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

Nice Article by Brooks in today's post

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-11-2007, 06:17 AM
  #1
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,665
vCash: 500
Nice Article by Brooks in today's post

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01112007...rry_brooks.htm

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 07:04 AM
  #2
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,209
vCash: 500
As usual, Brooks swings and misses. So Dom Moore would be the solution to the problem...right...nevermind the real solution was getting a 2nd line center with playmaking ability, and playing Cullen at 3rd line center, where his offense would be considered a plus, and therefore moving Betts to 4th line center, where he provides everything Moore did. But, this had already been discussed ad nauseum.

jas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 07:27 AM
  #3
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,890
vCash: 500
The title of the article is Renney Venom More Of Same.You can say the same thing about Larry Brooks.His solution to all of the Rangers problems is more ex-Devils.Last week,he wrote a column on how the Rangers should empty the Cablevision vault for Scott Gomez.He longs for Petr Sykora and every other ex-Devil.Brooks called the Dominic Moore for Adam Hall the most misguided deal of Glen Sather's tenure.Guess Larry has forgotten the Bobby Holik debacle.Every single Sunday leading up to the Holik signing was Holik will ail whatever the Rangers need/lack and how Lou is making the biggest mistake of his professional career in not giving Holik whatever he wants.Holik came to his first Rangers camp looking like a beached whale after signing his 5 years/$45 million retirement contract.The Rangers missed the playoffs again and the Devils won the Cup w/out Holik.When the Rangers brass leaked the fact that Holik reported to camp out of shape,Larry got offended.The same Brooks who called Kevin Hatcher the "worst Ranger ever" and took shots at Hatcher's big belly.You can't make it up.The Rangers are still paying Holik.That was the most misguided deal of Sather's tenure and it was totally suggested/endorsed by Brooks

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 07:29 AM
  #4
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,890
vCash: 500
NOW YOU CAN DIE AGAIN!


RANGERS WILL BRING CUP BACK TO BROADWAY

Quote:
Which the Rangers are, from the front office to the coaching staff, from King Henrik of, no, not Sweden, but now of Broadway, to the pre-eminent Jagr. The Rangers added winners to their lineup this summer. They have young players who are likely to emerge over the course of the year. The roster - and ice time - in March is likely to be significantly different than the one that opens the season.

And there is the approximate $5 million of cap space and overflow of attractive prospects with which the team has to work at the trade deadline. In other words, when John Davidson seeks to move Keith Tkachuk, St. Louis will be dialing 212, not 911.

The Rangers will be going for a ride. Once again, the league is welcome to hop on their backs. If that doesn't upset its small-market strategy
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10012006...oks.htm?page=0

Another Larry Brooks prediction

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 08:17 AM
  #5
Finest
Puck Fittsburg
 
Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 5,587
vCash: 500
This is from Newsday, but I figured it wasnt worthy of another thread.

Its all speculation on the part of Zipay but here goes:
Quote:
Vancouver's Brendan Morrison would fill a need at center. St. Louis winger Billy Guerin might provide some offense. Florida's Jozef Stumpel would be a good stopgap measure. The Blues are shopping Keith Tkachuk.

All are unrestricted free agents who might be available and the Rangers, according to some reports, have been or continue to be interested in them.

Nothing appears to be imminent, but the lack of secondary scoring is one of the flaws that the streaky Rangers will have to address.
Kind of seems like he is overlooking the fact that defense is needed on this team more than offense, atleast thats how I see it.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/hockey...orts-headlines

