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

Rangers "interchangeable parts" plan

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-09-2011, 03:12 PM
  #1
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,648
vCash: 500
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.

Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2011, 03:16 PM
  #2
Kane One
HFB Partner
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 31,215
vCash: 2000
Well we already have a first line. I do like where we're heading though.

__________________
Kane One is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2011, 03:20 PM
  #3
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,648
vCash: 500
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.

Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2011, 03:37 PM
  #4
Cowbell232
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 19,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
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.

__________________
[size="1"]"Why I'll be a Devil forever [...] two words. Trust and respect." - Mr. Pat Burns
Cowbell232 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2011, 03:38 PM
  #5
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,468
vCash: 500
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.

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2011, 03:53 PM
  #6
ogie
Registered User
 
ogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Staten Island
Country: United States
Posts: 1,271
vCash: 500
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.

ogie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2011, 03:59 PM
  #7
Fitzy
All Is Well
 
Fitzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 20,009
vCash: 500
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.

__________________
"I have something better than proof: I have anecdotal evidence."
Fitzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2011, 05:04 PM
  #8
SlingshotVv
nerdy wrist-locks
 
SlingshotVv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Jersey City, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,551
vCash: 500
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.

SlingshotVv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2011, 05:21 PM
  #9
wolfgaze
Interesting Cat
 
wolfgaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingshotVv View Post
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.

wolfgaze is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2011, 05:26 PM
  #10
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingshotVv View Post
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.

Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2011, 06:30 PM
  #11
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,230
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
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.


Last edited by SupersonicMonkey*: 11-09-2011 at 06:35 PM.
SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2011, 08:05 PM
  #12
TonyTheGr8
Window shut..for now
 
TonyTheGr8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Morris County, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
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!!

TonyTheGr8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2011, 08:39 PM
  #13
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
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

JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2011, 03:11 AM
  #14
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 18,671
vCash: 500
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.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 10:45 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.