"Debunking" the 11-12 team's dominance and Nash Trade woes

[SnowblindNYR]

Ok, I'm really sick and tired of Rangers fans spewing nonsense about these 2 things and I think it deserves its own thread because it's been popping up in multiple threads across multiple forums. First let me start off by saying that the team had a GREAT regular season. I was very proud of them. That team and the 08 Giants gave me EASILY the best 2 regular seasons my teams have ever given me (wasn't a fan in 94). Now here's the problem that regular season and their climb to the ECF has made that team into something it wasn't in the eyes of many on this board.

1) Apparently that team was a "winning team". First of all what did they win? They made the ECF in the easiest draw I can remember a team having in a while and then got curb stomped by the worst SC finalist since the 06 Oilers. No offense to the very solid Kings, but if the team couldn't win the cup THAT year they can't win any other year. Look at the caliber of teams in SC Finals usually. Look at last year. The elite of the elite.

2) That team made the ECF but they probably do so 1 time out 10. They played 2 relatively mediocre teams. Let me remind you what needed to go right to make the ECF. Hagelin a player that doesn't know the meaning of the word "dirty" elbows the Sens captain and one of their best players in the head putting him out for most of the series. Granted Gaborik was injured also, but that's not a surprise by any means and I hilariously see people use that as an excuse. Second, Kreider had what now looks like a possible fluke postseason (at least for that point in his career). Third, we caught a HUGE break on a 5 on 3 in game 6, it was a flat out bad call and we completely changed the momentum of a game we were down 1-0 in (I think that was the only game we came back from a deficit). We scored at least once, maybe even twice on the ensuing powerplay(s). Then we lucked out that we played one of the worst Caps teams in recent memory and even then we needed a fluke goal by Richards to save our *****. Then we got killed by the mediocre Devils that had no business being in the ECF. Just got destroyed in most games. It was like watching puppies get tortured it was so bad. The 8, 7, 6 seeds and we still couldn't make the finals to beat the 8th seed.

Now on to the trade:

1) People are blaming our poor year on guys like Dubinsky, Anisimov, and Prust leaving. Now, first of all, all 3 were good gritty defensive players. They were however depth players. Between the 3 of them they had 1 50 point season. The guy that had that 50 point season and was the most productive player had 12 goals in his last 107 games.

2) Meanwhile Richards is one of the worst players on the team until March when he scores a bunch of fluke goals in blowouts to pad his stats in a few games. Gaborik shows up for 1 or 2 games. These were our two BEST forwards in 11-12. Yet people are saying we shouldn't have traded for Nash? It was the lack of 3rd line grinders that was the reason that we sucked and not our two best forwards from the year before being MIA? Nash was our most productive forward at almost a PPG. Do you really think that if we had dead weight Richard and Gaborik and 3 3rd liners in Dubi, Ani, and Prust we'd have been good last year? You think we couldn't score last year? Imagine not having a point per game guy in Nash. Our other top forward, Stepan was good but not great the year before, so he didn't have that much to do with 11-12 team. So our 2 best forwards were either not on the best and winningest team ever or not major contributors.

3) People want to compare that "winning team" to last year's team. First of all the Caps were better last year. We beat them more convincingly than we did the year before. Including an actual blowout game, something we didn't have all of the playoffs the year before. The Bruins were infinitely better than anything we played the year before. If we played them the year before the result would have been the same, so it doesn't matter that we won one round less.

Click to read more...

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

You've taken a flimsy argument and countered it with a ton of poor excuses aimed at benefiting the present which, ironically, seems worse than 2011-2012.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

What poor excuses? That team was lucky to get out of the both rounds against mediocre teams. How are they poor excuses? I like how the present looks worse than 11-12. What present? One game? Tell me please how good that team was to start the season. They started the season 3-3-3 and that was a flattering record for them. They also didn't have to work in a new system. Are you seriously making judgements on this team based on one game or was it the meaningless games before that when our whole roster wasn't playing?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

What poor excuses? That team was lucky to get out of the both rounds against mediocre teams. How are they poor excuses? I like how the present looks worse than 11-12. What present? One game? Tell me please how good that team was to start the season. They started the season 3-3-3 and that was a flattering record for them. They also didn't have to work in a new system. Are you seriously making judgements on this team based on one game or was it the meaningless games before that when our whole roster wasn't playing?

