« Rangers Rake, Bag, Shred, and Burn Leafs | Main | Rangers Up in the Air on New Year's Day »

December 31, 2007


dubi-getting one shot on goal in the second period is my definition of going into a defensive shell.

"Add it all up, and all I see is a fan unhappy with the way histeam won its game, but maybe even unhappy that his team won the game at all because it made his second period rant look ill-timed. Boo freaking hoo!"

That comment is absurd and rediculous!I wan't this team to win every game they play,even though i know that's impossible.I am as big a fan of this team as you are maybe even more so,i don't know.Just because you have a publication wich i buy on the newstands or at Cosby's and enjoy very much does not make you more of a fan then me.I would be more than happy to be proven wrong every time,but the sad fact is that I'm right more often than I'd like to be and don't root for this team with blind faith.You can sugar coat anthing you wan't about Renney but the fact of the matter is that he is not a great coach or even a good coach and unfortunatly they are now stuck with him because other than Pat Burns,there is no one else out there other than a retread or a young and inexpierienced coach wich is probobly not a good mix for this team.

And in closing Dubi,I ask you this question,who do you think is doing a better job relative to the talent on his team.Tom Renney,or Brent Sutter and Ted Nolan?

You mean bottom of the division Nolan?

You mean can't-win-without-Broduer Sutter?


My Repost from the previous thread:

"there is no one else I would rather have in that position, with the puck, with the game on
my repost from the previous thread:

the line." CW: I'm going to hold you to your remarks on Shanny, or is it granny, as you earlier had called him.

Czech, regardless if the rangers play .800 hockey from here on out, and even go deep into the playoffs, it's clear you don't like Renney. No problem and no dispute, that's your right. But why the condescension? Whenever you rag on him you give Renney these completely backhanded and totally unfounded compliments --"I'm sure he's a nice guy" (do u socialize with him?)-- which only cynically underscores your distaste for him and belies any balance that you hope to portray through your unbalanced opinions. A coach is only as good as his record, when it comes down to it, regardless whether he's an s.o.b or a mister rogers.

As I've said before, sometimes i wish Dubi would not let us post during games. I don't read what's said any more during game time--I'd rather enjoy the game than see how I can blame player X or Tom Renney for some lapse in the game.

Czech, Avery said Renney complained that the team played loosely during the first period. They did. They played well, but they were loose. Avery did not say "Tom told us we need to go into a defensive shell in the second period." I took Avery's comments to mean: Renney wants us to keep being aggressive, but to be defensively responisble. Go figure. That's what--in the end--wins hockey games. The Betts line shuts down the first lines and allows our top three lines to do their work.

As for the rest--the I hate European hockey, or I hate Hossa or I hate Malik or Shanahan's too old. our goalie is a damn European. Hossa is our spare forward--and Czech, he's not "my boy," as you put it though he is your whipping boy. Malik and Roszi did not play poorly in OT together. You don't like those players, and it's the coach's "fault" that they're out there; therefore, Renney is a terrible coach. So many of you could care less about the results: three game winning streak, defensively sound hockey, with great scoring. All you want to do is yell loudly about who sucks and why.

But here's the thing, the team is finally clicking and so many of you complain. It's like a bunh of freaking Eeyores! "Oh Pooh, the Rangers won in spite of Tom Renney's coaching."

czech -- During the time the Rangers had that one shot on goal, they attempted 14 shots. The Habs attemtped 15 shots during that same time. Montreal blocked almost all of the Ranger shots. The Rangers were in less of a defensive shell than Montreal was! The Rangers lost the period because they played poorly, not because they played over-defensively -- and even so, they did not give up a single goal in an even-strength situation. But go ahead and harp on the one shot on goal -- I'm not going to argue, it was a bad period for the Rangers. But I will not take one bad period in a game that was eventually won and crucify the coach for it.

