…consider this: What team got a rare overtime powerplay, which they quickly capitalized on to win the game? Just sayin’…

We’ll admit a few of the calls were ticky-tack. But the officials were pretty consistent throughout. Maybe not perfectly consistent, as argued by some bloggers but these are human beings we’re talking about. And human beings are, with certain exceptions (depending on the media’s view of them at the time, at least), imperfect. But to argue that there is some kind of conspiracy by the league (or whomever) that happens to benefit Rangers opponents is completely and utterly bogus. For any number of reasons, least of all purely logistical ones. What is the league going to do, distribute memos to its officiating staff? Like those wouldn’t be leaked to the media? Oh wait, the league is smarter than that of course. Gary Bettman and Co. just go around making veiled threats to the officials, to penalize the Rangers or else, right? Riiiight.

And yet the blogosphere is today full of such conspiracy talk. (So was the Twittersphere last night. Speaking of which, if you use Twitter please follow us on Twitter here.) Some of it is pure outrage over the injustice. In fairness, this isn’t just the blogosphere but at least one “professional journalist” who should really know better.

Then you have conspiracy talks that go less far than that while still pointing out what amounts to the same thing. Like this guy, who says (we’re assuming with a straight face): “The NHL say there is no bias against the Rangers, and I agree. However, I think there IS a bias FOR certain teams, namely Pittsburgh and Chicago. The NHL (and former NBA shill Gary Bettman) love young teams in cities that had awful attendance in the early part of the decade, we know that.” Right, we “know that.” Like, the sky is blue, the grass is green and Gary Bettman loves young teams in cities that had awful attendance in the early part of the decade. Sure they do. That’s an awful lot of qualifiers though, don’t you think? I mean you have 1) young teams, 2) cities that had awful attendance, 3) cities that had awful attendance in the early part of the decade (why only then?)

Lost in all this is a terrific win by the Rangers. Yes, the team was helped out by the Blackhawks’ inept powerplay and yes, the Rangers also got lucky (the ‘Hawks hit the post at least twice). But on the whole, this was really a great display. Henrik Lundqvist was awesome as usual. The penalty killing was obviously superb; so was the Rangers defense. Chris Drury got two clutch goals. And of course let’s not forget the amazing play by Lauri Korpikoski on the ‘Gers second goal. The Rangers take back first place with the victory. Suddenly it doesn’t seem as if relinquishing the lead in the Atlantic Division is a foregone conclusion (as many have argued for the past month). So let’s focus on the positive, shall we?

Posted under Blog

The New York Rangers had what must be considered a successful weekend, taking three points from two road games to maintain their hold on fourth place in the Eastern Conference. And what if the one victory came at the expense of the Ottawa Senators, a team that is essentially in free fall and should, if there were any justice in this world, be forced to play next season in the American Hockey League as punishment for their woeful performance? (Joining them should be a certain team from Long Island, but that’s another topic for another day). The Rangers’ performance was by all accounts pretty decent, even if they probably should have won Friday’s game in Buffalo. But what stood out most from the weekend wasn’t so much what the team did as what it did not do:

• It did not commit any penalties at all in the Buffalo game or in the first period of the Ottawa game
• The Rangers defense did not give up any goals in the Ottawa game or in the final 28 minutes and 34 seconds of the Buffalo game (including five minutes of overtime). That’s a stretch of 88:34 going into Tuesday night’s game at Nassau.

What do these two points tell us? They tell us this team played with discipline. And that, in turn, tells us they are well-coached.

Say what you will about Renney’s four year (and counting) reign behind the bench at Madison Square Garden, he has always preached defense and discipline as vital parts of any winning team’s makeup. If his team is true to that, he has to be doing something right as a coach.

Granted, “something right” is not enough to guarantee a coach’s success in this town. And we have plenty to fault him on scouting and player development, a system that in four years has produced few bonafide stars (that list starts and ends with Henrik Lundqvist, pretty much). And of course this team has at times also failed at the very principles Renney has said to preach, such as in the embarrassing 5-4 loss to Washington and more recent 6-3 drubbing at home to the Canadiens. But this weekend, at least, it took a step in the right direction.

Finally, consider just how short this team is on real talent: no Jaromir Jagr, no Sean Avery, a first line offense that has a combined age of 96 and a nucleus of largely untested players. Sorry folks, but this is not a team you can realistically expect to challenge for the Eastern Conference top seed. If they make the playoffs as one of the top four teams I’d consider it quite an achievement. If they do so by incorporating Renney’s system and demonstrating that it is jelling into a cohesive unit that gives us reason to hope for the future, then the coaching staff will deserve even more credit. We’re not there yet, and there is a lot that can still go wrong, but firing Renney should be the last thing on anybody’s mind after this weekend.

Posted under Uncategorized