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 are 4th youngest in the NHL; 2nd among skaters

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-12-2011, 03:20 PM
  #51
Basement Cat
RIP Loko
 
Basement Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA!!!
Country: Poland
Posts: 10,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardof425 View Post
Not even close. Schneider is a stud and Marty is old and in great decline. Do you watch hockey?
Oh boy. Would love to read your reasoning.

And no, I don't watch hockey.

Basement Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 03:49 PM
  #52
Okposofan21
Registered User
 
Okposofan21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York, New York
Country: United States
Posts: 934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vipernsx View Post
What's even more interesting is that the Islanders are the 8th oldest team in the league, 2nd oldest defense, and 17th among forwards. I guess guys like Pandolfo and Mottau are killing their average.
hit the nail on the head. the islanders only have one top 9 foward over the age of 30 which is Rolston.

Rolston (38) Eaton (34) Staios (37) Mottau (33) Pandolfo (36) and Nabakov (35) are all UFA's at the end of the year and will be replaced with younger players. We seem to have anywhere between four to six players either in Bridgeport or in Russia that will have the chance to compete for roster spots next year and all of them are 24 or younger.

Okposofan21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 08:19 PM
  #53
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Last season we were the 5th youngest team in the league with the youngest blueline in the league.
And proved to be first round fodder.

Just goes to show that being young doesn't equate to being good ... although that's practically a heresy 'round these parts.

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 09:29 PM
  #54
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vipernsx View Post
What's even more interesting is that the Islanders are the 8th oldest team in the league, 2nd oldest defense, and 17th among forwards. I guess guys like Pandolfo and Mottau are killing their average.

The Isles have been signing every reject willing to take their money. It's funny that they always talk about how the Rangers bribe people to come to New York, but guys like Richards and Gaborik wanted to come here and could have gotten similar or more money elsewhere. Meanwhile, the Isles are literally taking every elderly and borderline NHL reject they could find.

They have quite a few elderly players:


DEFENSE

Mark Streit
Mike Mottau
Mark Eaton

OFFENSE

Marty Reasoner
Brian Rolston
Steve Staios
Jay Pandolfo

That's almost half the skaters that will turn at least 34 this season. In this bunch, only Streit has decent value.

But Isle fans think they are a single top-4 defenseman away from being a very good playoff team. Well, maybe by "top-4" they mean someone who would be one of the 4 greatest defensemen in NHL history. Yup, that might actually make them a playoff team.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 09:34 PM
  #55
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
And proved to be first round fodder.

Just goes to show that being young doesn't equate to being good ... although that's practically a heresy 'round these parts.

You seem unable to grasp long-term v. short-term. Being young is not going to help you in the short-term. If anything, you want to have experienced veterans if the goal is to win immediately. But where being young is good is in the long term. First, young players are more likely to stay with you. Second, they are likely to improve.

An elderly team gets worse by virtue of players retiring, leaving as UFAs or just getting old and bad. A young team gets better and better.

Had we lost in the first round last year with a team full of Mottaus, Eatons and Streits, I would be pretty upset. But when I see a very young team, I can't help but think, "give it another year or two until they all mature and get better."

It's a lot more rational to expect a rookie to get better than to expect a 20-year veteran to improve.


Last edited by Beacon: 10-12-2011 at 09:51 PM.
Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 09:44 PM
  #56
wolfgaze
Interesting Cat
 
wolfgaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
And proved to be first round fodder.

Just goes to show that being young doesn't equate to being good ... although that's practically a heresy 'round these parts.
Actually, it's more cause and effect if you look at the make up of our team... The reason we were first round fodder was because we were the 5th youngest team in the league with the youngest and most inexperienced blueline in the league... I read fans upset about the results last season and upset with the coach and I don't really think they get the context in which this team was operating last season, given the personnel... I'd say it's fairly obvious that the only time being "young" equates with being "good", is when teams are able to routinely draft elite talent in the early rounds, and that's obviously not a situation the Rangers organization has been facing...

wolfgaze is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 11:55 PM
  #57
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
The reason we were first round fodder was because we were the 5th youngest team in the league with the youngest and most inexperienced blueline in the league
Not really. The reason we were first round fodder is because we had one of the least talented offensive teams in the league. The reason we were first round fodder is that the team was practically incapable of employing any kind of high-end offensive zone strategy.

