-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
haveandare
Registered User
Apparently Vezina voters and most fans of all other teams are buying into the MSG PR machine as well, because he's widely considered to be one of, if not the, best goalie in the league over the past 5 years.
Sane fans realize that Lundqvist has never had a team in front of him capable of winning the Cup.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
Eh, we were two games away from going to the Cup just two years ago. I'm not sure I agree with this. At least not the word "never."
I find it funny how this argument is spun depending on who it is trying to bash. When bashing Tortorella, the argument was that team was a faux contender. That they were beat up and barely able to beat the 8th/7th seeds. The coach needed to go, because they were incapable of taking the next step.
But when looking to ding Lundqvist, that 11-12 team was a Stanley Cup contender? Come on now.
I think, on paper, that team went as far as it possibly could. The 93-94 New York Rangers they were not, which Richter had the pleasure of backstopping.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
Well, it was a very good team. We won the Eastern Conference, for God's sake. Are you really going to argue that the team wasn't very good? I don't think you can make that argument with a straight face (frankly, I think it's inherently unreasonable to even pretend that that team was not a Cup contender).
Anyone who says that the 2011-12 team was not a Cup contender clearly didn't watch the NHL that year. We had a very good team that lost in the ECF. We really should have won the ECF had Hank played better, IMO.
Not sure we would have beaten the Kings. No clue on that. Quick was so hot at the time and Hank was so-so that we probably would have been bounced. But to sit there and claim that this wasn't a Cup contender is just devoid of reality.
But if you stuck any other goalie on that team that year they would have barely made the PO's imo. Once they made the PO's they were outskated and outplayed in almost every facet of the game. They were possessed of too many holes in the skating dept regardless of the goaltending performance which was not up to snuff either in the NJD series
CharlieCharleschuk
Registered User
- Nov 26, 2013
- 214
- 0
Well, 2012, could be discussed as others are doing. However, Lundqvist had teams in front of him who did nothing but protect his net.
This year, the first year in many where they don't play that style, Lundqvist goes through an adjustment process which seems to be working itself out.
Everybody wins.
Its very different to say that the '11-12 team had a punchers chance at the Stanley Cup vs. saying they lost out on the prize because of goaltending.
I'll have to go back and check the #'s, but I think the team scored like 42 goals in 20 playoff games. Sound like a contender to you?
The better argument is that the Rangers were even in that position because Lundqvist played out of his head for most of that season.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
Oh, so because they were a defensive-oriented team they weren't a contender?
And yes. Any team that wins its conference and makes it to the conference finals is a contender.
I mean, is this real life? Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that this team was not a contender? That's just revisionist history. And blatantly revisionist.In your world, then, there are only two Stanley Cup contenders in 2011/12. The Kings and the Devils. That is really an untenable and outrageous position, my friend.
Feel free to say that they underachieved in the playoffs (from the net out). I'd agree with you there completely. To sit there and claim they were never a contender is just stupid.
I am saying that team wasn't enough of a contender to say that them NOT winning the Stanley Cup has any bearing whatsoever on Lundqvist's legacy.
I loved the way that team played. I advocate for them regularly. Did I expect them to win the cup? Hell no. Too many holes.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,923
- 2,329
If Lundqvist is ordinary against Ottawa or Washington, the Rangers don't make it out of the 1st or 2nd round. If Lundqvist played against the Devils the way he played against Ottawa and Washington, the Rangers go to the finals.
The '11-'12 regular season was a fluke. Lundqvist was a pretty big reason for it, why we won all those 1 goal games and held onto all those 3rd period leads.
But there is only so much you can ask of one player. Eventually having offensive problem and a rigid adjustment-less coach will come back and bite you in the ass.
If it didn't take us 14 games to get to the ECF, Lundqvist might have been a bit fresher.
The '11-'12 regular season was a fluke. Lundqvist was a pretty big reason for it, why we won all those 1 goal games and held onto all those 3rd period leads.
