Just How Good Are the 2013-14 Rangers?

[True Blue]

I said it before, but the franchise's incompetence doesn't make Torts any better than he really is.

No, it does not. But the fact is that under his watch, it was one of the more successful periods in the last 25 years.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

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.

Sure.

Except it was our most successful season in the past decade, and so far it was a better year than the 2 years after it. You might say the franchise being bad doesn't make Torts any better, and you're right. However, the only possible disappointing year under Torts was 10-11 when Gabby was playing like a man possessed and we didn't make the POs. 09-10 was one of the worst Rangers teams i've ever seen, 11-12 was ravaged by injuries, and 12-13 was absolutely wonderful.

To see how people talk about Torts on this forum blows my mind. "At least we're not playing stone age hockey! This is fun!" when we're down 3-1 in the third period.

 

[Gordon Bombay]

To be honest I think this team was playing some of the best hockey it has since the midpoint of the 11-12 season. That team faded down the stretch and the playoffs for obvious reasons.

They're controlling the puck and the play which didn't happen on most of the Torts' teams. I wasn't a fan of Torts, nor was I a fan of the first month of this season but since then I'm confident this team can score 3 goals every night and can hang with any team in this league. I never got that feeling with the Torts teams, even the 11-12 team. I always felt like they just grinded their way to wins, maybe pun intended there.

If this team keeps it up after this break there's no reason to think they can't get as far as that 11-12 team. They could be even better throughtout the playoffs with the less demanding style and evenly distributed icetime. Exciting or not, tough or soft, I'd consider that a good team, a good first season for AV and a good season for us the fans.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Sure.

Except it was our most successful season in the past decade, and so far it was a better year than the 2 years after it. You might say the franchise being bad doesn't make Torts any better, and you're right. However, the only possible disappointing year under Torts was 10-11 when Gabby was playing like a man possessed and we didn't make the POs. 09-10 was one of the worst Rangers teams i've ever seen, 11-12 was ravaged by injuries, and 12-13 was absolutely wonderful.

To see how people talk about Torts on this forum blows my mind. "At least we're not playing stone age hockey! This is fun!" when we're down 3-1 in the third period.

I think you moved the years up one.

Anyway, at least now when we're down 3-1, it isn't lights out. That 11-12 team had 2 (count'em 2) comebacks from 2 goals down all season. Had another game where we got a point.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I think you moved the years up one.

Anyway, at least now when we're down 3-1, it isn't lights out. That 11-12 team had 2 (count'em 2) comebacks from 2 goals down all season. Had another game where we got a point.

How many times was that team even down 2 goals?

Exactly.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Sure.

Except it was our most successful season in the past decade, and so far it was a better year than the 2 years after it. You might say the franchise being bad doesn't make Torts any better, and you're right. However, the only possible disappointing year under Torts was 10-11 when Gabby was playing like a man possessed and we didn't make the POs. 09-10 was one of the worst Rangers teams i've ever seen, 11-12 was ravaged by injuries, and 12-13 was absolutely wonderful.

To see how people talk about Torts on this forum blows my mind. "At least we're not playing stone age hockey! This is fun!" when we're down 3-1 in the third period.

You've got the years mixed up, but I get your point.

Personally, I wanted Tortorella fired not because of the "entertainment" factor, but simply because I felt that it was time to move on from Torts (mainly because of the severe lack of a coherent transition game, which is now far, far better under AV).

 

[SnowblindNYR]

How many times was that team even down 2 goals?

Exactly.

Plenty. That team got blown out only once, but had plenty of 3 goal losses (I mean considering that they didn't lose that much).

 

[SnowblindNYR]

You've got the years mixed up, but I get your point.

Personally, I wanted Tortorella fired not because of the "entertainment" factor, but simply because I felt that it was time to move on from Torts (mainly because of the severe lack of a coherent transition game, which is now far, far better under AV).

