Where do the Rangers go from here?

[Grifter3511]

The Rangers are easily the most fraudulent “cup contender” over the last three years. They are continuously mid as f*** 5v5 and rely heavily on their goaltender and special teams. This is not a recipe for sustained success. Making the conference finals by coasting over a quasi-AHL team in the first round and then having the good fortune of facing a crap goaltender the next is just about the peak of success you will get using this model. People keep pointing to the regular season, how far they made it in the playoffs, and how the games they lost were close…but it totally ignores the reality that incredible goaltending is the primary factor and what they’ve accomplished so far is basically the absolute peak of success for a team built like this. This is nothing new…every year people pretend like the rangers are going to be this unique team that will somehow defy history and win a cup while being incredibly average (sometimes below average) at even strength, and every year it ends with the same whimper. If they were in another any other non-O6 market people wouldn’t buy into this BS. Hell without Igor they would likely be a WC team.

How do they fix it? It would require obtaining skaters who are strong 5v5 play drivers to replace the ones that aren’t. How would they go about doing this? Well I don’t know…I’m skeptical a few tweaks to role players is enough.

This is what that franchise is though. They attract shiny object players who want to play there for the faux glitz and glamour but when it comes to real team building there’s no substance there, outside of the goaltending.

Does it ignore the fact that largely the same team has been to the conference finals 2 of the past 3 years?

Maybe it is more of a recipe for success than Devils fans would have one believe.

 

[guitarguyvic]

Does it ignore the fact that largely the same team has been to the conference finals 2 of the past 3 years?

Maybe it is more of a recipe for success than Devils fans would have one believe.

It’s amazing how far having perhaps the best goalie in the world can take a team. Unfortunately, just like so many other teams in the past who have ridden a goalie far in the playoffs, it’s always going to come up short when you don’t have a great team outside of that one position.

 

[Grifter3511]

It’s amazing how far having perhaps the best goalie in the world can take a team. Unfortunately, just like so many other teams in the past who have ridden a goalie far in the playoffs, it’s always going to come up short when you don’t have a great team outside of that one position.

Yes, winning a Cup is hard and requires some luck along the way. Well said.

 

[guitarguyvic]

Yes, winning a Cup is hard and requires some luck along the way. Well said.

You need to have a great team, then luck. Without the first, the second can only take you so far. See: the NY rangers this decade.

This isn’t some crazy take. Just look at all the cup winners of the last 30 years and take note that not one of them won it all using the model of great goaltender + opportunistic special teams + mediocre even strength overall.

 

[Grifter3511]

You need to have a great team, then luck. Without the first, the second can only take you so far. See: the NY rangers this decade.

This isn’t some crazy take. Just look at all the cup winners of the last 30 years and take note that not one of them won it all using the model of great goaltender + opportunistic special teams + mediocre even strength overall.

I'm not digging in against the fact that Rangers aren't ideally built to win the Stanley Cup. More your assertion that this year was some fluke based on unsustainable luck or goaltending.

They wouldn't be near the top of the standings (or at the top) multiple years in a row and going to multiple conference finals if there wasn't some method and consistency to what they are doing. Does it need a change up? Sure. But to act like they've fluked their way to more success over these last few years than 80% of the league just seems like sour grapes.

 

[guitarguyvic]

I'm not digging in against the fact that Rangers aren't ideally built to win the Stanley Cup. More your assertion that this year was some fluke based on unsustainable luck or goaltending.

They wouldn't be near the top of the standings (or at the top) multiple years in a row and going to multiple conference finals if there wasn't some method and consistency to what they are doing. Does it need a change up? Sure. But to act like they've fluked their way to more success over these last few years than 80% of the league just seems like sour grapes.

No one is saying it’s a fluke, I have no idea why you are claiming so. They have the best goalie in the world and a really good PP especially during the regular season, that’s enough to win a lot during the regular season and some rounds depending on different factors. History says it’s not enough to win a Stanley cup. That’s it, that’s the story of that team.

 

[Bradely]

You need to have a great team, then luck. Without the first, the second can only take you so far. See: the NY rangers this decade.

This isn’t some crazy take. Just look at all the cup winners of the last 30 years and take note that not one of them won it all using the model of great goaltender + opportunistic special teams + mediocre even strength overall.

Habs 1993 screams differently!

 

[ColbyChaos]

They got to the Finals and he sh1t the bed

They didn’t have a good enough team their offense shit the bed. You can’t be trotting out Stepan Brassard, Rick Nash, and a geriatric MSL against Kopitar, Carter, Toffoli, Richards, and Williams

Habs 1993 screams differently!

If you have to cite a season where most posters weren’t even alive then it’s not a great counterpoint

 

[ColbyChaos]

I'm not digging in against the fact that Rangers aren't ideally built to win the Stanley Cup. More your assertion that this year was some fluke based on unsustainable luck or goaltending.

They wouldn't be near the top of the standings (or at the top) multiple years in a row and going to multiple conference finals if there wasn't some method and consistency to what they are doing. Does it need a change up? Sure. But to act like they've fluked their way to more success over these last few years than 80% of the league just seems like sour grapes.

There is a reason they never won. Look at any cup winner and try to say New York was better

Colorado had MacKinnon and Makar as their 1C and 1D

Vegas had Eichel, Pietro,

Tampa had Stamkos/Point and Hedman

St Louis had ROR and Pietro

Caps had Backstrom/Kuzy and Carlson

Pens has Crosby/Malkin and Letang

Hawks had Toews Kane Hossa and Keith

Kings had Kopitar, Doughty, and Quick

Bruins had Krejci and Bergeron along with Chara and Thomas/Rask

Detroit had Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and Lidstrom

Ducks had Andy Mac/Getzlaf and Pronger a Niedermayer

Canes had Eric Stall and RBA

That’s every recent cup winner in the cap era. Every one of them had an elite C or at worst a selke level C and an Elite D.

