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 at Lightning 11/25/13

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-26-2013, 10:08 AM
  #201
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Guess the game-day golf outing with all the pops wasn't such a good idea. Maybe Dave and Busters instead next time.
Sweet sun tans and ****** results in Florida have become a Thanksgiving tradition

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 10:28 AM
  #202
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 17,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
You sound delusional. You are arguing concrete results of '11-12 vs. wild perceptions of what you see here in '13-14.

You want to argue that this team is creating more shots/chances? Fine, Ill agree. Maybe you can lobby the NHL to have that be the determining factor in games instead of # of goals. You were warned about this - all of it. The coaching change was merely rearranging the deck chairs on this titanic of an offensive hockey team. This current team consists of a forward core that is not strong enough, skilled enough, and (for some) not hungry enough to get into the prime scoring areas of the ice. Ill take my chances with one shot from the slot vs. dozens of "chances" consisting of the team shoveling pucks to the net from bad angles.

Perhaps even more importantly, this team that is being lauded by you for generating so many chances (and is tied for 2nd to last in goal scoring in the league), is giving up a helluva lot more chances too. Tampa Bay scored on 4 odd-man rushes last night. 4. I remember when it took this team a month to give up 4 odd-man rushes.

Your delusions of grandeur are insulting to any Ranger fan that finds solace in winning hockey games.
I'm not sure you know what delusions of grandeur mean, thinking that the team is better than it is (arguable but a legit opinion) is not synonymous with delusions of grandeur, you're using a term that you don't know the definition of to sound smart. They're getting far more chances but are not finishing. It's not all bad angle shots. When all they had was terrible shots against LA I called them out on it. I thought the same thing happened for the most part against Anaheim. I'm not shy about saying when the Rangers have cupcake chances. That 11-12 team wasn't that great defensively. They just had Lundqvist in his peak season. I remember when we had like 5 straight games where we gave up at least 1 breakaway. The D sucked yesterday and against Dallas, however for the most part they've been pretty damn good since the horrible start. Even including last night's debacle the team has given up 34 goals in the last 19 games. That's fewer than 2 goals per game and that includes a bunch of fluke goals and a Lundqvist that is having his worst season in years. The 11-12 team in March that year had Lundqvist play like he's playing now they gave up at least 3 goals in pretty much every game. That team was all Lundqvist and Gabby. Somehow our offensive scrubs scored timely goals.

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 10:32 AM
  #203
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 17,237
vCash: 500
One more thing BRB that entire March in 11-12 all they did was give up odd man rushes. Think about to a game against mediocre Buffalo. You only remember the things you want to remember that fit your script.

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 10:32 AM
  #204
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
I'm not sure you know what delusions of grandeur mean, thinking that the team is better than it is (arguable but a legit opinion) is not synonymous with delusions of grandeur, you're using a term that you don't know the definition of to sound smart. They're getting far more chances but are not finishing. It's not all bad angle shots. When all they had was terrible shots against LA I called them out on it. I thought the same thing happened for the most part against Anaheim. I'm not shy about saying when the Rangers have cupcake chances. That 11-12 team wasn't that great defensively. They just had Lundqvist in his peak season. I remember when we had like 5 straight games where we gave up at least 1 breakaway. The D sucked yesterday and against Dallas, however for the most part they've been pretty damn good since the horrible start. Even including last night's debacle the team has given up 34 goals in the last 19 games. That's fewer than 2 goals per game and that includes a bunch of fluke goals and a Lundqvist that is having his worst season in years. The 11-12 team in March that year had Lundqvist play like he's playing now they gave up at least 3 goals in pretty much every game. That team was all Lundqvist and Gabby. Somehow our offensive scrubs scored timely goals.
I know exactly what delusions of grandeur means. This post, and the other fluff you've posted throughout this thread is a perfect example of it.

This is a 12-12 team that is tied for 29th in the league in goal scoring, yet, according to you, they should be 16-8? Where do you come up with this stuff? Does it come directly out of your ass, or is it filtered elsewhere?

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 10:37 AM
  #205
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
One more thing BRB that entire March in 11-12 all they did was give up odd man rushes. Think about to a game against mediocre Buffalo. You only remember the things you want to remember that fit your script.
That is so utterly and deliciously ironic coming from you.

You know what I've learned working in the real world above all else? My senior management wants bottom line results - they don't want me to spin a tale of what might of been, they don't want to know what my personal feelings are, they want the bottom line result.

