HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Team Toughness II

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-03-2013, 02:09 PM
  #1
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,013
vCash: 500
Team Toughness II

Continue here

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 02:15 PM
  #2
Brendan Shanahan
I suspend people
 
Brendan Shanahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,089
vCash: 500
Well team toughness is definitely an issue if we've reached the 1000 post mark in the other thread already.

Anyway, to reiterate what I said right before the previous thread was closed, having a guy like Talbot on our third line would do wonders for this team. Hard working, tough, and a playoff performer.

Brendan Shanahan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 02:19 PM
  #3
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,613
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan Shanahan View Post
Well team toughness is definitely an issue if we've reached the 1000 post mark in the other thread already.
Not sure I agree with this measurement...

__________________
Rangers Unlimited
Hockey Graphs
Brian Boyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 02:22 PM
  #4
Brendan Shanahan
I suspend people
 
Brendan Shanahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,089
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
Not sure I agree with this measurement...


It was mostly sarcasm. I totally understand the nature of our posters.

Brendan Shanahan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 02:23 PM
  #5
Idlerlee
Always play Richards
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oslo, Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 1,936
vCash: 387
Trade for Byfuglien, tell him to throw fists. Suddenly Rangers baddest team in the east

Idlerlee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 02:32 PM
  #6
Rangers Fail
4 8 15 16 23 42
 
Rangers Fail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 17,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idlerlee View Post
Trade for Byfuglien, tell him to throw fists. Suddenly Rangers baddest team in the east
Are you suggesting we trade for Byfuglien only to have him sit in the penalty box?

Rangers Fail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 02:40 PM
  #7
Idlerlee
Always play Richards
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oslo, Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 1,936
vCash: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind Jam Grind View Post
Are you suggesting we trade for Byfuglien only to have him sit in the penalty box?
Well no, just half the game, the other half he's free to play D

Idlerlee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 02:42 PM
  #8
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,613
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idlerlee View Post
Well no, just half the game, the other half he's free to play D
So... sarcasm then...?

Brian Boyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 03:55 PM
  #9
Idlerlee
Always play Richards
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oslo, Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 1,936
vCash: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
So... sarcasm then...?
Yes. Altho I do actually want Byfuglien on this team.

Plus he's essentially 120kg muscle. He's easily capable of throwing punches if he'd need to. Better than Nash fighting at least

Idlerlee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 04:02 PM
  #10
NGgator60
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 65
vCash: 500
I've lurked long enough (I go back to the pre-9/11/01 days of HFboards when we had single line threads) while holding my tongue due to time constraints but after reading some of the patently false narratives as of late, coupled with the Rangers' pathetic performance on the ice I felt the need to speak up.


The "cheapshot deterrent" argument has some merit but to me is tertiary to the main tenet of fighting and toughness in hockey; promoting a culture of brotherhood within the team. Fighting and physical play promote this. Again, the overwhelming majority of NHL players support fighting in hockey. I'll defer to them and enjoy a more entertaining product as a fan but I digress...

I'm a fan who's hockey acumen developed right at the dawn of our most recent "glory years" which culminated in an ECF loss to the Flyers in 97. This of course ushered in the dark ages of Rangers hockey. As I saw the Kamensky’s, the Fleury’s, the Driver’s, and their ilk sully the ice on the 7th floor of MSG I learned quickly that there was much more to hockey than goals, assists, skating, and the scoreboard at the end of one game. Many of our dark aged teams were constructed to excel in those areas yet these rosters remained fatally flawed. The Rangers were being built to play in a vacuum devoid of human emotion, psychology, and without appreciating the “war” rather than the “battle.”

NHL hockey is a game in which the collective wills and talents of a locker room must build and culminate throughout a season to peak at just the right time. It comes down to establishing an identity that can win and being able to execute on that identity in the harshest of circumstances. The Ranger teams in years past never had an identity or never had the horses to win with the identity that they attempted to emulate (2011 being the closest we came). The mental aspect of this is just as important, and perhaps I’d argue even more important, than the physical skill necessary to score goals. This is why we often see hockey seasons morph into wars of attrition where the best teams will sacrifice games over the course of the season in order to further build the identity that will help lead them to their ultimate goal of a Cup. The Bruins would be glad to sacrifice a late-November game against the Rangers in order to instill a physical fear in the Rangers and a camaraderie in their locker room that will pay dividends going forward.

This is where fighting and physical play become integral in the successful development of a team; teammates that can look at one another down the line and know that they have the will and ability to defend each others' honor when called upon will likewise lay themselves on the line to further the interests of the team. Its human psychology at its most rudimentary level. We can discuss the impact of a physical team culture on camaraderie, intimidation over opponents, and so on but I must say it really is common sense when looked at logically.

Again, there is a reason why every little gnat on Boston seems to play a bit bigger and skate with a sense of entitlement each time they step on the ice. They know that when the Brian Boyle's of the world attempt to exert a bit of fortitude against them they have a legion of guys, including their captain, willing to demonstrate that the ice is theirs. And while our fans gleefully exclaim when Chara is off the ice for 5 minutes (a loser's mentality, I might add), the Bruins gladly accept the short-term Chara for Boyle tradeoff for the long-run benefit of furthering their identity while demonstrating physical superiority over their opponents.

There are those that do not have the capacity to grasp or the will to understand the concept of the mental idiosyncrasies of athletes, human beings, to affect the outcome of sport through a season long campaign. These folks do not understand hockey at its most fundamental level. These folks see every game in a vacuum and think that the team with the fastest skaters, most precise shooters, and highest score total at the end of the game will win the championship. Thankfully that is not the game that I have grown to love.

The beauty of hockey is that there are so many different ways to win and compete. The one constant of all championship teams that maintained success over multiple seasons was that they never went too extreme in one team-building direction, rather they had a bit of everything (toughness, skill, speed, offense-defense-goaltending) while still emphasizing their key identity.

NGgator60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 04:02 PM
  #11
TankLarkin
Registered User
 
TankLarkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 519
vCash: 500
We almost won the President's Trophy with Rupp and Bickell in the lineup. I don't understand why we can't have a few guys on the fourth line to make guys like Peluso think twice before running around Garden ice like he owns the place. Haley, Moore and (Huge Nasty Goon's Name Here).

TankLarkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 04:03 PM
  #12
TankLarkin
Registered User
 
TankLarkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGgator60 View Post
I've lurked long enough (I go back to the pre-9/11/01 days of HFboards when we had single line threads) while holding my tongue due to time constraints but after reading some of the patently false narratives as of late, coupled with the Rangers' pathetic performance on the ice I felt the need to speak up.


The "cheapshot deterrent" argument has some merit but to me is tertiary to the main tenet of fighting and toughness in hockey; promoting a culture of brotherhood within the team. Fighting and physical play promote this. Again, the overwhelming majority of NHL players support fighting in hockey. I'll defer to them and enjoy a more entertaining product as a fan but I digress...

I'm a fan who's hockey acumen developed right at the dawn of our most recent "glory years" which culminated in an ECF loss to the Flyers in 97. This of course ushered in the dark ages of Rangers hockey. As I saw the Kamensky’s, the Fleury’s, the Driver’s, and their ilk sully the ice on the 7th floor of MSG I learned quickly that there was much more to hockey than goals, assists, skating, and the scoreboard at the end of one game. Many of our dark aged teams were constructed to excel in those areas yet these rosters remained fatally flawed. The Rangers were being built to play in a vacuum devoid of human emotion, psychology, and without appreciating the “war” rather than the “battle.”

NHL hockey is a game in which the collective wills and talents of a locker room must build and culminate throughout a season to peak at just the right time. It comes down to establishing an identity that can win and being able to execute on that identity in the harshest of circumstances. The Ranger teams in years past never had an identity or never had the horses to win with the identity that they attempted to emulate (2011 being the closest we came). The mental aspect of this is just as important, and perhaps I’d argue even more important, than the physical skill necessary to score goals. This is why we often see hockey seasons morph into wars of attrition where the best teams will sacrifice games over the course of the season in order to further build the identity that will help lead them to their ultimate goal of a Cup. The Bruins would be glad to sacrifice a late-November game against the Rangers in order to instill a physical fear in the Rangers and a camaraderie in their locker room that will pay dividends going forward.

