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
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
Yeah pretty much this. There's no reason a team can't be a contender for one year. A team that contends every year is an annual contender. Carolina was a perfect example.
pld459666
Registered User
and for that one season I can't argue.
But when I see the word Sniper, Cheechoo doesn't come to mind. For that matter, neither does Adam Graves.
When I see the word contender, the 2011-12 Rangers do not come to mind.
I'm not interested in one off's. They don't impress me in the least.
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 80,060
- 17,678
How is a team as stacked up front as Carolina was in 2006 "middle of the road"? They have a 1-2-3 center punch of Staal, Brind'Amour, and Weight.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
The '05-06 Hurricanes are another team I see downplayed a lot on HF, and I don't understand why. They were a really good team.
Last edited:
pld459666
Registered User
I look at what teams have done pre and post successful seasons and base my opinion of what a contender is based on that.
99-00 - miss PO's
00-01 - out in 1st
01-02 - Lose cup finals
02-03 - miss
03-04 - miss
04-05 - no season
05-06 - Cup
06-07 - miss (WORST TEAM IN LEAGUE)
07-08 - miss
08-09 - Conf. Finals loss
09-10 - miss
10-11 - miss
11-12 - miss
12-13 - miss
Now, further proof that they were pretenders and not contenders, they played in perhaps one of the WORST divisions in the NHL during the majority of the above and missed the PO's a whopping 9 out of 13 seasons.
That doesn't scream contender to me.
Callagraves
Block shots
- Jan 24, 2011
- 6,373
- 2
To be honest, the term "contender" both baffles and annoys me. It's like we've created some imaginary tier of teams that we think have an actual chance of winning a cup, despite seeing time and time again that teams who aren't thought to be one of these mystical "legit contenders" can and have won Cups.
I mean, look at what you just posted, for example. Between 02 and 09, they made conference finals, the cup finals, and won a cup, and missed the playoffs every other year! And yet we continue pretending like it really matters who's a "legit contender" as though our tier matching and power ranking means a damn.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
The Gloaming
23
Why are you including the last few years? Who do they have left from their cup team? Eric Staal and Cam Ward.
Yeah.... my definition of contender is simply looking at the teams personnel and evaluating the odds of success.
Clearly, a mediocre team can get far if many of their players are having career years. Thus, teams with limited skilled players do outperform in any given year but have problems maintaining their performance going forward if they are just having "one of those years".
Conversely, some contenders do have poor years but generally if the talent is there they are consistently near the top.
Does "hanging" include going into the Chicago and beating the Hawks in regulation?
Inferno
Registered User
I hate that justification...it's what ppl always say.
oh we won 1 or 2 games vs good teams therefore Rangers=l33t
Every year the worst teams in the NHL beat the best teams in the NHL.
I'm too lazy but what are teh Rangers record vs teams in the playoffs right now and vs teams out of the playoffs right now. i'll bet it's pretty average.
