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

How Good Are the 2013-14 Rangers (Part II)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-17-2014, 08:21 PM
  #76
Blueshirt Special
Registered User
 
Blueshirt Special's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,398
vCash: 500
This is one of those years where I will not plan on selling any first round games in order to pay for later rounds....

I'll take my son so he at least gets to see a playoff game

If we make it

__________________
WIN NOW

"I just close my eyes and shoot."
Blueshirt Special is offline  
Old
03-17-2014, 08:56 PM
  #77
Nanaki
Call me Red
 
Nanaki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 2,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Better than comparing them to 1994.
Please no more 1994

Nanaki is offline  
Old
03-17-2014, 09:15 PM
  #78
jerseyjinx94
I jinx players.
 
jerseyjinx94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Miami, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,890
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by twistedwrister17 View Post
Please no more 1994
It's pointless to compare teams from previous seasons who faced different circumstances, I agree

jerseyjinx94 is offline  
Old
03-17-2014, 09:24 PM
  #79
Callagraves
Block shots
 
Callagraves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverTheCap View Post
The Rangers definitely had a reputation of being one of the harder teams to play against back in 2012:



http://espn.go.com/new-york/nhl/stor...-jersey-devils



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...article554366/

My god, this is upsetting.


I feel like we traded a potential cup winner for Rick Nash.

Callagraves is offline  
Old
03-17-2014, 09:55 PM
  #80
DrRecchi
Registered User
 
DrRecchi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,780
vCash: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Callagraves View Post
My god, this is upsetting.


I feel like we traded a potential cup winner for Rick Nash.
Dubinsky and Anisimov was too much.

DrRecchi is offline  
Old
03-17-2014, 10:03 PM
  #81
aufheben
Global Moderator
#RIPClendening
 
aufheben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 32,819
vCash: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Callagraves View Post
My god, this is upsetting.


I feel like we traded a potential cup winner for Rick Nash.
Took a gamble and lost.

__________________

aufheben is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 12:31 AM
  #82
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverTheCap View Post
The Rangers definitely had a reputation of being one of the harder teams to play against back in 2012:



http://espn.go.com/new-york/nhl/stor...-jersey-devils



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...article554366/
Just a "thinking outside the box" question...

How much of the "the Rangers are really hard to play against" stemmed from them actually being hard to play against as opposed to them, for the first time in forever, simply having an extremely good record?

Before the Rangers were the darlings of the league Big Joe in SJ didn't have the nicest things to say about us after a victory.

McRanger is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 12:35 AM
  #83
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Callagraves View Post
My god, this is upsetting.


I feel like we traded a potential cup winner for Rick Nash.
If you think Dubinsky and Anisimov were going to bring us the cup... then I wonder how your hockey scouting acumen hasn't been harnessed by Glen Sather and company.

McRanger is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 12:40 AM
  #84
aufheben
Global Moderator
#RIPClendening
 
aufheben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 32,819
vCash: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
Just a "thinking outside the box" question...

How much of the "the Rangers are really hard to play against" stemmed from them actually being hard to play against as opposed to them, for the first time in forever, simply having an extremely good record?

Before the Rangers were the darlings of the league Big Joe in SJ didn't have the nicest things to say about us after a victory.
I'd say it was both because we were hard to play against and a good team. Maybe I missed something but that team was very obviously tough to play against IMO.

aufheben is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 12:48 AM
  #85
Garfinkel1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: CT
Posts: 3,448
vCash: 500
We need to go back to AA, Dubi and Gaborik instead of Nash, Brassard and that other chump

Garfinkel1 is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 08:01 AM
  #86
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 18,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
I tend to view "scared" and "intimidated" as synonyms.

But you can replace it with "scared" or "concerned" or "nervous" or whatever.
I did not say that the Bruins were scared of that Rangers team either.

Let's not spend another thread talking about semantics, one was trashed enough with the "blows away" "compares favorably to" idiocy.

In this case, in your most honest heart of hearts, do you think the Bruins would prefer to face the '11-12 team or this current paper tiger?

True Blue is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 08:02 AM
  #87
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 18,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aufheben View Post
Took a gamble and lost.
Maybe it would have been better to be a mouse.

True Blue is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 08:20 AM
  #88
Ail
NOPE
 
Ail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mysidia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Callagraves View Post
My god, this is upsetting.


I feel like we traded a potential cup winner for Rick Nash.
Yet, as usual, people lost in the Nash trade gloss over the fact so many other things went wrong the following season and would have affected the team potentially putting together another season like that and forget that Rick Nash was not one of them.

While most people seem to feel in hindsight they broke up a perennial contender, I personally feel they never had a chance in hell at repeating that success given all the other factors. I'm so glad we get to hear about it now for years to come.

__________________
EARTH WAS A MISTAKE
Ail is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 09:02 AM
  #89
OverTheCap
Registered User
 
OverTheCap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 10,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
Just a "thinking outside the box" question...

How much of the "the Rangers are really hard to play against" stemmed from them actually being hard to play against as opposed to them, for the first time in forever, simply having an extremely good record?

Before the Rangers were the darlings of the league Big Joe in SJ didn't have the nicest things to say about us after a victory.
Well, a big part of the reason that the Rangers had such a good record and were 11th in scoring is because they managed to outwork the opposition and grind other teams down on the forecheck. It certainly wasn't due to their talent. If they had a good record due to their skill, I doubt coaches and analysts would wrongly attribute it to hard work. I don't think Peter DeBoer is making this up and it seems like a pretty accurate assessment of that team.

