Toggle sidebar

Around the NHL XI: Second Round Edition

  • 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
Not open for further replies.
For the sake of hypothetically talking (since we haven't yet won the ECF).

Picking LA and Chicago almost seems like the decision between Boston and Montreal this round. I think I'd honestly go with Chicago.

I wanted Montreal simply due to the fact that they didn't give us size and physicality issues that Boston would have. LA will give us size and physicality issues that Chicago won't. Like Montreal, Chicago plays more looser, which could help us match up wise.

Not to mention, I'd prefer facing Crawford over Quick.
 
Rangerfan4life90 said:
For the sake of hypothetically talking (since we haven't yet won the ECF).

Picking LA and Chicago almost seems like the decision between Boston and Montreal this round. I think I'd honestly go with Chicago.

I wanted Montreal simply due to the fact that they didn't give us size and physicality issues that Boston would have. LA will give us size and physicality issues that Chicago won't.
Click to expand...

Even after that crazy comeback, I still firmly take the Kings...I think our speed could exploit them. Quick is scary, though.

I just think we're capable of shutting down their forward group, and I'm not all too impressed with their blueline's play at times this playoffs. I think our speed could create a lot of problems for them in transition and in their own zone. And our players are very good along the walls, they've been battling their ***** off. The Kings "size" is overrated, IMO. Yes, Kopitar is beastly, but Williams, Gaborik, Toffoli, Pearson...all slippery players. Carter is large, but he doesn't really play to his size at times, and I think we'd do a good job against him. Especially with Hank.

Hawks are just...the best all around team in the league. They have experience, they have talent, they have depth, they have incredible special teams, a reliable goaltender (although that third goal tonight was VERY iffy)...they have it all.

That said, I think we have a better bottom-6 than the Hawks, and that we are capable of shutting down the Hawks top lines. Our defense and goaltending is arguably the best in the NHL, period. Hawks' D is right there with us, but Hank is better than Crawford.
 
So glad they split and the Rangers are up 2-0. We could not ask for a much better start in the first two games. Props to the Rangers for surviving that ridiculous compressed early schedule. Ending round two so early could really be a huge benefit going forward.
 
BrianBoyle said:
Even after that crazy comeback, I still firmly take the Kings...I think our speed could exploit them. Quick is scary, though.

I just think we're capable of shutting down their forward group, and I'm not all too impressed with their blueline's play at times this playoffs. I think our speed could create a lot of problems for them in transition and in their own zone. And our players are very good along the walls, they've been battling their ***** off. The Kings "size" is overrated, IMO. Yes, Kopitar is beastly, but Williams, Gaborik, Toffoli, Pearson...all slippery players. Carter is large, but he doesn't really play to his size at times, and I think we'd do a good job against him. Especially with Hank.

Hawks are just...the best all around team in the league. They have experience, they have talent, they have depth, they have incredible special teams, a reliable goaltender (although that third goal tonight was VERY iffy)...they have it all.

That said, I think we have a better bottom-6 than the Hawks, and that we are capable of shutting down the Hawks top lines. Our defense and goaltending is arguably the best in the NHL, period. Hawks' D is right there with us, but Hank is better than Crawford.
Click to expand...

Good breakdown and I agree. Quick is really good, but I still think we have a slight edge in goal and match up better with LA. To me, the main thing with Chicago is Crawford: he can be good, or he can be really good. If the really good version shows up, the Hawks are a scary team to play against. This is assuming, of course, we beat Montreal. They are a very good team and should not be looked past.
 
Also to note, the Kings haven't faced two adquate shutdown pairs yet from a single opponent.

Vlasic was injured.

Ducks had Fowler-Beauchemin followed by wallow of youngsters.

Chicago has Keith-Seabrook, Hjalmarsson and Oduya are quite hit and miss lately.

But the main question is:

Are we tough enough?
 
Mint said:
Also to note, the Kings haven't faced two adquate shutdown pairs yet from a single opponent.

Vlasic was injured.

Ducks had Fowler-Beauchemin followed by wallow of youngsters.

Chicago has Keith-Seabrook, Hjalmarsson and Oduya are quite hit and miss lately.

