If you let young guys make mistakes, you hope the learn from them and then get better. Look at Wright and Reyes. Both have made a ton of errors. But they have been given a vote of confidence and steadily improved. Kids need experience and minutes.

IMO, a scenario to succeed means that if a guy is projected to be a scorer, put him with someone who can help him reach that potential, not with fourth line grinders.

Again, my comparisons are based on need for both players. I have to believe that there is a prospect here that can go what Jason Ward will.

And isn't it interesting that the comparison you agreed with is two top two line players....
wright and reyes were universally high prospects though. meaning other organizations thought highly of both. the same cannot be said of our prospects outside of tyutin and maybe lundqvist as of this particular point in time. in other words, more talented prospects should get a bigger margin of error. that's not to say our prospects aren't talented at all...i think they are...but i think all agree their margin of error collectively and for the most part individually is not huge compared to other prospects.

also, your comparison involving the mets is somewhat flawed as far as i can see because the mets roster is mostly made up of vets as well. regardless of what you're saying about how guys need to be in certain roles if they're projected as such there's no argument in that. however, under your logic no matter how you slice it, it would be the hartford wolfpack team basically in new york. if it was a couple of guys, as we've advocated before such as examples of moore and lundmark in the last nhl season that's one thing. but to have the majority of the group get exposed? i might be wrong but that rarely works to start completely from scratch and then grow into a good team.

BwayBshirt is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 06:16 PM
  #58
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,837
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
2 years ago in training camp, Lundmark was our best forward, scoring 9 goals while playing wing for Holik on the 2nd line. As soon as the season started, he was nowhere to be found on the top 2 lines and soon found himself playing 3 minutes on the 4th line. During that entire preseason, Lundmark was put in a position to find success. During the season, he was jettisoned. That preseason he outperformed most of our vets. As soon as the season started, he was not given any chance at all.

You want another example? Dom Moore gets 3 assists his first game and looks great. And no, I do not think of him as a top 6 player. His next game, he has one giveaway. A giveaway that the vets on that team made on a nightly basis, sometimes on a "shiftly" basis. What happens? Moore finds himself playing 3 minutes on the 4th line and is shortly jettisoned to Hartford.
How about how long it took for Sather to remove Ulanov and Karpa from the lineup, when a gardenhose would have been as effective?
Lundmark was our best forward? Didn't see a second of that camp but no wonder we missed the playoffs...

On Moore, thats another example of a young player beeing handed icetime in the NHL without beeing ready. He is today a much better hockey player then he where in the 3 assist in a game era. After a year in the AHL. From my point of view he still might not make the team this season when his primarily competition is other young players.

Quote:
"Our hockey club, from my perspective, needed to have a more balanced experienced level of player. My feeling is that the Florida Panthers had far too many young players to deal with the demand of an 82-game schedule. That was the No.1 criteria for our organization was to secure experienced players. - Mike Kennan
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
"Like?"

No offense, but must all of this be covered again? There are multitude of threads that tell this story. No offense to you Ola, but the similarities between this year and the prior years are covered ad nauseum in a variety of threads.
I hate to say "I am right" but look at you and singings argument about handing kids icetime on the top line and my last post. If it were that easy you would see allot more teams dooing it around the league. They aren't. Only players that are ready to play are given that kind of ice time, players like Niklas Sundström, Mike York, Alex Tanguay and Milan Hejduk.

This year there are IMO 4 spots upfront that are given, Jagr, Straka, Nylander and Rucinsky. Thoose four are given because they are so much better then the compeition. After that there are serious competition for 8 spots.

If a young player doesn't make it its because atleast 4 NHL rookies in the NYR org. are better then him, atleast 2 young players with some experience are better then him, and 2 pretty averege veterans are better then him.


Is there any simularitys with this situation and the past 9 years in ranger land?