How does that apply to sports? Ill defer to Bill Parcells: "You are what your record says you are."

Is this team 16-8 with so many more precious chances?

Or are they 12-12 and tied for 29th in the league in goal scoring?

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 10:37 AM
  #206
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 17,237
vCash: 500
The funny thing is something tells me that BRB who all of a sudden loves to use that 11-12 team to trash this team wasn't quite as positive 2 years ago. Just a hunch. He just loves that team now so that he can trash this team. However, something tells me that a guy that posts 95% negative **** about the team wasn't saying how great they were then. All of a sudden he uses wild hyperbole "I remember when it took this team a month to allow 4 odd man rushes". That's hilarious because that entire March they allowed numerous odd man rushes PER game and at some point in the season they allowed a breakaway every game (that's not an exaggeration either, it was something I noticed in any number from 4-6 games).

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 10:39 AM
  #207
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 17,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
I know exactly what delusions of grandeur means. This post, and the other fluff you've posted throughout this thread is a perfect example of it.

This is a 12-12 team that is tied for 29th in the league in goal scoring, yet, according to you, they should be 16-8? Where do you come up with this stuff? Does it come directly out of your ass, or is it filtered elsewhere?
I didn't say they should be 16-8. I said that if they finished like the scrubs from 11-12 finished and Lundqvist played like he did that year they would be 16-8. This team creates more and better chances than that team, but for some reason that team managed to fluke their way into being the 12th best scoring team in the NHL. A testament to what a joke this league has become.

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 10:44 AM
  #208
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
I didn't say they should be 16-8. I said that if they finished like the scrubs from 11-12 finished and Lundqvist played like he did that year they would be 16-8. This team creates more and better chances than that team, but for some reason that team managed to fluke their way into being the 12th best scoring team in the NHL. A testament to what a joke this league has become.
Im starting to be unable to follow your posts because, literally, none of it is based in any sort of coherent logic.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 10:44 AM
  #209
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 17,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
That is so utterly and deliciously ironic coming from you.

You know what I've learned working in the real world above all else? My senior management wants bottom line results - they don't want me to spin a tale of what might of been, they don't want to know what my personal feelings are, they want the bottom line result.

How does that apply to sports? Ill defer to Bill Parcells: "You are what your record says you are."

Is this team 16-8 with so many more precious chances?

Or are they 12-12 and tied for 29th in the league in goal scoring?
This is hilarious. You're completely spinning what I'm saying. When did I say they were a 16-8 team? And you completely ignored the part where they were giving up odd man rushes left and right that whole March and yet you find the need to block that out and pretend like it took them a month to give up 4 odd man rushes. You just remember what you want to remember and want to remember anything that allows you to be miserable and negative. As I said, I'll be SHOCKED if you thought this highly of that 11-12 team when they were playing. No you were coming up with excuses why they suck. I'm sure in 2 year's time you'll be remembering this team fondly if that team struggles. You only say positive things about the Rangers when it was a season in the past and you could use use it to say how much worse the current team is in comparison.

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 10:49 AM
  #210
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
This is hilarious. You're completely spinning what I'm saying. When did I say they were a 16-8 team? And you completely ignored the part where they were giving up odd man rushes left and right that whole March and yet you find the need to block that out and pretend like it took them a month to give up 4 odd man rushes. You just remember what you want to remember and want to remember anything that allows you to be miserable and negative. As I said, I'll be SHOCKED if you thought this highly of that 11-12 team when they were playing. No you were coming up with excuses why they suck. I'm sure in 2 year's time you'll be remembering this team fondly if that team struggles. You only say positive things about the Rangers when it was a season in the past and you could use use it to say how much worse the current team is in comparison.
There you are leaping to weird conclusions, again.

Did I complain about the '11-12 team and certain holes in the roster? Sure I did. But I lauded their ability to play tough every night and their knack for winning hockey games.

You are the one that keeps deferring to the '11-12 team to highlight how good this current team is. Which is a really, really strange argument since this team wins less games and scores less goals.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 10:49 AM
  #211
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 17,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Im starting to be unable to follow your posts because, literally, none of it is based in any sort of coherent logic.
It's not difficult, but you clearly can't follow something that disagrees with your opinion. This Rangers team is creating better and more frequent chances than that team. If this team finished like that team and also had the goaltending of that team they would be 16-8, I didn't say this team is a 16-8 team. That team had 1 finisher on it. It wasn't that good, but for some reason they managed to be 12th in the league in scoring. I think this team is more talented offensively. That team just had a magical season that would likely not be duplicated.