If my comment about your attitude is so ridiculous and absurd, please correct me and show me in your comments tonight how much satisfaction you got from the win vs. how much dissatisfaction you got from the way they won -- show me that on any given night, and I don't think I'll see much more than last night's win over the Leafs. I don't expect you or anyone else to accept anything on blind faith -- you won't find a single example of that anywhere. But criticizing a coach for asking his team to "tighten up" their play? The only blindness there is faith in that remark.

I am no expert but in regards to Renny. There is always the better option not named but look at what Renny has done.. They made the playoffs the last 2 yrs. and we all think they will make them this yr. They actually have a PLAN and the prospects the rangers have in hartford and elsewhere are the best in yrs. IS this all Renny's doing no but he is part of it.. I also dislike many things he does but the bottom line is they have a plan and they have pretty good results. I rememebr the Ruscinsky, dvorak, hlavac, days well.. ALot of suppose talent, huge payroll, and losing....

BTW I hear about all these young players on other teams could you imagine 5 yrs ago the rangers playing a 21 yr old cernter, and 20 yr old 1st pair d man, and they have many other young guys. Yes jagr, shanny, and straka are old but tyutin,lundqvist, girardi, Cherapov, and others are young.

The Rangers won tonihgt because Huet had a bad game......

They are not trading Jagr and not firing Renny so let's pick a new subject !!!!!!

I dont care what negative any of you bring up, Huets bad game, Markov's foot fungus, Carbonneau's big nose, Kovalev's sad attempt at a goatee. I don't care, WE WON!

Mr. Duck

I wouldn't try to downplay the job Nolan has done with the Isles.
While we've seen he has no class, he still knows how to coach a hockey
team and to make his players reach their potentials.

Bottom of the division you say....What does that mean?
5 points separates 1st from last.
The Rangers have just 4 more points than them and have played 2 more games
than they have.
You do the math-

Is Tom Renney perfect? Nope

Do I agree with everything he does? Nope I still believe sending Dawes back was a mistake.

Here is what Renney has done:

Ranger fans wanted kids developed and become contributing members of the team. Staal, Girardi, Dubinsky, Prucha, Callahan and even Dawes all have come via the system.

Ranger fans wanted to see the team play defense, they are.

Ranger fans wanted accountability so sitting Hossa for 7 games (cmon who believed the flu?) and Malik and Mara, Prucha, and even Callahan has been accountability.

Rangers have made the playoffs 2 straight years after 7 years without. Renney is part of that effort.

Of course the Rangers can always make Renney's critics happy by terminating him and then they will be so very happy to have Glen Sather behind the bench.

As long as the Rangers as a franchise are showing FORWARD progress then the complaints about Renney for the most part are lacking in merit.

At last check (meaning 12:01 AM PDT), the Rangers are in 5th in the conference, one point behind the Devils for the division lead, 5-3-2 in their last 10 games so what in the world does Renney have to do to get some credit for his job?

I have been very critical of Shanny this year, but I give credit (and criticism) when and where it is due. I don't need to be held to anything. Shanny was playing a timid game, and only recently has initiated any contact. I loved when he cross checked that Hab to the ice after Montreal scored that PP goal last night. I didn't get his number, but if anyone noticed, he interfered with Rozy to set up the goal. Shanny saw it and gave a nice cross check to the back. Shanny looked a little pissed off during the game. I caught him dropping an F-bomb at one point during the game. Maybe he was yelling at Avery, I dunno. But THAT is what I was looking for from Shanny. THAT was also why I was on his case early this year, because he wasn't being . . . . well, SHANNY.

The guys who are really critical of Renney, are usually the guys who can't figure out why Dawes, Baranka, Moore, Imonnen, et al can't stick in the NHL. . . . .

BTW, I saw mhurley on the Ranger show before the game. She was great!!! I loved the look on Renney's face when she was ripping out that critique of the team to Renney. It was funny!!! My wife thought she was great!!! Props to Hurls!!!

from the JN..."By the third period, Tom Renney had seen enough. His defensive mindset had pushed him too far, so he rolled two lines and watched his most skilled players go on the offensive.

