Renneys Strategy...

One would think it would be a good idea to get your offensive players as much ice time as humanly possible, particularly in a game you are only trailing by a goal late in the 3rd.


tonight with roughly 5 minutes remaining in the game, losing 1-0, and i believe in an offensive zone faceoff situation (or perhaps neutral zone, i didnt write it down) tom renney puts the HBO line out there.

I got out of my chair, kicked ottoman, and sat back down. I don't understand this strategy that Renney uses.

I'm not going to kill the HBO line, I think they do their job just fine. They arent a liability, they have some energy, and allow the other players to rest without killing our team, but lets be honest here folks, they couldnt score with a fistful of hundreds in a....well, you know how that adage goes.

so i dunno, is it just me? am i the only one perplexed by this incessant need to run all 4 lines regardless of the situation?

i understand rewarding the guys for playing well, but there is a time and a place for that, and when you are trailing in a game by 1 goal, with 5 minutes to go, that isnt the time to do it.


thoughts?

One would think it would be a good idea to get your offensive players as much ice time as humanly possible, particularly in a game you are only trailing by a goal late in the 3rd.


tonight with roughly 5 minutes remaining in the game, losing 1-0, and i believe in an offensive zone faceoff situation (or perhaps neutral zone, i didnt write it down) tom renney puts the HBO line out there.

I got out of my chair, kicked ottoman, and sat back down. I don't understand this strategy that Renney uses.

I'm not going to kill the HBO line, I think they do their job just fine. They arent a liability, they have some energy, and allow the other players to rest without killing our team, but lets be honest here folks, they couldnt score with a fistful of hundreds in a....well, you know how that adage goes.

so i dunno, is it just me? am i the only one perplexed by this incessant need to run all 4 lines regardless of the situation?

i understand rewarding the guys for playing well, but there is a time and a place for that, and when you are trailing in a game by 1 goal, with 5 minutes to go, that isnt the time to do it.


thoughts?

You're right. It's absurd that they are out their if we are trailing in the last half of the third. They should never see ice time until we tie it.

What's even more sad is they probably had more chances then the second line in the game, regardless, I'd put the people who have pasts of putting it past goaltenders, rather than the HBO line, no matter how many chances a game they get.

Renney just doesn't get it, the fourth line has played very well for their role, but if you put them over third line minutes and put them out when we're down late in a game, fans are gonna start turning on you Renney..and for that matter, so will your job.

One would think it would be a good idea to get your offensive players as much ice time as humanly possible, particularly in a game you are only trailing by a goal late in the 3rd.


tonight with roughly 5 minutes remaining in the game, losing 1-0, and i believe in an offensive zone faceoff situation (or perhaps neutral zone, i didnt write it down) tom renney puts the HBO line out there.

I got out of my chair, kicked ottoman, and sat back down. I don't understand this strategy that Renney uses.

I'm not going to kill the HBO line, I think they do their job just fine. They arent a liability, they have some energy, and allow the other players to rest without killing our team, but lets be honest here folks, they couldnt score with a fistful of hundreds in a....well, you know how that adage goes.

so i dunno, is it just me? am i the only one perplexed by this incessant need to run all 4 lines regardless of the situation?

i understand rewarding the guys for playing well, but there is a time and a place for that, and when you are trailing in a game by 1 goal, with 5 minutes to go, that isnt the time to do it.


thoughts?

i noticed the same thing tonite..

as much as I love Betts haha, you don't put him and his 4th line comrades out there in that situation...

grr..

i noticed the same thing tonite..

as much as I love Betts haha, you don't put him and his 4th line comrades out there in that situation...

grr..
i like the idea of rolling 4 lines

but you're right, renney does not have the right players to do that

I agree with you, Renny plays the 4th line way too much. It really fustrates me when I see them put out after tv time outs, there is really no reason for that, every player just rested why not put out a scoring line.

i like the idea of rolling 4 lines

but you're right, renney does not have the right players to do that

i have no problem with rolling 4 lines when tied, or up a goal.

but down a goal, 5 minutes to go, offensive zone faceoff. do you really think betts-hollweg-orr are going to give you the best opportunity to take advantage of the situation and score?

i have no problem with rolling 4 lines when tied, or up a goal.

but down a goal, 5 minutes to go, offensive zone faceoff. do you really think betts-hollweg-orr are going to give you the best opportunity to take advantage of the situation and score?

and not only that when u take a penalty in the offensive zone u should get benched for a few shifts, nope Hossa was right back on the next shift. Dubinsky played another good game.

i have no problem with rolling 4 lines when tied, or up a goal.

but down a goal, 5 minutes to go, offensive zone faceoff. do you really think betts-hollweg-orr are going to give you the best opportunity to take advantage of the situation and score?
nope and i don't think they should be the checking line either..

but that's another story

I'm guessing Renney's logic at that point, was all four lines were skating really well (for the most part dominating until the meltdown at the end) and in theory any line would have a shot at tying the game. but I agree with you none the less, that's a point in the game where you need to ride your best guys.

