Speculation: Are the rangers tough enough?
- Thread starter Cassano
- Start date
-
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
- Status
broadwayblue
Registered User
NYR Viper
Registered User
I am just going to label out that there is a difference between toughness and the ability to inflict pain and intimidate. The Rangers are great with the former. Blocking shots, hitting, not backing down. They have countless players who are tough.
However, they lack the latter which is something many of us have been saying for quite some time. How important is that? Not sure.
However, they lack the latter which is something many of us have been saying for quite some time. How important is that? Not sure.
Fitzy
Very Stable Genius
- Jan 29, 2009
- 36,353
- 24,149
No team is tough enough to deal with cheapshots. You just have to avoid getting injured as best you can.
Philadelphia is going to used scorched earth tactics. NYR, if they continue to win games need to mitigate the damage they take or else they'll be worn down by round 2.
Philadelphia is going to used scorched earth tactics. NYR, if they continue to win games need to mitigate the damage they take or else they'll be worn down by round 2.
NYR Viper
Registered User
They need to get out of this series as quickly as possible. No different than past years against Washington and Ottawa, (2) very physical teams.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
I'll take the Flyers gooning it up at the end of every game if the Rangers have a 3 goal lead.
You know what's intimidating? Holding the puck the entire game.
You know what else is intimidating? The skill level we have on 3 lines, our D, and our Goalie.
No, we don't have the Boogy Man or a Yeti, but I'm not sure it makes a difference when you play the game like we did, yesterday.
The Flyers were undisciplined, and they sucked because of it.
The Hartnell paste job on McDonagh in the 1st was a dubious start, but the Flyers wound up just chasing the puck all night.
The Hartnell paste job on McDonagh in the 1st was a dubious start, but the Flyers wound up just chasing the puck all night.
The Gloaming
23
Yeah, we clearly need more fake tough guys like Brayden Schenn who will try for late crosschecks, hide behind his visor, and then get his ass beat by the likes of Ilya Kovalchuk.
Rangers were just fine in the toffness department yesterday. When you sink down to the flyers level of goonery, you get the 11-12 flyers-penguins series.
Rangers were just fine in the toffness department yesterday. When you sink down to the flyers level of goonery, you get the 11-12 flyers-penguins series.
I'm worried they aren't a heavy enough team, but if they have a tough/resiliant mentality they may be able to overcome.
PlamsUnlimited
Big Church Bells
Hey look another TOFFNOOS thread. Jesus. Rangers played DISCIPLINED. They were mentally hardy. Played their game. That's the toughness we should e concerned about. Not about how we can match goonery. Possession and control is tough. Tough on the guys chasing us.
IMO we need to try Stepan with Carcillo and MSL again. Distribution of toughness.
OverTheCap
Registered User
- Jan 3, 2009
- 10,454
- 184
The Rangers generally play disciplined hockey against the Flyers at home.
On the road, however, is another story. They need to play like they do at home instead of being goaded into taking penalties and letting the Flyers get in their heads. Dorsett specifically needs to be mindful of this, he has been undisciplined at Philly.
On the road, however, is another story. They need to play like they do at home instead of being goaded into taking penalties and letting the Flyers get in their heads. Dorsett specifically needs to be mindful of this, he has been undisciplined at Philly.
Kovalchuk is a pretty big, tough dude. He is one of those stars that WILL beat your ass if provoked.
But I have seen enough of Schenn now to label him a....well....a Flyer.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
I'm not sure the Flyers played tough. The Rangers matched the physicality at the start of the game and never seemed intimidated at any point in the game.
surf
Wheres the Reggae?
Yup, the Rangers matched the physicality just fine. The **** after the whistle? That's not toughness, and we don't need to match it. Let them continue with it, let them take penalties. Our PP looked lethal and will absolutely break this series if they keep up the penalty parade.
I also want to point out that when reading GDT's and PGT's on other boards after we win, other fans pretty frequently refer to us as a physical team. I know we're not truly a rough-and-tumble, hit-everything-that-moves group anymore, but the lack of "toughness" on this team is a myth, something propagated by a small but vocal minority. No one on this team is a pushover, and no one shies away from contact or cowers after the whistle.
nyrage
Registered User
Well at least we're not worrying about the "lethal" Mason-Emery combo anymore.
The Flyers were only down two goals when they started taking dumb penalties. Gotta love facing such a stupid undisciplined team. They don't intimidate anyone, especially hiding behind shields and slashing smaller players. More dumb penalties please.
I love the Flyers formula for sustained success (for their opponents): lumbering defensemen, a bunch of useless forwards on their bottom two lines, dumb penalties, and sub-par goaltending.
