Just How Good Are the 2013-14 Rangers?

[SnowblindNYR]

Well the D has been mediocre the last 2 games. That said this team isn't very good if it has a goalie that folds like a cheap suit whenever he doesn't get a vacation thanks to his D. I'm sorry, Lundqvist right now is one of the weakest parts of the team, and they're just not good enough to make up for a mediocre goalie.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

If Lundqvist was the Lundqvist of 2 years ago all season, we'd be not too far back of that 109 team and that's saying a lot considering the system change. I'm convinced that team just got a Lundqvist in the best season of his career (also scored more than they ever should have). If we had that Lundqvist, no doubt in my mind we'd be cup contenders. No doubt in my mind.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

If Lundqvist was the Lundqvist of 2 years ago all season, we'd be not too far back of that 109 team and that's saying a lot considering the system change. I'm convinced that team just got a Lundqvist in the best season of his career (also scored more than they ever should have). If we had that Lundqvist, no doubt in my mind we'd be cup contenders. No doubt in my mind.

No. We would not be cup contenders. I'm sorry. Just no.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

No. We would not be cup contenders. I'm sorry. Just no.

That's a great argument. You see what Boston can do with an elite goalie. 2 of 3 games we get 40+ shots on him (they gave up 40+ shots in only one other game) and he gives up 5 goals. You know why? He's elite. This team is much better than that 11-12 team. That team's D was SO overrated. They gave up plenty of chances. But Lundqvist was a God. This team with that Lundqvist is easily better than that. Hell this team with this year's Lundqvist and Talbot, just recently beat some of the best teams in the NHL. But Lundqvist now needs a near perfect game from his defense not to fall apart.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

That's a great argument. You see what Boston can do with an elite goalie. 2 of 3 games we get 40+ shots on him (they gave up 40+ shots in only one other game) and he gives up 5 goals. You know why? He's elite. This team is much better than that 11-12 team. That team's D was SO overrated. They gave up plenty of chances. But Lundqvist was a God. This team with that Lundqvist is easily better than that. Hell this team with this year's Lundqvist and Talbot, just recently beat some of the best teams in the NHL. But Lundqvist now needs a near perfect game from his defense not to fall apart.

Please. We have an elite goalie. Even when he plays elite, we're not cup contenders. Lundqvist " now needs a near perfect game from his D" as in the past two games? He was looking pretty damn good before the break. Just stop. I'm not even arguing that he doesn't need to be better or is having his most inconsistent season but this team isn't a contender regardless of who is in net and you know better and have been on these boards for too long than to constantly be as fickle and short sighted in your analysis. I mean, I know you know the game and the team and I know you're here year after year, yet despite your longevity you're constantly prone to judging everything in a "what have you done for me lately?" vacuum. You must know these are ridiculous, knee jerk reaction posts. You've been with the team long enough to know better and I've seen you post better. This team isn't close to contending and Lundqvist, though the reason we lost tonight, really is not the reason why.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Please. We have an elite goalie. Even when he plays elite, we're not cup contenders. Lundqvist " now needs a near perfect game from his D" as in the past two games? He was looking pretty damn good before the break. Just stop. I'm not even arguing that he doesn't need to be better or is having his most inconsistent season but this team isn't a contender regardless of who is in net and you know better and have been on these boards for too long than to constantly be as fickle and short sighted in your analysis. I mean, I know you know the game and the team and I know you're here year after year, yet despite your longevity you're constantly prone to judging everything in a "what have you done for me lately?" vacuum. You must know these are ridiculous, knee jerk reaction posts. You've been with the team long enough to know better and I've seen you post better. This team isn't close to contending and Lundqvist, though the reason we lost tonight, really is not the reason why.

We don't have an elite goalie this year. Mediocre more like it. In the 25 or so games where he was good before, the D was outstanding. The team plays less than stellar for 2 games he's a sieve. He's not elite anymore, you're living in the past. This team constantly outplays the other team (happened again tonight) and loses. Yeah some of it is because they don't have great finishers and are prone to games where they get 40 shots and 1 goal, but mostly because our goalie is mediocre now and that's it. What game in those 25 did he have to steal? I think the closest was against the Islanders. But there's a reason that team is in the basement. The team for the most part outpossesses, outshoots, and out-chances its opposition. If they had a goalie that could make big saves like Rask did today when the team isn't playing great defense they'd be a contender.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Okay. You're right. I wish I knew as much about hockey as you. Lundqvist's 2.47 and .917, which includes the start of the season where every thing that had to do with the Rangers was abysmal, in arguably the worst season of his career is pretty hard evidence of how terrible he is. He allows less than 2.5 goals per game and stops about 92% of all shots faced (again, factoring the abysmal start in) and the elite, cup contending roster in front of him deserves better. Maybe he'll realize he cost us our cup this offseason and retire out of shame. With Talbot as our starter and all Hank's cap space to spend, we'll undoubtedly be legit contenders next year, considering we'd already be contenders if it weren't for Hank. Can you do the Rangers' fan base a favor and write to Newsday about it? I feel like more people deserve to know and I'm sure everyone will agree with your superior analysis.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Okay. You're right. I wish I knew as much about hockey as you. Lundqvist's 2.47 and .917, which includes the start of the season where every thing that had to do with the Rangers was abysmal, in arguably the worst season of his career is pretty hard evidence of how terrible he is. He allows less than 2.5 goals per game and stops about 92% of all shots faced (again, factoring the abysmal start in) and the elite, cup contending roster in front of him deserves better. Maybe he'll realize he cost us our cup this offseason and retire out of shame. With Talbot as our starter and all Hank's cap space to spend, we'll undoubtedly be legit contenders next year, considering we'd already be contenders if it weren't for Hank. Can you do the Rangers' fan base a favor and write to Newsday about it? I feel like more people deserve to know and I'm sure everyone will agree with your superior analysis.

