Toggle sidebar

Post-Game Talk: GDT: #7 - 10/17/18 | RANGERS @ capitals | 7:00 - NBCSN

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
"Turned out to be an ok night, not a great one, for the Knicks."

--Al "Big Head/Creepy Hands" Trautwig
 
nyr2k2 said:
Cool! Then you're on board with 99% of people here. I know, because I've been posting/moderating/administrating (?) here for an embarrassingly long time.

Watching a game, actively hoping that your team loses regardless of circumstance = rooting against your team

Stating, after an OTL, that it would have been better had we lost in regulation = making a valid observation regarding the team's long term prospects

So, not really sure what your whole point is about rooting against the team. I see very, very little of that.

Also, glad to know you're pretty smart. I will notify the Pretty Smart Guy group that they have a new recruit waiting. It will be so much fun! :)
Click to expand...

My point is some people would rather lose in regulation and not even get the point. I don't agree with that. I want my team to be competitive, play hard, and get as many points and wins as possible, especially this early in the season. Get it now? And you don't have to notify the pretty smart guy group because I'm already a member.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BerlinBlueShirt, EdJovanovski and mrhockey193195
How are you guys really this mad about this loss? We got a point against the defending cup champs and a roster that has 300% more talent than ours. The fact that we battled hard enough to keep this close and continue to fight back after giving up goals should speak volumes.

Are you guys really expecting us to win these match ups with the roster we have?

My take:

I still don't understand the Claesson situation at all. The guy is clearly an NHL defenseman; trade him. We're sitting ADA in favor of a guy whose a solid 3rd pairing defenseman on a team that's rebuilding and that needs to give the young players playing time. The signing makes no sense and neither does him being in the lineup over ADA. Handedness, matchups etc mean nothing for this current team. We should NOT be playing to win right now; we should be playing to develop and draft in the top 3. This franchise just doesn't get it.. the formula is so simple.

Do you have a roster capable of winning a cup? Yes? Cool, play to win every game and sit kids over guys like Claesson.

Does your roster have literally 0% chance of winning a cup? Yes? Cool, play the kids, trade dead weight or guys that have no way of contributing in our effective window of competitiveness in 2 or 3 years (looking at you Spooner, Names, Claesson, Staal etc) and draft high. It's been the formula for winning in this league since the lockout but we just don't seem to get it
 
  • Like
Reactions: Off Sides, JHS, SnowblindNYR and 1 other person
PuckLuck3043 said:
My point is some people would rather lose in regulation and not even get the point. I don't agree with that. I want my team to be competitive, play hard, and get as many points and wins as possible, especially this early in the season. Get it now? And you don't have to notify the pretty smart guy group because I'm already a member.
Click to expand...

Ok. Hypothetical time.

Lets say the Rangers intentionally tanked for 5 years, and in each of those years, they drafted a future hall of famer in each position but Goalie since Hank would still be here.

At year 6 they trade the last of the dead weight and bring in great vests to jell with the future hall of famers.

Now do you think that the team would just fall on it's ass once the Brass was ready to kick the tires because of a "losing culture".

That is just ridiculous.

I'm not even saying they should do something like this, but this isn't a little league team. They would find a way to win if they had a 26 year old Ovi and Crosby on the roster even after losing for a bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SnowblindNYR
I truly do understand the desire to not let a losing culture set in here. I don't want that either. It's possible to lose and not have that happen though.

I view results like this as very positive this season. Respectable performance against a really good team, give the guys some confidence moving forward while also dropping points to increase the odds of landing a young centerpiece.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shinchanuuhh and TheTakedown
Synergy27 said:
I truly do understand the desire to not let a losing culture set in here. I don't want that either. It's possible to lose and not have that happen though.

I view results like this as very positive this season. Respectable performance against a really good team, give the guys some confidence moving forward while also dropping points to increase the odds of landing a young centerpiece.
Click to expand...

Mark Messier† in 1994 game 6 ECF:

We will NOT win tonight because this franchise has been so suck-ass in the playoffs. Oh and 1940!


†He didn't
 
  • Like
Reactions: pdogfizzle, LORDE and SnowblindNYR
PuckLuck3043 said:
My point is some people would rather lose in regulation and not even get the point. I don't agree with that. I want my team to be competitive, play hard, and get as many points and wins as possible, especially this early in the season. Get it now? And you don't have to notify the pretty smart guy group because I'm already a member.
Click to expand...
I've gotten it all along. You're conflating the idea of rooting to lose, with saying a regulation loss would have been the preferred outcome to an OTL. Two separate concepts that are apparently too nuanced for you to see as for what they are. Actively rooting to lose vs. using retrospective to say a different kind of loss would have been better than the actual loss we incurred. But, it is what it is. You are free to root for what you please.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shinchanuuhh, hi and SnowblindNYR
ReggieDunlop68 said:
Ok. Hypothetical time.

Lets say the Rangers intentionally tanked for 5 years, and in each of those years, they drafted a future hall of famer in each position but Goalie since Hank would still be here.

At year 6 they trade the last of the dead weight and bring in great vests to jell with the future hall of famers.

Now do you think that the team would just fall on it's ass once the Brass was ready to kick the tires because of a "losing culture".

That is just ridiculous.

I'm not even saying they should do something like this, but this isn't a little league team. They would find a way to win if they had a 26 year old Ovi and Crosby on the roster even after losing for a bit.
Click to expand...
That's a fair statement, but the counterargument would be: how likely is it that your scenario (or one remotely similar; replace HOFer with "great player") would occur if we drafted top 5 for five straight years? Hell, look at Edmonton. Sure, they got McDavid and Hall, but they also got RNH, Yakupov, and MPS.

