ArPanet
Registered User
- May 3, 2012
- 2,076
- 1,214
Post-Game Talk: 1/23: Rangers visit the zoo
- Thread starter Machinehead
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Callagraves
Block shots
- Jan 24, 2011
- 6,373
- 2
The pursuit of skill came from lack of offense, and you're right, he chose a 'do over' instead of tweaking what he had. Looks like he built that '11 team over a few years, that was all his patience could take. I don't think Slats has the patience to think in intricacies. He's an old timer who I believe walks the black or white line, no grey areas. Stubborn some might say.
Exactly what I came to say. I watched the Kings/Ducks last night, two well balanced teams that can hurt you with any line cause they loaded up on guys that know what to do when the play comes to them.
Certain teams get too caught up in a particular skill set. And what can make it worse is loading up on that skillset without balancing it out.
BTW, I hope you all got a good look at Backes last night, he played the same role I've been saying Chris Kreider would end up playing, and so far so good
if Kreider is ever as good as Backes is defensively, I'll eat my work boots
pld459666
Registered User
The fact that you really couldn't expect that Hank was going to have another season of sub 2.00 GAA and a .930 SvPct. type of play
The fact that at some point the law of averages are going to catch up and the shot blocking machine that we were was going to suffer injuries.
you can't score 2 goals or less at ES and have a PP that is in the bottom 3rd of the league and expect success.
There were games where we had no business being in them let alone winning them. I was never comfortable or confident with that Rangers team.
Always felt they were missing something and winning by the skin of their teeth.
the lack of scoring proved to be the teams undoing as we barely averaged 2 goals a game in the PO's (2.15 to be exact)
Never believed that if we didn't address the scoring issue, and it was an issue, that we would have had the same success.
pld459666
Registered User
I would not have made the wholesale chages that Sather made, but I have no issues making the Nash trade.
However as much as it was a player issue, I also believe it was a coaching issue as I do not believe that an offensive system that preaches preimeter hockey is one that can or will generate much success in today's NHL.
Keeping the pucks along the walls and grinding it behind the goalie to me is a system designed to fail. If I'm defending that, I happily let them keep it there and to the outside.
I've been a proponent of bring in guys that can skate and impose their physical will on opposing teams. We didn't have that in 201112, 12-13 and we don't have that this year and the results are what i expected from this team.
We are a middle of the road team, we were in 2011 as well as much you would not like to acknowledge it.
pld459666
Registered User
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
When Backes was his age he had his worst year defensively.
Kreider has 7 years to catch up to Backes, his physical play has nowhere to go but up.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
The '11-12 team? I just don't see how a team that barely lost out on the President's Trophy can be considered 'middle of the road', but to each his own. You are what your record is. Conversely, I felt confident virtually every night that that team was going to win, and more often than not, they did.
Yeah, maybe they wouldn't have 'sustained' finishing 1st overall in the East consecutively, but they still would have been one of the best teams in the EC, I think. Truth is, none of us will ever know how they would have faired in '12-13 had the roster remained virtually unchanged, but to argue that their drop off in play from '12-13 through the present proves they were unsustainable, when it wasn't the same team anymore, is kind of a logical fallacy.
Even as mediocre as the team was in '12-13, they still finished 6th in the East. I have a hard time believing that the previous years roster would not have, at the very least, finished with Home Ice, rather than 6th. IMO.
Last edited:
pld459666
Registered User
no ofence, but you seem like the perfect fan for this Rangers organization.
A team that goes:
out in 2nd round in 07-08
out in 1st round in 08-09
out of PO's in 09-10
out in 1st round in 10-11 (in 5 games mind you)
Is now all of a sudden a true and legit contender?
Not buying it. AT ALL.
we follow up the 11-12 season by needing to win games 6 and 7 against Washington before getting shown the door in short order against a true and legit contender.
We can debate this till the cows come home.
the team was never really more than play off fodder for the legit contenders. surprising upsets happen every year. Doesn't make that team a legit contender.
BlueshirtBlitz
Foolish Samurai
We CAN debate this until the cows come home and you'd still be wrong.