Ola is online now  
Old
09-09-2005, 06:17 PM
  #59
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,025
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyCaptain11
wright and reyes were universally high prospects though. meaning other organizations thought highly of both. the same cannot be said of our prospects outside of tyutin and maybe lundqvist as of this particular point in time. in other words, more talented prospects should get a bigger margin of error. that's not to say our prospects aren't talented at all...i think they are...but i think all agree their margin of error collectively and for the most part individually is not huge compared to other prospects.

also, your comparison involving the mets is somewhat flawed as far as i can see because the mets roster is mostly made up of vets as well. regardless of what you're saying about how guys need to be in certain roles if they're projected as such there's no argument in that. however, under your logic no matter how you slice it, it would be the hartford wolfpack team basically in new york. if it was a couple of guys, as we've advocated before such as examples of moore and lundmark in the last nhl season that's one thing. but to have the majority of the group get exposed? i might be wrong but that rarely works to start completely from scratch and then grow into a good team.
You're spinning now. Who cares what other organizations think? This team has what it has right now. What does it hurt if the kids play?

My comparison is a bit flawed in that baseball is more on an individual sport. But the mentality is still there that you let kids develop and make mistakes and improve.

Read my other posts, I did know say the the Wolf Pack should be on Broadway (although I doubt the results be that different from what we've seen of late).

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 06:33 PM
  #60
Large_Farva*
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,322
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Large_Farva*
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
First of all, how do you know that Balej is a max 50 point guy (which would have been 6 short of the team lead last season). If you know that, please oh please, tell tomorrows lottery numbers.
Lundmark, I was talking about Lundmark.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Disagree. If you let young guys make mistakes, you hope the learn from them and then get better. Look at Wright and Reyes. Both have made a ton of errors. But they have been given a vote of confidence and steadily improved. Kids need experience and minutes.
Wright and Reyes are also Baseball players, not hockey players. Different sports.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
I'm not calling for an all kid line up. But what would be wrong with something like this:

Dawes-Nylander-Jagr
Straka-Lundmark-Balej
Giroux-Rucchin-Nieminen
Wiseman-Moore/Betts-Ortmeyer
You don't see anything wrong with handing Dawes a spot on the top line with Jagr? What team does that?

Large_Farva* is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 06:46 PM
  #61
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
You're spinning now. Who cares what other organizations think? This team has what it has right now. What does it hurt if the kids play?

My comparison is a bit flawed in that baseball is more on an individual sport. But the mentality is still there that you let kids develop and make mistakes and improve.

Read my other posts, I did know say the the Wolf Pack should be on Broadway (although I doubt the results be that different from what we've seen of late).
"what does it hurt if the kids play?"

that's the crux of my whole argument sbob. i'm not trying to spin anything here. maybe the organizations doesn't believe its kids are mentally ready to play. or maybe they don't want all these kids in the lineup at once to see if they can play or not because it could really hurt some mentally and emotionally. no matter how much you coddle a player and no matter how much you try to help correct his mistakes sometimes either the player will still make them or he'll make a whole set of new ones. what's wrong with slowly bringing him along? as long as you're bringing him along it's fine. the mistake our organization has made hasn't been bringing kids along slowly. it's trading away kids in desperate attempts to improve the roster with aging vets. i might be crazy but somehow i don't get the feeling we'll be doing that in the near future.

there can be a right time and a wrong time to bring guys along. and there also can be a time to throw kids together and see who sticks or to slowly bring guys into the core. and i think we need to the latter here, not the former.

BwayBshirt is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 07:02 PM
  #62
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,837
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
My point is this: what does this team really have to lose by playing kids with vets on the top two lines? Many of us said that we would rather watch a team of young hungry kids play than old, overpaid vets. Well, we've got those old and overpaid vets.
To answear this question we have to agree on what the goals for next year is, what we are trying to accomplish.

After reading what Renney and Sather have said in the media lately they have set up 3 goals, they won't to build a platform and establish a identity, a platform for the future, a identity for the future. Its pretty obvious after the last 7 seasons that you can't win without these two factors. And the 3rd goal have been to put together a team that will be a contender in a number of years. This is a good plan IMO, if you don't agree its no use to keep talking about what game plan is best?

If you do agree, lets look at the platform and how you build that best. We have to have a system. Not only a system on paper but a system that can be to our advantage, a system that can win games for us. Like NJD have had their system, like Detroit and Tampa's or Calgarys. Though it takes years to establish that kind of system. Since Renneys system is somewhat unknown I am gooing to use NJD as a example. They have always played 1-3-1. Two forwards who are really defensive and one puckmoving defensemen on the ice at all times. Take a player like Brian Rafalski who was handpicked by NJ and is a perfect fit in their system. I doubt that he would have had the same type of success if he weren't given a chance to break into the league in a system/enviorment like the NJD's. He would not have been able to play his game in the league if it weren't for guys like John Madden/Bobby Holik/Jay Pandolfo among others. In other words if the NJD were in a position like we are when Ralfalski broke into the league Brian would not have been able to play in his game if it weren't for the veterans on the roster, he would also not have been able to learn the NJD trap if it weren't for thoose guys, because NJD wouldn't have been able to play a trap like that without extremely hardworking destructive forwards. Without thoose they wouldn't have created any offense at all and they would have been forced to abandond the trap once they got behind in a game. So for Rafalskis career it was vital that NJD had veterans on there roster.