This is where fighting and physical play become integral in the successful development of a team; teammates that can look at one another down the line and know that they have the will and ability to defend each others' honor when called upon will likewise lay themselves on the line to further the interests of the team. Its human psychology at its most rudimentary level. We can discuss the impact of a physical team culture on camaraderie, intimidation over opponents, and so on but I must say it really is common sense when looked at logically.

Again, there is a reason why every little gnat on Boston seems to play a bit bigger and skate with a sense of entitlement each time they step on the ice. They know that when the Brian Boyle's of the world attempt to exert a bit of fortitude against them they have a legion of guys, including their captain, willing to demonstrate that the ice is theirs. And while our fans gleefully exclaim when Chara is off the ice for 5 minutes (a loser's mentality, I might add), the Bruins gladly accept the short-term Chara for Boyle tradeoff for the long-run benefit of furthering their identity while demonstrating physical superiority over their opponents.

There are those that do not have the capacity to grasp or the will to understand the concept of the mental idiosyncrasies of athletes, human beings, to affect the outcome of sport through a season long campaign. These folks do not understand hockey at its most fundamental level. These folks see every game in a vacuum and think that the team with the fastest skaters, most precise shooters, and highest score total at the end of the game will win the championship. Thankfully that is not the game that I have grown to love.

The beauty of hockey is that there are so many different ways to win and compete. The one constant of all championship teams that maintained success over multiple seasons was that they never went too extreme in one team-building direction, rather they had a bit of everything (toughness, skill, speed, offense-defense-goaltending) while still emphasizing their key identity.
Nicely done.

TankLarkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 04:04 PM
  #13
NGgator60
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 65
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TankLarkin View Post
We almost won the President's Trophy with Rupp and Bickell in the lineup. I don't understand why we can't have a few guys on the fourth line to make guys like Peluso think twice before running around Garden ice like he owns the place. Haley, Moore and (Huge Nasty Goon's Name Here).
It's become en vogue for hockey fans to say, "tough guys are great but they need to be able to play the game too," as if it is some sort of rule in the "new" NHL. It's a nice excuse for not just coming out and saying that if you're not Milan Lucic or a healthy Ryane Clowe, you need not apply.

Where is it written that tough guys need to be able to have a certain amount of offensive skill in order to have the positive effects that we've discussed? Clearly a good number of NHL general managers have not gotten that memo. So what happens is we have a game in which our nice little skill players get physically throttled by the big, bad Bruins or Sestito and then our fans clamor for fighting and physicality to be outlawed. If you cant beat them....well, lets change the rules!

Again, give my Stubickle on the 4th line and I'll bet that his presence on that line, from a skill perspective, will not make any material difference on the Rangers making the playoffs or missing them. It will make a difference in the locker room. If the Rangers are relying on the on-ice contributions of a 4th liner to seriously affect their championship asperations then we clearly have bigger fundamental roster problems.

For my money....

Marginal utility of a 4th liner on a team's identity > marginal utility of a 4th liner's on-ice production

NGgator60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 04:08 PM
  #14
TankLarkin
Registered User
 
TankLarkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGgator60 View Post
Marginal utility of a 4th liner on a team's identity > marginal utility of a 4th liner's on-ice production
Exactly, and I always thought it was absurd that a team feared taking a two minute instigator for making a statement -- regular season or playoffs.

Making a Statement in 7 game series > than Two Minute Penalty.

TankLarkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 04:10 PM
  #15
Ail
k.
 
Ail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mysidia
Country: United States
Posts: 15,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGgator60 View Post
I've lurked long enough (I go back to the pre-9/11/01 days of HFboards when we had single line threads) while holding my tongue due to time constraints but after reading some of the patently false narratives as of late, coupled with the Rangers' pathetic performance on the ice I felt the need to speak up.


The "cheapshot deterrent" argument has some merit but to me is tertiary to the main tenet of fighting and toughness in hockey; promoting a culture of brotherhood within the team. Fighting and physical play promote this. Again, the overwhelming majority of NHL players support fighting in hockey. I'll defer to them and enjoy a more entertaining product as a fan but I digress...

