Just How Good Are the 2013-14 Rangers?

[aufheben]

Teams make their own bounces. You think Pens/Bruins fans are saying: "Hey, if we get a few bounces our way, we could take the Rangers!", or..."Yeah! If Lundqvist get's injured, we could definitely make the final four!"...?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

To me that is the problem. I do think that Boston is in a different league. So while yes, anything can happen, that is a very hard thing to hang your hat on. I do not see the Rangers stacking up very well against this team.

Did you see the Leafs stacking up well against them? The year before that the mediocre Caps beat them. Hell even in their SC year they almost lost to Montreal. All 3 were pretty mediocre teams. The Bruins have gotten some sort of mythical awe of them on this board by fans that love to be miserable and think we already lost to them before we played them, but they've barely won against mediocre competition for a few years now in the first round. They're not anywhere close to unbeatable.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Teams make their own bounces. You think Pens/Bruins fans are saying: "Hey, if we get a few bounces our way, we could take the Rangers!", or..."Yeah! If Lundqvist get's injured, we could definitely make the final four!"...?

Well, I wouldn't say "if we get a few bounces our way, we could be the Jackets", but they can easily beat the Rangers. Those teams would be favorites, but they can definitely be beat. I know it hasn't happened that much lately but for years we'd see Cinderella teams make to the finals. People seem to think it's mission impossible. It's not like we're a garbage team, just not elite. This is the NHL where the difference between elite and good teams isn't that huge.

 

[aufheben]

I'm not saying we're a bad team; in my first post regarding the playoffs I said I think this team can go far. All I said was that I don't think they have enough to go all the way, and everyone short-circuited.

I'm as optimistic as they come, but it just seems like such a meaningless statement to say anyone can be beat. No teams are even eliminated from the playoffs yet, literally anyone could beat anyone right now.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I'm not saying we're a bad team; in my first post regarding the playoffs I said I think this team can go far. All I said was that I don't think they have enough to go all the way, and everyone short-circuited.

I'm as optimistic as they come, but it just seems like such a meaningless statement to say anyone can be beat. No teams are even eliminated from the playoffs yet, literally anyone could beat anyone right now.

I see what you're saying but teams like last year's Wild for example you knew didn't have a great chance of doing anything. I personally think the Rangers have a better chance than an "average playoff team" but not as good as the elite playoff teams. I think we have enough defensively, a strong goalie (would be interesting to see how Hank is in the playoffs when the play isn't in his zone the entire game), and enough good (but not great) players on offense that I'd give them more than a fighting chance. People thought we had a great chance in 2012 for some reason when we were an overachieving bunch that didn't play a style conducive to winning. At least this team seems to have a system offensively.

 

[Infinitum Vitae*]

I think the real question is....how good are the 2014-2015 rangers

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I think the real question is....how good are the 2014-2015 rangers

The real question if all this puncher's chance stuff in this post-season is worth virtually ignoring the plan and make-up of the '14-15 Rangers and beyond.

The answer is a unequivocally no.

 

[n8]

I think we are in a boat of many "ifs."

IF Lundqvist plays lights out
IF Nash shows up
IF Brassgod mode is online
IF Richards can be competitive
IF the PP stays hot
IF our defense stays healthy
etc etc.

It's very difficult and unlikely for all those things to align in the playoffs but IF they do, we are a contender. IF. IF. IF.

 

[n8]

I think the real question is....how good are the 2014-2015 rangers

impossible to say without knowing what the 2014-2015 roster looks like

 

[Idlerlee]

On the upside, I'm sure pretty much every single team goes through this "If" mode most of the season. We're pretty well off imo

 

[Tawnos]

I think we are in a boat of many "ifs."

IF Lundqvist plays lights out
IF Nash shows up
IF Brassgod mode is online
IF Richards can be competitive
IF the PP stays hot
IF our defense stays healthy
etc etc.

It's very difficult and unlikely for all those things to align in the playoffs but IF they do, we are a contender. IF. IF. IF.

In reality, all teams run off of the "if we stay healthy" gambit. In reality, all teams run off of the "if our goalie is lights out" gambit. And all teams run off of the "if some of our players step up their game" gambit. Of your 6 ifs, 3 of them are universal.

As for the rest, I think other teams have other ifs. For example, Pittsburgh has the "if our defense holds up" gambit. Boston has the "if our depth holds up" gambit. All teams have ifs.