Lets say that Hollweg, Prucha, Immonen and Balej makes the NYR. How important is it for a guy like Balej to play with someone that makes it possible for him to play his role in Renney system?(see Lex Rafalski! ) How important would it be for Petr Prucha or Jarkko Immonen? Lets look at Immonen/Lundmark/Moore, one of these guys will make the team. How improtant is it for either of them to have wings that makes it possible for them to play their role in the system?

Now lets look at the identity part. Its been painfully obvious that you need a identity of some sort to win in the NHL. There needs to be some sort of commitment, bound in the lockerroom. In a city like New York the importence of a home grown core can't be over looked. There is no question that you have to have a core of more or less "home grown" players. But look at the goals again, the 3rd goal is suppose to be building a contender. Anyone can put togther a homegrown team. But the hard part is to put together a team with a core that also can be a contender. Again maybe the best way isn't just to throw a ton of kids on the ice. If the kids are forced to earn a spot in the lineup they will have more pride then if they are given a spot on the lineup.(see lex Lundmark...) Maybe they become more confident if they know they made the team because they were better then someone else.

Also is it a positive side effect if we creates a core with great attitude in NY but in the end have to move 4/5 of the team because the core wasn't good enough?

Ola is online now  
Old
09-09-2005, 07:50 PM
  #63
AXN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,451
vCash: 500
Who else do you expect to coach these guys? Scotty Bowman?

AXN is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 08:16 PM
  #64
in the hall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
no way to know for sure how good he'll be but i do like renney and i think he is a good scouting/management guy

i think hes smart enough to do good with strategizing and the thinking part of it, any concerns i have right now would be how he handles players and deals with problems.. this is all just based on my opinion of his personality and impression he gives

in the hall is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 10:17 PM
  #65
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,025
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Large_Farva
You don't see anything wrong with handing Dawes a spot on the top line with Jagr? What team does that?
This team should. Again, what does it have to lose?

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 10:18 PM
  #66
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,025
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyCaptain11
"what does it hurt if the kids play?"

that's the crux of my whole argument sbob. i'm not trying to spin anything here. maybe the organizations doesn't believe its kids are mentally ready to play. or maybe they don't want all these kids in the lineup at once to see if they can play or not because it could really hurt some mentally and emotionally. no matter how much you coddle a player and no matter how much you try to help correct his mistakes sometimes either the player will still make them or he'll make a whole set of new ones. what's wrong with slowly bringing him along? as long as you're bringing him along it's fine. the mistake our organization has made hasn't been bringing kids along slowly. it's trading away kids in desperate attempts to improve the roster with aging vets. i might be crazy but somehow i don't get the feeling we'll be doing that in the near future.

there can be a right time and a wrong time to bring guys along. and there also can be a time to throw kids together and see who sticks or to slowly bring guys into the core. and i think we need to the latter here, not the former.
Or maybe it's just Sather being Sather. Lindros, Kovalev, Holik. Straka, Nylander, Jagr. All thats different is the talent level and the money. But the thought process is the same.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 10:23 PM
  #67
Large_Farva*
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,322
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Large_Farva*
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
This team should. Again, what does it have to lose?
What do they have to gain by rushing a mid-prospect on the 1st line with loads of pressure when he would benefit way more with a full season on the farm?

Large_Farva* is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 10:34 PM
  #68
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,025
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola
To answear this question we have to agree on what the goals for next year is, what we are trying to accomplish.

After reading what Renney and Sather have said in the media lately they have set up 3 goals, they won't to build a platform and establish a identity, a platform for the future, a identity for the future. Its pretty obvious after the last 7 seasons that you can't win without these two factors. And the 3rd goal have been to put together a team that will be a contender in a number of years. This is a good plan IMO, if you don't agree its no use to keep talking about what game plan is best?