The Flyers were only down two goals when they started taking dumb penalties. Gotta love facing such a stupid undisciplined team. They don't intimidate anyone, especially hiding behind shields and slashing smaller players. More dumb penalties please.
I love the Flyers formula for sustained success (for their opponents): lumbering defensemen, a bunch of useless forwards on their bottom two lines, dumb penalties, and sub-par goaltending.
E-Train
Registered User
The Rangers are tough enough to handle the Flyers. They skate, hit and can stand up to this version of the Flyers. The Bruins are the only team with skill and toughness the Rangers can't match in the East. Dorsett can easily match up with Rinaldo. Even though he rarely goes, Klein can handle Simmonds in a fight. The Schenn sisters are a joke. Don't quite the get hype of the big bad Flyers, 1975 was a long time ago.
surf
Wheres the Reggae?
E-Train
Registered User
There's no one else in the league I'd like to see TKO'd more than Simmonds. Including Rinaldo.
180 lb punk thinks he's a HW.
If the Rangers own the puck, they win the series. If the Rangers get slowed down and it becomes a grind fest, the Flyers have a better shot.
If it becomes a grind fest and the Rangers win, they'll be worn out for the next series. The Rangers don't play a heavy brand of hockey, so they have to out-wit, out-think, out-quick the opposition.
It wasn't an even game last night, but it was still 1-1 for nearly 50 minutes of the game. It's not a matter of TOFFNess, which has become a debating point for those that want to engage on this board (gives you guys something to argue about), but rather the Rangers not playing into the Flyers strengths.
The Flyers don't have a good enough defense or goaltending (surprise!) to have a deep playoff run, but that doesn't mean they can't beat the Rangers if they are able to dictate how the game is played.
The Rangers owned the neutral zone last night, and the Flyers couldn't do squat offensively outside of a few short shifts. If the Flyers get their forechecking game on, then they are dangerous.
If it becomes a grind fest and the Rangers win, they'll be worn out for the next series. The Rangers don't play a heavy brand of hockey, so they have to out-wit, out-think, out-quick the opposition.
It wasn't an even game last night, but it was still 1-1 for nearly 50 minutes of the game. It's not a matter of TOFFNess, which has become a debating point for those that want to engage on this board (gives you guys something to argue about), but rather the Rangers not playing into the Flyers strengths.
The Flyers don't have a good enough defense or goaltending (surprise!) to have a deep playoff run, but that doesn't mean they can't beat the Rangers if they are able to dictate how the game is played.
The Rangers owned the neutral zone last night, and the Flyers couldn't do squat offensively outside of a few short shifts. If the Flyers get their forechecking game on, then they are dangerous.
haveandare
Registered User
Not even remotely a problem IMO.
The Flyers were down two. They have a good offense. Could have come back. Could have at least threatened to come back. Instead they played like idiots and ruined any chance of winning. That's great.
Let them keep playing like that. Be careful not to respond. Just go on the PP and make them pay. If you can get the Flyers into a loop like that where "tough" plays lead to penalties and penalties lead to PP goals against, they have no idea what to do. We saw it last night. "Do we....do we take more penalties?" Yeah, guys, that's what you do.
The Flyers were down two. They have a good offense. Could have come back. Could have at least threatened to come back. Instead they played like idiots and ruined any chance of winning. That's great.
Let them keep playing like that. Be careful not to respond. Just go on the PP and make them pay. If you can get the Flyers into a loop like that where "tough" plays lead to penalties and penalties lead to PP goals against, they have no idea what to do. We saw it last night. "Do we....do we take more penalties?" Yeah, guys, that's what you do.
Go for the occasional big hit (but not on one of their stars; then you're just begging for trouble). It'd be nice to see Strålman throw a few (clean but hard) hip-checks; Staal can surely "line up" a forward. Keep it clean; keep it sexy. Otherwise, though, just focus on creating and stopping chances. Be opportunistic; don't look for trouble. It's a simple game.
I don't care for fighting in principle; it only hurts the NHL's image (why so many people I know call hockey "barbaric"). But fighting is also risky. There's the risk of picking up an instigator; there's the risk of injury. And, while winning a fight may increase momentum, losing a fight can take it away. There's just too much uncertainty to justify actively seeking fights.
I don't care for fighting in principle; it only hurts the NHL's image (why so many people I know call hockey "barbaric"). But fighting is also risky. There's the risk of picking up an instigator; there's the risk of injury. And, while winning a fight may increase momentum, losing a fight can take it away. There's just too much uncertainty to justify actively seeking fights.
- Status