One would think it would be a good idea to get your offensive players as much ice time as humanly possible, particularly in a game you are only trailing by a goal late in the 3rd.


tonight with roughly 5 minutes remaining in the game, losing 1-0, and i believe in an offensive zone faceoff situation (or perhaps neutral zone, i didnt write it down) tom renney puts the HBO line out there.

I got out of my chair, kicked ottoman, and sat back down. I don't understand this strategy that Renney uses.

I'm not going to kill the HBO line, I think they do their job just fine. They arent a liability, they have some energy, and allow the other players to rest without killing our team, but lets be honest here folks, they couldnt score with a fistful of hundreds in a....well, you know how that adage goes.

so i dunno, is it just me? am i the only one perplexed by this incessant need to run all 4 lines regardless of the situation?

i understand rewarding the guys for playing well, but there is a time and a place for that, and when you are trailing in a game by 1 goal, with 5 minutes to go, that isnt the time to do it.


thoughts?

I agree that the HBO line (can't call it a 4th line) plays a little too much but Renney has almost been forced to play them more then he should because not only are they doing the job he asks but the 3rd line is almost always pitiful (especially the wingers) and tonight, so was the 2nd line....Still, down 1-0 with 5 minutes to play seems a stretch BUT...the top line can't play the entire 5 minuites and look what happend as soon as drury-cally and Avery were thrown out there

and not only that when u take a penalty in the offensive zone u should get benched for a few shifts, nope Hossa was right back on the next shift. Dubinsky played another good game.

Dubi indeed played well, but he ahs no wingers...Cally is pitiful and needs a long stretch in Hartford....Unlike Prucha and Hollweg who have played well aftertheir benching, Hossa has come back and played even worse...He needs to sit even more

That line needs someone on it who has atleast some chance to score. Orr, Betts, and Hollweg just aren't gonna put up points no matter how hard they work, like Ortmeyer before Orr. I understand why Renney gives them the ice time as thier hard work should be contagious to the other lines, but at the same time in a point of the game where we needed a big goal I don't want them out there.

That Orr call was total BS though! :rant:

Dubi indeed played well, but he ahs no wingers...Cally is pitiful and needs a long stretch in Hartford....Unlike Prucha and Hollweg who have played well aftertheir benching, Hossa has come back and played even worse...He needs to sit even more

I agree 100% Larry, I just made a thread on how Cally should be sent down to get his confidence back which is obviously lacking right now. I wanna see more of Greg Moore anyhow.

after watching Artem Anisimov so far in the WJC's id say give the kid a callup and put him on Dubinskys wing. 2 huge kids, might work, might not, but id like to see it given a shot

after watching Artem Anisimov so far in the WJC's id say give the kid a callup and put him on Dubinskys wing. 2 huge kids, might work, might not, but id like to see it given a shot
that's unlikely, though not a bad idea

but, he's a natural center and i'd hate to have the kid play out of position, especially in his first games in the NHL

Renney has been a horrible coach the entire season. Been saying it for months.

His new found love fest for the 4th line his quite hilarious.

Like seriously...what is he doing out there? Is he trying to get the team to score goals or is he just too concerned about defense, defense, defense...even when we are down in a hockey game?

(and half the time our defense blows chunks as well)



We are not winning the cup with him behind the bench, thats for sure.

that's unlikely, though not a bad idea

but, he's a natural center and i'd hate to have the kid play out of position, especially in his first games in the NHL

honestly, i think his game is better suited for the wing.

Renney has been doing this way to often. The 4th line should not be out there in situations like that nor should they be getting 12 minutes of ice time a game, its ridiculous.

Renney feels most comfortable using the 4th line in a checking role against opponents' first lines. That's all fine and dandy but when we're down a goal late, you can't be matching lines.

Renney has been a horrible coach the entire season. Been saying it for months.

His new found love fest for the 4th line his quite hilarious.

Like seriously...what is he doing out there? Is he trying to get the team to score goals or is he just too concerned about defense, defense, defense...even when we are down in a hockey game?

(and half the time our defense blows chunks as well)



We are not winning the cup with him behind the bench, thats for sure.

Have to agree now...

Renney has to be an assistant... he's good with the kids, but he's no head coach... he just has **** for strategy... its so obvious and ridiculous.

One would think it would be a good idea to get your offensive players as much ice time as humanly possible, particularly in a game you are only trailing by a goal late in the 3rd.


tonight with roughly 5 minutes remaining in the game, losing 1-0, and i believe in an offensive zone faceoff situation (or perhaps neutral zone, i didnt write it down) tom renney puts the HBO line out there.

I got out of my chair, kicked ottoman, and sat back down. I don't understand this strategy that Renney uses.

I'm not going to kill the HBO line, I think they do their job just fine. They arent a liability, they have some energy, and allow the other players to rest without killing our team, but lets be honest here folks, they couldnt score with a fistful of hundreds in a....well, you know how that adage goes.

so i dunno, is it just me? am i the only one perplexed by this incessant need to run all 4 lines regardless of the situation?

i understand rewarding the guys for playing well, but there is a time and a place for that, and when you are trailing in a game by 1 goal, with 5 minutes to go, that isnt the time to do it.


thoughts?

