Post-Game Talk: 4/1: AV returns to Vancouver (McDonagh injury "not serious")

[Richter Scale]

you can't be serious with that comparison.

When the Rangers become as talented as THAT Niners team from the 80's, then we can talk.

The Wings from 07-08 is a much better comparison.

Soft but very talented.

Rangers are Soft AND minimally talented.

The bolded is a bit off. The Wings' 06-07 team would be a better comparison (but they didn't win; in part because they were soft). Edit: The 01-02 Red Wings would be an even better example - totally stacked, actually won, and not much in the way of toughness.

The 06-07 Wings team was one of the most talented teams in the league, and then went up against Anaheim in the conference finals and got absolutely dominated physically the entire series. The Wings were up 2-1 in the series. In a blowout win for the Wings in game 3, Pronger hits Holmstrom from behind and drives his head into the boards. Is it any surprise that, seeing a soft team and knowing the outcome of the game was determined, Pronger ends up cheap shotting one of the Wings' players? No response from the Wings. A pathetic 1 game suspension is all the wheels of justice doled out. Guess what happens from there. Holmstrom, to that point, was the leading scorer for the Wings in that series. He didn't score another point in that series, and seemed to be playing through an injury. The Wings continue to get physically dominated all series and lose 3 straight.

What happens between that playoff loss and the following season's playoffs? The Wings go out and add Brad Stuart, Dallas Drake, and pick Darren McCarty back up right in time for the 07-08 playoffs. Sure, that 07-08 Red Wings team was stacked -- but they were by absolutely no means "soft." And again, another coincidence where a skilled team goes out and gets that toughness and grittiness (with players who can actually play -- not just toughness for toughness' sake) in the offseason and wins the cup. Why am I not surprised?

**** it, for those eschewing toughness: Do we need Rangers analogies? The couple seasons prior to 93-94, the Rangers were just as stacked as the cup winning team, if not moreso pure skill-wise. Those teams didn’t win a cup. The trades made at the deadline in 93-94 – what did they do? They shipped out ‘soft’ skill, and brought in some skilled grittiness. You need that in the playoffs. You will not win if your team is easily pushed around. Regular season and the playoffs are two completely different types of games.

Heck, even the 11-12 Rangers team – which got the furthest in the playoffs of any Rangers team in over a decade – had a good amount of grittiness built into their team concept and game, if not in the actual players as well.

I don’t get how people don’t see this stuff. You don’t need to go get a guy like John Scott, but you do need a team with a good number of players who can play and will also stand up for their teammates.

 

[Wolfy*]

It definitely seems like he will miss more than 2-3 games. I would not be surprised if he misses the rest of the regular season just to make sure he is 100% healthy for the playoffs. Maybe he plays in the last 2 games or so just to test it. It would be incredible for him to be back and playing so fast

If we're just talking about some sore muscles, then things should return to normal in about a week. Strained muscles will take longer though.

But an athlete like him will recover faster than untrained people.

 

[NYRCSKA*]

if there was no structural damage it's probably just a bone bruise. That's not a muscle injury/pull kind of play. That's a broken bone kind of play. He's gonna be sore for a couple of weeks but he'll be fine if there is no structural damage.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The 06-07 Wings outplayed the Ducks in that series and lost in large part due to a fluke game tying goal in a pivotal game 5 in the final minutes that the Ducks ended up winning in OT. The Ducks' toughness sure helped them when they were made to look like fools in a 5-0 loss. That series was so close (outside of that game) that pretending that it was toughness that won it for the Ducks is just an excuse to trumpet toughness. I still find it hilarious that people that that Ducks team was better than the 07-08 team that no one could take the puck from because the Ducks could hit. The 06-07 Ducks were one of the lowest scoring SC champions (in the playoffs). Hell, I think the Wings in 07-08 were even a better defense. The 06-07 team gets its praises sung by the #tuffness crowd because they were the toughest team since the lockout to win the cup. Since the lockout 3 of the 8 teams were actually considered "tough" teams (Ducks, Bruins, Kings), the other 5 were easily skill teams, even if they had some toughness in their lineup.

 

[HockeyBasedNYC]

That. Is. Awesome. News.

So worried last night, watching McD go down. Hes my favorite player and he means so much to the team. This might be a good thing. Hopefully AV will sit him a game or two and he'll recharge the tank a little bit (not that he needs it from what ive heard).

 

[Richter Scale]

Burrows ran wild during that Van-Bos Stanley Cup, against a Boston team featuring Shawn Thornton, Lucic, and Chara, and pretty much in-arguably one of top to bottom "toughest" teams in the league. But yes, let's all bemoan the fact we don't have a goon on our roster who surely would have made Burrows change the style of game he's been playing (effectively) his entire career.

