Just How Good Are the 2013-14 Rangers?

[Cassano]

I love how 2 game sample sizes are enough to conclude that the Rangers are a mediocre team, yet the previous 20 before that is scoffed aside. What's even funnier is that the Ranger outplayed the opposition the past 2 games, just had bad luck/subpar goaltending/ran into hot goalie.

 

[True Blue]

What's even funnier is that the Ranger outplayed the opposition the past 2 games, just had bad luck/subpar goaltending/ran into hot goalie.

This is really what you saw for the past two games? Bad luck and bad Henke?

 

[aufheben]

This is really what you saw for the past two games? Bad luck and bad Henke?

Everything the other 18 players besides Hank do is excusable.

 

[NoQuitInNewMexico]

This is really what you saw for the past two games? Bad luck and bad Henke?

I mean if you think terrible defense and goaltending is something to be worried about, if you think Dan Girardi will basically be responsible for three goals against every game and Hank won't show up, that's fine. What solutions do you have to the fact that teams lose hockey games sometimes and how many of them are Toffness?

 

[Thirty One]

Everything the other 18 players besides Hank do is excusable.

The other 18 players outshot the other 18 players on the Bruins 86-55 during the two games this this season.

 

[Callagraves]

I don't think we're as good as our record, and are only going to get worse in the next 2-3 years.

 

[Thirty One]

I don't think we're as good as our record, and are only going to get worse in the next 2-3 years.

I think that's a first!

 

[GregSirico]

I love how 2 game sample sizes are enough to conclude that the Rangers are a mediocre team, yet the previous 20 before that is scoffed aside. What's even funnier is that the Ranger outplayed the opposition the past 2 games, just had bad luck/subpar goaltending/ran into hot goalie.

THIS, so much of this!

 

[Fataldogg]

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.

This couldn't be further from the truth.

You're giving way too much credit to what is a playoff bubble team. We must be seeing two different teams. Lundqvist stats improved because the team improved, but in January/February when Lundqvist was 10-3-1 with 1SO and a .937SV% he was the Rangers best player, period.

1/8/14 he stops 35 out of 37 on the road versus Chicago and wins the game. Best player on the team. This wasn't a Talbot Chicago game, with 98% perimeter shots and elite defense for 59.5 minutes.

1/12/14 he stops 37 out of 38 against the Flyers and was the best player on the ice. Don't win the game without him.

1/16/14 he stops 38 out of 38 against Detroit, stood on his head, another game the Rangers can't win without him.

1/29/14 and 1/31/14 he was the #1 star against the Islanders in each game, again, the team doesn't win without him.

Than there are another slew of games where he finished as a top-3 star.

He was playing better because the Rangers were playing better. But the Rangers looked a lot better during that stretch because of Lundqvist's huge play.

You say this guy hasn't stolen one game. You can argue just over his 10-3-1 stretch that he stole every game I just stated. And I didn't even mention all of the other games where he was a rock.

We get that he has had an up and down year, but don't say the guy doesn't steal games, don't say he's been "bad" when he is statistically the median NHL starting goaltender this season. Don't say he needs elite defense, because I watch the games, and the level of play I saw him bring to the table in his 14 game stretch into the Olympics, and than his 6 game stretch with Sweden, was about as elite as it gets.

If you truly believe this guy has only stolen one game, or only looks good when the team is playing shut down in front of him, I don't know what to say.

In fact, you could say that about Talbot more than anything else. Whenever Talbot gets tested, the guy lets in 3+ goals. When he has "cupcakes" lobbed at him he looks great. When he gets tested though? Well, we haven't seen that too often, but when he does, he doesn't look to hot. Even that game against Chicago was easy. Lundqvist had more difficult saves in a 2 minute span against the Flyers than the whole game Talbot had against Chicago.

Lundqvist was playing ELITE level hockey the entire two months before the Olympics and continued it throughout the Olympics. One of the biggest reasons the Rangers looked "so good" is because Lundqvist found his "King" form again, and was standing on his head in a lot of those games. Not because the Rangers are rock stars.

 

[free0717]

Rask was a Rock Star last nite

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I see lots of people that look at shot totals and assume the Rangers dominated a game if they outshoot the opponents.

Considering Boston's goals came right on the doorstep, they may want to reassess that line of thinking when talking about how the Rangers outplayed them.

 

[True Blue]

What solutions do you have to the fact that teams lose hockey games sometimes and how many of them are Toffness?

Who is talking about Toffness? And how do you define it?

 

[Thirty One]

I see lots of people that look at shot totals and assume the Rangers dominated a game if they outshoot the opponents.