I said the same thing about a month ago. Renney seems like a pretty good coach but he boggles my mind sometimes.

after watching Artem Anisimov so far in the WJC's id say give the kid a callup and put him on Dubinskys wing. 2 huge kids, might work, might not, but id like to see it given a shot

Agree.

He probably does rely on it too much, but more often than not. The 4th line provides a ton of energy and gathers momentum for us.

Obviously, 5 minutes remaining cant always allow for that, but using just tonight as an example. It didnt seem like any combination/line was going to find the net.

:(

I'd be happy if just double-shifted Avery with Betts and Hollweg in place of Orr.

I don't think that the 4th line should EVER take offensive zone draws. Why waste opportunites w/ the worst scoring 4th line (maybe in league history). Every time I see Renney do this i just want to slap him.

One would think it would be a good idea to get your offensive players as much ice time as humanly possible, particularly in a game you are only trailing by a goal late in the 3rd.


tonight with roughly 5 minutes remaining in the game, losing 1-0, and i believe in an offensive zone faceoff situation (or perhaps neutral zone, i didnt write it down) tom renney puts the HBO line out there.

I got out of my chair, kicked ottoman, and sat back down. I don't understand this strategy that Renney uses.

I'm not going to kill the HBO line, I think they do their job just fine. They arent a liability, they have some energy, and allow the other players to rest without killing our team, but lets be honest here folks, they couldnt score with a fistful of hundreds in a....well, you know how that adage goes.

so i dunno, is it just me? am i the only one perplexed by this incessant need to run all 4 lines regardless of the situation?

i understand rewarding the guys for playing well, but there is a time and a place for that, and when you are trailing in a game by 1 goal, with 5 minutes to go, that isnt the time to do it.


thoughts?

Renney has been doing that all year unfortunately and i think its confusing the offensive lines....yes the 4th line was getting some chances and getting shots but they arent going to score. You have to put Jagr and Gomez out there, especially with both of them on point scoring streaks and being hot recently....i dont understand our coach :shakehead

i have no problem with rolling 4 lines when tied, or up a goal.

but down a goal, 5 minutes to go, offensive zone faceoff. do you really think betts-hollweg-orr are going to give you the best opportunity to take advantage of the situation and score?
1)This was a road game. They had the right to match, not us. Whatever line Renney would put there, that line could not be dominant, as Vancouver could put the proper guys against them.
2)We had no or little chance to win. Last time we beat Vancouver out west in 1997, when Gretzki played. Luongo was rock solid.
3) It's only 40 seconds or so out of over 300 sec. remaining. It doesn't make sense to screwup lines just for one offensive zone face-off in the game when we doomed, had our a few chances (Betts, Avery) and were out of luck.

you're definitely correct that this wasn't a good move by Renney. Personally, I was a bit perpexled with this decision, and it wasn't the first decision of the night I totally disagreed with (the other being to not let Lundqvist have a bounce-back game after that debacle in Calgary). considering what Renney did in the game against Montreal, I surprised he didn't do the same, essentially roll the top two lines through the 3rd. the team responded against Montreal and came away with two points...why not try it again??

1)This was a road game. They had the right to match, not us. Whatever line Renney would put there, that line could not be dominant, as Vancouver could put the proper guys against them.
2)We had no or little chance to win. Last time we beat Vancouver out west in 1997, when Gretzki played. Luongo was rock solid.
3) It's only 40 seconds or so out of over 300 sec. remaining. It doesn't make sense to screwup lines just for one offensive zone face-off in the game when we doomed, had our a few chances (Betts, Avery) and were out of luck.

1) that doesn't mean you don't put out the line(s) with the best chance of scoring. that's basically like saying "Well they're going to match whatever line we put out, so why even try?". Fact is, the Canucks were nervously throwing the puck around their own zone much of the night, they wouldn't have been able to stop the 1st line from at least getting some chances. Even if the 4th line got those same chances, there's that much less of a chance that one of them ends up at the back of the net.

2) so you're saying they should've just given up? using your rationale, why even play the 3rd period then? why not just give up right away and fly to Edmonton to get some extra sleep? Hell, there wasn't any chance anyway, so what would it have mattered? Maybe everytime they get in such situations, they should just quit. :sarcasm:

3) since when is it considered "screwing up lines" putting out your top line in a critical situation in a game? and why would it have mattered even if the lines got "screwed up", when there was such little time left in the game? you're basically saying that, for the sake of not "screwing up the lines", Renney made the right decision in not giving him team the best possible chance to battle back with a few minutes remaining in a game. to me, this just seems, well....stupid.

One would think it would be a good idea to get your offensive players as much ice time as humanly possible, particularly in a game you are only trailing by a goal late in the 3rd.


tonight with roughly 5 minutes remaining in the game, losing 1-0, and i believe in an offensive zone faceoff situation (or perhaps neutral zone, i didnt write it down) tom renney puts the HBO line out there.

I got out of my chair, kicked ottoman, and sat back down. I don't understand this strategy that Renney uses.

I'm not going to kill the HBO line, I think they do their job just fine. They arent a liability, they have some energy, and allow the other players to rest without killing our team, but lets be honest here folks, they couldnt score with a fistful of hundreds in a....well, you know how that adage goes.

so i dunno, is it just me? am i the only one perplexed by this incessant need to run all 4 lines regardless of the situation?

i understand rewarding the guys for playing well, but there is a time and a place for that, and when you are trailing in a game by 1 goal, with 5 minutes to go, that isnt the time to do it.


thoughts?

