Just listened to Steve and Eric slam the hell out of me, and while Steve definitely got a little forceful with his points, they really aren’t about what I was talking about.
So let me say it clear and simple.
You need to play in ALL 3 FACETS to be successful in the playoffs. By all 3 facets I mean, Goaltending, Defense, and yes, Offense as well. This is in regards to the new NHL by the way, not the previous iteration of it which Steven brings his stats into play. Sorry Steven, but prior to the lockout, clutch and grab were a huge part of the playoffs. If you played the trap, and clutched and grabbed like nobodys business, you could win a cup. Thats just not the case anymore. I never said that defense doesn’t win championships, I said that it is possible to win a championship with your offense.
This paragraph my seem out of flow because it is an edit job, but I did want to point something else out about the stat that Steven threw out there. He pointed out how the Canes, Sens, and Lightning averaged (Im sorry I dont remember the exact number off hand and i already deleted the mp3 and dont want to spent another 20 minutes redownloading it to find out the exact numbers) something like 3 or fewer goals scored, but only 2 or fewer goals against and how it was their defense that won them games not their offense, and I say to that, not so fast. First, regarding the Senators, they played our style of game with a lockdown defense but had the offense to backstop that defense as well, so they aren’t really who I am talking about. Regarding the Canes and Lightning, let me ask you, if you are the opposition to the Canes and Lightning, and you see 294 goals scored by the Canes off the rush, and you see 245 goals by the Lightning (in the clutch and grab era) do you go toe to toe with those kinds of offenses? NO, you do exactly what anyone does, you play the conservative defensive game that everyone expects you to play. When you play conservative defensive games, you don’t generate many chances yourself, you hedge your bets that you will beat them 1-0, 2-1, etc, and don’t give them the chance to score. It takes 2 to tango guys, and when one team stifles the other, the goals total obviously goes down for both teams, but in the end the superior offensive (one-dimensional. with no defense to back it up) teams have as good a chance as the superior defensive (also one-dimensional) teams so long as their goaltending can stand up. The point is, you can win with offense, and you can win with defense. I don’t think it is as simple as saying, defense wins championships, in the NHL as it used to be. I think offense can be an effective way to win a championship as well, as long as you have the goalie to backstop you, and you play 5 in the picture in your own end and siphon pucks away from the high quality scoring areas. Remember, in the end you need to score more goals than the other team does, and while it may sound funny to make me look like an idiot by saying all teams everywhere in all sports know that defense wins championships, the evolving game today may not necessarily play that out 100% of the time…hell, even 50% of the time. I think it comes down to, Defense, Offense, and Goaltending wins championships nowadays, and if you don’t have at least 2 of the 3, you won’t have a chance in hell.
Think about it? The Rangers earlier this year had a stretch where they went something like 12 games in a row without a loss, and they were winning many of the games in the 2-1 variety. But they weren’t doing it by simply playing a defensive lock down type of game. NO, what they were doing was holding the puck in the offensive zone, applying tremendous amounts of pressure, and forcing the other team to dump and change, and set up our next offensive attack. They were ALSO extremely responsible in coming back when the play came back the other way, and were simply superb in not getting caught in odd man rush situations. Oh, and it didnt hurt to have Henrik playing like Henrik.
The point on the Senators team having more team speed, I feel, is kind of moot. You don’t need superior team speed to play their type of game. These aren’t the Canes, Habs, Pens, or Lightning we are talking about. This is a team that used crisp passing, and an attack style offense focused on generating high quality shots with men in front. It was a set up offense, exactly what we do, except I would argue our team has more talent on the 2nd and 3rd lines than they do, and while the Sens team undoubtedly had a better first line, they still managed to play that offensive game with all of their players. If the setup failed, and they didnt cash on a scramble at the goalmouth, or a laser of a one timer by Heatley, they would come back, 5 in the picture, and defend just like we do. They played a near carbon copy game as we do, except they did what we refuse to do with any consistency. Use their skill to find lanes, and put pucks at the net with men in front, or in position to grab rebounds.
My point is, if the Rangers played consistently like they did during that 12 game stretch, their superior talent would enable them to be an offensive team AND a defensive team just like the Senators.
Steven, Eric, I think this is where the disconnect is coming. I LOVE that this team plays defense first. Hell, in my own league, I am a checking forward, I am highly responsible in my own end, and have only been on the ice for 3 goals against all year in a wide open league where teams average 5-10 goals a game. Trust me, I love it when a team plays well in their own zone. What the Rangers don’t do with any consistency is exploit their offensive talent to generate pressure, and CHANCES.
