Just How Good Are the 2013-14 Rangers?

[True Blue]

In much the opposite way, I'm in the great minority in that I think being one of the final 8 teams standing is an accomplishment. Not as great as 4 or 2 or 1, obviously, but still an accomplishment. I don't consider simply making the playoffs to be that though.

And there is my standard for a successful* season.

*the term "successful" is a distinct term from "ultimately successful"

I do not disagree with you on any of your points. Being one of the final 8 teams left standing makes for a pretty good season. Which is one of many reasons that to me, Torts is effectively the most successful coach (Keenans' one season aside) here since Francis.

 

[True Blue]

Did you even read the rest of my post where I tried to make a point about the the "they went farther than most teams in our history" argument?

I did. But when addressing what a "true contender" is, how can you not cite that?

Should Buffalo fans try to replicate the 1999 team since they went farther than any other Buffalo team? Should Edmonton try to replicate the 06 team?

Pretty sure that most Buffalo fans would sign up for the '99 team. I could be wrong, but why would they not want to see such success? That was a good team.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

I did. But when addressing what a "true contender" is, how can you not cite that?

Yes they were contenders, but please stop bringing up the conference finals. It isn't a good argument

Pretty sure that most Buffalo fans would sign up for the '99 team. I could be wrong, but why would they not want to see such success? That was a good team.

That team was Hasek. There leading scorer had 66 points in 81 games. The team had 91 points. They had less than 40 wins. Do you truly think that was a good team

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I haven't and I'm grateful to that team for that. However, I remember being more anxious than excited with that team. That doesn't have to do with how good they were. Actually it kinda does, every game was a firing squad on Hank where we might get 2 if we were lucky. Yep, more successful but at the end of the day I don't see that team as one that should have won the cup, more like a team that got lucky to get as far as they did. Therefore I'm not embarrassed to say that I'm glad that team changed. Thanks for the 109 points and some great moments in the playoffs, but they weren't winning anything.

Perhaps you need another 15 years of no conference finals appearances to realize how stupid and selfish your position is. Lord knows you deserve that fate.

Longer term Ranger fans dont, however. We learned long ago that we are in no position to demand style points.

 

[Blueshirt Special]

"making" it to the CF isn't winning anything IMHO.

WINNING the CF and "making" it to The Stanley Cup Finals is another story, because you have actually won somehting.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Perhaps you need another 15 years of no conference finals appearances to realize how stupid and selfish your position is. Lord knows you deserve that fate.

Longer term Ranger fans dont, however. We learned long ago that we are in no position to demand style points.

You know, I have to give you credit. The tone of your posts gives off this "I'm smarter than you aura" and makes it seem like you know what you're talking about. I was fooled for a bit in the beginning. Then I see posts like this. Your amazingly inappropriate use of an emotionally charged word such as "selfish" is hilarious to me and just showcases how little of a leg you have to stand on. You would make a great politician. Let me ask you, what would selfless rooting for the Rangers be? Am I supposed to root for the team as some sort of social responsibility to give back to the Rangers' community? If the Rangers win the cup are you going to make a toast for me because you cared about my struggle as a Rangers' fan? I watch the Rangers for myself, it's my hobby (actually passion), I'm not going to let other people guide the way I root for my team. I partake in my passion the way I want to. I'm not doing volunteer work or giving back to the Rangers fan community. I'll save that for actually important causes. You know not giving back to the healthy middle class American demographic.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

You know, I have to give you credit. The tone of your posts gives off this "I'm smarter than you aura" and makes it seem like you know what you're talking about. I was fooled for a bit in the beginning. Then I see posts like this. Your amazingly inappropriate use of an emotionally charged word such as "selfish" is hilarious to me and just showcases how little of a leg you have to stand on. You would make a great politician. Let me ask you, what would selfless rooting for the Rangers be? Am I supposed to root for the team as some sort of social responsibility to give back to the Rangers' community? If the Rangers win the cup are you going to make a toast for me because you cared about my struggle as a Rangers' fan? I watch the Rangers for myself, it's my hobby (actually passion), I'm not going to let other people guide the way I root for my team. I partake in my passion the way I want to. I'm not doing volunteer work or giving back to the Rangers fan community. I'll save that for actually important causes. You know not giving back to the healthy middle class American demographic.