You and I disagree on Renney. But in this case, I agree. The fourth line plays too much when the Rangers are trailing.

you're basically saying that, for the sake of not "screwing up the lines", Renney made the right decision in not giving him team the best possible chance to battle back with a few minutes remaining in a game. to me, this just seems, well....stupid.
Rennay doesn't roll the lines. He has an assistant for it ( I believe it's Pollino). My explanation was why he didn't do anything to intrude and change his assistant call. Besides, we had HBO line on the bench later, when we giving the team the best possible chance to battle back with a few minutes remaining in a game. They scored twice on our "best chance". So what's the point?
We had over 40 SOG. We were the better team. We lost . Get over it.

honestly, considering the HBO line was the best line of the night, good for Renney

players on this team need to step up, and really i understand and applaud the Valley starting as well. the team is to use to relying on Hank back there, and right now Hank doesn't have his game

honestly, considering the HBO line was the best line of the night, good for Renney

players on this team need to step up, and really i understand and applaud the Valley starting as well. the team is to use to relying on Hank back there, and right now Hank doesn't have his game

Jagr Gomez and Straka looked dangerous all night, and have a better track record of putting goals in the net. Terrible coaching by Renney. the 4th line is what it is, and they just aren't going to score, at least not enough to justify putting them out there in that situation. Even if they had played well all night.

As far as Lundy goes, I think he should have started. Give Valli the Edmonton game. Let Lundy battle his vezina competition, and give him a chance to bounce back from the bad goal. The difference in the game was that the Canucks goalie outplayed the Rangers goalie, so obviously Renney's decision was poor.

On another note, where is the discipline? Why does Hossa not miss a shift after taking two terrible offensive zone penalties? How is Malik right back out there after his late lazy penalty costs the Rangers a goal on the ensuing poweplay? Renney might just coach this team right out of the playoffs.

One would think it would be a good idea to get your offensive players as much ice time as humanly possible, particularly in a game you are only trailing by a goal late in the 3rd.


tonight with roughly 5 minutes remaining in the game, losing 1-0, and i believe in an offensive zone faceoff situation (or perhaps neutral zone, i didnt write it down) tom renney puts the HBO line out there.

I got out of my chair, kicked ottoman, and sat back down. I don't understand this strategy that Renney uses.

I'm not going to kill the HBO line, I think they do their job just fine. They arent a liability, they have some energy, and allow the other players to rest without killing our team, but lets be honest here folks, they couldnt score with a fistful of hundreds in a....well, you know how that adage goes.

so i dunno, is it just me? am i the only one perplexed by this incessant need to run all 4 lines regardless of the situation?

i understand rewarding the guys for playing well, but there is a time and a place for that, and when you are trailing in a game by 1 goal, with 5 minutes to go, that isnt the time to do it.


thoughts?


I agree with you Inferno.

I called it during the commercial break as i said this sarcastically to my fiancee sitting next to me - "Yeah, Renney - put out the fourth line right now for an offensive zone draw down 1-0 with 5 minutes left in the game against the best goaltender in the NHL. - yeah... thatll work, you have a great shot of tying it on this shift!!!"

Obviously she had no idea or care of what i was bickering about, but i made my point clear.

When they played Calgary Sam and Joe were talking about how Keenan liked to go with the top lines (as he always has) especially in pressure situations (one goal deficit - 5 min left and an offensive zone draw) - and i'm wondering if its less of a case of Renney rolling lines but more of a conservation of energy theory for the big guys like Jagr who are older.

You got these guys you pay millions of dollars for to put pucks in the net, put them out there.

Maybe this team is too old? Not compared to Vancouver and Calgary who are both on average older teams.

No excuse if you ask me, just bad coaching.

I noticed it too. They get waaaay too much ice time for their role. I mean if they can start scoring i will stop complaining.

I don't think that the 4th line should EVER take offensive zone draws. Why waste opportunites w/ the worst scoring 4th line (maybe in league history). Every time I see Renney do this i just want to slap him.

Can't disagree with you there. The fourth line serves a purpose in the first and second periods but I don't want to see those three out on the ice in a close game with us behind. Renney DEFINITELY needs to shorten his bench when we need a comeback goal.

honestly, considering the HBO line was the best line of the night, good for Renney

players on this team need to step up, and really i understand and applaud the Valley starting as well. the team is to use to relying on Hank back there, and right now Hank doesn't have his game

They were good. But when you need to score to get back into a game, they are a waste of time. They're devoid of offense.

Renney was still pissed at Jagr for taking that ridiculous penalty.

Never seems to cost Malik a shift.

The Rangers don't have a fourth line. They have two #3 lines.

Traditionally, the 3rd line covers the opposing team's #1 line and the 4th line is thrown out there infrequently, usually to inject energy. Renney is using the Orr line as the traditional #3 line. Everything is blurred.

Never seems to cost Malik a shift.