I agree. I just didn't think that style was sustainable. Their best year under Torts, they got the best draw you can get, stumbled their way into beating the 7 and 8 seed, and when they faced a team that was slightly better than average, they got embarrassed.

 

[True Blue]

I agree. I just didn't think that style was sustainable. Their best year under Torts, they got the best draw you can get, stumbled their way into beating the 7 and 8 seed, and when they faced a team that was slightly better than average, they got embarrassed.

Come one. There is no need to denigrate that team just to make your point seem valid. True or false, did they have one of the higher point totals that year in the league?

History is laden with plenty of teams that that struggled in the first several rounds, just to win latter on. That Ottawa team was no slouch. Despite where they finished. They Rangers lost. They hardly got embarrassed.

That was a team that was very limited on skill and talent. And got further than most teams in Rangers history. Hardly an example of failure.

 

[aufheben]

Who care's how they beat Ottawa and Washington. Since when are the playoffs supposed to be a stroll through a poppy field?... Should we round down and say they only won 1-1/2 playoff series because they had a tough time against lower seeds? I've seen better teams than those NYR lose to much worst teams than Ottawa/Washington.

Come one. There is no need to denigrate that team just to make your point seem valid. True or false, did they have one of the higher point totals that year in the league?

History is laden with plenty of teams that that struggled in the first several rounds, just to win latter on. That Ottawa team was no slouch. Despite where they finished. They Rangers lost. They hardly got embarrassed.

That was a team that was very limited on skill and talent. And got further than most teams in Rangers history. Hardly an example of failure.

The Devils and Red Wings used to get upset all the time, they did ok.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Who care's how they beat Ottawa and Washington. Since when are the playoffs supposed to be a stroll through a poppy field?... Should we round down and say they only won 1-1/2 playoff series because they had a tough time against lower seeds? I've seen better teams than those NYR lose to much worst teams than Ottawa/Washington.

Well, no team that has played 14 games through two rounds has ever won a round after that.

 

[Tawnos]

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.

Every coach has to make adjustments based on the roster he's given. Vigneault is no different. The problem with the style of play wasn't the roster, no matter how flawed that roster happened to be.

 

[haveandare]

I agree. I just didn't think that style was sustainable. Their best year under Torts, they got the best draw you can get, stumbled their way into beating the 7 and 8 seed, and when they faced a team that was slightly better than average, they got embarrassed.

You can word anything to make it sound unimpressive. To push it the other way, one could say that they earned a great draw by finishing first in the conference, they pulled out two hard-won victories in the first two rounds, and then got beaten by a better team.

The truth is in the middle. They had a great regular season, and the puttered out as the post season wore on until they met Boston, a team which had completely figured out NYR's game plan and come up with an effective way to play against it.

EDIT: Got my years mixed up. They lost to the Devils that year, not Boston. Still, I stand by the point. They were good but not good enough. They accomplished what they accomplished, and it was a very good season for this franchise.

 

[Tawnos]

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.

It also lacks a bunch of things that made the 11-12 team frustrating from essentially the end of January until May... and then that lasted for almost all of last year, including the playoffs.

And the reasons why the style wasn't conducive to deep playoff runs were exactly the same as why they were "boring" to a lot of people. You can separate those arguments if you want as a criticism of the way Snowblind is thinking about this, which I also disagree with, but the truth is that it really is the same argument.

At this moment, the Rangers have coalesced into a group that can stand on equal footing with the 11-12 Rangers, in my opinion, and definitely the 12-13 team. Will they have less, similar or more success? I think you know by now that I don't make predictions.

 

[aufheben]

It also lacks a bunch of things that made the 11-12 team frustrating from essentially the end of January until May... and then that lasted for almost all of last year, including the playoffs.

And the reasons why the style wasn't conducive to deep playoff runs were exactly the same as why they were "boring" to a lot of people. You can separate those arguments if you want as a criticism of the way Snowblind is thinking about this, which I also disagree with, but the truth is that it really is the same argument.

