Pre-Game Talk: Stanley Cup Final: New York Rangers vs. Los Angeles Kings

[truebluegoalie]

Exactly. You've got Matthew Barnaby claiming the Rangers haven't faced a center like Kopitar. What the hell were Crosby, Malkin and Giroux. I heard David Pagnotta of TFP claiming that the Kings depth allowed Sutter to roll three forward lines. How does that make any sense? The pundits keep talking about the Kings depth at forward. Meanwhile, AV has been able to evenly spread out his ice time among both the forwards and D. And no one has made mention that the Rangers have been the best 5-on-5 team throughout the playoffs, and not had to generate scoring on the PP. And, the PK ranks 2nd overall in the playoffs, bested only by the Flyers who had the luxury of facing Rangers during their historic drought. The PK shut down both the Pens and Habs, teams whose PP helped to victory in the previous rounds. I understand why LA is favored. Anybody who thinks it will be a cakewalk is fooling themselves.

Both teams have a lot of depth up front, there is no doubt about that, but I think it is fair to say that the Kings' depth is more skilled than the Rangers depth, if that makes sense, not that the Rangers' depth is bad.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I understand the concept of energy and its effects; just didn't think that it would adversely affect the Kings moreso than the Rangers since they've played in only one more game, and I think the time off between their last game and the next game is ample enough for them to re-charge them back to even. Unless you're saying that as a team the Rangers are a better fit unit, then that's a whole different story. If either team falls behind early in games, and often in the series, that team may tire more quickly due to shortening of the bench. I get that, but come Wednesday, it is my opinion that the tire factor between the teams is even.

The Rangers were debatably the most fit team 2 years ago. Torts prides himself on having the most conditioned team. After a certain point, players begin to run on empty. It's not a complete deterioration where they can no longer skate, but they'll be slower, hit weaker, and make more mistakes.

 

[Cake or Death]

I get more annoyed at the "experts" like Melrose, Jones, Milbury, and others who have pretty much laughed us out of the finals before they have even started. The fans bother me too but not as much, because that is pretty much expected from fans on these boards because there are a lot of ignorant fans around here. I expect more from the so called media "experts."

These two teams match up much better than most people think. I hope we can win game 1 just like we did in Montreal to wake people up a bit.

Here is anothrer one, just went to the ESPN NHL website (which I never do) and on their main page they had the following headline with a picture of three Kings:

"Crowning Glory

Let's not dance around the issue -- the Kings are considered heavy favorites. If that's the case, who will win the Conn Smythe as playoff MVP?"

Then in the article very little discussion of Ranger MVPs. I understand being an underdog but these experts should know better. Why even title it that way? Why not just say Conn Smythe favorites so far. Just makes me want to win that much more.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/31247/debate-who-will-win-the-conn-smythe

My friend, you do not have enough quotes to wrap around the word experts when you mention Melrose, the ex-coach who can't get a coaching gig to save his life, and Milbury, the former GM who will never hold that position again. And Jones... a former player and analyst for the Flyers... we sent his Flyers

I don't give two ***** what any "experts" think. LA has an excellent team, but so do we. I expect a real good series from both squads.

 

[Fletch]

rangerboy...

someone really brought up the time zone? Guess that would mean a western team will always have an advantage over an eastern team if the eastern team has to first travel? The schedule is a bit screwy. Game one on Wednesday. Rest two days and game two. Rest one day, travel to the east coast, game three. Make sense? Only if you want game two on a Saturday and not a Friday. Should be two days off between that travel day, not one. But that doesn't matter much since it may go 1-1-1 after that, but still...

The Rangers surprisingly get little respect. I think when you have names like Nash and Richards, who were supposed to do something but haven't lived up to their billings as Rangers, the focus tends to be on the negatives, especially since this media really love their star forwards (although with the death of Marty's mom, they ran with that story (which is a bid sad since if Marty and the team began playing well and she did not pass, it would be less of a story). Lundqvist's name isn't associated with Hasek or Brodeur, so the goalies aren't going to get much play time. And isn't that how the media bases their opinions of teams? By who has the jersey that sells the most? It's Ok. Games are decided on the ice. The Devils won in '95 and I think the world hated it. Ruined hockey. Bunch of no-names, at the time. Rolling four lines. Tough guy Peluso crying on the bench for the last 8 minutes. Hopefully the Rangers can do the same.

