Softest team in the NHL

[iamitter]

You know what this team is missing, Mikhail Grabovski, he would be the perfect player for the Rangers, in the Zherdev, Lisin mold.

He doesn't really play anything like them. He's no physical player by any means, but he's got passion for the game.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

A gritty, physical team should be the foundation to every championship caliber team. Its a mindset that can be contagious throughout the lineup. I find it awfully perplexing that this team is going the skill route when they dont have much skill.

The 11-12 team would run through a brick wall to get to a loose puck. Last year's team? Not so much. In fact, their unwillingness to engage and play a physically demanding style is what got their coach fired. Thats alarming. We've got a team now thats basically labeled the style of the best Ranger team in 20 years as "too hard."

And its a team that doesnt have the top end skill to back up that type of attitude. For the myriad of posters who thought the coach was the issue, you're in for a rude awakening.

Spot on.

 

[chosen]

These bottom six guys are a dime a dozen yet we never draft any...always acquire the wrong ones...

It is so easy to bait some of you guys...I mention a guy like Sesito and 12 guys reply...who the **** wants Sesito...my point is...if you never draft big aggresive guys you will never have any on your team.

Sather struck gold with Prust...got lucky....then Sather doesn't appreicate or understand his importance to the team and let's him walk...

it's just like when Avery left for Dallas and Sather goes out and signs a bunch of guys who all suck...Voros, Rissimiller and the like.

I think I remember you complaining that Prust was too small and it was silly to put him up against heavyweights. Now he was gold.

 

[Zil]

A gritty, physical team should be the foundation to every championship caliber team. Its a mindset that can be contagious throughout the lineup. I find it awfully perplexing that this team is going the skill route when they dont have much skill.

The 11-12 team would run through a brick wall to get to a loose puck. Last year's team? Not so much. In fact, their unwillingness to engage and play a physically demanding style is what got their coach fired. Thats alarming. We've got a team now thats basically labeled the style of the best Ranger team in 20 years as "too hard."

And its a team that doesnt have the top end skill to back up that type of attitude. For the myriad of posters who thought the coach was the issue, you're in for a rude awakening.

Tortorella's counter-punching, shot-blocking defensive shell system is not the only way to play gritty and physical. His system left no room for error and wore his own team down as the year went on. That's why they didn't have enough gas in the tank to go all the way in 11-12. You can play with an edge while attacking and putting together the semblance of an actual transition game.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Tortorella's counter-punching, shot-blocking defensive shell system is not the only way to play gritty and physical. His system left no room for error and wore his own team down as the year went on. That's why they didn't have enough gas in the tank to go all the way in 11-12. You can play with an edge while attacking and putting together the semblance of an actual transition game.

We shall see. I think this perfect balance of physicality, grit, transition game, responsible defense, and increased offense is a myth without the right players.

 

[Zil]

We shall see. I think this perfect balance of physicality, grit, transition game, responsible defense, and increased offense is a myth without the right players.

I think the roster is changing though. I know you're just going to say the same tired old **** about prospects not having proven anything yet, etc, etc, but it's true. After we buy out Richards next offseason, we're going to be running out Stepan, Brassard, Lindberg down the middle. Guys like Hrivik, Kristo, Fast, etc will be coming up. Also, once Richards is gone, we won't have a single bad contract on the books.

We also clearly do have the horses on the back end to do more in transition. McDonagh, Moore, and even Staal can rush the puck. Stralman's a good puck mover. We'll see how Del Zotto bounces back from his injury, but he has the capability to add offense to the mix too. Girardi's really our only defender who should never really be jumping up, and even he's really good at nice, subtle outlets.

 

[eco's bones]

A gritty, physical team should be the foundation to every championship caliber team. Its a mindset that can be contagious throughout the lineup. I find it awfully perplexing that this team is going the skill route when they dont have much skill.

The 11-12 team would run through a brick wall to get to a loose puck. Last year's team? Not so much. In fact, their unwillingness to engage and play a physically demanding style is what got their coach fired. Thats alarming. We've got a team now thats basically labeled the style of the best Ranger team in 20 years as "too hard."

