Well, I just got finished listening to the latest NYRangerscast podcast and halfway through it I fired up the blog ready to retort. But I figured, I probably should wait till the whole thing is done before responding.
Anyway, now that I am finished, I have to get my 2 cents in. It appeared to me that Eric and Steven may have been directing some of their thoughts in the middle of the podcast towards me, or at the very least, towards people who think the way I do. That is to say, people who aren’t fans of Renney and what he has done. In fact I believe Steven mentioned something about Renney getting so little out of his lineup, and I know that has been a mantra of mine for a while now so I do have to assume the comments are directed at me.
Let me preface all this by saying I absolutely love the fact that we can have this kind of cross-platform discussion, albeit it take me a helluva lot longer to respond, damn Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. Wait, where was I? Oh yeah, I want it to be known that I did not take any offense, or any negativity about how their argument was phrased. I think they simply addressed an issue I have been outspoken about in a professional, well thought out manner, that just happens to be completely wrong. Hehehe. So, what was their argument? Well, I figure the best way is for you guys to simply listen to the podcast first before going on… Click here for their latest podcast.
Ok, have you listened to it? Good. So here are the few basic points that they make which I will refute.
1) That offensive teams don’t win in the playoffs.
2) That my statement that Tom Renney has gotten so little out of such a talented roster is a fallacy.
Since the second point is much more of a broader question, I will obviously save that for last (plus it doesn’t hurt that the number 2 comes after the number 1).
So, I dont really remember who said it, I think it was Steven, but either he or Eric mentioned that offensive teams don’t win in the playoffs, and that only defense first teams win in the playoffs, and that Tom Renney has them playing a style that will win in the playoffs. I simply do not agree with the thought process here. Not only because it is factually incorrect, but because the spirit of the argument simply glosses over the teams failures while it accentuates their positives.
The very fact that offensive teams have won 2 of the past 3 Stanley Cups is proof enough that this statement is incorrect, but also the last 3 Eastern Conference champions have all been offensive juggernauts.
Who won the Stanley Cup 3 seasons ago? Tampa Bay. How did they do it? With a kickass offense, and stellar goaltending. They had the 3rd highest goals allowed for a playoff team that year coming into the playoffs, but had the second best offense. What did they do? Win the cup.
Who won the Stanley Cup 2 seasons ago? Carolina. How did they do it? With a kickass offense, and stellar goaltending. They had the worst goals allowed for a playoff team that year coming into the playoffs, but had the second best offense. What did they do? Win the cup.
Who won the Eastern Conference title last year? Ottawa Senators. How did they do it? With a kickass offense, a kickass defense, and decent goaltending. They had the third best goals allowed total for a playoff team that year coming into the playoffs, and also had the second best offense. What did they do? Made the cup finals.
Notice a trend here? Granted the Anaheim Ducks won it all with an average offense, and a stellar defense, but it is simply a fallacy that defense is the only way to win. You need balance. You need to be able to score goals, because the days of winning Stanley Cup championships by simply having the best defense are more or less over. You need offense, and you need a lot of it, because if you don’t teams like Pittsburgh and Montreal will run you into the ground. Luckily we have the talent to do this, but we do not have the production on a consistent basis to make anyone feel confident heading into a potential second round matchup with either of those teams.
Now, the second point was that my statement that Renney has gotten so little out of such a talented roster was a fallacy because Renney has superstars buying into a defense first style of play, and that they are sacrificing their offense to play defense. That is just not true, at least, I don’t feel that is true. The easiest way to answer this is that we have a superb penalty kill, and an absolutely horrific power play. That in and of itself says that our coach is not getting the most out of this super-talented roster. Getting Blair Betts, Brendan Shannahan, and Chris Drury to play Defense is all fine and great, but as the coach, it is your responsibility to get these guys to play well on both sides of the ice. Why is it such a taboo to expect the team to play well in both areas? I call shenanigans on the fact that you can’t play a good offensive game without sacrificing defense. That is baloney. The Ottawa Senators of last year are proof positive of that. They play a strikingly similar style to ours, except all their offense is put on one line, and their goaltending was suspect compared to ours. They shut teams down in their defensive zone all season long, and then transitioned it into an absolutely lethal offense. If their goaltending wasnt absolute trash in the finals, I think they could have won it all.
