Larry Brooks: Rangers season already on thin ice

[True Blue]

I think that what Brooks is getting at is that regardless of how flawed the team is and we all know that it is flawed, the level of compete needs to be higher and that it shouldn't take a task master like Torts to get them to compete.

Winning and losing games aside, the level of effort should not be as absent as it has been through 7 games.

That is not a system issue. That is a player issue and it seems that guys have taken a competitive break under AV starting with pre-season and continuing through to the Devils game.

I would hate it if it happened, but I could lose 82 games and if the effort was there and consistent each and every night, then I can say that we gave it one hell of an effort.

We can say that about this team in only three games so far. Kings game, Blues game and against the Caps (a team that Hank is CLEARLY the heads of)

Brooks writes alot of poop. We all know that. He is not wrong with this article.

Spot on, pld. Seems like we are discussing the same thing in multiple threads. Beginning to remind me of 1999

 

[Gardner McKay]

I think that what Brooks is getting at is that regardless of how flawed the team is and we all know that it is flawed, the level of compete needs to be higher and that it shouldn't take a task master like Torts to get them to compete.

Winning and losing games aside, the level of effort should not be as absent as it has been through 7 games.

That is not a system issue. That is a player issue and it seems that guys have taken a competitive break under AV starting with pre-season and continuing through to the Devils game.

I would hate it if it happened, but I could lose 82 games and if the effort was there and consistent each and every night, then I can say that we gave it one hell of an effort.

We can say that about this team in only three games so far. Kings game, Blues game and against the Caps (a team that Hank is CLEARLY the heads of)

Brooks writes alot of poop. We all know that. He is not wrong with this article.

This is what I have been saying since our first game of the season. What scares me is the lack of effort. Its about hustle. Its about energy. I mean FFS, they are playing in NJ at 7 pm on a Saturday not in Anaheim on a Thursday or Friday at 10 pm. If they can't get amped up for that then what is it going to take?

I highly doubt that they magically turn it around with a few home games under their belt.

 

[DekeR]

It's the same ole BS from Slats, blame the coach and start anew. Hire a new coach regardless of player personnel. Take the necessary three years to rebuild a team with whatever skill sets are available in that three year period, cross your fingers and hope for the best. With an absentee owner who is as dumb as rocks your job as a GM is secured with PO appearances. Little else is required.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

I think that what Brooks is getting at is that regardless of how flawed the team is and we all know that it is flawed, the level of compete needs to be higher and that it shouldn't take a task master like Torts to get them to compete.

Winning and losing games aside, the level of effort should not be as absent as it has been through 7 games.

That is not a system issue. That is a player issue and it seems that guys have taken a competitive break under AV starting with pre-season and continuing through to the Devils game.

I would hate it if it happened, but I could lose 82 games and if the effort was there and consistent each and every night, then I can say that we gave it one hell of an effort.

We can say that about this team in only three games so far. Kings game, Blues game and against the Caps (a team that Hank is CLEARLY the heads of)

Brooks writes alot of poop. We all know that. He is not wrong with this article.

Bang on.

 

[Ail]

Yeah, because anomolies like that happen ALL THE TIME.

Lets see.

The Kings had Kopitar - MUCH better than Nash.

The Kings had Doughty - MUCH better than any defenceman we have.

The Kings had Brown - a bigger and better version of Callahan

Not to mention, the Kings also had Mike Richards, Jeff Carter, Justin Williams.

That Kings team was deeper in talent than this Rangers team.

And if you can't tell the difference then Sather has you right where he needs you to keep his job.

Kopitar/Nash: Apples and oranges. Kopitar is better than B. Richards.

Marc Staal is better defensively, but worse offensively. A wash, imo.

Brown vs. Callahan is arguable. They are close.

The Kings had a much better team overall and were deeper offensively. That's the biggest difference.

 

[pld459666]

Kopitar/Nash: Apples and oranges. Kopitar is better than B. Richards.

Marc Staal is better defensively, but worse offensively. A wash, imo.

Brown vs. Callahan is arguable. They are close.

The Kings had a much better team overall and were deeper offensively. That's the biggest difference.