I think the fact that the '11-12 team didn't win 2 playoff series convincingly enough for you is one of the dumbest arguments that continues to permeate this board. That '11-12 team was 100% the best Ranger team since 1997, possibly 1994. I don't understand the need to discredit them just because its 2 years in the past.

If last year's squad, which is virtually the same as this years, had half the balls of the '11-12 team, they could be something. That remains to be seen -- but importing perennial losers to the squad has led to a lot of sleep walking performances since January -- imagine that.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I think the fact that the '11-12 team didn't win 2 playoff series convincingly enough for you is one of the dumbest arguments that continues to permeate this board. That '11-12 team was 100% the best Ranger team since 1997, possibly 1994. I don't understand the need to discredit them just because its 2 years in the past.

If last year's squad, which is virtually the same as this years, had half the balls of the '11-12 team, they could be something. That remains to be seen -- but importing perennial losers to the squad has led to a lot of sleep walking performances since January -- imagine that.

It's not that they didn't win convincingly enough, it's that they were flat out LUCKY to beat 2 mediocre teams. The ref does his job in game 6 and people are singing a different tune. And possibly the same if Hagelin doesn't do something really out of character. The point is that team's ECF success was not sustainable. If it's the best team since 1997 and especially 1994 that's because a lot of teams sucked since then. BTW, give me the 06-07 team any day of the week. They faced a mediocre team and destroyed them, didn't need good luck to beat them. Then they faced the President's Trophy winners and played them almost even. That team looked like they belonged on the ice against an awesome team, the 11-12 team were embarrassed by a team that couldn't hold that Sabres team's jock strap. This is not that relevant but despite not being all that talented the 06-07 team was much more exciting to watch than the 11-12 team that set hockey back decades.

 

[Raspewtin]

I think the fact that the '11-12 team didn't win 2 playoff series convincingly enough for you is one of the dumbest arguments that continues to permeate this board. That '11-12 team was 100% the best Ranger team since 1997, possibly 1994. I don't understand the need to discredit them just because its 2 years in the past.

If last year's squad, which is virtually the same as this years, had half the balls of the '11-12 team, they could be something. That remains to be seen -- but importing perennial losers to the squad has led to a lot of sleep walking performances since January -- imagine that.

BRB you say consistently that you were bothered in preseason and this past game by the way the Rangers lost. With lethargic, half-assed efforts. Well that's how I feel about how they won in 11-12 playoffs. Outworked, outhustled, outmuscled, by every team they faced, including the INCREDIBLY mediocre Senators (that series should've easily been a sweep). They just had Godqvist and a a Russian roulette of players every other game drag them through two grueling series. That team was great because of how high they finished. They were the best team but they realistically should've been ousted in the first round that year. It's just facts.

 

[Raspewtin]

I really wonder sometimes where this team would have gone last year if Gaborik and Richards remembered how to hockey.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

BRB you say consistently that you were bothered in preseason and this past game by the way the Rangers lost. With lethargic, half-assed efforts. Well that's how I feel about how they won in 11-12 playoffs. Outworked, outhustled, outmuscled, by every team they faced, including the INCREDIBLY mediocre Senators (that series should've easily been a sweep). They just had Godqvist and a a Russian roulette of players every other game drag them through two grueling series. That team was great because of how high they finished. They were the best team but they realistically should've been ousted in the first round that year. It's just facts.

Yep, the Sens lived in the Rangers' zone. The Caps not as much, but still outplayed the Rangers in the 2nd round. The Devils made a joke of the Rangers. That team had heart in the regular season and looked like overwhelmed losers that lucked into an ECF in the playoffs. That team was just not very talented. People like to talk about all of our 3rd liners now. Well that team had more and a number of them should have been 4th liners. Plus they were just awful to watch.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Funny the people longing for that team are probably the same people that said that team had no offense and wasn't skilled enough. People just need new reasons to complain.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Funny the people longing for that team are probably the same people that said that team had no offense and wasn't skilled enough. People just need new reasons to complain.

I am longing for the effort and compete level that team showed over an entire season. Your nitpicking of the playoffs is bizarre from a Ranger fan -- we havent exactly lived a charm life watching this team -- to nitpick 2 playoff round wins is you being a brat.