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 10:52 AM
  #212
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
It's not difficult, but you clearly can't follow something that disagrees with your opinion. This Rangers team is creating better and more frequent chances than that team. If this team finished like that team and also had the goaltending of that team they would be 16-8, I didn't say this team is a 16-8 team. That team had 1 finisher on it. It wasn't that good, but for some reason they managed to be 12th in the league in scoring. I think this team is more talented offensively. That team just had a magical season that would likely not be duplicated.
So, if this team was capable of completing the things that are necessary to win hockey games, they would have a better record.

You've really cracked the code.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 10:58 AM
  #213
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Ogrodnick View Post
If Lundqvist got to play the Rangers tonight, he would have played Bishop's game. That's the problem, it doesn't matter who the opposing goalie is, the Rangers make him look better than he is. The Rangers have the lowest shooting percentage in the league and are tied for the second lowest goals per game. They are simply too terrible at goal scoring to be the barometer for any goalie's hotness. Bishop could have left the ice to get a cheeseburger and the chances were greater that the Rangers would have found a way to hit him in the chest as he applied ketchup out in the concourse than they were that they would score on the empty net.
It is astounding that Tampa was stupid enough to even use a goalie instead of opting for an extra attacker.

Hyperble is fun but not giving credit when it is due is a mark of believing there is only one team on the ice.

The Rangers had just put up the best road winning streak of the year in the NHL, but because they lost a single game, they suck and Bishop could have slept through his shutout. Wonderful analysis. Sometimes the team we root for loses, no matter how much we stamp our feet and decry fate, refs, and our beloved Rangers.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 10:59 AM
  #214
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 17,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
There you are leaping to weird conclusions, again.

Did I complain about the '11-12 team and certain holes in the roster? Sure I did. But I lauded their ability to play tough every night and their knack for winning hockey games.

You are the one that keeps deferring to the '11-12 team to highlight how good this current team is. Which is a really, really strange argument since this team wins less games and scores less goals.
I don't think this team is that good. I just think that they're more talented than they are showing. I also think that team fluked their way into a great regular season and showed their true colors offensively in the playoffs. It's not so much that this is a great team, it's just that it's better than what they've shown and that team was nowhere near as good as they've shown. Also in a sport highly susceptible to luck, "you are what your record shows" is a neanderthal way of looking at things. You can be 12-12 and get outshot every game by 20 and lose every game by 5 and you can be 12-12 and outshoot the other team every game by 20 and win by 5. We're neither extreme but to pretend that 12-12 is exactly the same is foolish and intellectually dishonest. Plus, there are almost 60 games left, looking at HOW the team is playing is important and I believe they're playing well enough to be in good position at the end of the season. Does that mean cup? Highly unlikely. However, with 60 games left it's important to see how the team got to 12-12 and ever since their disaster start outside some hiccups like last night I think the team looks promising at least to finish in playoff position, maybe even get a spot that's not a WC spot in a weaker division. Even with the hiccup last night, the score wasn't indicative of the play. A few horrible breakdowns.

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 11:00 AM
  #215
TankLarkin
Registered User
 
TankLarkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 521
vCash: 500
hank.jpg

TankLarkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 11:09 AM
  #216
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 17,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
So, if this team was capable of completing the things that are necessary to win hockey games, they would have a better record.

You've really cracked the code.
Or if this team didn't underachieve they're have a better record. That team overachieved this one is underachieving. Hell "underachieving" is relative too. They're not underachieving by going through the motions, they're mostly playing hard and even doing a lot of things right. They just can't score and what they do wrong defensively ends up in their net because their goalie is not longer all that great. And doing things necessary to win hockey games, if you mean scoring yeah, I guess. But it's not as simple as you make it seem. They're shooting at a 6.25% clip that's unsustainable. There's a lot more to it than your simplistic you are what the stats say. They're doing a lot of things necessary to win hockey games but are not getting the results.

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 11:30 AM
  #217
Pastafazul*
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 357
vCash: 500
i would give AV at least 40 games to get it together

Pastafazul* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 11:30 AM
  #218
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind Jam Grind View Post
Yeah, Bishop played well. And Andersen, and Budaj, and whatever other goalies shut us out. It's never the Rangers absolute lack of offense. It's the great Hasek clones that we play. Right.
I am talking about 1 game and if you don't think Bishop played well.....