Quote:
I read fans upset about the results last season and upset with the coach and I don't really think they get the context in which this team was operating last season, given the personnel.
This definitely applies to a segment of the fanbase, but then again, there is a segment of the fanbase (as this thread shows) that believes that having a young team means that, in time, your team is bound to be successful. The thing is, it doesn't really matter how young or old players are. What matters is how good a player is, regardless of age. The trick is not to field a young team. It's to field a team featuring young players, some of whom are good going on better, and some of whom are good going on great (or already great to begin with).

That's kind of the problem for this team. This team has been operating under the same context for a lot longer than just last year. You can keep churning out solid young complimentary and role players, but it doesn't really do much for you if those players aren't surrounding serious offensive talent.

It's great that we got Richards. We really look like we should have a good team going forward. But that's kind of the whole point. We DESPERATELY needed Richards, because no matter how young are players were, they aren't good enough. They're all so young and so great that they can barely make the playoffs and do nothing once they're there.

Don't forget, once Kreider gets here (which is probably next year), that means pretty much every top prospect this team has drafted during this so-called "rebuild" will be here. At some point, you have to take the next step. They certainly realize that, otherwise they wouldn't have signed Richards. I don't think some people around here, realize that, though.

I could have sworn the goal was to play great hockey and win a Stanley Cup (or at least consistently compete for it), not to see who has the youngest team.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 12:04 AM
  #58
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
A young team gets better and better.
So as long as a team is young, they're just going to get better. It's as simple as that, right? As long as they're young. What happens when the players just aren't good enough to get so much better that you have a good team, or does that not fit into the "youth=success?"


Quote:
Had we lost in the first round last year with a team full of Mottaus, Eatons and Streits, I would be pretty upset. But when I see a very young team, I can't help but think, "give it another year or two until they all mature and get better."
But the Islanders didn't lose in the first round last year. They weren't even in the playoffs. They were actually rebuilding their team, and part of the rebuilding process means filling your roster out with cheap, veteran role players like Mike Mottau and Mark Eaton. BTW, I wish I had a team full of Mark Streits, but that's probably because, despite the fact that this team has been "rebuilding" for nearly a decade, they still don't have a competent puck moving defenseman, and Mark Streit is one of the best offensive defensemen in the league. Could easily have been a Ranger, too, but then again, the Rangers were too busy rebuilding by signing the much worse Wade Redden to a much larger contract. Then again, the Rangers could have not signed either player, but that would have required them to actually commit to a rebuild, rather than doing what every other team does (actually keeping draft picks and prospects and developing them in house) and calling it a rebuild.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 12:19 AM
  #59
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
So as long as a team is young, they're just going to get better. It's as simple as that, right? As long as they're young. What happens when the players just aren't good enough to get so much better that you have a good team, or does that not fit into the "youth=success?"

Yeah, it's very hard to have a conversation with someone who just wants to be emotional about things and twist every word just to suit his own emotions.

First, I didn't even say youth=success. Re-read what I wrote. What I said was that young players generally tend to get better and old players generally tend to get worse.

Let me put it this way. Who do you suggest is more likely to improve and become better in 3 years, McDonagh or Streit? Erixon or Mark Eaton?

If I have a middling team made up of young players, I can rely on most of them at least keeping up with what they are doing now, and many more will get better than get worse. A team where half the guys are still developing and growing as players is likely to improve.

But if I have a middling team made up of 35 year olds, then my expectation has to be that some will get worse, some will retire and some will leave as UFAs. A team that depends on its 35 year olds is bound to get worse with time.

