If you want to look at things objectively, the first 10 games were as bad as I've seen the Rangers play.
-
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
If you want to look at things objectively, the first 10 games were as bad as I've seen the Rangers play.
They're 6-2 in their last 8 and 2-6 in the first 8, of course you being you, you focus on the negative. Just tell me is your great pleasure in life trashing the Rangers? Because I understand objectivity, but reading your posts you'd think we're this year's Buffalo team every year. There's no objectivity in your posts because you only look at the negative of things. Posters that do that make this board unbearable sometimes.
smoneil
Registered User
Even if I agreed with the above (and I don't--I think Hags is just as effective anywhere in the top 9, and I think Kreider still has a LOT to prove), you've only offered 1 center and three wingers. The question isn't "do you take Dubinsky over Step, Cally, Hags, or Kreider." The question is "do you take Dubinsky over Brassard, Boyle, or Richards." To me that's a pretty easy yes. If we could roll a top 6 of Kreider-Stepan-Zuc and Hags-Dubinsky-Callahan, that would be a GREAT top 6.
It's also redundant. If Dubinsky were still here, I think he'd be back in most people's good graces (other folks, and it's obvious who they are, even hated Dubinsky when he led this team in scoring--they just couldn't get over the holdout). But he's not still here. He's on Columbus.
Let's make a deal--if we can all acknowledge that Dubinsky no longer plays here, then the anti-Dubi crowd can stop hating on him, and the pro-Dubi crowd can stop pointing out the factual/analytical biases in their posts. Deal?
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
"as I've seen the Rangers play" is about as subjective of a phrase as there is.But people arguing over this are wasting their time. Who cares how negative or positive someone else is?
I for one do not miss Dubinsky. I like the young players we have now. Kreider, Stepan, Hagelin are all better players with higher ceilings than Dubi.
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,596
- 5,131
The team has played better, but they're 8-8. Let's not make AV out to some savior. The only reason why the Rangers season didn't collapse in October is because the division is pathetic and nobody ran away with anything.
Dubinsky was a clown after getting his deal. He stunk, then he got hurt. You think Torts didn't notice him half-ass every other back check like we did?
But people are giving Torts too much credit for 2012. That season was all Henrik.
Dubinsky was a clown after getting his deal. He stunk, then he got hurt. You think Torts didn't notice him half-ass every other back check like we did?
But people are giving Torts too much credit for 2012. That season was all Henrik.
smoneil
Registered User
That's pure, 100% revisionist crap. He had a bad season. It started with a goalscoring slump that got into his head, and he reacted to it in the dumbest possible way (by not shooting at all), but his effort level was NEVER an issue here. He seemed to work even harder than he had before to try and make up for his lack of production.
Clown Fiesta
Registered User
9 games without giving up more than 2 goals a game, previous streak was 8 in 2010? Doing it while not collapsing and getting good production from more than one player. Seem to be trending in the right direction.
Clown Fiesta
Registered User
smoneil
Registered User
Not one bit. It's not like we're talking about a season 10 years ago here. This was just a couple years ago. Hell, the main argument around here from the folks that wanted Dubinsky traded (ie- the people who hated him the most) was "it's great that he works really hard, but he needs to score goals for 4.2 mil." Even the people who wanted him gone recognized the fact that he always gave his best effort. I'd be more than happy to stop sticking up for Dubinsky if you and few others would just stop making **** up. He's in Columbus. You got your way (even though he DID bounce back--something that was impossible according to the trade Dubi for anything crowd). Let it go.
Clown Fiesta
Registered User
Exactly it was only a few years ago, do you think people forgot watching him already? You're mind is made up, and you will feverishly deny it for eternity I imagine, but on a lot of nights his effort just wasn't as good as it could have been.
Holocene
Registered User
Yeah, Dubi always put the effort in, he was just making dumb offensive decisions with the puck. He was still a good defensive player.
Ryan McDonut
Registered User
how does a team run away with the division in the first month of an 82 game season? its not football where if the first 8 games are bad you are screwed. you are allowed to have a bad start (im not advocating it) because its a long season and there's time to turn things around.
Damn, that's the most positive I've seen you, the league will take away one of our losses?
But anyway, unless you think your objectivity is the objective truth and 99% of the board is objectively wrong, calling it objectivity is a bit presumptuous.
That statement might be true but bear in mind that my objectivity is tinged with lotsa cynicism from years of abject failure. File this one under "old habits die hard."
Kokoschka
Registered User
- May 13, 2012
- 3,166
- 50
Even if I agreed with the above (and I don't--I think Hags is just as effective anywhere in the top 9, and I think Kreider still has a LOT to prove), you've only offered 1 center and three wingers. The question isn't "do you take Dubinsky over Step, Cally, Hags, or Kreider." The question is "do you take Dubinsky over Brassard, Boyle, or Richards." To me that's a pretty easy yes. If we could roll a top 6 of Kreider-Stepan-Zuc and Hags-Dubinsky-Callahan, that would be a GREAT top 6.