Is this solely on Tom Renney? No, but here is where my biggest problem comes with the guy. What he says, and what he enforces, seems to be 2 entirely different thing. I never said Tom Renney has no plan, in fact I made a point of mentioning how quite often, what he says is exactly what I want the team to do. However what the team actually executes out there, is not what he says. And that my friends, is my problem. If you can praise Tom Renney for getting offensive players to play his defensive system, then it is pretty hypocritical to not lambaste him for not getting his offensive players to play his offensive system. THAT, my friends, is my point.
Watch the Devils play this series, what do they do? Forecheck, get pucks to the net, crash the net. I bet you if the Rangers played exactly the same way the Devils have been playing this series (under Brent Sutter, who by the way I think is 10 times the coach that Renney is) they would be up 3-0 with a seriously humiliated Devils team which would have lost games 5-0, 6-1, 5-1. Rangers have the talent to score a whole lot of goals, the fact that they arent even getting close to generating the kind of chances that they should be really concerns me. Oh, they are scoring goals all right, thankfully Uncle Daddy has been putrid, but they are generating no kind of consistent offensive attack.
Tom Renney seems to walk on water with many fans because of the decade of despair. Those lean years though had way more to do with a terrible management system, and a terrible farm team, than they did with the coaching. I could be wrong, and if Steven wants to spend a few hours researching this, feel free to go ahead and let me know what you find, but those teams always used to start of well. Be playoff caliber teams through much of the season. Then, a Lindros would get a concussion, or a Fleury would get injured, or a LaFontaine would get a concussion himself, or a Messier (like Shanahan) would hit a wall and stop producing. Those teams failed because the replacement players they would call up, were borderline ECHLers, much like Strudwick. There is nothing a coach can do when you replace a player like Eric Lindros with some no name scrub who wouldnt even be playing for the Checkers. Blame the GM’s in Smith and Sather for not having viable alternatives when injuries happened. Then they would compound this problems by trading whatever little quality they had for even more over priced, injury prone old players. As the injuries occurred, and the older players starting wearing down, there were no Callahans and Girardis to help lead the charge and keep the team winning. Then the teams would simply fall into a abyss, and be awful from the all star break onwards.
The Rangers are successful fellas, because of their depth, not because of anything miraculous that Renney has done. Yes, absolutely, Tom Renney has a system that works. Yes, you need to play that kind of a defensively responsible game to be able to win in the playoffs. But guess what, you can score playing his system as well. You CAN get more out of this talented a roster, with this much youth, than they currently are, and it is OK to expect a lot more. It is OK to see a coach to go freaking nuts, like Sutter did, when you get a crap call. It is OK to see a Rangers team that performed so terribly offensively that only 4 teams did worse in the entire NHL and say, you know what…this team should be a whole lot better scoring wise without sacrificing any more goals against. It is OK to say, Tom Renney, I don’t think you are getting as much out of your players as many other coaches could. It is OK to say, Tom Renney, why in god’s name is Jason Strudwick playing for the 52nd time (that’s how many games hes played fellas…52). In short, it is OK to expect more. And I think this team could be a whole lot better than they are.
Eric, regarding me complaining about a team that is winning, I think that is kind of a low blow. I am complaining that a team is underachieving, and could be a whole lot better than they are now. Even in this series I think we are winning because of smoke and mirrors, and not because of our play. IMHO we have played a terrible playoff series, and no way in hell should we be up 2-1. This series should be 3-0 New Jersey if they didn’t have a goalie who was imploding back there. Hell, you, me, everyone seems to think that putting back the lines to the way they were before the Gomez injury makes sense. Has Renney even entertained it for a period of hockey? Does that not upset you? Don’t you think that is stupid of him? Don’t you think it is stupid for him to play the 4th line in games we are trailing by 1 in the final few minutes of the 3rd period as he did earlier this year? Clearly we all agree he does some questionable things, so why is it not ok for me to want a coach who DOESNT do retarded things like that? I don’t think Tom Renney is an awful coach guys, I think he is an average coach.
In short, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don’t think Renney is the messiah that some people think he is, but I certainly don’t think he is the Devil incarnate either. All I think is, we can do better. Sutter, Nolan, Ruff, these are the kinds of coaches I like. Guys who can be in your face, outspoken, and still get their players to play great D, and get a lot out of their teams offensively as well. (Sadly all 3 of these fine coaches have some of the worst organizations in sports behind them as far as getting them talented players to deploy)
Anyway, I consider this argument done with, so I will let you guys get the last word in. It’s time to focus on the playoffs now. Renney can always be scrutinized in the offseason.
