Toggle sidebar

Alain Vigneault

  • 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
Jersey Girl said:
I can see why you would say that.

Then again, it's not like Hank carried a seven seed to the ECF or anything. We had the best record in the East that year, two points away from the President's trophy, and as a 1 seed we lost to a 4 seed in the ECF. And a lot of people agree Hank was not great in the Devils series.

Soooooooo it's not quite that black and white after all.
Click to expand...

Even though the '11-12 team won a grand total of over 60 games, they were not "correlated to winning"....remember that.
 
Jersey Girl said:
Pretty general, but I cannot disagree with that.

In your opinion which one were we in 2011-12?
Click to expand...

Like you said it's not that black and white. It was a career year for Henrik and I do think that team overachieved, however first in the East is hard to call mediocre no matter how you slice it. I do think Henrik carried the team in the end.
 
The 11-12 team overachieved, it happens. The Panthers that year should have been a basement dweller and were every year before and since, but that one year they won their division. Oddities happen all the time.
 
Ail said:
Like you said it's not that black and white. It was a career year for Henrik and I do think that team overachieved, however first in the East is hard to call mediocre no matter how you slice it. I do think Henrik carried the team in the end.
Click to expand...

Chicken and the egg, really. Was '11-12 Lundqvist's best year because it happened to be his best year, or was the team-wide commitment to defense a major reason why?
 
Ail said:
Like you said it's not that black and white. It was a career year for Henrik and I do think that team overachieved, however first in the East is hard to call mediocre no matter how you slice it. I do think Henrik carried the team in the end.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Pretty much my only point is that broad general statements usually don't work.
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
Chicken and the egg, really. Was '11-12 Lundqvist's best year because it happened to be his best year, or was the team-wide commitment to defense a major reason why?
Click to expand...

Fair question and probably a little bit of both. I think their tenacity and commitment to the forecheck/backcheck, winning puck battles was one of their biggest successes. The collapse defense I would say in some cases hurt them much more than it helped. That was the one part of their game I was most critical of, and which also I believe hurt Henrik's game or even forced him to have to play like a Vezina goalie.
 
Ail said:
Fair question and probably a little bit of both. I think their tenacity and commitment to the forecheck/backcheck, winning puck battles was one of their biggest successes. The collapse defense I would say in some cases hurt them much more than it helped. That was the one part of their game I was most critical of, and which also I believe hurt Henrik's game or even forced him to have to play like a Vezina goalie.
Click to expand...

Tough to say. That style quite clearly mitigated prime-time scoring opportunities from the slot and goal mouth.

Im happy this team possesses the puck more, and I'd be much more willing to deal with the risk vs. reward quotient if this team scored more goals, but they dont. So what are we left with really? A team that gives up less chances, but the chances they do give up are of higher quality?
 
Lundqvist had a large number of superhuman games. I will say that the team got lax in the regular season defensively in March and his numbers suffered, but he also was just playing worse. That said you'd think that team was leaps and bounds better than this one, this year's team gave up only a few more goals.
 
Lundqvist's number dipped at the end of the '11-'12 season.

The first 3 quarters of the season Hank had a 1.75 GAA with a .940 SV% while facing 29.5 shots a game, with a 2.70 goal support. The Rangers got 1.39 points per game, or 114 points (Presidents Trophy) over an 82 game season.

The last quarter of the season he had a 2.60 GAA with a .895 SV% while facing 25 shots a game and a 2.75 goal support. The Rangers got 1.19 points per game, or 97 points (6th seed in the East) over an 82 game season.

Where Hank goes, so go the Rangers.

His first 3/4 of '11-'12 is the best stretch of goaltending the Rangers have seen in decades. It should be no surprise that the Rangers had massive success. Just like it should be no surprise that they played mediocre hockey when he stopped being a god.
 
McRanger said:
Lundqvist's number dipped at the end of the '11-'12 season.

The first 3 quarters of the season Hank had a 1.75 GAA with a .940 SV% while facing 29.5 shots a game, with a 2.70 goal support. The Rangers got 1.39 points per game, or 114 points (Presidents Trophy) over an 82 game season.

The last quarter of the season he had a 2.60 GAA with a .895 SV% while facing 25 shots a game and a 2.75 goal support. The Rangers got 1.19 points per game, or 97 points (6th seed in the East) over an 82 game season.

Where Hank goes, so go the Rangers.

His first 3/4 of '11-'12 is the best stretch of goaltending the Rangers have seen in decades. It should be no surprise that the Rangers had massive success. Just like it should be no surprise that they played mediocre hockey when he stopped being a god.
Click to expand...

While the Rangers started playing looser (strangely they were allowing fewer shots but a lot of them were higher quality from what I remember), he was still awful in March and April in the regular season. Almost every game he gave up 3 or more. That's my biggest beef with Lundqvist other than playoffs, he just goes through a rut in a month or 2 every season. But yeah, as soon as they stopped having God in net, all of a sudden that team was nothing special.
 
SnowblindNYR said:
While the Rangers started playing looser (strangely they were allowing fewer shots but a lot of them were higher quality from what I remember), he was still awful in March and April in the regular season. Almost every game he gave up 3 or more. That's my biggest beef with Lundqvist other than playoffs, he just goes through a rut in a month or 2 every season. But yeah, as soon as they stopped having God in net, all of a sudden that team was nothing special.
Click to expand...

He wore down. It cab happen when you play months of outstanding hockey and carry a team for most of a season.

Honestly his March-April wear down (and subsequent dip in numbers) makes more sense then his usual December funk that seems to come out of nowhere.

The bottom line is that the Rangers will only go as far as Hank will take them. If he plays like a god, the team is capable of anything. If he plays like a god sometimes, the Rangers will win sometimes.
 
McRanger said:
He wore down. It cab happen when you play months of outstanding hockey and carry a team for most of a season.

Honestly his March-April wear down (and subsequent dip in numbers) makes more sense then his usual December funk that seems to come out of nowhere.

The bottom line is that the Rangers will only go as far as Hank will take them. If he plays like a god, the team is capable of anything. If he plays like a god sometimes, the Rangers will win sometimes.
Click to expand...

Well that season he played in fewer games than normal. But yeah when you play games like he did against Vancouver and Boston on a semi-regular basis I get it. He's had multiple times in his career where he'd have a game like that and then **** the bed next game. It's mentally taxing.
 
Beacon said:
AV had nothing to do with bringing MZA, Kreider, Brass, Dorsett and Moore to New York. It is possible that he wanted Pouliot, Moore Carcillo and Diaz, but othes(Kreider, Brass, MZA, etc) played a more key role in improving our depth.
Click to expand...

AV did not bring in MZA or Kreider but he did let them off their incredibly short leech. I think their improvements speak for themselves.
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
Tough to say. That style quite clearly mitigated prime-time scoring opportunities from the slot and goal mouth.
Click to expand...

It also left the team extraordinarily vulnerable to shots from the point, as evidenced by the Bruins game plan against us (forget Krug, effin Boychuk). Point shots direct or deflections.

Every system is going to have its inherent weaknesses.
 
NickyFotiu said:
AV did not bring in MZA or Kreider but he did let them off their incredibly short leech. I think their improvements speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

I think their improvements have less to do with AV vs Torts than they have to do with the natural development curves of the players.
 
Tawnos said:
I think their improvements have less to do with AV vs Torts than they have to do with the natural development curves of the players.
Click to expand...

Kreider yes, Zucc no.

I don't think Zucc would be playing this well under Torts.
 
True about Zuccarellos start and it's a fair point. I was speaking overall. I just think Zuccarello would've forced his way in, much the way he did when he came back last season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom