2013-14 New York Rangers Breakup Day

[NYR94]

Not trying to be a jerk here, but if there was ever a statement that defined missing the obvious it's the one above.

Brown, Richards and Voynov are the only players on the LA roster under 6-1.

Justin Williams is the sole forward listed below 195lbs, Voynov on the D.

The Kings had 9 players listed at 6-2 or better that played in the SCF.

The Kings have it all: size, speed, skill, snarl. And they have it in depth. They did to the Rangers what the Rangers had done to others. Just flat wore them down.

The Rangers had absolutely nothing left to push the Kings back. They gave up lead after lead, committed numerous turn overs, allowed countless odd man rushes. It goes on and on and it all happens for a reason.

It's called being outclassed. You never saw a King team that was anything less than completely confident of it's ability to exert it's will over the Rangers. The Kings were never scared or worried by the Rangers.

As good as our team was, as proud as I am of them, this series really shakes out how far they still have to go.

This team needs to be bigger, faster, meaner and more skillful. I have no idea how they will do it but they need to start.

Excellent post. As good as the Rangers were during the playoffs, it's clear they still have a ways to go. Will is a good word for what the Kings' strength was like. Those 3rd period/OT attacks by the Kings were relentless. They played like they would skate through a brick wall to win the game.

 

[pld459666]

People are really looking at this year's playoffs and concluding that the Rangers need more size?

for me it's not just this playoffs.

I have thought the Rangers lacked size both physically and mentally for the last few years.

Specifically, I think they lack size where it's needed (top 6)

Kreider is coming along very nicely. But Nash is a perimeter big man and after that, no one capable of imposing their will on the game.

That said, size is not the main reason we lost to the Kings. It hampered us no doubt, but I think the biggest killer for the Rangers against the Kings was the lack of a true functioning PP.

But yeah, I thought the Kings were able to have their way with us physically and it takes a toll.

3rd period's in the Finals, the Rangers were outshot 62-25 with the only time the Rangers held the advantage was in game 3 with the Kings holding a 3-0 lead. The Rangers were out scored in the 3rd 3-0

Add the OT to those totals and the numbers are 92-50 in shots and 6-0 in goals.

The Kings size was a significant reason the Rangers were on their heels late in games pretty much all 5 games.

 

[Levitate]

I don't think the Kings size has very much to do with it. The fact is that the Kings are extremely well coached and extremely discplined. They just keep coming at you and they are almost ALWAYS in the correct position to help their teammates, especially offensively and through the neutral zone. Sure they do commit turnovers, every team does that no matter how good they are, but when the Kings are "on" it's because their puck support is ridiculously good and just plain remarkable. They know where their teammates are and know what plays they can make to move the puck around and not lose it.

The Rangers can play like that, and often do, but not as consistently as the Kings, and that's what killed them. The Kings gameplan is like the next step up from what the Rangers typically had done last season...4 lines that are effective and a good team game but they are more consistent at it than the Rangers and probably overall have better personnel...no one took a night off for the Kings, no one really played poorly and dragged the team down.

Size is just a small component of that, the real excellence of the Kings is their coaching and discipline.

 

[GordonGecko]

for me it's not just this playoffs.

I have thought the Rangers lacked size both physically and mentally for the last few years.

Specifically, I think they lack size where it's needed (top 6)

At the beginning of the year everyone was complaining that the Rangers didn't have an identity. After the playoffs, I think we've found it - SPEED. We need to build on that and stay fast/get faster. It's going to be next to impossible to get that speed with size, there's aren't a dozen other Kreiders out there to be had. By going for bigger we'd competing with every other team who's looking for the same thing. I think we just build on adding talent with top tier skating skills but also try to get some closers with that killer instinct we're missing

 

[pld459666]

At the beginning of the year everyone was complaining that the Rangers didn't have an identity. After the playoffs, I think we've found it - SPEED. We need to build on that and stay fast/get faster. It's going to be next to impossible to get that speed with size, there's aren't a dozen other Kreiders out there to be had. By going for bigger we'd competing with every other team who's looking for the same thing. I think we just build on adding talent with top tier skating skills but also try to get some closers with that killer instinct we're missing

We could be the fastest team in the league (if we are not already) and I still believe that a physical team is going to grind you down and wear you out.

It's why I was happy to face Pitt, more happy to face Montreal and very sad to see teh Kings.

