Just How Good Are the 2013-14 Rangers?

[BwayBshirt]

As of right now, I'd say 3rd Best in the East with a bullet.

At worst at this moment, I don't see any team in the conference cake-walking in a series against the Rangers the way the Bruins did last year.

Also, I quietly looking forward to a postseason where the Rangers just might be able to win a series or 2 in less than 7 games & not be physically taxed to the very limit.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Seems random to me. Why could they get there, but not into the Finals?

I could see this team potentially squeezing out a victory against a superior team (IMO, those teams are Boston, Pittsburgh, and potentially Tampa Bay with a healthy Stamkos), but I would expect to play at least one of these teams in the conference finals as well, and I don't the team has the overall depth at the moment to contend with the likes of those teams.

 

[TheDirtyH]

Maybe just me, but I am not very frightened by the prospect of a seven game series against the penguins or the bruins. I think they're better teams on paper, but because our team is made up so differently than tort's I think the results will be very different in a series. I'm talking mostly about matchups, which I think in the playoffs are HUGE like we never see in the regular season. But so far, we haven't relied on one line to carry the scoring load or one d-pair to shut down. If we're against pittsburgh, I feel as comfortable with Staal against Malkin or Crosby as I do with McDonagh. On offense, against Boston, Chara can cover Nash all game, and I trust that Zucc will find the net instead. I really think relying on depth to win games equates to better success in the post-season, particularly for upsetting better teams.

 

[eco's bones]

To me Pittsburgh is beatable--we might not have great odds to do it but they're still beatable. Henrik would have to be at the top of his game and the defense healthy. Have to be careful not to get John Moore caught on the ice too much if Malkin or Crosby are on the ice.

Boston less beatable than Pittsburgh but this team if healthy is better prepared than last year's team to play the Bruins. A lot of what's going on playing the Bruins is about attrition. If you can roll 4 set lines and 3 solid d-pairings instead of 3 lines and a breather now and again from your 4th line and not have your 3rd pairing running around your odds improve.

Tampa Bay is not nearly as deep as Boston and don't quite have the same level of talent of the Pens. Our major problem with playing TB IMO won't be Stamkos, St. Louis--it will be Mike Bishop.

 

[ltrangerfan]

The Edmonton loss may have answered the question?

 

[Thirty One]

The Edmonton loss may have answered the question?

lol.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The Edmonton loss may have answered the question?

The stupidity of going by 1 game to determine how good a team is should surprise me, but it doesn't. This is ridiculous, should I list all of the bad losses great teams have had this year. Pittsburgh and San Jose lost to these same Sharks. Pittsburgh lost to Florida 5-1. Colorado lost to the Oilers like 8-2. Chicago got blown out by Nashville. St. Louis lost 7-1 to the Devils.

 

[Towmater14]

The stupidity of going by 1 game to determine how good a team is should surprise me, but it doesn't. This is ridiculous, should I list all of the bad losses great teams have had this year. Pittsburgh and San Jose lost to these same Sharks. Pittsburgh lost to Florida 5-1. Colorado lost to the Avs like 8-2. Chicago got blown out by Nashville. St. Louis lost 7-1 to the Devils.

Colorado lost to the Avs?

 

[member 116805]

Colorado lost to the Avs?

Suicide

 

[ajdj10]

Hank let in another softie. God damn it!

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Colorado lost to the Avs?

Colorado lost to the Oilers.

 

[ltrangerfan]

The stupidity of going by 1 game to determine how good a team is should surprise me, but it doesn't. This is ridiculous, should I list all of the bad losses great teams have had this year. Pittsburgh and San Jose lost to these same Sharks. Pittsburgh lost to Florida 5-1. Colorado lost to the Oilers like 8-2. Chicago got blown out by Nashville. St. Louis lost 7-1 to the Devils.

1 game performance? I really thought that tonight's game was a trap game anyway.
I thought that the Rangers would probably play down to Edmontons level while focusing on Pitt.

Let's examine the games since the Chicago win.

The Rangers beat Colorado who played in back to back games looking as if they were playing in quicksand.

They won a pair against the Islanders who are battling to nail down the bottom of the division.

The Rangers beat NJ (a non playoff team) outside (after falling behind) on bouncing ice.

They beat middling teams such as Washington, Ottawa, Detroit, Phil, Dallas.

Chicago was a solid win.

During the streak they lost to the Islanders, St Louis, Tampa (2 of the 3 top teams).

My point is that the team is still a lower level playoff team who has put a solid stretch together by beating up on teams similar to them. An elite team who can do real damage in the playoffs? Still unlikely.

If the PP remains solid, Nash streaks again, or a few players get hot the Rangers can surge again. Otherwise, the offense will score their 2 goals / game and Henrik will start to press feeling the weight of carrying a non scoring team.

How good is this team? They get their chance to make amends and split their last two games with a win over Pitt.

I suspect the effort will be far better than tonight but will it be good enough?

IMO: The Rangers are a lower level playoff team until proven otherwise.

 

[aufheben]

Not good enough to beat the Oilers.

 

[bobbop]

Top 3 in East with a realistic chance of coming out of the east. Boston and Pittsburgh both flawed. Great balance, deep and a world class goaltender playing like a world class goaltender.

The West is another matter altogether. Unless something very wierd happens out here, I expect the Westren Conference Champion to be a heavy favorite over any Eastern team. Of course, that has happened before (1995 comes to mind)

 

[SnowblindNYR]

ltrangerfan likes to be miserable. Why not enjoy the team playing well and if the shoe drops complain then? You've been complaining nonstop and they've been playing well. Give it up already.

 

[True Blue]

To me Pittsburgh is beatable--we might not have great odds to do it but they're still beatable. Henrik would have to be at the top of his game and the defense healthy. Have to be careful not to get John Moore caught on the ice too much if Malkin or Crosby are on the ice.

They are beatable, but Henke would need to be the best player on the ice. By far. And would also probably literally need to steal two games.

Boston less beatable than Pittsburgh but this team if healthy is better prepared than last year's team to play the Bruins. A lot of what's going on playing the Bruins is about attrition. If you can roll 4 set lines and 3 solid d-pairings instead of 3 lines and a breather now and again from your 4th line and not have your 3rd pairing running around your odds improve.

The problem with the Bruins is that they are not a team that the Rangers are suited to play well against. You are spot on with the attrition comment. And that means that the Rangers would have to give as good as they get physically? Can they take a punch in the mouth from Boston and then throw one back? I am not sure. Boston owned the down low play and absolutely destroyed the Rangers against the boards. This is not exactly an apples to apples comparison as the Rangers are nowhere near talented as that team, but it is somewhat like when Ottawa was getting started and had all the skills. Toronto absolutely beat the pants off of them in a war of attrition. The very skilled 'Sens could not take a punch in the mouth from the Tucker-led leafs.

Ottawa has learned since that series. The theory is what I like to. The Rangers are not a very hard team to play against. That works well to Bruins and very poorly to the Rangers.

Can the Rangers give as good as they get? Can they take a punch in the mouth? Can Nash be a force on the ice?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

They are beatable, but Henke would need to be the best player on the ice. By far. And would also probably literally need to steal two games.

The problem with the Bruins is that they are not a team that the Rangers are suited to play well against. You are spot on with the attrition comment. And that means that the Rangers would have to give as good as they get physically? Can they take a punch in the mouth from Boston and then throw one back? I am not sure. Boston owned the down low play and absolutely destroyed the Rangers against the boards. This is not exactly an apples to apples comparison as the Rangers are nowhere near talented as that team, but it is somewhat like when Ottawa was getting started and had all the skills. Toronto absolutely beat the pants off of them in a war of attrition. The very skilled 'Sens could not take a punch in the mouth from the Tucker-led leafs.

Ottawa has learned since that series. The theory is what I like to. The Rangers are not a very hard team to play against. That works well to Bruins and very poorly to the Rangers.

Can the Rangers give as good as they get? Can they take a punch in the mouth? Can Nash be a force on the ice?

I'm not saying that the Rangers are anywhere near as good as the Hawks or Wings, but neither of those teams were really that tough to play against.

 

[Haanz]

Flyers fan here. The Rangers were my preseason pick to win the Cup and I stand by my prediction (I've actually got a decent bit of money riding on them). I believe neither Callahan nor Girardi will be dealt and I would not deal them if I were in Sather's shoes. I really like this mix of players and have felt for the past couple years that this Rangers core has a Cup in them.

 

[True Blue]

I'm not saying that the Rangers are anywhere near as good as the Hawks or Wings, but neither of those teams were really that tough to play against.

The Hawks are a completely different discussion. There you are competing against talent and the sheer depth of talent. And it would be great to have to dissect the matchup, but to get there, the road goes through either Pittsburgh or Boston.

 

[EpicDing]

We'd be competing with the Pens right now for the division if we didn't play so badly early in the season. We're only like 16 points behind.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

I'm not saying that the Rangers are anywhere near as good as the Hawks or Wings, but neither of those teams were really that tough to play against.

I would certainly disagree about the Wings. In their most recent heyday they had Franzen, Holmstrom, Bertuzzi up front on 3/4 lines. Kronwall, Stuart on D don't mess around.

Yea they had players like Hudler and Filppula, yea they played a high tempo, puck posession style, and yea they didn't fight a ton. But they had grit coming out of their ears. Their 2 best forwards (Zetterberg and Datsyuk) are top two-way players of the generation, not just offensive players.

 

[Thirty One]

We'd be competing with the Pens right now for the division if we didn't play so badly early in the season. We're only like 16 points behind.

Since October 28:
Rangers: 29-17-3 , 49 games, 61 points
Penguins: 32-11-3, 46 games, 67 points

I don't know, they'll still been a notch above.

 

[True Blue]

We'd be competing with the Pens right now for the division if we didn't play so badly early in the season. We're only like 16 points behind.

"only"?

No offense, but I think that you are deluding yourself if you believe that we would be true competition for the 'Pens. Besides, you are exactly what your record says you are.

 

[EpicDing]

Since October 28:
Rangers: 29-17-3 , 49 games, 61 points
Penguins: 32-11-3, 46 games, 67 points

I don't know, they'll still been a notch above.

I think I'd call 6 points competing. One bad streak for the Pens while we're hot and suddenly, it's not so far.

 

[True Blue]

Yea they had players like Hudler and Filppula, yea they played a high tempo, puck posession style, and yea they didn't fight a ton. But they had grit coming out of their ears.

That's the thing about the 'Wings that people keep forgetting. Yes, they had high skill and did not fight a ton. But the teams were as gritty as it gets. Their teams were never considered soft or easy to play against.