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
03-18-2014, 11:02 AM
  #101
Aufheben
Moderator
The jam must flow...
 
Aufheben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Angola
Posts: 10,796
vCash: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by McSauer View Post
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.
Well if playing mediocre gets you to the ECF, they must have been a pretty good team nonetheless.

__________________
Aufheben is online now  
Old
03-18-2014, 11:38 AM
  #102
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,247
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Callagraves View Post
My god, this is upsetting.


I feel like we traded a potential cup winner for Rick Nash.
Yeah, no.

As nice as it was to see the Rangers do what they did that year, I never looked at them like a team that was capable of winning a cup.

hard working team that had more flaws than today's team has.

But we got to the Conference Finals and blah blah blah....

pld459666 is online now  
Old
03-18-2014, 11:50 AM
  #103
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Yeah, no.

As nice as it was to see the Rangers do what they did that year, I never looked at them like a team that was capable of winning a cup.

hard working team that had more flaws than today's team has.

But we got to the Conference Finals and blah blah blah....
Eh, I'm not sure that team was all that far off though. Add another scoring threat and I think they would have beaten the Devils. Then what?

NYR Viper is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 11:54 AM
  #104
Blueshirt Special
Registered User
 
Blueshirt Special's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,095
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Viper View Post
Eh, I'm not sure that team was all that far off though. Add another scoring threat and I think they would have beaten the Devils. Then what?
You mean add someone like .....er, uh, nevermind

Blueshirt Special is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 12:00 PM
  #105
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
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?
I specifically asked if teams were "scared" of the the '11-'12 team, but whatever.

Which Bruins team? The '11-'12 one that got eliminated in the first round by Washington or this one?

I think the Bruins would prefer to play whichever Rangers team has non-God-like Lundqvist in net. Since he is around less frequently this year, I would have to go with this team.

If its the '11-'12 Lundqvist then its the one from the last Bruins game where we lost despite out shooting Boston 34-21. They would definitely prefer him over the one from the first 3 games that the Rangers won despite being out shot 70-109.

McRanger is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 12:10 PM
  #106
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McSauer View Post
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.
Did they or did they not have more success than any other Rangers team in the last 20 years?
Quote:
It's a long season and we were just riding a great hot streak that ended--plain and simple.
Never fails to amaze me how many reasons exist for the '11-12 team to be lucky and how many excuses are made for this paper tiger to be unlucky.

I know, I know. If we do not count the October games, and not the recent Philly/Boston/San Jose losses and take out a handful of pesky November losses, this is the absolute best team in the league.

True Blue is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 12:12 PM
  #107
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
I specifically asked if teams were "scared" of the the '11-'12 team, but whatever.
No team in hockey is "scared" of playing another team.
Quote:
Which Bruins team? The '11-'12 one that got eliminated in the first round by Washington or this one?
Rank them as you see fit.
Quote:
If its the '11-'12 Lundqvist then its the one from the last Bruins game where we lost despite out shooting Boston 34-21. They would definitely prefer him over the one from the first 3 games that the Rangers won despite being out shot 70-109.
That team played a team defense that this one can only dream of. And Henke will not get such shot blocking again.

True Blue is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 12:12 PM
  #108
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverTheCap View Post
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.
They were 13th in GF, which is certainly solid enough when you give up very few goals. And yes they certainly did grind out goals at times.

I know I am in the minority but I think that Rangers team looked significantly "tougher" than this team because they spent so much time doing board work due to the fact that their system was a mess. When you spend all your time in the defensive zone trying to force the puck up the boards and diving in front of pucks and all your offensive time playing dump and chase because you have no coherent transition game, you tend to look extremely gritty and hard working.

If I saw my neighbor cutting his grass with a scissor I wouldn't think to myself "that man has great work ethic". I would think "that idiot is making this process a lot more difficult than it needs to be".

McRanger is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 12:24 PM
  #109
Aufheben
Moderator
The jam must flow...
 