Comparing Best player to best player. Kopitar is a better player than Nash.

Anze is better at his position than Nash is at his.

Additionally I take Mike Richards over Brad Richards because when Mike isn't putting up points, he's still more valuable a player.

The difference between Doughty and Staal offensively is not even closely made up for in any slight defensive advantage that Staal may have over Doughty and that is debatable.

If you ranked each team from their best player to their worst player, I would take Hank over Quick and Staal over the Kings #2 defenceman, other than that I take the Kings players over every Rangers player.

And often times, it's not even close in the Kings advantage

 

[vipernsx]

Yes it is. Dolan needs his playoff revenue.

And that's all that matters. We don't get to see Slats fired until Dolan is fired. I say "Fire Dolan" chants for the home opener!!!


I'd love to see Snider and Dolan in one of those celebrity boxing matches.

 

[KreiMeARiver*]

And that's all that matters. We don't get to see Slats fired until Dolan is fired. I say "Fire Dolan" chants for the home opener!!!


I'd love to see Snider and Dolan in one of those celebrity boxing matches.

I'm not going to spend a cent on going to any games until this product improves. They should be paying us to watch this garbage.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

I'm not going to spend a cent on going to any games until this product improves.

Exactly. An empty house would be louder than every fan chanting Fire Dolan into bullhorns.

 

[StepansLabyrinth]

Kings were an aberration. Time for people to realize that.

In that same season, the Devils made the cup. Carolina won a cup with a hot goalie. Ottawa made the cup as a 4 seed. The odds are certainly higher that you'll do well in the playoffs if your team has more talent but the Rangers aren't as far off as many are implying. The naysayers and pessimists certainly have leverage since we've started poorly but this team will continue to improve as the season goes on. We have plenty of good pieces, a few great ones (Nash, McDonagh, Richards, Stepan), and the best goalie in the league.

People want a complete rebuild but you have to ask how that worked for Edmonton. Phoenix had a lot of high picks, the Islanders did. If you want to build a sustainable empire like Detroit, like San Jose, like St. Louis, you acquire young talent and stay the course with the stars you have.

You don't judge a team by a poor start. This team has advanced past the first round of the playoffs each of the last two seasons.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Brooks nails it in hindsight every time.

Actually, Brooks sounded the alarms in foresight after the 9-2 San Jose game, saying how the players gave up in that game was a bad sign, and the effort the team gives the next few games will speak volumes about the team and it's skill and character.

A lot of geniuses here ripped Brooks a new one for saying that. And it's starting to look like Brooks were right and the geniuses were wrong.

 

[Shadowtron]

Actually, Brooks sounded the alarms in foresight after the 9-2 San Jose game, saying how the players gave up in that game was a bad sign, and the effort the team gives the next few games will speak volumes about the team and it's skill and character.

A lot of geniuses here ripped Brooks a new one for saying that. And it's starting to look like Brooks were right and the geniuses were wrong.

Well...the kids know everything these days. If they say Brooks is wrong, he must be

 

[Championship*]

In that same season, the Devils made the cup. Carolina won a cup with a hot goalie. Ottawa made the cup as a 4 seed. The odds are certainly higher that you'll do well in the playoffs if your team has more talent but the Rangers aren't as far off as many are implying. The naysayers and pessimists certainly have leverage since we've started poorly but this team will continue to improve as the season goes on. We have plenty of good pieces, a few great ones (Nash, McDonagh, Richards, Stepan), and the best goalie in the league.

People want a complete rebuild but you have to ask how that worked for Edmonton. Phoenix had a lot of high picks, the Islanders did. If you want to build a sustainable empire like Detroit, like San Jose, like St. Louis, you acquire young talent and stay the course with the stars you have.

You don't judge a team by a poor start. This team has advanced past the first round of the playoffs each of the last two seasons.

I love the argument that "It didn't work for Edmonton." Edmonton's rebuild is over? Edmonton has done nothing to rebuild their defense and goaltending and thats why they are where they are.

