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

2013-14 New York Rangers Breakup Day

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-17-2014, 07:16 PM
  #376
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufheben View Post
How are they not going to get outplayed when their strategy is literally to give the Kings the puck, then get off the ice?
I highly, highly doubt that that was anyone's strategy. Like wat fuk? Srs?

Perhaps that is how it played out but I can assure you with out a doubt that no one drew up that game plan. Literally no person in professional sports would even consider doing that. The Rangers couldn't get anything going, a large portion of that is because of the Kings, a smaller part of it is that the Rangers just weren't good enough at executing.

Circumstances outside of the Rangers control made them play like that, if they had an answer for the Kings relentless play and determination they would have used it and the game wouldn't have looked the same.

Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 07:20 PM
  #377
Aufheben
Global Moderator
#RollWithHayes
 
Aufheben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Angola
Posts: 13,875
vCash: 69
No game plan? That exact scenario is what AV is known for. It's his decision to make a line change every time they dump the puck in.

__________________
Aufheben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 07:26 PM
  #378
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufheben View Post
No game plan? That exact scenario is what AV is known for. It's his decision to make a line change every time they dump the puck in.
When you spend an entire shift defending it's hard to dump and chase.

He had a game plan, and I highly doubt he was ever known for not having one. These hyperbolic statements need to stop.

I think I am done with this conversation... I will agree to disagree. Even though I'm right.

Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 07:27 PM
  #379
Aufheben
Global Moderator
#RollWithHayes
 
Aufheben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Angola
Posts: 13,875
vCash: 69
What hyperbole? You seriously don't think certain coaches sit on leads? After having Torts as a coach for years?

Whatev, just my opinion, I think AV was out coached by Sutter.

Aufheben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 07:29 PM
  #380
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufheben View Post
What hyperbole? You seriously don't think certain coaches sit on leads?
You seriously think AV didn't have a game plan?

Like I said, I'm done. I disagree. It's ok, I disagree with lots of people. I think the Rangers simply got out worked. That wasn't sitting on a lead, that was hanging on for dear life.

I didn't disagree with him being out coached to an extent, but it certainly wasn't by a drastic amount. His team is much more battle tested and executed about 10x better than the Rangers. Full marks to them.

Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 07:31 PM
  #381
Aufheben
Global Moderator
#RollWithHayes
 
Aufheben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Angola
Posts: 13,875
vCash: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
You seriously think AV didn't have a game plan?

Like I said, I'm done. I disagree. It's ok, I disagree with lots of people. I think the Rangers simply got out worked. That wasn't sitting on a lead, that was hanging on for dear life.
No? All I've been saying this whole conversation is that he had a game plan. And that game plan bit us in the ass, like it usually does to any team that tries to win that way.

Aufheben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 07:33 PM
  #382
Lundquest
♔ -30- ♔
 
Lundquest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 1,418
vCash: 572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
You seriously think AV didn't have a game plan?

Like I said, I'm done. I disagree. It's ok, I disagree with lots of people. I think the Rangers simply got out worked. That wasn't sitting on a lead, that was hanging on for dear life.

I didn't disagree with him being out coached to an extent, but it certainly wasn't by a drastic amount. His team is much more battle tested and executed about 10x better than the Rangers. Full marks to them.
I definitely think AV had a game plan. I just don't think it was one that was smart or efficient when having a lead in the third period.

Lundquest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 07:35 PM
  #383
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufheben View Post
No? All I've been saying this whole conversation is that he had a game plan. And that game plan bit us in the ass, like it usually does to any team that tries to win that way.
I see where the confusion came from....

Either way, I still disagree that what you saw was his gameplan. He wanted to push the pace and said so a multitude of times, he also didn't think the Rangers were executing the way they should be. I think people are too used to Torts and whenever they see that happen in a game they think it's intentional, I don't.

Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 07:37 PM
  #384
Machinehead
Moderator
#SearchForMcDonagh
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 40,621
vCash: 500
What AV said about the Rangers being closer than the '11 Canucks is spot on. All it takes to see that is just a little thought. But all the main boards is capable of mustering is "duh...7 is bigger than 5....lol I can count mommy"

Just about every recent Cup loser was closer than the Canucks.

It's a large miracle that series went 7 games, and it masks what in reality was one of the biggest finals blowouts in NHL history.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 07:37 PM
  #385
Aufheben
Global Moderator
#RollWithHayes
 
Aufheben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Angola
Posts: 13,875
vCash: 69
Fair enough.