Aufheben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Angola
Posts: 10,796
vCash: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
They were 13th in GF, which is certainly solid enough when you give up very few goals. And yes they certainly did grind out goals at times.

I know I am in the minority but I think that Rangers team looked significantly "tougher" than this team because they spent so much time doing board work due to the fact that their system was a mess. When you spend all your time in the defensive zone trying to force the puck up the boards and diving in front of pucks and all your offensive time playing dump and chase because you have no coherent transition game, you tend to look extremely gritty and hard working.

If I saw my neighbor cutting his grass with a scissor I wouldn't think to myself "that man has great work ethic". I would think "that idiot is making this process a lot more difficult than it needs to be".
But they were still better than this team. There is nothing tough about this team, not physicality wise, not strategy wise, IMO. We may have great possession or get a lot of shots, but often have nothing to show for it. What's tough about this team?

Aufheben is online now  
Old
03-18-2014, 12:26 PM
  #110
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
Did they or did they not have more success than any other Rangers team in the last 20 years?

Never fails to amaze me how many reasons exist for the '11-12 team to be lucky and how many excuses are made for this paper tiger to be unlucky.

I know, I know. If we do not count the October games, and not the recent Philly/Boston/San Jose losses and take out a handful of pesky November losses, this is the absolute best team in the league.
That team is certainly the Gold Standard.

Just like Petr Prucha is the Gold Standard for rookie forwards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
No team in hockey is "scared" of playing another team.

Rank them as you see fit.

That team played a team defense that this one can only dream of. And Henke will not get such shot blocking again.
And yet hank only faces .3 shots per game more. That means every 3 or 4 games, he sees one extra shot.

McRanger is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 12:29 PM
  #111
KreiMeARiver*
Have Confidence
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UES
Posts: 6,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aufheben View Post
But they were still better than this team. There is nothing tough about this team, not physicality wise, not strategy wise, IMO. We may have great possession or get a lot of shots, but often have nothing to show for it. What's tough about this team?
And we got even softer and smaller by trading Cally.

Who here would believe it if I told you we'd trade Cally and actually get SMALLER as a result?

haha

Now he's apparently gone cold as ice. I give up....

KreiMeARiver* is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 12:29 PM
  #112
Aufheben
Moderator
The jam must flow...
 
Aufheben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Angola
Posts: 10,796
vCash: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
That team is certainly the Gold Standard.

Just like Petr Prucha is the Gold Standard for rookie forwards.



And yet hank only faces .3 shots per game more. That means every 3 or 4 games, he sees one extra shot.
This team used to defend the slot at all costs, now they invite the opposition in for brunch.

I like AV, I like quite a bit of our players, and I like our transition game; but there's honestly nothing about this team that impresses me in any way.

Aufheben is online now  
Old
03-18-2014, 12:31 PM
  #113
OverTheCap
Registered User
 
OverTheCap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
They were 13th in GF, which is certainly solid enough when you give up very few goals. And yes they certainly did grind out goals at times.

I know I am in the minority but I think that Rangers team looked significantly "tougher" than this team because they spent so much time doing board work due to the fact that their system was a mess. When you spend all your time in the defensive zone trying to force the puck up the boards and diving in front of pucks and all your offensive time playing dump and chase because you have no coherent transition game, you tend to look extremely gritty and hard working.

If I saw my neighbor cutting his grass with a scissor I wouldn't think to myself "that man has great work ethic". I would think "that idiot is making this process a lot more difficult than it needs to be".
They also looked more gritty and hard-working because of the way they scored goals. More deflections, more rebounds, more driving to the net, more screening the goalie. Their shooting percentage was higher than the this year's team despite having less skill.

It wasn't just the running around in their own zone that made them look tough, there was a definite team mindset and willingness to do whatever it takes to win that is sorely absent from most Sather teams. Their mental toughness is what sets them apart - that team found ways to win games even if they were outplayed or down a goal. Now it seems like although we are outplaying opponents, we can't find a way to win.