Finest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 08:18 AM
  #6
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,665
vCash: 500
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
The title of the article is Renney Venom More Of Same.You can say the same thing about Larry Brooks.His solution to all of the Rangers problems is more ex-Devils.Last week,he wrote a column on how the Rangers should empty the Cablevision vault for Scott Gomez.He longs for Petr Sykora and every other ex-Devil.Brooks called the Dominic Moore for Adam Hall the most misguided deal of Glen Sather's tenure.Guess Larry has forgotten the Bobby Holik debacle.Every single Sunday leading up to the Holik signing was Holik will ail whatever the Rangers need/lack and how Lou is making the biggest mistake of his professional career in not giving Holik whatever he wants.Holik came to his first Rangers camp looking like a beached whale after signing his 5 years/$45 million retirement contract.The Rangers missed the playoffs again and the Devils won the Cup w/out Holik.When the Rangers brass leaked the fact that Holik reported to camp out of shape,Larry got offended.The same Brooks who called Kevin Hatcher the "worst Ranger ever" and took shots at Hatcher's big belly.You can't make it up.The Rangers are still paying Holik.That was the most misguided deal of Sather's tenure and it was totally suggested/endorsed by Brooks
Rangerbiy:

I can't defend Holik coming to camp out of shape because it set him back, but Holik was misused from the first drop of the puck until he was bought out. Had he been used in his proper role, he probably still gets bought out but not because of his play on the ice, rather it would be solely because of the salary.

I also thought it was a great signing. He was what we needed then and still need now but the problem is that he was given money that made people think that he was going to be this great 2nd line center when he's not that. He's a great 3rd line center that pops in 50+ points a year while being physical and defensively sound. Was he used in that role here? Not at all. See what has happened with Cullen? Same thing without the physicality. He's a good 3rd line center and is out of place on the 2nd line.

And I'm not sure about you, but if you don't think that Scotty Gomez and his playmaking abilities can help this team then we are watching to seperate teams wearing NYR Jerseys.

Jas:

I'm not sure that Betts provides what Moore provided. Moore is faster, better defensively and offensively. Additionally the chemistry that we had on that lone (the HMO Line) was unquestionable. The PK was better last year as well as the forecheck that that line provided. Last year we had 2 lines that were set which reduced alot of the problems that we are facing this year. The top line of Jags, Nylander and Straka and the HMO line. This year we have NO CHEMISTRY on lines 2 3 and 4 and what Moore provided allowed Renney to try and focus on just fixing 2 problems as opposed to 3 and the PK.

Do (did) we have problems with the 2nd line playmaking center? Without question, but the problems that this team faces go WAY WAY WAY beyond that and a lack of chemistry is a major factor in the equation here.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 09:33 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Brooks called the Dominic Moore for Adam Hall the most misguided deal of Glen Sather's tenure.
Yah, a swap of 4th liners is somehow the root of the Ranger's problems.

I also like the assessment that Immo hasn't proven himself capable of centering the 4th line at a Moore-esque level. It's been Ortmeyer instead of Immonen, not Ortmeyer and Immonen, so I don't see the point in even drawing the comparison.

Even Larry's writing style irritates me today.

Melrose_Jr. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 09:34 AM
  #8
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,890
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingHenrik35 View Post
This is from Newsday, but I figured it wasnt worthy of another thread.

Its all speculation on the part of Zipay but here goes:


Kind of seems like he is overlooking the fact that defense is needed on this team more than offense, atleast thats how I see it.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/hockey...orts-headlines
Nice to see Zipay finally figured out which team Stumpel plays on.Recently,Zipay wrote Stumpel played for Boston.Morrison isn't a group III FA this summer.He is a signed player for 2007-08-$3.2 million cap number.Third year of a three year contract.This stuff is not that hard to look up

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 09:38 AM
  #9
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
jas...

I think Brooks is spot-on with everything he said. He can go further (i.e., talk about a second liner), but I think he's talking more from what's on this team now, and what worked last season, moreso that other coulda, shoulda wouldas.

As I mentioned in another thread, this team doesn't have an HMO line (or a line that limits Hollweg's minutes a bit). Part of the reason is that MO aren't here, and that the third line is really mostly a fourth line playing a third line. And Brooks is right - if Hollweg played a fourth line, getting 5-6 minutes per night, nobody would talk about the zero points he has (and perhaps the only one hit in 12 minutes he had against the Isles).

