Were you watching yet in 2001-02? They were this "legitimate" at this point in the season, too, and still missed the playoffs after leading the East around the new year.
I feel like this team is deeper than that one was, but the point still remains.
That was also ten years ago. A lot has changed since then.
Great game, although sort of boring for the first two periods. Richards is on fire.
That team still had Richter, so I think what you meant to say, not knowing any better, was that this team has a legitimate team defense. The FLY line (Fleury/Lindros/York) carried them in the first part of that year, in all reality.
I didn't realize Richter was still there at that point. Was thinking of 02-03.
They weren't playing this well in 2000-2001 IMO. They were riding one hot line and their defense and goaltending wasn't as good as it is now
Also, that team was leading the league because they played more games than everyone else, while this team has played fewer games than anyone else
Not that bad things can't happen, but I don't think I'd compare the two teams. The big thing though is that they keep it up as the season rolls on. Teams usually tighten up and get more competitive in the 2nd half of the season and the Rangers have to make sure they don't falter.
Not that bad things can't happen, but I don't think I'd compare the two teams. The big thing though is that they keep it up as the season rolls on. Teams usually tighten up and get more competitive in the 2nd half of the season and the Rangers have to make sure they don't falter.
I wasn't really comparing the teams as teams... more just making the point that it's still REALLY early in the season and tough to tell who is really as good as their record and who isn't. Of course the teams with this kind of record look legit right now, but the season isn't old enough for us to truly have discovered their flaws. A more recent example would be last year's Thrashers, I guess.
You guys are getting dangerously close to infraction territory for making me feel old. Man oh man.
It would be nice if the top teams in the conference would lose for a change. Any other year we would likely be #1 right now.
And I'll infract you right back for being an old fart.
And seriously, why won't Pittsburgh lose when we win? They only lose when we lose and vice versa, it seems (disregarding when we beat them, obviously). At least we've played 3 less games and are only 3 points behind.
For awhile it seemed like Lundqvist was going to singlehandedly lose us the game, despite the flawless play of defensemen such as Eminger, but we overcame his millions of softies.
Good to see the Rangers finally beat the Lightning, it's been awhile. The Rangers still have major issues with their speed but we found a way to win. And they managed to find a way to prevent MSL from getting on the scoresheet as well, it seems like he always kills us.
Stepan and Anisimov were good and displayed some nice chemistry tonight. Sauer was probably our best defenseman.
One minor complaint... I was on board with Torts playing Dubinsky with Prust and Avery at first, but I don't think it's going to get Dubi going offensively. It doesn't help matters that the line barely plays, Avery's ass was stapled to the bench in the 3rd so Prust and Dubi played only 2 even strength minutes that period. I'd like to see Dubi in Boyle's place between Hagelin and Mitchell. But so long as the team keeps on winning, I can't see Torts switching up the lines.
I wasn't really comparing the teams as teams... more just making the point that it's still REALLY early in the season and tough to tell who is really as good as their record and who isn't. Of course the teams with this kind of record look legit right now, but the season isn't old enough for us to truly have discovered their flaws. A more recent example would be last year's Thrashers, I guess.
I think you can look at some things to be able to tell whether a team is legit or not, though. Like goal differential, and watching the actual play. The Rangers look like a balanced team that isn't riding a hot line or a hot player, and they're playing strong defense and getting good goaltending. Can't really ask them to do a whole lot more
It's like, is anyone asking whether Pittsburgh is for real?
Now, I"m also generally optimistic about the team, but I don't really expect them to keep up this winning rate. What I do expect them to do is to make the playoffs pretty handily instead of squeeking in, and to make some noise in the playoffs.
I think you can look at some things to be able to tell whether a team is legit or not, though. Like goal differential, and watching the actual play. The Rangers look like a balanced team that isn't riding a hot line or a hot player, and they're playing strong defense and getting good goaltending. Can't really ask them to do a whole lot more
It's like, is anyone asking whether Pittsburgh is for real?
Now, I"m also generally optimistic about the team, but I don't really expect them to keep up this winning rate. What I do expect them to do is to make the playoffs pretty handily instead of squeeking in, and to make some noise in the playoffs.
Pittsburgh is a proven team. We know from past seasons that they're really this good. The Rangers are not that. I agree with your assessment of the Rangers in general. I just try to mitigate my enthusiasm and expectations sometimes. I was 11 in 1994, so I was already very into hockey (got a pair of roller blades and a box of hockey cards for my birthday on 6/14). However, my freshman year in high-school was the first year the Rangers missed the playoffs and they didn't make it again until after the lockout. Plus, I'm also a Mets fan. I think you can see where I'm coming from
Pittsburgh is a proven team. We know from past seasons that they're really this good. The Rangers are not that. I agree with your assessment of the Rangers in general. I just try to mitigate my enthusiasm and expectations sometimes. I was 11 in 1994, so I was already very into hockey (got a pair of roller blades and a box of hockey cards for my birthday on 6/14). However, my freshman year in high-school was the first year the Rangers missed the playoffs and they didn't make it again until after the lockout. Plus, I'm also a Mets fan. I think you can see where I'm coming from
Hah, yeah I know what you mean, I agree for the most part. I think I just see better stuff out of this team than any Rangers team I've seen in a long time. In some ways, better than the Jagr teams, that didn't have a lot of depth, especially on defense.
BUt yeah, they gotta keep it up and prove they're for real.
I don't think he's a terrible goaltender. In fact I think he's our best player. I just think he gives up too many softies and if he didn't he'd have multiple Vezinas now.
I don't think he's a terrible goaltender. In fact I think he's our best player. I just think he gives up too many softies and if he didn't he'd have multiple Vezinas now.
I don't understand... if he didn't let in so many so-called "softies", why is his career GAA so low?
Real answer: 1.) Henrik's style make his saves look really easy in general, so when you see him get beat, it looks worse and 2.) Sometimes shooters just beat goaltenders, no matter how good they are.
And the real reason he doesn't have Vezinas is because of a combination of his consistency and the fact that every year, some other goalie seems to have an out-of-this-world season, while Lundqvist just continues his steady excellence.