But the main question is:

Are we tough enough?
Click to expand...

Also, up until now, the teams they have faced had question marks in goal. Niemi is VERY hit or miss, and the Ducks were rotating.
 
BrianBoyle said:
Even after that crazy comeback, I still firmly take the Kings...I think our speed could exploit them. Quick is scary, though.

I just think we're capable of shutting down their forward group, and I'm not all too impressed with their blueline's play at times this playoffs. I think our speed could create a lot of problems for them in transition and in their own zone. And our players are very good along the walls, they've been battling their ***** off. The Kings "size" is overrated, IMO. Yes, Kopitar is beastly, but Williams, Gaborik, Toffoli, Pearson...all slippery players. Carter is large, but he doesn't really play to his size at times, and I think we'd do a good job against him. Especially with Hank.

Hawks are just...the best all around team in the league. They have experience, they have talent, they have depth, they have incredible special teams, a reliable goaltender (although that third goal tonight was VERY iffy)...they have it all.

That said, I think we have a better bottom-6 than the Hawks, and that we are capable of shutting down the Hawks top lines. Our defense and goaltending is arguably the best in the NHL, period. Hawks' D is right there with us, but Hank is better than Crawford.
Click to expand...

The thing is all 3 teams that the Kings have played so far are faster than them. But they're masters at interference. They also can adapt. SJ's speed killed them, look at them after game 3.
 
Chicago is the best team in te league, but they are really tired already.

Chicago plays very differently from Philly, Pitt and MTL. They play the same "man-man" defense as we do, but what they have done extremely well is "get OUT of trouble". This is what it comes down to, and what few if any "experts" in NA are picking up on. When you abandon the collapse in your goalies lap style, and push out your defense, they are forces to move more. You also need to find ways to handle the gaps between your wingers and Ds in your own end, it's here ELEMENTS OF MAN-MAN defense occur. All this results in a defense in Chicago for example that has a heck of a lot more speed under their skates than the defense in Philly or Pittsburgh. That speed makes it so much easier for Chicago to get out of their own end when they win the puck. Over the last years, teams have just had a really hard time to pin Chicago down in their end for any longer periods. Given the awesome depth Chicago have had, they have just been too much to handle.

LAK is much more like Pitt and Phi, but they have much more composure.

In the end, I think any series against LAK would be extremely close with a slight advantage for LA. They are better than us offensively, and it's not easy to poke a hole in their defense. But we would have a shot at least, especially if we could get to some of their Ds.

I think that Chicago is breaking down some for every game played. I do think that this is a series that we even could control potentially.
 
I don't really care who we face should we make it. I think both teams have a lot of strengths and very few weaknesses. All I hope is for a long and hard 7 game series, so the 1-1 split is a good start.
 
Greg02 said:
I don't know why people are worried about Quick. I mean, we have Kreider.
Click to expand...

Love the joke, but I'm never worried about Quick.

Just make the extra pass and watch him try to flop around in his crease like a fish out of water to make the save.

I think for the most part, Chicago will expose him in the upcoming games.
 
Well, I think thats enough hypotheticals for at least a week.

I think its best to worry about the current series we are in right now.
 
Blueshirt Believer said:
Well, I think thats enough hypotheticals for at least a week.

I think its best to worry about the current series we are in right now.
Click to expand...

Yes, because clearly what is being discussed on message board by people who no affiliation with the team other than being a fan has a major impact on the outcome of a game.
 
Rangerfan4life90 said:
For the sake of hypothetically talking (since we haven't yet won the ECF).

Picking LA and Chicago almost seems like the decision between Boston and Montreal this round. I think I'd honestly go with Chicago.

I wanted Montreal simply due to the fact that they didn't give us size and physicality issues that Boston would have. LA will give us size and physicality issues that Chicago won't. Like Montreal, Chicago plays more looser, which could help us match up wise.

Not to mention, I'd prefer facing Crawford over Quick.
Click to expand...