Im very supportive of differing opinions. I think that the argument that the style of play employed by the 2011-2012 wasn't sustainable is a very good one.

But you, in particular, laid your cards on the table long ago. You didnt like the way that team played - and its been the basis for all sorts of weird excuses you've been using to discredit the Rangers best season in 20 years. You take it for granted because it didn't entertain you enough. So yes, I think thats sort of selfish or, if you prefer, bratty.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Im very supportive of differing opinions. I think that the argument that the style of play employed by the 2011-2012 wasn't sustainable is a very good one.

But you, in particular, laid your cards on the table long ago. You didnt like the way that team played - and its been the basis for all sorts of weird excuses you've been using to discredit the Rangers best season in 20 years. You take it for granted because it didn't entertain you enough. So yes, I think thats sort of selfish or, if you prefer, bratty.

I find it funny that you assume that that's the only reason I didn't like that team that much. It was just a big reason. If I enjoyed the way the team played and they had the season they did I'd love them. If they played the way they did but won the cup I'd love them. But I didn't like the way they played and I didn't think it was sustainable. The fact that you only focus on half my argument to insult me tells me everything I need to know about you. I said the exact same thing that you just called a very good argument, I just also hated the way they played. If their style was unsustainable but I didn't hate the way they played I'd love that team, they did in fact make the ECF. Therefore how boring the style of play was IS relevant. Those 2 things aren't mutually exclusive. To this day I love the 06-07 Rangers. They were pretty entertaining and they made it to the second round and gave the PT winners a run for their money in the playoffs. I didn't think they'd win it all, but I loved that team. I'd love this team too if they didn't bore me to death even if I didn't think their style were sustainable. That team had those two strikes against them.

 

[True Blue]

Yes they were contenders, but please stop bringing up the conference finals. It isn't a good argument

I bring up the conference finals in the argument that has some claiming that they were not true contenders.

That team was Hasek. There leading scorer had 66 points in 81 games. The team had 91 points. They had less than 40 wins. Do you truly think that was a good team

Do you think that Buffalo fans would sign up for that team?

 

[True Blue]

"making" it to the CF isn't winning anything IMHO.

You have won more than virtually any other team out there.

WINNING the CF and "making" it to The Stanley Cup Finals is another story, because you have actually won somehting.

Not much winning happens in your neck of the woods.

 

[Tawnos]

I do not disagree with you on any of your points. Being one of the final 8 teams left standing makes for a pretty good season. Which is one of many reasons that to me, Torts is effectively the most successful coach (Keenans' one season aside) here since Francis.

OK... except in 3 seasons where he was still coach by the end, Colin Campbell's teams won at least won round 3 times, didn't miss the playoffs. Tom Renney did it twice in 3 seasons, didn't miss the playoffs (well, unless you count when Renney stepped behind the bench after the team got blown up). Tortorella did it twice in 5 years and missed the playoffs once.

I'm not saying that Tortorella didn't have a good tenure, but to put it above Campbell and Renney I think is a stretch.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

OK... except in 3 seasons where he was still coach by the end, Colin Campbell's teams won at least won round 3 times, didn't miss the playoffs. Tom Renney did it twice in 3 seasons, didn't miss the playoffs (well, unless you count when Renney stepped behind the bench after the team got blown up). Tortorella did it twice in 5 years and missed the playoffs once.

I'm not saying that Tortorella didn't have a good tenure, but to put it above Campbell and Renney I think is a stretch.

Agreed, other than the rather short-lived Muckler, Lowe, and Trottier disasters, I think Ranger coaching has been pretty solid.

The issue lies (and always have) in shoddy roster construction.

 

[True Blue]

I'm not saying that Tortorella didn't have a good tenure, but to put it above Campbell and Renney I think is a stretch.

Forgot about the Campbell years. Honestly, he never struck me as a good coach. As for Renney, he did not make the ECF and Torts did.

 

[Tawnos]

Forgot about the Campbell years. Honestly, he never struck me as a good coach. As for Renney, he did not make the ECF and Torts did.

Tortorella also missed the playoffs and Renney didn't. I call it a wash

 

[Jersey Girl]

How good are the Rangers? Wow, difficult question to answer with any authority. I suppose this is a good time to comment, though, since with this 're-start' there is no way to know if any momentum (positive or negative) will carry over from pre-Olympics NHL.

