Team toughness

[savebyrichter94]

The team was hard on the forecheck and taking the body all night vs. Washington. You're complaining for the sake of complaining.

Really? Am I complaining or am I just contributing to a thread about our lack of toughness and our lack of response to these situations in our history? By your definition almost every single thread started here is complaining for the sake of complaining then and we should all just accept what happens and never post anything outside of praising everything this team does.

You should just exit this discussion because you're more concerned with trying to take shots at me instead of addressing the real issue which is that we are a soft non responsive team that nobody has any fear of and that we are the NHL equivalent of a fly waiting to be swatted!

 

[OverTheCap]

I'd rather be more like the Bruins than more like the Canucks. Is it a coach thing, a player thing, or a bit of both?

Probably more of a Sather and player thing. The team played similar to the Bruins in 2011-12 and the roster has changed since then. A lot of the players on the team aren't capable of being physically imposing even though the effort is there (Cally and sometimes Zucc), and some others are just disinterested even though they have the size (Pyatt, Pouliot, Nash at times).

AV actually had some players that were tough to play against - Torres, Burrows, Lapierre, etc. Bieksa and Hamhuis are hard hitters. If he has tough players and agitators who can play, he will use them. Although I do think that mental toughness may have been an issue at times with the Canucks.

 

[Off Sides]

I'd rather be more like the Bruins than more like the Canucks. Is it a coach thing, a player thing, or a bit of both?

I honestly think they are not a team in the truest sense of the word. I'm sure the players being mostly soft does not help, I'm sure the coaching told them to stay out of the box, all the same in my opinion the team/teammate aspect should supersede all of that.

 

[Off Sides]

You had 4 players on the ice capable of responding. Much to your chagrin, Im sure, the NHL did away with players being able to leave the bench.

Being the hit occurred behind the play, and the Rangers were retrieving the puck, I think its safe to assume nobody on the ice saw what happened. It makes this weak argument of yours even weaker.

Funny I saw Zucc coming up ice behind the hit watching the whole thing.

Is Zucc part of the problem, having a 5-7 player on the team is not helping, should he have gone over to Brouwer and at least grabbed him, sure should have or else he should not even be on the team.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I honestly think they are not a team in the truest sense of the word. I'm sure the players being mostly soft does not help, I'm sure the coaching told them to stay out of the box, all the same in my opinion the team/teammate aspect should supersede all of that.

The roster completely flipped. Theres a new coach. It takes time to gel and be the type of team you want them to be.

People are still referencing the Drury and Gaborik hits from 4 or 5 years ago to make a point. Seriously? Theres less than 5 players on the current roster that were on those teams.

 

[savebyrichter94]

This thread needs more DaGoon lol too many pacifists in a thread about toughness

 

[savebyrichter94]

The roster completely flipped. Theres a new coach. It takes time to gel and be the type of team you want them to be.

People are still referencing the Drury and Gaborik hits from 4 or 5 years ago to make a point. Seriously? Theres less than 5 players on the current roster that were on those teams.

They are bringing it up because it supports the argument that the Rangers have always been known as a team that does not respond. Do you seriously not see a pattern here?

 

[True Blue]

I'd rather be more like the Bruins than more like the Canucks. Is it a coach thing, a player thing, or a bit of both?

It starts with the coaching thing. Coaches coach a specific way. They want their players to play a specific way. And they tend to surround themselves with such players. I.e. Pouilliot being here.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

They are bringing it up because it supports the argument that the Rangers have always been known as a team that does not respond. Do you seriously not see a pattern here?

The pattern I see is roster meddling by the GM. The one team that probably satisfied your blood lust, the '11-12 team, was the one situation where Sather kept a roster relatively in tact. They were able to grow together, respect eachother, and stick up for one another.

You act as if team toughness is something that can just happen

 

[Off Sides]

The roster completely flipped. Theres a new coach. It takes time to gel and be the type of team you want them to be.

People are still referencing the Drury and Gaborik hits from 4 or 5 years ago to make a point. Seriously? Theres less than 5 players on the current roster that were on those teams.