Here's a news flash: winning breeds winning, and is one of the best contributors to young players developing. There's a reason (outside of their excellent scouting departments) that the Devils and Red Wings continued to develop top talent without top draft picks (Gomez, Madden, Martin, Parise, Gionta, Zajac on the former, Holmstrom, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Kronwall, Franzen on the latter). There's a reason that Buffalo and Edmonton continue to struggle despite an unreal number of top 5 picks.

Of course, there are exceptions. If you draft Crosby and Malkin (one top fifteen, another top 50 player of all time), you'll redefine your franchise overnight. But don't forget, Crosby got to play with Lemieux, Recchi, Palffy, and LeClair his first year. Let's not discount how much that might have helped him as an 18 year old. And not everyone gets the benefit of drafting those two guys, because you only get a handful of those kind of players every 20 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCRanger
You guys wanna see troglodytes? You should see some of the swamp trash that trickles down to Chinatown to congregate in the Verizon Center. What a bunch of f***ing mouthbreathers. Props to the dude in the Richard Zednik jersey and maybe 7 other people who knew the Caps had a hockey team before 2005.

Re: the Rangers- you keep seeing them building on Quinn’s process and putting together the pieces to play his brand of hockey. They’re still getting caught collapsing too hard, which teams are exploiting with drop passes or having a guy close to the puck for an outlet. They’re still struggling to move the puck laterally and are having a tough time cradling the puck and playing with pace. I’d like to see better player movement in the offensive zone too, but I think that will come with time. I’ve been happy with the limiting of second-chance opportunities, and I hope once the team understands how to play this layered-zone system, the guys will act more our of instinct and be in better position to pressure the puck.

I wasn’t expecting 1-0-1 in this B2B, so it’s nice to see them put together good efforts and pick up some points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shinchanuuhh, NCRanger, TheDirtyH and 1 other person
nyr2k2 said:
I've gotten it all along. You're conflating the idea of rooting to lose, with saying a regulation loss would have been the preferred outcome to an OTL. Two separate concepts that are apparently too nuanced for you to see as for what they are. Actively rooting to lose vs. using retrospective to say a different kind of loss would have been better than the actual loss we incurred. But, it is what it is. You are free to root for what you please.
Click to expand...

I understand the concept and possible long term implications of having fewer points and therefore better draft position. Some people are ok with the team losing every night and helping draft position but I am not, not so early in a very long NHL season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCRanger
mrhockey193195 said:
That's a fair statement, but the counterargument would be: how likely is it that your scenario (or one remotely similar; replace HOFer with "great player") would occur if we drafted top 5 for five straight years? Hell, look at Edmonton. Sure, they got McDavid and Hall, but they also got RNH, Yakupov, and MPS.

Here's a news flash: winning breeds winning, and is one of the best contributors to young players developing. There's a reason (outside of their excellent scouting departments) that the Devils and Red Wings continued to develop top talent without top draft picks (Gomez, Madden, Martin, Parise, Gionta, Zajac on the former, Holmstrom, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Kronwall, Franzen on the latter). There's a reason that Buffalo and Edmonton continue to struggle despite an unreal number of top 5 picks.

Of course, there are exceptions. If you draft Crosby and Malkin (one top fifteen, another top 50 player of all time), you'll redefine your franchise overnight. But don't forget, Crosby got to play with Lemieux, Recchi, Palffy, and LeClair his first year. Let's not discount how much that might have helped him as an 18 year old. And not everyone gets the benefit of drafting those two guys, because you only get a handful of those kind of players every 20 years.
Click to expand...

Jesus, did you look at Crosby's amateur numbers.

Omg winning doesn't breed shit.

Look...when the new horse shows up, they honestly don't give a f*** about the last guy.

And there is no exception. Look at the cup winners.

Furthermore, the Devils did draft well and later instead of just tanking, the bent and nearly broke every single other rule to win, so that's a bad example even though they didn't have a no1 OA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Off Sides
PuckLuck3043 said:
I understand the concept and possible long term implications of having fewer points and therefore better draft position. Some people are ok with the team losing every night and helping draft position but I am not, not so early in a very long NHL season.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with you?

This is not "Jesus! Take the wheel..." time.
 
Mac n Gs said:
You guys wanna see troglodytes? You should see some of the swamp trash that trickles down to Chinatown to congregate in the Verizon Center. What a bunch of ****ing mouthbreathers. Props to the dude in the Richard Zednik jersey and maybe 7 other people who knew the Caps had a hockey team before 2005.

Re: the Rangers- you keep seeing them building on Quinn’s process and putting together the pieces to play his brand of hockey. They’re still getting caught collapsing too hard, which teams are exploiting with drop passes or having a guy close to the puck for an outlet. They’re still struggling to move the puck laterally and are having a tough time cradling the puck and playing with pace. I’d like to see better player movement in the offensive zone too, but I think that will come with time. I’ve been happy with the limiting of second-chance opportunities, and I hope once the team understands how to play this layered-zone system, the guys will act more our of instinct and be in better position to pressure the puck.

I wasn’t expecting 1-0-1 in this B2B, so it’s nice to see them put together good efforts and pick up some points.
Click to expand...

Did name-dropping Peter Bondra get you confused looks?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheTakedown, NCRanger, mrhockey193195 and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom