Post-Game Talk: Columbus Blue Jackets at New York Rangers 1/31/17

[Boruto]

Citing something that worked in the 70s, 80s, and 90s is not really helping all that much.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I'm not disputing how the Penguins play during the playoffs. You and the other poster said your main reason for wanting toughness is largely for winning battles down low and possessing the puck. Yet it always goes back to playing a style of game that abuses opponent physically and bullies them for the sake of the physicality. How does playing dirty and upping their "bad ass play" impact possession or battles down low? You made the point that the Tanner Glass jokes are getting old but most of the posts about wanting toughness boils down to fighting, standing up for teammates or self, and being able to punish opponents physically legally or with dirty cheap shots.

most of the posts about wanting toughness boils down to fighting, standing up for teammates or self, and being able to punish opponents physically legally or with dirty cheap shots.

There are outliers for every argument, usually from non-regulars or people who are just pissed at the moment.

I sincerely doubt that the majority of regular postrers who want a tougher and hungrier team want bench clearing brawls.

 

[Chimpradamus]

These are the goals that go in on Hank as well. Ive lost count of how many times Hank has taken abuse on these boards for allowing a breakaway goal or stupid deflections.

Can we stop with the double standards.

Nope. When it comes to the expectations of Hank of the NYR fanbase it's the equivalent of an upper class teenage brat. Anything less than perfect is a failure. A bad performance calls for feathers and tar. I call it the Lundqvist syndrome. They've been used to world class goaltending carrying a far from perfect team for over a decade and then add some prolonging strains of Richter before that. Ricther was far from perfect and consistent, not even in the playoffs, but that's fine I guess when you're getting a cup with a team Lundqvist could only dream of having in front of him.

Disclaimer: If you don't want to feel hit by my statement, don't. It's a broad generalization, but considering the actual performance of Lundqvist and the annual, loong threads of "What's wrong with Lundqvist?" every stretch he can't mask the glaring flaws of the team for the last ten years, it gets kind of ridiculous in the long run. Then to add the "Hail the backup!" (that is soon going to surpass Lundqvist - started by the usual suspects). Every other goalie - including Price - have had at least one bad season, Lundqvist hasn't so far. This doesn't seem to mean anything for a bunch of people.

Hank is supposed to stop most - if not basically all - breakaways and stupid deflections, because he has a high salary now. Is his salary too high? Yeah, isn't it NYR after all, when was the last time this franchise didn't overpay for everything not RFA - even in the cap world? Maybe that's a problem?

Lundqvist is having a tough season - behind a seriously flawed team? Trade him. Buy him out. Bench him. Put him somewhere where we don't need to see him. Because he is the reason why this franchise doesn't have another cup (obvious overextended hyperbole). Long story short: the goaltending is not the problem of the success of this team in the long run. It'll be eaten alive by other teams actually constructed for the playoffs in the long run.

The work horse trait (a dream trait by GMs) is now considered a flaw. The team just had a long rest. Go figure. But yeah, the work horse that isn't workhorsing is done. Sure.

 

[Machinehead]

(I'm assuming you're being sarcastic in this post so I am going to respond as that is the case, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

I never said that Zucc taking that matching minor penalty lost the Rangers the game. What I did say is that it negated what would've been a Rangers power play in a game where they were down 2-0. What I did say is that CBJ made the Rangers pay for Zucc's minor penalty.

Hindsight is 20-20, but realizing the effect of a lost power play in a game where you're doing 2-0 doesn't really require 20-20 vision into the past.

Yeah, but like you said, nobody will ever try and defend against Zuccarello again because he's tough. We got that going for us.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Citing something that worked in the 70s, 80s, and 90s is not really helping all that much.

So trying to build finesse teams that haven't worked since the end of the Reagan administration is plausible?

Even the high octane scoring early 90s Penguins cup winning teams had some nasty players on it.

The fact of the matter is besides the Blackhawks who have must have made a deal with the devil for their talent retention in the cap era, the teams that go deep bang it up.

The Rangers did that in 2012. Whereas they rode a lot of St. Louis' emotional momentum as well as the greatest performance Lundqvist will ever give in 2014.

 

[Krams]

 

[Irishguy42]

So trying to build finesse teams that haven't worked since the end of the Reagan administration is plausible?

Even the high octane scoring early 90s Penguins cup winning teams had some nasty players on it.

The fact of the matter is besides the Blackhawks who have must have made a deal with the devil for their talent retention in the cap era, the teams that go deep bang it up.

