HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Lindros: Yay or Nay

View Poll Results: Are the Rangers better without Lindros in the line up?
Yes 20 42.55%
No 27 57.45%
Voters: 47. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-12-2003, 07:53 PM
  #1
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,773
vCash: 500
Awards:
Lindros: Yay or Nay

So here it is. Lindros has been better than he was last season. While he's playing better, the team does not seem to be better when he's in the line up.

So, are the Rangers are a better team without Lindros?

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
11-12-2003, 08:40 PM
  #2
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,676
vCash: 500
Strangely enough, I voted no. Lindros is very important to the Rangers' success but, because of the way this group was assembled, it's almost impossible for Sather to come up with the right combination to make Lindros into an asset.

Without Lindros in the lineup, there is better balance, especially if Moore is the replacement and he continues to play with energy. But, without Lindros in the lineup, Messier is going to get too many minutes and Holik not enough (it happened tonight).

There probably should be a third choice: it doesn't matter. Cause, it probably doesn't, unless Sather suddenly gets smart and we all know how likely that is.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
11-13-2003, 02:12 AM
  #3
klingsor
HFBoards Sponsor
 
klingsor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 14,072
vCash: 500
I was very disappointed that Sather did not go with the Lundmark, Moore and Lindros line last night.

It would be interesting to see him play with 2 guys who can skate, shoot and pass. Could be FLY line #2 and it would give meaningful minutes to youth.

klingsor is offline  
Old
11-13-2003, 02:15 AM
  #4
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 20,942
vCash: 500
Since this group hardly plays as a team...

it's difficult to say whether or not it's better with this person or that person. Lindros is playing better than Carter on Holik's right, but that alone won't win games, other lines need to be going, defensemen need to be playing and goaltending needs to be sharp, something that having Lindros in or out of the lineup has no bearing. While many will say that having Lindros in there causes line juggling, it really hasn't. The guy gets three assists in a game, which with that performance you'd expect a win, but goaltending and team defense are weak. So, I voted no.

Fletch is offline  
Old
11-13-2003, 08:41 AM
  #5
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,428
vCash: 500
NO.

Lindros may not be the player he was but he has contributed this season. To think there better without him is foolish. You feel more comfortable with Mess getting 18 min a game? and them going with 3 lines in big games?

Barnaby is offline  
Old
11-13-2003, 09:18 AM
  #6
RushingRocket
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 198
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RushingRocket Send a message via Yahoo to RushingRocket
I voted no. I think Lindros is our best player...
But more importantly...thats a confusing question...thread title implies are you for or against lindros, meaning yay lindros, but voting Yay is against Lindros, according to question...it confused me, and i think Brooklyn too, given what he said...

[QUOTE=Brooklyn Ranger]Strangely enough, I voted no. Lindros is very important to the Rangers' success but, because of the way this group was assembled, it's almost impossible for Sather to come up with the right combination to make Lindros into an asset.
QUOTE]

Should probably restart the poll, my data analysis professor would not approve...

RushingRocket is offline  
Old
11-13-2003, 09:27 AM
  #7
Fire Sather
Play Like a Pug
 
Fire Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 18,522
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to Fire Sather
No way. Lindros is needed for us to do well. If he played up to Eric Lindros standards last season we make the playoffs. But hey, hes one my top 3 favorite players so..

Fire Sather is online now  
Old
11-13-2003, 09:53 AM
  #8
RANGER#11
Registered User
 
RANGER#11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Norfolk, New York
Posts: 642
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=RushingRocket]I voted no. I think Lindros is our best player...
But more importantly...thats a confusing question...thread title implies are you for or against lindros, meaning yay lindros, but voting Yay is against Lindros, according to question...it confused me, and i think Brooklyn too, given what he said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger
Strangely enough, I voted no. Lindros is very important to the Rangers' success but, because of the way this group was assembled, it's almost impossible for Sather to come up with the right combination to make Lindros into an asset.
QUOTE]

Should probably restart the poll, my data analysis professor would not approve...
Man did I ever miss this board. My computer crashed and have been off line for 2 weeks. You never no how much you miss something till it is gone. I agree the poll should be restarted I also voted wroung. I think there is no question that we are better with him in the line up. Sure hope his eye injury is very miner.