Actually it did, Malik had 6 less minutes his last two games :teach:

and i'm wondering if its less of a case of Renney rolling lines but more of a conservation of energy theory for the big guys like Jagr who are older.

That's the reason that pops up in my mind, that Renney is going to give the fourth line their shifts regardless of the score because he doesn't want to burn out Jagr and Shanahan.

Because I can't figure out any other reasons for the fourth line to be playing that late in a one-goal game, unless it was to send a message to the other lines, meaning "hey if you don't play as hard as the fourth line does then I'll have no reason to shorten my bench." But like we've said, that fourth line is so inept offensively that even a tired, frustrated Jagr & Co. is more likely to score a goal.

Has anyone asked Renney about this in the post-game? I'd be interested in hearing what he has to say about it.

i am sick of this 4th line getting over used. how does renney expect his younger players to develop when they are getting 8 minutes a night some games. it's mind boggling. i like betts for all that he does on the PK, hollweg can't put the puck in ocean and isn't as physical, and orr is happy gilmore out there trying to skate. hell even happy gilmore had a hard shot. when everyones healthy barring trades i would do:

straka-gomez-jagr

avery-drury-shanny

hossa-dubi-prucha

hollweg-betts-callahan

i do hossa on the 3rd line only because he's a bigger body and he's good along the boards which helped dubi big time the last 2 games. callahan is the next ortmeyer, put him on the 4th line for energy. i don't like hollweg but he can skate at least and hit now and then. betts is betts. that 4th line would actually be a checking line not the usual of watching orr skate around and chase people because he's too slow. if you wanna dress orr against the islanders or teams with goons fine, but i would like these lines to be tried

The Rangers don't have a fourth line. They have two #3 lines.

Traditionally, the 3rd line covers the opposing team's #1 line and the 4th line is thrown out there infrequently, usually to inject energy. Renney is using the Orr line as the traditional #3 line. Everything is blurred.

It doesn't even get that complicated, the Betts line IS the 3rd line. Their minutes indicate that, their situational minutes indicate that, and Renney's use of the line indicates that. Right or wrong, the HBO line on Renney's team is the 3rd line.

Renney coaches to not lose, always has.

I agree on the two third lines. Of course, the fourth line does often face other teams' fourth lines too, sot he actual time spent checking is most often less than other lines that check top lines, I believe. And throughout the season, it has seemed as though both Jagr's line and the third line have also faced top lines. The Rangers were most successful when Jagr went against these lines in the past since it not only neutralized those lines, Jagr typically beat them (as evidenced by his plus over the last few seasons). The 'fourth' line simply plays too much and as a unit do not have a +/- you want to brag about.

In any event, it seems as though this team still doesn't have four lines with real roles. In the past it was a second line. Now it's a third line that can score. I personally think the pieces are here to roll three lines with decent scoring/defensive capabilities that would limit the fourth line to a couple less minutes per game; Renney just hasn't figured out what that is.

I think Renney did figured everything out. Blair Betts is the only result of pre-lockout fire sale. Chris Simon to Flames gave us him and Gregg Moore. Rangers shipped Dom Moore to NAS because at the time it became clear that Betts is a better candidate to centre the shutdown line we needed. Next Jan. Betts was signed long term. It took a few years to build the 3rd line (it has never been 4th!). Now HBO is the only complete line we've got. The team has some degree of success because it has been built from goalie up, not from 1st line down, like it was done in Messier-Nedved-Fleury-Lindros years. Our goaltender is premium. Our defense is a truly matter of pride. Our shutdown line is complete, done, gemacht.
What is next? The two-way line. Drury is slowly, but surely establishes himself as 2C. His wingers are adequate. What's next after 2nd line? Energy Line. Dubi and his 4th line are work in progress. What is next after 4th line? 1st line. That line we should have had already, but Nylander departure and Gomez as his replacement took longer then anyone thought to get Jagr going. Well, it looks like it's over. 1st line has a reliable depth in 4th line where Dubi and Hossa could cover for Gomez and Straka. There is no sub for Jagr. Never has been. Our 2nd line has no depth. Neither does our 3rd line. Nobody perfect, but that the way things are.

play more than 5-7 minutes vs. top lines though? For instance, last night it seemed as though Drury got the lion's share of shifts against the Sedins, and Betts seemed to go against Linden most of the night - when I think of shutdown lines, I don't think about guys that shutdown Linden. I know Renney's wildly inconsistent about some things, but the shutdown line doesn't seem to play all its minutes against top lines and typically isn't out there playing against them for 1/2 the top lines' minutes. And the large minus from that line given the amount of time they play against those top lines suggests to me that perhaps they're playing too many minutes, and maybe too many minutes against top lines because others seem to be handling them a bit better. I would need a lot more data for analysis, but that's what it appears to be.

And you say it's never been a fourth line - for about 2/3 of the season it received less minutes than other lines, I believe - so wouldn't that make it the fourth line because it plays less minutes than the other three lines?