Are there exceptions? Sure. But 9 times out of 10, time has a positive effect on a young team and a negative effect on an old team.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 01:10 AM
  #60
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Yeah, it's very hard to have a conversation with someone who just wants to be emotional about things and twist every word just to suit his own emotions.

First, I didn't even say youth=success. Re-read what I wrote. What I said was that young players generally tend to get better and old players generally tend to get worse.
Here is your first post of the thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
The Rangers are the 4th youngest team in the NHL. Excluding goalies (who last longer than forwards because they don't get hit), we are the second youngest team.

Our blueline is by far the youngest at 24.2 years old, a year and a half younger than the next team. Of the 30 teams, 26 have bluelines that are over 27 years old on average, so that's a 4 year gap.

Considering the plethora of kids still in the farm (Kreider, Fasth, Thomas, Miller, Bourque, Hagelin, Lindberg, McIlrath, etc), the future is looking very bright.

http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_AverageAge.php
You don't say a thing about the quality of any of these players. You mention only their age, and then finish with a comment about the future being very bright. Why is the future bright? Because they are all young? I don't see the correlation between youth and success. There is a crucial link in the chain missing: talent and quality. The only tangible connection between youth and success is that teams that achieve success primarily because of youth do so with a quality of player that this team sorely lacks.

Quote:
Let me put it this way. Who do you suggest is more likely to improve and become better in 3 years, McDonagh or Streit? Erixon or Mark Eaton?
No doubt about it. McDonagh and Erixon will definitely improve more than either Streit or Eaton will. But does that mean either McDonagh or Erixon will ever be as good as Streit, and isn't that the more important question? Will they ever be as good as Letang? Keith? Enstrom? Karlsson? Chara? Lidstrom? Visonvsky?

Whether they'll improve or not isn't the issue. It's how much they'll improve that matters. Players like McDonagh, Erixon, Sauer, Girardi, Staal, for example, all stand to continue improving and becoming strong all-around players. But will any of them be great offensive defenseman? IMO, no. You can say Del Zotto will be. Fine. I hope so. I don't think so, but I hope so, because if he doesn't, guess what? You have to go out and get one.

I have no doubt that Dubinsky, Anisimov, Stepan, Prust, etc. will all get better and continue improving. Are any of them going to be Kopitar? Malkin? Backstrom? Zetterberg?

Quote:
Are there exceptions? Sure. But 9 times out of 10, time has a positive effect on a young team and a negative effect on an old team.
But who is saying that being old is the answer? As far as I can tell, most of the league's best teams have a nice mix of youth and experience, but most importantly, they have, whether young or old, great players. The Rangers have a lot of young players, many of whom are decent, solid, above-average, good or even very good. But how many of them are great?

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 04:15 AM
  #61
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
You don't say a thing about the quality of any of these players. You mention only their age, and then finish with a comment about the future being very bright.
It was presumed. I figured I am not talking to inanimate objects here, nor even to people who are clueless about sports.

I presumed that you knew that our team made the playoffs last year. I presumed that you knew that this makes them about average (#16 among 30 teams). I presumed that you knew that our goals against were already terrific. I presumed that you know enough about hockey to grasp basic, very basic things.

Our team was average last year. But it was average because so many players are not yet developed and many of them aren't even in the NHL. As guys like Stepan and McDonagh mature, they will hopefully get better. And as guys like Kreider, Fasth, Thomas, Miller, etc join the Rangers, at least some of them too will make thte team better. Honestly, is this really something I have to spell out for you? Isn't this something that could be easily understood? Do you watch hockey or do you just come to troll here?



Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
No doubt about it. McDonagh and Erixon will definitely improve more than either Streit or Eaton will.
That's not the point. The point was that we are already an average team and they are a crappy team. If our players will get better and their players will get worse or outright leave, then ...

Now, if I were comparing the Rangers to, say, Detroit, you could argue that my point is invalid because Detroit is better than the Rangers and us being young and them being old still does not mean that we will necessarily catch up to them (though I think we will).