And for those attacking Girardi, did anyone else notice I think Hansen or Weber, down and in pain on all fours on the ice late in the second or start of the third period? It happened right after the Van player took a run at McD. Within moments of the run, G had come across, and just crushed the guy into the boards. No penalty, but that's exactly the response I like to see, and it's something I feel Girardi has actually started doing a good amount this season.

To your first point - which team won that series? Which team got pushed around all series?

To your second point - I'm pretty sure that hit was prior to the McD incident. If it was after, and I'm remembering incorrectly, then good on G - I'll agree with you, such a response could be sufficient. But I'm nearly certain it wasn't after.

Edit -- Note: I'm not one of G's haters. I love his game. But he needs to do more in that situation.

Having more size would be great but not at the expense of some skill as well. It's why the Rangers jettisoned a guy like Pyatt...big, but not skilled and doesn't do a lot on the ice. If the options are small and skilled versus big and hands of stone I'll take small and skilled every day.

Yes, if you're giving us the option of Pyatt vs. Zucc/MSL; absolutely I take Zucc/MSL every day of the week - and I don't think there is any person advocating more toughness who would disagree with that. That is a straw man argument.

The people advocating tougness are talking about having a number of players who are capable of actually playing the game but who are also willing to dole out some punishment and stand up for teammates. Pyatt did neither of those things; he was just a big body. What we are talking about could be anyone in the range of players from Lucic, a Clowe-of-a-few-years-ago, to a Brad Stuart or a Brooks Orpik, to even dare-I-say-it a Callahan or Dubinsky (as long as they aren't your only "tough"/gritty guy(s)).

Those types of players don't come cheap unless they are developed. Deal with it. There is a reason for that.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Yes, minimally talented.

If we were VERY talented, we wouldn't have had to fight and claw for 5th in the conference.

We would be pushing Pitt for 1st in the division.

As it is, a bad 5 game stretch puts us in a wild card spot.

So yes, minimally talented.

Could it be the fact that we had a poor start? This team has shown that it is not a team that has stretches of 3-7-1 like they did to open the season. Im not really a "what if" kind of guy however, flip 3-7-1 to 7-3-1 and we have 98 points and are 3pts behind Stanksburgh for 1st in our division. This team has shown under Vigneault to be much closer to that 7-3-1 team rather than the 3-7-1 (which that poor record can be attributed to multiple factors).

 

[aufheben]

Bruin's physicality was a difference maker against Vancouver. 2011 Canucks were absurdly skilled.

Also, being a tough team transcends pure physicality.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Bruin's physicality was a difference maker against Vancouver. 2011 Canucks were absurdly skilled.

Also, being a tough team transcends pure physicality.

The Bruins scored obscene amounts of goals on Luongo by hitting and punching the puck into the net.

 

[aufheben]

Honestly did you watch that series? Misspelling words and making jokes doesn't change anything. It's not soccer FFS

 

[sark76]

Why would McD travel with the team if there is no chance he was playing? Team bonding?

He could be traveling with the team to Denver for further testing rather the back to new york.

 

[Infinitum Vitae*]

Just read the update on McD...the guy is a tank

 

[KreiMeARiver*]

Bruin's physicality was a difference maker against Vancouver. 2011 Canucks were absurdly skilled.

Also, being a tough team transcends pure physicality.

Indeed, but after that hit the Bruins played ANGRY. Vancouver had no chance afterwards.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Honestly did you watch that series? Misspelling words and making jokes doesn't change anything. It's not soccer FFS

I remember the Canucks being completely injured. I honestly don't remember if it's because of the big bad Bruins injuring them, but yeah if it was at the hands of the Bruins, I guess if you can't beat them injure them is good enough, they don't ask how. I also remember the Bruins skating circles around the injured Canucks. I guess they were so fast it hurt.

 

[NYRCSKA*]

Indeed, but after that hit the Bruins played ANGRY. Vancouver had no chance afterwards.

Luongo also laid an egg…. He couldn't stop a beach ball after game 2.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Luongo also laid an egg…. He couldn't stop a beach ball after game 2.

Well to be fair he did play a #tuff team. Like Patty "Bob Probert" Kane showed the world when the Chicago "Broad Street Bully" Blackhawks beat the Canucks two years in a row in embarrassing fashion.

 

[Infinitum Vitae*]

Luongo also laid an egg…. He couldn't stop a beach ball after game 2.