"These guys are our offense," the Rangers coach said. "We needed to get a goal. These guys, their eyes light up. ... They say, 'OK, the coach is putting this directly on our shoulders.' They love that."

In a thrilling finish, Renney was rewarded"...

One problem , among a few, I have with Renney is when they lose he seems to distance himself and blame the players. Win or lose the coaches & the players are in it together as a TEAM, for credit or blame. It has to be a two way street. This TEAM is getting on a roll, the chemistry is a lot better, the offense is clicking, they're back to playing better TEAM D, so this is not the time for a trade, and the coach stays. It's his TEAM to take to their potential. But they do need an experienced D man by the deadline.

Just a thought. . . .
If Ovechkin doesn't sign an extension in D.C., Jagr doesn't meet his point quota to extend his deal, two young Russian prospects who appear destined for the big club, and Mara-Malik-Avery-Rozy-etc. all come off the books, does Glen Sather pull a Kevin Lowe and offer AO an offer sheet? I am intrigued. . . .

I think Renney is doing a fine job. It's obvious that he's an intelligent guy who is moving in the right direction. He and his staff bring along young talent while simultaneously respecting veterans without falling into the post-Keenan country club trap. It's a fine line. Renney seems to get it. Sometimes I wish he was more "visceral" and less even-tempered toward the officials, but that’s me. He is a class act and gets the most from what Ranger management dictates. It’s good to see that he wants the boys in the blue paint. It makes a huge difference. Jags has to get there for this team to win the cup. I get so frustrated whenever he peels away from the play simply because he wants to achieve the unexpected. He threw them offside again last night when they could’ve easily gained the line with three across. He NEVER cuts to the net using his body to lean into a defenseman who has position. He curls around the net instead. This man is a very talented player, even a great player. He needs to be more visceral if the Rangers are to hoist another cup. Renney knows it too. Renney is okay with me.

3 chord someone needs to tell Renney that the words he tries to use are understood by only a few, and he has misused a few.He has to eliminate the 'synapse' between the brain & the heart. They need both to play hockey . And I don't think 'synchronicity' ( sp?) has a REAL part in it, except in a 'metaphysical' sense ;-)

Rangers are now finally & consistently putting men in the goalies face thanks to Avery showing the way, and scoring as a direct result. Even Jags is operating near the goal now & has been scoring as a result. Hard work & being willing to take a pounding around the crease is what will consistently win games. These goalies are too good to allow them to see the puck.
Gomez is a joy to watch as he flys around the ice
& makes plays. He and Jags seem to have found a groove & trade positions often making them harder to defense. It's great watching our little smerfs willing to get abused inorder to keep making plays. The pretty boys are showing a lot of heart & Avery is the key. Keep it up boys.

Hmmm lets see ... did we win yesterday? In fact have we won our last 3 games? You wouldn't know it by some of the comments ....

I find it rich that some people accuse and criticize others of following the team blindly, of being sarcastic and critical of them, when that's exactly how they are being in reverse.

The comments that taunt posters who like Renney, Hossa, or whomever are more than enough. If you want to dish out criticism then don't get upset when someone dishes it right back.

I don't believe the team is perfect or that our coach is perfect but the simple truth is that our team has improved every year he's been our coach. He isn't the only reason for the improvement but he deserves credit, and what I see from some is that they are so blinded by their own agenda against Renney and/or certain players that it really doesn't matter what happens ... in the end there will always be something to find fault with ....

Last night all the complaining stems from Avery's comment about Renney wanting them to tighten up defensively which they needed to do since they were playing loose and allowing too many odd man rushes to get to Henrik .... However Avery's comment has been taken in the context that Renney told his players to sit on their 2-1 lead going into the 2nd period even though there is no proof he said that and even though the team played sluggish rather than well defensively ... I have seen the Rangers sit on leads and how they were playing last night in the 2nd was sloppy, tired, sluggish hockey with poor shot attempts and choices ....

