Well perhaps you see how frustrating it can be when some silly poster (and the Rangers silly GM, for that matter) complained about the Rangers' "unwatchable hockey" in the midst of achieving their 2nd highest win total in franchise history.
Just How Good Are the 2013-14 Rangers?
- Thread starter Thirty One
- Start date
-
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
Well perhaps you see how frustrating it can be when some silly poster (and the Rangers silly GM, for that matter) complained about the Rangers' "unwatchable hockey" in the midst of achieving their 2nd highest win total in franchise history.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,923
- 2,329
If I got frustrated every time an idiotic poster had an idiotic opinion my head would have exploded ten years ago.
I absolutely love this idea that it's all or nothing. Just because I don't want my team to be like watching paint dry when they win I want to watch them lose. No, I want a team that's not boring to watch and wins. If the Rangers are an excellent team, play exciting hockey, but don't get 109 points I'd rather have that team. People really like to exaggerate everything. It's always all or nothing.
Did that team live in their own zone like we did all throughout the playoffs? Boring teams can win, but I don't remember a team playing the type of hockey that 11-12 team did and winning. That said, I take winning #1 over whether I'm excited, but that team didn't win ****. Yes they made it one round further than a host of other teams. They had a great regular season which I'm still convinced is fluky and Washington upset Boston. the 07, 08, and 13 teams could have made it as far if they played the Sens and Caps. The 13 team WAS a Torts team, but at least they seemed to have some guys that can make plays once in a while. But they also lived in their own zone, because #TortsHockey.
That is a very convenient way of trying to deflect and summarize your argument. In reality, NO ONE has said that. The only thing that people have pointed out to you is that winning is never boring.
So while you may cry about Torts and boring hockey, the results were undisputable. NO one is telling you how to entertain yourself. That is entirely up to you and your ideals. To me, I will always take the team that has the most points, ahead of the team that is more entertaining to watch. Even if the more entertaining team has only 2 points less. Because to me, winning and success is always entertaining. Feel free to sort out your personal enjoyments with yourself.
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 80,067
- 17,708
The results were quite disputable, actually. One year of no playoffs, two years of being a low seed, and one year at the top of the conference. Ooh, so much winning!
Can we not act like this guy won us a cup or anything? If I have a choice between watching a team like this finish as a middle seed, or a team like Tortorella's, I take this team every time.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
No body did. We're also only talking about the '11-12 team.
Lots of strawman arguments in an attempt to back up a poor and, quite frankly, selfish point about being entertained.
Take a look at the history of the Rangers. They haven't won all that much. They certainly haven't had many 109 point seasons. Beggars can't be choosers.
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 80,067
- 17,708
Yes, the 11-12 season was great. I am not disputing that. But, in the end, the main goal of winning it all was not achieved.
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 80,067
- 17,708
I think that says more about the incompetence of the franchise than Tortorella as a coach.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
I'd prefer boring wins to entertaining losses, but it was pretty apparent that something was wrong in 2012. The Rangers experienced a 21% drop in goal-scoring in the playoffs compared to in the regular season. The other 7 teams who managed to win one round, combined, experienced a 4% drop. Last year, the Rangers experienced a 17% drop in goal-scoring. The other 7 teams winning one round, combined, actually experienced a 2% increase in offense compared to their regular seasons.
In other words, the Rangers inability to even come close to maintaining their level of regular season offense is a big part of the reason why they've gone 7 games in 3 of the last 4 series they've won, and is a big part in why they lost to what should have been an inferior opponent one year, and had the floor wiped with them the next. The hockey that was "unwatchable" also turned out to be unsustainable in the playoffs. You expect tighter checking, but you obviously shouldn't expect a team to lose a fifth of their offensive output.
I loved 11-12. I loved the identity of the team especially. I will always like the players who played for that team, no matter where they are playing now, and I would even like Tortorella to have success in Vancouver. It was a special year. But looking back on it from a little bit of a distance of time, the approach was extremely flawed. Call it unwatchable, call it whatever you want. The team was never going to have any more success playing that game than they already had.
What we're seeing now should allow us, and what is the essentially the same core group, to see what they can do without stifling their offensive production. A result of a more entertaining brand of hockey. It's a gamble, sure, but one that was necessary to take.
Last edited:
That style not being sustainable is a much better argument than "that style bored me"
As for the change being a "gamble." It was more than that. Sather, as hes accustomed to doing, shifted to a polar opposite. Is it a more skill-based game? Is it entertaining? Sure. But I also think this team lacks a lot of what made the '11-12 team very good.
