Just How Good Are the 2013-14 Rangers?

[NYRSchrute217]

Not enough high end talent or consistency, but the team has proven they are adjusting nicely to Vigneault's system over the last month and a half. If everything breaks right, they can get to the conference finals, but I have a hard time thinking they can compete with the Bruins.

 

[Kakko]

I think this team has the pieces to win a cup.

So do plenty of other teams in this league.

If Hank is being Hank, I'm confident in beating anyone, except the Pens. I just hope they implode before we possibly meet them.

 

[Thirty One]

Not enough high end talent or consistency, but the team has proven they are adjusting nicely to Vigneault's system over the last month and a half. If everything breaks right, they can get to the conference finals, but I have a hard time thinking they can compete with the Bruins.

What probability do you think the Bruins have of coming out of the Atlantic?

 

[EpicDing]

If the Rangers click in the playoffs like we are now, we have a legitimate shot at getting to the ECF at least.

 

[Kakko]

I do. I'm not the only one who has said this, I don't understand the obtuseness. I never said the Kings were contenders this year or not. I was citing them as an example of a Cup winning team that had top-end talent that we simply don't have.

Are Brad Richards, Mats Zuccarello, Derek Stepan going to lead this team to a Cup?

Why are we ignoring our two first line wingers?

You asked, where our Kopitar is.
I ask, where was the Kings' Nash?

You look at this:
http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats....position=S&country=&status=&viewName=summary#

That's honestly not impressive
The top 6 is pretty good, but our 3rd line is easily better than theirs was

 

[Raspewtin]

There is an X factor here that we haven't really talked about, which is what effect, if any, the coaching change will have on the team in the playoffs. I maintained, at the time, that a big part of the coaching change was about preventing the scale of our offensive drop-off from the regular season to the playoffs. Games are tighter, so you expect some amount of drop, but for the last three years, it's been through the floor. Having a less conservative system might mitigate that. And, if it does, our chances of winning games are much, much better.

Great post.

We were done in a lot faster against Boston because Juien had us figured out after one game. System became our demise.

 

[aufheben]

Why are we ignoring our two first line wingers?

You asked, where our Kopitar is.
I ask, where was the Kings' Nash?

You look at this:
http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats....position=S&country=&status=&viewName=summary#

That's honestly not impressive
The top 6 is pretty good, but our 3rd line is easily better than theirs was

I'm not, I just listed our Top 3 in points. Rick Nash is top end talent, but he has yet to show he can do it in the playoffs. Kreider is great, but I'm not gonna put that much faith in a rookie. Not only do we lack a legit #1 C, but our default #1 has awful playoff numbers.

 

[eco's bones]

Rangers have great goaltending--and right now they have a solid d-corps. Even the 3rd pairing is a lot better since the Klein-Del Zotto trade. 4 set lines--3 of them dangerous enough but none of them lethal. An improved pwp. Those are all positives.

Not enough size or grit on the wings. No legit 1st line center. Apart from Boyle no centers with real size. Not enough offense out of the D.

 

[NYRSchrute217]

What probability do you think the Bruins have of coming out of the Atlantic?

I think Boston has the easiest road to the conference finals out of any division. I don't think Montreal's lack of size and inconsistency is a model for success in the playoffs. Tampa Bay relies on a very young defense and a goalie without any playoff experience. Toronto, assuming they don't end up in the Metro division as a WC, probably give Boston the biggest challenge because they play very similar styles, but ultimately I'd take Rask over an inexperienced Bernier.

So, to answer your question, I think Boston is a heavy favorite to get to the ECF, right now.

 

[TheTakedown]

Here's a graphic from the piece:

Wow... Didn't know CHI had so many OTL's...

We're in the top 10 of the league...

That's good, and that includes our stretch of horrible november/december hockey...

 

[TheTakedown]

Rangers have great goaltending--and right now they have a solid d-corps. Even the 3rd pairing is a lot better since the Klein-Del Zotto trade. 4 set lines--3 of them dangerous enough but none of them lethal. An improved pwp. Those are all positives.

Not enough size or grit on the wings. No legit 1st line center. Apart from Boyle no centers with real size. Not enough offense out of the D.

and what you say between the lines is that this team isn't THAT bad, but just needs a few minor tweaks/additions.

Completely agree with you.

I'm hoping to see Richards, Nash, and Kreider step up in the playoffs again

 

[Thirty One]

I think Boston has the easiest road to the conference finals out of any division. I don't think Montreal's lack of size and inconsistency is a model for success in the playoffs. Tampa Bay relies on a very young defense and a goalie without any playoff experience. Toronto, assuming they don't end up in the Metro division as a WC, probably give Boston the biggest challenge because they play very similar styles, but ultimately I'd take Rask over an inexperienced Bernier.

So, to answer your question, I think Boston is a heavy favorite to get to the ECF, right now.

I do too, but I still think they are less than 50% to get there.

 

[Synergy27]

There is an X factor here that we haven't really talked about, which is what effect, if any, the coaching change will have on the team in the playoffs. I maintained, at the time, that a big part of the coaching change was about preventing the scale of our offensive drop-off from the regular season to the playoffs. Games are tighter, so you expect some amount of drop, but for the last three years, it's been through the floor. Having a less conservative system might mitigate that. And, if it does, our chances of winning games are much, much better.

