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

My Favorite Ranger Coach.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-14-2004, 12:41 PM
  #26
free0717
Registered User
 
free0717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Old Bridge, NJ
Posts: 2,145
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas
I knew someone was going to get me on that. I wasn't sure if it was at the end of Francis' tenure of at the beginning of Ferguson's.
If you remember Emile Francis was fired right after he made the Esposito deal.

free0717 is offline  
Old
07-14-2004, 12:48 PM
  #27
klingsor
HFBoards Sponsor
 
klingsor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 14,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas
I knew someone was going to get me on that. I wasn't sure if it was at the end of Francis' tenure of at the beginning of Ferguson's.
Don't feel bad, jas. I didn't mention it because I just couldn't remember the name of the bad of ****
we traded Middleton for. By the way, Park#2 has mentioned we "had" to trade Middleton. Never got an explanation, but he must know something I'm not privy to.

klingsor is offline  
Old
07-14-2004, 01:24 PM
  #28
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Favorite coach was...

and is Keenan. If not for anything else, but for leading the team to the Cup. He set the tone from day 1 and kept his team on their toes throughout most of the season, and through the playoffs.

Least favorite coach was Campbell. I think mostly because he, in my opinion, was a big reason why this team entered its slide beginning in 1998, with his insistance on over-using vets and making scapegoats out of guys like Kovalev (and Zubov), etc. He was a zero in my book, even worse than Sather, who I thought (through fault of his own) didn't have the rosters Campbell had.

I also give a good-guy honorable mention to Roger Neilson. Class act all the way. Ugliest ties ever. Although I wasn't a fan of plutooning goaltenders, he was a very likeable guy.

Fletch is offline  
Old
07-14-2004, 03:57 PM
  #29
free0717
Registered User
 
free0717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Old Bridge, NJ
Posts: 2,145
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
and is Keenan. If not for anything else, but for leading the team to the Cup. He set the tone from day 1 and kept his team on their toes throughout most of the season, and through the playoffs.

Least favorite coach was Campbell. I think mostly because he, in my opinion, was a big reason why this team entered its slide beginning in 1998, with his insistance on over-using vets and making scapegoats out of guys like Kovalev (and Zubov), etc. He was a zero in my book, even worse than Sather, who I thought (through fault of his own) didn't have the rosters Campbell had.

I also give a good-guy honorable mention to Roger Neilson. Class act all the way. Ugliest ties ever. Although I wasn't a fan of plutooning goaltenders, he was a very likeable guy.
In my opinion, Colin Campbell wanted to be the next Jaques Lemaire. Colin Campbell was in love with the trap.

free0717 is offline  
Old
07-14-2004, 05:31 PM
  #30
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Not to change the subject, but the more I look back the more I think that this team winning the cup was only because Smith hadn't made one more trade. He had all the pieces for a dynasty but he got over anxious. I seriously believe this could have won at least two more if not for questionable trades dating back to the late 80's.

Edge is offline  
Old
07-14-2004, 05:41 PM
  #31
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
Not to change the subject, but the more I look back the more I think that this team winning the cup was only because Smith hadn't made one more trade. He had all the pieces for a dynasty but he got over anxious. I seriously believe this could have won at least two more if not for questionable trades dating back to the late 80's.
I can't debate the Neil Smith trades. The only thing i'll say is if 1994 is the only Stanley Cup I ever get to see the Rangers win I won't complain. Watching that team and seeing them win has been worth all the misery that has followed.

I just hope that the Rangers don't use the blueprint of that cup win as the blueprint to this rebuild. The Rangers have the resources to build a winner and pay whatever good players that develop.

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
07-14-2004, 05:47 PM
  #32
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
Not to change the subject, but the more I look back the more I think that this team winning the cup was only because Smith hadn't made one more trade. He had all the pieces for a dynasty but he got over anxious. I seriously believe this could have won at least two more if not for questionable trades dating back to the late 80's.
Ok, which trades are you referring to?

Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
07-14-2004, 05:55 PM
  #33
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
Not to change the subject, but the more I look back the more I think that this team winning the cup was only because Smith hadn't made one more trade. He had all the pieces for a dynasty but he got over anxious. I seriously believe this could have won at least two more if not for questionable trades dating back to the late 80's.
I don't agree with that. You cannot assume that a team would've won Cups. You can argue that if Smith had not dealt Amonte and Weight (just as an example) that we would have had very good teams -- teams that could challenge for the Presidents' Trophy -- but you cannot just say that they would've won the Cup. How many very good teams have Ottawa, or Toronto, or Philadelphia had in recent years? How many Cups have they won?

Kodiak is offline  
Old
07-14-2004, 06:39 PM
  #34
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
I'll answer all 3 at once here.

To start let me clarify by saying I don't based any of this on a particular fact but rather theories. Kodiak is right when he says it is all assumption, but it's interesting assumptions none the less.