Whatever .... whatever floats anyone's boat is fine with me ....

I wondered why the fourth line was given so much ice time in the last five minutes last night. Did anyone else see that? Then, it became clear that Jagr's line and Drury's line were rested for the overtime. Remember, this was the Rangers second game in two days. Whether that was Renney's or not, I don't know. But it certainly seems like a great coaching move in hindsight. Wonder if Nolan or Sutter would've done the same?


"A crackling first period that was full of end-to-end rushing and chances galore devolved into trap-happy trench warfare in the second. As the Rangers were holding a lead when it did - and as they were the team that had played and traveled the night before - the slowdown figured to play to their advantage.

But it didn't."


We finished the year the way we started it with a win, so lets take that for what it's worth instead of saying stone hands hossa did this a malik did that, granted i am not a fan of those players but we got the W and honestly I'm good with that. I just hope that Hank can keeep the pucks out of the net for the next 40+ plus games and we get a good seed in the playoffs.


"...who do you think is doing a better job relative to the talent on his team." That's a good question. But lets look at the talent on his team. Do you really think Nolan or Sutter could manage the ego's of Jagr, Shanahan, Gomez, Drury and Avery? Neither of those two coaches are close to a Keenan! Both of these coaches do not have any established superstars among their forwards. Both of these coaches are "lunchbucket" coaches and I really doubt either could handle the job in Rangersland. Nolan was one of my picks for the Rangers job a long time ago, but not now. Maybe you think Tortarella can do the job, but he also would NEVER be able to handle the egos on this team. He can't do it in TB where there is no midia pressure, can you imagine him in NY!!!???!!! HAHAHAHA!

Repeat after me... My New Years Resolution for 2008 will be to stop dwelling on the negative and to accentuate the positive...Z

I have to say I am intrigued by obtaining Jason Chimera...I'll have to watch him play, but the report is he is big, fast, hits, can score and talks too! He has no illusions that he is a perimeter player and, therefore, is exactly the type of player we need, even in exchange for a talented one like Prucha. One player on our team like Avery is not enough for the whole season, let alone the playoffs. Oh BTW, he's good enough to play with Nash and Fedorov...gotta be doing something right!

Anyone have some scouting on him?

I just read on the hockeyrodent.com, the real reason that Prucha was out of the lineup last night. According to the rat, Prucha was caught "whispering" to Jagr during one of Renney's long winded pre-game speeches to his team. Apparently, according to the report, Prucha didn't understand what the word "visceral" meant, and was asking Jagr for an explanation. Renney took this as an insult, and beched him. Now I don't know if this report is meant as a joke or not: the rodent is a blatant Prucha lover. But if it is true, maybe thats why we were hearing all those impending trade rumors last week involving Prucha. And maybe there is a side to Renney that we have never heard of before. Might bear watching, in the future

Got to attend last night's game and had a great time, second period notwithstanding. Let's just hope that they don't "tighten up" like that again from now on. There was a whole row of Habs fans from Canada sitting right in front of me, so the victory was that much more satisfying. Somebody in their group said something about 26 cups. Not sure what that had to do with anything unless that was the tally of beers they had consumed up to that point.

Unrelated question...Why aren't the Rangers using the third jerseys this year?

from the JN..."By the third period, Tom Renney had seen enough. His defensive mindset had pushed him too far, so he rolled two lines and watched his most skilled players go on the offensive.

"These guys are our offense," the Rangers coach said. "We needed to get a goal. These guys, their eyes light up. ... They say, 'OK, the coach is putting this directly on our shoulders.' They love that."

In a thrilling finish, Renney was rewarded"...

dubi-this is for you from the journal news.And i give Tom Renney full credit for doing exactly what the article says he did.He abandoned HIS trap and started to roll his top two lines,his words not mine.So once again I'm proven right.

