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

Team rank in Rangers history

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-01-2012, 11:30 PM
  #26
Drewbackatu*
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
Might be my reading comprehension, but I don't think it's one of the best teams in NHL history. Probably one of the best in Rangers history though.
I would tend to agree with you. However, we did have the x factor in Messier and one of the best offensive defensemen pairs in NHL history in Leetch and Zubov.
It still irks me to no end that Zubov got traded away to the Pens which along with the Middleton/Hodge deal was the worst trade in Rangers history.

Zubov and Leetch should have played together for 10 years!

Drewbackatu* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2012, 11:35 PM
  #27
Drewbackatu*
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickyFotiu View Post
Cup win or no cup win this teams talent is no way near 1993-1994 or the early 1970's. That is not a knock on this team. Its because the salary cap era has made it very hard to stock pile loads of experienced high priced players. In the 1970's you could have a team with 120 points and a team with 40 points. Those kind of point spreads dont happen in the salary cap era. Now even the horrible teams are around 65-70 points.

Nowadays a team doesnt have to be great to win a cup. You will rarely see a team win 2 in a row never mind 4-5 in a row. This team has great talent for todays NHL but it is not same level of talent as the 2 teams I mentioned. I dont think a team like the 1970's Habs with 8 hall of famers is possible in the salary cap era.
Excellent points here. You will never see teams like the Habs(60's, early 70's, 76-79), the Islanders(80-83) and the Oilers(80-90,5 cups) ever again. The hard cap sux, they should get rid of it!

Drewbackatu* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2012, 11:48 PM
  #28
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 17,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldshot View Post
I'm just talking strictly talent wise. They had 5 30-goal scorers and two defenseman that combined for 170 points (Leetch and Patrick). Tim Kerr was a bottom-6 forward on that team...
Is having 5 30 goal scorers in a much higher scoring era THAT big of an accomplishment. We're having one the most defensive seasons in NHL history and we're just an above average offensive team and are close to having 3. 2 would have been a shoe in, if not for Cally's injury. Richards is not far away either.

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2012, 02:00 AM
  #29
OverTheCap
Registered User
 
OverTheCap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,623
vCash: 500
This team is too unimpressive offensively to be considered one of the best in Rangers history. The PP is one of the worst in the league, it's not even semi-respectable when compared to some of the better Rangers squads.

From the teams that I've seen since I became a fan, the 91-92 and 93-94 teams were more balanced. The 91-92 team were top 5 in goals for and goals against, had the best penalty kill in the league, and had a top 10 PP. The 93-94 team was also top 5 in goals for and goals against, and they had the best power play in the league. I think an argument can be made that even the 96-97 team was better than this current one, although they were a much older squad.

It's not a slight against this year's team. They are truly a sum of their parts, and they have to work a lot harder than the other squads I mentioned above. They may not overwhelm an opposing team with their talent, but they still find a way to win.

OverTheCap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2012, 02:53 AM
  #30
The Lone Ranger
Registered User
 
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbackatu View Post
Excellent points here. You will never see teams like the Habs(60's, early 70's, 76-79), the Islanders(80-83) and the Oilers(80-90,5 cups) ever again. The hard cap sux, they should get rid of it!
Of course, there's the other side of the coin which argues that the modern day Stanley Cup playoffs is more popular than ever because of its year-to-year unpredictability, fostered by league-wide parity. Prohibitive favorites and dynasties are great.... for the fanbase of that particular team, leaving the rest of the league out in the cold. But nowadays, even 8th seeds enter into the playoffs with a level of optimism that you didn't see from bottom feeder teams during the '70s and '80s.

The Lone Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2012, 06:54 AM
  #31
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbackatu View Post
The 72 and 92 teams were the only ones out of the last 5 that were good enough to win a cup except for the following problems:
Orr in 72 and Mario in 92
In 79 they got to the Stanley Cup Final.

In 86 they got to the Conference Final.

In 97 they got to the Conference Final.

Any team that gets that far is good enough to win.

So you're wrong.

But I don't expect anything different from the self proclaimed 90 year old expert.

And you're right...Jagr, Francis, Stevens, Barrasso, Murphy...had nothing to do with it, it was only Lemieux.

And Esposito, Bucyk, Stanfield, Cheevers...nothing to do with anything, it was just Orr...

This isn't basketball.

Next you'll have people believe Gretzky won the Cup without help.


Last edited by SupersonicMonkey*: 04-02-2012 at 07:29 AM.
SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2012, 07:21 AM
  #32
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickyFotiu View Post
Cup win or no cup win this teams talent is no way near 1993-1994 or the early 1970's. That is not a knock on this team. Its because the salary cap era has made it very hard to stock pile loads of experienced high priced players. In the 1970's you could have a team with 120 points and a team with 40 points. Those kind of point spreads dont happen in the salary cap era. Now even the horrible teams are around 65-70 points.

Nowadays a team doesnt have to be great to win a cup. You will rarely see a team win 2 in a row never mind 4-5 in a row. This team has great talent for todays NHL but it is not same level of talent as the 2 teams I mentioned. I dont think a team like the 1970's Habs with 8 hall of famers is possible in the salary cap era.
There's also no player monopolizing anymore. Canadian teams don't have a distinct advantage over American teams because of local and Provincial poaching rights anymore.

The entire Province of Quebec basically belonged to the Canadiens. They had entire junior leagues dedicated to feeding the Canadiens.

There was no free agency as we know it now.

Teams would buy players rights and offer them new contracts.

That's how Boucher became a Ranger. Coming from a defunct BC league. Conn Smythe bought Boucher, offered him a contract, which he almost turned down.