"If our second line can be effective" - Chicago

 

[ltrangerfan]

In reality, all teams run off of the "if we stay healthy" gambit. In reality, all teams run off of the "if our goalie is lights out" gambit. And all teams run off of the "if some of our players step up their game" gambit. Of your 6 ifs, 3 of them are universal.

As for the rest, I think other teams have other ifs. For example, Pittsburgh has the "if our defense holds up" gambit. Boston has the "if our depth holds up" gambit. All teams have ifs.

"If our second line can be effective" - Chicago

+1

All I would add is that elite teams don't need to run the table with their if's.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

+1

All I would add is that elite teams don't need to run the table with their if's.

I don't know where it's written that the Rangers need to run the table of what ifs. I think it's all conjecture at this point.

 

[True Blue]

One game doesn't mean anything. They won 4 of 5 coming into the break including beating the best in the East.

You are right. That was not a great comment by me to pick a one-off game.

No offense taken and I don't think I'm deluding myself. 2-first round exits, a 2nd round exit and a 3rd round exit in the last 4 seasons. Their defense is suspect, especially with Letang out, Fleury is a better regular season guy than post season and they've got 2 good offensive lines, albeit 2 awesome lines.

I sit impossible? No. But Henke has to be the best player by far on the ice at all times. In addition to their skill, Pitt is also built to win better in the playoffs.

I think you need a bigger sample size to give Nash a playoff MO. Chara doesn't automatically nullify Nash, but for arguments sake that's the idea of having 4 lines that can roll. NY's top scorer is playing on the "3rd" line, even though I think they're playing like a 1st line. This team hasn't had this scoring depth in years.

Chara has nullified players much better than Nash. Could Nash prevail? Sure, but then he would have to elevate and change his game and bring an attitude that he does not possess.

The rolling lines are great, but I do have doubts if the Rangers can take a punch in the mouth from Boston.

As I mentioned, Boston is scary with their size. What I meant by saying they're built similar is solid goal tending, defensive depth and able to roll 4 lines, but they have more size and big shooters on the blue line. That's a definite battle for a post season series but that doesn't mean you just roll over and quit.

No one said to quit. But I see Boston as being THAT much better than the Rangers. And being built squarely to win a war of attrition.

I see The Rangers being able to compete with these teams in a playoff series. No guarantees on winning or delusions of dominating these teams, but this NYR team is solid enough that a few bounces their way over the course of a series and they definitely have a shot. It seems like you're ready to just forget the playoffs and just let Boston and Pitt play for the conference championship.

I would prefer not to hope for bounces but to be able to compete squarely. I do not think they can. I certainly hope they do, but have my doubts. Even if you say that the Rangers are the 3rd best team in the conference, I think that the drop from the top rung of Penguins and Bruins is precipitous.

 

[True Blue]

Teams make their own bounces. You think Pens/Bruins fans are saying: "Hey, if we get a few bounces our way, we could take the Rangers!", or..."Yeah! If Lundqvist get's injured, we could definitely make the final four!"...?

Well put. You summarize my feelings on the whole "IF we get a few bounces" line of thinking.

 

[True Blue]

They're not anywhere close to unbeatable.

No one said unbeatable. However what do your own eyes tell you about the 2 teams? What has the net results been over the last call it 5 years have been?

 

[DekeR]

In the last 9 seasons or so you have teams that can roll two strong lines with players(5 to 6) scoring in the 17Goals on up. With the exception of LA who happened to hit all cylinders at the right time. So it happens once every 10 years that a team wins who in all honesty shouldn't have. The NYRs cannot even put together a top line, take Nash out of the equation( whose skill set is way above every other NYR) and you are looking at a third line fodder and if you squint real hard it can look like a 2nd line. Our only hope of winning the cup, if we make it the POs is that IF Hank can pitch a pair of shutouts each and every series.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Here it is in black and white. To win the Stanley Cup, its very likely the Rangers will have to:

-Beat the Bruins in a 7 game series
-Beat the Penguins in a 7 game series
-Beat a powerhouse Western conference team in a 7 game series

Can it happen? Sure. I can also win the lottery tomorrow.

In a normal type of season, I'd probably be on board with a minor deal or two to bolster the lineup and then head into the playoffs to "see what happens."

This is not a normal season. A huge amount of the team is without a contract come July. Decisions need to be made sooner rather than later. In relation to the rest of the league, this team is good, but they are not good enough to justify putting off these tough decisions.