At this moment, the Rangers have coalesced into a group that can stand on equal footing with the 11-12 Rangers, in my opinion, and definitely the 12-13 team. Will they have less, similar or more success? I think you know by now that I don't make predictions.

I consider the Conference Finals deep. If this team finishes with 50+ wins and comes with 6 wins of a Cup, I would happily put them on equal footing. It doesn't really make sense though to compare a 100 game season to half a regular season though

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

You've got the years mixed up, but I get your point.

Personally, I wanted Tortorella fired not because of the "entertainment" factor, but simply because I felt that it was time to move on from Torts (mainly because of the severe lack of a coherent transition game, which is now far, far better under AV).

You're right, Meant 08-09 as one of the worst teams. It's my mind doing me a favor and trying not to relive the Giroux shootout goal by mixing up that season completely. .

I understand, and i'm fine we let Torts go. AV has the team playing some really solid hockey the past month and a half. It's just insane to see some of the vitriolic **** some of the posters here have to say about Torts.

 

[NYRFAN218]

Well, no team that has played 14 games through two rounds has ever won a round after that.

Is that the stat? I know no team that's played 14 in the first two rounds has ever won a Cup but I didn't know they had never won another round.

 

[bobbop]

There's a lot to like about this team. Great balance among the forward lines, nice development of young players and plenty of perceived upside. There is something missing though -- I'm not sure I can put my finger on it -- but it just doesn't feel like a team that can be a juggernaut for two months. And I am not talking about the practical needs (i.e. power play quarterback, some more sandpaper)

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

There's a lot to like about this team. Great balance among the forward lines, nice development of young players and plenty of perceived upside. There is something missing though -- I'm not sure I can put my finger on it -- but it just doesn't feel like a team that can be a juggernaut for two months. And I am not talking about the practical needs (i.e. power play quarterback, some more sandpaper)

I know what you mean. They're unconventional.

I don't know how to explain it, my expectations of them are lower than the rate they are producing at.

I wanted resilience earlier in the season and they've delivered it. But it's been in a very quiet manner. They're not vocal nor are they flashy. They're not gritty and they don't seem to have too many nail biting games.

What I've noticed is that they're real subtle about their momentum swings and their emotion.

Under Torts, any type of sustained pressure, whether it be offensive or forechecking, or great defensive play - was very clearly noticed. Every goal counted more, every save was more crucial, every hit resonated with the identity he had created. That team knew who they were and it was fun and exciting watching them go out and play to their identity. Of course, I'm talking about that team 2 seasons ago.

Under Vigneault, he begged for consistency to begin the season. He never seemed to pressure the players. The team quietly and calmly started producing. Their lines are as you say, balanced. Our first line has games where it looks unstoppable and other games where they're completely held in check. On the games that they're held down, another line steps in and picks the slack relatively easily.

The team doesn't handle deficits too poorly. Lately they've been coming back more and more, and without relative difficulty. The Isles go up a goal on a tight nit game? They score less than a minute later to end the period. They come out the next period and put up 3 more goals without much struggle.

The team isn't too physical. I've gone into games expecting us to be bruised and bullied into playing a game that doesn't fit our style. Yet again, quietly and calmly, they handle the physicality in their own way and go on about their way.

This isn't a flashy team, this isn't a team that's physical, or overly defensive, or vocal. I think that's very unconventional to see, especially with the teams we've watched these last few years. I don't necessarily think that means something is missing, just that this is different to what we're used to.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

You can word anything to make it sound unimpressive. To push it the other way, one could say that they earned a great draw by finishing first in the conference, they pulled out two hard-won victories in the first two rounds, and then got beaten by a better team.

The truth is in the middle. They had a great regular season, and the puttered out as the post season wore on until they met Boston, a team which had completely figured out NYR's game plan and come up with an effective way to play against it.