But when we are already a better team, and on top of that we are younger, the conclusion is something you should be able to arrive at on your own.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
The Rangers have a lot of young players, many of whom are decent, solid, above-average, good or even very good. But how many of them are great?

And THAT is why the last few drafts in a row I argued for drafting high-risk, high-return guys who has top-3 talent, but fell down due to injury, size, etc.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 04:30 AM
  #62
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,862
vCash: 500
And for the record, you CAN build a team without having any stars. Let me remind you of the "interchangeable parts" team across the Hudson in the 1990s. Bobby Holik was on the 4th line. Bobby Carpenter was on the 1st line. And the difference between them was pretty much non-existent (in terms of quality, not style).

Today is a different era, but I think this is the one thing that still stands. If the Rangers can roll out four solid second lines, plus All-Star goaltending, they won't need to have a first line.

So yeah... if in the next 3 years, Thomas, Fasth, Miller, Kreider and Zuccarello all develop into quality second liners, and we still keep Anisimov, Stepan, Dubinsky, Callahan, Boyle, and Brad Richards (Gabby will be gone by then), the team will be in good shape regardless of anything. If you can roll out 4 lines full of guys capable of scoring 20-25 goals, you'll be alright.

9 guys score 22 goals per person on average. That's 198 goals.
3 fourth line guys score 10 each. That's 30 goals.
Another 5 goals from part time Rangers.
Last year without any PMD's playing well, the Rangers had 27 goals from the blue line, so let's say it's the same number here.

This comes out to 260 goals, about the goal total that Vancouver, the league leader in goals, had last season.

I am not saying it will work out this way, I'm just saying that even a team that is seemingly lacking a superstar scorer could potentially succeed by have a lot of second line and 2-3 line tweener depth.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 07:24 AM
  #63
donpaulo
Capt Barry Beck
 
donpaulo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: nihon
Country: Japan
Posts: 1,614
vCash: 500
to me youth represents inconsistency, and I think as rangers fans most of us have come to expect an up and down season. The main difference being that there is now upside down the road instead of do it now decision making.

Hopefully at some point Slats will stop trolling for chum and make a deal for a kid with real talent. After what the devils offered for Kovalchuk ... anything is possible.

I am still hoping to see Wolski pan out but with his "groin" issues I guess we will have to wait and see what he does with his ice time.

the lack of drafting an offensive star player is probably the #1 reason NY hasn't made more of a splash. Personally I think NY needs a puck carrying dman more than a forward, but at this point I would take forward too

..........
as far as Marty the goalie goes I think the operative word on him is the past tense as in he WAS an awesome goalie.

In 2010 his save percentage was a pedestrian .903 which ranked him 56th in the NHL in that category.

The question is why did he dip to 903 ? was it age or a defense that lacks top end skill players like he enjoyed during his prime time.

I think its a bit of both

I also liked the look of Kincaid in the devils games I saw in the preseason.

donpaulo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 08:59 AM
  #64
Bardof425*
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basement Cat View Post
Oh boy. Would love to read your reasoning.

And no, I don't watch hockey.
It's simple really, Schneider earned the right to play over lounge last year and many Nuck fans would like to see Roberto dealt to clear the way for this guy. He may be the best young goalie in the league. Marty on the other hand is getting worse with every passing month and will retire after this year IMO.

Bardof425* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 07:53 PM
  #65
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
And for the record, you CAN build a team without having any stars. Let me remind you of the "interchangeable parts" team across the Hudson in the 1990s.
Just to be clear, we’re talking about the 90s Devils teams with Hall of Famer Scott Stevens, future Hall of Famer Scott Niedermayer, and future Hall of Famer Martin Brodeur, right? The same team with:
two-time 50+ goal scorer Stephane Richer
two-time All Star and three-time 40+ goal scorer John MacLean
four-time All Star Bill Guerin
9th-all-time playoff goal scorer Claude Lemieux
two-time All Star Bobby Holik
two-time All Star Neal Broten

That team “without any stars,” right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
And the difference between them was pretty much non-existent (in terms of quality, not style).
The quality difference between Scott Stevens and Bruce Driver was pretty much non-existent? Between Tom Chorske and Stephane Richer? Between Tommy Albelin and Scott Niedermayer?