I'm a fan who's hockey acumen developed right at the dawn of our most recent "glory years" which culminated in an ECF loss to the Flyers in 97. This of course ushered in the dark ages of Rangers hockey. As I saw the Kamensky’s, the Fleury’s, the Driver’s, and their ilk sully the ice on the 7th floor of MSG I learned quickly that there was much more to hockey than goals, assists, skating, and the scoreboard at the end of one game. Many of our dark aged teams were constructed to excel in those areas yet these rosters remained fatally flawed. The Rangers were being built to play in a vacuum devoid of human emotion, psychology, and without appreciating the “war” rather than the “battle.”

NHL hockey is a game in which the collective wills and talents of a locker room must build and culminate throughout a season to peak at just the right time. It comes down to establishing an identity that can win and being able to execute on that identity in the harshest of circumstances. The Ranger teams in years past never had an identity or never had the horses to win with the identity that they attempted to emulate (2011 being the closest we came). The mental aspect of this is just as important, and perhaps I’d argue even more important, than the physical skill necessary to score goals. This is why we often see hockey seasons morph into wars of attrition where the best teams will sacrifice games over the course of the season in order to further build the identity that will help lead them to their ultimate goal of a Cup. The Bruins would be glad to sacrifice a late-November game against the Rangers in order to instill a physical fear in the Rangers and a camaraderie in their locker room that will pay dividends going forward.

This is where fighting and physical play become integral in the successful development of a team; teammates that can look at one another down the line and know that they have the will and ability to defend each others' honor when called upon will likewise lay themselves on the line to further the interests of the team. Its human psychology at its most rudimentary level. We can discuss the impact of a physical team culture on camaraderie, intimidation over opponents, and so on but I must say it really is common sense when looked at logically.

Again, there is a reason why every little gnat on Boston seems to play a bit bigger and skate with a sense of entitlement each time they step on the ice. They know that when the Brian Boyle's of the world attempt to exert a bit of fortitude against them they have a legion of guys, including their captain, willing to demonstrate that the ice is theirs. And while our fans gleefully exclaim when Chara is off the ice for 5 minutes (a loser's mentality, I might add), the Bruins gladly accept the short-term Chara for Boyle tradeoff for the long-run benefit of furthering their identity while demonstrating physical superiority over their opponents.

There are those that do not have the capacity to grasp or the will to understand the concept of the mental idiosyncrasies of athletes, human beings, to affect the outcome of sport through a season long campaign. These folks do not understand hockey at its most fundamental level. These folks see every game in a vacuum and think that the team with the fastest skaters, most precise shooters, and highest score total at the end of the game will win the championship. Thankfully that is not the game that I have grown to love.

The beauty of hockey is that there are so many different ways to win and compete. The one constant of all championship teams that maintained success over multiple seasons was that they never went too extreme in one team-building direction, rather they had a bit of everything (toughness, skill, speed, offense-defense-goaltending) while still emphasizing their key identity.
I think this is still actually how it works regardless of all the other psychology and behaviorism involved.

__________________
Ail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 04:11 PM
  #16
NYROrtsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,930
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGgator60 View Post
I've lurked long enough (I go back to the pre-9/11/01 days of HFboards when we had single line threads) while holding my tongue due to time constraints but after reading some of the patently false narratives as of late, coupled with the Rangers' pathetic performance on the ice I felt the need to speak up.


The "cheapshot deterrent" argument has some merit but to me is tertiary to the main tenet of fighting and toughness in hockey; promoting a culture of brotherhood within the team. Fighting and physical play promote this. Again, the overwhelming majority of NHL players support fighting in hockey. I'll defer to them and enjoy a more entertaining product as a fan but I digress...

I'm a fan who's hockey acumen developed right at the dawn of our most recent "glory years" which culminated in an ECF loss to the Flyers in 97. This of course ushered in the dark ages of Rangers hockey. As I saw the Kamensky’s, the Fleury’s, the Driver’s, and their ilk sully the ice on the 7th floor of MSG I learned quickly that there was much more to hockey than goals, assists, skating, and the scoreboard at the end of one game. Many of our dark aged teams were constructed to excel in those areas yet these rosters remained fatally flawed. The Rangers were being built to play in a vacuum devoid of human emotion, psychology, and without appreciating the “war” rather than the “battle.”