The Rangers had a reputation of being soft prior to the 2011-12, and they were still trying to finding their identity 10 games into the season, so I'm not fully surprised that Thornton said they were soft (although the Rangers played fair from a soft game, I believe Prust fought Clowe). The Rangers started playing some of their best hockey after Thornton's comments so he may have sparked them in a way.

OverTheCap is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 09:20 AM
  #90
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 17,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ail View Post
Yet, as usual, people lost in the Nash trade gloss over the fact so many other things went wrong the following season and would have affected the team potentially putting together another season like that and forget that Rick Nash was not one of them.

While most people seem to feel in hindsight they broke up a perennial contender, I personally feel they never had a chance in hell at repeating that success given all the other factors. I'm so glad we get to hear about it now for years to come.
Yes. How often do teams overachieve two seasons in a row? They needed an upgrade, and as much as I didn't like/don't like how they went about it, something needed to happen.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 09:26 AM
  #91
Blueshirt Special
Registered User
 
Blueshirt Special's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ail View Post
Yet, as usual, people lost in the Nash trade gloss over the fact so many other things went wrong the following season and would have affected the team potentially putting together another season like that and forget that Rick Nash was not one of them.

While most people seem to feel in hindsight they broke up a perennial contender, I personally feel they never had a chance in hell at repeating that success given all the other factors. I'm so glad we get to hear about it now for years to come.
Read the bold please.

I was very proud of that team but they overacheived with a shot blocking strategy that had them literally in pieces by the time the playoffs came around. First 2 rounds were also extremely physical and by the ECF we simply had nothing left. I really did not expect to beat the devils at that point and was really surprised they got as far as they did.

That being said it was fun to finally get that far after so many years (last was '97?), but it is a tribute to Torts for squeezing that much out of what was really a team poorly constructed for a long playoff run.

Blueshirt Special is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 09:29 AM
  #92
mandiblesofdoom
Registered User
 
mandiblesofdoom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ail View Post
While most people seem to feel in hindsight they broke up a perennial contender, I personally feel they never had a chance in hell at repeating that success given all the other factors. I'm so glad we get to hear about it now for years to come.
It's a stretch to call the 2011-2012 team a perennial contender. They were not that. However, neither is the current version. And to get from there to here we basically gave up draft picks.

mandiblesofdoom is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 10:07 AM
  #93
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 18,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
They needed an upgrade, and as much as I didn't like/don't like how they went about it, something needed to happen.
Something happened all right. And the price was to weaken draft prospects. And they are now nowhere near of being upgraded

True Blue is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 10:35 AM
  #94
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 17,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
Something happened all right. And the price was to weaken draft prospects. And they are now nowhere near of being upgraded
Not that I'm confident, but that remains to be seen.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 10:38 AM
  #95
Blueshirt Special
Registered User
 
Blueshirt Special's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,398
vCash: 500
You could certainly make a case today that the Nash deal was a bad one, but our history of bringing in high profile scorer's who's production falls off a cliff suggests there is something else at work here. The culture.

Everyone is tired of hearing about the '94 team and Mark Messier, but the fact of the matter is, he is the only one that made it happen. He changed the culture, and we won.

I'm not suggesting that bringing in Mess as coach or GM would guarantee us a Cup, but I am convinced that the same type of culture change is required in order for The New York Rangers to seriously contend for a Cup and not just aspire to "make the playoffs and see what happens".

It's not (just) about the personnel, it's about expectations and accountability.


Last edited by Blueshirt Special: 03-18-2014 at 10:39 AM. Reason: high profile
Blueshirt Special is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 10:42 AM
  #96
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 17,803
vCash: 500
I think the notion that all high profile scorers fall off a cliff is a myth. I was putting together a list a while back, but never finished it. There are plenty of examples where it did work out.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 10:48 AM
  #97
Blueshirt Special
Registered User
 
Blueshirt Special's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
I think the notion that all high profile scorers fall off a cliff is a myth. I was putting together a list a while back, but never finished it. There are plenty of examples where it did work out.
I don't disagree with that. Jagr certainly gave us some good production, and I'm sure there are others, but my point is, for the most part, they do not play with the urgency we hoped for. And it seems like a lot of their goals come when it matters little to the outcome of a particular game.

Tonight against the sens, we will probably win that game, score 6 goals and either Nash or MSL will have a hatty. That would be pretty typical. But where were they against the canes?

Blueshirt Special is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 10:50 AM
  #98
Thirty One
k.
 
Thirty One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,622
vCash: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshirt Special View Post
I don't disagree with that. Jagr certainly gave us some good production, and I'm sure there are others, but my point is, for the most part, they do not play with the urgency we hoped for. And it seems like a lot of their goals come when it matters little to the outcome of a particular game.

Tonight against the sens, we will probably win that game, score 6 goals and either Nash or MSL will have a hatty. That would be pretty typical. But where were they against the canes?
I will take production over urgency any day of the week.

Thirty One is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 10:53 AM
  #99
McSauer
Defense Wins Games
 
McSauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 488
vCash: 500
What people never seem to bring up when talking about that 'amazing' 2012 team was that they peaked in February and played .500 hockey from there on out and through the playoffs. It's a long season and we were just riding a great hot streak that ended--plain and simple.

McSauer is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 10:54 AM
  #100
Blueshirt Special
Registered User
 
Blueshirt Special's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
I will take production over urgency any day of the week.
No doubt, but "timely" goals are a product of urgency.

Blueshirt Special is offline  
Closed Thread

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 01:45 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.