I'm sorry, but if you can't see the difference in quality between Bill Guerin and Bob Carpenter, I don't know what to say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
9 guys score 22 goals per person on average. That's 198 goals.
And how many 3rd liners in this league score 22 goals? Put differently, how many teams in this league sport three 22-goal scorers on their third lines? Because that’s what your math requires.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
3 fourth line guys score 10 each. That's 30 goals
And yet on the Vancouver team to whom you hope to compare this hypothetical Ranger club, not a single 4th liner achieved 10 goals. You demand that all three Ranger 4th liners do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
I am not saying it will work out this way
Considering there’s not a team in the league for whom it DOES work out this way, it’s probably for the best that you don’t claim it will.

Frankly, your hypothetical proves exactly the reverse of what you want. No team gets the contributions you require, which only demonstrates the dire need for top-caliber talent on the top lines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
it's very hard to have a conversation with someone who just wants to be emotional about things
He asked you a straightforward question: “What happens when the players just aren't good enough to get so much better that you have a good team, or does that not fit into the "youth=success?"

In what way was he emotional? Or, put differently, are you certain HE’S the one being emotional here? Or put differently yet again, why try to make this about another poster? His question was about hockey, so why is your answer about him?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
What I said was that young players generally tend to get better
No. You said “A young team gets better and better”

You are modifying your statement NOW with your “generally,” but that was not your initial stance, so don’t bother to be offended when someone attacks your initial stance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting
You don't say a thing about the quality of any of these players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq
It was presumed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq
they will hopefully get better … If our players will get better …
So let me get this straight. Your defense against Sting’s claim that you didn’t bother to mention the quality of players is that the quality of these players “is presumed.”

Then you go on to say you HOPE these players get better and that IF they do, the team will improve.

You’re offering a contradiction here. Why should Sting take as a presumption the quality of these players when you yourself can only offer “hope” and “if” regarding them? Apparently YOU don’t presume they are of high quality if you must base your claims on “hope” and “if.”

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 08:11 PM
  #66
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
The reason we were first round fodder was because we were the 5th youngest team in the league with the youngest and most inexperienced blueline in the league.
No. The reason we were first round fodder was that the team wasn't good enough. Whether that's a function of age remains to be seen. If the current crop of youngsters doesn't get better, "age" was never the issue. "Talent" was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
I'd say it's fairly obvious that the only time being "young" equates with being "good", is when teams are able to routinely draft elite talent in the early rounds
Oh I agree. But there are those here (and I mean on all of HF, not merely the Ranger board) for whom "young" automatically signals "good."

A young team of mediocre talent will be just as mediocre when all those young players reach their prime, and despite the assertions of some here, young players are hardly guaranteed to "get better and better" as we know quite well:
Nigel Dawes
Ivan Baranka
Jamie Lundmark
Jarkko Immonen
Lauri Korpikoski
Petr Prucha
Bobby Sanguinetti
Matt Gilroy
Hugh Jessiman
Garth Murray
Ryan Hollweg
Tom Pyatt

The Rangers themselves seem to believe that Evgeny Grachev is also on that list.

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 08:15 PM
  #67
JeffMangum
I'm v
 
JeffMangum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 58,901
vCash: 50
I'd definitely take Korpikoski off of that list. Scored 19 goals and 40 points in a 2nd/3rd line role for PHO last season.

__________________
Soon.
JeffMangum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 08:16 PM
  #68
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
double post


Last edited by dedalus: 10-16-2011 at 09:20 AM.
dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2011, 10:27 AM
  #69
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,721
vCash: 500
While having a young team beats having an old team, it doesn't mean anything unless they win.