Same situation with most of the Rangers through their early history. They had their local poaching rights, but New York isn't a natural hockey hot bed.

The US teams (sans Boston) had a lot to overcome in the early years/decades of the NHL.

So, yes, its impossible to form and keep together a team full of hall of fame players. Especially with the salary cap with the way free agency markets go.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2012, 08:05 AM
  #33
TKG
Registered Excuser
 
TKG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 360
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=SnowblindNYR;47084925]If we win, will the cup mean more to anyone else because this team is mostly home grown? That team was what Oilers east?[/QUOTE]


No. In fact, I hate this argument, they won the cup as The New York Rangers..


Was Leetch an Oiler? How about Richter? Noonan? Matteau? Larmer?

By the way, who cares what team they were from when you had to wait 54 ******* years to see a Cup hoisted.

TKG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2012, 11:58 AM
  #34
Drewbackatu*
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Of course, there's the other side of the coin which argues that the modern day Stanley Cup playoffs is more popular than ever because of its year-to-year unpredictability, fostered by league-wide parity. Prohibitive favorites and dynasties are great.... for the fanbase of that particular team, leaving the rest of the league out in the cold. But nowadays, even 8th seeds enter into the playoffs with a level of optimism that you didn't see from bottom feeder teams during the '70s and '80s.
I don't have a problem with parity, I just think teams should be allowed to hang on to their best players like in football and basketball. I do believe the institution of the salary cap has helped us manage our assets better and not just spend frivolously but there just needs to be some minor changes to the system.

Drewbackatu* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2012, 12:19 PM
  #35
Drewbackatu*
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
In 79 they got to the Stanley Cup Final.

In 86 they got to the Conference Final.

In 97 they got to the Conference Final.

Any team that gets that far is good enough to win.

So you're wrong.

But I don't expect anything different from the self proclaimed 90 year old expert.

And you're right...Jagr, Francis, Stevens, Barrasso, Murphy...had nothing to do with it, it was only Lemieux.

And Esposito, Bucyk, Stanfield, Cheevers...nothing to do with anything, it was just Orr...

This isn't basketball.

Next you'll have people believe Gretzky won the Cup without help.
Wow, you wake up on the wrong side of the bed today?
I'm not 90 yrs old and I have never proclaimed to be an expert by any stretch of the imagination.
That 79 team wasn't anywhere near good enough to beat the Habs that year; if you were around then and couldn't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.

Pretty much the same deal with the 86 team as well; they werent going to beat the Habs that year either.

The 97 team got run out of the building by the legion of doom led Flyers team in 5 games; guess you missed that one as well.

As far as the 72 Bruins and 92 Pens are concerned, we matched up pretty darn well with both those teams with two very obvious exceptions: two of the top five players of all time played for the Bruins and Pens respectively.

I guess you're not clever enough to realize that but instead you would rather use your post as a forum to insult me. Whatever!

Have a pleasant day!

Drewbackatu* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2012, 12:25 PM
  #36
White Plains Batman
Faceoffs? Faceoffs!!
 
White Plains Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 2,610
vCash: 500
This team offensively is a lot closer to the 1986 group than the 92 or 94 group. That team had scoring issues too, if you look at the stats, for that era, it is pretty low.

What about 1981? No one EVER talks about that team. They brawled their way to the Semis with a good offense, mediocre goaltending, and missing Maloney and Davidson. If they beat the Islanders that year, they win the Cup.

As for this year's team, they need to finish first and win at least two playoff rounds or else they're not even in the same category as 50, 72,79, 81, 86, 92, and 97.

White Plains Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2012, 12:31 PM
  #37
Drewbackatu*
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Plains Batman View Post
This team offensively is a lot closer to the 1986 group than the 92 or 94 group. That team had scoring issues too, if you look at the stats, for that era, it is pretty low.

What about 1981? No one EVER talks about that team. They brawled their way to the Semis with a good offense, mediocre goaltending, and missing Maloney and Davidson. If they beat the Islanders that year, they win the Cup.

As for this year's team, they need to finish first and win at least two playoff rounds or else they're not even in the same category as 50, 72,79, 81, 86, 92, and 97.
Good points except I really don't think we were good enough to beat the Oilers in 81. I would be satisfied with us winning one round and being very competitive in the 2nd round. Anything more than that, and I'll be turning cartwheels across the floor.

Drewbackatu* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2012, 01:10 PM
  #38
White Plains Batman
Faceoffs? Faceoffs!!
 
White Plains Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 2,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbackatu View Post
Good points except I really don't think we were good enough to beat the Oilers in 81. I would be satisfied with us winning one round and being very competitive in the 2nd round. Anything more than that, and I'll be turning cartwheels across the floor.
The 1981 Finals were the Islanders vs. the North Stars.

The Islanders actually beat the Oilers in 6 games that year in round 2 and a Rangers team that was filled with injuries all year and a coaching/regime change beat the Kings and Blues.

That was no fluke, that was the toughest Rangers team next to 94 and they were all playoff experienced as most of that group went through a tough playoff series against Buffalo in 78, the 79 run, and to round 2 in 80.

Rangers would have beat the Oilers that year in my opinion, Oilers were very inexperienced and not ready. They had to have a few bad playoff losses like the Miracle at Manchester to get them battle tested for the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

The 86 squad is funny because they weren't a very good team but just got hot at the right time and rode Beezer all the way to the Conference Finals. Impressive run. Something good was in the air in NY from April 1986-January 1987 (Giants, Mets, Yankees would have won a wild card if they had it back then, and the Jets almost made it to the AFC Championship Game).

White Plains Batman 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 10:16 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.