If you do agree, lets look at the platform and how you build that best. We have to have a system. Not only a system on paper but a system that can be to our advantage, a system that can win games for us. Like NJD have had their system, like Detroit and Tampa's or Calgarys. Though it takes years to establish that kind of system. Since Renneys system is somewhat unknown I am gooing to use NJD as a example. They have always played 1-3-1. Two forwards who are really defensive and one puckmoving defensemen on the ice at all times. Take a player like Brian Rafalski who was handpicked by NJ and is a perfect fit in their system. I doubt that he would have had the same type of success if he weren't given a chance to break into the league in a system/enviorment like the NJD's. He would not have been able to play his game in the league if it weren't for guys like John Madden/Bobby Holik/Jay Pandolfo among others. In other words if the NJD were in a position like we are when Ralfalski broke into the league Brian would not have been able to play in his game if it weren't for the veterans on the roster, he would also not have been able to learn the NJD trap if it weren't for thoose guys, because NJD wouldn't have been able to play a trap like that without extremely hardworking destructive forwards. Without thoose they wouldn't have created any offense at all and they would have been forced to abandond the trap once they got behind in a game. So for Rafalskis career it was vital that NJD had veterans on there roster.

Lets say that Hollweg, Prucha, Immonen and Balej makes the NYR. How important is it for a guy like Balej to play with someone that makes it possible for him to play his role in Renney system?(see Lex Rafalski! ) How important would it be for Petr Prucha or Jarkko Immonen? Lets look at Immonen/Lundmark/Moore, one of these guys will make the team. How improtant is it for either of them to have wings that makes it possible for them to play their role in the system?

Now lets look at the identity part. Its been painfully obvious that you need a identity of some sort to win in the NHL. There needs to be some sort of commitment, bound in the lockerroom. In a city like New York the importence of a home grown core can't be over looked. There is no question that you have to have a core of more or less "home grown" players. But look at the goals again, the 3rd goal is suppose to be building a contender. Anyone can put togther a homegrown team. But the hard part is to put together a team with a core that also can be a contender. Again maybe the best way isn't just to throw a ton of kids on the ice. If the kids are forced to earn a spot in the lineup they will have more pride then if they are given a spot on the lineup.(see lex Lundmark...) Maybe they become more confident if they know they made the team because they were better then someone else.

Also is it a positive side effect if we creates a core with great attitude in NY but in the end have to move 4/5 of the team because the core wasn't good enough?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola
To answear this question we have to agree on what the goals for next year is, what we are trying to accomplish.
The goal is to inject youth into the line up and see progress in this "rebuilding."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola
After reading what Renney and Sather have said in the media lately they have set up 3 goals, they won't to build a platform and establish a identity, a platform for the future, a identity for the future. Its pretty obvious after the last 7 seasons that you can't win without these two factors. And the 3rd goal have been to put together a team that will be a contender in a number of years. This is a good plan IMO, if you don't agree its no use to keep talking about what game plan is best?
First of all, I don't believe anything anyone in this organization has to say. Second, Straka for one year, Rucinsky for one year, Ward for one year, Roszival for one year is going to help establishan identity. If you want to do those things, get people who want to be Rangers. Straka is here to get paid. Ditto Rucinsky who hopes he gets flipped to a contender at the deadline. Let kids become Rangers who grew up Rangers, who want to be Rangers, who are proud to be Rangers. Let them take their lumps together.

