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 Looking Good

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-07-2006, 06:11 PM
  #101
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 28,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycleandshoot View Post
Where do they go from here?
An outsider's opinion: less is more. You've upgraded your team, modestly, so far this off-season, personnel-wise.

But here's the thing (and I know some disagree): I do not believe that NYR needed a major upgrade. A roster that was thrown together for the first time last October managed a 100 point season. Likewise, as many NYR fans remind us regularly , their 1st round result was, at least in part, due to an injured squad. I do not believe that means that a healthy NYR team would have won. However, if one agrees that they were hurt (they were), it reasons that they could have had a more impressive (competitive) post-season showing.

Likewise, you will have improvement from within, it should be projected. Not necessarily three rookies stepping in and becoming the Prucha, Tyutin and Lundqvist of '07; that's unrealistic. Rather, improvement from those very three aformentioned players! (As well as others.) Sophomore jinxes aside, these guys are now a year older, and wiser. Should you reach the playoffs, I would expect a better, more prepared (and hopefully healthier) effort from all three.

Finally, your defense. All year, one read how it was average, needed upgrading. Yet your team defense was solid until the wheels came off very late. Obviously, a lot had to do with Lundqvist. But he was supported by a solid team defense in front of him, forwards and backliners both. Besides. Compare the current Cup champs defense on paper with NYR's. Though not exactly alike, it's comparable. The right system executed properly, and you can win a lot of games with the current D corp, especially with Rachunek and Ward in the fold. That is, win games October-March and beyond.

So you will likely have a couple of question marks heading into the season. So too did Carolina, Edmonton, Buffalo, Anaheim, etc. in October of '05. That is what the long regular season is for. To get answers, for players to earn roles and step up.

Just my opinion.

Trottier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2006, 07:22 PM
  #102
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,762
vCash: 500
Well I agree that the Rangers are looking good, long term. That being said, I think that last year's success was due in part to a perfect storm of sorts with Jagr, Lundqvist, Prucha all coming together unexpectedly at the same time. Since basically the exact same team is back this year I think there's a great possibility that the team takes a small step back. I'm not saying they will tank, but I'm thinking it's more likely they will be fighting for a playoff spot or hanging around the 7, 8, 9 range most of the season. I'm hoping some of the young guys get a chance to show their stuff. If they can get some experience and we can continue to get them to work hard and grow together it will go a long way towards success in the years to come.

broadwayblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2006, 07:40 PM
  #103
CJB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
Well I agree that the Rangers are looking good, long term. That being said, I think that last year's success was due in part to a perfect storm of sorts with Jagr, Lundqvist, Prucha all coming together unexpectedly at the same time. Since basically the exact same team is back this year I think there's a great possibility that the team takes a small step back. I'm not saying they will tank, but I'm thinking it's more likely they will be fighting for a playoff spot or hanging around the 7, 8, 9 range most of the season. I'm hoping some of the young guys get a chance to show their stuff. If they can get some experience and we can continue to get them to work hard and grow together it will go a long way towards success in the years to come.

The thing is that people need to remind themsleves of are last years players like Dominic Moore, Hollyweg, Prucha, Lundqvist are just the first wave of the batch of young players. Prucha and Lundqvist and Tyutin are becoming a solid group of young players, theres Immonen, Dawes, Dubinsky, Helminen, Marc Staal in the horizon coming then Hugh Jessiman, Graham, Cally, Sauer, you know and so forth....

I like the effort put forth by Moore Betts Ortemeyer and Ward but sooner rather than later they will be replace by better and younger players, Moore or Betts maybe replace by Helminen, Ward by Callahan.

Last year was a step forward, the first batch of the coming waves of prospects.

CJB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2006, 08:16 PM
  #104
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
One problem, Trottier...

the early season success was, in part, due to the lockout whereby most teams experienced significant roster turnover and players who didn't play last season, and the Rangers were smarrtly put together to bring the team more even with other clubs. Also, there was a huge dependence on one player, which is never healthy. Late in the season, what was successful for the Rangers early on didn't work late and I don't think a lot of that can be attributed to injuries as opposed to other teams improving, and getting over the pains of missing a season and high turnover, as well as the 'new' rules. Take all that into consideration, and all else being equal and the Rangers had to improve. Further, with other teams improving, as well as teams that missed the playoffs, and further improvement is needed, and not just from within since the main drivers of success are expected to come from vets, not new, young faces.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2006, 09:36 PM
  #105
ATLANTARANGER*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Atlanta, B&R in NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
the early season success was, in part, due to the lockout whereby most teams experienced significant roster turnover and players who didn't play last season, and the Rangers were smarrtly put together to bring the team more even with other clubs. Also, there was a huge dependence on one player, which is never healthy. Late in the season, what was successful for the Rangers early on didn't work late and I don't think a lot of that can be attributed to injuries as opposed to other teams improving, and getting over the pains of missing a season and high turnover, as well as the 'new' rules. Take all that into consideration, and all else being equal and the Rangers had to improve. Further, with other teams improving, as well as teams that missed the playoffs, and further improvement is needed, and not just from within since the main drivers of success are expected to come from vets, not new, young faces.
I really hate to disagree, but I have to. While I agree in part about injuries, everybody has them and you have to deal with them, I think that Lundqvist injury was underplayed. Kasper was hurt far worst then many thought. He had exactly what I suspected, as his syptoms were very much like my son's. The other injurt was just unbelievable. To have both and to continue to play, well kudos, big time.