The other thing is that the attrition SHOULD be minimized this year as well. The constant grinding and shot blocking clearly took its toll on Torts' teams once the second round rolled around.

That said, I'll be very surprised if this team wins the Cup. That's how I know they're not a "contender" in my eyes. A contender shouldn't surprise you.

 

[Off Sides]

I do too, but I still think they are less than 50% to get there.

So if you are an odds man, why not go 20-1? Is that a contender?

10-1?

or is it more like 4-1 the conference finalist?

 

[ltrangerfan]

I'm not really getting good vibes about the Edmonton game tomorrow.

 

[Off Sides]

Even more to the point

What would you guys put the odds at if the conference finals were Rangers - Boston/Pitt and Chicago/Blues/Anaheim/Sharks/Kings as the other conference final?

Can the Rangers win in Montreal, Tampa, Detroit 7 game series?

I guess I just see the Rangers more like a team who is in the mix with a whole slew of others than as an odds on contender when it come down to it.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Good enough to make the playoffs.
With enough luck to go to finals.

On paper, would have to be luckier than 69 mets to win finals.
Why I have been advocating trade certain pieces now to improve outlook next year/after.

Outlook? You want the Rangers to mortgage their current roster + future for overrated prospects or rip of other teams of their stars for an upcoming UFA + 3 2nds.

No.

 

[Ail]

I don't think they have the talent that can turn it on in the playoffs to make the post-season noise required to get 16 wins.

That is a very telling graphic there, but it is telling me that they have found a way to be a very good regular season team since the end of October, and that doesn't necessarily translate to the post-season. It is a good sign though that they are very likely to get in to the playoffs comfortably. Which is the most reasonable conclusion to draw from that, in my opinion.

 

[Thirty One]

So if you are an odds man, why not go 20-1? Is that a contender?

10-1?

or is it more like 4-1 the conference finalist?

I think labeling teams as contenders/not contenders is kind of a pointless exercise. Every team in the playoffs has a piece of the pie. The probabilities decrease going from the good teams to the bad teams. At what point they become "contenders"? I don't know.

 

[ltsthinaz]

One thing people are forgetting is that teams go out and get rental players to upgrade if they think they have a shot at being a contender. So this may not be the team that we ice in the playoffs (assuming we get there, which is likely).

I'm not naïve enough to think this is the most talented team, but it is pretty good, and frankly, I thought Colorado was very good and we clobbered them.

I suspect we're the third best in the East, behind the obvious two of the Bruins and Pens. But I think Boston's style lends itself to injuries, and their defense isn't as good as it was (I like Rask, though), and Fleury has imploded in the playoffs many a time.

 

[Ail]

At what point they become "contenders"? I don't know.

Continuum fallacy. There is definitely no clear distinction at who is or is not a contender, and realistically one could argue making the playoffs is the line that makes a team a Cup contender, but we can't argue since there is no clear statistical chance that makes a team a contender, that there are no contenders, or they're all contenders.

I'm with you, I don't know what makes a team a contender other than the fact people believe based on opinions and past supposed contenders that a contending team is playing a certain way, or has X components as people have quoted Pierre McGuire saying at times this year.

 

[surGeon]

I think this team has what it takes to win the cup. After AV came in and shook things up they've had an incredible turnaround. I believe the change we've seen is the real Rangers and not just a hot streak for a few reasons:

1. We have a new coach. A new way of playing. The adjustments took some time, but the good results we are now seeing is partly a consequence of this.
2. Lundquist is back to form. I think we can all agree that his slump was just that: A slump. No reason why he should go back into a slump.
3. Nash is back to form. His slump was possibly due to injury. In any case, he is back to normalcy and there is really no reason why he should go back to being invisible again.
4. The team has been strengthened by Carcillo (Waiter! Another helping of this delicious crow please!) and Klein. 4th line is looking good out there now and Klein is a lot more solid than MDZ who, lets face it, made a lot of bad defensive plays.
5. Lines have been constant and line chemistry has continued to get better. I think this is a reason why we're playing better now. Again, there is no reason why this isn't a permanent change.

We are not only winning. We are looking great out there. We are outshooting every team we play against. Our passing game looks great. Cycling. Forecheck. Backcheck. Effort. Momentum (maybe not permanent, but this positive momentum and psychological benefit of having been down and surged back can last out the season and take us all the way to the cup for all we know). Bottom line is this: We are a completely different team than we were earlier this year. Also, we have Zucc. The other teams don't have Zucc.

True, maybe we don't have a lethal top line, but so what? We have depth and good defense. Frankly, a deep and balanced team is harder to shut down, which will be of extra importance in the playoffs imo.

We are contenders, and in fact I just put 400 euros where my mouth is at 23/1 at bet365. 9600 euro payout if we take the cup. I'm a believer. LGR!

 

[Off Sides]

I think labeling teams as contenders/not contenders is kind of a pointless exercise. Every team in the playoffs has a piece of the pie. The probabilities decrease going from the good teams to the bad teams. At what point they become "contenders"? I don't know.

Fair enough. but if you're asking the question, just how good,

How do you define that?

>50% all things considered ?


I don't know.

 

[stan the caddy]

Can they hang with the Penguins in a seven game series?

 

[Idlerlee]

Ya'll are forgetting that Brassard morphs into the best hockeyplayer in the universe come playoffs. I'm getting my Stanley Cup Champion 2014 tattoo done on Saturday