I'm seeing the Bruins and Penguins as clearly superior to the Rangers. Huge difference. Can we beat them in a playoff series? Of course it's not impossible, but I would not bet my house on it. In fact, I wouldn't even bet $50 on it unless you gave me significant odds - so I guess those are the odds of us winning those series.

Tampa Bay comes next, a team that has been better than us, and that's WITHOUT their best player. If Stamkos returns and is Stamkos, this team can move up into the category of Boston and Pittsburgh.

The next group is large - Montreal, Toronto, Philly, Detroit and Columbus - teams I would like our chances against, but teams we can also easily lose to if we don't play our best. Very little margin for error for us in a series against these teams.

Then there is Carolina, Ottawa and Washington, who we can lose to but should not. Losing to these teams would be an absolute disaster, but chances are we would not play them anyway.

Then there are three other teams who are irrelevant.

Then there is the Islanders, the biggest joke franchise in professional sports. If we followed he English soccer model they would have been relegated down to the ECHL by now, barely hanging on and in danger of being further relegated to Boomer Esiason's beer league.

That's how me sees it.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

How good are the Rangers? Wow, difficult question to answer with any authority. I suppose this is a good time to comment, though, since with this 're-start' there is no way to know if any momentum (positive or negative) will carry over from pre-Olympics NHL.

I'm seeing the Bruins and Penguins as clearly superior to the Rangers. Huge difference. Can we beat them in a playoff series? Of course it's not impossible, but I would not bet my house on it. In fact, I wouldn't even bet $50 on it unless you gave me significant odds - so I guess those are the odds of us winning those series.

Tampa Bay comes next, a team that has been better than us, and that's WITHOUT their best player. If Stamkos returns and is Stamkos, this team can move up into the category of Boston and Pittsburgh.

The next group is large - Montreal, Toronto, Philly, Detroit and Columbus - teams I would like our chances against, but teams we can also easily lose to if we don't play our best. Very little margin for error for us in a series against these teams.

Then there is Carolina, Ottawa and Washington, who we can lose to but should not. Losing to these teams would be an absolute disaster, but chances are we would not play them anyway.

Then there are three other teams who are irrelevant.

Then there is the Islanders, the biggest joke franchise in professional sports. If we followed he English soccer model, they would have been relegated down to the ECHL by now, barely hanging on and in danger of being further relegated to Boomer Esiason's beer league.

That's how me sees it.

Good read.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

I bring up the conference finals in the argument that has some claiming that they were not true contenders.

Do you think that Buffalo fans would sign up for that team?

I really don't think that team was a contender. The fact they even made the playoffs was a miracle for them when you look at it. The only reason they got close to the playoffs was because of Hasek. I think Buffalo fans would rather have the 06 team than the one that needed a shutout to win. Miller and Biron weren't amazing that season yet they still went pretty far.

 

[Larrybiv]

Realistically, I think a conference final berth is the best we can hope for.

I do like the basis of this team, though. Speed, tenacity, and stifling defense. Four solid forward lines. And Hank, of course.

^^^^^this. I'm liking our tenacity.......much more visible. Our puck possession has been much better as well. Conference final is a possibility, we can beat Pittsburgh and Boston as well, but I think we need to get a scorer (upgrade from Cally) that preferably has some size/bite in his game. We need to be tougher.

Our next 4 games vs Chicago, Philly, Boston and Toronto should give us a little heads up on exactly how good we are.

 

[darko]

4th best team in East behind Boston, Pittsburgh and Tampa (in no particular order). I think we are better than Habs.

 

[Larrybiv]

How good are the Rangers? Wow, difficult question to answer with any authority. I suppose this is a good time to comment, though, since with this 're-start' there is no way to know if any momentum (positive or negative) will carry over from pre-Olympics NHL.

I'm seeing the Bruins and Penguins as clearly superior to the Rangers. Huge difference. Can we beat them in a playoff series? Of course it's not impossible, but I would not bet my house on it. In fact, I wouldn't even bet $50 on it unless you gave me significant odds - so I guess those are the odds of us winning those series.

Tampa Bay comes next, a team that has been better than us, and that's WITHOUT their best player. If Stamkos returns and is Stamkos, this team can move up into the category of Boston and Pittsburgh.