 

[eco's bones]

Nash is a good player. A legit 1st liner. I'd really hesitate to call him an elite player. If he's an elite player there's at least 30 elite forwards around the league.

Nash is not a player putting us over the top. The deal last year stripped the Rangers of quality depth at forward. The hope was that another legit goal scorer to add to legit 1st liners Gaborik and Richards (at least he used to be legit) would push our goal scoring production to another level. It didn't happen. Of the three Nash performed the best but I really don't care that much for his go it alone mentality at times.

To say the Rangers were inept at scoring is bull ****. The Rangers were middle of the pack. The loss of depth hurt us throughout the season. Gaborik's poor season here may have been in part due to a conflict with Tortorella but also injury seems to be another part. He played the previous season's playoffs with a shoulder injury.

Say whatever you will but along with the lost depth some of our identity as a hard working 60 minute a night do whatever it takes to win team went with it. Should we have made the trade? I don't know which means for me I probably wouldn't do it today because so far the results are very mixed. It's like Zherdev-Tyutin--it was so obvious at the time who was winning that------us--us--us--us------and then----them-them-them-them--them and them. It's not even clear that in the end we'll be better for the Gaborik trade or that Nash will be the more productive of the two.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I am longing for the effort and compete level that team showed over an entire season. Your nitpicking of the playoffs is bizarre from a Ranger fan -- we havent exactly lived a charm life watching this team -- to nitpick 2 playoff round wins is you being a brat.

I'm not nitpicking, I'm looking at an unsustainable success. If you're analyzing a company to invest in and you think their success unsustainable are you also nitpicking? That team was a house of cards. But thanks for calling me a brat.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I'd gladly trade the turds we moved for Nash any day of the week and 25 times on Sunday.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Nash is a good player. A legit 1st liner. I'd really hesitate to call him an elite player. If he's an elite player there's at least 30 elite forwards around the league.

Nash is not a player putting us over the top. The deal last year stripped the Rangers of quality depth at forward. The hope was that another legit goal scorer to add to legit 1st liners Gaborik and Richards (at least he used to be legit) would push our goal scoring production to another level. It didn't happen. Of the three Nash performed the best but I really don't care that much for his go it alone mentality at times.

To say the Rangers were inept at scoring is bull ****. The Rangers were middle of the pack. The loss of depth hurt us throughout the season. Gaborik's poor season here may have been in part due to a conflict with Tortorella but also injury seems to be another part. He played the previous season's playoffs with a shoulder injury.

Say whatever you will but along with the lost depth some of our identity as a hard working 60 minute a night do whatever it takes to win team went with it. Should we have made the trade? I don't know which means for me I probably wouldn't do it today because so far the results are very mixed. It's like Zherdev-Tyutin--it was so obvious at the time who was winning that------us--us--us--us------and then----them-them-them-them--them and them. It's not even clear that in the end we'll be better for the Gaborik trade or that Nash will be the more productive of the two.

The lack of depth did hurt but not as much as our 2 best forwards from 11-12 being a big fat zero. Also are you seriously making excuses for Gaborik based on injuries? The dude is ALWAYS injured. He was injured in 10-11 when he had another subpar year. Right now he had 2 great seasons and 2 mediocre seasons. What's to say this won't continue?

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I'd trade that turd Gaborik for the depth we got any day of the week and 25 times on Sunday.

 

[Holocene]

There is a lot of romanticizing going on when it comes to the 11-12 season. They played exactly the same last year except Lundqvist wasn't as godly and McD and Girardi fell back to earth. They were just as frustrating in 11-12 as last year but the games just happened to swing in our favor. It's amazing how people will just forget all the positives when you lose and ignore all the negatives when you win.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Romanticizing is the word I was looking for. I still think that Gabby and Richards playing like **** were a bigger reason for our downfall and yes the lack of depth given those 2 guys' play didn't help either.

 

[Tawnos]

You can line up numbers regarding the Nash trade all you want, but the problem wasn't a numbers one. I've said it a million times, the trade was a failure on Sathers part to recognize what made the team successful the year before, namely that it was a team playing as greater than the sum of its parts. When you have a team that did that, not just that season, but the season before, and it doesn't happen the next year, you have to wonder why. What changed? The answer is that the roster structure changed and the root of the change was the Nash deal. If the Rangers wanted to continue that type of success, they needed to augment the roster, not overhaul it.