It does seem pretty obvious that after seven years Sather is trying to the same old things he's done all along under the guise of rebuilding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola
If you do agree, lets look at the platform and how you build that best. We have to have a system. Not only a system on paper but a system that can be to our advantage, a system that can win games for us. Like NJD have had their system, like Detroit and Tampa's or Calgarys. Though it takes years to establish that kind of system. Since Renneys system is somewhat unknown I am gooing to use NJD as a example. They have always played 1-3-1. Two forwards who are really defensive and one puckmoving defensemen on the ice at all times. Take a player like Brian Rafalski who was handpicked by NJ and is a perfect fit in their system. I doubt that he would have had the same type of success if he weren't given a chance to break into the league in a system/enviorment like the NJD's. He would not have been able to play his game in the league if it weren't for guys like John Madden/Bobby Holik/Jay Pandolfo among others. In other words if the NJD were in a position like we are when Ralfalski broke into the league Brian would not have been able to play in his game if it weren't for the veterans on the roster, he would also not have been able to learn the NJD trap if it weren't for thoose guys, because NJD wouldn't have been able to play a trap like that without extremely hardworking destructive forwards. Without thoose they wouldn't have created any offense at all and they would have been forced to abandond the trap once they got behind in a game. So for Rafalskis career it was vital that NJD had veterans on there roster.
You build a system around the players you have. Until they play, you don't know what you have. Change the names of the players and this team is not that much different from years past. Other than they supposedly are "going with youth" and "rebuilding."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola
Now lets look at the identity part. Its been painfully obvious that you need a identity of some sort to win in the NHL. There needs to be some sort of commitment, bound in the lockerroom. In a city like New York the importence of a home grown core can't be over looked. There is no question that you have to have a core of more or less "home grown" players. But look at the goals again, the 3rd goal is suppose to be building a contender. Anyone can put togther a homegrown team. But the hard part is to put together a team with a core that also can be a contender. Again maybe the best way isn't just to throw a ton of kids on the ice. If the kids are forced to earn a spot in the lineup they will have more pride then if they are given a spot on the lineup.(see lex Lundmark...) Maybe they become more confident if they know they made the team because they were better then someone else.
They said (for what its worth) that they wnt to build a young hard working team that is hard to play against. Take out Nieminen and none of then guys they got fit that role. If anything they are just petty attempts to make Jagr happy. Young, hard working, hard to play against could be Wiseman, Moore, Giroux, Dawes, Balej. Its definetly not Straka, Nylander, Rucinsky.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola
Also is it a positive side effect if we creates a core with great attitude in NY but in the end have to move 4/5 of the team because the core wasn't good enough?
You have to get people in the line up to figure out whether the core is good enough. And the core of this team, right now for the future, are the Lundmarks, Balejs, Dawes, Moores, Wisemans, Girouxs, etc. Not Strakas, Rucinskys, Nylanders, Wards, Maliks or even Jagrs.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 10:35 PM
  #69
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,025
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Large_Farva
What do they have to gain by rushing a mid-prospect on the 1st line with loads of pressure when he would benefit way more with a full season on the farm?
On this team, what do you have to lose? What do you have to gain with a top line od 33 year old Straka and Nyland and 32 year old Jagr? How does that help this team for the next couple of years?

Why not bring this kids up and say, we believe in you.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
09-09-2005, 11:54 PM
  #70
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola
Lundmark was our best forward? Didn't see a second of that camp but no wonder we missed the playoffs...
Leading the team with 9 goals says nothing, huh? You may not have seen a second of that camp, but I assure you that the reason that the playoffs were missed had absolutely nothing to do with Lundmark.

"On Moore, thats another example of a young player beeing handed icetime in the NHL without beeing ready."

Excuse me? Come again? Praytell, what is it that tells you that he was not ready? And since you saye that this is ANOTHER example, perhaps you can tell me just how many young players the Rangers handed ice time too that were not ready?

"He is today a much better hockey player then he where in the 3 assist in a game era."

And you know that how?

"After a year in the AHL. "

So what you are saying is that he was not ready then, but he is ready now? Funny how he looked much more ready than at least half the veterans that were in the everyday lineup.

"but look at you and singings argument about handing kids icetime on the top line"

Please point out where either one of us said to simply hand ice time to anyone.

"If it were that easy you would see allot more teams dooing it around the league. "

If you refer teams allowing their prospects to play important minutes, I see teams doing it in the league all the time.

"Only players that are ready to play are given that kind of ice time, players like Niklas Sundström, Mike York, Alex Tanguay and Milan Hejduk."

And how do you know if they were ready?

"This year there are IMO 4 spots upfront that are given, Jagr, Straka, Nylander and Rucinsky. Thoose four are given because they are so much better then the compeition. After that there are serious competition for 8 spots."

Please take this argument to the other threads that discuss such issues. Or at leas read them if you want to know what peoples opinions are. That has been much discussed.

"If a young player doesn't make it its because atleast 4 NHL rookies in the NYR org. are better then him, atleast 2 young players with some experience are better then him, and 2 pretty averege veterans are better then him. "

So then why aren't the rookies playing? And aren't we talking about rookies all along?

