Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,354
Confirmed with Link: NYR claim Cody McLeod
- Thread starter nevesis
- Start date
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
I view McLeod as a last ditch effort on their part to try to get the team to over performer.
Is it possible this claim was made to appease certain factions within the hierarchy of management?
If it works, and the team does over perform, no reason to sell off some of the remnants of the past.
If it doesn't, that faction was given an olive branch which they perceive as a chance.
Is it possible this claim was made to appease certain factions within the hierarchy of management?
If it works, and the team does over perform, no reason to sell off some of the remnants of the past.
If it doesn't, that faction was given an olive branch which they perceive as a chance.
Miamipuck
Al Swearengen
Nah. Jags was never soft. He’s a top 10 player of all time. He played tough hockey against dirty players
Maybe. But he was behind the helm of a team that did something no other Rangers team has done in nearly 80 years. And is in no danger of doing again. So his list of accomplishments outstrips any other Rangers coach in that time line.
FoxysExpensiveNYDigs
Boo Nieves Truther
Have the Rangers ever claimed a player that has generated more posts before playing in his first game with the team? Haha
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,354
GlasgowNewYorkRanger
Registered User
- Dec 7, 2017
- 696
- 757
EdJovanovski
#RempeForCalder
McLeod is a bluechip prospect, I’ve followed his career closely and you guys are in for a treat. He means business, he’s the type of player you win championships with, he has all the intangibles and a work ethic I haven’t seen since Ed Jovanovski. He will lead us to the cup
Riche16
McCready guitar god
A lot of info points to the notion the the team won despite him, not because of him, If anything, evidence imo points to the idea that the team possibly failed to win other cups because of him. Even this post of yours here supports that notion. Out of curiosity, what would you say he did to contribute overall in a positive way to winning the cup?
I think that he was the man for the job. There team did not win in spite of him. His bulldog mindset permeated through the team. Yes, Messier was the glue but Iron Mike extracted special performances from players. If a team could win it all in spite of someone, then the Rangers would have won under Roger Nielsen.
And the team failed to win other Cups because they completely decimated any semblance of the farm system.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
That's just false. Talent can make up for poor coaching on all levels. The lower the level, the easier it is for talent to make up for poor coaching. If you want to tell me it didn't happen in this case I'm open to a well argued stance here. But if you honestly believe what you just said you're utterly and completely wrong.
Nielsen never won so that's a low bar to set. We know Nielsen failed. We know Keenan only presided over a single cup winning team. A team full of generational talent that had proven it was good enough to be a Presidents Trophy winner and cup contender before he arrived. Just saying that there is nothing to suggest they won bc of him. He was there, can't erase that fact. But all the behind the scenes info and everything else he did suggests that maybe he gets a lot more credit than he deserves.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
In small samples, that’s true. But over the long term, I absolutely believe it. The coach always has a positive hand in success.
Nielsen had essentially the same team that Keenan had. The Rangers did not win solely because of him, but he did have a hand in it.
His career is a tale of two cities. Take a look at what he did with Philly & with Chicago. And the Rangers. After that, it was all down hill.
But Nielsen never coached the 93-94 Rangers, just the Rangers before that. Maybe he'd have coached them to a cup too. maybe he'd have coached us past jersey and Vancouver in just 5 games without needing to trade away talent and maybe he'd have gone on to win another one with us. Maybe not
I've just never seen anything pointing to why Keenan was beneficial and exactly how beneficial he was. Most of what i see suggests he had a small effect on that team and a large effect on messing up the future. I was just curious if there was more than just the mentality.
I can get behind that a lot more then the other thing. Question I have is how much of a positive hand did this one have compared to what others would have done?
Machinehead
GoAwayTrouba
- May 30, 2013
- 42,847
- 18,139
without mcleod buchnevich would've been kicked in the neck instead
stop being such a computer tuff guy dork
Inferno
Registered User
The next idiot who tells me that enforcer x will protect players y is going to get put on ignore for stupidity. 3 headshot concussions since we got mcfail
3.
In 2 games.
3!
Eff you and your effing goons in the eye. They are worthless...dress someone who can actually play God dann effing hockey.
3.
In 2 games.
3!
Eff you and your effing goons in the eye. They are worthless...dress someone who can actually play God dann effing hockey.
silverfish
got perma'd
Ad
Latest posts
-
Better 36-year-old season: Crosby 23-24 vs Ovechkin 21-22- Latest: Nemesis Prime
