HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

What would you say is the cause of Hartford's success over the past few years?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-26-2005, 04:19 PM
  #26
Kovy274Hart
Registered User
 
Kovy274Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shaolin
Country: United States
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kovy274Hart
Because our Pack teach TEAM DEFENSE. And because there are still some players from the last couple of teams Atlanta. Team chemistry is essential for success.


Guys like Moore, LaBarbera, Gernander, Murray, Wiseman, Lundmark, Lampman, Nycholat, etc have been around.


Add in guys like Balej and Giroux who were on last year's squad that came so close and you have the makings of a team that has experience and wants to avenge last year's loss.


You can't really compare the situation to Albany because it's the exact reverse of what the NHL teams are. One has a losing image with players going in and out. The other knows how to win and has more guys intact.

Kovy274Hart is offline  
Old
04-26-2005, 05:11 PM
  #27
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,633
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyCaptain11
bottom line, you can't say the rangers would have made the playoffs the last 7 years with good coaching because their teams from 1997-2001 just weren't that good talent-wise. but since then, i believe coaching has made most of the difference with the team. we've seen a guy who couldn't gameplan well (low), a guy who wasn't head coaching material (trottier), and a guy whose 2 eras out of touch (sather).
Totally disagree. Wern't that good talent wise? How then did the Rangers have the highest payroll? Lindros, Bure, Nedved, Kovalev, Carter, Jagr, Fleury, Leetch, Holik, Kasparaitis, Kamensky, Poti, Dvorak, Malakhov, et al. These are talented players. The Rangers have had better talent than most teams in the league.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
04-26-2005, 05:16 PM
  #28
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
MyCaptain..

it is debateable whether the Rangers would've made the playoffs. Considering they didn't make it for seven seasons, and even though in each season coaching sucked, they tended to put a lot of eggs in few baskets that didn't work out for them. Further, depth on each team seemed to be thin. The Rangers did come close once or twice, and the difference there could've been coaching. The right line combos, resting people wisely alone may've attributed to a few extra wins, without even taking into consideration disciplining players and putting forth a system (although the system may not have been followed, and thus coaching may not have mattered). I do think there was a season or two they could've made the playoffs in the last seven - albeit because the competition fell apart too, and the first round may've looked pretty pitiful as a result.

Fletch is offline  
Old
04-26-2005, 05:20 PM
  #29
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
One more thing, Captain...

the '97-98 team had talent: Leetch, Gretzky (who had 90 points), Kovalev, Graves, Ulf, Beukeboom as well as Lafontaine for 3/4 of the season. In addition, Cloutier was the backup and Richter played in 72 games (and thus was healthy). If any season they should've made the playoffs, that was the season. The main difference from the previous year was Mess and Tik (eventually) were gone. They added role players such as Keane and Skrudland who both were misused by then coach Campbell, who was clueless once Mess left.

Fletch is offline  
Old
04-26-2005, 10:58 PM
  #30
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,406
vCash: 500
sorry i wasn't able to reply earlier than this folks...

i was working an evening shift. but anyway to answer the following...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Totally disagree. Wern't that good talent wise? How then did the Rangers have the highest payroll? Lindros, Bure, Nedved, Kovalev, Carter, Jagr, Fleury, Leetch, Holik, Kasparaitis, Kamensky, Poti, Dvorak, Malakhov, et al. These are talented players. The Rangers have had better talent than most teams in the league.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
the '97-98 team had talent: Leetch, Gretzky (who had 90 points), Kovalev, Graves, Ulf, Beukeboom as well as Lafontaine for 3/4 of the season. In addition, Cloutier was the backup and Richter played in 72 games (and thus was healthy). If any season they should've made the playoffs, that was the season. The main difference from the previous year was Mess and Tik (eventually) were gone. They added role players such as Keane and Skrudland who both were misused by then coach Campbell, who was clueless once Mess left.
first off Singn, in my original post on that i said from 1997-2001. that meant from the beginning of the 1997-98 season through the end of the 2000-2001 season. since the start of the 2001-02 season i believe they have had the talent to succeed but obviously have failed.

however, before then i really wasn't high on those teams previously in spite of their high payroll. 2000-01 i looked at as a throwaway season because it was sather's first year and he was just starting to put his own stamp on the team (even if it was a crappy stamp). an example of this i believe was when he unceremoniously dumped schneider in favor of malakhov. IMO it wasn't so much he thought that vlad was better, but that he didn't want to build his corps around a smaller guy like matty was. the team the previous season was in complete turmoil on and off the ice, which led to the housecleaning in the front office. before that the '98-99 team was full of role players...nobody outside of gretzky, leetch, richter and schneider could be counted on do anything for a prolonged stretch of time. which leads us to '97-98 and fletch....

i understand where you're coming from, but in my opinion the big problem with that team was that they were already old and slow during the '96-97 season...which was the last time they made the playoffs of course. the big reasons they made it that year with just 86 points was because of their offense, timely goaltending by richter, and because the east was significantly weaker then than it is as of the last season played. unfortunately, when they lost messier and tikkanen during the offseason instead of trying to get faster they just stayed old and slow, and less physical. and as you stated they were misused by "the clueless one" himself.

BwayBshirt is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 07:50 AM
  #31
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 17,917
vCash: 500
The reason is simply

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLANTARANGER
Once again this year this had a fairly good GAA, despite losing 149 man games on their defense! Lampman missed 4, Weller 2, MacMillan 7, Grenier 55, Pock 28, Taylor 24, Liffiton 29. Imagine how good we really would have been if they were all healthy. I mean Lampman, Liffiton, Pock and taylor are all prospects not some AHL retreads or journeyman AHLers. That must explain why labarbera had an off year. Same with Valiquette.
having a team that the whole is much better than the sum of it's parts.

There's not a special standout amongst the group yet as a team they make both goalies look like superstars which neither are.

The attitude preached has been defence first and the success will come. It's been bought lock stock and barrell by the team and it's showing.

Again, it's still my belief that the serious lack of creativity offensively is going to be their undoing and I wouldn't be surprised if it's Lowell that moves on due to that fatal flaw.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 10:56 AM
  #32
ATLANTARANGER*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Atlanta, B&R in NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,649
vCash: 500
Talent has never been issue IMO. It has been coaching.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
the '97-98 team had talent: Leetch, Gretzky (who had 90 points), Kovalev, Graves, Ulf, Beukeboom as well as Lafontaine for 3/4 of the season. In addition, Cloutier was the backup and Richter played in 72 games (and thus was healthy). If any season they should've made the playoffs, that was the season. The main difference from the previous year was Mess and Tik (eventually) were gone. They added role players such as Keane and Skrudland who both were misused by then coach Campbell, who was clueless once Mess left.
Campbell, Muckler, Low, Trottier. Which, if any of these guys, would anyone dare say, gee I wish we still had them as coach? Slats made the mistake of having a puppet in Low and worst choice in trots. Start there first.
Secondly, the Farm & Scouting staff were worst.

ATLANTARANGER* is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:57 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.