I like McDonagh, Anisimov, and Stepan, but if that ever means anthing in the end is a huge question mark. All teams have gotten much younger than they used to be.

The key is to have your young players be your best players. So far, the Rangers don't have that. Until then you don't have much other than hope.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2011, 05:04 PM
  #70
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
And proved to be first round fodder.

Just goes to show that being young doesn't equate to being good ... although that's practically a heresy 'round these parts.
There's a difference b/t heresy and incorrect characterizations that ignore circumstance and reason. Both get challenged but for different reasons. Being young does not equate to being good now or in the future. But on the same token being young COULD indicate developing and being good in the future. I guess maybe you were sucked in by the hype or something but I thought it was fairly obvious we were a team that was still finding its way but needed more time and would not do much last year.

Besides that weren't we missing our actual capt in the PO's? Werent there some other significant injuries and circumstances? Who were our centers again? Oh a 1st year guy, 2nd year guy and revolving door of hobbled vets and pure crap? Oh yea we were certainly set up for success last year what a dissappointment that we went out in the first round blow up the team it will never get good. If 1st and 2nd year guys can't play well enough to get us in the next round no one can.

Here's a question are young teams suppossed to be good immediately or does it make sense that some young teams including ours have to develop over time and the front office has to round out the roster before competing?

No your implication is correct though young teams should win immediately or else they are nothing more than 1st round fodder and we should ignore the fact that they could improve and just blow up the team.


Last edited by JimmyStart*: 10-15-2011 at 05:17 PM.
JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2011, 05:16 PM
  #71
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
No. The reason we were first round fodder was that the team wasn't good enough. Whether that's a function of age remains to be seen. If the current crop of youngsters doesn't get better, "age" was never the issue. "Talent" was.

Go back to your "heresy post" when you say what you just said here the heresy post is just plain idiocy. This makes actual sense. We could very well not get any better. There's no guarantee Staal, Girardi, Cally or Dubs improve anymore In fact I think each could regress and each has also been injured now significantly. However each could also continue to at least play at their current level which would be great. It's a great core.

Same could be said for basically our entire D corps, Stepan, Artie, Boyle, prust. Each SHOULD continue to get better. Because people understand that you expect youth to get better over time. Again though MDZ's are common as much as Artie's are. I like the look of McD and Sauer though I really do. Same with Stepan and Artie. I think they will continue to improve. Gabs had about as bad a season as possible. So if he improves at all, if BR improves on last years 1st line C performance, if Dubs cally Staal, etc stay about the same and if Step, Artie, McD and Sauer improve or even just stay the same from last year then the team will continue to improve. But unless your plan is for youth to win immediately and blow up the team when they don't your earlier comment is a very poor one.


Oh I agree. But there are those here (and I mean on all of HF, not merely the Ranger board) for whom "young" automatically signals "good."

A young team of mediocre talent will be just as mediocre when all those young players reach their prime, and despite the assertions of some here, young players are hardly guaranteed to "get better and better" as we know quite well:
Nigel Dawes
Ivan Baranka
Jamie Lundmark
Jarkko Immonen
Lauri Korpikoski
Petr Prucha
Bobby Sanguinetti
Matt Gilroy
Hugh Jessiman
Garth Murray
Ryan Hollweg
Tom Pyatt

The Rangers themselves seem to believe that Evgeny Grachev is also on that list.
Im not sure what your point is at the end there. How many of those guys made an impact at the actual NHL level? How many of them did half of what Dubs, Cally, Staal, Artie, Stepan, Sauer, mcD did? Any logical conversation of our future starts with those guys so why compare rotten apples to budding and near mature oranges?


Last edited by JimmyStart*: 10-15-2011 at 05:28 PM.
JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2011, 05:23 PM
  #72
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
It was presumed. I figured I am not talking to inanimate objects here, nor even to people who are clueless about sports.

I presumed that you knew that our team made the playoffs last year. I presumed that you knew that this makes them about average (#16 among 30 teams). I presumed that you knew that our goals against were already terrific. I presumed that you know enough about hockey to grasp basic, very basic things.

Our team was average last year. But it was average because so many players are not yet developed and many of them aren't even in the NHL. As guys like Stepan and McDonagh mature, they will hopefully get better. And as guys like Kreider, Fasth, Thomas, Miller, etc join the Rangers, at least some of them too will make thte team better. Honestly, is this really something I have to spell out for you? Isn't this something that could be easily understood? Do you watch hockey or do you just come to troll here?
That's not the point. The point was that we are already an average team
I've talked with that kid a LOT and he will purposely challenge you on what is common sense if you dont simplify it word for word. I suggest ignoring it when he does that. You know you made a good point, he knows it, he just can';t argue against it so he picks semantics.

As for the bold this is certainly what you expect and we are in a position to let this happen but of course it;s not guaranteed. if it doesn't happen then we are screwed but it seems pretty likely to happen which means we get to play some good hockey over the next 3 or 4 years. But of course for every detroit there's a columbus where every pick bombs. hell we suffered through this in the past where many high picks bombed it sucks but that doesn't guarantee our current group of draftees and prospects will bomb as well yet you read guys like dedalus and sting and it's like they're mad because you actually have hope instead of being all "Grrr the team will continue to suck guaranteed" My ETA for good hockey was the 2012-2013 season. Some people believe BR could kickstart that. I agree he could if our current youth continues to also step up. We will see if it does. To the second bold...well no comment

JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2011, 07:07 PM
  #73
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyStart View Post
I've talked with that kid a LOT and he will purposely challenge you on what is common sense if you dont simplify it word for word. I suggest ignoring it when he does that.
Wow, would you look at that! Another instance where JimmyStart interrupts a thread to levy personal insults at another poster, while failing to address a single thing the person actually said! Shocker. See, you're like a poorly trained dog. There used to be this old technique to housebreaking dogs. If the dog would **** all over the floor, you'd take the dog and rub his face in it. You have a long history of ******** all over this forum. I guess I'm going to have to take you by the back of your proverbial head and rub your face in your own verbal ****, huh? Well, it won't be the first time.

Still, most people here already know that you're a proven liar and in case you don't, here are numerous examples of Jimmy caught with his foot in his mouth (a not uncommon occurrence).

-http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=3...&postcount=174
-http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=3...&postcount=107
-http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=3...&postcount=108
-http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=3...&postcount=123
-http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=3...&postcount=285
-http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=874563&page=4

Jimmy, I know you often exhibit difficulty with reading comprehension, so let me spell it out for you. Often times, when you say things, they happen to be untrue, because you're incredibly dishonest. Thus, it is important to note that we've NEVER talked. Talking certainly isn't the correct term. Perhaps if you worked on widening your vocabulary, you might have the terms necessary to be able to voice the actual thought in your head. As it stands, you picked a word that does a very poor job of describing the event in question. But you know all about challenges. Because, in spite of the fact that nearly every interaction we've ever shared has involved some combination of insults and lies from your end, I've challenged YOU to talk, but you've NEVER been man enough to step up.

Quote:
You know you made a good point, he knows it, he just can';t argue against it so he picks semantics.
Could you highlight exactly where he made a good point, because I'm pretty sure that didn't actually happen. IMO, the OP made no point exceot to highlight the fact that he is quite the homer. I can't argue it? I'm pretty sure I argued it pretty effectively right here. Oh, and I managed to do it without insulting anyone. So to recap. I argued the poster's points without resorting to personal insults. You, on the other hand, didn't have the balls to address a SINGLE THING that I said, but you did insult me. See the difference?

BTW, if you're going to use the word semantics, wouldn't it make sense to first learn how to probably utilize it in a sentence?