 

[Thirty One]

I think we are in a boat of many "ifs."

IF Lundqvist plays lights out
IF Nash shows up
IF Brassgod mode is online
IF Richards can be competitive
IF the PP stays hot
IF our defense stays healthy
etc etc.

It's very difficult and unlikely for all those things to align in the playoffs but IF they do, we are a contender. IF. IF. IF.

Think about all the flaws of the 11-12 team that made the final four and ask yourself if the Rangers need all those things to be a contender.

There's an ideal of what a Stanley Cup winner is supposed to look like, but the only thing that all Stanley Cup winners have in common is they've beat an opposing team to four wins four times in a row.

 

[Thirty One]

Here it is in black and white. To win the Stanley Cup, its very likely the Rangers will have to:

-Beat the Bruins in a 7 game series
-Beat the Penguins in a 7 game series
-Beat a powerhouse Western conference team in a 7 game series

Can it happen? Sure. I can also win the lottery tomorrow.

In a normal type of season, I'd probably be on board with a minor deal or two to bolster the lineup and then head into the playoffs to "see what happens."

This is not a normal season. A huge amount of the team is without a contract come July. Decisions need to be made sooner rather than later. In relation to the rest of the league, this team is good, but they are not good enough to justify putting off these tough decisions.

I think it's unlikely that the path to the Finals runs through both Pittsburgh and Boston. It's possible, but it's silly to state it like it's the undisputed facts of the case.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

No one said unbeatable. However what do your own eyes tell you about the 2 teams? What has the net results been over the last call it 5 years have been?

Until the playoffs last year the Rangers pretty much owned the Bruins. BTW, this year we lost 2 1 goal games, one of which we dominated (granted the Bs were playing with 5 D and on the 2nd night of back to backs). My point is if Toronto can almost beat them, if Washington can beat them, hell going back to Montreal, than so can we and it wouldn't take a miracle.

 

[Off Sides]

I am a little surprised about how much optimism there is in this thread. I'm not so sure I see the Rangers beating Montreal, Tampa, Detroit, Philly, etc, if anything can happen and all, why couldn't the Rangers maybe lose to them under the same premise?

If it's because one believes the Rangers have a better roster/team, so they are more likely to win against those teams, wouldn't that same person also have to say a team they consider to have a better roster/team than the Rangers should win that series?

The anything can happen thing seems sort of arbitrary in terms of favoring the Rangers.

 

[Thirty One]

I am a little surprised about how much optimism there is in this thread. I'm not so sure I see the Rangers beating Montreal, Tampa, Detroit, Philly, etc, if anything can happen and all, why couldn't the Rangers maybe lose to them under the same premise?

If it's because one believes the Rangers have a better roster/team, so they are more likely to win against those teams, wouldn't that same person also have to say a team they consider to have a better roster/team than the Rangers should win that series?

The anything can happen thing seems sort of arbitrary in terms of favoring the Rangers.

Yes, of course the Rangers could be knocked off by a lesser team. All in all, the Rangers have a only small chance at winning the Cup. Boston, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Anaheim, etc. have only a small chance too.

But if you think you might be the 3rd best team in the Conference (which I think the Rangers are) then you should be taking your playoff potential seriously.

 

[Thirty One]

Since Boston's Cup winning 2010-11 season, the Rangers have a combined 13-18 record against Boston and Pittsburgh (excluded regular season overtime games).

Let's say this is the Rangers true winning percentage against those teams. That would give them a 33% chance of winning a 7 game series against one of them.

 

[Off Sides]

Yes, of course the Rangers could be knocked off by a lesser team. All in all, the Rangers have a only small chance at winning the Cup. Boston, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Anaheim, etc. have only a small chance too.

But if you think you might be the 3rd best team in the Conference (which I think the Rangers are) then you should be taking your playoff potential seriously.

I guess at that point I see it a little differently. I think the Rangers are in the mix with a bunch of teams as the 3rd thru 8th or so best in the East.

Not all that different than the current standings, Boston and Pitt have a large lead of 7 or more pts, then every one else from Tampa all the way down to Washington are separated by 8 pts.

I get the idea the Rangers started poorly, but I'm not so sure that is any different than from them having a mid/late season slump. Philly started poorly as well but have caught right back up. Toronto has not fallen off as much as most would have thought. Columbus has come on mid season.