Double-shift Avery and/or Drury in place of Orr and/or Hollweg from the late 2nd period on.

play more than 5-7 minutes vs. top lines though? For instance, last night it seemed as though Drury got the lion's share of shifts against the Sedins, and Betts seemed to go against Linden most of the night - when I think of shutdown lines, I don't think about guys that shutdown Linden. I know Renney's wildly inconsistent about some things, but the shutdown line doesn't seem to play all its minutes against top lines and typically isn't out there playing against them for 1/2 the top lines' minutes. And the large minus from that line given the amount of time they play against those top lines suggests to me that perhaps they're playing too many minutes, and maybe too many minutes against top lines because others seem to be handling them a bit better. I would need a lot more data for analysis, but that's what it appears to be.

And you say it's never been a fourth line - for about 2/3 of the season it received less minutes than other lines, I believe - so wouldn't that make it the fourth line because it plays less minutes than the other three lines?

Fletch, you've mistaken TOOL with JOB. The shutdown line is a tool. How its being used doesn't change its qualities. You can use a hummer as a paperweight. It will remain a hummer, though.
No one budgets time out there for different lines. It just happened that 4th line plays less minutes then 3rd due to situations involved during the game (for example 1st line doesn't kill penalties or shutdown line players don't do PP, 2nd line plays both PP and PK, etc.). But it is possible for Energy line be out equal time with shutdown line. The shutdown line time will go down as soon as our 2nd line will be established.

The Rangers don't have a fourth line. They have two #3 lines.

Traditionally, the 3rd line covers the opposing team's #1 line and the 4th line is thrown out there infrequently, usually to inject energy. Renney is using the Orr line as the traditional #3 line. Everything is blurred.

Wow, did somebody actually call it the "Orr line"? Just kidding chosen..

I agree with some that the HBO line is really Line 3a or 3b..Which is a testimony to how well, especially for two so called physical players, they have done their job..

Unfortunately, the bigger reason for Renney playing them so much and somtimes too much is becasue they other lines can't get the defensive (or offensive) job done and reflects the little confidence he has in the likes of HCally, Hossa, Prucha...A lack of confidence that all three have earned...We need a 3rd line winger that will make Renney feel comfortable with that line and play them more while still allowing the HBO line to contribute as it has and maybe also play a little more fiesty then contained..

It doesn't even get that complicated, the Betts line IS the 3rd line. Their minutes indicate that, their situational minutes indicate that, and Renney's use of the line indicates that. Right or wrong, the HBO line on Renney's team is the 3rd line.

Renney coaches to not lose, always has.


and this be my personal biggest gripe against renney.

the thing i hate in sports more than anything is a coach who coaches not to lose than going for the win. to me that screams of playing passive and no drive to be agressive.

Renney coaches to not lose, always has.

[/B]


and this be my personal biggest gripe against renney.

the thing i hate in sports more than anything is a coach who coaches not to lose than going for the win. to me that screams of playing passive and no drive to be agressive.

What exactly does this mean?

What exactly does this mean?

It means you play it safe. You hang back in OT, to get to the shoot out for example. It means you lack killer instinct. I don't blame Tom for that, I blame the individual skaters, and I will always disagree with those saying he's a bad coach.

As for the game, The only reasoning I can see for Renney having the HBO line out there, was as a rest before he could play the top line again. Does anyone remember what line was out before them? Either way, that move still doesn't bother me all that much. What did, was Malik not missing a shift, after yet again another bad penalty. He should've been sat for the rest of the game, and the Rangers bus should leave him in the middle of a snow drift somewhere.

It means you play it safe. You hang back in OT, to get to the shoot out for example. It means you lack killer instinct. I don't blame Tom for that, I blame the individual skaters, and I will always disagree with those saying he's a bad coach.

As for the game, The only reasoning I can see for Renney having the HBO line out there, was as a rest before he could play the top line again. Does anyone remember what line was out before them? Either way, that move still doesn't bother me all that much. What did, was Malik not missing a shift, after yet again another bad penalty. He should've been sat for the rest of the game, and the Rangers bus should leave him in the middle of a snow drift somewhere.

If you have the best goalie in the league in shootouts, isn't that giving your team the best chance to win?

And if he coaches not to lose, he's not lost more than any coach in recent history.

It means you play it safe. You hang back in OT, to get to the shoot out for example. It means you lack killer instinct. I don't blame Tom for that, I blame the individual skaters, and I will always disagree with those saying he's a bad coach.

As for the game, The only reasoning I can see for Renney having the HBO line out there, was as a rest before he could play the top line again. Does anyone remember what line was out before them? Either way, that move still doesn't bother me all that much. What did, was Malik not missing a shift, after yet again another bad penalty. He should've been sat for the rest of the game, and the Rangers bus should leave him in the middle of a snow drift somewhere.

Disagree with him being a terrible coach? Why is the HBO line out there 5 minutes left. When your down a goal, you shorten your bench. This is crunch time for your top players to suck it up and earn what they are getting paid.

The Rangers had a chance in both games with 5 power plays in each. The power play, despite the Toronto game, has been terrible all season, yet he continues to leave Dubinsky on the top unit, despite Jagr Gomez and Straka tearing it up together. Renney is too stubborn. Those are two games in which we should have had at least 2-3 points, if not all 4.