Speed is one of the things that can easily be negated when you are facing a pretty quick team that also plays a physical style of hockey.

 

[Trxjw]

Frankly I think the size issue was much more prevalent when it came to transitioning to offense than it was in any other capacity. The Rangers had a very hard time generating speed out of their end and through the neutral zone because the Kings simply clogged it up with their size and reach. It led to a lot of turnovers and bad stretch passes that wound up as icing. The Kings' size took away the bread and butter of the Rangers of transitioning with speed.

Sometimes you think "size" and think board play, but having a guy who can simply clear space on the rush is also very important. You simply can't skate around everyone in this league.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

The undersized and mentally weak thing is probably the biggest fallacy to ever come from this board. Which is saying quite a bit considering some of the things people try to pass off as fact.

Frankly I think the size issue was much more prevalent when it came to transitioning to offense than it was in any other capacity. The Rangers had a very hard time generating speed out of their end and through the neutral zone because the Kings simply clogged it up with their size and reach. It led to a lot of turnovers and bad stretch passes that wound up as icing. The Kings' size took away the bread and butter of the Rangers of transitioning with speed.

Sometimes you think "size" and think board play, but having a guy who can simply clear space on the rush is also very important. You simply can't skate around everyone in this league.

Disagree. LA's ability to clog up the neutral zone had far less to do with size than it did positioning and execution.

You can't beat size with size in that situation anyway, is a bigger player going to be able to hit the seam with his pass better than a smaller player?

When you're not actually being engaged with that size and can't transition then the size plays a minimal role.

I think we need some more size in the way of physicality so that if in those instances LA ends up tying someone up you can support and win the board battle.

A lot of those plays were countered by LA's positioning and speed in the neutral zone, which allowed them to step up and clog a lane or get a stick on a pass.

 

[Levitate]

Frankly I think the size issue was much more prevalent when it came to transitioning to offense than it was in any other capacity. The Rangers had a very hard time generating speed out of their end and through the neutral zone because the Kings simply clogged it up with their size and reach. It led to a lot of turnovers and bad stretch passes that wound up as icing. The Kings' size took away the bread and butter of the Rangers of transitioning with speed.

Sometimes you think "size" and think board play, but having a guy who can simply clear space on the rush is also very important. You simply can't skate around everyone in this league.

Positioning has WAY more to do with this than size...

 

[Vidic15*]

I don't think the Kings size has very much to do with it. The fact is that the Kings are extremely well coached and extremely discplined. They just keep coming at you and they are almost ALWAYS in the correct position to help their teammates, especially offensively and through the neutral zone. Sure they do commit turnovers, every team does that no matter how good they are, but when the Kings are "on" it's because their puck support is ridiculously good and just plain remarkable. They know where their teammates are and know what plays they can make to move the puck around and not lose it.

The Rangers can play like that, and often do, but not as consistently as the Kings, and that's what killed them. The Kings gameplan is like the next step up from what the Rangers typically had done last season...4 lines that are effective and a good team game but they are more consistent at it than the Rangers and probably overall have better personnel...no one took a night off for the Kings, no one really played poorly and dragged the team down.

Size is just a small component of that, the real excellence of the Kings is their coaching and discipline.

This. They played inch perfect hockey. Incredible reslientsy. I'm hoping this is due to experience and now we should have it

 

[Off Sides]

Kings are not exactly slow either, they have plenty of speed, some of them also have size, and some of them play on their top lines and are still a bit younger.

I am more than willing to admit they have built quite a good team over there. They took advantage of their strengths and the Rangers mistakes. The Rangers, they had chances off Kings mistakes or by creating those chances and they failed on quite a few of them whether they were breakaways, power plays, defending leads or whatever else.

The team that was playing better, who also, in my opinion, had the better roster from the get go won.

 

[RGY]

Just checked, in between our estimates. 8.25 for 2 more years. Terrible contract.

But if Carolina ate some of that money and got it down closer to $7? For two more years?

 

[Clown Fiesta]

This team literally only needs finish. Outside of regular season Nash and MSL we have none.

 

[Thirty One]

This team literally only needs finish. Outside of regular season Nash and MSL we have none.

They need finish in the playoffs. They should throw all their eggs at Marian Gaborik, this year's playoff goalscorer.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

But if Carolina ate some of that money and got it down closer to $7? For two more years?