Wanting to be entertained is selfish. I'm watching hockey for the common good! BRB, quit while you're behind. You have some of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen. Yes, I watch hockey to be entertained. No watching hockey, paying for cable (only thing I even watch on cable), paying for going to games, is not done for the greater good of the city of New York, it's done for my entertainment and my entertainment only. I don't give a **** about anyone else being happy. I pay them money and spend the time to be entertained. I'm sorry I'm not more selfless where I'll sacrifice my own entertainment for yours BRB. Your arguments are completely ****ing ridiculous and every time you post you sound more and more ridiculous. I'm not watching hockey for you. I'm watching it for me. I don't know you from a hole in the wall.
BTW, I recently made a poll if people would take a more entertaining team that finished in the same spot as a boring team, but with fewer points. Most people chose the entertaining team. Looks like I'm not the only winning hater selfish *******.
Different people will find different styles to be more entertaining - and not look at it through the narrow and ignorant view of offense/puck possession. I found the grinding, take the body, block shots, never say die mentality of '11-12 to be very entertaining. I found 61 wins that season to be entertaining as well.
What should unite us all is winning hockey games. But nope. Not you. You'll take a team thats worse in the standings as long as they make you feel
when watching them. Theres plenty of other things out there to entertain - perhaps you should try something not rooted in competition.
Different people will find different styles to be more entertaining - and not look at it through the narrow and ignorant view of offense/puck possession. I found the grinding, take the body, block shots, never say die mentality of '11-12 to be very entertaining. I found 61 wins that season to be entertaining as well.
What should unite us all is winning hockey games. But nope. Not you. You'll take a team thats worse in the standings as long as they make you feel
1) Why is that an ignorant view? You just said that different people will find different things entertaining. So it's an ignorant view if it doesn't agree with yours? I never said that my standard for entertainment is the objective standard, just what I'd prefer.
2) "Unite us all". I'm not thinking of a bunch of strangers on HF (even though some of them are cool) when watching the Rangers. Quite frankly, when watching what entertains me I want to enjoy it regardless of what people on HF enjoy. I'm not looking for unity. HF is a fun place to go to but it won't dictate what I like. Especially people like you who all they do is insult me. (On a side note when I saw a smiley in your post, I knew it was too good to be true, I've never once seen a post of yours that didn't try to antagonize someone, so it wouldn't be appropriate in any of your posts).
3) Stop ****ing telling me what to do. Mind your own damn business. You're not smarter than everyone, you just think you are. It's my own business what I watch and why. It's my own subjective opinion. Your opinion isn't the one objective opinion. So as I said mind your own ****ing business. All you do is antagonize people on this site and go around posting like your **** doesn't stink, and telling everyone what to do and what opinions to have. I want my team to win AND be entertained. That's my prerogative. I'm not watching hockey for any reason other than entertainment. Losing is not entertaining, but neither is boring hockey. I want both.
1.) Because your posts whine about a style that won a lot of hockey games, giving next to zero thought that some people were entertained by a team that was tough as nails. Especially fans for decades who watched soft Ranger teams waltz around trying to play the exciting style you demand.
2.) As Ranger fans, you would think that winning games - as many as possible - should be a common objective. Evidently not when you put the sport into the same type of "entertainment" discussion as a sitcom or broadway show.
3.) No need to get personal and flip your lid (again). I think we're 2 very opinionated people - difference is, I dont have thin skin.
1) Doesn't make anything ignorant. What thought should I be giving to those people? I'm giving my opinion I never said that my preferred style of hockey is the one everyone should prefer. I'm just giving my opinion, I thought this was the point of a message board.
2) Not to make this political, but this sounds like "for the common good of mother Russia". I want to win, but I also want to be entertained. Sports is supposed to be entertainment. I never said I don't want to win, I want both. Just because you don't care how we win, doesn't mean that I shouldn't. Your opinion is not the objectively correct opinion.
3) You're king of making things personal. Every other post of yours has an insult in it. Being opinionated doesn't mean you have to antagonize in every post of yours.
No one is telling you anything. People are telling you that in their view, winning is always entertaining. You can take that anyway that you like. I should also add that who is telling you think is telling their view. Again, find your bliss anyway you choose.
Being a Ranger fan in the worst of times has taught me that winning is preferable to all else. And more success is always better than less.
Which may also be attributable to the cards that Torts was dealt with and the adjustments to his style of play that he was forced to make.
You are what your record says you are. Since Francis stepped down, how many such periods as under Torts have you seen?
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 80,067
- 17,708
I said it before, but the franchise's incompetence doesn't make Torts any better than he really is.
- Status