Girardi was on the ice when Stepan was hit, same for when Gaborik was.

I like Girardi one of my favorite Rangers but if this team is ever going to be a true contender, which takes a true team, they are going to have to make some real tough choices.

If they want to be a Boston they are hopeless without a true rebuild, they have some parts to that type of team, mostly two centers who can almost look like Boston's. Other than that they have the goalie.

If they want to look like a Chicago, they are hopeless as well. They need a real rebuild a couple top picks and that is just not going to happen.

At the very least and at the very best they have to become a team and play greater than the sum of their parts. It's still not going to be great but going through a season or multiple season soft, lacking skill and with no direction towards anything is really tiresome to me. Am I complaining, yes, am I also trying to converse without telling people they are ignorant or wrong? I assumed that it what this message board was for?

 

[savebyrichter94]

The pattern I see is roster meddling by the GM. The one team that probably satisfied your blood lust, the '11-12 team, was the one situation where Sather kept a roster relatively in tact. They were able to grow together, respect eachother, and stick up for one another.

You act as if team toughness is something that can just happen

Honestly I'm just gonna stop responding to you because you are incapable of discussing this without making exaggerated statements like the one about feeding my bloodlust! You also taken shots at my intelligence level which is frankly, pathetic! If you are incapable of disagreeing without childish insults then your opinion means nothing to me.

 

[Off Sides]

This thread needs more DaGoon lol too many pacifists in a thread about toughness

But everything and everyone's posts just gets lumped together, say the team is soft and you get responses like oh you just like goons or why don't you go to Hockeyfights.

There is a big difference between wanting to just watch fighting and wanting to see a team that will at the very least stand up for one another.

I don't want anything to do with a goon or an enforcer unless the guy can also play hockey. I don't even care if they get in lots of fights and I do not correlate fighting with wins. I correlate good teams with winning, good teams have a way of responding to the other teams toughness and dirty players without just saying stuff happens, lets all look the other way.

Look to the last time the Rangers met up with Ottawa in the playoffs. Neil was tough for them to deal with, he changed the series, it took them 7 games to figure out how to deal with it and still walk away winning. 7 games against that Ottawa team coming in as the #1 seed vs the #8? Toughness and how a team deals with it makes a difference.

 

[savebyrichter94]

But everything and everyone's posts just gets lumped together, say the team is soft and you get responses like oh you just like goons or why don't you go to Hockeyfights.

I agree. When people don't really have anything of substance to contribute they cling to the tactic of taking it to an extreme point of view never implied by the poster they disagreed with. Same thing happened just because I said Zuc needed to put up points to be effective. It became more about me and not the point I was making. They also said it meant I thought Boyle and company were so much better and again my intelligence etc. was called into question.

I didn't quote it but I also agree with what you said about that series against the Sens. Neil almost single handedly fed us our lunch and his efforts not only lifted but carried his team!

What's really funny is that what set the tone for their team and started the whole thing was Carkner flat out jumping Boyle and sticking up for his team to send a message that it wasn't going to be tolerated. I'm pretty sure nobody said "way to go dummy, who told you to have my back"! According to some in this thread actions like that have no bearing or positive effects and Carkner's only concern should have been taking an extra penalty. I would argue that was direct evidence to the opposite considering it sparked them to take a #1 seed to a game 7!

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

What's really funny is that what set the tone for their team and started the whole thing was Carkner flat out jumping Boyle and sticking up for his team to send a message that it wasn't going to be tolerated. I'm pretty sure nobody said "way to go dummy, who told you to have my back"! According to some in this thread actions like that have no bearing or positive effects and Carkner's only concern should have been taking an extra penalty. I would argue that was direct evidence to the opposite considering it sparked them to take a #1 seed to a game 7!

Yes, but Dubinsky jumped Carkner after that. Shouldn't have that swung the momentum back in the Rangers' favor for the next 2 weeks?

How much longer until you realize that theres no correlation to the longer-term events?

 

[savebyrichter94]

Yes, but Dubinsky jumped Carkner after that. Shouldn't have that swung the momentum back in the Rangers' favor for the next 2 weeks?