The devils lost, carolina was a 1 seed, ottawa lost. What's your point? Kings were an aberration. Go plot the winners on a graph. The Kings were an outlier. The myth of "anything can happen" is just that, a myth. 99% of the time what is expected to happen, happens. Kings win as an 8th seed and then what happens the next year? The Presidents Trophy winner wins it - right back to the norm.

It's not judging a team on a poor start. It's judging a team on seasons upon seasons of mediocrity.

 

[bubba5]

I'm not going to spend a cent on going to any games until this product improves. They should be paying us to watch this garbage.

Problem is season tickets have already been sold this year you want to make a statement do not renew your tickets next season. Let's see how many of you guys really want to voice your opinion then

 

[StepansLabyrinth]

I love the argument that "It didn't work for Edmonton." Edmonton's rebuild is over? Edmonton has done nothing to rebuild their defense and goaltending and thats why they are where they are.

The devils lost, carolina was a 1 seed, ottawa lost. What's your point? Kings were an aberration. Go plot the winners on a graph. The Kings were an outlier. The myth of "anything can happen" is just that, a myth. 99% of the time what is expected to happen, happens. Kings win as an 8th seed and then what happens the next year? The Presidents Trophy winner wins it - right back to the norm.

It's not judging a team on a poor start. It's judging a team on seasons upon seasons of mediocrity.

99% is a horrible number to use there. The best team wins the Stanley Cup at best 20% of the time. If the best team won every season, Pittsburgh would have more championships, Vancouver would have won one, etc. It's a lot of situational happenstance on top of talent levels. Players get hurt, worse teams on good form beat better teams having a bad week, etc. Honestly, using the Stanley Cup as a be all measure of success is pretty out of whack. A team could win 82 straight games and then lost 4 out of 7. Does that mean the team is a failure? Maybe in the perspective of American sports. In European soccer, you can finish on top of the table and lose Champion's League and vice versa. Both are tremendous achievements and are treated as such. Here, no one cares that we were first in the East because we didn't win the postseason tournament.

Seasons upon seasons of mediocrity also doesn't apply. Mediocre teams don't win playoff series much less finish first in the East and make it to the ECF. That was 2 seasons ago with virtually the same roster.

This team is not nearly bad enough to warrant a complete rebuild when rebuilding does not guarantee you a Crosby, Ovechkin, etc. It's a smarter idea to continue to draft well and manage assets the best we can. We haven't been perfect but if you don't think we've been doing a better job building a squad the last few seasons than we did in the early 2000s, you aren't watching the same team.

 

[Championship*]

99% is a horrible number to use there. The best team wins the Stanley Cup at best 20% of the time. If the best team won every season, Pittsburgh would have more championships, Vancouver would have won one, etc. It's a lot of situational happenstance on top of talent levels. Players get hurt, worse teams on good form beat better teams having a bad week, etc. Honestly, using the Stanley Cup as a be all measure of success is pretty out of whack. A team could win 82 straight games and then lost 4 out of 7. Does that mean the team is a failure? Maybe in the perspective of American sports. In European soccer, you can finish on top of the table and lose Champion's League and vice versa. Both are tremendous achievements and are treated as such. Here, no one cares that we were first in the East because we didn't win the postseason tournament.

Seasons upon seasons of mediocrity also doesn't apply. Mediocre teams don't win playoff series much less finish first in the East and make it to the ECF. That was 2 seasons ago with virtually the same roster.

This team is not nearly bad enough to warrant a complete rebuild when rebuilding does not guarantee you a Crosby, Ovechkin, etc. It's a smarter idea to continue to draft well and manage assets the best we can. We haven't been perfect but if you don't think we've been doing a better job building a squad the last few seasons than we did in the early 2000s, you aren't watching the same team.

It's not about the "best team", it's that 99% of the time one of the "best teams" win. 1-4 seed. Kings were an aberration. Anything can happen is a lie. Get over it. You're waxing nostalgic about a team which itself was an aberration.

 

[True Blue]

You don't judge a team by a poor start. This team has advanced past the first round of the playoffs each of the last two seasons.

Except that such an utter lack of effort has not existed in the past two years. Nor such a lack of fundamental play.