Many of those teams outside of Tampa, LA and Boston didn’t even have an elite G

 

[AirGut]

problem is not down the middle it's not having a true #2D to play in sync with Adam Fox.

 

[Bradely]

They didn’t have a good enough team their offense shit the bed. You can’t be trotting out Stepan Brassard, Rick Nash, and a geriatric MSL against Kopitar, Carter, Toffoli, Richards, and Williams


If you have to cite a season where most posters weren’t even alive then it’s not a great counterpoint

I do not know what to say other than I find the bold part simply ..... dumb!!

 

[guitarguyvic]

Habs 1993 screams differently!

Well… that’s why I capped it at 30 years lol.

 

[Bradely]

Well… that’s why I capped it at 30 years lol.

2023 - 1993. 30 years.
Habs was an easy one. Cheers bud

 

[Grifter3511]

2023 - 1993. 30 years.
Habs was an easy one. Cheers bud

You don't have go go that far even. 2000 devils and 2007 Ducks didnt have the magic formula. Even trying to fit St. Louis, and to a lesser extent LA, into this criteria is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Bradely]

You don't have go go that far even. 2000 devils and 2007 Ducks didnt have the magic formula. Even trying to fit St. Louis, and to a lesser extent LA, into this criteria is a bit of a stretch.

took the first one that came mind. Paul, Gilbert etc...
That 1993 SC has Roy written all over!

 

[guitarguyvic]

2023 - 1993. 30 years.
Habs was an easy one. Cheers bud

It’s 2024 not 2023.

Hoping you can replicate something that last happened 31 years ago…sounds like a solid strategy. Put down some money on that and let’s see how that goes for you.

You don't have go go that far even. 2000 devils and 2007 Ducks didnt have the magic formula. Even trying to fit St. Louis, and to a lesser extent LA, into this criteria is a bit of a stretch.

None of those teams relied almost exclusively on their goalie and special teams the way this current rangers team does, what the heck are you talking about?

 

[Bradely]

It’s 2024 not 2023.

Hoping you can replicate something that last happened 31 years ago…sounds like a solid strategy. Put down some money on that and let’s see how that goes for you.


None of those teams relied almost exclusively on their goalie and special teams the way this current rangers team does, what the heck are you talking about?

nobody have currently won.... still going on.

 

[guitarguyvic]

nobody have currently won.... still going on.

lol neither of these two teams are completely reliant on goalie + special teams, so yes it will be 31 years.

But I digress, we are now down to the semantics stage of the copium.

 

[Bradely]

None of those teams relied almost exclusively on their goalie and special teams the way this current rangers team does, what the heck are you talking about?

2000 Devils.... Martin Brodeur. 4 times Vezina. OK
AND the league's all-time regular season leader in wins (691),, shutouts (125) and 3 SC champs...OK

 

[Grifter3511]

It’s 2024 not 2023.

Hoping you can replicate something that last happened 31 years ago…sounds like a solid strategy. Put down some money on that and let’s see how that goes for you.


None of those teams relied almost exclusively on their goalie and special teams the way this current rangers team does, what the heck are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

Final 4 teams % of goals scored on the power play

Oilers: 30.2
Panthers 24.1
Rangers 23.4
Stars 23.1

Man, for a team that lives and dies by goaltending and special teams, Rangers sure don't get nearly as many pp goals as one would think.

Rangers came up short. It happens to 31 teams every year. But clearly they don't benefit from the power play any more than any other top team.

 

[ColbyChaos]

I do not know what to say other than I find the bold part simply ..... dumb!!

The only thing that is dumb is citing the 93 Habs as a model that works when no team utterly putrid at 5 on 5 was ever goalie carried their way to the cup in the cap era.

Every cup winner in the cap era had an elite C you don’t need an elite G to win just one that is good enough to not lose.

 

[NJ DevLolz]

2000 Devils.... Martin Brodeur. 4 times Vezina. OK
AND the league's all-time regular season leader in wins (691),, shutouts (125) and 3 SC champs...OK

Devils teams in the early 00s were among the highest scoring most years. This is a meme

 

[guitarguyvic]

2000 Devils.... Martin Brodeur. 4 times Vezina. OK
AND the league's all-time regular season leader in wins (691),, shutouts (125) and 3 SC champs...OK

Wow they had a hall of fame goalie…

Plus two HoF d-men and one of the highest scoring even strength offenses in the entire league.

They were not a mediocre group of skaters propped up by the goalie. What a ridiculous assertion.

 

[guitarguyvic]

Double post.

 

[guitarguyvic]

What are you talking about?

Final 4 teams % of goals scored on the power play

Oilers: 30.2
Panthers 24.1
Rangers 23.4
Stars 23.1

Man, for a team that lives and dies by goaltending and special teams, Rangers sure don't get nearly as many pp goals as one would think.

Rangers came up short. It happens to 31 teams every year. But clearly they don't benefit from the power play any more than any other top team.

This is meaningless without the context of GA. Yeah the rangers special teams eventually cooled down, which is why they lost. They aren’t good enough at even strength to compensate. It’s the same script that other similar teams have historically followed in the playoffs.

The rangers ranked 14th in the playoffs for 5v5 xG%. By contrast Dallas was 3rd, Florida 6th, and Edmonton 10th. Florida has an even strength goal differential of +9 vs. the rangers -1. Also anyone that has eyeballs can see that the rangers are mediocre 5v5.

Actually looking at Edmonton’s even strength numbers…yeah there’s a reason they are not the favorites in this final.