Those are mediocre numbers in the NHL. He doesn't have worse numbers than that because his team defense is good enough most games (after the terrible start that I give him some break, but still he wouldn't have allowed that many goals in previous years) to limit chances against. He had a great 25 or so game stretch when his team did all the work for him.

 

[True Blue]

This team isn't close to contending and Lundqvist, though the reason we lost tonight, really is not the reason why.

Completely correct. Blaming Henke as the reason is short sighted. If you blame him for the weekend losses (and that is exactly the way to view this weekend), you need to give him 100% of the credit when they win.

The Philly and Boston games showed what I have long viewed. This team cannot take a punch in the mouth. The fact of the matter is that they wore down physically, against bigger teams that played bigger. Both Philly and Boston were able to impose their will when push came to shove and the Rangers had no answer.

They are exactly what they appear to be. A smallish, skilled team that has an elite goaltender and excellent top-3 defensemen. However, they are not built to win a war of attrition that represents the playoffs. They can look good when their skills shine in the regular season. But when it comes to getting their nose bloodied in the dirty areas of the ice, they fail. They lost the key battles all weekend. They could not give as good as they got. They were unable to compete at a level that is required to compete against teams like Philly and Boston.

The team, as currently constituted, is not built to succeed in the playoffs.

 

[True Blue]

He doesn't have worse numbers than that because his team defense is good enough most games (after the terrible start that I give him some break, but still he wouldn't have allowed that many goals in previous years) to limit chances against.

The same defense that waves sticks in feeble poke check attempts as the opposing forwards drive straight to the net?

He had a great 25 or so game stretch when his team did all the work for him.

Dude, really? I mean REALLY?

 

[Blueshirt Special]

Completely correct. Blaming Henke as the reason is short sighted. If you blame him for the weekend losses (and that is exactly the way to view this weekend), you need to give him 100% of the credit when they win.

The Philly and Boston games showed what I have long viewed. This team cannot take a punch in the mouth. The fact of the matter is that they wore down physically, against bigger teams that played bigger. Both Philly and Boston were able to impose their will when push came to shove and the Rangers had no answer.

They are exactly what they appear to be. A smallish, skilled team that has an elite goaltender and excellent top-3 defensemen. However, they are not built to win a war of attrition that represents the playoffs. They can look good when their skills shine in the regular season. But when it comes to getting their nose bloodied in the dirty areas of the ice, they fail. They lost the key battles all weekend. They could not give as good as they got. They were unable to compete at a level that is required to compete against teams like Philly and Boston.

The team, as currently constituted, is not built to succeed in the playoffs.

Well stated. Thank you.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Completely correct. Blaming Henke as the reason is short sighted. If you blame him for the weekend losses (and that is exactly the way to view this weekend), you need to give him 100% of the credit when they win.

The Philly and Boston games showed what I have long viewed. This team cannot take a punch in the mouth. The fact of the matter is that they wore down physically, against bigger teams that played bigger. Both Philly and Boston were able to impose their will when push came to shove and the Rangers had no answer.

They are exactly what they appear to be. A smallish, skilled team that has an elite goaltender and excellent top-3 defensemen. However, they are not built to win a war of attrition that represents the playoffs. They can look good when their skills shine in the regular season. But when it comes to getting their nose bloodied in the dirty areas of the ice, they fail. They lost the key battles all weekend. They could not give as good as they got. They were unable to compete at a level that is required to compete against teams like Philly and Boston.

The team, as currently constituted, is not built to succeed in the playoffs.

They're not exactly flourishing in the regular season, either.

 

[True Blue]

They're not exactly flourishing in the regular season, either.

No, they are not.

This weekend they looked a lot like AV's Vancouver teams that got run out of the playoffs.

 

[NYRSchrute217]

No, they are not.

This weekend they looked a lot like AV's Vancouver teams that got run out of the playoffs.