The Rangers did that in 2012. Whereas they rode a lot of St. Louis' emotional momentum as well as the greatest performance Lundqvist will ever give in 2014.

This is an alternative fact.

 

[Boruto]

most of the posts about wanting toughness boils down to fighting, standing up for teammates or self, and being able to punish opponents physically legally or with dirty cheap shots.

There are outliers for every argument, usually from non-regulars or people who are just pissed at the moment.

I sincerely doubt that the majority of regular postrers who want a tougher and hungrier team want bench clearing brawls.

Bench clearing brawls no but most want more fights, big hits, and post whistle nastiness but appear to have no preference on possession of the puck, board battles, or winning or losing hockey. You said you want toughness to improve possession and battles down low and you were just talking about playing dirty and having nasty players.

 

[NickyFotiu]

(I'm assuming you're being sarcastic in this post so I am going to respond as that is the case, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

I never said that Zucc taking that matching minor penalty lost the Rangers the game. What I did say is that it negated what would've been a Rangers power play in a game where they were down 2-0. What I did say is that CBJ made the Rangers pay for Zucc's minor penalty.

Hindsight is 20-20, but realizing the effect of a lost power play in a game where you're doing 2-0 doesn't really require 20-20 vision into the past.

I totally agree. CBJ made us pay for being at even strength. I actually blame Zooks for the other 5 even strength goals CBJ scored as well. I think we should cut him.

 

[Boruto]

This is an alternative fact.

I would qualify both the Sharks and Penguins are finesse teams.

 

[silverfish]

I totally agree. CBJ made us pay for being at even strength. I actually blame Zooks for the other 5 even strength goals CBJ scored as well. I think we should cut him.

I have absolutely no idea what I did to deserve this type of retort in this conversation.

 

[NickyFotiu]

I have absolutely no idea what I did to deserve this type of retort in this conversation.

You did not do anything. We are just discussing the Rangers.

Don't be so serious.

 

[NickyFotiu]

I would qualify both the Sharks and Penguins are finesse teams.

The Penguins have a ton of skill but they do not let anyone push them around. If they did they would not have won the cup in my opinion. Crosby and Malkin do not back down from anyone. They often go back at guys harder then they get hit.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Bench clearing brawls no but most want more fights, big hits, and post whistle nastiness but appear to have no preference on possession of the puck, board battles, or winning or losing hockey. You said you want toughness to improve possession and battles down low and you were just talking about playing dirty and having nasty players.

Bench clearing brawls no but most want more fights, big hits, and post whistle nastiness

Aside from Dagoon or Inferno during specific events that might very well call for a smack in the chops, how many people in general actually advocate to build a team of thugs?

Because I don't believe these types of players are mutually exclusive.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I would qualify both the Sharks and Penguins are finesse teams.

The Penguins are not pure finesse outside of their outlier top line, and aside from Burns, the perennial choke artist San Jose Sharks are.

 

[Boruto]

So trying to build finesse teams that haven't worked since the end of the Reagan administration is plausible?

Even the high octane scoring early 90s Penguins cup winning teams had some nasty players on it.

The fact of the matter is besides the Blackhawks who have must have made a deal with the devil for their talent retention in the cap era, the teams that go deep bang it up.

The Rangers did that in 2012. Whereas they rode a lot of St. Louis' emotional momentum as well as the greatest performance Lundqvist will ever give in 2014.

We had no offense in 2012. Richards had a point on a ridiculous proportion of the goals. We played in a ton of low scoring games and Henrik was better in 2012 than he was in 2014 for a lot of the series. We had to go to game 7 in both the 1st and 2nd rounds. We trailed to the Senator 3-1 getting stone walled by Anderson. We barely won a lot of those tight games. We lost to the Devils when we completely ran out of gas. You would rather attribute the 2014 to St.Louis's misfortune rallying the team instead of recognizing the speed and talent we had? We barely got out of the 1st and 2nd round and lost in poor fashion in the ECF in 2012.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

The Penguins have a ton of skill but they do not let anyone push them around. If they did they would not have won the cup in my opinion. Crosby and Malkin do not back down from anyone. They often go back at guys harder then they get hit.

Before his body started to deteriorate, Malkin was a bull in a China shop in 2009.

Kris Letang is also a dirty little ****.

 

[Machinehead]

I would love to add a player to this team who can actually play hockey, is actually physical, actually hits in a meaningful way, and draws penalties. But two things.

1)If we're talking about what this team needs, it doesn't even crack the top 10.