Great win for the Rangers and a great way to end 2007. Everything looks to be falling into place.

One thing that I found fascinating was Montreal's reversion to defense only for the entire 3rd period. I can only imagine what the Montreal papers are saying today. Montreal had a tired Ranger team on the ropes and decided to abandon the forecheck and collapse all 5 guys into the defensive zone. I've never understood a coach's need (as a fan or a player) to abandon the very system that got them the lead.

Dubi and the rest of the Blueshirt Bulletin crew, keep up the good work and have a Happy New Year.

Czech, hmm... the first half of the Journal News quote is the reporter's interpretation of Renney's reasoning. Secondly, to say the team plays "defensively" is not to say "go into a defensive shell.' In case you haven't heard--you have to keep as many goals out of your own net, as well as score some inthe other team's net. If the there had been an odd man rush and the habs had scored another goal to make it 4-2, you bet all the Renney critics--yourself included--would have commented negatively about some defenseman pinching in at the wrong moment, etc.

Context is everything, folks. In the context of the Glen Sather Rangers, we will not have a fiery, excitable coach. Why? Think of all the coaching hires Slats has made! Renney is a good guy, he knows the game, the players like him (consider what Drury and Gomez have said about him), he manages big egos well, he has the Xs and Os down pat, and considering who Glen Sather would hire (not who's available, but who he would hire--think of who he passed up when he hired trottier, for instance), we have a good coach, who has done everythign we've asked of this team--the playoffs, the player development, etc.

As for the rumor about Prucha and the benching. Sorry, I don't believe it for a sec.

Happy New year, everyone.

rangerbill94-Stop It,are you serious?Tortarella,he won the stanley cup and he had three superstars along with a borderline super vet named dave Andrychuck and a great goalie in Khabibulin who tampa could not sign because they made a choice to retain their big three stars that is why they are struggling,they have no goalie.Sutter benched both gionta and Elias early in the year when they were complaining about what he was doing.Now you see the results of what happens when a coach takes control of a team.
YOur argument on Nolan is also laughable.He coached lafontaine and Mogilny and Hasek in buffulo and was named coach of the year.
IN our case,our stars manage Renney,not the other way around.

NCSTEVE-LOL,If that is what Renney did than that was brilliant
He did not give much ice time the first two lines because he wanted to rest them for overtime?Are you serious?So you think that it is good coaching to hand a point to someone you are battling for a playoff spot?

Straka has made a big difference in this team since his return. He is a dog on the puck.

With all the anti Jagr, anti Straka, anti Malik, anti Rosival, anti 4th line, anti Renney, anti, anti, anti, it makes me wonder if there are a couple of Fishstick trollers plying the Blueshirt Bulletin waters.

Sad to say I was not feeling well and left the game at the end of the second period hoping I would not toss my cookies on the train during the hour and 45 minute ride back to the Dover, NJ train station.

My brother woke me out of a sound sleep telling of the late Drury goal and the OT winner by Shanny. I rallied enough to make it into the office today and just can't believe how people can be so wigged out after a win and a bad period.

I remarked to my friend sitting next to me that the Rangers were getting into a run and gun with the Canadians and they needed to tighten up.

I think that is exactly what Renney observed and tried to make an adjustment for it. It worked, except for the fact the Habs scored two goals with the man advantage: one on the PP and the other with their goalie pulled during a delayed penalty.

I guess that was Renney's fault.

All in all a very satisfying win, especially after the team coming in so late from a great game in Toronto while Montreal had the night off in the Big Apple.

No, this team is not perfect and Renney may have his faults but when you look at what he has done the last three years as opposed to his predessors the previous 7 years you have to be impressed with the progress the team has made.

All three coaches at the forum said the team was a work in progress and that it had grasped the defensive end of the game. (Look at the goals against)

They also said they were now working on the offensive side and were prepared for the ups and downs that would come with that adjustment.