NHL hockey is a game in which the collective wills and talents of a locker room must build and culminate throughout a season to peak at just the right time. It comes down to establishing an identity that can win and being able to execute on that identity in the harshest of circumstances. The Ranger teams in years past never had an identity or never had the horses to win with the identity that they attempted to emulate (2011 being the closest we came). The mental aspect of this is just as important, and perhaps I’d argue even more important, than the physical skill necessary to score goals. This is why we often see hockey seasons morph into wars of attrition where the best teams will sacrifice games over the course of the season in order to further build the identity that will help lead them to their ultimate goal of a Cup. The Bruins would be glad to sacrifice a late-November game against the Rangers in order to instill a physical fear in the Rangers and a camaraderie in their locker room that will pay dividends going forward.

This is where fighting and physical play become integral in the successful development of a team; teammates that can look at one another down the line and know that they have the will and ability to defend each others' honor when called upon will likewise lay themselves on the line to further the interests of the team. Its human psychology at its most rudimentary level. We can discuss the impact of a physical team culture on camaraderie, intimidation over opponents, and so on but I must say it really is common sense when looked at logically.

Again, there is a reason why every little gnat on Boston seems to play a bit bigger and skate with a sense of entitlement each time they step on the ice. They know that when the Brian Boyle's of the world attempt to exert a bit of fortitude against them they have a legion of guys, including their captain, willing to demonstrate that the ice is theirs. And while our fans gleefully exclaim when Chara is off the ice for 5 minutes (a loser's mentality, I might add), the Bruins gladly accept the short-term Chara for Boyle tradeoff for the long-run benefit of furthering their identity while demonstrating physical superiority over their opponents.

There are those that do not have the capacity to grasp or the will to understand the concept of the mental idiosyncrasies of athletes, human beings, to affect the outcome of sport through a season long campaign. These folks do not understand hockey at its most fundamental level. These folks see every game in a vacuum and think that the team with the fastest skaters, most precise shooters, and highest score total at the end of the game will win the championship. Thankfully that is not the game that I have grown to love.

The beauty of hockey is that there are so many different ways to win and compete. The one constant of all championship teams that maintained success over multiple seasons was that they never went too extreme in one team-building direction, rather they had a bit of everything (toughness, skill, speed, offense-defense-goaltending) while still emphasizing their key identity.
Deserves to be quoted again.

Too many around here don't understand or think highly enough of these aspects of the game.

NYROrtsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 04:11 PM
  #17
Ail
k.
 
Ail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mysidia
Country: United States
Posts: 15,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGgator60 View Post
then we clearly have bigger fundamental roster problems.

That much we can agree on.

Ail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 04:12 PM
  #18
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ailurophile View Post
I think this is still actually how it works regardless of all the other psychology and behaviorism involved.
Seriously. This guy sounds like George Patton.

Toughness/guys that fight is something that a successful/highly skilled team looks to add at the deadline these days. This team has so many holes, and so much goal scoring problems, it seems silly to harp on this stuff when its outside the realm of the highest priorities.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 04:14 PM
  #19
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYROrtsFan View Post
Deserves to be quoted again.

Too many around here don't understand or think highly enough of these aspects of the game.
I think too many people understand that scoring goals is more important and that, contrary to the fantasies some guys want to portray around here, there is no direct correlation between beating somebody up and scoring goals.

Solve the goal scoring issues and I'd be happy to entertain acquiring a tough guy or two.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 04:18 PM
  #20
TankLarkin
Registered User
 
TankLarkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Seriously. This guy sounds like George Patton.

Toughness/guys that fight is something that a successful/highly skilled team looks to add at the deadline these days. This team has so many holes, and so much goal scoring problems, it seems silly to harp on this stuff when its outside the realm of the highest priorities.
chicken egg my friend. If it helps a team mentally and/or give the team energy in games like last night then who is to say it couldn't make a difference on the scoreboard. I would argue it certainly would (does). A balanced team is a playoff team. See Boston.

TankLarkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 04:42 PM
  #21
NYR2047
WebMD Trained Doctor
 
NYR2047's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,663
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGgator60 View Post
I've lurked long enough (I go back to the pre-9/11/01 days of HFboards when we had single line threads) while holding my tongue due to time constraints but after reading some of the patently false narratives as of late, coupled with the Rangers' pathetic performance on the ice I felt the need to speak up.


The "cheapshot deterrent" argument has some merit but to me is tertiary to the main tenet of fighting and toughness in hockey; promoting a culture of brotherhood within the team. Fighting and physical play promote this. Again, the overwhelming majority of NHL players support fighting in hockey. I'll defer to them and enjoy a more entertaining product as a fan but I digress...

I'm a fan who's hockey acumen developed right at the dawn of our most recent "glory years" which culminated in an ECF loss to the Flyers in 97. This of course ushered in the dark ages of Rangers hockey. As I saw the Kamensky’s, the Fleury’s, the Driver’s, and their ilk sully the ice on the 7th floor of MSG I learned quickly that there was much more to hockey than goals, assists, skating, and the scoreboard at the end of one game. Many of our dark aged teams were constructed to excel in those areas yet these rosters remained fatally flawed. The Rangers were being built to play in a vacuum devoid of human emotion, psychology, and without appreciating the “war” rather than the “battle.”

NHL hockey is a game in which the collective wills and talents of a locker room must build and culminate throughout a season to peak at just the right time. It comes down to establishing an identity that can win and being able to execute on that identity in the harshest of circumstances. The Ranger teams in years past never had an identity or never had the horses to win with the identity that they attempted to emulate (2011 being the closest we came). The mental aspect of this is just as important, and perhaps I’d argue even more important, than the physical skill necessary to score goals. This is why we often see hockey seasons morph into wars of attrition where the best teams will sacrifice games over the course of the season in order to further build the identity that will help lead them to their ultimate goal of a Cup. The Bruins would be glad to sacrifice a late-November game against the Rangers in order to instill a physical fear in the Rangers and a camaraderie in their locker room that will pay dividends going forward.

This is where fighting and physical play become integral in the successful development of a team; teammates that can look at one another down the line and know that they have the will and ability to defend each others' honor when called upon will likewise lay themselves on the line to further the interests of the team. Its human psychology at its most rudimentary level. We can discuss the impact of a physical team culture on camaraderie, intimidation over opponents, and so on but I must say it really is common sense when looked at logically.

Again, there is a reason why every little gnat on Boston seems to play a bit bigger and skate with a sense of entitlement each time they step on the ice. They know that when the Brian Boyle's of the world attempt to exert a bit of fortitude against them they have a legion of guys, including their captain, willing to demonstrate that the ice is theirs. And while our fans gleefully exclaim when Chara is off the ice for 5 minutes (a loser's mentality, I might add), the Bruins gladly accept the short-term Chara for Boyle tradeoff for the long-run benefit of furthering their identity while demonstrating physical superiority over their opponents.

There are those that do not have the capacity to grasp or the will to understand the concept of the mental idiosyncrasies of athletes, human beings, to affect the outcome of sport through a season long campaign. These folks do not understand hockey at its most fundamental level. These folks see every game in a vacuum and think that the team with the fastest skaters, most precise shooters, and highest score total at the end of the game will win the championship. Thankfully that is not the game that I have grown to love.

The beauty of hockey is that there are so many different ways to win and compete. The one constant of all championship teams that maintained success over multiple seasons was that they never went too extreme in one team-building direction, rather they had a bit of everything (toughness, skill, speed, offense-defense-goaltending) while still emphasizing their key identity.
Is there a sparknotes version of this?

NYR2047 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 04:49 PM
  #22
Mikos87
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,688
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGgator60 View Post
I've lurked long enough (I go back to the pre-9/11/01 days of HFboards when we had single line threads) while holding my tongue due to time constraints but after reading some of the patently false narratives as of late, coupled with the Rangers' pathetic performance on the ice I felt the need to speak up.