The way i'm thinking, wouldn't it be more beneficial for the Rangers to use assets for someone who is a) cheaper b) younger and c) signed for longer?

I'd be pretty disappointed with getting E. Staal to fill in the hole left by Richards. It wouldn't be long before we began to question what it would take to get him going on a consistent basis, much like we are doing for Nash.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

They need finish in the playoffs. They should throw all their eggs at Marian Gaborik, this year's playoff goalscorer.

The eggs would probably injure him.

 

[Doctor King Schultz]

This team literally only needs finish. Outside of regular season Nash and MSL we have none.

I'll never understand how Sather managed to put together a team where no one has a decent shot. Even MSL couldn't find his scoring touch consistently enough for this team to win. Pouliot and MSL are the only two guys on the roster who can beat a goalie by picking a corner. Also, MSL is the only guy on the roster who can score on a one-timer.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I'll never understand how Sather managed to put together a team where no one has a decent shot. Even MSL couldn't find his scoring touch consistently enough for this team to win. Pouliot and MSL are the only two guys on the roster who can beat a goalie by picking a corner.

He scored 8 goals and could have probably gotten around 11 or 12 with slightly more luck.

 

[Doctor King Schultz]

He scored 8 goals and could have probably gotten around 11 or 12 with slightly more luck.

Yea unfortunately that's only 1 guy. And he only became part of our team at the end of the season. I'm disappointed at the fact that none of the younger talent on this team can shoot a wrist shot.

 

[Trxjw]

Positioning has WAY more to do with this than size...

Where did I say that positioning didn't play a part in it? The fact of the matter is it's tougher to get around a 6'4 200lb player in great position than it is to get around one who is 5'11. They not only cover more area with a larger wingspan, but they can also outmuscle players.

The Kings clogged up the middle, and were then able to get in on the puck carrier before he left the zone to create a turnover or muscle the puck off of him. The Rangers have a lot of guys who can skate through the neutral zone, but not many who can truly skate with the puck through traffic. The Kings have that in spades.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

People underrate this team pretty hard.

We don't desperately need size, skill, speed, toughness, or mental fortitude (or whatever garbage intangible thing is being spewed now). We have all of that.

What we NEEDED was a goal in the overtime games.

Sure, if we're looking to add players they should have those traits, because most of our team already does and it would fit the identity. This team is really, really, REALLY good and the guys advocating wholesale changes right now are nuts.

 

[aufheben]

Frankly I think the size issue was much more prevalent when it came to transitioning to offense than it was in any other capacity. The Rangers had a very hard time generating speed out of their end and through the neutral zone because the Kings simply clogged it up with their size and reach. It led to a lot of turnovers and bad stretch passes that wound up as icing. The Kings' size took away the bread and butter of the Rangers of transitioning with speed.

Sometimes you think "size" and think board play, but having a guy who can simply clear space on the rush is also very important. You simply can't skate around everyone in this league.

Their clogging of the neutral zone is a good point. No, you don't need to be big to put 5 guys in the neutral zone, but having 5 bigger guys just makes it that much harder. However, the biggest issue of this series, to me, was the neutering of the Rangers both in front of Lundqvist and Quick. That's a HUGE advantage to a team like the Kings who can win games by scoring garbage goals. It was a mirror image of the WCF: the Kings had f'ing basecamp in front of Crawford all series.

All 3 goals LA scored in Game 5 were literally within a foot of Hank's crease. 9 of their 15 goals were scored within a yard of Hank's crease. The Rangers had their share of goals scored in front of the crease as well, but they needed more, as LA was shutting down the NZ, and keeping skaters to the outside. Shots below the hashes don't necessitate a shot from the slot, they could be a perimeter shot, but the majority of LA's were right in the slot.

Game 5, LA had 24 shots below the hashmarks, Rangers had 11. LA had more shots (12) below the hashmarks in the 1st OT, than the Rangers had all game.

Where did I say that positioning didn't play a part in it? The fact of the matter is it's tougher to get around a 6'4 200lb player in great position than it is to get around one who is 5'11. They not only cover more area with a larger wingspan, but they can also outmuscle players.

The Kings clogged up the middle, and were then able to get in on the puck carrier before he left the zone to create a turnover or muscle the puck off of him. The Rangers have a lot of guys who can skate through the neutral zone, but not many who can truly skate with the puck through traffic. The Kings have that in spades.