And its a team that doesnt have the top end skill to back up that type of attitude. For the myriad of posters who thought the coach was the issue, you're in for a rude awakening.

I agree with this. The 11-12 team was not all that skillful but most of them were good skaters. That team got on the other team hard and made it very difficult for them to break out. If you're going to have a good forecheck your players are going to have to be committed to playing a physical game and that led to a lot of fights. The three guys who handled the bulk of that are gone. Only one of them was really a good player. But the Rangers did prove they could win playing a hard forecheck committed to defending your own end game. The 12-13 team lost much of that and the coach took the hit for it. Last year's team was a step back. The personnel of that team weren't up to the kind of game that Tortorella's 11-12 team played.

 

[eco's bones]

I think I remember you complaining that Prust was too small and it was silly to put him up against heavyweights. Now he was gold.

Sometimes I think you're deliberately obtuse. Whatever Orr nightmare thinks--Prust was gold--he just wasn't deserving of the contract he got. Nothing new there and I could think of several on our present team I could say the same about. Prust fought and bled for this team on many occasions and often was an inspiration to his teammates. He was more than just a fighter though and that's the main reason he was so valuable. He could play. The truth is he was too small to take on the heavyweights/goons of the league. He was more than willing enough but that's another story.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I think the roster is changing though. I know you're just going to say the same tired old **** about prospects not having proven anything yet, etc, etc, but it's true. After we buy out Richards next offseason, we're going to be running out Stepan, Brassard, Lindberg down the middle. Guys like Hrivik, Kristo, Fast, etc will be coming up. Also, once Richards is gone, we won't have a single bad contract on the books.

We also clearly do have the horses on the back end to do more in transition. McDonagh, Moore, and even Staal can rush the puck. Stralman's a good puck mover. We'll see how Del Zotto bounces back from his injury, but he has the capability to add offense to the mix too. Girardi's really our only defender who should never really be jumping up, and even he's really good at nice, subtle outlets.

Years and years of "changing rosters," of different coaches, of different prospects. Yet, my argument is tired old ****. Thats rich. The lack of perspective is comical.

But I guess thats what keeps sports so interesting. Hope. No matter how blind it might be.

 

[Orr Nightmare]

I think I remember you complaining that Prust was too small and it was silly to put him up against heavyweights. Now he was gold.

You must be losing your mind...Prust is one of my favorite players of all time...it was dumb for him to fight heavies...because he was a little guy.

 

[Orr Nightmare]

He doesn't really play anything like them. He's no physical player by any means, but he's got passion for the game.

He would the last player I would want on my team

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Tortorella's counter-punching, shot-blocking defensive shell system is not the only way to play gritty and physical. His system left no room for error and wore his own team down as the year went on. That's why they didn't have enough gas in the tank to go all the way in 11-12. You can play with an edge while attacking and putting together the semblance of an actual transition game.

A defensive shell leaves plenty of room for error. It's a high pressure system that does not.

And as for the last line, this transition *****ing is getting old. No one ever has a system that doesn't like to transition well. We transitioned very well in 11-12. And that's because we played better defensively and offensively and we had much better puck carriers. It's not like there's some magic formula out there that everyone uses but that Torts told his players is off limits because he doesn't like hearing it

 

[Gordon Bombay]

Years and years of "changing rosters," of different coaches, of different prospects. Yet, my argument is tired old ****. Thats rich. The lack of perspective is comical.

But I guess thats what keeps sports so interesting. Hope. No matter how blind it might be.

Not for nothing but next year's roster is going to very much of the same as it was last year at the end. Only difference is an upgrade to the bottom six. Two different players. You've complained about the roster changing over and over and finally we don't do it and you still complain.

And what's the problem with changing prospects? All good teams have different prospects join the team every year. It shows depth in the system and for once this team has that.

It seems like you always have a morbid attitude towards this team. If this roster does succeed next year will you even be happy?

 

[Zil]

A defensive shell leaves plenty of room for error. It's a high pressure system that does not.

