HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Rangers "interchangeable parts" plan (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1025803)

Beacon 11-09-2011 03:12 PM

Rangers "interchangeable parts" plan
 
The old timers here may remember the "interchangeable parts" fight with the Devils when Colin Campbell, as a Rangers coach, called Devil forwards interchangeable parts.

Devil management made a big deal out of it to motivate their players, but it was really a compliment. The Devils rolled out four second lines in the mid 90s. Their fourth line featured Holik, flanked by McKay and Peluso. Thats a hell of a line.

The Devils we neber a team of superstars. At most, they would rent a scorer for the playoffs. But they had a great goalie, phenomenal defensemen and 4 second and tweener lines. And the worst part was seeing them replace anyone who left through their farm. Daneyko leaves, Rafalski comes in.

Thats seems to be Sather's game plan. We have a great goalie and a good defense. It is not as god as their defense was when they had Stevens, Niedermeyer, Daneyko, etc., but we are working toestablish one of the top blue lines in the game.

Up front a lot of people are unhappy that we never drafted that flashy player. But we drafted a crapload of very solid guys.

Between 2004 and 2008, just in the second round we pulled out Stepan, Anisimov, Dubinsky as well as Sauer on defense. Those years, only 20% of second rounders made the NHL. Not only did we more than double this percentage, but we got terrific players and not fourth line bums in the second round.

Others like Callahan and Hagelin were drafted later or acquired for les than a second (e.g., Boyle, Prust).

We now have a backlog across every position. This is shaping up to be a team that not only can build a lineup from within, it will actually be able ti replace players if they leave. This will allow them to take a stand against those who want too much. Players will know that we are not desperate and if they want to stay, they should give us a hometown discount.

When needed, we will also have the assets to rent players at the trading deadline.

We are the new Devils. I remember in the 90s that as soon as they would draft someone, the player's stock would rise in my eyes because Devils knew what they were doing.

Thats how I feel about the Rangers today. In the late 90s, I felt bad for the kids we drafted because it was a bad omen. Not anymore.

And the funny thing is that while we became like the old Devils, they became like the old Rangers: an old team that rushes it's youth and thinks they can have half their future roster filled by UFAs.

Now we are the interchangeable parts and they are the UFA buyers.

Kane One 11-09-2011 03:16 PM

Well we already have a first line. I do like where we're heading though.

Beacon 11-09-2011 03:20 PM

We have it now, but it's more a short term solution. In three years, Gabby will likely be gone and Brad will show a significant drop in play because he will be 34. He will still be a quality center, but, odds are that he will be a 55-point second liner, not a 75-point first line start.

As a long term young solution, I only see Kreider as a potential first liner for a dozen years. And there is nothing guaranteed about Kreider.

Cowbell232 11-09-2011 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerEsq (Post 39193141)
Now we are the interchangeable parts and they are the UFA buyers.

I don't think it's really as black and white as you want it to be, and on top of that, this cycle is inevitable. Once your each that level where you start to win and go deeper and deeper into the playoffs, your draft picks move further down the road, and next thing you know, the farm is starting to look pretty barren.

Just look at the Red Wings this year for another example. It doesn't work as strict as you think.

I will say the Rangers are certainly no longer the laughing stock of drafting, and the ability of the organization to turn picks into players has risen. Makes for good competition, and that's good for all of us.

Tawnos 11-09-2011 03:38 PM

They were a team that proved that you could take legitimate top-6 offensive talents, reapply them to defense, and proceed to suffocate the life out of each one of their opponents. Andreychuk, Rolston, Guerin, MacLean, Gilmour, Thomas, Sykora, Richer, Holik, Sullivan, Elias, Arnott, Morrison, Gomez, Mogilny are all names that passed through New Jersey in the 90s. The Devils system allowed them to move guys like McKay or Zelepukin or Madden up a line and not miss a beat, however... to claim they were a team of 4 2nd lines really misremembers them.

ogie 11-09-2011 03:53 PM

I think that if the Rangers draft right over the next few years it will not be a problem. I think they need to seriously consider trading up in the next few years to get a marquee caliber player because the the chances a start player at pick 15 are very low.

Fitzy 11-09-2011 03:59 PM

Gaborik and Richards are, in my mind, Star players.

The Rangers defense may get to a level where we have 6 relatively interchangeable defensemen, though, if Staal, Girardi are around for awhile and McDonagh, Sauer, Erixon, Del Zotto all develop.

(Although side note to myself, I think Sauer is more of a 3rd pairing guy on a contending team)

Our forwards after Richards and Gaborik have been tossed around, but i'm not necessarily sure if that is a good thing. Wolski has been an outright failure since day 1, we let go the one legitimate top line LW we had for free (Prospal) and our other decent LW has 0 goals on the season.