That is where we have the advantage here folks. Between the pipes, we can match up with the best of the best, and we should be able to play both ends well, but we don’t. We play defense great, but we just can’t generate a consistent offensive attack.
Do we get consistent point shots and crash the net? No. Do we get consistent traffic in front of the net to deflect shots? No. Do we dump and chase when the other teams stands up at the blueline? No. There is no consistency to our offensive attack. At times we do some things right, at other we do other things right, but seemingly never at the same time, and that is on the coach.
Want more proof that it is a fallacy that in order to play our system you have to sacrifice goals? Look at the Hartford Wolfpack this year. They have a tremendous amount of offensive skill on their team. Bourret, Hutchinson, Korpikoski, PA Parrenteau, Byers, Moore, Pock, etc. They also have had good to excellent goaltending in Montoya and now LeNeveau. What’s more, they play nearly the exact same system as we do, except they have a clear cut plan on offense. Get pucks to the net, and crash, crash, crash. They also are proportionately skilled to their league as we are (actually they are probably less skilled than we are offensively in terms of talent when you consider they lost their 2 best players, Dawes and Callahan, to the big club this year). So, how did they do? They have the 3rd best defense in the entire Eastern Conference, with just 1 more goal allowed than Albany. But do they sacrifice offense by playing so well defensively? NO!!!! They have the second best offense in the East behind Providence.
Now I don’t want to say that just because it happens in Hartford it immediately happens here. What I am saying is, it is baloney that Tom Renneys style automatically equals zero offense. In Hartford using the offensive plan that Jim Schoenfeld has put in place (by the way, Jim has always been my preferred choice to coach the Rangers) the Pack attack the net, and use their skill to funnel pucks there, and use their size to bang in pucks. We. Don’t. Do. That. Here. Why? I don’t know, you constantly hear Renney saying that is what they need to do. Clearly he has a plan in place that could, and should work, but the team does not execute that plan at all. They do it once in a while, but otherwise they overpass and play far too “hybridized” for my liking.
If he has the plan in place, but can’t get his supremely talented forwards to execute that plan, to me that means that he isn’t getting the most out of his players.
Yes, they are winning. But if Henrik has to be this damn good every night, I can guarantee you here and now, we won’t win the cup. No goalie can stand on his head for a full playoff series the way Henrik is having to play now. He has saved our asses in 2 consecutive games. Any other goalie in the league not named Nabakov or Luongo, and we are down 0-2 right now. We have generated zero offense, and have benefited from, lets face it, a putrid performance by a guy who has been overrated his entire career in Uncle Daddy. With the exception of the empty net goal, I truly believe Uncle Daddy should have had each and every goal we have scored on him. Every play was either a savable shot, or a misplay by him that led to the goal. Also our run down the end of the season, while miraculous, had a lot to do with shootouts and our ability to score goals in them.
When we were at our best, during that 12 or 13 game streak without a regulation loss, we were scoring goals. Yes, Henrik was fantastic during that stretch as well, but the point is, he didn’t have to steal us every single game. He only had to steal one out of 5 games. Now he has to steal 5 out of 5 games.
Now ask yourself, is Tom Renney really getting all that he can out of his team? Is he doing everything he can to put this team in a position to win by the choices he makes, and the way he has coached his team? Is he putting the configuration of players on the ice that downright dominated AS A TEAM for almost a month:
Avery Dubinsky Jagr
Dawes Gomez Shanahan
Straka Drury Callahan
Whoever you like on the 4th line (imho Prucha Betts Sjostrom)
Or is he putting a lineup out there that has been offensively anemic ever since they were put together with the exception of Jaromir Jagr who has consistently put up goals during this time.
Renney is putting out the latter roster, and that, along with all the other examples I have presented, is why I insist that this guy has gotten so little out of such a talented roster. We shouldnt be winning games 2-1 with a late game scramble and a couple of flukey goals. We should be winning games 5-1 or 6-2 where the 3rd period is an afterthought.
It is OK to expect more from the team. Accepting 100% from the defense, and 100% from the goaltending while tolerating 7% from the offense is not how I am wired. I want 100% from all facets. Tom Renney, as of now, is not getting it done well enough for me to sing his praises.