To start with trades we can look back at the Bergeron swap that was mentioned earlier. Take your pick on who they would have gotten there. I don't have a problem with Weight trade so much as some of the trades that followed. I don't think the Eddie O trade really worked out. Though he was a lockeroom cheerleader, guys like Kris King and Tie Domi were exactly the type of players the Rangers had to go out and trade for the very next year {at the cost of a young Amonte}.

I don't mind the MacTavish trade but the Gartner trade was another one that didn't work IMO. Even with all the crap Keenan flung at them, Amonte and Gartner still chipped in over 40 goals.

Smith gets credit for making the trades that won the cup, but personally I think his trades left with less but just barely enough to win a cup.

That was further enhanced by his trades following the cup which kept going down that path.

But for that time period, this team gave up two guys who could net 60 goals between them, a 100 point center, and the enforcer with a scoring touch they'd be looking nearly a decade to find.

Is it a fact? Not in a long shot. In fact it as Kodiak said, all assumption. But I don't believe it's as far fetched as it seems. That "new" Ranger team struggled against teams it OWNED in the regular season in NJ and Vancouver. Matteau is of course remembered for his OT goal, but as a whole {like his Ranger career} he was for the most part invisible. Anderson chipped in with some points, but it can't really be argued that he provided more than Gartner or Amonte would have knocked in. And let's be honest when we say that Smith didn't get a great return on Amonte. A kid who at 23 already had to 30 goal seasons under his belt. In return they got a borderline NHL'er in Noonan and a young enigma in Matteau.

But in the end the Rangers one the cup so most people don't care the cost and it becomes impossible to debate how many they would have, could have, or may not have won. But it certainly makes for an interesting thought and debate.

I loved the 94 cup win, but let's not kid ourselves about how barely we pulled it off against teams we never should have struggled as much against.

My view is contoversial for sure and can't be proved at all. But there is at least some evidence behind it. If nothing else, it makes for a great beer conversation.

Edge is offline  
Old
07-14-2004, 06:59 PM
  #35
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,195
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
I'll answer all 3 at once here.

To start let me clarify by saying I don't based any of this on a particular fact but rather theories. Kodiak is right when he says it is all assumption, but it's interesting assumptions none the less.

To start with trades we can look back at the Bergeron swap that was mentioned earlier. Take your pick on who they would have gotten there. I don't have a problem with Weight trade so much as some of the trades that followed. I don't think the Eddie O trade really worked out. Though he was a lockeroom cheerleader, guys like Kris King and Tie Domi were exactly the type of players the Rangers had to go out and trade for the very next year {at the cost of a young Amonte}.

I don't mind the MacTavish trade but the Gartner trade was another one that didn't work IMO. Even with all the crap Keenan flung at them, Amonte and Gartner still chipped in over 40 goals.

Smith gets credit for making the trades that won the cup, but personally I think his trades left with less but just barely enough to win a cup.

That was further enhanced by his trades following the cup which kept going down that path.

But for that time period, this team gave up two guys who could net 60 goals between them, a 100 point center, and the enforcer with a scoring touch they'd be looking nearly a decade to find.

Is it a fact? Not in a long shot. In fact it as Kodiak said, all assumption. But I don't believe it's as far fetched as it seems. That "new" Ranger team struggled against teams it OWNED in the regular season in NJ and Vancouver. Matteau is of course remembered for his OT goal, but as a whole {like his Ranger career} he was for the most part invisible. Anderson chipped in with some points, but it can't really be argued that he provided more than Gartner or Amonte would have knocked in. And let's be honest when we say that Smith didn't get a great return on Amonte. A kid who at 23 already had to 30 goal seasons under his belt. In return they got a borderline NHL'er in Noonan and a young enigma in Matteau.

But in the end the Rangers one the cup so most people don't care the cost and it becomes impossible to debate how many they would have, could have, or may not have won. But it certainly makes for an interesting thought and debate.

I loved the 94 cup win, but let's not kid ourselves about how barely we pulled it off against teams we never should have struggled as much against.

My view is contoversial for sure and can't be proved at all. But there is at least some evidence behind it. If nothing else, it makes for a great beer conversation.
I'll give you a trade that Neilson supposedly turned down that would made a world of difference in 1992. When Oates was available in STL, before he he was sent to Boston for Janney and Quintal, Smith had a deal in place for Oates and Jeff Brown and some other player for a package or Patrick, Nemchinov and and another player. Neilson did not want to part with Sarge, who had what turned out to be his career year. Imagine a one-two punch at center of Messier and Oates, and a superb passer like Oates teamed with Gartner. OUCH!

jas is offline  
Old
07-14-2004, 07:03 PM
  #36
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,195
vCash: 500
One other thing about the 1994 team. One of the big reasons why the reason smoked the Debbies that year was the speed of guys like Amonte and Gartner, who could beat their d-men wide. Gartner used to kill the Debbies. Keenan was fearful of playing physical teams from the west like Detroit, Chicago and Calgary. The Rangers never faced that kind of team.

jas 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 04:08 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.