Trying to win a constant stream of one goal games is the definition of no margin for error.

And as for the last line, this transition *****ing is getting old. No one ever has a system that doesn't like to transition well. We transitioned very well in 11-12. And that's because we played better defensively and offensively and we had much better puck carriers. It's not like there's some magic formula out there that everyone uses but that Torts told his players is off limits because he doesn't like hearing it

No we didn't. Our lack of a transition game is why we got hemmed in constantly by the Senators in the first round and later by the Devils in the conference finals. We kept throwing it up the boards and they were right there waiting for it.

Years and years of "changing rosters," of different coaches, of different prospects. Yet, my argument is tired old ****. Thats rich. The lack of perspective is comical.

But I guess thats what keeps sports so interesting. Hope. No matter how blind it might be.

Yes, your argument is tired old ****. According to you Derek Stepan isn't even proven yet. The organization has produced and continues to produce a lot of talent and you continue to give them very little credit for it.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Yes, your argument is tired old ****. According to you Derek Stepan isn't even proven yet. The organization has produced and continues to produce a lot of talent and you continue to give them very little credit for it.

Where'd you get that one from? Hes one of the bright spots.

Whats insanely naive hope is you proclaiming that Lindberg, Hrivik, Fast, and Kristo will all be making NHL impacts, and thats some sort of justification for how the roster is changing. Its insane, literally.

 

[Gordon Bombay]

Where'd you get that one from? Hes one of the bright spots.

Whats insanely naive hope is you proclaiming that Lindberg, Hrivik, Fast, and Kristo will all be making NHL impacts, and thats some sort of justification for how the roster is changing. Its insane, literally.

Those 3 rookie defensemen on Boston sure made an NHL impact against us in the playoffs. How naive of them.

Shouldn't we be hoping that the young guys can come in and have an impact? Wouldn't that improve the team? I honestly don't get what you want out of this team. You say not enough skill or grit, and now the prospects are making too much of a turnover. You're so negative on this team's decisions but rarely ever offer suggestions to help the team besides firing Sather. I can understand being negative 13 years ago, not now.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Those 3 rookie defensemen on Boston sure made an NHL impact against us in the playoffs. How naive of them.

Shouldn't we be hoping that the young guys can come in and have an impact? Wouldn't that improve the team? I honestly don't get what you want out of this team. You say not enough skill or grit, and now the prospects are making too much of a turnover. You're so negative on this team's decisions but rarely ever offer suggestions to help the team besides firing Sather. I can understand being negative 13 years ago, not now.

I hope all these guys succeed. I dont expect them to. A 13 year track record is enough of a sample size, wouldn't you say?

Theres several bright spots. Am I, as a fan, supposed to commend Sather for the ability to produce a half-capable roster year in and year out?

 

[Gordon Bombay]

I hope all these guys succeed. I dont expect them to. A 13 year track record is enough of a sample size, wouldn't you say?

Theres several bright spots. Am I, as a fan, supposed to commend Sather for the ability to produce a half-capable roster year in and year out?

I'd say the 2nd half of those 13 years has produced a really good amount of NHL caliber players. I know we all want a Crosby, but it's not as easy as it sounds and I'd say we got ours with Lundqvist.

I wouldn't say to commend Sather, nobody should do that. The fact is we have mustered out a good amount of playoff appearances lately and have a good batch of young guys. Looking back 13 years ago it's a complete 180.

Would i like a cup? Of course. I'm not thrilled with last year, I think the team regressed. Although it was still better than anything the dark ages teams had to offer. Things can get much worse for us and I hope they never do as those years were a complete embarrassment for the franchise.

Edit-I'm taking the thread in a different direction, which every thread turns into. Back to the point, next year's roster probably is a little soft. Looks like they want to go with skill over size so hopefully it works.

 

[Zil]

Where'd you get that one from? Hes one of the bright spots.

Stepan and Brassard have not proven they can be a capable 1-2 offensive punch over a full NHL season. We'll see there.

You have an interesting way of talking about bright spots.