SlingshotVv 11-09-2011 05:04 PM

Their "interchangable parts" teams won in large part due to a commitment to defense, a heavy neutral zone trap, and a team full of players that would stay year after year within that same framework system.

Today it is really difficult to keep a large group of players together year after year, and with youth being a much lower cost commodity than veteran presence, the turnover needs to be high after 2 or 3 seasons tops. Let's face it most teams 3rd lines and even part of their fourth lines is not a major drop off from their 2nd lines.

Further this would require the NYR to play a very defense oriented game. In a time when any forward-thinking coach is establishing aggressive forechecks, and puck pursuit all over the ice. The game has progressed tons in the last 10 years.

Now-a-days the game is about aggressive strategies that cause turnovers, and players that can get into the right spot to turn those turnovers into points. And those turnovers also lead to PP's. Having players that can cash in on the PP with regularity, or players that can facilitate PPP's is an expensive commodity, and is not found on a 2nd line normally.

a team of 2nd liners is not getting through a healthy Pitt, Chicago, Van, Bos, Phi, that has 4th and 3rd liners that can play a second line game, plus stars at the top to really piss in your cheerios.

wolfgaze 11-09-2011 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlingshotVv (Post 39196647)
Their "interchangable parts" teams won in large part due to a commitment to defense, a heavy neutral zone trap, and a team full of players that would stay year after year within that same framework system.

Today it is really difficult to keep a large group of players together year after year, and with youth being a much lower cost commodity than veteran presence, the turnover needs to be high after 2 or 3 seasons tops. Let's face it most teams 3rd lines and even part of their fourth lines is not a major drop off from their 2nd lines.

Further this would require the NYR to play a very defense oriented game. In a time when any forward-thinking coach is establishing aggressive forechecks, and puck pursuit all over the ice. The game has progressed tons in the last 10 years.

Now-a-days the game is about aggressive strategies that cause turnovers, and players that can get into the right spot to turn those turnovers into points. And those turnovers also lead to PP's. Having players that can cash in on the PP with regularity, or players that can facilitate PPP's is an expensive commodity, and is not found on a 2nd line normally.

a team of 2nd liners is not getting through a healthy Pitt, Chicago, Van, Bos, Phi, that has 4th and 3rd liners that can play a second line game, plus stars at the top to really piss in your cheerios.

Excellent observations.

Beacon 11-09-2011 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlingshotVv (Post 39196647)
Their "interchangable parts" teams won in large part due to a commitment to defense, a heavy neutral zone trap, and a team full of players that would stay year after year within that same framework system.

Today it is really difficult to keep a large group of players together year after year, and with youth being a much lower cost commodity than veteran presence, the turnover needs to be high after 2 or 3 seasons tops. Let's face it most teams 3rd lines and even part of their fourth lines is not a major drop off from their 2nd lines.

Further this would require the NYR to play a very defense oriented game. In a time when any forward-thinking coach is establishing aggressive forechecks, and puck pursuit all over the ice. The game has progressed tons in the last 10 years.

Now-a-days the game is about aggressive strategies that cause turnovers, and players that can get into the right spot to turn those turnovers into points. And those turnovers also lead to PP's. Having players that can cash in on the PP with regularity, or players that can facilitate PPP's is an expensive commodity, and is not found on a 2nd line normally.

a team of 2nd liners is not getting through a healthy Pitt, Chicago, Van, Bos, Phi, that has 4th and 3rd liners that can play a second line game, plus stars at the top to really piss in your cheerios.


I don't think their winning was all about the neutral zone trap. As their rivals, we wanted to attack them, so we'd say that they are all a bunch of crappy players who are succeeding by destroying the game of hockey. But the truth is that when you have a guy like Holik on your 4th line, your team will be doing pretty well.

We tried to use Holik as our first line center who scored by far the most points on the team. This crazy experiment left a lot of people with a sour taste in their mouth as far as Holik goes, but he was a great player, just not a first liner who'll carry your team.

Regardless of the type of hockey they played, I believe they would have been very successful. Maybe instead of winning the Cup, they would have gone to the Eastern Conference finals, but they would still have been a top team, with or without the trap.

And if they played in 2011 instead of 1995, their coaching would have adjusted to modern times and they would have still likely won the Cup with a similar talent level.

The difference between the Devils and other Cup winners is that instead of having a better first line, they had far better third and fourth lines.

SupersonicMonkey* 11-09-2011 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerEsq (Post 39193141)
The old timers here may remember the "interchangeable parts" fight with the Devils when Colin Campbell, as a Rangers coach, called Devil forwards interchangeable parts.

