2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs: We're In!!! Let's talk (Clinched 2nd Place)

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Yeah. It probably will be. I don't think a series of 4-7 games is a good measuring stick for a 90 game season.

It the 2011-12 team would have lost Game 6 in Ottawa does that change the team from good to bad?

I dont know. I guess Ill wait for you to tell us.

The '11-12 team had a better 82 game record, but your puck possession stats for '13-14 might have you say they are the better team. Curious to see which way you spin it.

 

[Thirty One]

My point is that people have been ******** on Torts all year when AV has yet to coach a playoff game for us. It's embarrassing.

I don't see what one thing has to do with the other, but on the flip side when the Rangers started slowly and the Canucks quickly, the "Sky is falling on AV" crowd had a field day.

Lost in 5 in '97.

Lost in 6 in '12

#Math

OK. I would consider advancing getting to another round of playoffs. I don't recall many saying the Rangers "advanced" to Game 6.

 

[GordonGecko]

My point is that people have been ******** on Torts all year when AV has yet to coach a playoff game for us. It's embarrassing.

You want to know what's actually embarrassing?

 

[aufheben]

Some of you guys have a real knack for pushing a simple point into abstraction.

 

[Thirty One]

You want to know what's actually embarrassing?

Also, getting suspended for hitting a middle aged woman in the audience with a water bottle in a game you hold a key offensive weapon for the team out of the lineup for discipline reasons.

But this has nothing to do with the 2013-14 Rangers playoff chances.

 

[Thirty One]

I dont know. I guess Ill wait for you to tell us.

The '11-12 team had a better 82 game record, but your puck possession stats for '13-14 might have you say they are the better team. Curious to see which way you spin it.

My puck possession stats have nothing to do with this. (I'd guess my puck possession stats are the worst among defensemen on my team)

But anyways, you've either missed or completely ignored the point. I'm not the one saying that you can judge a team solely by losing 4 out of 7 games in late April.

 

[True Blue]

Advanced further than any Ranger team in 20 years.

But other than that, you're absolutely right.

Forget about just 20, had more success than most Rangers teams in history.

The hate that exists for that team just boggles my mind.

 

[True Blue]

I feel like people should wait to see how AV's team does in the playoffs. Been hearing this crap about Torts' teams all season. I guess it's easy to talk **** when the playoffs haven't even started yet, and if we don't make it past the 1st round, no doubt the printing press of excuses (which are apparently only applicable to AV and not Torts) will be back out in full force.

You know full well that will happen. The amount of excuses that are granted to this team and the sheer amount of posts attributing the '11-12 team to luck is amazing.

 

[True Blue]

His response will probably be "but they didn't".

That's because they didn't. You know. Real life.

The fact is all of the "Winning!" people like to pretend that luck doesn't exist. In that game I remember us benefitting from a bad call and taking the lead. Game could have easily gone the other way.

There's the "ifs and buts" and there is what actually occurred.

 

[Tawnos]

Forget about just 20, had more success than most Rangers teams in history.

The hate that exists for that team just boggles my mind.

I think the "hate" is a reaction to people who overrate the team.

Some people remember that they were first in the conference and made it to the ECF. That they were greater than the sum of their parts. That they were a likeable, blue-collar bunch with a strong identity. They overachieved.

Some people remember that they really didn't play that well down the stretch or in the playoffs. That there were severe limitations to that style of play, both in effectiveness and sustainability. And they overachieved.

Personally, it's a little bit of both. They did overachieve and there are real questions as to teams replicating an overachieving result. The team's offense during the regular season was actually underrated, if anything, since they were 2nd in the league in 3+ goal games, but it disappeared in the playoffs. I really, really appreciate what that team gave us and will always think of that season as special. It doesn't blind me to their flaws, though.

 

[Ail]

Forget about just 20, had more success than most Rangers teams in history.

The hate that exists for that team just boggles my mind.

I don't hate that team, but I do hate the people that try to draw parallels or make unfair comparisons with it. The same goes for the '94 team.

For the majority of last year and this, all some people want to do is complain about how such a good thing was ruined over and over without any consideration for the facts or realities of the situation. Then when people try to talk about the positives of the current team, you know, the one that is relevant and actually matters, those same people try to downplay every strength while harping on the weaknesses.

We get it, you would rather sulk all day and live in the past while cursing Glen Sather to his grave. Excuse the rest of us while we move on and work with what we are given because even if we don't like it there isn't **** you can do about it.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Game 5 of the 1990 PDSF is on MSG now. The Isles have won two playoff series since then, and both were in 1993.

Rangers-Flyers is going to be a war.

 

[aufheben]

Game 5 of the 1990 PDSF is on MSG now. The Isles have won two playoff series since then, and both were in 1993.

Rangers-Flyers is going to be a war.

Just...pathetic. Meanwhile the Red Wings have made the playoffs every year since before '93. lola

 

[GordonGecko]

Rangers-Flyers is going to be a war.