Whats insanely naive hope is you proclaiming that Lindberg, Hrivik, Fast, and Kristo will all be making NHL impacts, and thats some sort of justification for how the roster is changing. Its insane, literally.

It means talent is on the way. I'm not saying they're all going to make it. I'm saying we have good pieces in the pipeline. You keep criticizing management, but look who's making the decisions now: Gorton is the one who negotiated McDonagh's new contract. Sather admitted he just goes out and deals for whatever prospects Clark and company tell him to deal for. The calls being made now are being made for the right reasons.

The same goes for Tortorella. Their transitions under him sucked. The powerplay sucked. He made questionable decisions in handling both Miller and Kreider. And he lost the room. The way you talk about the switch to Vigneault you'd think the Canucks played no defense under him. Do you honestly think a roster boasting Lundqvist in net and a defense of McDonagh, Girardi, Staal, Stralman, Moore, and Del Zotto is going to start getting shelled because of a switch to a puck possession style? It's absurd.

 

[chosen]

Sometimes I think you're deliberately obtuse. Whatever Orr nightmare thinks--Prust was gold--he just wasn't deserving of the contract he got. Nothing new there and I could think of several on our present team I could say the same about. Prust fought and bled for this team on many occasions and often was an inspiration to his teammates. He was more than just a fighter though and that's the main reason he was so valuable. He could play. The truth is he was too small to take on the heavyweights/goons of the league. He was more than willing enough but that's another story.

I merely wrote that his opinion on the same player changed with the passing of a single season. If you find this to be an obtuse observation I question your thought process.

Suppose you're still annoyed with me and you saw another opportunity to offer up an opinion not germane to the discussion in the hopes of trying to nail me at something.

I get it. You don't like me, but that poster is more than capable of defending his positions.

 

[chosen]

You must be losing your mind...Prust is one of my favorite players of all time...it was dumb for him to fight heavies...because he was a little guy.

I know you like him, but you used to complain that he shouldn't be fighting the big guys and that we needed heavyweights to fight Prust's fights.

This is where you and I fundamentally disagree. I love Prust too, and see no need to bring in guys just to fight. What made Prust valuable was that he offered other things. A lot of the players you are fond of only fight. In today's NHL, they are worse than useless, because they take up roster spots and when the games get big, they don't dress anyway, as you have already pointed out.

 

[chosen]

Those 3 rookie defensemen on Boston sure made an NHL impact against us in the playoffs. How naive of them.

Shouldn't we be hoping that the young guys can come in and have an impact? Wouldn't that improve the team? I honestly don't get what you want out of this team. You say not enough skill or grit, and now the prospects are making too much of a turnover. You're so negative on this team's decisions but rarely ever offer suggestions to help the team besides firing Sather. I can understand being negative 13 years ago, not now.

You can hope for whatever you want but that doesn't make it so. None of us knows how all those kids will turn out. You are already declaring it as a bounty of future riches.

 

[Gordon Bombay]

You can hope for whatever you want but that doesn't make it so. None of us knows how all those kids will turn out. You are already declaring it as a bounty of future riches.

No where in that post do i claim for future riches or even make a mention of our prospects. In another post I mentioned having "a good batch of young guys". By that I meant Stepan, Hagelin, Mcdonagh, Staal, and on and on. I think a few of the prospects in the pipeline will pan out but I wasn't claiming for riches.

 

[Pizza]

I'm laughing here because it's obvious you guys like to just fight with each other. A number of you are agreeing even in your disagreement. I see many of you saying more or less the following:

The Rangers could use some bigger guys that can play the game at an NHL level, i.e., skate, pass, shoot, defend, and at least occasionally score. Along with stepping up for team mates in a more than competent fashion when the need arises.

Is anyone going to seriously tell me that the player many of you have described above would not help the team be better and harder to play against?

Keep going!! This a great and very useful discussion.

 

[Callagraves]

Shut up, really.

Take it easy there tough guy. I'm just saying, you're going on and about about drafting big bodies and fighters, but jump right to saying Sather accidentally struck gold with Prust and let him go, it sounded a bit like you were confused.