Aufheben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 07:38 PM
  #386
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
What AV said about the Rangers being closer than the '11 Canucks is spot on. All it takes to see that is just a little thought. But all the main boards is capable of mustering is "duh...7 is bigger than 5....lol I can count mommy"

Just about every recent Cup loser was closer than the Canucks.

It's a large miracle that series went 7 games, and it makes what in reality was one of the biggest finals blowouts in NHL history.
Easy, the East's best team had to take the West's 6th best team to 7 games.

Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 07:42 PM
  #387
Richter Scale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,137
vCash: 500
I suppose it [short shifts] is an indicator of whether you think the lackluster 3rd periods were due to a conscious coached decision or an LA team picking up their game. And if you admit the Rangers shortened their shifts in the 3rd, then they consciously changed something and maybe it wasn't all just because LA was the better team. But it seems like there is a better way to get at both points (whether LA's dominance was because of LA or because of a coached change in strategy that left the door open to LA) and bickering about shift lengths is missing the forest for the trees. As usual, I think the answer is somewhere int he middle.

When the series ended I felt (and posted) that the Rangers' 3rd periods in the SCF were maddening - and that either the players lacked the killer instinct to close out winnable games or the coach was asking them to play the game the way they did, which left the door wide open for LA.

Here is my take after having had some time to reflect on the series and the playoffs, which may offer a different perspective or angle from which to argue your points:


Look at game 6 of the Montreal series. The 3rd period of that game, the Rangers put on a defensive and neutral zone clinic. Just played it absolutely masterfully (even if I ****in hated watching it and felt it was a moronic strategy). They clogged the neutral zone, forced turnovers or dump ins, got control of the puck, got it deep into the Canadiens zone, laid off of the forecheck unless they felt completely safe doing so, and then changed lines. Rinse, repeat. Over and over and over until the clock hit 0:00. Shifts were shorter. Rarely did they press their advantages, attack, or initiate a strong or consistent forecheck. If you can watch that 3rd period and not believe that the game they were playing was not a consciously coached change to the way they had played the game up to that point, then I don't know what to say (because I 100 % disagree, and guess we'll have to agree to disagree). But if you think they changed something about how they played there, then I'm not sure why you can believe they changed their playstyle for that 3rd period with the lead but not in the LA series.

Had they been losing that game, that 3rd period would have looked a LOT different in terms of how the Rangers played.

Now fast forward to the LA Kings series. The Rangers revert to the same type of game in the 3rd periods in which they had leads, but because LA is a better team than MTL, not one of the games looked like game 6 against MTL did in the 3rd. So on the one hand, yea you have to give credit to LA for that.

And I believe LA may well have been the better team in the SCF. But sorry, I refuse to believe that - despite their proficiency at executing comebacks - they were so much better than NYR that they were able to outplay the Rangers in the manner that they did in virtually every 3rd period just by virtue of being the better team and finding the extra gear they needed to tie it up. You're telling me that the Rangers were attacking as hard as they could in each of those 3rd periods and not changing their strategy to try to protect the lead? You're really telling me the Rangers were so bad that they just couldn't hang with LA for even a single 3rd period in which they had a lead? Not buyin' it. It was a coached strategy to sit on the lead, not take risks, reign in the forecheck, get the puck deep in LA's zone, and try to force the other team to go the length of the ice time and again in order to get any chances against. Just didn't work out that way. And, in my opinion, was a moronic strategy, which was just begging LA (or whoever they played) to get back into the game (which LA did; albeit twice with the help of god awful ref calls - but we don't need to go there).

LA deserves credit for being able to break through the Rangers' 3rd period defensive shell, unlike MTL in game 6. But I'm pretty convinced the way they played those 3rd periods was a coached system. And a pretty stupid one to stick with after he saw LA was able to poke as many holes in it as they did (though, of course, easy for me to say from my keyboard since I'm not making that decision; and I suppose it did get NYR to the SCF after all).

Richter Scale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 07:46 PM
  #388
Rust Heisenberg
Registered User
 
Rust Heisenberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 8,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richter Scale View Post
I suppose it [short shifts] is an indicator of whether you think the lackluster 3rd periods were due to a conscious coached decision or an LA team picking up their game. And if you admit the Rangers shortened their shifts in the 3rd, then they consciously changed something and maybe it wasn't all just because LA was the better team. But it seems like there is a better way to get at both points (whether LA's dominance was because of LA or because of a coached change in strategy that left the door open to LA) and bickering about shift lengths is missing the forest for the trees. As usual, I think the answer is somewhere int he middle.