RANGER#11 is offline  
Old
11-13-2003, 11:17 AM
  #9
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Yah, I think Brookyln should have voted "yes" to the question right above the voting box, Are the Rangers better WITHOUT Lindros in the lineup. We're something like 5-1-2-0 when he's out, so it isn't even debateable in my mind.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
11-13-2003, 11:45 AM
  #10
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,773
vCash: 500
Awards:
Wow is it close.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
11-13-2003, 01:34 PM
  #11
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 20,942
vCash: 500
Mj....

don't you think the Rangers would be better off with Lindros at center and rolling four lines? He was playing well but much of the rest of the team had not started to yet click. Carter's butt wasn't kicked into gear yet. The first two games were abysmal, and I don't think this can all be pinned on Lindros. And I think he's played right wing alongside Holik better than Carter - although is it his fault the defense seems to collapse (coinciding with the benching of Bouchard, Poti being sick, and Leetch being rusty) and the goaltending, which had become overtaxed, doesn't play well? I dunno, I think the Rangers are better off with him in the lineup, as a center, rolling four lines, and giving guys like Lundmark and Moore (or Ortmeyer) a chance.

Fletch is offline  
Old
11-13-2003, 05:19 PM
  #12
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
Yah, I think Brookyln should have voted "yes" to the question right above the voting box, Are the Rangers better WITHOUT Lindros in the lineup. We're something like 5-1-2-0 when he's out, so it isn't even debateable in my mind.
As Fletch mentioned, we won a lot of those games because the players were paying attention to playing defense and Dunham was outstanding. However, without Lindros in the lineup, there is almost no room for error, especially when Lindros is scoring and playing the body. Like or not he's one of our most important players and he needs to be in the lineup and score for the Rangers to have any chance of being successful. Cause the defense ain't stellar and goaltenders always have some average games.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
11-14-2003, 04:21 AM
  #13
33teddy33
Registered User
 
33teddy33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 116
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to 33teddy33 Send a message via AIM to 33teddy33 Send a message via Yahoo to 33teddy33
well, when the record shows clearly we are better without then with, whats to debate?
just really think its funny when posed the question about line-up Slats answer is "i don't know?"......
get him outta NY. sorry sather, but, you have had long enough. hmmmmm, wonder what old Smitty is doing these days?

33teddy33 is offline  
Old
11-14-2003, 04:41 AM
  #14
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 20,942
vCash: 500
Interesting analysis..

so when Lindros is out, the goalie stands on his head and the team wins..hmmm. After the Rangers' first two losses they went on a 4-1-2 tear, then basically lost a game (to the Avs, which was Leetch's return). Won a game (in which goaltending was a star and Mess starred). Embarassed themselves in Carolina, etc. basically going 2-2-0-2 (or2-4) in their next six...with Leetch. So would the team be better off with Bouchard there and no Leetch? Seems so to me. Or, as this team is constructed, so goes the goaltending, so goes the Rangers, until Sather figures out how to integrate a bunch of pieces that are integrateable, but he refuses to do what makes sense.

Another extreme example: Colorado with Sakic last season: 24-23-11, without him: 18-4-2 (calling OT losses a loss). Looks to me that Sakic should've been waived.

Fletch is offline  
Old
11-14-2003, 04:49 AM
  #15
Jackson Ranger
Registered User
 
Jackson Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,571
vCash: 500
I voted no. Let's face it, the guy is still a talented, 6'4" 235 lb. player. Not many players come in that package. And Lindros has been using his size and playing hard (and keeping his elbows up, ask Fedoruk).

The Rangers have many problems. But Lindros is NOT one of them when he is playing his game which I think he is doing THIS year.

Jackson Ranger is offline  
Old
11-14-2003, 04:52 AM
  #16
33teddy33
Registered User
 
33teddy33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 116
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to 33teddy33 Send a message via AIM to 33teddy33 Send a message via Yahoo to 33teddy33
I understand that he can be an asset. But remember a couple years ago when a teammate of his mouthed off to the press that he is not an everyday - on type of player, that he had no heart?
mayeb they need him, but I don't really see it.
like *******s, everyone has an opinion though.

33teddy33 is offline  
Old
11-14-2003, 05:14 AM
  #17
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
don't you think the Rangers would be better off with Lindros at center and rolling four lines?
In theory, you're right Fletch. There is no doubt that the Rangers are at their strongest when Lindros/Nedved/Holik/Messier are ALL playing center and the team rolls 4 lines. However, it does not seem like Sather is concerned with that at all. Where was Lindros to begin the game the other night? A wing. Were 4 lines rolled? No. Sather is so gung-ho to make every attempt to salvage his reputation and make the playoffs, that he would go with 3 lines all year if he thought that he could get away with it.
Let's face it, having the above 4 players as centers on 4 different lines would force Jackass to 1) play Jurrasic Mark as a 4th line player and 2) actually to use 4 lines (since Messier would be on the 4th) instead of 3. However, Sather is not interested in that. He will not allow Messier to be a 4th liner and he will not roll 4 lines. So what are we left with? Trying to force round pegs into square holes. By ramming Messier into the top 3 lines, one of the top centers has to be displaced.
Think about it. Lindros is clearly better as a center than a wing. Carter has shown more as a wing for Holik than anywhere else. So what does Jackass do in order to ensure that Messier is on the top 3 lines? He weakens the team by doing 4 things, with the one move: 1) playing Lindros as a wing and not a center 2)playing Carter on a line that does not have Holik 3) forcing Holik to play a role that he is not designed to do (Holik is a checking center and not a scoring center) & 4) Playing Messier in a role that he is no longer capable of playing, against players he can no longer compete against and for more minutes than a 43 year old should be playing.

