View Single Post
11-30-2013, 06:41 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 1,895
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
That team's suffocating defense is completely overblown. When Lundqvist and Biron had an off month and a half 2.7 goals against in that March and April (till the playoffs). Lundqvist is having an off year (even his biggest supporters agree) and the team since their horrible start when the goaltending was bad and the defense was worse but clearly is not representative of the team now has given up 1.85 goals per game. That team's suffocating defense was a myth. More like some of the best goaltending ever.
Back in 2012, the Rangers defense controlled the game.
When you entered the defensive zone, the Rangers may have let you get puck possession but they created a solid defensive shield that was impossible to penetrate-goaltending notwithstanding.

Further in 2011 and 2012 the Rangers got the nickname black and blueshirts because every game they showed up, worked hard, and grinded.

The past two seasons, the defense is not as solid. Used to be the Rangers had a lead, they don't lose it. In 2012 we had like 3 months of not allowing more than 3 goals.

Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
When did we get crushed? Outside of one amazing year in 2011-12, this is the same team we've had every year since the lockout. Where's this big change people are seeing?

2011-12 was the outlier, not this year.
In 2011 and 2012 the Rangers were the hardest working team in the league game in and out.
The past two seasons this has not been the case, they've been very inconsistent.

While I agree 2012 was an outlier, the work ethic of 2011 and 2012 is not explained.

Originally Posted by mike14 View Post
Did losing Dubi and Prust gut the Rangers? No.

Did losing Dubi, AA, Prust, Feds and Prospal while only bringing in Nash as an adequate replacement gut the Rangers? Hell yes

Losing 5 of your top 9 is a sure fire way to lose a team identity.
The question I have is:

1) Was there anyway to do the Nash deal (which they needed, they needed more goal scoring) without Dubi involved?

2) If the Rangers had signed Prust, as insurance in case Dubi left, just how different would we be? Would the identity of 2011 and 2012 remained?

rkhum is offline   Reply With Quote