Part of it is playing safe. Part of it is his overreliance on defence. It's no surprise that he has these guys completely focused and well coached defensively. But the lack of cohesiveness in the offensive zone tells me they have no game plan or a terrible one for the offensive zone. The players are more concerned with their backchecking and marks to actually consider jumping up in the play or going a little deep. That is playing it safe. Yes, defense is supreme, it wins games. But this team is taking it to the extreme. If you take away the turnovers, this team is easily under 2 goals against per game. But his need to "not lose" is taking something away from the offensive aspects of the game.

He's safe by playing Betts late in a tie game or game where we are down by one. Betts won't let up an even strength goal, he'll keep the game where it is... won't hurt you. But its no longer a debate that his won't score. You gotta take a chance with these riskier players because they have the offense that you need at that moment.

Renney's not a gambling man, which is wonderful for the team 80 or 90% of the time. But sometimes you have to take some chances to score. Not every game can be won 2-1.

Part of it is playing safe. Part of it is his overreliance on defence. It's no surprise that he has these guys completely focused and well coached defensively. But the lack of cohesiveness in the offensive zone tells me they have no game plan or a terrible one for the offensive zone. The players are more concerned with their backchecking and marks to actually consider jumping up in the play or going a little deep. That is playing it safe. Yes, defense is supreme, it wins games. But this team is taking it to the extreme. If you take away the turnovers, this team is easily under 2 goals against per game. But his need to "not lose" is taking something away from the offensive aspects of the game.

He's safe by playing Betts late in a tie game or game where we are down by one. Betts won't let up an even strength goal, he'll keep the game where it is... won't hurt you. But its no longer a debate that his won't score. You gotta take a chance with these riskier players because they have the offense that you need at that moment.

Renney's not a gambling man, which is wonderful for the team 80 or 90% of the time. But sometimes you have to take some chances to score. Not every game can be won 2-1.

The focus on defense comes from the fact that the offensive is unpredictable and unreliable.

Not every game can be won 2-1. But they can easily be lost 4-1.

is the offense unreliable and unpredictable because they're focused on defense? As an example, or all Prucha's problems offensively, he plays about as much as Betts and Orr at even strength and seems to be on the ice for less goals (or at least is a much better +/- rating and isn't scoring, so it must be fewer minuses). He may face top lines less, but he also faces fourth lines less, and does face decent competition. In the end, is that what Renney's looking for? His bottom two lines to not lose the game and hope that Jagr's line will average 1.1 goals per game and Shanny's line average 1.1 goals per game and the third and fourth lines combining for .4 goals per game (note, figures include PP) and the Rangers give up 2.25 goals per game, thus winning 2.60-2.25 on avearge, which should be enough to win games? Perhaps that focus on defense is making the offense struggle a bit as Renney cannot find a system that take allows some guys to exploit their offensive creativity while not making them defensive liabilties.

Just a thought..it's interesting to note that the Rangers, after this road trip, have now given up more goals than they have scored.

is the offense unreliable and unpredictable because they're focused on defense? As an example, or all Prucha's problems offensively, he plays about as much as Betts and Orr at even strength and seems to be on the ice for less goals (or at least is a much better +/- rating and isn't scoring, so it must be fewer minuses). He may face top lines less, but he also faces fourth lines less, and does face decent competition. In the end, is that what Renney's looking for? His bottom two lines to not lose the game and hope that Jagr's line will average 1.1 goals per game and Shanny's line average 1.1 goals per game and the third and fourth lines combining for .4 goals per game (note, figures include PP) and the Rangers give up 2.25 goals per game, thus winning 2.60-2.25 on avearge, which should be enough to win games? Perhaps that focus on defense is making the offense struggle a bit as Renney cannot find a system that take allows some guys to exploit their offensive creativity while not making them defensive liabilties.

Just a thought..it's interesting to note that the Rangers, after this road trip, have now given up more goals than they have scored.

But what else should he do Fletch? His third and fourth lines are filled with players who are either offensively challenged or who are young and have not learned how to score on a consistant basis?

and should figure it out.

For me, there can be a different mix of players. Avery with Dubi and Prucha; Hossa with Shanny and Drury; Cally instead of Hollweg on a fourth line, and perhaps Orr sitting out 1/3 of the games and Hollweg and Cally in his place. Maybe Moore's an answer on a fourth line. Perhaps it's Dawes with Drury and Shanny and Hossa in place of Hollweg and Cally sitting. The PP's gotten better, but there's still something wrong with that 'first' PP, and I think what had been wrong is Dubi as Jagr, who's the QB, doesn't get the space from a lack of moving around, which he did a lot of with Nylander (and Straka is not good at the point).

There are options. The players are here. Some are underachieving (Jagr, Straka and Prucha). Perhaps some were allowed to be in certain roles too long (Hossa and Dubi). The point is, he should be able to get more out of his players. Sutter lost a couple players and was starting in the NHL for the first time and he seems to be getting the best out of his players. Nolan lost a fair amount of players, doesn't really seem to have much offensive talent, but is right there with the Rangers. Philly sucked last year and is now one point behind the Rangers with less games played (same with the Isles). And the list goes on. Point is, Renney needs to get more out of his players; that's the bottom line. I can suggest ways to do it, say it needs to be done for more than a game, or several games, etc., but in the end, the criticism is he needs to get more out of these guys.