Some of the other injuries were the nickel and dime nicked stuff that happens. The problem was two fold. Kasper & Lundy were huge pieces. Their absence really hurt.
The other part, Weekes. It was obvious that as much as his teammates liked him, they equally lost all faith in him and we all know what happens then. we saw it on the ice.

A team that had really not experienced any severe adversity ended up experiencing it at the wrong time of the year. The defense was depleted and instead of breaking in people under ideal conditions some were shoved out onto the ice.

The other thing to remember is that by the simple acquirement of 1 single point the whole complexion changed. I think to a large degree the team in its own mind had already determined that it was going to have home ice to open the 1st series. Not getting that was the equivilant of a piling on penalty to a team that by the end of the season was realing from the cumulative effect of all of the above and by that time old man mo was rolling downhill against the NYRs. It happens.

This is not intended as an excuse, but of an honest observation of what transpired. Adding depth will help us. The depth will come from within as some of our kids are now better equiped and really to be exposed, for good or bad, to the NHL. The logic dictates that the youngsters be given every opportunity to step into the lineup. The key is that the team, players and coaching staff have to use what happened as a learning experience.

ATLANTARANGER* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2006, 12:29 AM
  #106
NYR94
Registered User
 
NYR94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,749
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NYR94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
Smith's not good dealing with strong personalities (see Keenan, Muckler, and is the reason why Campbell lasted).
Which makes me wonder what type of trouble could occur on the Island considering the fact that Smith didn't hire Nolan. I'm not wishing anything bad on them, because I'd like to see how Smith does under a cap and I'm excited as hell to see Nolan back in the NHL, but you have to wonder what it's like since Nolan isn't "Smith's man", so to speak. But then again, Quennville wasn't hired by Colorado's new GM either.

NYR94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2006, 07:13 AM
  #107
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Those are excuses, Atlanta..

even without injuries, the players who were left to play the series were badly outplayed, including Nylander, Straka, Malik, Rozsival, and others. Jagr only played in one real game, and couldn't get going as the other sides figured out how to stop the Rangers. One team came to play playoff hockey, the other was just happy to finally be there.

And yes, injuries are part of the game - somehow a team like Carolina rebounded from losing a top scorer and went all the way with a 22 year old rookie goaltender. Heck, Edmonton lost its goalie in the finals and was there until the last minute somehow, with Jussi. And you want to talk about injuries? Go to Philly, where most of their key players were either lost for games during the season or were playing injured, and they somehow fared pretty well.

And the scary part about Lundqvist's injury is it was likely brought on by him playing as much as he did - I hope he can handle the rigors this year (with no Olympics, it should at least be easier).

And Atlanta, this says it all: "A team that had really not experienced any severe adversity ended up experiencing it at the wrong time of the year". You could argue that having those injuries earlier in the year would've ended up having the Rangers fight for a playoff spot in April, and not just fight for home ice. They happen; one problem is the coach didn't know what to do about them.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2006, 09:40 AM
  #108
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangerFan View Post
Okay, first of all, you're not going to find many quicker players than Hossa
I would consider 100 to be many.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2006, 10:15 AM
  #109
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
I would consider 100 to be many.
Is this supposed to be some sort of response to my post? Because it comes off as a blatant goad, not a point of logic.

However, I will assume that I'm wrong and attempt to address it. So you're saying there are 100 quicker players in the NHL? What's your proof? Are there best lap times for all the players in the league that you're comparing and he ranks at #104?

Regardless, given that there are a combined 550-600 skaters in the league, it's not unlikely that your number is correct, I guess, which would put him in the top 16%-18% (although I wouldn't be surprised if he cracked the top 10%.), which is pretty darn good if you ask me. Certainly from watching him play, he's one of the fastest skaters on the Rangers. To debate his speed is silly - remember, even his detractors admit that he has all the raw skills; they're what have kept him in the league for so long despite his often disappointing play.