 

[Fletch]

again, Rust, I understand fatigue. My opinion now is that the Rangers and Kings have an even tank of gas going into the series.That will change based on how the games played, but there is not an advantage today.

 

[eco's bones]

FWIW this is the series the Rangers really are underdogs. Philadelpia IMO we were the better team--Pittsburgh we were at least close in the sense that Fleury and the Pens defense is shaky and Montreal we were about even--maybe a little better than--even with Price in net.

This one IMO is more of an uphill battle--especially playing a team that has won before--without much doubt the best defense corps we've faced so far--probably the best goalie we face though Quick has looked shaky at times and with legit 1-2 centers and guys that are not only fully capable of finishing but are actually scoring goals. And then there is home ice advantage. Dustin Brown is averaging by himself 5 hits a game--he's already at 104 for the playoffs which is almost astounding so there is the potential for a real physical toll.

Looking at how LA got to where they are now. I'm less inclined to give them all that much credit for knocking off San Jose as I am for giving them a lot more credit for knocking off Anaheim and even more so the Blackhawks. I don't know of another team that I would consider more of a perennial playoff choker than the Sharks. There's a question for me of how actually deep Anaheim is past their superstar line of Getzlaf and Perry. I look at their team and think comparable to Pittsburgh. The Blackhawks though are a whole different animal. A lineup dotted with elite players (by today's standards anyway) many of whom have won the Cup twice. On the other side of that--Crawford wasn't impressive and Sharp (until the final game) and Hossa weren't that effective.

 

[Infinitum Vitae*]

Both teams have a lot of depth up front, there is no doubt about that, but I think it is fair to say that the Kinds depth is more skilled than the Rangers depth, if that makes sense, not that the Rangers' depth is bad.

Kings have three great lines.. rangers have four good lines

 

[truebluegoalie]

My friend, you do not have enough quotes to wrap around the word experts when you mention Melrose, the ex-coach who can't get a coaching gig to save his life, and Milbury, the former GM who will never hold that position again. And Jones... a former player and analyst for the Flyers... we sent his Flyers

I don't give two ***** what any "experts" think. LA has an excellent team, but so do we. I expect a real good series from both squads.

Well the ESPN article has its "experts" Pierre LeBrun and Scott Burnside talking about Kings' Conn Smythe winners already.

That is the problem though. There are no real experts to get analysis from, so fans repeat this nonsense. They get stuck with clowns who say things like the Rangers should be "watching in awe." They don't look at the numbers that show just how close these teams really are, the fact that the Rangers had more ROW in the regular season or beat a well balanced offensive team in the flyers, or top centers on pittsburgh.
I expect that stuff from fans but not from people who cover the sport. It is lazy and will continue to hurt hockey and produce fans who don't know jack.

I don't even think I can talk or read about it anymore. Just want the games to start.

 

[Levitate]

Both teams have a lot of depth up front, there is no doubt about that, but I think it is fair to say that the Kinds depth is more skilled than the Rangers depth, if that makes sense, not that the Rangers' depth is bad.

I kinda think the big difference is Kopitar, and the acquisition of Gaborik. The Rangers centers and forward depth in general isn't bad compared to the Kings if you take out Kopitar (and again I think he's the one making Gaborik go). I think people underrate guys like Stepan, Zuccarello, Brassard, probably even Kreider and Nash and St Louis at this point (seriously does no one remember how good St Louis has been throughout his career? Is it just that he's not putting up gaudy playoff numbers that people act like the Rangers don't have a hall of fame winger playing on their "third line"?)

Of course, you can't just ignore Kopitar, but I still really feel like people sell the Rangers forwards quite a bit short. I guess we'll see what happens!

FWIW this is the series the Rangers really are underdogs. Philadelpia IMO we were the better team--Pittsburgh we were at least close in the sense that Fleury and the Pens defense is shaky and Montreal we were about even--maybe a little better than--even with Price in net.

This one IMO is more of an uphill battle--especially playing a team that has won before--without much doubt the best defense corps we've faced so far--probably the best goalie we face though Quick has looked shaky at times and with legit 1-2 centers and guys that are not only fully capable of finishing but are actually scoring goals. And then there is home ice advantage. Dustin Brown is averaging by himself 5 hits a game--he's already at 104 for the playoffs which is almost astounding so there is the potential for a real physical toll.