OverTheCap is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 12:31 PM
  #114
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,046
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by aufheben View Post
This team used to defend the slot at all costs, now they invite the opposition in for brunch.

I like AV, I like quite a bit of our players, and I like our transition game; but there's honestly nothing about this team that impresses me in any way.
aufheben pls

How many afternoon games do they have anyways?

__________________


Rangers Unlimited
Hockey Graphs
Brian Boyle is online now  
Old
03-18-2014, 12:32 PM
  #115
Aufheben
Moderator
The jam must flow...
 
Aufheben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Angola
Posts: 10,796
vCash: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
aufheben pls

How many afternoon games do they have anyways?


Touche.

Aufheben is online now  
Old
03-18-2014, 12:35 PM
  #116
KreiMeARiver*
Have Confidence
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UES
Posts: 6,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
aufheben pls

How many afternoon games do they have anyways?
haha good one

KreiMeARiver* is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 12:40 PM
  #117
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aufheben View Post
This team used to defend the slot at all costs, now they invite the opposition in for brunch.

I like AV, I like quite a bit of our players, and I like our transition game; but there's honestly nothing about this team that impresses me in any way.
When they foul up in the defensive zone they certainly do it spectacularly.

McRanger is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 12:40 PM
  #118
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverTheCap View Post
They also looked more gritty and hard-working because of the way they scored goals. More deflections, more rebounds, more driving to the net, more screening the goalie. Their shooting percentage was higher than the this year's team despite having less skill.
Which I attribute to the fluky nature of goal scoring. They had an unsustainable shooting percentage, even more so when you look talent level and the way they approached offense.

They also won a ridiculous amount of one goal games, mostly due to Hank having a historic year in net.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OverTheCap View Post
It wasn't just the running around in their own zone that made them look tough, there was a definite team mindset and willingness to do whatever it takes to win that is sorely absent from most Sather teams. Their mental toughness is what sets them apart - that team found ways to win games even if they were outplayed or down a goal. Now it seems like although we are outplaying opponents, we can't find a way to win.
Winning breeds confidence. Even if you are winning games you should be losing. And that team definitely was confident.

It is certainly easy to be confident when you have Hank playing like was.

McRanger is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 01:02 PM
  #119
OverTheCap
Registered User
 
OverTheCap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
Which I attribute to the fluky nature of goal scoring. They had an unsustainable shooting percentage, even more so when you look talent level and the way they approached offense.

They also won a ridiculous amount of one goal games, mostly due to Hank having a historic year in net.
Not sure if flukey is an accurate way to describe how the goals were being scored. Even talented teams like Chicago and Boston score goals through rebounds, deflections, crashing the net, etc. And that's how a lot of goals are scored in the playoffs.

I don't necessarily think their shooting percentage was unsustainable either. The teams from 2009 to 2012 generally maintained a shooting percentage slightly over 9%. In 2012, they had a 9.5% shooting percentage, so it was a bit of an increase from their 9.13% shooting percentage in 2010-11 but nothing out of the ordinary.

Quote:
Winning breeds confidence. Even if you are winning games you should be losing. And that team definitely was confident.

It is certainly easy to be confident when you have Hank playing like was.
That team was confident, although I'm not sure I'd attribute that all to Hank. They had the killer instinct to score timely goals and appeared confident in their own ability to tie or win a game.

OverTheCap is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 01:18 PM
  #120
BlueshirtBlitz
Rich Nash
 
BlueshirtBlitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 18,750
vCash: 500
It's not about being "soft" or "small."

We dominated one of the best teams in the league, full of size and talent.

It's about scoring ****ing goals. The problem isn't that we lost grit by trading Dubi and Arty for Nash, the problem is that Nash forgot how to score goals once he got here, likely due to his concussions. Feels bad, man.

BlueshirtBlitz is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 01:21 PM
  #121
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,046
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueshirtBlitz View Post
It's not about being "soft" or "small."