On another note...Hall...I was skeptical when he was brought in (citing his 4 ES goals), but admitted to not seeing him much last season. Having said that, I honestly cannot say if he's being used properly and agree 100% with Brooks' statement on how this team acquires players, and has so over the past 8 years. They come from one place, performing one role in one position, and come here and it changes, and thus the result changes too. I've had a bit beef with that for some time now. I can go on and on, but I'm hungry right now and am going to scrounge for food.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 09:41 AM
  #10
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,890
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
And I'm not sure about you, but if you don't think that Scotty Gomez and his playmaking abilities can help this team then we are watching to seperate teams wearing NYR Jerseys.
To each his own

Bruce Driver-bum
John MacLean-bum
Bobby Holik-bum

Notice a pattern.Ex-Devils becoming Rangers

Gomez is not worth much more than his current $5 million salary.His agent is a former NHLPA exec Ian Pulver who will want 5-6-7 years at $6-7 million per with NTC/NMC.Gomez is Pulver's first major client and he will want to show off for his boys at the PA.Gomez is NOT worth more than Simon Gagne 5/$26.25 million and Alex Tanguay 3/$15.75 million

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 09:44 AM
  #11
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,890
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
I think Brooks is spot-on with everything he said. He can go further (i.e., talk about a second liner), but I think he's talking more from what's on this team now, and what worked last season, moreso that other coulda, shoulda wouldas.

As I mentioned in another thread, this team doesn't have an HMO line (or a line that limits Hollweg's minutes a bit). Part of the reason is that MO aren't here, and that the third line is really mostly a fourth line playing a third line. And Brooks is right - if Hollweg played a fourth line, getting 5-6 minutes per night, nobody would talk about the zero points he has (and perhaps the only one hit in 12 minutes he had against the Isles).

On another note...Hall...I was skeptical when he was brought in (citing his 4 ES goals), but admitted to not seeing him much last season. Having said that, I honestly cannot say if he's being used properly and agree 100% with Brooks' statement on how this team acquires players, and has so over the past 8 years. They come from one place, performing one role in one position, and come here and it changes, and thus the result changes too. I've had a bit beef with that for some time now. I can go on and on, but I'm hungry right now and am going to scrounge for food.
Larry wanted the Rangers to add more north and south players.The acquisition of Hall was designed to fill that need.I love the after the fact analysis.Larry didn't express the concerns over the Moore for Hall trade when it was made.Oh,he was on vacation

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 09:51 AM
  #12
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,014
vCash: 500
Awards:
He wrote it. We read it. There's a thread about it. People are talking about it.

Looks like Larry did his job.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 10:00 AM
  #13
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,014
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
To each his own

Bruce Driver-bum
John MacLean-bum
Bobby Holik-bum

Notice a pattern.Ex-Devils becoming Rangers

Gomez is not worth much more than his current $5 million salary.His agent is a former NHLPA exec Ian Pulver who will want 5-6-7 years at $6-7 million per with NTC/NMC.Gomez is Pulver's first major client and he will want to show off for his boys at the PA.Gomez is NOT worth more than Simon Gagne 5/$26.25 million and Alex Tanguay 3/$15.75 million
I don't think you can call MacLean a bum. He scored 28 goals his first season here. He had a 50 and 40 point season in his two years here and then became the unexplicable Sather whipping-boy.

And to pld459666's point, Holik was never used correctly. He was (over)paid to be a shut-down center. And he was never used as such. Trottier didn't believe in matching lines and somehow Holik wound up playing first line minutes and being asked to provide offense. And that wasn't his game. After a disappointing first season, he followed it up with a 82 game 25 goal, 56 point season. Not awful but certainly not worthy of what he was making. But then again, Holik's primary worth is not going to show up in the box scores.