But maybe they didn't want to continue having that type of success, but wanted a different type. Either way, that Rangers team was great. You really can't spin it any other way objectively.

 

[NickyFotiu]

He makes a lot of solid points. People forget we were 1 goal away from being eliminated by the Sens/Caps in the first 2 rounds then lost to a bad NJ Devils team.

That season was 80% Lundy/Gabs having near career years.

When people would compare that team favorably to our 1994 team I would shake my head. They were not even close.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Romanticizing is the word I was looking for. I still think that Gabby and Richards playing like **** were a bigger reason for our downfall and yes the lack of depth given those 2 guys' play didn't help either.

Agreed. Imagine our offense last year without Nash? With the way Richards and Gaborik played last year (and I don't see them being better with Anisimov/Dubinsky in the lineup), the team probably misses the playoffs.

 

[Blue Blooded]

The 2012-13 Rangers were to me a clearly superior hockey team over the 2011-12 Rangers. But 11-12 Rangers had a bunch of things going their way while the 12-13 Rangers had a bunch of things going against them.

Though they were equally awful in the playoffs.

The 13-14 Rangers should be even better than both of them when:

1) They get healthy.

and

2) AV figures out how to pair up the defencemen properly. Right now he uses the pairings that Torts figured out didn't actually work.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

Romanticizing is the word I was looking for. I still think that Gabby and Richards playing like **** were a bigger reason for our downfall and yes the lack of depth given those 2 guys' play didn't help either.

Put them together and yep. Lack of production from them and depth killed a lot of momentum.

 

[Fitzy]

Gaborik played poorly for 30 games, then we dealt him.

I think the team would have performed better in a longer season.

I wish we still had Gaborik, but I can't deny that I am a huge fan of having Moore, Brassard, and Dorsett. It was especially crucial after we dealt Anisimov, Dubinsky, and Erixon for Nash.

If NYR want to add scoring after this season, then they will let a guy like Girardi go and replace him with a Vanek or Gaborik type. Elsewise, we have what we have.

If it becomes more conducive to an AV system to have another speedy goal scorer rather than our defense, I wouldn't be surprised to see a deal involving one of our more solid blueliners.

As to what you said about our ECF season... I see two things. First is that we had a really good regular season, but not one that would have ended us in first place most years. Pitt had a bit of an off year. We slowed down near the end, losing the Presidents trophy.

Second, we just scraped through the first two rounds. A very close thing. I think the boys had started to wear down from the grind of the year. Just IMO.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

Gaborik played poorly for 30 games, then we dealt him.

I think the team would have performed better in a longer season.

I wish we still had Gaborik, but I can't deny that I am a huge fan of having Moore, Brassard, and Dorsett. It was especially crucial after we dealt Anisimov, Dubinsky, and Erixon for Nash.

If NYR want to add scoring after this season, then they will let a guy like Girardi go and replace him with a Vanek or Gaborik type. Elsewise, we have what we have.

If it becomes more conducive to an AV system to have another speedy goal scorer rather than our defense, I wouldn't be surprised to see a deal involving one of our more solid blueliners.

As to what you said about our ECF season... I see two things. First is that we had a really good regular season, but not one that would have ended us in first place most years. Pitt had a bit of an off year. We slowed down near the end, losing the Presidents trophy.

Second, we just scraped through the first two rounds. A very close thing. I think the boys had started to wear down from the grind of the year. Just IMO.

1. Change the avy. Creeping me out

2. I would've liked to have kept Gaborik too. But poor play and what we got back is a pretty nice consequence and I'm okay with it. If AV truly wants to employ "his" system he's gonna need a fast scorer again. Nash really is the only true guy we have that can pot them more consistently than others. I too can see a D being dealt for a good return consisting of a fast scorer.

3. Regarding years past, the grinding of the tea day in and day out definitely tired them out. I'd like to bring up the Bruins, while they're a superior team in the east right now... They play a tough game too but they have the depth to not always rely on heavy, heavy grinding like we did in years prior. I think that if we had an upgrade we'd see a team similar to that. I like our center guys, we need 1 or 2 good, fast, bigger effective wingers that can fill out the roster and frankly decrease the use of plugs.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Funny the people longing for that team are probably the same people that said that team had no offense and wasn't skilled enough. People just need new reasons to complain.

Not me.