Considering Boston's goals came right on the doorstep, they may want to reassess that line of thinking when talking about how the Rangers outplayed them.

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.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Sure seems like Boston is the team that cashes in on their chances in the prime scoring areas.

 

[Thirty One]

Sure seems like Boston is the team that cashes in on their chances in the prime scoring areas.

Over a sample of two games, a lot of "seems like"s pop up that may or may not reflect reality.

 

[RGY]

Two bad games but im not too concerned. Back to backs against a team that was trailing you and a top team in the East. Not an easy go. They get a couple days off to rest and get back at it wednesday.

 

[Callagraves]

I think that's a first!

We'll see how I feel later tonight. I skipped lunch, and when I get hungry, well, it's like those snickers commercials.


Really, I hate AV, I don't think Nash is the right player for the job. I think Brassard is on a crazy good run, but will go back to being a non-factor, and that Poo will be completely invisible once there's nobody better for him to leech off of.

I think Hags is playing some of the worst hockey of his career, and I'm afraid that he really is only a 3rd liner with some crazy speed.

I think letting Cally go will be a massive mistake, because that will leave a total of one (1) forward who plays like the give a crap on this roster. That player is Zucc.

I think playing Kreider with Nash is a bad idea. He's got a miserable work ethic, cherry picks for a living, and has no push-back whatsoever to his game, and if that rubs off on CK, it will be a travesty.

I'm optimistic about Miller.

I still think changing the direction of the team was a miserable, miserable mistake. Sather got lazy, overpaid stars in his eyes and gutted the core for Nash, and when that didn't work, he traded Gabby for the rest of the Blue Jacket's spare parts. To top it off, he brought in AV who is just terrible. The players look unprepared, half asleep, and there is ZERO accountability for turnovers. This has lead to a team so soft on the puck in the defensive and neutral zone, that even our own commentators seem perplexed with how many turnovers we give up.

I want the team to win. I think they get colder and colder with every move, and it won't stop until we're in a new dark age.

 

[Mikos87]

Hank will be back to form again. The last 2 games show just how important he is to the team's success.

This team is still 2nd round exit good. If somehow Boston gets eliminated before the conf finals, and Philly and the Rangers don't meet in the playoffs and the Rangers face "nice guy" teams, then they Rangers as constructed have a chance to come out of the east.

But with that said, this team might not make the playoffs given the inconsistency they are showing once again like they did earlier in the season.

Looking at the loss to Philly and Edm, two winnable games, shows you the lack of mental fortitude this team has. One instance they were physically dominated and intimidated, in the other they just didn't show up.

You can't have games like this, and you can't have players that play outside their roles.

Dorsett needs to be moved asap, and I am a MOAR TUFFNESS sort of fan. Kreider needs a wake up call. Kid is getting comfortable again.

Until this coaching staff starts pushing a few buttons, I don't think we will see a full effort roster under this staff. Which is a shame, because their hockey knowledge is outstanding.

Ability to motivate however isn't where it should be, otherwise AV would have had a ring or two. He's a very smart man, and one that knows the game very well.

 

[True Blue]

Two bad games but im not too concerned.

Games where the other team physically dominated you and were able to exert their will is a cause. The sunny side says two games and that is it. My view is that the weekend showed the Rangers fatal flaw in philosophy and construction.

 

[McRanger]

Games where the other team physically dominated you and were able to exert their will is a cause. The sunny side says two games and that is it. My view is that the weekend showed the Rangers fatal flaw in philosophy and construction.

Which is what, exactly? Size and toughness?

 

[KreiMeARiver*]

Which is what, exactly? Size and toughness?

No, our inability to win every single game. Duh

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

No, our inability to win every single game. Duh

I would argue that's about the only philosophy. And a complete inability to have any idea how to go about constructing a team with the best chance to accomplish that.

 

[aufheben]

You don't need to be the Bruins to win in this league, but you need to be able to beat teams like them; If you think it was all just Rask, that's fine, your opinion, but I think there's more to it than that. If we even make the playoffs and find ourself up against the Bruins again, I would be shocked if they didn't wipe the floor with us all over again.

 

[Thirty One]

Boston is a top 5 possession team in the league, there's no doubt that their size and strength plays a part of that. But I can't see a compelling case where the benefit of being bigger and grittier goes beyond that.

I can't get around on the idea that the reason the Bruins shot 14.6% and the Rangers shot 4.7% is because of toughness, despite the fact that the Bruins' average shot was significantly further out that the Rangers'. Makes no sense to me.

 

[True Blue]

No, our inability to win every single game. Duh

Yes, clearly that is what I am saying. Excellent job of deciphering.