Devil management made a big deal out of it to motivate their players, but it was really a compliment. The Devils rolled out four second lines in the mid 90s. Their fourth line featured Holik, flanked by McKay and Peluso. Thats a hell of a line.

The Devils we neber a team of superstars. At most, they would rent a scorer for the playoffs. But they had a great goalie, phenomenal defensemen and 4 second and tweener lines. And the worst part was seeing them replace anyone who left through their farm. Daneyko leaves, Rafalski comes in.

Thats seems to be Sather's game plan. We have a great goalie and a good defense. It is not as god as their defense was when they had Stevens, Niedermeyer, Daneyko, etc., but we are working toestablish one of the top blue lines in the game.

Up front a lot of people are unhappy that we never drafted that flashy player. But we drafted a crapload of very solid guys.

Between 2004 and 2008, just in the second round we pulled out Stepan, Anisimov, Dubinsky as well as Sauer on defense. Those years, only 20% of second rounders made the NHL. Not only did we more than double this percentage, but we got terrific players and not fourth line bums in the second round.

Others like Callahan and Hagelin were drafted later or acquired for les than a second (e.g., Boyle, Prust).

We now have a backlog across every position. This is shaping up to be a team that not only can build a lineup from within, it will actually be able ti replace players if they leave. This will allow them to take a stand against those who want too much. Players will know that we are not desperate and if they want to stay, they should give us a hometown discount.

When needed, we will also have the assets to rent players at the trading deadline.

We are the new Devils. I remember in the 90s that as soon as they would draft someone, the player's stock would rise in my eyes because Devils knew what they were doing.

Thats how I feel about the Rangers today. In the late 90s, I felt bad for the kids we drafted because it was a bad omen. Not anymore.

And the funny thing is that while we became like the old Devils, they became like the old Rangers: an old team that rushes it's youth and thinks they can have half their future roster filled by UFAs.

Now we are the interchangeable parts and they are the UFA buyers.

This is a good post. And I agree.

Before there were such things as internet message boards, my friends and I would discuss this exact thing about the Rangers and Devils. Mix of fans amongst my group of friends.

In the 90's and early 2000's I loved how the Devils ran their club. Though, I hated them and still do.

I always wanted the Rangers to build that way. Build a unit, and a machine that can replace its parts at any time and continue moving at the same pace.

I agree we are in that direction. And the Devils have taken the opposite approach.

We emphasize character, and all around two-way play in evaluating our youth. And recently the veterans as well. Uniform organizational identity. With the NHL club working as a unit, a whole. A team by committee.

IMO is much better then a top heavy roster with questionable depth.

Im hoping it produces the same success for the Rangers as it did for the Devils in the mid-late 90's and early 2000's.

TonyTheGr8 11-09-2011 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey (Post 39199237)
This is a good post. And I agree.

Before there were such things as internet message boards, my friends and I would discuss this exact thing about the Rangers and Devils. Mix of fans amongst my group of friends.

In the 90's and early 2000's I loved how the Devils ran their club. Though, I hated them and still do.

I always wanted the Rangers to build that way. Build a unit, and a machine that can replace its parts at any time and continue moving at the same pace.

I agree we are in that direction. And the Devils have taken the opposite approach.

We emphasize character, and all around two-way play in evaluating our youth. And recently the veterans as well. Uniform organizational identity. With the NHL club working as a unit, a whole. A team by committee.

IMO is much better then a top heavy roster with questionable depth.

Im hoping it produces the same success for the Rangers as it did for the Devils in the mid-late 90's and early 2000's.

From your lips to the hockey gods ears!! :laugh:

JimmyStart* 11-09-2011 08:39 PM

I think we are emulating that especially on the blueline but we are nowhere near deserving of being called the new devs. Not until we show some playoff success

Ola 11-10-2011 03:11 AM

In a sense that's what the game is all about these days:

The team that wins the momentum battle wins the series/games in the long run.

Before the lockout it seemed to be more the norm than the exception that a team that "dug down" won a series against a team that pressed forward. Now its the complete opposite, its very very hard to win a series against a team that haves you running around in your own end chasing the puck.

Hence, it makes zero sense to have 2 lines that attack and 2 lines that play defense. You need to have 3-4 lines that can push the other team back. Its not about not handcuffing stars, nor shadowing stars on the other teams.

You need to grasp at every straw that can help you in the momentum battle.

In light of the above I think its pretty funny when someone like Larry Brooks goes like -- "Brad Richards on the 2nd line????" or "Chris Drury on the 3rd line???".

You play 5 on 5 hockey and you play special teams. There is no 5 on 5 hockey that is more important than any other 5 on 5 hockey.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:49 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.