That was the key to the series... he just broke down like MAF for pitt

 

[Ola]

Bruin's physicality was a difference maker against Vancouver. 2011 Canucks were absurdly skilled.

Also, being a tough team transcends pure physicality.

I don't agree.

The Bruins were the better hockey team in every single game.

Size matters, strength along the boards and ability to take the puck to the ice matters. It don't matter if it's Detroit, Anaheim or Boston.

But Vancouver had very little talent outside the Sedins and Boston was just the better team.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I don't agree.

The Bruins were the better hockey team in every single game.

Size matters, strength along the boards and ability to take the puck to the ice matters. It don't matter if it's Detroit, Anaheim or Boston.

But Vancouver had very little talent outside the Sedins and Boston was just the better team.

They had very little talent because of the injuries that team was very talented.

 

[AHB*]

What is the update on McD? Not serious? Brooks wrote he is out indefinately, possible playoffs, is that true? Sorry, just trying to piece it all together here.

 

[mrmyheadhurts]

Bruin's physicality was a difference maker against Vancouver. 2011 Canucks were absurdly skilled.

Also, being a tough team transcends pure physicality.

Honestly, this has been over exaggerated thanks to dummies like Milbury and Cherry who think post whistle scrums = toughness. The Canucks were obliterated by injuries by the time the Finals started and it only got worse. A big reason the Bruins physicality was so effective is because nearly all of the Canucks key players were playing through significant injuries or not playing at all. The series really turned when Hamhuis went down in game two, I knew the Canucks were in trouble when that happened. I'm not going to even bother listing all the players that were injured or knocked out of the lineup, it would take too long. They had no issues handling a very physical Nashville team with Weber and Suter punishing them all series. They were a shell of the team that dominated the league that season by the time the Finals finished.

So yeah, their physicality was effective but only because they were kicking a wounded animal.

Do you believe the Hawks were appreciably tougher than the 2011 Canucks? I certainly don't but they were able to stay healthy and use their speed and skill to neutralize the Bruins.

And yes, Luongo was awful in Boston, that didn't help either. Especially game 6, still have nightmares about that one.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Honestly, this has been over exaggerated thanks to dummies like Milbury and Cherry who think post whistle scrums = toughness. The Canucks were obliterated by injuries by the time the Finals started and it only got worse. A big reason the Bruins physicality was so effective is because nearly all of the Canucks key players were playing through significant injuries or not playing at all. The series really turned when Hamhuis went down in game two, I knew the Canucks were in trouble when that happened. I'm not going to even bother listing all the players that were injured or knocked out of the lineup, it would take too long. They had no issues handling a very physical Nashville team with Weber and Suter punishing them all series. They were a shell of the team that dominated the league that season by the time the Finals finished.

So yeah, their physicality was effective but only because they were kicking a wounded animal.

Do you believe the Hawks were appreciably tougher than the 2011 Canucks? I certainly don't but they were able to stay healthy and use their speed and skill to neutralize the Bruins.

And yes, Luongo was awful in Boston, that didn't help either. Especially game 6, still have nightmares about that one.

A healthy Canucks team and a half decent Luongo (Im talking slightly better than a traffic cone) would have beat the Bruinds.

 

[Infinitum Vitae*]

Why are we talking about a team that hasn't won anything? This is the New York rangers board...not canucks

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Honestly, this has been over exaggerated thanks to dummies like Milbury and Cherry who think post whistle scrums = toughness. The Canucks were obliterated by injuries by the time the Finals started and it only got worse. A big reason the Bruins physicality was so effective is because nearly all of the Canucks key players were playing through significant injuries or not playing at all. The series really turned when Hamhuis went down in game two, I knew the Canucks were in trouble when that happened. I'm not going to even bother listing all the players that were injured or knocked out of the lineup, it would take too long. They had no issues handling a very physical Nashville team with Weber and Suter punishing them all series. They were a shell of the team that dominated the league that season by the time the Finals finished.

So yeah, their physicality was effective but only because they were kicking a wounded animal.

Do you believe the Hawks were appreciably tougher than the 2011 Canucks? I certainly don't but they were able to stay healthy and use their speed and skill to neutralize the Bruins.

And yes, Luongo was awful in Boston, that didn't help either. Especially game 6, still have nightmares about that one.

That won't really go with what Rangers fans belief what makes the ideal team, so I'm sure this will be glossed over.

 

[Wolfy*]

What is the update on McD? Not serious? Brooks wrote he is out indefinately, possible playoffs, is that true? Sorry, just trying to piece it all together here.

Oh no...Brooks wrote that?