And he wouldn't look bad on this team at all:

Straka-Nylander-Jagr
Prucha-Cullen-Shananhan
Ward-Holik-Hall
Hollweg-Betts-Ortmeyer

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 10:11 AM
  #14
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Sbob...

and that's to Larry's point - acquiring a guy like Holik, who made a living with the Devils playing in front of the net on the PP, going against top lines, and not playing the PK (presumably to keep him fresh to go against top lines, and that the Devils preferred speedier player on the PK). He comes to NY, plays on a top line, doesn't crowd the net on the PP, doesn't go against top lines, and plays the PK. Pretty much the exact opposite of what made him successful in Jersey. Had he gone to Toronto, he would've been a success, playing behind Sundin and going against top lines, most likely.

Oh, and while Driver was my favorite whipping boy, wasn't he a third pair defenseman with the Devils and often on a top pair with the Rangers, even playing with Leetch at times? I really try to forget the Driver era, as he's really the only guy I've booed (but wasn't really booing at him, rather the guy who brought him in, and the guy who played him).

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 10:14 AM
  #15
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
rangerboy...

I do agree - I wouldn't want to be locked into Gomez for that much. Was willing to lock into Savard for 5 years at $5MM per though. Perhaps would be willing to do the same for Gomez, but that's not going to be where he trades at.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 10:17 AM
  #16
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
I think Brooks is spot-on with everything he said. He can go further (i.e., talk about a second liner), but I think he's talking more from what's on this team now, and what worked last season, moreso that other coulda, shoulda wouldas.
As I mentioned in another thread, this team doesn't have an HMO line (or a line that limits Hollweg's minutes a bit). Part of the reason is that MO aren't here, and that the third line is really mostly a fourth line playing a third line. And Brooks is right - if Hollweg played a fourth line, getting 5-6 minutes per night, nobody would talk about the zero points he has (and perhaps the only one hit in 12 minutes he had against the Isles).

On another note...Hall...I was skeptical when he was brought in (citing his 4 ES goals), but admitted to not seeing him much last season. Having said that, I honestly cannot say if he's being used properly and agree 100% with Brooks' statement on how this team acquires players, and has so over the past 8 years. They come from one place, performing one role in one position, and come here and it changes, and thus the result changes too. I've had a bit beef with that for some time now. I can go on and on, but I'm hungry right now and am going to scrounge for food.
But, he's talking symptons, not the cause, Fletch...and besides, you've admitted yourself why the Rangers were successful last year - Jagr played like the best player on the planet, and Henke played like a Vezina trophy candidate. Removing Dom Moore was not a misguided deal. In the same manner Brooks criticizes the Rangers for trading Dom Moore, he berates them for not leaving space for young players. Well, one of the areas the Rangers supposedly had depth was center. If they felt Immonen was ready, and that Dubinsky and Helminen could challenge for a spot, and had merely replaced Rucchin with a better, faster, younger, established player, they felt they could afford to deal Moore or Betts. They chose to keep Betts and get a player who might fit in more with the north/south type of game they felt they lacked after the playoffs. Well, Immonen didn't deserve to make the Rangers out of pre-season, while Dubinsky obviously needed time at Hartford, while it's debatable if Helminen is a NHL-caliber player right now. That's not misguided. What was misguided was believing Cullen could be a 2nd line center, and not targetting Savard, which looks infinitely worse having signed Shanny a week later. That's misguided. Brooks is all over the map

jas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 10:18 AM
  #17
dave4
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I don't think you can call MacLean a bum. He scored 28 goals his first season here. He had a 50 and 40 point season in his two years here and then became the unexplicable Sather whipping-boy.
This is so true, and let's think back for a second. Sather comes in and insults John MacLean and Adam Graves. MacLean was a respected member of the league at the time, even though he hadn't won anything with the Rangers, but what about Adam Graves?

Adam has done more for this franchise than Sather can ever hope do to do, even if he stays here another 50 years. And he's meant more to this franchise than Sather ever will.