We dominated one of the best teams in the league, full of size and talent.

It's about scoring ****ing goals. The problem isn't that we lost grit by trading Dubi and Arty for Nash, the problem is that Nash forgot how to score goals once he got here, likely due to his concussions. Feels bad, man.
Nash is 15th in the league in goals per game since he got here.

Hockey Reference

Brian Boyle is online now  
Old
03-18-2014, 01:32 PM
  #122
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverTheCap View Post
Not sure if flukey is an accurate way to describe how the goals were being scored. Even talented teams like Chicago and Boston score goals through rebounds, deflections, crashing the net, etc. And that's how a lot of goals are scored in the playoffs.
I think fluky is an accurate term. I don't think those teams had more quality chances than this one and they certainly don't get as many shots. After that a lot of it comes down to goaltending and bounces.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OverTheCap View Post
I don't necessarily think their shooting percentage was unsustainable either. The teams from 2009 to 2012 generally maintained a shooting percentage slightly over 9%. In 2012, they had a 9.5% shooting percentage, so it was a bit of an increase from their 9.13% shooting percentage in 2010-11 but nothing out of the ordinary.
A half a percentage point over a season can be more than a dozen goals, but you are right it is not as out of whack as it seems. I would like to see their shooting percentage splits for that season. Specifically for the last quarter of the season, when they had a non-playoff winning percentage.


Quote:
Originally Posted by OverTheCap View Post
That team was confident, although I'm not sure I'd attribute that all to Hank. They had the killer instinct to score timely goals and appeared confident in their own ability to tie or win a game.
Not all because of Hank, of course. The puck going in the net breeds confidence as well.

McRanger is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 01:39 PM
  #123
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
That team is certainly the Gold Standard.
When another team does better, we can discuss them as a mile post.
Quote:
And yet hank only faces .3 shots per game more. That means every 3 or 4 games, he sees one extra shot.
Did a shot blocking, defense-first mentality help his stats?

True Blue is offline  
Old
03-18-2014, 02:46 PM
  #124
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,247
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Viper View Post
Eh, I'm not sure that team was all that far off though. Add another scoring threat and I think they would have beaten the Devils. Then what?
That team still lacked a legit sniper on the LW.

We had no PMD and our PP was atrocious/

And frankly, I had/have no faith in a system that by design keep the puck away from prime scoring areas like the front of the net.

get the puck to the blue line, dump it.

Chase after the puck, grind it along the walls, behind the goalie. get in trouble? whip it around blindly.

On defence? turtle and block shots. whip the puck around the boards blindly. Chip it out and chase it down.

The system was anythign BUT puck possession.

We bent, but we never broke.

There were games where we would spend MINUTES at a time hemmed in our own zone.

That's both physically mentally exhausting.

We had no breakout, we had no game plan through the Neutral Zone and the PP was a joke.

I had no faith in that system and I enjoyed the ride more out amazement than confidence.

pld459666 is online now  
Old
03-18-2014, 04:51 PM
  #125
Blueshirt Special
Registered User
 
Blueshirt Special's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,095
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
That team still lacked a legit sniper on the LW.

We had no PMD and our PP was atrocious/

And frankly, I had/have no faith in a system that by design keep the puck away from prime scoring areas like the front of the net.

get the puck to the blue line, dump it.

Chase after the puck, grind it along the walls, behind the goalie. get in trouble? whip it around blindly.

On defence? turtle and block shots. whip the puck around the boards blindly. Chip it out and chase it down.

The system was anythign BUT puck possession.

We bent, but we never broke.

There were games where we would spend MINUTES at a time hemmed in our own zone.

That's both physically mentally exhausting.

We had no breakout, we had no game plan through the Neutral Zone and the PP was a joke.

I had no faith in that system and I enjoyed the ride more out amazement than confidence.
Perfect synopsis of that season

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 05:50 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.