View Single Post
09-08-2013, 10:34 PM
NYR Stats Geek
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Howard Beach, NY
Originally Posted by
Well one point is Chicago can get by without the toughness and go all the way. They have more talent and can fit it into their salary structure. The Rangers in 11-12 were at their toughest and several years and had their best season since 93-94. They took a step back on the toughness in 12-13 and had a much more difficult season. Part of that was loss of depth--part of that depth loss though came with the loss of Prust and Dubinsky both of whom were gritty players--one who fought often and well and the other less frequently and not so well. Rangers salary structure is not capable of adding much more in terms of talent. We'll be at our limit with Stepan signed. We don't have enough to overcome the deficit of talent that the more talented teams have--Chicago, Pittsburgh for example. Rangers need to find an edge another way like Boston for another example--a team that for the past few years anyway resembles the Rangers maybe more than any other team.
See, I'm not sold on the idea that losing one middle six and one bottom six player is why the Rangers fell back down to Earth this year. They fell down because the system didn't fit the personnel, in my opinion. Now every system has players that don't fit, but going into the 2013 season I had no idea what the Rangers would actually be. Every line had it's own identity it seemed. I'd like for this team to rack up more fights and PIMs because it creates a team bond, and makes for more spirited hockey. But that isn't the case with this team, it just isn't. We have a pretty damn good team, in terms of two way play, some good creativity, Boyle and Cally are top 10 hit leaders every year, got Brassard as our PP specialist (I think so at least). The Rangers are a much more balanced team than they get credit for, granted this could all fall apart when the season begins, but I feel pretty good. There's no reason the Rangers can't win a cup playing great team defense, with a good offense.
Originally Posted by
Teams win without good PP's all the time in recent history; But, could the Rangers rise to such lofty heights where they can win a Cup essentially without PP contribution?
The Rangers strengths: Defense, goaltending, supposed Center depth, two-way forwards. Is our PP and GF going to be good enough that toughness won't be an issue? It's hard for me to predict what this team's priorities should be, before they've played for AV.
It would be lovely to have a great PP, but the Rangers have done fine without one. Frankly, all I ask is that it isn't a god damn momentum killer, like it is SO often. There's no shame in having your best skill on the backend, and IMO the Rangers have a great crop of forwards considering the level their defense and goaltending are at. I'm not predicting what this team should be, but the PP and toughness are blown very out of proportion by some people.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Raspewtin