 

[NYRKindms]

Except that such an utter lack of effort has not existed in the past two years. Nor such a lack of fundamental play.

This is just not true. How many times did Torts have to call a time out in the first few minutes of a game because the team wasn't ready to play and were playing uninspired or sloppy hockey.

True they might not have "quit" on the game but they sure as shyte weren't ready to play on numerous occasions over Torts tenure.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

This is just not true. How many times did Torts have to call a time out in the first few minutes of a game because the team wasn't ready to play and were playing uninspired or sloppy hockey.

True they might not have "quit" on the game but they sure as shyte weren't ready to play on numerous occasions over Torts tenure.

Tortorella nipped that right away when he saw it. It was one of his best attributes as coach. He didnt sit there and make excuses for these players like half this board is doing.

 

[NYRKindms]

Tortorella nipped that right away when he saw it. It was one of his best attributes as coach. He didnt sit there and make excuses for these players like half this board is doing.

While you are correct that Torts nipped it right away it was a problem that plagued this team with him at the helm and has continued with AV.

 

[pld459666]

This is just not true. How many times did Torts have to call a time out in the first few minutes of a game because the team wasn't ready to play and were playing uninspired or sloppy hockey.

True they might not have "quit" on the game but they sure as shyte weren't ready to play on numerous occasions over Torts tenure.

there's a world of difference between starting off the game un prepared and having the coach correct it and playing back to back nights like you didn't want to be there.

the efforts that we have seen this year are piss poor and no, under Torts we never had complete half-assed efforts like we have seen from this team in 4 of 7 games.

I firmly believe that we needed to move on from Torts. I never expected this team to mail it in the way they have.

ashamed to call myself a fan right now.

that's how bad it's been

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

99% is a horrible number to use there. The best team wins the Stanley Cup at best 20% of the time. If the best team won every season, Pittsburgh would have more championships, Vancouver would have won one, etc. It's a lot of situational happenstance on top of talent levels. Players get hurt, worse teams on good form beat better teams having a bad week, etc. Honestly, using the Stanley Cup as a be all measure of success is pretty out of whack. A team could win 82 straight games and then lost 4 out of 7. Does that mean the team is a failure? Maybe in the perspective of American sports. In European soccer, you can finish on top of the table and lose Champion's League and vice versa. Both are tremendous achievements and are treated as such. Here, no one cares that we were first in the East because we didn't win the postseason tournament.

Seasons upon seasons of mediocrity also doesn't apply. Mediocre teams don't win playoff series much less finish first in the East and make it to the ECF. That was 2 seasons ago with virtually the same roster.

This team is not nearly bad enough to warrant a complete rebuild when rebuilding does not guarantee you a Crosby, Ovechkin, etc. It's a smarter idea to continue to draft well and manage assets the best we can. We haven't been perfect but if you don't think we've been doing a better job building a squad the last few seasons than we did in the early 2000s, you aren't watching the same team.

Great post for the most part, but I disagree with the bolded pretty heavily. This team isn't nearly the same up front:

In: Nash, Brassard, Dorsett, Zuccarello, Pouliot, Pyatt, Asham, Powe
Out: Gaborik, Dubinsky, Anisimov, Prust, Fedotenko, Mitchell

That's a pretty big overhaul. Aside from Nash vs Gaborik, I'd also take every player on the "out" list over every player on the "in" list.

 

[Killem Dafoe]

There's a difference between a bad start and an abortion of a start. This one is the ladder. If they start pulling it together and winning from here on out I would not complain but I would be shocked as ****.

I'd buy the "bad start" burrito if it came with "trying hard out there" sauce. Unfortunately, this dinner is bland and gives me diarrhea. I just don't see this team suddenly turning it around without something happening to drastically help it do so.

 

[Vidic15*]

While you are correct that Torts nipped it right away it was a problem that plagued this team with him at the helm and has continued with AV.

Which is why we should question the core/leadership of this team.

 

[vipernsx]

At this point I'd rather see the Rangers alumni playing in the outdoor game. They couldn't be worse. At least the opposition might take pity and not run up the score.