SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
Why would we ignore the first ten games? Those games highlighted flaws in this team that are still apparent and very much a factor.
And pretty much any team would look better if you could randomly dismiss 10 games.
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
Why would we ignore the first ten games? Those games highlighted flaws in this team that are still apparent and very much a factor.
And pretty much any team would look better if you could randomly dismiss 10 games.
That argument does not really fly. Then you can go and delete 10 bad games from the other teams and that makes them seem worse than it actually is.
Exactly. You are what your record says you are. You cannot just ignore a bad stretch for the Rangers and not do the same for all other teams.
The flaws are there. They were again exposed. And these flaws will not just go away with the way that the team is built.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,924
- 2,330
Putting aside the ridiculous road trip or the "they were adjusting to a new coach and system" thing, most of the team was injured or dealing with one thing or another. Callahan, Nash, and Hagelin missed extended time. Stepan looked awful after missing training camp. Staal was adjusting to his eye problem. Lundqvist was dealing with an injury. Kreider was in the minors.
I said in the beginning of the season that I would worry about the roster in November. Forming an opinion of a team that was adjusting to a new playing style and was missing half its players seemed idiotic.
Having a view on the roster of a team is far from idiotic. The team's flaws then were as they are now. Every team deals with injuries. Using them to justify playing bad is just an excuse.
You cannot just pretend that the bad games did not occur. If you do, then you have to do the same thing for every team. Once you do that, suddenly, the Rangers are not one of the top teams in the league.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
And whether the roster was complete or not, the lack of intensity and general malaise, was inexcusable. No system is based on playing lax and with little energy.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,924
- 2,330
Formulating an opinion or basing expectations on a team that is half formed is idiotic. I am not really sure how else to put it.
It was pretty obvious since most of the important players on the team were either not playing or missed training camp it would take some time for the team to adjust, let alone adjust to AVs new system.
My sample size is not exactly small. Its 85% of the season. The most recent 85% of the season.
Come on. Excuses are excuses. You simply cannot ignore their poor play. And what Singing is describing does not at all jive with your reasoning. If you cut out a portion of the season that you do not like for the Rangers, you need to do the same for all other teams.
And NOTHING that you are stating obfuscates what was exposed this weekend. The Rangers cannot take a punch in the mouth. The Rangers are a passive team that the bigger, more physical teams can exert their will over. The Rangers are not built to win a war of attrition.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
Not only that , but add to what you saw this weekend. Feeble poke check attempts and peel aways. Lack of overall desire to engage. Lack of desire to get the nose dirty.
So are you saying that if for a 10 game stretch the Penguins went 2 - 7 -1 and during that stretch Crosby, Malkin, Neal, Fleury, Letang, Kunitz, and Maata were out you would say that you cannot judge their healthy roster as a team that plays at around a .700 winning percentage because those 10 games took place?
If you are judging the Rangers as a team and how well they may do in the playoffs it is silly to consider the games played early in the season when the team was transitioning to a new coach and system, on the road seemingly forever and without several key players. Those games count in terms of what our final record is and whether we make the playoffs but if you are judging how good this team is, eliminating in your analysis those early games makes perfect sense cause that team is not this team.
Injuries happen to every team. You deal with them and move on. They are built into every season. And what do injuries have to do with getting dominated physically on the ice?
I am judging based on what I saw on the ice. And that is a team that was hesitant to go into corners and engage.
Then eliminate a bad stretch for each team and you are right back where you started.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,924
- 2,330
I am not excusing anything. The team on the ice for the first three weeks is not the roster the team has played with most of the season. The roster is different as is the success of their style of play. I am not just arbitrarily eliminating a week here and a week there to pump up the stats. Its the most recent 85% of the season.
And I hate to break it to you, but the Rangers are no less built for "a war of attrition" now than they were under Torts. In any season he was here. The only time the Rangers could grind out wins consistently was when Lundqvist stood on his head.
I would love to see the team records in '11-'12 and '13-'14 if you switched Hanks ridiculous career year for this messy year.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
Could it be that Hank's career year had something to do with the team in front of him? This isn't the first time I've seen someone want to switch Hank's stats around as if they'd stay the same.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
It's amazing that, despite not going into the corners, the Rangers still managed to get 55% of all shot attempts. Before I hear the "shots from the perimeter" argument, the Rangers average shot distance in two games against the Bruins this season is 32.9 ft, whereas the Bruins' is 35.1 ft. If the Bruins beat the Rangers twice this season because of toughness, I have to conclude that Tuukka Rask is the toughest Bruin.
For me, watching the game last night, the story was isolated mental breakdowns and goaltending. But hey, I'm used to the toughness narrative.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,924
- 2,330
Hank has played 9 seasons under 3 coaches including years where Marek Malik was the teams top pair defensemen and he has never struggled like he has this year.
This is by far his least consistent season to date. By far.
Clearly facing less shots on goal, as they were being blocked, had absolutely nothing to do with anything.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
And being tossed into the boards left and right doesn't affect you mentally at all.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,924
- 2,330
How many more shots has he faced per game? 0.138 per game? Keep in mind thats not a percentage. That's an actual number. Its roughly 9 shots over the course of 65 games.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
How, specfically, will that change in mental state, affect goals for and against?
- Status