Pretty much exactly why I'd want the hypothetical Rangers team that makes it to the finals to face Chicago and not LA. But either way I hope it takes Chicago/LA 7 games to sort that out. If it did it'd mean LA has played three 7 game series and Chicago two 6 game series and a 7. IF (really if) the Rangers could finish out their series in 4 or 5 then it could give them an advantage
 
Greg02 said:
I don't know why people are worried about Quick. I mean, we have Kreider.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, 10 minutes into Game 1 Quick is carried off the ice on a stretcher. Kreider skates away with a smile on his face that he can't hold back, then yells "hilarious" at McQuire between the benches before he climbs over the wall.

Imagine the reactions?

:laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
Last edited:
Affinity said:
I'm hoping for Chicago either way if we win or lose. I just prefer their style of play and their stars. Kane is my favorite non-Ranger.
Click to expand...

Either team would be tough to play against but I'd prefer the Rangers to play against a team that is weakest where the Rangers are the strongest - in goal. For this reason I think we'd have a better chance playing against Hawks.
 
jas said:
Yes, because clearly what is being discussed on message board by people who no affiliation with the team other than being a fan has a major impact on the outcome of a game.
Click to expand...

Never said it did. But, I do think it shows a level of arrogance/presumptuousness discussing it at this point. The current series is far from over at the moment.

Then again, I was only speaking for myself.
 
Ola said:
Chicago is the best team in te league, but they are really tired already.

Chicago plays very differently from Philly, Pitt and MTL. They play the same "man-man" defense as we do, but what they have done extremely well is "get OUT of trouble". This is what it comes down to, and what few if any "experts" in NA are picking up on. When you abandon the collapse in your goalies lap style, and push out your defense, they are forces to move more. You also need to find ways to handle the gaps between your wingers and Ds in your own end, it's here ELEMENTS OF MAN-MAN defense occur. All this results in a defense in Chicago for example that has a heck of a lot more speed under their skates than the defense in Philly or Pittsburgh. That speed makes it so much easier for Chicago to get out of their own end when they win the puck. Over the last years, teams have just had a really hard time to pin Chicago down in their end for any longer periods. Given the awesome depth Chicago have had, they have just been too much to handle.

LAK is much more like Pitt and Phi, but they have much more composure.

In the end, I think any series against LAK would be extremely close with a slight advantage for LA. They are better than us offensively, and it's not easy to poke a hole in their defense. But we would have a shot at least, especially if we could get to some of their Ds.

I think that Chicago is breaking down some for every game played. I do think that this is a series that we even could control potentially.
Click to expand...
arguable.

in the playoffs, yes, they have the best offense in the league. in the regular season? one of the worst. i think th e82 game sample size is more indicative than the current results. i dont think the goaltending theyve faced has been all that impressive. granted, neither has the rangers.


another way of looking at it.

Our G/G: 2.75
Theyre G/G: 3.25

Difference of .5

Our GA/G: 2.06
Theirs: 2.62

Our goal differential is better. albeit just barely.

The Kings have the most PPG scored in the playoffs, which is a big time wildcard...rangers PK has been tremendous at shutting down lethal PPs since the Flyers series. teams that live and die on the PP tend to get ousted. Rangers are within 2 goals of them at ES, IE, basically tied.

Kings are a very good team. As are the Rangers. Im just not sure i give them an advantage offensively..id say its pretty damn even...
 
i also think either team coming out of the west will expect a cakewalk against the East, which, as we've seen in the first 2 games against the Habs, is a dangerous thing to have. teams that are underdogs tend to play better than the overwhelming favorites....especially to start the series.
 
Watching the WC, Abdelkader just annihalated Sobotka, that looked brutal.

Got kicked out of the game, I don't see that getting called like that in the NHL.
 
Marek Malik retired. I'll always remember him for that shootout goal and being booed for no good reason. That guy never was meant to be a 1st pairing guy, but he was forced into it and performed admirably. It wasn't his fault we had no one better.
 
Isles retain their 5th, ship 2015 1st round pick to Buffalo.

L
O
L

God, I normally don't root against the Isles, but I want nothing more than for them to be in the lottery next season. Just because after the MSL trade one of my friends posted on Facebook:

"THEY GAVE UP A PICK IN THE McDAVID DRAFT!?!"

YES. YYYYYYYEEEEEESSSSSSSS *salivating*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom