Let's get this out of the way. If you are against Larry Robinson
for coach, please raise your hand. OK, for those of you with your
hands up, please slap yourself when you lower it.

When faced with a problem, keep things simple. Let's review...

Leadership

This team has more cliques than a metronome. And when you boil it
down to its core, the two main ones are the accustomed-to-being
NY superstars led by Messier, and the lunchpail gang led by
Bobby Holik.

(Was there a more incriminating view into the team than Brooks'
revelation that Messier didn't participate in many of the
team's practices? For a 20-minute centerman to opt out of
mandatory skates is absurd.)

Robinson's relationship with Holik and his HOF credentials
earned back when hockey was hockey may finally be enough to
change the persona of the Rangers.

Sather is waiting for Messier to tell him whether he wants to
play, and actually played Messier more minutes than Trottier
did.

Edge: Robinson

Defense

I recognize that discussing a defensive philosophy in the
off-season is like finding yourself in a hot tub with a
naked Rosie O'Donnell.

But there is a reality that must be embraced - it is easier
to teach a defensive team to attack more offensively, than
it is to teach an offensive team to be more defensive.

And this team needs to rid itself of its irresponsible
shell, and find a defensive and gritty responsibility. From
that point, we can then send out the offensive troops.

(As an example, Dallas employs a defensively responsible system
- check out Turco's numbers - but players like Modano and Guerin
still thrive offensively.)

This is a detail-oriented, practice-oriented, physically
demanding responsibility. Is this even a question?

Edge: Robinson

Reality Check

Sather selected Trottier because the guy wrote 700 handwritten
pages about why he wanted to coach the Rangers.

Robinson seems apprehensive about the job, explaining that
he will coach his way and won't be intimidated by someone else
with a walkie talkie to change when it's his butt on the line.

I've read items where some feel the next coach should have no
hesitation to grab our coaching position. I say that anyone
who does so has no grasp on reality.

As for Sather, he put this group together. But when he relies
on Messier for 20 minutes a night and is the only one he praises
at the end of the season, it's cause for concern.

Edge: Robinson

Offense

Wasn't the Devils' most potent line in recent memory the
Sykora-Elias-Arnott line? And the next year, didn't Elias
have 96 points? And wasn't that right around the time when
Robinson was coaching the team?

(Hint: the above is rhetorical)

For all the hullabaloo about Sather and offense, the reality is
that all Rangers were pretty poor in the scoring department last
season, including pickups Kovalev and Carter in their stints.

Edge: Robinson

Conclusion

Yes, Hitchcock and Burns would have been intelligent decisions,
and both of them may be better choices than Robinson. But as of
now, all we have are Sather, Robinson and a pipe dream named
Bowman. (Don't say Laviolette - it's too soon after Isles job)

Robinson has an intangible now - a moxie that you can already read
in his quotes about the job. How he'd need to do things his way,
wouldn't be comfortable with walkie talkie, wants to know roster
makeup (read: Messier), and wants to talk to Holik before meeting
with Sather.

It all adds up to a guy that enters with his eyes open and ready
for what lies ahead of him. Anyone who tells you differently is
merely suffering from over-analysis that comes into play during
the Rangers' five months of off-season.

As for Sather, I am positive about his work as GM. He's planned
for the cba fairly well, has used his financial leverage astutely,
and now has many options at his disposal.

His only flaw (other than Messier) is his selection and
empowerment of coaches. Robinson would make those
transgressions a thing of the past.

-Gabe

Recent Articles Versus Playoff Coverage Road Trip Pics

Web Hockeybird.com