I know I'm opening myself up to a fair amount of criticism. I'm not overreacting to the 3 game losing streak. I don't think that a 3 game sample undoes a 60+ game sample, that said I've always felt that we overachieved all season long. Some arguments for overachieving. We are the same roster as the team that needed help to make the playoffs for the most part save Brad Richards, Gabby, a young D improving (especially MDZ), and Lundqvist who is having one of the best seasons ever for a goaltender. Richards is a good player, but hasn't been great this season. Gabby is a very good player but you can argue that his production has been offset by the lack of production from other areas, names Dubinsky, Boyle etc. Our D improved, but really by THAT much? It's just one year and they're still young. Is Lundqvist playing over his head even for Lundqvist? I personally always thought that he had it in him to have a season like this and that's why for years I've been his biggest critic. I think this season is a lot more on him than on the defense. However, some may argue that he's playing over his head if you look at his career stats.
Arguments for underachieving. Some of the stuff I used for why we're overachieving may actually be more of an appropriate argument for why we're underachieving. Several forwards, namely Richards, Dubinsky, and Boyle are playing well below their abilities. I don't think that Boyle is as good as he was last year, but I think he can be better than he's shown. He's the weakest case. Dubinsky, while a streaky player and not my favorite on the roster, is playing completely below his capabilities. IMO there is just ZERO reason why Callahan should have that many more goals than him. Callahan is not that much more talented, if at all. Especially early in their careers I thought Dubinsky was the more talented player. Now that may be untrue, but is there any reason in the world why there's such a big gap? There are ice time and linemates reasons (including PP), but frankly Cally earned that and Dubi hasn't. Richards, there's not much to say. He was a 90+ point scorer twice in his career, granted once was during the inflated 05-06 season, but he still did it another time. He was playing with talent, but he wasn't exactly on the Detroit Red Wings either. Is he even on pace for 60 points this season? Some other reasons for underachieving. We've been missing either Staal or Sauer, or both for the vast majority of the season. Even when Staal came back he wasn't very good for a while. Sauer is not our best defenseman, but defensively he's incredibly solid. He's still probably our 4th best defenseman defensively (MDZ is 5th), but not by much. Now it's also unfair, we've had injuries, but there have been fewer than most teams in the league. Still, I think it's only fair to mention those injuries.
So have we overachieved, underachieved, or did just about what we should have done?
"We're overachieving. With the down years that Richards, Dubinsky, and others have had, we shouldn't have won this many games."
Or you could say:
"We're right where we should be. It's surprising that we're there considering the down years that Richards, Dubinsky, and others have had, but this is how good we should be."
"We're overachieving. With the down years that Richards, Dubinsky, and others have had, we shouldn't have won this many games."
Or you could say:
"We're right where we should be. It's surprising that we're there considering the down years that Richards, Dubinsky, and others have had, but this is how good we should be."
Yeah as I posted. You can say we're overachieving with the down years of Richards and Dubi, but you can also say that's why we're underachieving.
I would say the Rangers have played where I felt they would. I figured they would be in the race for their Division with 15 games left. I think this team is getting ready to go on a big 5-7 year run. If the Rangers weren,t well stocked with young players on their team and in the farm system(Kreider) I think Sather would have gotten Nash.
I would say we did just about right. We're a defensive team with holes in the offense. The D and goaltending carried us to the top but now the lack of offense is catching up to us and the D is tired. I expected this.
I would say we did just about right. We're a defensive team with holes in the offense. The D and goaltending carried us to the top but now the lack of offense is catching up to us and the D is tired. I expected this.
I think this is the bigger problem. 5 games and counting of giving up 3 or more goals, and 4 of those were with Lundqvist in net. Lundqvist went something like 12 straight before that not allowing 3 goals in a game. How many teams in the league can score 4 goals consistently to cover up that defense/goaltending?
I think this is the bigger problem. 5 games and counting of giving up 3 or more goals, and 4 of those were with Lundqvist in net. Lundqvist went something like 12 straight before that not allowing 3 goals in a game. How many teams in the league can score 4 goals consistently to cover up that defense/goaltending?