They spoke of "growing pains" and that the season was a marathon and not a sprint.

This team is going to jell and be very dangerous come April.

After all, that is what it is all about, isn't it??

By the way,to all those who agree and disagree with me,we all have one thing in common and that is for the rangers to win the stanley cup.Let's hope that we are all posting in the middle of June 2008 about how we are going to celebrate a stanley cup win!!

Happy New Year!!!

Dubi and Jess-

A happy and healthy New Year to you and your families!!!

The problem i have with renney is that he holds the youngs kids accountable benching them sending them back to hartford but he doesn't go after the verterans. Jagr should have been benched for atleast a period this years!!!!!! Who disagrees? Another post in which he was right is Shanny not being Shanny hasn't been since his concushion why arent they getting benched? Thats the problem with renney...and dont give me malik either...

Everyone remembers Keenan benching Messier graves leetch for there pathtethic play sending a message that no is exempt. Our young boys see this hypocrisy and it drives a wedge. Anyone disagree...Let me hear it

The problem with the 2nd period was not that the Rangers gave up the attacking style of the 1st period (I think they would have run out of gas had they tried to keep that up for another 20 mins) but that they were sloppy in their own end...much like they played during their mid-December skid. Not clearing the zone with authority and getting beat to loose pucks, most evident during the goal scored on the delayed penalty. They had at least 2 or 3 chances to gain possession and didn't scrape hard enough to get it. Thank god Montreal only seemed to play with any sort of offensive creativity when they had an extra attacker, because they look like they have some slick young players on their team.

Nothing really obvious to complain about the officiating this game, although Huet was pretty reckless with his stick during the first period. I recall Gomez waving his stick in Huet's face after a whistle and I believe Huet was a little more responsible the rest of the game.

Personally, I was happy enough they clawed back in the 3rd to get the game into OT and Shanny's screamer of a wrist shot was a great finish to the calender year. If the big guns are blasting then I don't think we have to be all too concerned with Hossa having a terminal case of stone hands, his physical play along the boards was decent enough but there's a long way to go before you can justify a regular spot in the lineup for him and it seems like the coaching staff realizes this. I mean you've got Avery and Cally that play physical as well and create a lot more in the way of disrputions for the other team while doing so.

My biggest wish for 2008 is a consistent scoring threat from the 3rd line, something in the order of Prucha bagging at least 15 goals the rest of the year, that should help out quite a bit or at least Prucha/Dubi/Cally combining for 30-35 goals for the season. Does anyone think that a reason for having line combos like Dubi centering the Jagr line and Drury as a 3rd line center earlier in the season was because the coaching staff went for more a balanced top 3 lines - a la Buffalo last year - rather than a top heavy top 2 and complimentary 3rd and 4th? I understand the rationale given that at the beginning of the year the team looked like it would have surplus talent for 3 scoring lines and early season experiments with pairing guys like Jagr and Gomez looked it was a "too many cooks" scenario. I'll be more than pleased if that line continues to scorch in the 2nd half. I won't be too concerned if Gomez barely cracks double digits in the goal department as long as he's dishing them out at a point per game pace, although getting at least 15 shouldn't be too much ask for at $7MM.

"Not to take away from anybody, but I think cutting down to two lines changed the game," said Avery, whose team fell behind in a second period in which Ryan Hollweg had its only shot on net. "I think what this shows is that we can handle adversity"

And this from Sean Avery in the post.sorry couldn't resist!

such a sweet win last night!! way to go boys!!!

today's rant: please msg network - dump joe (micheletti)!! and put maloney in his place!!! i just can't take it anymore. actually had to lower the volume again last night (way way down) while joey went into yet another long-winded analysis of just how good the habs were playing and just how good kovalev was playing. ("best player of the game" per joe m.) c'mon joe, give it a rest some. please save all the praising for pre-game shmoozing. remember you're a ranger announcer, eh? and it was so refreshing to watch the leafs-rangers game on the hockey night in canada feed (via center ice package). the play-by-play was excellent and the color analysis was usually even-handed. (and no chitter chatter during the play).