When the series ended I felt (and posted) that the Rangers' 3rd periods in the SCF were maddening - and that either the players lacked the killer instinct to close out winnable games or the coach was asking them to play the game the way they did, which left the door wide open for LA.

Here is my take after having had some time to reflect on the series and the playoffs, which may offer a different perspective or angle from which to argue your points:


Look at game 6 of the Montreal series. The 3rd period of that game, the Rangers put on a defensive and neutral zone clinic. Just played it absolutely masterfully (even if I ****in hated watching it and felt it was a moronic strategy). They clogged the neutral zone, forced turnovers or dump ins, got control of the puck, got it deep into the Canadiens zone, laid off of the forecheck unless they felt completely safe doing so, and then changed lines. Rinse, repeat. Over and over and over until the clock hit 0:00. Shifts were shorter. Rarely did they press their advantages, attack, or initiate a strong or consistent forecheck. If you can watch that 3rd period and not believe that the game they were playing was not a consciously coached change to the way they had played the game up to that point, then I don't know what to say (because I 100 % disagree, and guess we'll have to agree to disagree). But if you think they changed something about how they played there, then I'm not sure why you can believe they changed their playstyle for that 3rd period with the lead but not in the LA series.

Had they been losing that game, that 3rd period would have looked a LOT different in terms of how the Rangers played.

Now fast forward to the LA Kings series. The Rangers revert to the same type of game in the 3rd periods in which they had leads, but because LA is a better team than MTL, not one of the games looked like game 6 against MTL did in the 3rd. So on the one hand, yea you have to give credit to LA for that.

And I believe LA may well have been the better team in the SCF. But sorry, I refuse to believe that - despite their proficiency at executing comebacks - they were so much better than NYR that they were able to outplay the Rangers in the manner that they did in virtually every 3rd period just by virtue of being the better team and finding the extra gear they needed to tie it up. You're telling me that the Rangers were attacking as hard as they could in each of those 3rd periods and not changing their strategy to try to protect the lead? You're really telling me the Rangers were so bad that they just couldn't hang with LA for even a single 3rd period in which they had a lead? Not buyin' it. It was a coached strategy to sit on the lead, not take risks, reign in the forecheck, get the puck deep in LA's zone, and try to force the other team to go the length of the ice time and again in order to get any chances against. Just didn't work out that way. And, in my opinion, was a moronic strategy, which was just begging LA (or whoever they played) to get back into the game (which LA did; albeit twice with the help of god awful ref calls - but we don't need to go there).

LA deserves credit for being able to break through the Rangers' 3rd period defensive shell, unlike MTL in game 6. But I'm pretty convinced the way they played those 3rd periods was a coached system. And a pretty stupid one to stick with after he saw LA was able to poke as many holes in it as they did (though, of course, easy for me to say from my keyboard since I'm not making that decision; and I suppose it did get NYR to the SCF after all).
The knock on AV has always been his inability to deviate from his system. He rarely makes adjustments, especially in game ones.

He has a plan. It is clearly successful. The way he coaches, his system is predicated on trust. I assume that to him, deviating from his plan when there is turbulence could breach the trust his players have for his system.

Rust Heisenberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 09:30 PM
  #389
BlaqICE
Registered User
 
BlaqICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
Country: United States
Posts: 214
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to BlaqICE Send a message via AIM to BlaqICE Send a message via MSN to BlaqICE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richter Scale View Post
I suppose it [short shifts] is an indicator of whether you think the lackluster 3rd periods were due to a conscious coached decision or an LA team picking up their game. And if you admit the Rangers shortened their shifts in the 3rd, then they consciously changed something and maybe it wasn't all just because LA was the better team. But it seems like there is a better way to get at both points (whether LA's dominance was because of LA or because of a coached change in strategy that left the door open to LA) and bickering about shift lengths is missing the forest for the trees. As usual, I think the answer is somewhere int he middle.

When the series ended I felt (and posted) that the Rangers' 3rd periods in the SCF were maddening - and that either the players lacked the killer instinct to close out winnable games or the coach was asking them to play the game the way they did, which left the door wide open for LA.

