2013-14 New York Rangers Breakup Day

[Levitate]

The first two games or so the Rangers were able to use their speed a lot better than in the last 3 games, I feel like LA adjusted some to prevent that

 

[aufheben]

AV was totally out-coached by Dwayne Keebler in that series. Sucks.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

AV was totally out-coached by Dwayne Keebler in that series. Sucks.

Only if you think the Rangers were totally outplayed the whole series.

AV was out coached, nay, maybe just out adjusted in game three.

Other than that it was a close series all around, Sutter's players are just better at it.

 

[Trxjw]

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.

Without knowing who is realistically available, I don't think you can say with any certainty how radical of a change it would be to add more size up front.

 

[aufheben]

That's the difference, Stutter can adjust on the fly, it takes AV until the series is like half over.

Clinging to leads (or trying to), 6 second shifts in the 3rd periods, keeping Richards on the PP all series (and wasn't [rightfully] demoted until the series was well out of reach), etc. That's why it annoys me so much, because despite all that, we were still only a few OT goals from winning the series.

Then there's a lot of stuff you could consider the players solely responsible for, or consider it to be the players and AV's responsibility, (depending on how much responsibility you place on the coach). i.e. dumb, offensive zone penalties; blowing leads; forcing low % passes; lazy plays in the D-zone..

 

[Tawnos]

That's the difference, Stutter can adjust on the fly, it takes AV until the series is like half over.

Clinging to leads (or trying to), 6 second shifts in the 3rds, keeping Richards on the PP all series (and wasn't [rightfully] demoted until the series was well out of reach), etc. That's why it annoys me so much, because despite all that, we were still a few OT goals from winning the series.

And, even though he might not have scored, I still think Nash should have been back on the powerplay. His presence alone caused so much chaos for the Kings in the one or two looks he got, that I'm sure some of the other Rangers could have capitalized on it.

 

[aufheben]

And, even though he might not have scored, I still think Nash should have been back on the powerplay. His presence alone caused so much chaos for the Kings in the one or two looks he got, that I'm sure some of the other Rangers could have capitalized on it.

Yes, that's another stubborn decision. This is what we heard from [logical] Vancouver fans: AV is a great pre-game tactician, and is great a managing TOI [sometimes to a fault], but his in-game adjustments [or lack thereof] are just questionable.

 

[haveandare]

That's the difference, Stutter can adjust on the fly, it takes AV until the series is like half over.

Clinging to leads (or trying to), 6 second shifts in the 3rd periods, keeping Richards on the PP all series (and wasn't [rightfully] demoted until the series was well out of reach), etc. That's why it annoys me so much, because despite all that, we were still only a few OT goals from winning the series.

Then there's a lot of stuff you could consider the players solely responsible for, or consider it to be the players and AV's responsibility, (depending on how much responsibility you place on the coach). i.e. dumb, offensive zone penalties; blowing leads; forcing low % passes; lazy plays in the D-zone..

Absolutely. That's the thing that is still sticking with me. Adjusting away from that awful strategy could have made the difference in this series. It worked against other teams, but it didn't work for a second against the Kings.

 

[aufheben]

Yeah, it's just hard to not micro-analyze everything that went wrong, because despite the Kings being the best team in the NHL, they needed 3 OT wins to beat us. You could simply say we were just a few bounces away from winning and be done with it, but that usually doesn't do it for me.

 

[haveandare]

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.

Absolutely. They don't "desperately" need anything but to manage free agency wisely and inject youth into the lineup as it matures.

The funniest thing to me is that so many of the posters talking about how the window is closing, or how the team desperately needs this or that, or how an overhaul in one or another direction is necessary, are the same people who thought this year's team was a textbook example of mediocrity. Excuse me for not putting a ton of faith in their opinions.

 

[haveandare]

Yeah, it's just hard to not micro-analyze everything that went wrong, because despite the Kings being the best team in the NHL, they needed 3 OT wins to beat us. You could simply say we were just a few bounces away from winning and be done with it, but that usually doesn't do it for me.

Agreed, but I don't think analyzing that strategy and coming to the conclusion that it was flawed is necessarily micro-analyzing. That was right there on the surface, and in my opinion, that was the easiest single thing to point to and say "this is why they couldn't win that series," at least from a Rangers end, meaning save for crediting certain players on LA and their coach.

I'm just holding out hope that being a few bounces away and then falling short fires some of these guys up. I'm sure it'll ignite something in Hank, but I hope some of the younger folks get the hunger too.

 

[OverTheCap]

AV was totally out-coached by Dwayne Keebler in that series. Sucks.

LOL.

I happen to think he looks like a cross between a bird and Dumbo. I keep waiting for him to flap his ears and fly away.

That being said, he is a damn good coach. He is a perfect fit for his team and they really buy into what he says, which is quite a difficult task considering he mumbles and doesn't speak in full sentences.

 

[aufheben]

This team proved to me that they're one of the best in the league. Only problem is, 18/24 players on this team have expiring contracts within the next 12 months. So, Idk, we'll see what happens this summer I guess.

LOL.

I happen to think he looks like a cross between a bird and Dumbo. I keep waiting for him to flap his ears and fly away.

That being said, he is a damn good coach. He is a perfect fit for his team and they really buy into what he says, which is quite a difficult task considering he mumbles and doesn't speak in full sentences.

Yeah, the fact that he can make so many on-the-fly adjustments while sounding like he just got pricked with a tranquilizer, is even more testament to his great coaching ability.

 

[Thirty One]

This team proved to me that they're one of the best in the league.