Looking at how LA got to where they are now. I'm less inclined to give them all that much credit for knocking off San Jose as I am for giving them a lot more credit for knocking off Anaheim and even more so the Blackhawks. I don't know of another team that I would consider more of a perennial playoff choker than the Sharks. There's a question for me of how actually deep Anaheim is past their superstar line of Getzlaf and Perry. I look at their team and think comparable to Pittsburgh. The Blackhawks though are a whole different animal. A lineup dotted with elite players (by today's standards anyway) many of whom have won the Cup twice. On the other side of that--Crawford wasn't impressive and Sharp (until the final game) and Hossa weren't that effective.

Kings also haven't played against a really good goaltender so far in these playoffs IMO. The argument there is whether they made those goalies look bad or were they just bad, but I think you can look at them individually and see poor performances and a history of either inconsistent play (Hiller, Neimi) or just plain average play (Crawford...he's a pretty average goalie for his career and a small sample of playoff numbers doesn't make me think he's elite, he got exposed). For all the crap the Rangers get about not facing a stop goalie so far, I don't think the Kings have either.

But it doesn't matter, just something for me to rant about, bottom line is you have to beat the best to win the Cup

 

[Cake or Death]

Can they just start the series already? I read one guy who said the Kings will be bolstered by the return of Robyn Regher. Another guy wrote the Rangers will face a tough time adjusting to the travel because they haven't left the eastern time zone in the playoffs. Considering all of the teams play in the same time zone,there is not much the Rangers can do about that. The Rangers will have a tough time adjusting to the travel

Regher is a human traffic cone. Mitchell and Greene aren't very mobile. That's the pair LA uses on the PK. Get to loose pucks and pin them in their end. The Hawks had 6 of the 12 PPGs against LA.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/02/new-york-rangers-face-a-stiff-challenge-in-los-angeles-kings

Garrioch spoke to a western conference coach for his preview. What big goals did Nash and Richards score? The goal which made it 2-1 Rangers in game 2 against the Habs. One. The other goals made it 7-2 in game one and 4-2 in game 5. Richards was invisible. This NHL coach didn't watch the Rangers series.

You can make the argument the Rangers will keep coming more than the Hawks did. The Hawks would collapse in their end. All 5 players down low leaving the points exposed. They looked like the Tortorella Rangers collapsing in their zone.

The Rangers PK were able to shut down PK Subban and the Habs after they lit up the Bruins like it was the 4th of July. They shut down the great Cindy and Malkin on the PP.

Lazy coaches and hockey writers.

Exactly! The Toronto Sun article is saying PP could be key for LA. Okay, yes, LA is having a great run on the PP. BUT... they also take more penalties than NY and have allowed more PP goals. Through the playoffs, LA's PPG for and PPG allowed is net +2. Which is... dun dun dun... exactly the same as the Rangers. Look at that, it's a wash. So much for the Sun line, "The Kings have the second-best power play in the league while the Rangers are in the middle of the pack. That has to change for New York to have a hope." Maybe what has to change is LA taking less penalties, or LA's PP potentially being less a factor against a more disciplined team, who has an excellent PK and the best goalie LA has faced by a large margin. I don't mind if we're listed as underdogs, we def are. But I still want to see reporters put in a little effort and do their homework.

 

[Levitate]

Pittsburgh's power play was one of the best in the league and the Rangers shut it down. Flyers had an awesome power play and while the Rangers didn't completely shut it down, I felt they limited it to doing the most damage in one game or in times when it didn't matter as much.

Montreal's power play destroyed Boston and the Rangers shut it down for the most part.

Kings PP may be good but the Rangers PK is very good, I'm not so much worried about that part of it.

 

[Cake or Death]

Pittsburgh's power play was one of the best in the league and the Rangers shut it down. Flyers had an awesome power play and while the Rangers didn't completely shut it down, I felt they limited it to doing the most damage in one game or in times when it didn't matter as much.

Montreal's power play destroyed Boston and the Rangers shut it down for the most part.

Kings PP may be good but the Rangers PK is very good, I'm not so much worried about that part of it.

