I was at the Rangers-Islanders game last night at MSG and wrote a column about Tom Renney, the coach who has been getting the “Isiah treatment” from the crowd in recent weeks. There were definitely some boos and a few catcalls toward Renney during the game, but a 3-1 win – and a game where the Rangers never trailed – actually made for a relatively serene environment. But yet …

We know that it won’t take much for that sentiment to revert again. The Rangers’ inconsistency this season – first place team at the start, last-place-style team as we near the homestretch – has put Renney squarely in the crosshairs and it’s something he’s well aware of. He admitted last night that he absolutely reads about his team because he considers it crucial to knowing how to best motivate the players. At the least, I respect his honesty since most coaches/managers act like the media/public perception of their teams doesn’t exist.

The question today, though, is how long will Renney last?

Carp, you wrote earlier this week you could see a scenario in which Renney goes before the season is out and it’s hard not to agree. But as I wrote today, I think that would be foolish. First, I don’t believe it would do anything positive for the Rangers – they are what they are because of their talent, not their coach – and second, I think they’d be better served to make a change in the offseason, then do an in-depth search for a new coach who could help get the team back on course.

My answer to the question, therefore, is that he’ll last three days after the last day of the season – barring that last day coming in the conference finals or beyond. Carp?

CARP SAYS:

Good column today, Sam. You hit it on the head. You can’t pile this all up on Renney.

However, as I’ve watched more and more, you do have to call him on a few issues.

First and foremost is the lack of accountability from among the team’s highest-paid players. When Chris Drury or Scott Gomez or Wade Redden get shift after shift after shift during dreadful performances, and Nik Zherdev gets benched for one of his bad games, or Petr Prucha can’t get into the lineup, then that’s an awful message. You paint those guys as untouchable, and you don’t push them to be better. If they aren’t better, then they will eventually cost the Rangers their season and the coach his job.

Second, the power play has to lay at the feet of the coaching staff. It is beyond bad. I know there isn’t a lot of pure goal-scoring skill on the roster, but you’ve got to do better than this team has. And at some point—it has finally begun to happen—you take the non-performing “stars” off the power play. You just have to. Redden goes months without a power-play point? You can’t keep throwing him out there. You have to try something else.

The main argument from the Renney-haters is that he stifles his team’s offensive players with his system. I think it’s the other way around, though, that Renney understands his team will be lucky to get more than two goals in a given night (Henrik Lundqvist even said that yesterday) and so he has to play a system that will try to hold the opponent to two or one or none most nights. Is that dull? Yup. Is that his only hope? Probably.

My bottom line on whether he is fired or not is this: Do you think Glen Sather is capable of finding a coach better? Or even as good? Or is it more likely he will hire a croney who will do worse?

2:55 p.m., Sam says:

Thanks, Carp, and thanks also to those of you who have emailed me today about the column. It’s a very, very difficult situation to pinpoint with the Rangers right now: How much blame do you give Renney, Sather and the players? And how much does one’s failures impact the rest?

Carp makes a good point. There are no guarantees that Sather would hire a decent coach even if he has the benefit of a lengthier offseason search, though I still think that is the better approach than making an in-season move.

I also agree with the power play blame going to the coaches. A man advantage is a man advantage – if you don’t have pure snipers, you have to design an approach that utilizes more movement or otherwise puts your players in position to use their abilities.

Here’s a query for you, Carp, and all you other puck-heads: Who’s the best coaching option out there if the Rangers do go looking? Who do you want to see?

CARP SAYS:

Sorry for the delay there, Sam. I give you one name. Back in 2000, when Sather was hired, the interim coach of the Rangers was John Tortorella. Sather didn’t even bother to interview him because, I guess, he wanted to completely clear out the strench of the previous seasons. Then four years later Tortorella won a Stanley Cup in Tampa.

He’s available, he could handle New York—although he is pretty hot-headed and stubborn—and I think he’d be a great fit. I also happen to like the guy because I got to know him pretty well in his last stint, and even when he was in Tampa he’d spend lots of time talking to the New York writers when we visited. So maybe I’m biased toward him.

But there are plenty of coaches available—people mention Ted Nolan, but I think he burned his last bridge with the Islanders, where he didn’t exactly help the rebuilding process with the young players there—and there will be even more available when the season ends. Another reason to wait, because no coach is coming in here and turning the Rangers into Cup contenders this year.