The next group is large - Montreal, Toronto, Philly, Detroit and Columbus - teams I would like our chances against, but teams we can also easily lose to if we don't play our best. Very little margin for error for us in a series against these teams.

Then there is Carolina, Ottawa and Washington, who we can lose to but should not. Losing to these teams would be an absolute disaster, but chances are we would not play them anyway.

Then there are three other teams who are irrelevant.

Then there is the Islanders, the biggest joke franchise in professional sports. If we followed he English soccer model they would have been relegated down to the ECHL by now, barely hanging on and in danger of being further relegated to Boomer Esiason's beer league.

That's how me sees it.

I second the motion. Your evaluation on the Metropolitan seems to be spot on, more in depth than what I did. Lol. Hope Boomer doesn't catch wind though.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

How good are the Rangers? Wow, difficult question to answer with any authority. I suppose this is a good time to comment, though, since with this 're-start' there is no way to know if any momentum (positive or negative) will carry over from pre-Olympics NHL.

I'm seeing the Bruins and Penguins as clearly superior to the Rangers. Huge difference. Can we beat them in a playoff series? Of course it's not impossible, but I would not bet my house on it. In fact, I wouldn't even bet $50 on it unless you gave me significant odds - so I guess those are the odds of us winning those series.

Tampa Bay comes next, a team that has been better than us, and that's WITHOUT their best player. If Stamkos returns and is Stamkos, this team can move up into the category of Boston and Pittsburgh.

The next group is large - Montreal, Toronto, Philly, Detroit and Columbus - teams I would like our chances against, but teams we can also easily lose to if we don't play our best. Very little margin for error for us in a series against these teams.

Then there is Carolina, Ottawa and Washington, who we can lose to but should not. Losing to these teams would be an absolute disaster, but chances are we would not play them anyway.

Then there are three other teams who are irrelevant.

Then there is the Islanders, the biggest joke franchise in professional sports. If we followed he English soccer model they would have been relegated down to the ECHL by now, barely hanging on and in danger of being further relegated to Boomer Esiason's beer league.

That's how me sees it.

Good read.

I second the motion. Your evaluation on the Metropolitan seems to be spot on, more in depth than what I did. Lol. Hope Boomer doesn't catch wind though.

Hear, hear. You nailed it.

It's a very interesting transitional year. I think they've got the makings of something good in the next year or so - IF they make shrewd moves and look to build the partial foundation they have in place.

If, on the other hand, they make moves to shore up this year's PO chances at the expense of the future (by, for example, oh, I don't know, trading for a certain undersized winger playing in central Florida), I think we'll look back at this as an inflection point that began an(other) extended run of mediocrity.

 

[aufheben]

Right. The question isn't whether it can happen, it's how much you're willing to bet on it happening. That's where the difference of opinion is.

I would probably bet like...$20.

 

[GregSirico]

It's funny, people rip on us for not throwing out facts and throwing out cliches. Yet we list past teams who won the cups and their most important players, of which were centers and yet, we're the ones not posting facts.

But hey, ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN. I've been hearing it since I became a Rangers fan. Unfortunately, I was only 4 when they won the cup, so my optimism has dwindled since anything can happen got old years ago.

That's also the exact type of mindset that our GM genius Sather has.

I'm a little older, I was 14 when they won the cup in '94 so I have seen the rise, the fall, the awful, the sort of rebuild, and the real rebuild. And I can tell you one thing for sure with sports ... a GM has one job ... to efficiently build the best competitive team with the resources and restraints he has available. There is no full proof plan. Elite centers, Vezina goalies, scoring depth, shut down defense, the list goes on and on. Point is ... you build your team for the grind to get to the dance and hope you have used up all your resources as best as you can to out perform everyone else. There is no set way to do it.

 

[Jackpot]

I agree. Probably the most meaningless statement in the English language.

Even more than something like.. "Bryan Bickell will be a bigger factor than Johnathan Towes in the Stanley Cup finals"....

Greater impact on the series than anyone IMO..

 

[SnowblindNYR]

19-18 shots in the game between the 2 best teams in the league apparently. 1-0, final score. Forgive me if I'm not sure ready to concede a lost season. This is the best that the best can offer?