2)Nobody really wants that. Nobody wants another Jesper Fast. It's going to be some ****ing useless 45%CF plug who can't skate, can't shoot, can't pass, can't handle the puck, can't defend, can't even hit because he's too slow, and takes dumb penalties, but he's gritty or whatever.

Tanner Glass, Arron Asham, Ryan Hollwegg, Mike Rupp, Brandon Prust (outside of that one great season he had), Ryan Callahan (outside of that one great season he had), Jody Shelley. I've seen too many.

If it was a player like Daniel Carcillo, who was -trigger warning- a good hockey player and a quietly excellent pickup, then sure. If it was Brian Boyle, then **** yeah. But remember, Boyle was "soft" when he played here.

 

[Boruto]

The Penguins are not pure finesse outside of their outlier top line, and aside from Burns, the perennial choke artist San Jose Sharks are.

What is pure finesse? That's such a weird way to create a bad argument. It would be like me saying, "Look, are there any teams out there that are pure 6'5+ tough players that had success in the playoffs?"

The penguins are a speed and skill team last year and so were the sharks. Not sure why you don't want to admit that they're skillful. The Bruins were a big team because they had Lucic and Chara when they weren't actually that big of a team but the Penguins were not a skill and speed finesse team? What is a pure finesse team, seriously? Just because Malkin and Kessel are large they're not a pure finesse team? Sheary, Malkin, Crosby, Letang, Rust, Kessel were powering that team with skill and "finesse". Kessel is as speed, skill and finesse as they come.

 

[pld459666]

My interpretation of toughness does include the occasional fight. I have come to accept that this is a softer league in that respect, however it's just a component of the term and not the end all be all.

If fact I'd venture a guess that most fans that post on this board liken toughness to those of you that lean heavily on advanced stats.

They are not the only way to judge a game or evaluate a player just like fighting is not the only way to describe toughness, the kind of toughness the Rangers, IMHO, absolutely lack and need

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

We had no offense in 2012. Richards had a point on a ridiculous proportion of the goals. We played in a ton of low scoring games and Henrik was better in 2012 than he was in 2014 for a lot of the series. We had to go to game 7 in both the 1st and 2nd rounds. We trailed to the Senator 3-1 getting stone walled by Anderson. We barely won a lot of those tight games. We lost to the Devils when we completely ran out of gas. You would rather attribute the 2014 to St.Louis's misfortune rallying the team instead of recognizing the speed and talent we had? We barely got out of the 1st and 2nd round and lost in poor fashion in the ECF in 2012.

The poor scoring in 2012 had a lot to do with Tort's fastidiousness with building a phalanx.

And in 2014, the Rangers started sinking at the tail end of the season, and we didn't win a round in less than 7 games until the Montreal series [took 6] when Kreider knocked out Price [even if it was an accident].

Then we had trouble scoring in the final round when the Kings man handled us.

I'm confused with your point.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

What is pure finesse? That's such a weird way to create a bad argument. It would be like me saying, "Look, are there any teams out there that are pure 6'5+ tough players that had success in the playoffs?"

The penguins are a speed and skill team last year and so were the sharks. Not sure why you don't want to admit that they're skillful. The Bruins were a big team because they had Lucic and Chara when they weren't actually that big of a team but the Penguins were not a skill and speed finesse team? What is a pure finesse team, seriously? Just because Malkin and Kessel are large they're not a pure finesse team? Sheary, Malkin, Crosby, Letang, Rust, Kessel were powering that team with skill and "finesse". Kessel is as speed, skill and finesse as they come.

Because your failing to accept their "outside the rules" play that has a large contribution to their success.

 

[Boruto]

Before his body started to deteriorate, Malkin was a bull in a China shop in 2009.

Kris Letang is also a dirty little ****.

Rick Nash is the same type of power forward though his style is different from Malkin. Again we're back at wanting to have dirty and cheap players that will cheap shot the opposition and retaliate as a way of being a big tough hockey team.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Rick Nash is the same type of power forward though his style is different from Malkin. Again we're back at wanting to have dirty and cheap players that will cheap shot the opposition and retaliate as a way of being a big tough hockey team.

Yeah...

and who the **** starts playing perimeter possession and getting "snake bitten" every ****ing post season?

Don't even get me started on the 2014 finals.

 

[Boruto]

Bench clearing brawls no but most want more fights, big hits, and post whistle nastiness

Aside from Dagoon or Inferno during specific events that might very well call for a smack in the chops, how many people in general actually advocate to build a team of thugs?

Because I don't believe these types of players are mutually exclusive.

You made 3 references praising players who are dirty and cheap as a part of a successful tough hockey team in the last 2 pages.