Speculation: New York Rangers - All Time Team?

[AHB*]

A lot easier to get wins now with the shootout than it was when ties were part of the game.

Any shootout win used to be a tie.

You'd have to take Richter's ties, and add 50% of them to his win total to get an approximate to compare to Lundqvist's.

Uhh what? Or you just take Hanks shootout wins and count them as ties. That would make more sense, no?

Anyways, it's not remotely close. Richter played behind one of the greatest teams in NYR histroy. Lundqvist is far superior to him. He's an elite goalie who will like be in the HHOF someday.

Richter was above average. NOwhere near elite. Anyone who watched with unbiased eyes can tell you that.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

As much as I enjoyed watching Richter, if Lundqvist was on the 1994 team, the Ranger would have taken the Canucks in 5.

 

[NCRanger]

Uhh what? Or you just take Hanks shootout wins and count them as ties. That would make more sense, no?

Anyways, it's not remotely close. Richter played behind one of the greatest teams in NYR histroy. Lundqvist is far superior to him. He's an elite goalie who will like be in the HHOF someday.

Richter was above average. NOwhere near elite. Anyone who watched with unbiased eyes can tell you that.

That too

I agree with you about Richter. My point wasn't about Richter > Hank. It was about using the win stat to compare.

People seem to forget just how awful Richter was in Game #5 of the Finals. Gave up that terrible goal to Babych after the Rangers fought back to tie the game and had tons of momentum.

Richter was average to below average once the game completely changed to "The Dead Puck Era", and the team in front of him wasn't capable of scoring 3-4 goals every night. He was not a goalie that was going to win a lot of 2-1 games. Hank is much better in that regard. Richter would win the 4-3 games, and make a huge save here and there, but needing to keep a team to 1, not really the guy I want in net for that.

 

[Cobra Jack*]

As much as I enjoyed watching Richter, if Lundqvist was on the 1994 team, the Ranger would have taken the Canucks in 5.

If Lundqvist was on the 1994 team you'd have seen a repeat of 2012 my friend. There would be no Canucks.

Please stop with they hypotheticals. For a long time I heard "Once Lundqvist makes the finals he will play out of his mind" and we see how that's working out.

"if if if"...doesn't cut it.

 

[Cobra Jack*]

That too

I agree with you about Richter. My point wasn't about Richter > Hank. It was about using the win stat to compare.

People seem to forget just how awful Richter was in Game #5 of the Finals. Gave up that terrible goal to Babych after the Rangers fought back to tie the game and had tons of momentum.

Richter was average to below average once the game completely changed to "The Dead Puck Era", and the team in front of him wasn't capable of scoring 3-4 goals every night. He was not a goalie that was going to win a lot of 2-1 games. Hank is much better in that regard. Richter would win the 4-3 games, and make a huge save here and there, but needing to keep a team to 1, not really the guy I want in net for that.

Who cares about Game 5. I can tell you a lot more times Richter was great in the post season than he was bad. He was a fantastic goalie with incredible lateral movement.

Those Devils teams in the 90's said it themselves...the only goalie they feared going up against in the playoffs was Mike Richter. That says it all right there. Lundqvist needs to deliver a cup to be on his level. That's NY my friend, whether it's fair or not. We don't like excuses in this town.

 

[Crease]

Richter is my favorite Ranger. That said, I have him below both Lundqvist and Giacomin. Richter was the Jon Quick of the 90's; one level below the elites but come playoff time often -- not always -- but often found an extra gear and became otherworldly. That said, after many years it's easy to remember the good but hard to remember the very bad (Ron Francis, anyone?).

This SCF, however, did not do any favors to Lundqvist's legacy.

Maybe this summer we'll finally get around to the Top-5 Goalies project.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

If Lundqvist was on the 1994 team you'd have seen a repeat of 2012 my friend. There would be no Canucks.

Please stop with they hypotheticals. For a long time I heard "Once Lundqvist makes the finals he will play out of his mind" and we see how that's working out.