Someday when Sather is finally retired and not hurting us anymore, he's going to be laughing at the mess he made here. And Adam Graves will probably still be with the team in some capacity.

dave4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 10:22 AM
  #18
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Jas:

I'm not sure that Betts provides what Moore provided. Moore is faster, better defensively and offensively. Additionally the chemistry that we had on that lone (the HMO Line) was unquestionable. The PK was better last year as well as the forecheck that that line provided. Last year we had 2 lines that were set which reduced alot of the problems that we are facing this year. The top line of Jags, Nylander and Straka and the HMO line. This year we have NO CHEMISTRY on lines 2 3 and 4 and what Moore provided allowed Renney to try and focus on just fixing 2 problems as opposed to 3 and the PK.

Do (did) we have problems with the 2nd line playmaking center? Without question, but the problems that this team faces go WAY WAY WAY beyond that and a lack of chemistry is a major factor in the equation here.
Sorry, but the 2nd line center position is the biggest reason for the lack of chemistry. Because of the hole at that position, Renney is forced to play players out of position. That impacts chemistry. Cullen is aksed to perform above his capabilities, as is Betts. You'd get the same energy and effort from a Hollweg/Betts/Ortmeyer line that you did from the HMO line last year. The problem remains players being placed in situations that do not take advantage of their respective talents.

I'd also debate the idea that Moore is better defensively. What I would say is that Moore is a better passer.

jas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 10:29 AM
  #19
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Broomfield, CO
Posts: 6,079
vCash: 500
Dom Moore doesn't have half the awareness or instincts that Betts has.

Adam Hall is literally the LEAST of the Rangers troubles right now.

Davisian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 10:32 AM
  #20
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,014
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
Oh, and while Driver was my favorite whipping boy, wasn't he a third pair defenseman with the Devils and often on a top pair with the Rangers, even playing with Leetch at times? I really try to forget the Driver era, as he's really the only guy I've booed (but wasn't really booing at him, rather the guy who brought him in, and the guy who played him).
I remember him playing a lot with Ulfie.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 10:35 AM
  #21
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
jas...

I'm really just commenting on his analysis of certain players, coaching, and roles/lines - I'm not commenting on whether this would put this team to a next level. That's a whole different analysis for me. I just agree with what he has to say about certain role players, and Renney's coaching, and past Ranger UFA signings/trades.

To continue - removing Moore may've been misguided. If Hall is going to be used as a third liner wih Betts as his centerman, then this team would've been better-served keeping Moore as a fourth liner and Ward as the third line winger. Over the Summer I was originally negative on that trade because of that reason - saying that at ES, those two did better than Hall at ES. After bantering back and fourth with Edge a lot, I took the stance that it was worth it because Moore's replaceable and Hall has second line potential. I did forget about being used properly.

And I do stand by my Jagr comment. However, this is still a team. If Jagr is going great, it enables the other lines to do what they do best, but that still means in chipping in meaningful shifts, and the odd goal here and there. Comparatively speaking, Moore was chipping in more as a fourth liner than this team's current fourth liners, and Ward was more productive, and Hossa was more productive. While Henke has not been 'on' as much this season than last, the third and fourth lines have had the opportunity to be a difference maker, and just haven't (bigger issue is the second line, but let's not let the bottom two lines off the hook too).

And third and fourth line can be more meaningful to a team. With a Jagr going, and a Henke going, a quality third and fourth line (and second) could be the difference in winning a playoff round or two, or losing in four straight games. My points have been that this season's third and fourth lines need to do more.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 10:40 AM
  #22
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Singin'...

Leetch and Ulfie didn't play together in 1997-1998 (Driver's last season) when Leetch was -30-something. They played together the following season, going against top lines, and Leetch was about -7, but played great defensively that season; great! Ulfie played a fair amount with Karpotsev in 96-97 (I don't recall 97-98). I looked back at Driver's stats - he actually accumulated a decent amount of points and had 7 points in 11 playoff games in 1996. Would not have expected that. All I remember is disliking him more than any Ranger at that time - but do not recall exactly why.