Well ok, but that 2012 NJ Devils team wasn't anything special if they were the better team how good of a team was that team? Also you seem to think we lost to Boston that year.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I consider the Conference Finals deep. If this team finishes with 50+ wins and comes with 6 wins of a Cup, I would happily put them on equal footing. It doesn't really make sense though to compare a 100 game season to half a regular season though

First of all Conference Finals is still only half way. Second of all we beat the 8 seed and then got lucky that Washington beat the Bruins. 8 seed and 7 seed, and both barely at that. You're not winning the cup playing that style. We had the 2 teams everyone is terrified of this season bow out and all of the favorites from the west bow out and STILL only got halfway there. They were completely embarrassed by the worst SC finalist since the 06 Oilers. That 4-2 series loss was flattering. I remember watching this team get absolutely dismantled by a meh Devils team.

 

[haveandare]

Well ok, but that 2012 NJ Devils team wasn't anything special if they were the better team how good of a team was that team? Also you seem to think we lost to Boston that year.

Wow. My bad. Thanks for pointing that out. Seriously.

Needless to say, waking up to watch live hockey from Sochi makes this a long day.

My point was just that I'm not a fan of the "they had the easiest path" and "they barely won 2 series" and all that as if it takes away from what they accomplished. They earned that easy path in many ways and a series win is a series win. Language can swing the pendulum either way. They were a good team, but not good enough to win it all.

 

[aufheben]

First of all Conference Finals is still only half way. Second of all we beat the 8 seed and then got lucky that Washington beat the Bruins. 8 seed and 7 seed, and both barely at that. You're not winning the cup playing that style. We had the 2 teams everyone is terrified of this season bow out and all of the favorites from the west bow out and STILL only got halfway there. They were completely embarrassed by the worst SC finalist since the 06 Oilers. That 4-2 series loss was flattering. I remember watching this team get absolutely dismantled by a meh Devils team.

Oh come on.

I'm done with this conversation. To each his own.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I know what you mean. They're unconventional.

I don't know how to explain it, my expectations of them are lower than the rate they are producing at.

I wanted resilience earlier in the season and they've delivered it. But it's been in a very quiet manner. They're not vocal nor are they flashy. They're not gritty and they don't seem to have too many nail biting games.

What I've noticed is that they're real subtle about their momentum swings and their emotion.

Under Torts, any type of sustained pressure, whether it be offensive or forechecking, or great defensive play - was very clearly noticed. Every goal counted more, every save was more crucial, every hit resonated with the identity he had created. That team knew who they were and it was fun and exciting watching them go out and play to their identity. Of course, I'm talking about that team 2 seasons ago.

Under Vigneault, he begged for consistency to begin the season. He never seemed to pressure the players. The team quietly and calmly started producing. Their lines are as you say, balanced. Our first line has games where it looks unstoppable and other games where they're completely held in check. On the games that they're held down, another line steps in and picks the slack relatively easily.

The team doesn't handle deficits too poorly. Lately they've been coming back more and more, and without relative difficulty. The Isles go up a goal on a tight nit game? They score less than a minute later to end the period. They come out the next period and put up 3 more goals without much struggle.

The team isn't too physical. I've gone into games expecting us to be bruised and bullied into playing a game that doesn't fit our style. Yet again, quietly and calmly, they handle the physicality in their own way and go on about their way.

This isn't a flashy team, this isn't a team that's physical, or overly defensive, or vocal. I think that's very unconventional to see, especially with the teams we've watched these last few years. I don't necessarily think that means something is missing, just that this is different to what we're used to.

In a way it seems like the team has taken the personality of the coach. Since their awful start, especially lately seems like the team is pretty even keel. The 11-12 team took after ITS coach, and I actually mean that as a compliment considering I'm not a Torts fan and think that team was overrated. They were a gritty blue collar team that played very hard.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Oh come on.

I'm done with this conversation. To each his own.

Oh come on what? Are you a Jets fan? Jets fans celebrate their AFCCG losses. Not that this team will likely win the cup, but you know what if they don't, at least they play the way I like to see teams play.