View Single Post
Old
06-16-2014, 01:09 PM
  #133
haveandare
Registered User
 
haveandare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 8,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
The bigger teams typically have an advantage. This is not a preach to rebuild the Bullies, but the team needs size.

This I disagree with. The Rangers best play is not nearly good enough to compete against the likes of the Kings or Bruins. They did not loose to lack of skill. They lost because the bigger team took a big enough bite of them to where there was no getting off of the matt.

I am not expecting huge injections. Nor calling for massive changes. I am however, saying that the metamorphosis needs to start.

To me, if the team wants to be a true contender, they need is desperate.
A team that made the finals, that played 4 OT periods in 5 games in the finals, isn't a "true contender?" They weren't "nearly good enough" to "compete" against the Kings?

I disagree.

Bigger teams have an advantage until a team that isn't big wins. Then, a big team wins, and you need to be big again. Just like you don't need a #1 goalie when Niemi wins, then you do need one when Rask and Quick win. You can't play the catch up game with everyone else. You need to establish your team as itself.

The Rangers lost because they played a better, deeper team, and one team has to lose. An OT goal here and there and the teams aren't apart, and then what does size mean?

I don't mean to imply that more size wouldn't be good. Any team should be well-rounded. I just don't want to jettison skill for size because we lost to a big team.

Depth is the key. Having players playing above their paychecks is the key. Everything else is surface level IMO.

haveandare is online now   Reply With Quote