Don't look now but Columbus is making a strong move towards us

 

[Thirty One]

That's because they didn't. You know. Real life.

There's the "ifs and buts" and there is what actually occurred.

One of the biggest movements in sports management in the past few years has been separating the results into what can be attributed to skill opposed to luck. Real life has grey.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

That's because they didn't. You know. Real life.

There's the "ifs and buts" and there is what actually occurred.

Yes, because the Sens getting hosed by the refs makes the Rangers a better team. People don't want to admit that winning a game means you weren't necessarily the better team and that luck is involved.

 

[McRanger]

I think the "hate" is a reaction to people who overrate the team.

Some people remember that they were first in the conference and made it to the ECF. That they were greater than the sum of their parts. That they were a likeable, blue-collar bunch with a strong identity. They overachieved.

Some people remember that they really didn't play that well down the stretch or in the playoffs. That there were severe limitations to that style of play, both in effectiveness and sustainability. And they overachieved.

Personally, it's a little bit of both. They did overachieve and there are real questions as to teams replicating an overachieving result. The team's offense during the regular season was actually underrated, if anything, since they were 2nd in the league in 3+ goal games, but it disappeared in the playoffs. I really, really appreciate what that team gave us and will always think of that season as special. It doesn't blind me to their flaws, though.

Good post. That about sums is up.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Don't look now but Columbus is making a strong move towards us

Hope its Philly. MSG is a house of horrors for them.

Something doesn't sit right with me if its Columbus. Theres going to be a bunch of guys with chips on their shoulders if they draw the Rangers.

 

[GordonGecko]

Hope its Philly. MSG is a house of horrors for them.

Something doesn't sit right with me if its Columbus. Theres going to be a bunch of guys with chips on their shoulders if they draw the Rangers.

That goes both ways, remember how Nash played last time against the BJs?

But I think it's going to be the Flyers, and that would give Boston or Pitts a strong opponent against Columbus

 

[Rangerfan4life90]

I think I'd rather play the CBJ the more we're heading towards the playoffs.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

That goes both ways, remember how Nash played last time against the BJs?

He got knocked around and had 9 PIMs?

 

[Pizza]

It begins and ends with Hank as far as the Rangers are concerned. He has to be flat out brilliant. Stealing games if not a series .....if the Rangers are to have a chance.

That's a big IF because they need at least 3 other players to step and prove or reaffirm Elite status:

MSL
MCD
MZA

Not Richards. He just has to be solid and prove he's still relevant. Not Nash. He never was and never will be elite. He along with Step has to come out and have his FIRST strong playoff performance. If Nash is invisible it will be tougher.

The rest of the crew just has to be solid and some guys from the Rank and File need to stand and deliver above the rest:

Brass
Staal
Girardi are the main players I'd put in that category.

Otherwise it will be interesting to see how well the Rangers can offset the crease crashing and tough, physical play that is sure to be coming. For the Rangers that means a PP firing on all cylinders.

One last thing. This team is sure to be beaten up pretty good if it makes the later rounds much less a Cup final. If they go deep getting Kreider's big body and big game ability back in the lineup would be huge.

 

[GordonGecko]

He got knocked around and had 9 PIMs?

you got it, and then he got mad and dominated the ice. Was really nice to see, we need more Angry Nash and less Gentle Giant Nash

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I think the "hate" is a reaction to people who overrate the team.

Some people remember that they were first in the conference and made it to the ECF. That they were greater than the sum of their parts. That they were a likeable, blue-collar bunch with a strong identity. They overachieved.

Some people remember that they really didn't play that well down the stretch or in the playoffs. That there were severe limitations to that style of play, both in effectiveness and sustainability. And they overachieved.

Personally, it's a little bit of both. They did overachieve and there are real questions as to teams replicating an overachieving result. The team's offense during the regular season was actually underrated, if anything, since they were 2nd in the league in 3+ goal games, but it disappeared in the playoffs. I really, really appreciate what that team gave us and will always think of that season as special. It doesn't blind me to their flaws, though.

I agree with you 100% here.

What starts me up with the '11-12 team is when people start ignoring the successes of that season, and whining about how that style of play bored them. How Tortorella's "stone-age hockey" ruined the team. Its crap. Why denounce what that team accomplished due to your own selfish wishes? Given the history of the team, we don't have the right as Ranger fans to devalue a trip to the conference finals.

I think this current team does some things better, namely in the skill/puck possession department. I also think the lack of a blue collar foundation will be a leading factor in their demise. And if that happens, what did we really accomplish here? Wholesale changes just to remain in neutral?

 

[True Blue]

We get it, you would rather sulk all day and live in the past while cursing Glen Sather to his grave. Excuse the rest of us while we move on and work with what we are given because even if we don't like it there isn't **** you can do about it.

Not being able to do anything about "it" and discussing various items is one of many reasons this forum exists.