How Good Are the 2013-14 Rangers (Part II)

[Cassano]

Chicago is soft?



Like Chicago, they had an absurd amount of skill, but they had more than just skill.

Quite evidently, they are.

 

[aufheben]

Right, and Brad Richards had a good '12-13 season.

 

[Cassano]

I don't see how those two topics are correlated. But whatever floats your boat.

 

[True Blue]

Exactly. They beat them with skill.

Great. Let me know when the Rangers approach the skill level of Chicago.

 

[Thirty One]

Great. Let me know when the Rangers approach the skill level of Chicago.

 

[OverTheCap]

I don't think any team that wins the cup can be defined as "soft." In addition to their skill, the Blackhawks are a battle-tested team and their mental toughness is top notch. They overcame a 3-1 deficit against the Wings, not every team would have the resiliency to do that. They have some excellent two-way players throughout the lineup who are hard on the puck, can win board battles, and can aggressively forecheck. Bickell is far from a skilled player but he came up big for them in the playoffs, as did Bolland in the cup-clinching game.

 

[aufheben]

I don't think any team that wins the cup can be defined as "soft." In addition to their skill, the Blackhawks are a battle-tested team and their mental toughness is top notch. They overcame a 3-1 deficit against the Wings, not every team would have the resiliency to do that. They have some excellent two-way players throughout the lineup who are hard on the puck, can win board battles, and can aggressively forecheck. Bickell is far from a skilled player but he came up big for them in the playoffs, as did Bolland in the cup-clinching game.

Concise and 100% on point as usual, OTC.

 

[aufheben]

I don't see how those two topics are correlated. But whatever floats your boat.

The point being that drawing conclusions from looking at stats in a vacuum can be misleading.

 

[Cassano]

The point being that drawing conclusions from looking at stats in a vacuum can be misleading.

Meh, 2 completely different subjects. Grasping at straws.

 

[aufheben]

Meh, 2 completely different subjects. Grasping at straws.

Point still stands. Determining that Chicago is the softest team in the league because of how many hits they have and nothing else is absurd.

 

[Thirty One]

Point still stands. Determining that Chicago is the softest team in the league because of how many hits they have and nothing else is absurd.

As opposed to: "They won the Cup, so they're not soft"?

 

[aufheben]

As opposed to: "They won the Cup, so they're not soft"?

He stated it as an opinion, and then supported it with examples.

 

[Cassano]

As opposed to: "They won the Cup, so they're not soft"?

Puzzled by this too.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I don't always agree with them, but why does it always seem like 31 and Mint are usually the only ones using logic and everyone else is using emotion in their arguments? People have a really tough time wrapping their heads around an NHL that's not 1970s rock em sock em hockey and it really makes them uncomfortable.

 

[Cake or Death]

Debating whether Chicago is physically soft, does this really matter? They are not soft mentally. Every time I watch that team, to me it absolutely looks like they hate to lose. The whole team seems to have that mentality and their compete level is off the hook. The Hawks are strong where it counts.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Debating whether Chicago is physically soft, does this really matter? They are not soft mentally. Every time I watch that team, to me it absolutely looks like they hate to lose. The whole team seems to have that mentality and their compete level is off the hook. The Hawks are strong where it counts.

Are the Rangers weak mentally?

 

[Thirty One]

Debating whether Chicago is physically soft, does this really matter? They are not soft mentally. Every time I watch that team, to me it absolutely looks like they hate to lose. The whole team seems to have that mentality and their compete level is off the hook. The Hawks are strong where it counts.

Well that's the point. The Hawks were brought up to dispute the notion that the Rangers couldn't compete with Boston because they are physically mismatched.

 

[Mikos87]

I don't think any team that wins the cup can be defined as "soft." In addition to their skill, the Blackhawks are a battle-tested team and their mental toughness is top notch. They overcame a 3-1 deficit against the Wings, not every team would have the resiliency to do that. They have some excellent two-way players throughout the lineup who are hard on the puck, can win board battles, and can aggressively forecheck. Bickell is far from a skilled player but he came up big for them in the playoffs, as did Bolland in the cup-clinching game.