I'm not too worried about it either because LA hasn't exactly faced world beaters in opposing goalies, and that is being very kind about it. I think a lot will come down to Quick. If he continues being inconsistent and letting in weak goals and kicking rebounds out like a pez dispenser, LA could have issues. As could the Rangers if top-tier Quick finds his way into the series. Should be fun to see how it plays out

 

[BroadwayBlues]

To me, who dont have very much knowledge of the NHL, it really seems like the media are extremely dissapointed that the Rangers are in the finals. Against Philly it was said to be 50-50, against Pittsburgh, the Rangers were left no chance at all. Sweep and 4-1 was the predictions from the "experts". Underdogs again against the Habs, who just hade beaten the almighty Bruins. WTF is this?

I see a team that plays with their heart, sacrifices them self in every single shift. EVERY single player on this team is a contributor to the success in these playoffs. The Kings might be favorits because of their depth and experience, and that is fair, but not as one sided as this. They are not in the finals because they are lucky. They are not in the finals because they met easy opponents, they have played 20 out of 21 possible games. They are in the finals because they deserve to be there, and because of their tremendous team effort, from the goalie to defense to offense. Every single one.

I believe and hope that the Kings are up for a challenge, and hopefully the blueshirts go out of the blocks with full intensity, and the Kings might just not know what hit them.....

Agreed. I get the same sense. I think they rather see a team like Bruins, who were suppose to be there, there. Or the Pens.

 

[Fletch]

Agreed, Levitate, but the people, and the media especially, look at the firepower of LA and can name a clear leader here and there. With the Rangers, you can name a clear offensive leader, but he has 13 points and I think 5-6 guys on LA have more points while playing in one more game. If you weren't watching the Rangers, or weren't close to the Rangers, and you looked at the points of the forwards, without knowing the names on the team, then looked at LA, you'd say that LA easily has the better forwards. The media and others have the names and will just say, certain Rangers are underperforming and the LA forwards got their game on. Heck, LA's offense has been pretty strong; the Rangers' has been, OK. It's the Rangers' defense, Lundqvist especially, that has kept them in the playoffs and the question many have had is will the Rangers be able to keep it up against a deep offensive team like the Kings, or, will the Kings style open up things for the Rangers' offense to take off. We will see.

Honestly, it should be pretty tough to call. Drop the puck already!

 

[Miamipuck]

Pittsburgh's power play was one of the best in the league and the Rangers shut it down. Flyers had an awesome power play and while the Rangers didn't completely shut it down, I felt they limited it to doing the most damage in one game or in times when it didn't matter as much.

Montreal's power play destroyed Boston and the Rangers shut it down for the most part.

Kings PP may be good but the Rangers PK is very good, I'm not so much worried about that part of it.

It was not one of the best, it was the best in the league. Philly was #7 and Montreal was #19.

LA faced San Jose #20, Anaheim #22, Chicago #10.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

The Kings have depth, but shutting down the Kopitar/Gaborik combo as well as Doughty mitigates that depth greatly.

We have experience with Gaborik. When the going gets tough, he tends to shrink. Be physical with him.

 

[Miamipuck]

Sorry to duplicate my post from above I wanted to post the numbers all in one place.

The Rangers basically faced about the best all around special teams units you could possibly face as per regular season #'s:

Power Play:
Pitt #1
Philly #7
Montreal #19

Penalty Kill:
Montreal #4
Pitt #5
Philly #7


LA faced the following:

Power Play:
Chicago #10
San Jose #20
Anaheim #22

Penalty Kill:
San Jose #6
Anaheim #13
Chicago #19

The Rangers were 15th on the power play and 3rd in Penalty Killing.

LA was 27th on the power play and 11th in penalty killing.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Agreed, Levitate, but the people, and the media especially, look at the firepower of LA and can name a clear leader here and there. With the Rangers, you can name a clear offensive leader, but he has 13 points and I think 5-6 guys on LA have more points while playing in one more game. If you weren't watching the Rangers, or weren't close to the Rangers, and you looked at the points of the forwards, without knowing the names on the team, then looked at LA, you'd say that LA easily has the better forwards. The media and others have the names and will just say, certain Rangers are underperforming and the LA forwards got their game on. Heck, LA's offense has been pretty strong; the Rangers' has been, OK. It's the Rangers' defense, Lundqvist especially, that has kept them in the playoffs and the question many have had is will the Rangers be able to keep it up against a deep offensive team like the Kings, or, will the Kings style open up things for the Rangers' offense to take off. We will see.

Honestly, it should be pretty tough to call. Drop the puck already!

Its also easy to identify the offensive firepower of a team while ignoring the shoddy goaltending LA faced all playoffs. Niemi fell of a cliff, Gibson too, Crawford was bad pretty much the whole WCF.

But what scares me is that LA is finishing to the tune of 3.5 goals per game. One could say the Rangers have been fortunate with goaltender opposition as well, yet their lack of finish continues.

 

[Lime]

Guy on Sportsnet just gave Lundqvist the upper hand in this series vs Quick, but in doing so he called Lundqvist the Joe Thornton of goaltenders, lol. I guess, considering both guys have a lot of trophies except for the Stanley Cup, but when I think Joe Thornton + playoffs I think no-show.

 

[Miamipuck]

Guy on Sportsnet just gave Lundqvist the upper hand in this series vs Quick, but in doing so he called Lundqvist the Joe Thornton of goaltenders, lol. I guess, considering both guys have a lot of trophies except for the Stanley Cup, but when I think Joe Thornton + playoffs I think no-show.

Hahahahaah that's such horrid analysis, it's laughable.

 

[Beer League Sniper]

Its also easy to identify the offensive firepower of a team while ignoring the shoddy goaltending LA faced all playoffs. Niemi fell of a cliff, Gibson too, Crawford was bad pretty much the whole WCF.

But what scares me is that LA is finishing to the tune of 3.5 goals per game. One could say the Rangers have been fortunate with goaltender opposition as well, yet their lack of finish continues.

It sounds like a cop-out, but I really think the Rangers have been snakebitten this playoff run, to a certain extent. We've had a ton of knob-of-the-stick saves against us this playoff run. Hell, I think Nash has 3 or 4 of them himself. I think we've played better offensively than the numbers have shown. If we want to win the cup, some of those bounces need to start going in our favor, but the same could be said for any playoff team.

We've gone this far without a ton of puck luck, but we'll need at least a little help from the hockey gods if we want to beat LA.

 

[Fletch]

Bleed Ranger...

my biggest concern with the Rangers going into the series is their finishing capabilities. I've had an issue with that for years, though. Just seemed a though they lack guys who can get in close, get to rebounds, fight for the rebounds and get those quality chances. Too many shots from bad angles, or into goalies' pads. Too many second chances going wide, high and wherever as a result of that inability to battle in close. Against Montreal in that last game the puck was around the net a lot and the Rangers had difficulty getting it in. Obviously there are other ways to score than from in close, but for me it just goes to finishing. On the rush, great. Inside the blue line needs work and the PP could be the difference maker in the series if Henke plays the way he played against PITT in those last three games.

 

[Levitate]

Guy on Sportsnet just gave Lundqvist the upper hand in this series vs Quick, but in doing so he called Lundqvist the Joe Thornton of goaltenders, lol. I guess, considering both guys have a lot of trophies except for the Stanley Cup, but when I think Joe Thornton + playoffs I think no-show.

Which is dumb, but it instantly becomes a narrative whenever a great goalie hasn't won the cup yet despite playing for teams that weren't overwhelming favorites

 

[Clown Fiesta]

Guy on Sportsnet just gave Lundqvist the upper hand in this series vs Quick, but in doing so he called Lundqvist the Joe Thornton of goaltenders, lol. I guess, considering both guys have a lot of trophies except for the Stanley Cup, but when I think Joe Thornton + playoffs I think no-show.

That's ok Jamie McLennan picks every goalie over Hank it was Price because of Olympic gold and now it's Quick because of his Conn Smythe.

He has to be the worst analyst ever, and has the most punchable face in the history of faces.

We understand what this team is capable of we've watched them all season, they were easily the 2nd best team behind Boston since the Olympics. I think a lot of "fans" who basically only watch their teams are still thinking about the Rangers that got embarrassed in San Jose back in October.

 

[Fletch]

it's amazing that one person on a "team" has difficulty getting respect until he's won a championship. Some great players didn't make it to that game because their team wasn't championship caliber. Some had a couple tries before getting there. Heck, Brodeur lost to the Rangers before he won. That loss in the finals helps define you and make you better the next go around. Too many focus on the few negatives about Lundqvist as opposed to the positives. Like any goalie, he has had some clunker of games. 20 shots, four goals against. Getting pulled. But I guess analysts forget even Hasek had a bad game, and Brodeur was pulled (can't say if Hasek or Roy were pulled; sure they were, just can't say). Ball's in Henrik's court. Play to the best of his abilities, and chances are he's spoken amongst the greats.