How much longer until you realize that theres no correlation to the longer-term events?

It probably did considering they went on to not only win that series but the next one as well! I said I wouldn't respond to you anymore but I couldn't just ignore that! You're wrong dude, just move on now! If Dubi and Prust didn't do what they did to turn the momentum back in our favor and instead decided to turn the other cheek like you and others are suggesting there's a good chance we don't even win that series!

 

[Garv23]

Tough call on the hit on Stepan about retaliation. Me, initially I wanted someone to pound Brower and was pissed nobody did. As I had time to think more about it, would it have been a good move? They had all the momentum after killing off that 5 on 3 so probably not. And even though there was plenty of time in the game it was a close one all the way through so it wouldn't have been smart to go down a man. We needed that win for confidence. Still though, there's that part of me that wants revenge! We just don't have that type of player. I wish we did.

 

[Wolfy*]

Pyatt is a big guy, shouldn't he deal with this and fight if necessary?

 

[Dagoon44]

Pyatt is a big guy, shouldn't he deal with this and fight if necessary?

Pyatt is a step way from the Wnba. He isn't tough .
Boyle isn't tough
D. Moore isn't tough see a pattern here guys ?

 

[NYR Viper]

Pyatt is a step way from the Wnba. He isn't tough .
Boyle isn't tough
D. Moore isn't tough see a pattern here guys ?

I would disagree. Moore and Boyle are tough, they just don't or can't fight. There is a difference that needs to be shown. "Toughness" is not the same as being able to fight.

I would say Callahan is as "tough" as anyone in the league with the way he sacrifices his body night after night. Same with Girardi and Boyle. However, none of them can, or should fight on a regular basis.

 

[Dagoon44]

I would disagree. Moore and Boyle are tough, they just don't or can't fight. There is a difference that needs to be shown. "Toughness" is not the same as being able to fight.

I would say Callahan is as "tough" as anyone in the league with the way he sacrifices his body night after night. Same with Girardi and Boyle. However, none of them can, or should fight on a regular basis.

Boyle and d. Moore used to have edge but I wouldn't say tough .. Cally yea he is very tough and very brittle at the same time ...
Our defense is a embarrassment when it comes to tough. The islanders and bruins will embarrass this team

 

[NYR Viper]

Boyle and d. Moore used to have edge but I wouldn't say tough .. Cally yea he is very tough and very brittle at the same time ...
Our defense is a embarrassment when it comes to tough. The islanders and bruins will embarrass this team

Again, I think "tough" is the wrong way to put it.

I agree with the premise that this team needs to have more aggressiveness throughout the line-up though. I have been on board with that for years.

 

[iamitter]

If Boyle was my teammate, I would love him. He does everything asked of him and he really does try hard for the team. He fights when he needs to, even though that isn't his thing. Physicality didn't exactly come naturally to him and he's learned over time how to be more physical.

He gets **** on here so much, but he's everything you could ask for in a teammate.

 

[a tribe cq]

I want Haley up and not Powe

I'm sick of the disinterest in physicality

There's no spark to the team anymore

Even less with Cally out

 

[NYR Viper]

If Boyle was my teammate, I would love him. He does everything asked of him and he really does try hard for the team. He fights when he needs to, even though that isn't his thing. Physicality didn't exactly come naturally to him and he's learned over time how to be more physical.

He gets **** on here so much, but he's everything you could ask for in a teammate.

Yep. He is one guy who actually fills his role. The problem is, there are too many 1-dimensional guys on the team. Pyatt. Pouliot. MZA. Powe.

Boyle is far from a problem, he just can't do everything himself.

 

[a tribe cq]

If Boyle was my teammate, I would love him. He does everything asked of him and he really does try hard for the team. He fights when he needs to, even though that isn't his thing. Physicality didn't exactly come naturally to him and he's learned over time how to be more physical.

He gets **** on here so much, but he's everything you could ask for in a teammate.

Agreed

Boyle is a gamer

I can't stand when people call players soft because they aren't a skilled fighter...he leaves it all on the ice, bangs all game long, and has actually learned to use his body or positioning very well