Quote:
As for the bold this is certainly what you expect and we are in a position to let this happen but of course it;s not guaranteed. if it doesn't happen then we are screwed but it seems pretty likely to happen which means we get to play some good hockey over the next 3 or 4 years. But of course for every detroit there's a columbus where every pick bombs. hell we suffered through this in the past where many high picks bombed it sucks but that doesn't guarantee our current group of draftees and prospects will bomb as well yet you read guys like dedalus and sting and it's like they're mad because you actually have hope instead of being all "Grrr the team will continue to suck guaranteed" My ETA for good hockey was the 2012-2013 season. Some people believe BR could kickstart that. I agree he could if our current youth continues to also step up. We will see if it does. To the second bold...well no comment
So...to sum up, you've just listed every single one of the most basic and common discussion points on this forum, presented the extremely obvious sides to every argument, failed to put yourself out there on any of them, and generally contributed absolutely nothing to the conversation. I don't understand, didn't you just start a thread where you did the same exact thing and got no responses (other than people telling you that what you posted was boring, very obvious, and essentially not worth posting in the first place)?

Also, could you provide an ETA on when you might actually debate someone on things they say instead of incorrectly interpreting their argument and putting something that has nothing to do with what they actually said into quotes and trying to pass it off like their opinion?

In addition, perhaps you could explan what either Detroit or Columbus have to do with this conversation? The manner in which the Rangers were built has very little in common with either of those teams. It seems like a pretty poorly conceived comparison on your part. Perhaps you should try adding that to your Big If thread. Maybe the sheer ridiculousness of it will offset the general idiocy of everything else already there?


Last edited by NYR Sting: 10-15-2011 at 07:14 PM.
NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2011, 08:06 PM
  #74
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
The same tired complaining and essay writing half of which is either flat out incorrect or misquoted to further an agenda? hank goid I stopped reading these
As I said if you can't debate in a common sense, rational and on topic, non insulting way i won't bother reading your essays. Sting maybe if you actually stayed on topic and stopped ignoring common sense points in favor of trolling people you wouldn't be accussed of trolling. look at my post. There's about 1 line of me mentioning you trolling and a full paragraph of on topic stuff. yet you ignore all the on topic stuff...interesting. Also I like the habit of quoting the same old threads with me in them. Do you do that to yourself too? No ? Oh so you're a hypocrite? Oh ok. Feel free to post legitamte on topic points anytime. as rangeresq pointed out you fail to grasp simple common sense points. No one is accussing me of that so why you foucs on me is beyond comprehension. Yet another essay i ignored totally.


Last edited by JimmyStart*: 10-15-2011 at 08:13 PM.
JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2011, 09:09 AM
  #75
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyStart View Post
There's a difference b/t heresy and incorrect characterizations that ignore circumstance and reason.
Yes. I'm sorry the hyperbole eluded you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyStart View Post
Go back to your "heresy post" when you say what you just said here the heresy post is just plain idiocy. This makes actual sense.
I'm sorry: What?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyStart View Post
There's no guarantee Staal, Girardi, Cally or Dubs improve anymore
You're preaching to the choir. See my reply to wolfgaze.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyStart View Post
Im not sure what your point is at the end there.
It's stated in the paragraph leading up to that list: "despite the assertions of some here, young players are hardly guaranteed to 'get better and better.'"

I suppose I can try to further clarify if necessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyStart View Post
How many of those guys made an impact at the actual NHL level?
None, which is my point.

People can "expect youth to get better over time" but that expectation means exactly nothing, as that list of players demonstrates. Therefore, to proclaim the team "good" merely because it's the 4th youngest also means exactly nothing.

Getting the warm and fuzzies merely because the team is "young" is of no real value to me. I will be content when we have a team that's "good," and that's something we have not had under this regime. We have not had that despite the perpetual promise of youth that the Rangers organization and many fans here harp about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyStart View Post
that doesn't guarantee our current group of draftees and prospects will bomb
I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. If you cannot dispute what I actually write, please refrain from replying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyStart View Post
you read guys like dedalus ... being all "Grrr the team will continue to suck guaranteed"
See above.

dedalus 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 11:41 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.