Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2006
- 19,799
- 1,811
There was no determination there.
The key to goaltending is consistency. I don't know how anyone can watch a goalie for 3 games and assume they will be extraordinarily impressed.
There was no determination there.
Yeah it's not about cup or bust. It's about the Rangers aren't fun.
I've spent nearly my entire adulthood watching them play bend-but-don't-break hockey where the other team dictates play most nights. And the organization evidently doesn't see this as an issue.
Then they should fix it?What's even more interesting is it's been several years and you still can't seem to grasp its mostly a personnel issue.
Then they should fix it?
That's definitely not a thing that's clear.I think it's quite clear they are. Then again, I dont think the last several years have been anywhere near as bad as your hysterics would indicate.
Okay, 4 good years (2 great) in a sea of ~20 while having the best goaltender of this generation and having practically unlimited budget in the cap and no-cap era. I stand corrected.
I'm not a championship or bust person. I can enjoy sports for what they are. The Rangers as an organization has created very few lasting memories for me and most of them are concentrated in a four year window. I expect more.
Well this is an unpopular opinion thread which leads to boundless speculation. I personally love the what if debates. It's part of the allure of sports!Maybe - a lot of things would've had to go right to keep that potential core together. Also, Kovalev was a top 5 integral part to that cup IMO. Who knows what would've happened without him.
I think that amonte and weight were better than Noonan and Matteau that year and that if they had been in those lineups, the rangers would have scored more and not needed the matteau miracles. Amonte was really really good. It is pure speculation, but I didnt like the trades at the time and I still dont to this day and I genuinely believe the team was better with them than without them.Do you mind expanding on this point? How do they specifically ensure the Rangers play less games?
Because it "sucked", or because every team makes bad choices?In a vacuum the mcilrath pick isn’t as bad as it seems.
Kovalev, not Messier, is the main reason the Rangers won the "guarantee game".
No, I didnt endorse it......nor even support it at the time. Yes, his contract has hurt this team in many ways......I just basically refuse to beat up on a player that really was a big part of the heart and soul of this team for many years. With that said, I wish he......along with Hank would just step aside and retire already.Marc Staal received a 6 year contract extension after his major injuries in which he could never be the same player. Endorsing such a ridiculous contract justifies you questioning others being Human? Please lol
No, I didnt endorse it......nor even support it at the time. Yes, his contract has hurt this team in many ways......I just basically refuse to beat up on a player that really was a big part of the heart and soul of this team for many years. With that said, I wish he......along with Hank would just step aside and retire already.
Some Rangers ones and some more general ones that apply to the Rangers.
Having a highly paid, top goalie is synonymous with mediocrity in the modern cap era. Money is much better spent elsewhere.
Most NHL teams would be better off playing with 10/11 forwards, and no 4th line.
A goalie who can handle the puck can (and hopefully will for us) make a big difference in how much time a team spends in their own zone.
Kovalev, not Messier, is the main reason the Rangers won the "guarantee game".
Kakko is concerningly bad
Partly us focusing on what we could have had, partly on him not developing the way he could have and partly on the game changing. If the game today was similar to 2010 or earlier and McIlrath became a true skates well for his size guy, he would be an effective player. I think the beast that Tarasenko became really colors the pick, but he was passed on by a lot of teams. Was anyone crying when the Rangers drafted Cherepanov instead of a plug at 17 overall?Because it "sucked", or because every team makes bad choices?
Think we just choose to focus on what we "could have had".
Partly us focusing on what we could have had, partly on him not developing the way he could have and partly on the game changing. If the game today was similar to 2010 or earlier and McIlrath became a true skates well for his size guy, he would be an effective player. I think the beast that Tarasenko became really colors the pick, but he was passed on by a lot of teams. Was anyone crying when the Rangers drafted Cherepanov instead of a plug at 17 overall?
Some Rangers ones and some more general ones that apply to the Rangers.
Having a highly paid, top goalie is synonymous with mediocrity in the modern cap era. Money is much better spent elsewhere.
Most NHL teams would be better off playing with 10/11 forwards, and no 4th line.
It's fine because it's his rookie season, but Adam Fox's defensive play is mediocre and extremely overrated here.
Kreider's speed strength and net-front play is his strength, and will let him age nicely. His speed contributes very little because he rarely produces as a result of it.
A goalie who can handle the puck can (and hopefully will for us) make a big difference in how much time a team spends in their own zone.
NHL refs are pretty alright.