But there is only so much you can ask of one player. Eventually having offensive problem and a rigid adjustment-less coach will come back and bite you in the ass.
If it didn't take us 14 games to get to the ECF, Lundqvist might have been a bit fresher.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
I don't have any feeling on Lundqvist's legacy. I'm merely saying that the team was 100% a Stanley Cup contender and any other opinion on that is outlandish and wrong.
Keep in mind that there are a number of people on this board who have said similar stuff -- that this team was never a contender. It's just silly.
Do you believe that the Rangers would have beaten either the Senators or Capitals without his tremendous performance? Personally, I don't. I think we were out played in each series, especially against the Capitals.
The team was a good team. Best team Lundqvist played for. That said, they won the Conference for a big reason, Henrik Lundqvist had the best season of his career. He was a Hart Finalist and Vezina Trophy winner for a reason. When you have that kind of season, you're team better be a contender.
As solid as the Rangers were that season, it pales in comparison to the 93-94 team in terms of talent and ability. I don't think you will find too many people who think the 11-12 was even in the same hemisphere as the 93-94 roster.
Leetch in his prime (with arguably the best Conn Smythe performance up until Malkin's most recent one, 34 points for a defense man in the post season!?), Zubov coming out of no where, Graves having a career year, Messier being a heart and soul captain, Kovalev being a young stud, talented depth, and Richter arguably also had the best year of his career.
It wasn't close in my opinion. When the Rangers played in the 93-94 playoffs, they looked like the favorite that earned their top spot in the standings. When the 11-12 Rangers played in the playoffs, they were hanging on for dear life against the 8th and 7th seed teams, with huge performances from Lundqvist just to get the team to the ECF.
I don't think the Rangers were true contenders. You look at that roster, and look at the teams that went all of the way. Is it even close to the recent Chicago, Boston, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Anaheim teams? It's really not. They over achieved in the regular season (in part to Lundqvist having a career year). It was a team that over achieved all year long, including the playoffs. We were down 3-2 against the Senators if you recall, and Lundqvist had to have two tremendous performances, coming up with big saves in the final minute, just to beat the 8th seed. That's not exactly a "contender." It's a team that over achieved all season long.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
Right. The #1 team in the East that went to the ECF was not a "true contender."
Bizzaro world. This board is just ridiculous sometimes.
Is Hank not part of the ****ing team or something? Who gives a **** if our best player is a goalie? Do you really think that negates an entire regular season and a playoff run all the way to the ECF? Somehow the team is less of a contender because we had a good goalie?
What a bunch of garbage.
Bizzaro world. This board is just ridiculous sometimes.
Is Hank not part of the ****ing team or something? Who gives a **** if our best player is a goalie? Do you really think that negates an entire regular season and a playoff run all the way to the ECF? Somehow the team is less of a contender because we had a good goalie?
What a bunch of garbage.
How do you feel that Ranger team stacked up against "true contenders"? It's pretty simple. Was their roster close to teams that recently had deep runs / went all of the way like Chicago, Boston, Vancouver, Pittsburgh, etc. It's not close. At all. If you think that I don't know what to say.
How did they compare to the 93-94 team, a true contender? Not very well.
They were a good team carried by their goaltender that went further than they should have.
A team with a sub-par Brad Richards, and Gaborik with a torn labrum, is not a top team to compete against in the post season. I don't know how much more blunt I can be than that.
Again, look at how the team competed against the 8th and 7th seed teams, and I think that says it all.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
Let's just continue to ignore real world results and rely on opinions.
Yeah. The #1 team in the East that went all the way to the ECF and was two games away from the Cup finals was not a true contender. Right. OK.
Get real.
I like how you didn't address me calling you out for basically saying that Lundqvist's performance negated the rest of the team's (laughable in and of itself) ability to be a "true contender."