Here is my take after having had some time to reflect on the series and the playoffs, which may offer a different perspective or angle from which to argue your points:


Look at game 6 of the Montreal series. The 3rd period of that game, the Rangers put on a defensive and neutral zone clinic. Just played it absolutely masterfully (even if I ****in hated watching it and felt it was a moronic strategy). They clogged the neutral zone, forced turnovers or dump ins, got control of the puck, got it deep into the Canadiens zone, laid off of the forecheck unless they felt completely safe doing so, and then changed lines. Rinse, repeat. Over and over and over until the clock hit 0:00. Shifts were shorter. Rarely did they press their advantages, attack, or initiate a strong or consistent forecheck. If you can watch that 3rd period and not believe that the game they were playing was not a consciously coached change to the way they had played the game up to that point, then I don't know what to say (because I 100 % disagree, and guess we'll have to agree to disagree). But if you think they changed something about how they played there, then I'm not sure why you can believe they changed their playstyle for that 3rd period with the lead but not in the LA series.

Had they been losing that game, that 3rd period would have looked a LOT different in terms of how the Rangers played.

Now fast forward to the LA Kings series. The Rangers revert to the same type of game in the 3rd periods in which they had leads, but because LA is a better team than MTL, not one of the games looked like game 6 against MTL did in the 3rd. So on the one hand, yea you have to give credit to LA for that.

And I believe LA may well have been the better team in the SCF. But sorry, I refuse to believe that - despite their proficiency at executing comebacks - they were so much better than NYR that they were able to outplay the Rangers in the manner that they did in virtually every 3rd period just by virtue of being the better team and finding the extra gear they needed to tie it up. You're telling me that the Rangers were attacking as hard as they could in each of those 3rd periods and not changing their strategy to try to protect the lead? You're really telling me the Rangers were so bad that they just couldn't hang with LA for even a single 3rd period in which they had a lead? Not buyin' it. It was a coached strategy to sit on the lead, not take risks, reign in the forecheck, get the puck deep in LA's zone, and try to force the other team to go the length of the ice time and again in order to get any chances against. Just didn't work out that way. And, in my opinion, was a moronic strategy, which was just begging LA (or whoever they played) to get back into the game (which LA did; albeit twice with the help of god awful ref calls - but we don't need to go there).

LA deserves credit for being able to break through the Rangers' 3rd period defensive shell, unlike MTL in game 6. But I'm pretty convinced the way they played those 3rd periods was a coached system. And a pretty stupid one to stick with after he saw LA was able to poke as many holes in it as they did (though, of course, easy for me to say from my keyboard since I'm not making that decision; and I suppose it did get NYR to the SCF after all).
Well said. I agree 100% with this. You could see how they suddenly seemed to be able to compete with L.A. in the overtimes.

BlaqICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 10:16 PM
  #390
showjaxx
Registered User
 
showjaxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raspewtin View Post
If our god damn star players had played like our god damn star players, this would've gone to 7 games. Richards and Girardi, trash. Pure trash that final. Despicable performances from both of them. Nash had 3 ****ing goals. Bad luck or not, 3 god damn goals. Kreider gets beaten on TWO OT breakaways. Hagelin had a SH breakaway to end game 1. We hit like 4 posts in game 5. It's obviously completely unfair to expect this team to convert on every chance, but if they had finished an AVERAGE amount of their chances, we'd probably still be playing.
The Rangers have two star players and their names are Henrik Lundqvist and Ryan McDonagh. And people wonder why we only averaged 2 goals per game in the finals.

Richards, Girardi, Nash, Kreider and Hagelin are not star players.

showjaxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 11:07 PM
  #391
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust Heisenberg View Post
The knock on AV has always been his inability to deviate from his system. He rarely makes adjustments, especially in game ones.

He has a plan. It is clearly successful. The way he coaches, his system is predicated on trust. I assume that to him, deviating from his plan when there is turbulence could breach the trust his players have for his system.
You know, I swear it's extremely rare that I read of a coach who is good at in-game adjustments. That was a knock on Sutter in Calgary, if I'm remembering correctly, too. Babcock. That's about it.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 11:23 PM
  #392
Rust Heisenberg
Registered User
 
Rust Heisenberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 8,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
You know, I swear it's extremely rare that I read of a coach who is good at in-game adjustments. That was a knock on Sutter in Calgary, if I'm remembering correctly, too. Babcock. That's about it.
I'm just stating what his knock is and was before he was signed by us. I remember when he was a potential candidate that a lot of Canucks fans were talking about his inability to make in-game adjustments.

Sutter is really the only coach i've seen that has been able to use these to his advantage. Torts would try and the team would regress... lol.

Rust Heisenberg 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 07:49 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.