"Is there any simularitys with this situation and the past 9 years in ranger land?"

There are plenty of similarities between the way this year looks and the past. Again, if you want to know specifics, look to the other threads.

True Blue is offline  
Old
09-10-2005, 02:20 AM
  #71
Large_Farva*
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,322
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Large_Farva*
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
On this team, what do you have to lose? What do you have to gain with a top line od 33 year old Straka and Nyland and 32 year old Jagr? How does that help this team for the next couple of years?

Why not bring this kids up and say, we believe in you.
You just don't do that. No NHL team does that so why should the Rangers? Will Minnesota plunk O'Sullivan on their 1st line because he's young and has potential? Well if he earns it.

Large_Farva* is offline  
Old
09-10-2005, 07:27 AM
  #72
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,559
vCash: 500
In this thread we have the following arguments

Rebuilding has worked for the mets

Lundmark scored 9 goals in preseason againts who knows what kind of competition. Yet his play in every regular season shouldn't be taken into account.

"real" Rangers fans would be happy if we had a team filled with kids getting killed everynight.

Renny is a great coach for THIS TEAM. He won't be the guy when they take the next step but for a team that is going to inject youth into the lineup he fits.

I'm glad the "real rangers" fans don't like him. Its just another thing they are going to be quiet during the season. This is going to be the year of i told you so. I just can't wait for the season to start.

Lets go Rangers

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
09-10-2005, 09:37 AM
  #73
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,025
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
In this thread we have the following arguments

Rebuilding has worked for the mets

Lundmark scored 9 goals in preseason againts who knows what kind of competition. Yet his play in every regular season shouldn't be taken into account.

"real" Rangers fans would be happy if we had a team filled with kids getting killed everynight.

Renny is a great coach for THIS TEAM. He won't be the guy when they take the next step but for a team that is going to inject youth into the lineup he fits.

I'm glad the "real rangers" fans don't like him. Its just another thing they are going to be quiet during the season. This is going to be the year of i told you so. I just can't wait for the season to start.

Lets go Rangers
Stop picking and choosing portions of comments you want to respond to.

1) I never said that rebuilding has worked for the Mets. What I did say is they put two young guys in the line up everyday, let them make mistakes, learn from those mistakes and now both players are better than they were in April.

2) TB didn't every say that Lundmark should get a pass for his play during the regular season. What he did say is why is it that Lundmark had a very good preseason, yet was given different linemates, responsibilities and less minute when the season started. You love to accuse some people about having a blind hatred for Sather, well you have it for Lundmark. Stop being a hypocrite.

3) I never claim to know what a "real" Ranger fan thinks. I'll leave that kind of arrogance to you. What I did say is a lot of people have said over the past 7 seasons (and I am one of those guys), they would rather see young guys work hard night in and night out than see older vets who are only here for the money. Maybe Glen was right (for once) you can't rebuild in NY.


Last edited by SingnBluesOnBroadway: 09-10-2005 at 09:53 AM.
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
09-10-2005, 10:39 AM
  #74
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
I never claim to know what a "real" Ranger fan thinks.
When you find out, can you tell me? Not being a real fan, I am not in the know.

True Blue is offline  
Old
09-10-2005, 11:26 AM
  #75
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,837
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
When you find out, can you tell me? Not being a real fan, I am not in the know.
The level of this thread have sunk pretty low but I have to say that without beeing in the loop(I haven't read all the threads you have listed below),

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
No offense, but must all of this be covered again? There are multitude of threads that tell this story. No offense to you Ola, but the similarities between this year and the prior years are covered ad nauseum in a variety of threads.
again without beeing in the loop from a outside perspective you and singing doesn't make any sense at all. Its not a "opinion", its a fact if you consider normal conversation/argumental customs.

If you post in a thread with the two of you and trys to atleast find some common ground, like stating something like we can all agree that in the end the goal is to build the best team possible or in other words for example a contender its seems impossible to get a normal response. Instead one of you post a reply and says "no the goal is to inject youth".

Lets look at the facts. We will have one of the most unexperienced teams ever(I guess I better add in modern days or you will bring up a team from 1897 as a example) to play in the NHL. Still you guys can't even consider or listen to arguments that contains statements that we might not have to many vets on the roster.

Ola is online now  
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 07:49 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.