Right now the D is the bigger problem, but they wouldn't be faltering if they had to hold teams to 1 goal every night over 65 or so games.
No, we didn't. This is a bad slump and we can play better. The defense was immaculate earlier in the year.
Of course we hit the slump right into the playoffs and will very probably carry it into the playoffs.
Honestly, maybe I'm asking too much of them. I don't know if I'd say they were immaculate earlier in the year. Better than last year, but THAT much better? I'm not so sure. I just think Lundqvist is finally playing up to his capabilities this year. In prior years he'd have a horrible month or so. Even when he didn't have that horrible month, he'd give up a soft goal on a fairly regular basis. He'd go like 10 games and give up a soft goal in 9 of them. Aside from a few games, even including his current slump, he hasn't had that this year. In prior years his slumps would consist of him giving up 5 or 6 goals in a short span of games. Now he's giving up 3 and it's a bad game for him.
I picked overachieved but if you asked me for next yr I would expect them battling for top spot in the East...........so they are ahead of the game and its a pleasant surprise
its been a great yr overall Ranger fans. Be proud and start to be confident cause even with the hard losses in the last few this team has bounced back all yr. Rather have them falter now then going into the playoffs
Hey all 3 loses in this slump were on the road. Let's see what they can do at the garden before we turn the lights out.
But this team has been MONEY on the road all season until recently. They had practically the same road and home record, very recently and probably the best road record in the league.
But this team has been MONEY on the road all season until recently. They had practically the same road and home record, very recently and probably the best road record in the league.
Yeah but home ice is still home ice. They give it to you in the playoffs for having more points for a reason.
If you guys have overacheived its only by a few wins here and there. What it comes down to in my opinion is that as good as Lundqvist is, I dont think you could expect him to put up a +940 save percentage all year. But you guys are still a damn good team and easily a top 5 team in the entire league at the very least. You will definitly advance in the playoffs, how far though is the question.
Yeah but home ice is still home ice. They give it to you in the playoffs for having more points for a reason.
Yeah. I'm not TOO worried about losing to the Devils, Senators, and Blackhawks on the road. I'll push the panic button if we don't beat the Islanders at home. Then I'll start to question this team's heart. They should be able to beat the Islanders at home. They should allow fewer than 3 goals and win a solid game. Probably too much to ask, but I'd like to see a relatively deciding win to see that this team is pissed off.
With the lack of pure talent on our roster, we have overachieved for sure. This is mostly thanks to Lundqvist. Smoke and mirrors don't last forever, as we have seen the last 3 games and as we will see as Pittsburgh passes us by.
To me the Rangers have arrived a year ahead of schedule. The window is now wide open for the next several years. Need more from Richards, Dubinsky and Staal and need to shore up scoring but there's plenty of pure talent -- it just happens to be on the back end. Not the worse thing in the world.
"I used to pray for good things . I used to ask the Hockey Gods for puck luck for the NYR .
Now all I want is Torts the smug stupid goatee clown to be fired , . I hate Torts . Please hockey gods make him get fired. Please Sean punch him in face" -- Dorado
I find it really hard to believe that it's possible to overachieve for 60 games. The Oilers overachiever in the beginning of the season when Khabibulin's GAA was .95 to start the season. Dallas overachieved in the beginning. We haven't been overachieving. We've seen what this team is capable of, and 60 odd games is a big enough sample size. We've hit a rough patch. It happens. I think we have enough leadership to snap out of it. This team has faced distractions all season. They can work themselves out of it.
I'm using the 2010-2011 season as a guide. The Rangers were fighting for the eighth seed. The improvement:
A)Henrik played like an elite goalie (few bad goals against)-- Done.
B)MDZ stepped up his game. --Done
C)Bickel - A nice surprise
D)Stralman- A step up
E)Mcdonaugh- Plays major minutes
F)The return of Gabs
G)Hagelin-Welcome to the majors
The downside:
A)Dubs-One step forward, one step back.
B)The PP ? Still MIA.- I thought the addition of Richards would be the difference in the PP.
In sum, last year plus a legit PP puts the team in the top 4.
Instead, the number 1 seed with almost no power play is the definition of an overachieving team.