CharlieCharleschuk
Registered User
- Nov 26, 2013
- 214
- 0
That team was the essence of the word "team". They were greater than the sum of their parts and their performance proved it. No one player claimed the laurels, they shared their glory.
Let's just continue to ignore real world results and rely on opinions.
Yeah. The #1 team in the East that went all the way to the ECF and was two games away from the Cup finals was not a true contender. Right. OK.
Get real.
I like how you didn't address me calling you out for basically saying that Lundqvist's performance negated the rest of the team's (laughable in and of itself) ability to be a "true contender."
I dont think thats too outlandish. The team couldnt score consistently in the regular season, and couldnt score consistently in the playoffs.
Dont forget this conversation started around Lundqvist's legacy. When I say "contender," Im talking about a team thats good enough and deep enough to compete for the cup when parts of the team aren't firing on all cylinders - something every championship team had to deal with. That '11-12 team couldn't afford Lundqvist's incredible regular season play to slip an inch in the playoffs. When it did against the Devils, they were toast.
So, sure, that team could've won a cup if Lundqvist played like a God every waning minute, if you want to put it that way. Thats a different situation than Richter had to deal with.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
It's absolutely outlandish. The only way you can claim this malarky is if you place Lundqvist above the team.
But Lundqvist is a Ranger, no? His play, and the team's play around him, were that of a team. Period. End of story.
The team was a contender. Anyone claiming anything else is trying to revise history.
Fine. The question, as it pertains to what we were talking about, is "Does the '11-12 team not winning the cup adversely effect Lundqvist's legacy?"
And the answer, for me, is a resounding no. If Lundqvist retires in 7 years with 450 wins and without a cup, I dont think its his fault that the best team he played for was one that he had to drag into the conference finals.
If that Rangers team was a contender, they were the under dog of contenders.
A team that relies solely on defense and goaltending to win is not a true contender, regardless of their record.
The Kings didn't win the cup winning 1-0 and 2-1 games. They had elite defense, elite goaltending, and packed a punch offensively that post season.
Chicago was a team that had elite offense, elite defense, and Crawford played fantastic.
The Bruins are arguably the deepest team in the NHL, and each of the two seasons they went to the Stanley Cup Finals, they had clutch offensive players, even better defense than the 11-12 Rangers team, and Rask/Thomas back stopping them.
The Canucks had a stacked offensive line up, solid defensive line up, and Luongo who played well up until the Stanley Cup finals AND he received no goal support then.
Those are true contenders. A team is not a contender if they need to rely on their goaltender to win every game.
This "contender" team you're talking about isn't nearly as good as any of the above mentioned teams. And I didn't even get into the Penguins with Crosby and Malkin.
I understand that Lundqvist is a Ranger, and he is part of the team, but that team was only going to go as far as Lundqvist willed them.
In contrast, Crosby was completely shut down, but they still had the super star talent and depth to win a big series against Detroit and take home the Stanley Cup. True contenders are not one trick ponies.
That "team" got dominated by the 8th and 7th seed team for large stretches.
Again, I understand that Lundqvist was part of the team, but if he doesn't play some of the best hockey of his career, the Rangers lose in the first round.
If it wasn't for Lundqvist, and a big goal from Richards/Gaborik, that team doesn't make it out of the second round.
They were a "team" that relied on too few players to win. So, you're right, they were a "team" but they were not at the level of true contenders like the Penguins, Bruins, Canucks, Kings, Blackhawks, Ducks, etc. They didn't have the talent to go all the way, and it showed.
Look at a team like the 06-07 Ducks that had Niedermayer, Pronger, Getzlaf, Perry, Selanne, McDonald (when he was a solid center, scored 78 points that season), and young depth players like Kunitz and Penner.
What did we have? Richards, Gaborik (playing injured), Dubinsky, Callahan, McDonagh and Staal? Well, the Rangers contender doesn't really match up then.
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,926
- 22,848
- Status