I was thinking that too. There's not enough size, not enough grit and their best players (Nash, Stepan, Richards) are not reliable, especially in the playoffs. Chris Kreider can't be your most clutch playoff scorer. While the team is great at getting chances and possessing the puck, they need more goal scoring and more toughness. Derek Dorsett is not the answer for that toughness, either.

 

[jskramer83]

This is what happens with AV's style of play, which let me say I am a fan of. The d play very aggressive in the offensive zone, and it is predicated on keeping control of the puck with the idea of if we control the puck a majority of the game we will win a majority of the games.

Problem is if we turn the puck over in our own zone, or make a mistake, this style leads us very vulnerable to odd-man rushes. Take a look back at the last few games and how the opposition scored their goals, odd man rush or pp goals.

No style is perfect but we are still trying to get used to this as it is the exact opposite of Tort's system, and maybe a little too on the aggressive side. Especially when down a goal

 

[True Blue]

No style is perfect but we are still trying to get used to this as it is the exact opposite of Tort's system, and maybe a little too on the aggressive side. Especially when down a goal

What does a system change have to do with not winning battles in the dirty areas of the ice? Torts or AV, makes no difference when a bigger, more physical team is imposing their will on you. The Rangers are not built to win such battles. Plain and simple. And those battles you need to be able to win in the playoffs.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Theres just no balance in the lineup, which has been a chronic problem. Sather has a way of preferring titanic shifts in ideology and it will never work.

The change we've seen in 20 short months is so extreme and stark. This team does some things better than 2011-2012 and some things worse.

Why do we have to face the question of if the Rangers are a skill-based team or a physical-based team when the best teams are both?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

What does a system change have to do with not winning battles in the dirty areas of the ice? Torts or AV, makes no difference when a bigger, more physical team is imposing their will on you. The Rangers are not built to win such battles. Plain and simple. And those battles you need to be able to win in the playoffs.

I think it plays a role. Specifically, I think we've gone from a philosophy that took pride in winning those battles to a system that tries to avoid them.

 

[True Blue]

I think it plays a role. Specifically, I think we've gone from a philosophy that took pride in winning those battles to a system that tries to avoid them.

Not quite so stark, but there is something to it being different. I saw a Philly and Boston team that finished all of their checks. I saw a Rangers team that preferred to peel away than finish one. Torts team never left a check on the ice and were hard to play against. This team is not hard to play against.

I am sure that AV wants the team to win battles. But there is a definite change in mentality, for sure.

 

[True Blue]

Why do we have to face the question of if the Rangers are a skill-based team or a physical-based team when the best teams are both?

There is some of that and that goes to a way a team is built. I do not think it is necessary to have highly skilled players as the only type in your top-9. But this team utterly lacks in size, grind and attitude. And that was painfully obvious this weekend.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Not quite so stark, but there is something to it being different. I saw a Philly and Boston team that finished all of their checks. I saw a Rangers team that preferred to peel away than finish one. Torts team never left a check on the ice and were hard to play against. This team is not hard to play against.

I am sure that AV wants the team to win battles. But there is a definite change in mentality, for sure.

Sure - as far as Im concerned, the Torts mentality should be foundational.

But I guess its just human nature to peel towards the main message. And, in AV's case, I think its more about having/maintaining the puck than going to get the puck.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

There is some of that and that goes to a way a team is built. I do not think it is necessary to have highly skilled players as the only type in your top-9. But this team utterly lacks in size, grind and attitude. And that was painfully obvious this weekend.

Its about being able to adapt. Very good teams do it game to game. Great teams do it shift to shift. The Rangers do it season to season.

Look at Boston - one shift Im watching Krejci be a magician with the puck, the next shift Im watching Lucic paste people.

 

[Captain Monglobster]

TB hit the nail on the head....this team loses so many man on man battles, 50/50 pucks, along the boards. Gone are Prust, Fedetenko, Mitchell, Dubinsky, Anisimov, and we have replaced them with small players, or big soft players - Nash, Pouliot, etc.

Maybe callahan is worth 7mil, w/o him this team is softer than a babys bottom.

This team needs players like Simmonds, Bobby Ryan, Evander Kane.

 

[OverTheCap]

Philly, Boston, St. Louis, hell, even Columbus has given this team fits because they all play a physical brand of hockey. The Rangers are 2-8-1 against these opponents. Gone are the days in which the Rangers would go 3-1 against the Bruins in a season series.

It's just not physical toughness that they are lacking, but the mental toughness as well. When Boston tied the game after the Rangers were dominating in the 1st, it took the wind out of their sails and that was all she wrote.

 

[McRanger]

They're not exactly flourishing in the regular season, either.

I guess it depends on your definition of flourishing.

They've been one of the better teams in the league since the first ten games. In terms of accumulating points and GF/GA differential they are right behind St. Louis, Anaheim, Chicago, Boston and Pittsburgh.

The last 52 games they've actually had a higher GF and a lower GA than they did in '11-'12. They have the 3rd best goals against in the league (it was 2nd before last night) and they have done it without Lundqvist having a historic season.