I agree Trx. I think LA's size gave us a bit of trouble in all 3 zones. Maybe strength is a more appropriate term than size, but nonetheless.

 

[Levitate]

Where did I say that positioning didn't play a part in it? The fact of the matter is it's tougher to get around a 6'4 200lb player in great position than it is to get around one who is 5'11. They not only cover more area with a larger wingspan, but they can also outmuscle players.

The Kings clogged up the middle, and were then able to get in on the puck carrier before he left the zone to create a turnover or muscle the puck off of him. The Rangers have a lot of guys who can skate through the neutral zone, but not many who can truly skate with the puck through traffic. The Kings have that in spades.

Well you didn't say anything at all about positioning and your post was all about size, so why would I think that you believed positioning had anything to do with it? Also I still think size is a very small part in all of that...maybe it helps a bit yes but the key takeaway is LA adjusted to play great positional D on the Rangers through the neutral zone and on the rush especially, not that their size was the key factor.

People underrate this team pretty hard.

We don't desperately need size, skill, speed, toughness, or mental fortitude (or whatever garbage intangible thing is being spewed now). We have all of that.

What we NEEDED was a goal in the overtime games.

Sure, if we're looking to add players they should have those traits, because most of our team already does and it would fit the identity. This team is really, really, REALLY good and the guys advocating wholesale changes right now are nuts.

There's only one team in the east that I feel is a better contender than the Rangers, as it turns out (Boston). I think the Rangers are at least "right there" with the rest of the teams in the east, like Tampa, Pitts, etc. The issue I see is that they *need* to buyout Richards but they also *need* to replace him in an effective way. He still put up 50+ points during the regular season and was a big help during the opening rounds of the playoffs. You gotta find a way to replace that production or improve on it somehow.

Then you have the Stralman issue...he's probably going to walk and that could seriously hurt the depth on D and the Rangers ability to transition the puck out of their own zone.

If the Rangers can find ways to deal with those issues then right now (when nothing else has happened so far this offseason!) they have a good shot at returning to the finals

 

[Tawnos]

The physical size of LA, combined with their execution of positioning and execution of legal obstruction (well, it shouldn't be legal, but that's a different topic for a different thread) made life difficult on the Rangers to be sure. But it wasn't the difference in the series. The Kings capitalized on their chances, the Rangers didn't. Over the course of full games, including OTs, LA didn't really outchance us.

They gave us trouble, but what about our team gave them trouble for about half to 2/3rds of every game? If size was the determining factor, I wouldn't be able to ask that question.

 

[Trxjw]

Well you didn't say anything at all about positioning and your post was all about size, so why would I think that you believed positioning had anything to do with it? Also I still think size is a very small part in all of that...maybe it helps a bit yes but the key takeaway is LA adjusted to play great positional D on the Rangers through the neutral zone and on the rush especially, not that their size was the key factor.

Sorry, I thought it would be a given that positioning played a part in it.

The Kings didn't even need to adjust. They're just damn good players who execute a very disciplined system on defense. The Rangers struggled all year when teams, especially larger teams, were able to generate pressure and force the D to make long passes. The size of the Kings just made the margin for error that much smaller.

I'm not saying all of this was the deciding factor in the series. I just think the size of the Kings showed itself in the transition game moreso than the cycling in the offensive zone. Our blue line did a good job of handling them for the most part, but when the team started pulling the forwards off the points late in the game to play prevent defense.. well, we all saw how that turned out.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

Sorry, I thought it would be a given that positioning played a part in it.

The Kings didn't even need to adjust. They're just damn good players who execute a very disciplined system on defense. The Rangers struggled all year when teams, especially larger teams, were able to generate pressure and force the D to make long passes. The size of the Kings just made the margin for error that much smaller.

I'm not saying all of this was the deciding factor in the series. I just think the size of the Kings showed itself in the transition game moreso than the cycling in the offensive zone. Our blue line did a good job of handling them for the most part, but when the team started pulling the forwards off the points late in the game to play prevent defense.. well, we all saw how that turned out.

You're right. However, as I said before, the Rangers are VERY good. Easily the 2nd best team in the East. If the option presents itself to grab a big dude who can fit into the top 6, go for it, yeah. But radically altering the team, which would be the only way to go out and get that kind of player right now, would be misguided.