"So once again I'm proven right." -- And after all, that's all that counts. If you had been willing to say "i give Tom Renney full credit" prior to this point for whatever it is you think he did right, then there wouldn't have been any debate -- I was never arguing that he did anything right or wrong at any point in the game, I was only arguing that you over-criticized him for the bad second period and failed to give him credit where it was due for any other part of the game (until now).

But wait -- were you in fact "right"? I've already pointed out that the fourth line and the first line had just about the same amount of ice time in the second period, when they were in your "defensive shell", and the third period, when they were rolling two lines. The order of the shifts in the third period were: 1-2-4-3 1-2-4 2-1-2-1 2-3-1-4 1-2-1 4-1-3-2 4-1-2-4. From 5:46 to 8:46, he used two lines over five shifts. From 10:58 to 14:05, the top two lines played three consecutive (and very long) shifts. After the Rangers tied it up, the fourth line got the bulk of the ice time.

So Renney rolled the top two lines for two three-minute spurts, used the third and fourth lines for most of the last five minutes, and rolled three or four lines for the remaining two sections of time that totaled nine minutes. He used his offense when he needed a goal, he used his defense when he needed to protect his point and rest his weary troops for OT. Is that what you were "right" about? Because everyone is "right" about that -- you protect leads, you try to erase deficits.

But no -- what you claimed was simply that it was wrong to try to "tighten up" in the second period, it was wrong to try to play better defense, especially with the lead on the second of back to back nights. That is was right to go for a goal when down one is a truism -- it does not make you right to criticize the coach for trying to tighten up his defense when he had the lead.

And so, for you from the Daily News: in the second period, "only too happy to be back to playing the kind of disciplined road hockey that had them 3-1-1 in their previous five stops on their six-game trip, the Canadiens were content to slog it out until their lethal power play got its chances."

i -- "someone needs to tell Renney that the words he tries to use are understood by only a few" -- Someone needs to tell Ranger fans who mock Renney's articulateness that in hockey it's not words, it's numbers, and last night the only numbers that counted were 4-3 for 2 points.

And speaking of the words Renney uses, Rodent was obviously being facetious about Prucha being benched for asking what "visceral" meant.

dubi-since you wan't to continue our debate,I know what I saw
and I know what was said by Renney in the journal news and Avery in the post.I guess you think It's ok to hand a team a point by givin the fourth line increased Ice time after you work hard to tie up a game you should not have been losing in the first place,I don't.I like to see a team go for the win instead of playing for overtime or a shootout.I will give you one point and that is maybe the rangers players took what renney said in between periods about tightening up to the extreme and once again
am going to give him credit for rolling the top two lines in the third period even though you don't wan't to seem to accept that I
am giving him credit.How I choose to give Renney credit is up to me and not you and i sincierly think and hope what he did in last nights game as far as rolling two lines when needed is a trend and not an aberration.

I watched a few of those games and Delapina didn't.the habs coach lost last nights game for them.And that is obvious.

You can dole out credit or criticism wherever and whenever you like -- who's stopping you? But when you overcriticize, you will get pushback, whether from me or someone else. Likewise when you fail to give credit when it is due. Nice to see you finally give Renney some credit for the third period after crucifying him for the second period -- but look at how much arguing it took to get you there.

One last thing about your second point.My partner is now in montreal with his fiancee to spend the holidays with her family.He just told me that Guy "Carbonue" is getting ripped on the radio and in the papers for inexplicably going into a defensive shell when he had the rangers on the ropes.

Geez, czechthemout.

You claim "the habs coach lost late nights game for them".
which is nothing more than a shot at Renney and the Rangers.

If someone shoved gold up your butt you would complain it wasn't diamonds.

Give it a rest already.