"if if if"...doesn't cut it.

How could you even compare the teams that where in from of each goaltender in 1994 and 2012?

How would have Richter faired in 2012 and 2014?

Seriously, Lundqvist has kept this team from being dog ****! Richter was a great goaltender, but I've never seen a Ranger goalie control as many games as Lundqvist. This team right now is bleeding heart grunts with a top end that is a no show, yet we are in the finals.

 

[yrrebbor]

As I said before, Lundqvist has not yet proven he can handle the big stage. That's why I rank him a notch below Richter. Richter had a couple of bad games in the finals, yes, but he rebounded mentally and emotionally. Those are traits I am not sure Lundqvist has.

They usually bounce back after a loss, but not last night!

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Who cares about Game 5. I can tell you a lot more times Richter was great in the post season than he was bad. He was a fantastic goalie with incredible lateral movement.

Those Devils teams in the 90's said it themselves...the only goalie they feared going up against in the playoffs was Mike Richter. That says it all right there. Lundqvist needs to deliver a cup to be on his level. That's NY my friend, whether it's fair or not. We don't like excuses in this town.

You apparently don't like cognitive thinking either.

 

[Fletch]

the team, as presented, would come closer to resembling an All Star team (using the criteria "in their prime, although many weren't Rangers in their prime) as opposed to a Stanley Cup winner. Would need to ad a Mactavish, in his prime, as a shadow. Heck, imagine him with Jan Erixon? But seriously, All Star teams do not always win championships; especially in hockey. I'd definitely tweak the people, of course, and also change the criteria since it's confusing (why not add Guy Lafleur and Marcel Dionne on a line - they both played on the Rangers, and in their prime rank up there, for instance).

 

[Frolov of Wraparound]

There was a thread on the main boards about this last week. I'll just repost what I put in there.

Based off primes, with current conditioning, anyone that was ever on the team. Minor positional switching to fit some people on.

Mark Messier - Wayne Gretzky - Jaromir Jagr
Luc Robitaille -Phil Esposito - Guy Lafleur
Marcel Dionne -Jean Ratelle - Pavel Bure
Pat Lafontaine -Eric Lindros- Mike Gartner

Brian Leetch - Brad Park
Harry Howell - James Patrick
Rod Seiling - Ryan McDonagh

Henrik Lundqvist
Ed Giacomin


And a more "True Rangers" team:


Mark Messier - Phil Esposito - Jaromir Jagr
Vic Hadfield - Jean Ratelle - Rod Gilbert
Steve Vickers - Wallt Tkaczuk - Andy Bathgate
Bun Cook - Frank Boucher - Bill Cook

Brian Leetch - Brad Park
Harry Howell - James Patrick
Ron Greschner - Rod Seiling (switched to rd for hell of it)

Henrik Lundqvist
Mike Richter

HM: Giacomin, Graves

 

[Evil Sather]

Graves - Messier - Bathgate
Prentice - Boucher - Cook
Patrick - Ratelle - Gilbert
Vickers - Esposito - Hextall

Leetch - Howell
Park - Ching Johnson
Greschner - Beck

Lundqvist
Giacomin

 

[Evil Sather]

Everyone has great memories of Richter because he was a stupendous reflex goalie playing behind the the most lazy, indept, soft, and pathetic defensive squad in the league for like 6 years in a row.

He often looked spectacular, but that doesn't make him better.

 

[Crease]

Nice to see a Ching Johnson mention. There's a strong argument that he's one of the three best defensemen in franchise history.

Neil Colville should be on more lists, IMO.

 

[fordillingerlifesake]

oh in primes we just win

Dionne-Gretzky-Bure
Rattelle-Messier-Jagr
Anderson-Esposito-Gartner
Weight-Robitaille-Fleury

Leetch-Park
Zubov-Schneider
Hatcher-Patrick

Lundqvist
Giacomin

So many others could be put on this team or argued to be on. so many HMs

Kind of a trend that everyone was out of their prime when they came onto the rangers