Now, you like many other posters on this board may not like him. And I can understand your frustration with how he played during the middle months of the season - if he slips back to that form again this year, I say ship his butt out. But the general sentiment against him on this board is reaching the point of obstinance.

Those of you who continue to demand he be run out of town on a rail are blatantly ignoring his performance at the end of the year and especially in the playoffs, when he was one of the best players on the team. Furthermore, and even more importantly, you conveniently ignore a simple truth when you put together all your projected lineups that leave him out in the cold: the coaching staff likes him. Going into camp he's way ahead of guys like Moore and Hollweg on the depth chart. So when you draw up what you think the team will look like going into the season with the HMO line intact and Hossa on the bench, it may look good to you, but it's unrealistic - at least as of now.

Let me repeat myself: if he regresses to his mid year form, I will have no problem getting rid of him. Heck, I have no problem including him right now in the right deal. BUT, people need to start dealing with the fact that if there isn't a trade and/or various players don't make dramatic improvements during camp between now and the fall, he will be one of the forwards who play in the season opener.

Personally, I think that's a good thing, given the way that he ended last season.

BrooklynRangersFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2006, 12:33 PM
  #110
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,174
vCash: 500
Fletch and those who point to Roszivals +/- vs his points and say "look, he didn't do anything really!" are forgetting that the Jagr line's style often meant more than 2 passes once gaining the offensive zone. I'm not saying I like Roszival much more than you do, but the argument you're making there is fallacious.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2006, 07:17 PM
  #111
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
The actual point is...

there are many defenseman who can get the puck out of the zone; many of whom also are on the Rangers as getting the puck out of the zone was not difficult. If a defenseman did it with Rucchin's line out there, there was a less chance to get the plus for doing the same thing as Rozsival did while out there with Jagr. Point is, the defensemen didn't create the goal, Jagr did. I didn't miss the fact that Jagr and the forwards cycled and passed the puck around. I agree with that. I just don't think a defenseman had to do much to get the puck to him; comparatively speaking. Poti was +16 while not playing with Jagr for most of the time. Can someone please explain how the most maligned defenseman on the Rangers, who didn't score many points, and who plays such horrible defense, and who played with defensive partners who were equally as bad, ended up a +16? My guess is that if he did play with Jagr as much, he too would've been +30-something - which is why I criticize Rozsival so much.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2006, 09:38 PM
  #112
ATLANTARANGER*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Atlanta, B&R in NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
even without injuries, the players who were left to play the series were badly outplayed, including Nylander, Straka, Malik, Rozsival, and others. Jagr only played in one real game, and couldn't get going as the other sides figured out how to stop the Rangers. One team came to play playoff hockey, the other was just happy to finally be there.

And yes, injuries are part of the game - somehow a team like Carolina rebounded from losing a top scorer and went all the way with a 22 year old rookie goaltender. Heck, Edmonton lost its goalie in the finals and was there until the last minute somehow, with Jussi. And you want to talk about injuries? Go to Philly, where most of their key players were either lost for games during the season or were playing injured, and they somehow fared pretty well.

And the scary part about Lundqvist's injury is it was likely brought on by him playing as much as he did - I hope he can handle the rigors this year (with no Olympics, it should at least be easier).

And Atlanta, this says it all: "A team that had really not experienced any severe adversity ended up experiencing it at the wrong time of the year". You could argue that having those injuries earlier in the year would've ended up having the Rangers fight for a playoff spot in April, and not just fight for home ice. They happen; one problem is the coach didn't know what to do about them.
Comparing our put together squad versus a carolina squad that has played together for a number of years and enjoyed success as a group is a stretch. Carolina also had depth. We didn't.

I like how you glossed over two points I made that I think were valid, Weekes play and the team's response and the other being losing home ice. I didn't think we were going anyshere so going out early wasn't the end of the world. Hopefully the younger guys gained some valuable experience.

ATLANTARANGER* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2006, 09:37 AM
  #113
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
I glanced over them...

because I didn't feel like responding to those points as my post was becoming large and I didn't think they were important.

On Weekes - I totally disagree. The team just didn't play well after the Olympics - not with Lundqvist, not with Weekes. The defense was shoddy and the overall play wasn't all too great either. There were injuries and they didn't respond well, from the coaching staff to the players. We can talk about depth, but it doesn't matter because Renney never changed the game plan - it was Jagr, Jagr, Jagr and the guy's ice time was up over 25 minutes way too much down the stretch.

Your other point, if true, just would show that this team was a bunch of amateurs. Most professionals know you don't have home-ice until you win the requisite games. Most know you can't quit playing in March. And boo-hoo on them for losing home ice when they thought it was there's. And it wouldn't have mattered because at the end of the season, the Devils were that much better and would've beaten this team on home ice (like it did) anyways.

Fletch 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 07:16 AM.

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.