By the way, when Lundqvist tosses a shutout, everyone here says he was great. Never hear about how crappy the other team played and how Hank could have slept through the game. Why is that?

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 11:33 AM
  #219
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
The team has some good offensive talent but they simply lack legit top line punch. The leaders on the team in scoring are on pace to have under 30 goals and under 60 points. Stepan, Zuccarello, Callahan, Richards, and Kreider are all just good solid 2nd line players, and lets face it -over a large chunk of games going back to last season- Nash is producing like a 2nd liner at best.

The Rongos have decent depth and decent talent, and theyre gonna win some games, but that elte tapent that can carry a team through dry spells is completely absent.
I think Stepan is a legit top liner who lacks a pure finisher so far this year.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 11:37 AM
  #220
azaloum90
Registered User
 
azaloum90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The coop!
Posts: 2,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastafazul View Post
i would give AV at least 40 games to get it together
yeah, have to agree with this... That one game where Joe made a comment about a coach that had taken over a head coaching job...

45 days with ONLY the players supposed to be on the team... 45 days after training camp is over, your players are established and comfortable, and you have a relative idea of where each players status is at...
There's too much going against this team right now, and only time is going to fix that... Lets review the last month and a half:

- We had 40 players on our 9 game road trip, for the first 3 weeks of the actual season, plus no home games and a ton of travel... just a tad more than the 23 required for a hockey team... too much going on mentally

- Nash gets hurt in game 3 of the season, then misses 15 games, can't form chemistry with anyone

- Lundqvist has a breakdown and is hurt for games 6-9 of the season (i think? too lazy to pull up the stat)

- Biron realizes he can't stop a beach ball and retires, so management takes a gamble on a backup in the farm...

- We start the first 10-12 games with half of our top 6 out with injuries

- Our "prime" offensive defensemen has to be one of the worst headcases in the league

- All of this is happening with a new coach who is still learning his players

Anyone that thought this team would start hot was out of their minds. 4-5-1 was absolutely acceptable for the road trip we took in the beginning of the season...

If by the mid way mark of the season we are still a .500 team, and still in the bottom 5 for GF, then we'll really have a problem.

EDIT: we also have taylor pyatt :p

azaloum90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 11:38 AM
  #221
Ail
k.
 
Ail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mysidia
Country: United States
Posts: 16,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastafazul View Post
i would give AV at least 40 games to get it together
How generous of you.

__________________
Ail is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 11:39 AM
  #222
azaloum90
Registered User
 
azaloum90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The coop!
Posts: 2,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
I am talking about 1 game and if you don't think Bishop played well.....

By the way, when Lundqvist tosses a shutout, everyone here says he was great. Never hear about how crappy the other team played and how Hank could have slept through the game. Why is that?
because that normally doesn't happen... Dallas, for example...

azaloum90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 11:44 AM
  #223
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,046
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ailurophile View Post
How generous of you.
My thoughts exactly. The Rangers gave Bryan Trottier 54 games and that was considered a short leash. Vigneault's track record is a little stronger than Trottier's.

__________________


Rangers Unlimited
Hockey Graphs
Brian Boyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 11:48 AM
  #224
OverTheCap
Registered User
 
OverTheCap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Not really sure what more AV can do considering that failure to execute has been one of our biggest issues (as it has been for ages). The Rangers are outplaying and outshooting opponents but still can't score.

OverTheCap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2013, 11:58 AM
  #225
Fataldogg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,904
vCash: 500
You know what's funny, people keep claiming that the goals will come, because our shooting percentages are unsustainable. We're getting too many chances to not score more goals, right?

Well, 24 games into the season we have been shutout 5 times and are averaging 2.00G/GM which is good for 29th in the NHL. So, when is it coming? If you said that after five or six games, I'd agree. But we're 24 games in now, and we're still virtually dead last in the league in scoring.

If you look at our goal scoring, it's usually like 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 0, 1, 0, 1, 3.

It's extremely inconsistent. I'd do anything for a team at this point to score 2 or 3 goals every game.

You can only claim the chances will go in for so long when they never are. It's a talent issue, and the talent just isn't there to finish.

Who cares if Kreider, MZA and Stepan generate chances? They rarely put the puck in the net.

AND what is even funnier, is that this is the worst scoring team we've had post lock out, and we had a thread, on our own FORUM (I thought our fans would be smarter) that THIS was the deepest team we've had since the lockout. Deepest in 3rd/4th liners? Yes. Deepest in talent? No.

Fataldogg 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 07:40 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.