A team that gets to the ECF isn't a "middle of the road" team.
pld459666
Registered User
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
'94, and '11 Vancouver Canucks
The 2011 Canucks won the President's trophy. While the true winner is crowned the with the cup, winning the presidents trophy is quite indicative of being one of the best teams, especially since it's sustained over such a long period of time.
BlueshirtBlitz
Foolish Samurai
I will. Because it makes infinite more sense than whatever you're spewing.
In that year there is literally no justifiable way of claiming the Rangers were a middle of the road team. Maybe next year they would've been, but they were not in that year.
This team has looked very good the past month, and honestly they looked good yesterday, too. But claiming the 2011-2012 team wasn't a contender because the teams the years before and years after sucked, which were all very different teams, is nuts.
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
BlueshirtBlitz
Foolish Samurai
You're absolutely correct. But i'm not saying the Rangers had a dynasty incoming or anything, i'm saying THAT YEAR they were without question contenders.
Were the SC Ducks team a middle of the road team?
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
I'll take that as a compliment because I was and am still proud of our '11-12 team, while a lot of people on this board continue to downplay it. So, a team that makes the playoffs 3/4 years can't be a contender the 5th year? Makes sense.
There was a discussion on this subject a few weeks ago. You can't say a team wasn't a contender in hindsight. Calling a team a contender is a future tense term based on the team's regular season success. You can't say a team wasn't a contender because they didn't win a Cup. Doesn't make sense. A team that finishes 1st in the Conference is by default a contender; it's a fact.
Contender is a title you give to a team before the playoffs, not after. And if you didn't think they were contenders that year despite finishing with an outstanding record, well, I don't know, OK, hah.
No offense, but using a team's playoff outing from 4 years prior to the season we're discussing as an argument, just makes absolutely no sense.
Last edited:
pld459666
Registered User
there is the crux of your problem.
One year doesn't make a player, good or bad. Just like one year doesn't make a team a contender or crap.
The Rangers had a good season. But it doesn't mean they were a contender. It means that they had ONE GOOD YEAR
It's the same as arguing about inidividual players.
They have 3-4 mediocre 40 pts seasons to light it up in year 5 to the tune of 80 points. Only to revert back to a 40 point guy.
What is that player? Is he the 80 point stud? Or the 40 pt dud?
Same thing here.
Rangers had a middling few years pre and thus far post 11-12.
The only outlier is 11-12
the argument is that one year doesn't make a player just as much as one year doesn't make a team.
that goes both way. Good seasons and crap seasons.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
Carolina Hurricanes. Missed the playoffs 2 consecutive seasons before and after their SC win. So 4/5 season they missed the playoffs, "one good year", they won the Cup.
pld459666
Registered User
No. I wouldn't say that they were.
Conference finals pre cup and a 2nd round appearance post.
No, I wouldn't lable the Ducks a middle of the road team.
Edmonton? They were.
pld459666
Registered User
defination of middle of the road team that got lucky.
Edmonton falls into that catagory as well.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
Carolina was the 2nd best team in the East, and the 4th best team in the league. Edmonton finished 8th in the West and like 13th in the league. But, I'm done discussing this if any evidence I bring up to refute your statements is immediately discarded as "They got lucky".
Like I said before, good teams make their own luck. Maybe I misunderstood your post, but are you implying that the 4th best regular season team and eventual Cup winner wasn't a contender?
Eh, whatevs.
Like I said before, good teams make their own luck. Maybe I misunderstood your post, but are you implying that the 4th best regular season team and eventual Cup winner wasn't a contender?
Eh, whatevs.
pld459666
Registered User
So, you are taking individual seasons and determing that that team is a contender based on that individual season.
So, players are what their best seasosn say they are? regardless of the fact that the rest of their career says they are something else?
Same premise.
here's a good example.
Was Jonathan Cheechoo a sniper for his career, or did he get lucky one season?
Sounds like you guys just need to clarify what you mean by contender. Pld seems to suggest that contender is a label that should apply to a franchise over a number of years, whereas aufheben is suggesting that the 11-12 Rangers were a serious contender for the 11-12 cup (and only the 11-12 cup since that's the only cup a team from 11-12 could win.)
Well you might not call him a sniper for his career, but during that season nobody's looking at his goals saying they don't count because he can't do that over his career. He was a contender for the Rocket Richard, regardless of whether he maintained that success.