I'm even handed when it comes to criticism and praise.I just hadn't had a chance to post after last night's game until it was well finished and was only responding to other posters pushing back at me.But make no mistake Dubi,when Renney deserves credit I will give it to him and when he doesn't I will blast him.It's just that I find that he does alot more things that I don't agree with than things that I do agree with.I sincierly hope that at the end of the day he is right and I'm wrong.What I find curious is that you have not been as critical of him as you were in the past for the same things he does now.He has not changed what he does at all in my opinion as far as his coaching style in the last three years,however your critique of him has.Maybe you have come to beleive in what he does now versus that past.If you have,so be it.I have not.I think he coaches down to the level of his opponent and not to the strengh of his team.I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Ron Boesgaard-That was no shot at Renney at all.Nor was it intended as such.I wish you and all the Renney supporters would have some thicker skin and stop being so insecure in your support of him.

"On the ropes"?

The Canadians scored 3 goals: two on the power play and the third goal scored with a man advantage on a delayed penalty with under 3 minutes left in the second period.

The Rangers had a dominating third period. When did the Canadians go into a defensive shell when they had the Rangers "on the ropes"?

"On the ropes" with a one goal lead and nothing scored at even strength, getting the lead late in the second period? The Rangers playing desperation hockey in the third period?

How many shots on goal did the Canadians have that second period at even strength?

"On the ropes".

Homey don't think so.

You can twist it, turn it and opinionate it all you want.

The Rangers came from behind and took two points from a team that had only lost once this year when they scored three goals or more. They got key performances from their big four:
Jagr, Gomez, Drury and Shanahan: all players you have complained about at one time or another during the course of this season.

Montreal got a point.

The Rangers got 2 and the "W".

Time to find a dry crying towel. Yours must be soaked by now. How you manage to make it through the day following a Ranger loss must be a superhuman feat. One can only hope you manage to hold down your supper after a Ranger win.

Happy New Year to all. See you at the Garden Jan 8th.

You know seeing all these comments forces me to remind people that the Rangers did in fact win the game last night 4-3 even if it was in overtime.

I do wish to remind people that it was the Rangers 3rd straight win, that it was also the 3rd straight game in which they had scored 3 straight goals, that they are now 5th in the east, 2nd in the division.

One does have to wonder how people might react if they team wins the cup

Ron Boesgaard -Did you actually read my post? I just relayed what was going on in the montreal today as told to me ny my partner at work.Did you actually watch the second period? you couldn't tell when one team is clearly dominating another and forcing turnover after turnover?
If that doesn't fit your defenition of a fan than that's just too bad.I guess "HOMEY DON"T PLAY THAT WAY!"

I guess calling me a closet fishsticks fan is you childish and feeble attempt at humor and or trying to win an argument.Sorry
"Homey" your wrong again!!

Jess-Your right,let's move on!Any word on the us-finland game as far as Bobby S.And did the russians play,any word on AA,AC?

Renney "has not changed what he does at all in my opinion as far as his coaching style in the last three years,however your critique of him has.Maybe you have come to beleive in what he does now versus that past.If you have,so be it.I have not."

who cares? what does it matter whether Renney has changed or not changed styles? It's the results that matter. Your obsession with Tom sounds completely misguided, as is becoming more and more evident, especially within a discussion about an exciting come-from-behind Ranger win, amidst a modest win streak. Get over Renney--he's not the focus. Do you base your satisfaction on how volatile a coach is? If you need more fireworks, Marc Crawford is coaching on the other coast.

onetimer-Your right it's results that matter and like I said,I hope that I'm wrong and that we win the cup,that's all that matters.But are you going to be man enough to admit that if we don't win the cup and are eliminated earley like in last years playoffs that it's Renney's fault,if it turns out to be that?

actually, no. But I will be man (and reasonable) enough to discern that no victory or no defeat is the result of a single person in a team sport. sorry.

The comments to this entry are closed.