True Blue is offline  
Old
11-14-2003, 05:55 AM
  #18
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 20,942
vCash: 500
Mess and Lindros are mutually exclusive...

for the most part. A healthy Lindros still meant 18 minutes for Messier. And if Lindros is going to be a wing, this team is better off with him as Holik's wing than Carter, and trading Carter (and perhaps Poti) for a decent defensive defenseman.

My one point was that this team is better with the four centers, Lindros being one of them. I cannot control what Sather does behind the bench, ie, line juggling, but I believe this team is better with Lindros, regardless of what the record shows. The record doesn't show a goalie standing on his head, almost single-handily winning those games. Over the course of the season, and ignoring short-term trends, this team is better with Lindros at center and on this team.

and on Carter..I semi-agree. We now see how Carter's just a streaky guy. He started his streak with Holik. Has played well without him too. Didn't start the season well, which is more a function of him than his linemates, I believe. Carter will play when he wants to play it seems. Much like Bure was.

Fletch is offline  
Old
11-14-2003, 06:15 AM
  #19
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
So would the team be better off with Bouchard there and no Leetch?
If you're talking about Leetch playing at 70-75%, in obvious pain and still not up to speed with the system while logging 22 minutes, yes, the team is better off with Bouchard.

You guys can make all the arguments you want, but until I see some on-ice evidence that Lindros makes the Rangers a better team, I'm sticking by my guns. I'm not necessarily basing my argument on a string of 7-8 games he's missed this year, I'm talking about a now 3 year career here where I've seen his contribution amount to basically zero.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
11-14-2003, 06:30 AM
  #20
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
A healthy Lindros still meant 18 minutes for Messier. And if Lindros is going to be a wing, this team is better off with him as Holik's wing than Carter, and trading Carter (and perhaps Poti) for a decent defensive defenseman.
I do not think that they are mutually exclusive. A healthy Lindros should be playing center. But becuase Sather has the need to prevent Messier from being a 4th line player, he plays wing. In essence, he is playing wing to accomodate Mess. Not Messier's fault, as he is not the one who makes the lines, however the fact remains that becuase Sather's need to accomadate Messier and not make him a 4th line player, Lindros is pushed out of position. I do not think that the team is better with Lindros playing wing. IF Lindros is playing wing, that means that Messier is going to get 18+ minutes a night and the 4th line will not play. That makes us a much weaker team than in Lindros in in the lineup and Messier is on the 4th line.
So if by saying that the Rangers are a weaker team with Lindros in the lineup as a wing, then maybe they are just better off w/o him in the lineup at all. Off course, I DO think that with Eric at center, they are a better team with him than w/o him.

True Blue is offline  
Old
11-14-2003, 10:47 AM
  #21
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
If you're talking about Leetch playing at 70-75%, in obvious pain and still not up to speed with the system while logging 22 minutes, yes, the team is better off with Bouchard.
How will Leetch ever get back into game shape without playing? He missed training camp and pre-season and there's no way any player--even one of his caliber--can get it together without playing.

In any case, I think Joel Bouchard made a good argument that this group would be better with him on the ice, even with Leetch in the lineup.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
11-14-2003, 11:20 AM
  #22
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger
How will Leetch ever get back into game shape without playing? He missed training camp and pre-season and there's no way any player--even one of his caliber--can get it together without playing.
Absolutely true. My problem is not with Leetch being in the lineup, it's with him logging the most time of any defenseman and playing against top opposing lines while it's clear that he's not in peak game shape and doesn't have a complete grasp of Sather's "game plan". 16-18 minutes, 3rd pairing assignment seems like a better way to reintegrate him into the lineup until he catches up.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
11-14-2003, 11:40 AM
  #23
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
Absolutely true. My problem is not with Leetch being in the lineup, it's with him logging the most time of any defenseman and playing against top opposing lines while it's clear that he's not in peak game shape and doesn't have a complete grasp of Sather's "game plan". 16-18 minutes, 3rd pairing assignment seems like a better way to reintegrate him into the lineup until he catches up.
I'd agree with you if it was any other defenseman on the roster, but not Leetch. And he did play closer to 20 minutes (and was not out on the power play for very long) for several of the first games when he came back. Of course, part of the problem is that there is no one else to pick up the slack, especially with Poti playing so poorly (and being sick).

Brooklyn Ranger 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 01:57 AM.

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.