 

[aufheben]

Though I know I lost my marbles in the Pittsburgh series, in February I said this team would/could make the SCF, but would end up falling short. Everyone made fun of me. lol

 

[eco's bones]

one could reasonably make the argument that Reffing OR Luck OR Both was the determining factor in us losing this year...not size.

It's apparent that you didn't parse my post very well. I said size 'was' a determining factor in our last 3 ousters. I didn't say it was the only factor. And officiating and luck are always factors for or against as well. As is taking advantage of the opportunities that come your way.

But...the Kings are excellent at excellent at going to the net and screening goalies. They are hard for defensemen to handle because so many of their forwards are big, strong and skilled. A very high % of their goals against the Blackhawks happened because Crawford couldn't find the puck through all the screens. Henrik was a lot better than Crawford but it was the same style of game the Kings employed and it ultimately helped them get another Stanley Cup trophy.

The truth of the matter is there are a number of ways the Rangers could get better and improve their chances of actually winning again some day. Getting bigger and younger players with skill and grit would help a lot. Finding a legit 1st line center who isn't a year or two away from completely breaking down would be helpful as well. The question is how to accomplish that without ripping apart another area of your team--like your defense.

 

[Thirty One]

Though I know I lost my marbles in the Pittsburgh series, in February I said this team would/could make the SCF, but would end up falling short. Everyone made fun of me. lol

Is it just me, or are would and would the same word.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING

 

[Pizza]

The LAST thing the Rangers are is mentally weak.

You can NEVER have enough size, speed, skill & snarl.

Never.

Who would not want two more Chris Kreider's on the squad tomorrow?

 

[Clown Fiesta]

That's the difference, Stutter can adjust on the fly, it takes AV until the series is like half over.

Clinging to leads (or trying to), 6 second shifts in the 3rd periods, keeping Richards on the PP all series (and wasn't [rightfully] demoted until the series was well out of reach), etc. That's why it annoys me so much, because despite all that, we were still only a few OT goals from winning the series.

Then there's a lot of stuff you could consider the players solely responsible for, or consider it to be the players and AV's responsibility, (depending on how much responsibility you place on the coach). i.e. dumb, offensive zone penalties; blowing leads; forcing low % passes; lazy plays in the D-zone..

It took Sutter until game three to adjust, an adjustment AV countered the next game.

Clinging to leads? 6 second shifts? Those aren't actual things that occurred. That third period counter attack by LA is real though. Are we not giving them that credit? Hard to do anything but "cling on" in that situation. As well as our own players not elevating their game in those key moments.

The only issue I had with AV was Richards on the PP.

The LAST thing the Rangers are is mentally weak.

You can NEVER have enough size, speed, skill & snarl.

Never.

Who would not want two more Chris Kreider's on the squad tomorrow?

I'm fine with the one we have, his inability to stick handle and find loose picks in traffic is enough of a detriment. Hopefully he improves that area of his game this off season. I'd rather we had a more seasoned LW for that top line so he could take his rightful place on the send line.

 

[eco's bones]

The LAST thing the Rangers are is mentally weak.

You can NEVER have enough size, speed, skill & snarl.

Never.

Who would not want two more Chris Kreider's on the squad tomorrow?

Agreed--and the one lesson I take from the finals is we have room for improvement in every single one of those areas.

 

[aufheben]

It took Sutter until game three to adjust, an adjustment AV countered the next game.

Clinging to leads? 6 second shifts? Those aren't actual things that occurred. That third period counter attack by LA is real though. Are we not giving them that credit? Hard to do anything but "cling on" in that situation. As well as our own players not elevating their game in those key moments.

The only issue I had with AV was Richards on the PP.



I'm fine with the one we have, his inability to stick handle and find loose picks in traffic is enough of a detriment. Hopefully he improves that area of his game this off season. I'd rather we had a more seasoned LW for that top line so he could take his rightful place on the send line.

Well, clinging to leads would imply they actually held most of them, so...

Ofc they weren't actually 6 second shifts, but they weren't much longer; AV was over-managing the TOI in the 3rd period of Game 5, we couldn't [I should say 'wouldn't] get any sustained pressure in the O-zone. They'd get the puck deep, then go off for a change. We were playing not to lose, and what happens? The Kings tie the game and it goes to OT. They were literally just giving the puck to LA, then getting off the ice immediately. Shots were 12-3 that period, everyone saw it coming.

AV's TOI management was one of my favorite parts about his coaching these playoffs, until the SCF. Supposed to manage the ice time to save energy for the SCF, not keep doing it once you're there.

It's the same criticisms Vancouver fans had towards him.

 

[ltrangerfan]

Let's shake it up a bit:

IMO: The odds are that the Rangers will lose to the following teams in a Playoff series next year (with everything else being equal and little personnel added)

1)Tampa- With a starting goalie

2)Montreal with starting goalie

3)Boston

4)Pitt 50/50.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

Let's shake it up a bit:

IMO: The odds are that the Rangers will lose to the following teams in a Playoff series next year (with everything else being equal and little personnel added)

1)Tampa- With a starting goalie

2)Montreal with starting goalie

3)Boston

4)Pitt 50/50.

The odds that they'll lose to any of those teams is the same as the odds that any team in the NHL could lose to any other team in any given night.

The Rangers are better than 3 out of those 4 teams.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Thornton would be a huge dud here, IMO.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

Thornton would be a huge dud here, IMO.

I disagree. I think Thornton with Nash or Thornton with MSL would be ridiculous.

If we had another goal-scoring LWer and you could run x-Thornton-MSL as the second line, that'd be nuts.

But again, it's not happening. And **** Joe.