It's also redundant. If Dubinsky were still here, I think he'd be back in most people's good graces (other folks, and it's obvious who they are, even hated Dubinsky when he led this team in scoring--they just couldn't get over the holdout). But he's not still here. He's on Columbus.
Let's make a deal--if we can all acknowledge that Dubinsky no longer plays here, then the anti-Dubi crowd can stop hating on him, and the pro-Dubi crowd can stop pointing out the factual/analytical biases in their posts. Deal?
I disagree profoundly. Way too many unproven players.
I see plenty of objectivity on BRB's posts. You just have look at team, players and organization the same way that he and I do.
Completely disagree with that last statement. Like him or not, Tort's got the most out of the talent he had here and Hank thrived under his defensive oriented system.
People around here give Hank way too much credit for the meager success this team has had since he became the goalie on 05/06!
smoneil
Registered User
For all of your "your mind is made up" nonsense, think about this--I'm not the one changing what I thought two years ago so as to appear right. Two years ago, this board was FULL of people railing on Dubinsky because the "only" thing he brought that year was effort. They said he would never rebound. Now, he's rebounded nicely, and since that crowd is looking more and more wrong about that, the new narrative is that he didn't give effort?! You are literally contradicting what the anti-Dubinsky crowd said in his last season here.
So again, you can talk all you want about my "mind being made up," but I'm not the one changing my story so that I can look "right" two years later.
smoneil
Registered User
I think both sides are right. Torts did get everyone to buy into his system in 11/12, and they went far with it. Just because the team tuned Torts out the year after doesn't mean we have to minimize the success Torts had before that (and the same can be said for Renney before him--we've had a string of very good coaches since the 05 lockout--sometimes a change is just something a team needs).
11/12 was a convergence of a number of people having great years. Torts got 18+ guys to buy into a philosophy of team play and self-sacrifice--that's not easy. Henrik upped his game to yet another level. Girardi and McDonagh had career years. Prust had a career year. MDZ had his best season to date, which really saved the team's bacon with Staal hurt (remember how much we all thought that team was boned when Staal wasn't ready to start the season?). Stralman came out of nowhere to fill the gap left by Sauer's injury.
That was just a team that fought to a man to grind out everything they could. That starts with Torts, but it also only works if everyone responds, and they did.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
I read that as in order to be objective you have to agree with BRB and me.
Do you know what the word objective means? The only thing that's objective is that we won 8-8. How good the Rangers are and how well they're playing is all subjective. I feel like people don't know what the word objective means and seem to think that anyone that disagrees with a positive opinion is objective.
Clown Fiesta
Registered User
Changing what I thought? I always thought that. Rebounded nicely? In his last 121 games he's put up 64 points, compared to 54 in 77 games that's not even close. He's scored 5 goals in his last 44 games. .11 GPG, a far cry from .31 GPG he produced here in '11-'12. He still has a ways to go before you can say he has rebounded nicely. He is playing well for CBJ sure, but he's also being spoon fed minutes that he wouldn't be getting here, which tends to lead to more production. Aside from a few hits and his assists I really didn't notice him much when we played them either, won some faceoffs but he didn't backcheck extremely hard or break up many plays.
Here's a definition that most closely resembles what Drew and BRB think objectivity is, however they get the first half of it but not the second:
Drew thinks that because BRB and he are fans by being negative they're not being influenced by personal feelings. However they both forget the part about "representing facts". "The Rangers suck" is not a fact, it's an opinion.
BTW, I completely disagree with Drew and BRB's personal feelings not influencing their opinions too. Their feelings are completely influenced, just like the positive HFers. Except their feelings are negative, they see everything in a negative light as opposed to a positive light. Their hatred for Sather, if anything removes any pretense for not having personal feelings involved. When a team starts a season 2-6 and goes 6-2 the rest of the way to an 8-8 record and you only look at the poor injury riddled start with a team was learning a new system, it tells me that BRB is definitely letting his feelings dictate his "objective" opinions. When you ignore half the sample size to make your case, you CLEARLY have an agenda.
Drew thinks that because BRB and he are fans by being negative they're not being influenced by personal feelings. However they both forget the part about "representing facts". "The Rangers suck" is not a fact, it's an opinion.
BTW, I completely disagree with Drew and BRB's personal feelings not influencing their opinions too. Their feelings are completely influenced, just like the positive HFers. Except their feelings are negative, they see everything in a negative light as opposed to a positive light. Their hatred for Sather, if anything removes any pretense for not having personal feelings involved. When a team starts a season 2-6 and goes 6-2 the rest of the way to an 8-8 record and you only look at the poor injury riddled start with a team was learning a new system, it tells me that BRB is definitely letting his feelings dictate his "objective" opinions. When you ignore half the sample size to make your case, you CLEARLY have an agenda.
Brooklyn Rangers Fan
Change is good.
- Status