The "cheapshot deterrent" argument has some merit but to me is tertiary to the main tenet of fighting and toughness in hockey; promoting a culture of brotherhood within the team. Fighting and physical play promote this. Again, the overwhelming majority of NHL players support fighting in hockey. I'll defer to them and enjoy a more entertaining product as a fan but I digress...

I'm a fan who's hockey acumen developed right at the dawn of our most recent "glory years" which culminated in an ECF loss to the Flyers in 97. This of course ushered in the dark ages of Rangers hockey. As I saw the Kamensky’s, the Fleury’s, the Driver’s, and their ilk sully the ice on the 7th floor of MSG I learned quickly that there was much more to hockey than goals, assists, skating, and the scoreboard at the end of one game. Many of our dark aged teams were constructed to excel in those areas yet these rosters remained fatally flawed. The Rangers were being built to play in a vacuum devoid of human emotion, psychology, and without appreciating the “war” rather than the “battle.”

NHL hockey is a game in which the collective wills and talents of a locker room must build and culminate throughout a season to peak at just the right time. It comes down to establishing an identity that can win and being able to execute on that identity in the harshest of circumstances. The Ranger teams in years past never had an identity or never had the horses to win with the identity that they attempted to emulate (2011 being the closest we came). The mental aspect of this is just as important, and perhaps I’d argue even more important, than the physical skill necessary to score goals. This is why we often see hockey seasons morph into wars of attrition where the best teams will sacrifice games over the course of the season in order to further build the identity that will help lead them to their ultimate goal of a Cup. The Bruins would be glad to sacrifice a late-November game against the Rangers in order to instill a physical fear in the Rangers and a camaraderie in their locker room that will pay dividends going forward.

This is where fighting and physical play become integral in the successful development of a team; teammates that can look at one another down the line and know that they have the will and ability to defend each others' honor when called upon will likewise lay themselves on the line to further the interests of the team. Its human psychology at its most rudimentary level. We can discuss the impact of a physical team culture on camaraderie, intimidation over opponents, and so on but I must say it really is common sense when looked at logically.

Again, there is a reason why every little gnat on Boston seems to play a bit bigger and skate with a sense of entitlement each time they step on the ice. They know that when the Brian Boyle's of the world attempt to exert a bit of fortitude against them they have a legion of guys, including their captain, willing to demonstrate that the ice is theirs. And while our fans gleefully exclaim when Chara is off the ice for 5 minutes (a loser's mentality, I might add), the Bruins gladly accept the short-term Chara for Boyle tradeoff for the long-run benefit of furthering their identity while demonstrating physical superiority over their opponents.

There are those that do not have the capacity to grasp or the will to understand the concept of the mental idiosyncrasies of athletes, human beings, to affect the outcome of sport through a season long campaign. These folks do not understand hockey at its most fundamental level. These folks see every game in a vacuum and think that the team with the fastest skaters, most precise shooters, and highest score total at the end of the game will win the championship. Thankfully that is not the game that I have grown to love.

The beauty of hockey is that there are so many different ways to win and compete. The one constant of all championship teams that maintained success over multiple seasons was that they never went too extreme in one team-building direction, rather they had a bit of everything (toughness, skill, speed, offense-defense-goaltending) while still emphasizing their key identity.
Really well written. Way to step up. Here's someone who knows the game of hockey.

Mikos87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 04:50 PM
  #23
NGgator60
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 65
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ailurophile View Post
I think this is still actually how it works regardless of all the other psychology and behaviorism involved.
In the vacuum it will. Within the holistic entirety of a season and ultimately the playoffs we begin to see trends emerge and the war of attrition runs it's course. We've only seen eight winners of the Presidents Trophy lift the Cup. Why didn't we just give them all championship rings and let them hit the golf course early?

NGgator60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 04:56 PM
  #24
Rust Heisenberg
Registered User
 
Rust Heisenberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,271
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGgator60 View Post
I've lurked long enough (I go back to the pre-9/11/01 days of HFboards when we had single line threads) while holding my tongue due to time constraints but after reading some of the patently false narratives as of late, coupled with the Rangers' pathetic performance on the ice I felt the need to speak up.