Disagree with him being a terrible coach? Why is the HBO line out there 5 minutes left. When your down a goal, you shorten your bench. This is crunch time for your top players to suck it up and earn what they are getting paid.

The Rangers had a chance in both games with 5 power plays in each. The power play, despite the Toronto game, has been terrible all season, yet he continues to leave Dubinsky on the top unit, despite Jagr Gomez and Straka tearing it up together. Renney is too stubborn. Those are two games in which we should have had at least 2-3 points, if not all 4.

I think you guy's forget how tired Jagr tends to get at the end of shifts. He needs that time off. I'm not making excuses for the guy, (he's my least favorite player on the team after Malik) but you can double and triple shift Jagr and not expect the same result, which was an odd man rush the other way, and a bad penalty taken.

I'd rather HBO playing with 5 minutes in the 3rd period and us losing/tying now then Jagr & Shanny being out there for all of that extra time and then being shot by the end of the season. Last year people crucified Renney because he played the top two lines too much. Now he's balancing it out more and people still can't give him a break.

I'd rather HBO playing with 5 minutes in the 3rd period and us losing/tying now then Jagr & Shanny being out there for all of that extra time and then being shot by the end of the season. Last year people crucified Renney because he played the top two lines too much. Now he's balancing it out more and people still can't give him a break.

There's a difference between utilizing the 4th line and using them at times during the game when they are obviously not the best choice to be out there. The key is to use the 4th line in a way that allows your top forwards to keep something in the tank for the final 5 minutes.

There's a difference between utilizing the 4th line and using them at times during the game when they are obviously not the best choice to be out there. The key is to use the 4th line in a way that allows your top forwards to keep something in the tank for the final 5 minutes.

agree, having the 4th line on with 2 mins to go when trailing by a goal or more is not a smart move especially when that line is not that great with offense.

and should figure it out.


The one thing I notice, and at this point i'm probably harping on it, is that this team seems to lack a system in the offensive zone. No one is on the same page. I wonder who's fault that is. Is Renney not devoting enough time and thought into play with the puck or are the players freelancing too much? Something is wrong with that aspect of the game

agree, having the 4th line on with 2 mins to go when trailing by a goal or more is not a smart move especially when that line is not that great with offense.

It's smart if you don't want to lose the game. Now if you want to win...

fyi, with 7 mins to go in this game and the rangers down by 1. the 4th line saw 2 shifts.


Just saying.

fyi, with 7 mins to go in this game and the rangers down by 1. the 4th line saw 2 shifts.


Just saying.

Remember though, firing Renney is not the answer, it's only the players. :sarcasm:

As I was saying in the GDT, if Perry Pearn is in charge of the PP, how is he keeping his job?

Just as an example, the 5 on 3 PP has had the two pointmen too close together for seasons now and it shows no signs of correction. If a guy has this as a job, shouldn't he be doing it properly?

And oh, our apparent lack of communication on the ice, together with our utter failure to collapse around our own net, has been a problem for a loong time now. We're also continuing to give away oddman rushes and breakaways like a candyman in Fantasia Land.

fyi, with 7 mins to go in this game and the rangers down by 1. the 4th line saw 2 shifts.


Just saying.

Totally was on that too, and when they came back from the break i was about to throw myself out of the window if Betts was taking the draw with 5:21 left

I swear.

**** this ****ing **** what the **** is Renney thinking!!!!!!????\
:rant::rant::rant::rant:

Time for a new AV

As I was saying in the GDT, if Perry Pearn is in charge of the PP, how is he keeping his job?

Just as an example, the 5 on 3 PP has had the two pointmen too close together for seasons now and it shows no signs of correction. If a guy has this as a job, shouldn't he be doing it properly?

And oh, our apparent lack of communication on the ice, together with our utter failure to collapse around our own net, has been a problem for a loong time now.

I'm not sure if it's him or Mike Pelino, I think it's Perry Pearn though.

Regardless, the 5 on 3 sucks, but Renney is the answer to our coaching problems, not the other 2.

People, be real. Look at these statistics.

3rd Period TOI/Total TOI:

Shanahan 07:14/12:50
Gomez 09:45/23:27
Drury 10:29/23:37
Jagr 09:37/22:35

Hollweg 02:39/13:51
Betts 03:03/16:05
Orr 02:34/13:16 *Drew a PP that led to a goal, by the way

Nearly half a period (or more), with the exception of Shanahan who is playing hurt.

http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20072008/TH020629.HTM

As I was saying in the GDT, if Perry Pearn is in charge of the PP, how is he keeping his job?

Just as an example, the 5 on 3 PP has had the two pointmen too close together for seasons now and it shows no signs of correction. If a guy has this as a job, shouldn't he be doing it properly?

And oh, our apparent lack of communication on the ice, together with our utter failure to collapse around our own net, has been a problem for a loong time now. We're also continuing to give away oddman rushes and breakaways like a candyman in Fantasia Land.

It's not perry Pearns fault that Shanny could hit the ocean on a boat on that 5 on 3. What was it like 5 missed shots on goal. or that Rosival refused to shooot when he was wiiiiiiideeeeeeeee open.