glovesave_35
Name
They're not particularly interesting to me either. Usually I would root against the Rags but I can't bring myself to dislike this team because they're pretty meh to me.
OT: II. 2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs
- Thread starter Stars99Lobo37
- Start date
From an outside perspective I don't really know what the Rangers are. Their lineup is just so random with St.Louis, Richards and Nash. I'm painfully indifferent to them. The only players I feel are "Rangers" players are McDonagh, Staal and Henrik. The rest is just a bunch of guys who I mostly remember playing on other teams.
Really the only player I like on the rangers. Maybe Richards if he comes back to Dallas.But if it comes down to Bruins vs Rangers I will cheer for the rags.
How can you not like Zuccarello? He is always fun to watch.
Goddammit totally forgot about him.
Too bad he is a dirty Norwegian. Which bring reminds me to this question: How do you sink a Norwegian Submarine?
You knock on the hatch
Last edited:
glovesave_35
Name
That is pretty much the Rangers, pre and post cap era. At least they can't give out $9 million a year to a Bobby Holik type player now.
It's strange, Boston really is not so different but the perception is different. Krecji, Bergeron, and Rask are their homegrown core. Surrounded by players known from other teams: Iginla, Erikkson, Smith, Chara (though he made his hay in Boston sure).
I think the biggest difference is perhaps is because the big name players New York brings in don't pan out well, so people don't associate them with New York when thinking of their success.
I think the biggest difference is perhaps is because the big name players New York brings in don't pan out well, so people don't associate them with New York when thinking of their success.
glovesave_35
Name
I would disagree.
Homegrown full time NYR's:
Girardi
McDonagh (he counts)
Stepan
Kreider
Staal
Zuccarello
Hagelin
Homegrown full time Bruins:
Bergeron
Krug
Lucic
Hamilton
Marchand
Krejci
Boychuck (he counts)
Most of the difference makers and big time money guys on the Bruins are homegrown. When I think of Boston I think of those guys and Chara. When I think of the Rangers and their heavy lifters it's much more mixed as to where the guys came from. I would agree with you if we were talking about pre-Nash trade Rangers, which was a mostly homegrown core, but was also a noted different course for NY.
Nah I get that. But if you break that list down:
Rangers: Arguably 3 #1/#2 D-men. Top line Center, 2 top 6 LWs, top 6 RW.
Bruins: 2 Top 6 Centers, 2 top 6 LWs. #3, #4 and #5 D-men.
Definitely a simplified way of looking at it, but the Rangers homegrown D-men are far better than the Bruins, while the Bruins have more Center depth from their homegrown core. I still don't think the difference is as huge as it's perceived.
glovesave_35
Name
The reason for the perception is just what we said earlier, the Rangers have a reputation for building in free agency and via trade. There was a 4-5 year blip after the '05 lockout where that seemed to change but lately it seems like things are going back to business as usual. Might be unfair but it really is about the reputation.
Stars99Lobo37
Registered User
Stars99Lobo37
Registered User
RastaRockett
Registered User
- Apr 12, 2013
- 1,191
- 0
Goddammit totally forgot about him.
Which bring reminds me to this question: How do you sink a Norwegian Submarine?
You knock on the hatch
zucc and hank are the reasons I like the rangers, the rest are kind of meh
Stars99Lobo37
Registered User
Stars99Lobo37
Registered User
Stars99Lobo37
Registered User
Stars99Lobo37
Registered User
Lucic is lucky that run didn't hit. That was clear of a run at a player as you'll see.
1-0 Montreal after 1.
1-0 Montreal after 1.
Stars99Lobo37
Registered User
When did they start calling these snow penalties?
I remember being outraged they called it against us vs Anaheim. Can't remember many from previous post seasons.
I remember being outraged they called it against us vs Anaheim. Can't remember many from previous post seasons.