The "cheapshot deterrent" argument has some merit but to me is tertiary to the main tenet of fighting and toughness in hockey; promoting a culture of brotherhood within the team. Fighting and physical play promote this. Again, the overwhelming majority of NHL players support fighting in hockey. I'll defer to them and enjoy a more entertaining product as a fan but I digress...

I'm a fan who's hockey acumen developed right at the dawn of our most recent "glory years" which culminated in an ECF loss to the Flyers in 97. This of course ushered in the dark ages of Rangers hockey. As I saw the Kamensky’s, the Fleury’s, the Driver’s, and their ilk sully the ice on the 7th floor of MSG I learned quickly that there was much more to hockey than goals, assists, skating, and the scoreboard at the end of one game. Many of our dark aged teams were constructed to excel in those areas yet these rosters remained fatally flawed. The Rangers were being built to play in a vacuum devoid of human emotion, psychology, and without appreciating the “war” rather than the “battle.”

NHL hockey is a game in which the collective wills and talents of a locker room must build and culminate throughout a season to peak at just the right time. It comes down to establishing an identity that can win and being able to execute on that identity in the harshest of circumstances. The Ranger teams in years past never had an identity or never had the horses to win with the identity that they attempted to emulate (2011 being the closest we came). The mental aspect of this is just as important, and perhaps I’d argue even more important, than the physical skill necessary to score goals. This is why we often see hockey seasons morph into wars of attrition where the best teams will sacrifice games over the course of the season in order to further build the identity that will help lead them to their ultimate goal of a Cup. The Bruins would be glad to sacrifice a late-November game against the Rangers in order to instill a physical fear in the Rangers and a camaraderie in their locker room that will pay dividends going forward.

This is where fighting and physical play become integral in the successful development of a team; teammates that can look at one another down the line and know that they have the will and ability to defend each others' honor when called upon will likewise lay themselves on the line to further the interests of the team. Its human psychology at its most rudimentary level. We can discuss the impact of a physical team culture on camaraderie, intimidation over opponents, and so on but I must say it really is common sense when looked at logically.

Again, there is a reason why every little gnat on Boston seems to play a bit bigger and skate with a sense of entitlement each time they step on the ice. They know that when the Brian Boyle's of the world attempt to exert a bit of fortitude against them they have a legion of guys, including their captain, willing to demonstrate that the ice is theirs. And while our fans gleefully exclaim when Chara is off the ice for 5 minutes (a loser's mentality, I might add), the Bruins gladly accept the short-term Chara for Boyle tradeoff for the long-run benefit of furthering their identity while demonstrating physical superiority over their opponents.

There are those that do not have the capacity to grasp or the will to understand the concept of the mental idiosyncrasies of athletes, human beings, to affect the outcome of sport through a season long campaign. These folks do not understand hockey at its most fundamental level. These folks see every game in a vacuum and think that the team with the fastest skaters, most precise shooters, and highest score total at the end of the game will win the championship. Thankfully that is not the game that I have grown to love.

The beauty of hockey is that there are so many different ways to win and compete. The one constant of all championship teams that maintained success over multiple seasons was that they never went too extreme in one team-building direction, rather they had a bit of everything (toughness, skill, speed, offense-defense-goaltending) while still emphasizing their key identity.
I feel bad for you. You hit the nail on the head completely, yet this entire concept will likely fly over the head of 85% of the board here. Kudos.

The attitude of this team is off. I've been saying that this team lacks resilience. Resilience isn't a skill, it's a mentality. It's the unwillingness to allow defeat. This year's Rangers team doesn't have this character trait, although it is undeniably one of the key components of a successful team.

You can argue until your face is blue and you want to smash your keyboard from frustration - you'll still get everyone here who believes you only win with goal scorers.

Boston has 0 consistent goal scorers. They score by committee. Their attitude and team mentality (which you refer to as identity) is what wins them their games and makes them successful.

Rust Heisenberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2013, 05:06 PM
  #25
Riverdale
Registered User
 
Riverdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 5,590
vCash: 500
Good post NGgator.

I'm usually not one to be fawning over toughness but you bring up some great points.

Riverdale 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 05:37 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.