Why would the Rangers get away from their forecheck? The best D for the Sens is to move the puck quick, and get it into the Rangers end. I have not illusion that we have stellar overall D to contain good forechecking and a strong cycle. It's adequate but vulnerable to strong play down low.
Because an over aggressive forecheck is probably not going to be in the game plan. It allows the Sens quick transition if the Rangers ever lose a battle along the walls. I am pretty sure the rangers are going to want their Center playing high in the O zone most of the series.
I think they will probably have 1 forechecker deep and 1 in support. I don't think the Sens are going to get a whole lot of chances off the rush this series.
The Rangers will probably try to mimic what Boston has done against the Sens. Clog the neutral zone and then attack on turnovers coming out of their end.
Because an over aggressive forecheck is probably not going to be in the game plan. It allows the Sens quick transition if the Rangers ever lose a battle along the walls. I am pretty sure the rangers are going to want their Center playing high in the O zone most of the series.
I think they will probably have 1 forechecker deep and 1 in support. I don't think the Sens are going to get a whole lot of chances off the rush this series.
The Rangers will probably try to mimic what Boston has done against the Sens. Clog the neutral zone and then attack on turnovers coming out of their end.
Not sure how effective that would be. Sens D have fits with teams that push them hard deep. If you give Karlsson and Gonchar time with the puck for the breakout, they may not rush, but they will hit a forward to deflect it for a deep dump in.
Nice to trade posts with the enemy.. of course you are all scum after Thursday!
Not having enough to get first overall is just as big as a cop out.
Not really.
The Sens had an opportunity to finish 7th. The Rangers were in 1st in the East regardless. The only way we WON'T have home ice in every series is if we meet Vancouver in the finals. Any other team and we have home ice even in the finals. Ottawa had a lot more to play for, IMO.
Not sure how effective that would be. Sens D have fits with teams that push them hard deep. If you give Karlsson and Gonchar time with the puck for the breakout, they may not rush, but they will hit a forward to deflect it for a deep dump in.
Nice to trade posts with the enemy.. of course you are all scum after Thursday!
Cmon, this is getting a little crazy. Are you just looking for things to worry yourself about?
Dude, Alfredsson scores 2 out of 3 times if he takes more than 5 strides on the ice... that statistic increases to 10/11 times in the 3rd period.... Also, if the Ottawa announcers take a dump before the 2nd period Ottawa wins 71.8% of the time... pack it in, we're done.
If you don't think that a team knowing that they have scored goals against this staunch Rangers defence late in games consistently is not going to be a problem, then you are burying your head in the sand to a legit concern.
Majority of the goals scored by Ottawa have come late in games where we should be shutting things down, they have found a way to beat us regularly.
That is not a tin foil hat issue, that is a legit concern.
Have no fear my crystal ball has never been clearer for this match up. Rangers in 5. If they act like the old Rangers where they make us suffer a bit. Rangers in 6. Thank You for your quarter.
The Sens had an opportunity to finish 7th. The Rangers were in 1st in the East regardless. The only way we WON'T have home ice in every series is if we meet Vancouver in the finals. Any other team and we have home ice even in the finals. Ottawa had a lot more to play for, IMO.
We still wouldn't have had home ice if we finished 7th and would have had to try and beat the defending Cup Champs. The Rangers had a good season but have a history of not doing much in the playoffs. You would think a team 2 points away from first overall would see that as important if they thought they were going to go to the finals.
The Sens chose not to finish 7th in order to play the Rangers.
The only thing Ottawa had to play for was making the playoffs. Once that was accomplished they made sure to position themselves in a match up they wanted.
The Rangers had a good season but have a history of not doing much in the playoffs.
Ottawa has had high scoring Game 1's since forever...Should be a hell of a game Thursday! Hold on tight!!
Last Nine Game One's for the Senators:
2003-2004 - OTT (4) - TOR (2)
2005-2006 - TBL (1) - OTT (4)
2005-2006 - BUF (7) - OTT (6) OT
2006-2007 - PIT (3) - OTT (6)
2006-2007 - OTT (5) - NJD (4)
2006-2007 - OTT (5) - BUF (2)
2006-2007 - OTT (2) - ANA (3)
2007-2008 - OTT (0) - PIT (4)
2009-2010 - OTT (5) - PIT (4)
DEAR LORD!
Rangers better come out hitting every Senator that touches the puck. And it better not be the 1 or 2 noticeable hits in the entire game like it was against the Pens and Capitals. If the Rangers play like that:
We still wouldn't have had home ice if we finished 7th and would have had to try and beat the defending Cup Champs. The Rangers had a good season but have a history of not doing much in the playoffs. You would think a team 2 points away from first overall would see that as important if they thought they were going to go to the finals.
The Sens chose not to finish 7th in order to play the Rangers.
The only thing Ottawa had to play for was making the playoffs. Once that was accomplished they made sure to position themselves in a match up they wanted.
The Rangers had a good season but have a history of not doing much in the playoffs.
And the Senators rich history of playoff sucess is ONE conference final appearance since the 1992-93 season.
The Rangers had a good season but have a history of not doing much in the playoffs.
This is stupid. You can't compare this Rangers team to the various other fringe playoff teams since the lockout. If that's how you're trying to assuage any fears you may have, you should probably recognize the gap in your logic.
This is stupid. You can't compare this Rangers team to the various other fringe playoff teams since the lockout. If that's how you're trying to assuage any fears you may have, you should probably recognize the gap in your logic.
he didn't say: "since the lockout" he said: history. I would have had a little more respect for the comment had he said since the lockout, although it has no bearing upon this specific lineup.
This is stupid. You can't compare this Rangers team to the various other fringe playoff teams since the lockout. If that's how you're trying to assuage any fears you may have, you should probably recognize the gap in your logic.
How can you assume this team is the complete opposite? Lots of good teams lose in the first round.
How can you assume this team is the complete opposite? Lots of good teams lose in the first round.
I have no fear because i know the Sens will win.
Now you're just trolling. If you want to have a discussion about why you think the Senators will beat the Rangers in a 7 game series, by all means let's have that conversation. But if you're going to come here, say with absolute certainty that the Senators will win, and cite the history of the New York Rangers as a reason why, then there is just no basis for discussion.
.