I think Leetch and Driver did have more than an odd shift together - just can't recall the extent.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 10:43 AM
  #23
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,014
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
Leetch and Ulfie didn't play together in 1997-1998 (Driver's last season) when Leetch was -30-something. They played together the following season, going against top lines, and Leetch was about -7, but played great defensively that season; great! Ulfie played a fair amount with Karpotsev in 96-97 (I don't recall 97-98). I looked back at Driver's stats - he actually accumulated a decent amount of points and had 7 points in 11 playoff games in 1996. Would not have expected that. All I remember is disliking him more than any Ranger at that time - but do not recall exactly why.

I think Leetch and Driver did have more than an odd shift together - just can't recall the extent.
I meant that I thought Ulfie and Driver played a lot together.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 10:45 AM
  #24
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
I'm really just commenting on his analysis of certain players, coaching, and roles/lines - I'm not commenting on whether this would put this team to a next level. That's a whole different analysis for me. I just agree with what he has to say about certain role players, and Renney's coaching, and past Ranger UFA signings/trades.

To continue - removing Moore may've been misguided. If Hall is going to be used as a third liner wih Betts as his centerman, then this team would've been better-served keeping Moore as a fourth liner and Ward as the third line winger. Over the Summer I was originally negative on that trade because of that reason - saying that at ES, those two did better than Hall at ES. After bantering back and fourth with Edge a lot, I took the stance that it was worth it because Moore's replaceable and Hall has second line potential. I did forget about being used properly.

And I do stand by my Jagr comment. However, this is still a team. If Jagr is going great, it enables the other lines to do what they do best, but that still means in chipping in meaningful shifts, and the odd goal here and there. Comparatively speaking, Moore was chipping in more as a fourth liner than this team's current fourth liners, and Ward was more productive, and Hossa was more productive. While Henke has not been 'on' as much this season than last, the third and fourth lines have had the opportunity to be a difference maker, and just haven't (bigger issue is the second line, but let's not let the bottom two lines off the hook too).

And third and fourth line can be more meaningful to a team. With a Jagr going, and a Henke going, a quality third and fourth line (and second) could be the difference in winning a playoff round or two, or losing in four straight games. My points have been that this season's third and fourth lines need to do more.
In that regard, I'd agree. And, Brooks does somewhat address that with his "Hall's effectively was moved off the 2nd line when Shanahan signed" comment. And, that's where I'd fault Renney. Some of the mess COULD be cleared up by moving Shanny to the LW, and Hall up to 2nd line RW, with Prucha and Cullen dropping to the 3rd line, with Ward playing RW on that line. Maybe that all happens when this team does trade for a 2nd line center. But, my point is that the Moore deal is not a cause, but rather a sympton of not getting a 2nd line center. That one move re-aligns the roster so that players are placed in proper roles and position, which does effect chemistry. That, and not getting a top 4 D-man, are the mistakes of this past off-season. Trading Moore is simply a by-product. The lack of not getting a top 4 D-man was compounded when Kaspar and Malik's respective games dropped off so dramatically. But, even in that regard, the Rangers could have an in-house solution if they deem Baranka ready. The 2nd line center situation impacts almost every problem concerning the forwards.

jas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2007, 10:46 AM
  #25
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
Leetch and Ulfie didn't play together in 1997-1998 (Driver's last season) when Leetch was -30-something. They played together the following season, going against top lines, and Leetch was about -7, but played great defensively that season; great! Ulfie played a fair amount with Karpotsev in 96-97 (I don't recall 97-98). I looked back at Driver's stats - he actually accumulated a decent amount of points and had 7 points in 11 playoff games in 1996. Would not have expected that. All I remember is disliking him more than any Ranger at that time - but do not recall exactly why.
I think Leetch and Driver did have more than an odd shift together - just can't recall the extent.

Maybe because it was his signing that allowed Smith to believe he could deal Zubov.

jas 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 01:14 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.