Yeah, plus they have depth. The Hawks and Sharks are the only two teams in the league this year that can play any which way and beat you.

The Blues are essentially the 11-12 Rangers, except they have a good power play. Boston, LA, ANA, all play hard along the walls and manufacture offense from their forecheck, not exactly great transition teams. What SJ and CHI have on them is overall team speed, which allows for their versatility.

All of those teams are bigger, tougher, deeper than the Rangers, and ironically enough are all contenders. The Rangers have too many turnover prone players on this team that better teams can take advantage of, other than that the Rangers are probably a 9-15 best team in the league.

A lot of that has to do with McD-G being on the ice for 24 minutes and Henrik. The depth on defense (quality) and consistent effort from forwards just aren't there.

 

[Mikos87]

Are the Rangers weak mentally?

Components of the team, yes. Brassard, Stralman, JMoore, Richards, Diaz all turn the puck over when they feel pressure.

Other parts aren't big or strong enough to win board battles or generate 2nd and 3rd chance opportunities in front of the net.

If the Rangers don't own the puck, they lose the game, plain and simple.

Notice how with the games getting tighter, we see less man on man defense, and more of a collapsing shot blocking team, and the occasional 1-4??

That's what it takes to win in this league at this time of year. I would say the Rangers are two big pieces (a legit top 4 RHD with offense and a consistent top 6 center with size), and depth away from being contenders.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I find it amazing that the Rangers are on a 5 game winning streak and in less than a week won 2 huge games against their competition and had a shutout against the Devils and a great comeback against the Coyotes and you read this thread and it's nothing but negativity. Why are Rangers fans so miserable all of the time? Smile.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Components of the team, yes. Brassard, Stralman, JMoore, Richards, Diaz all turn the puck over when they feel pressure.

Other parts aren't big or strong enough to win board battles or generate 2nd and 3rd chance opportunities in front of the net.

If the Rangers don't own the puck, they lose the game, plain and simple.

Notice how with the games getting tighter, we see less man on man defense, and more of a collapsing shot blocking team, and the occasional 1-4??

That's what it takes to win in this league at this time of year. I would say the Rangers are two big pieces (a legit top 4 RHD with offense and a consistent top 6 center with size), and depth away from being contenders.

Good thing the Rangers own the puck almost every game. Oh and most teams that don't own the puck lose, unless you're talking about the 3rd period when a team goes into a shell. I'm more upset about all the games they blew when they did own the puck. Reading your posts I would think the Rangers just lost 5 in a row. I'm not saying they're the best team in the league but all you do is criticize the team. Oh and every team has holes.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Posts in this thread are exactly why people are labeled pessimists. There's a lot that's right about this team yet all people focus on is the negative.

 

[McRanger]

Brassard is weak mentally?

Considering his play down the stretch the last two years, and even more importantly last years playoffs, I would say the exact opposite of that is true.

Frankly if Nash is all but a guarantee to suck in the playoffs, as many have postulated, I fail to see why it is not a foregone conclusion that Brassard will be an absolute stud.

 

[Cake or Death]

Are the Rangers weak mentally?

We can only observe and we aren't in the locker room, so that's tough to truly answer. From observation, sometimes the entire team looks on a mission and some days they look like they're in a trance thinking about where they wanna go for pizza and beers. Fortunately, they are looking more in a playoff mindset as the season goes along and I like how they are playing of late heading toward the playoffs. But that is my own personal interpretation and I could well be seeing things. If you want a more definitive answer, ask my ex wife - she knows everything lol

 

[jerseyjinx94]

Posts in this thread are exactly why people are labeled pessimists. There's a lot that's right about this team yet all people focus on is the negative.

Thank you...