Positively time for some positiveness - We Played Well!

[eco's bones]

Luck is also a product of hard work and desire. You can put yourself in a position where bad luck means a goal you should have scored doesn't go in the other team's net - and you can also put yourself in a position where bad luck results in the puck in the back of your net.

Big difference.

You're not going to win if you don't play hard. Luck won't you save you then--if that's what you mean.

What I mean is there are some things that will happen that you won't have any control over and they may be good or they may not be so good. One guy hits the post and it bounces off the other post and out--no goal--another guy shoots wide by two feet but it bounces in off another guy.

I remember a long time ago--Jan Erixon scoring a goal. It happened this way. He got hit in the face with a slap shot going wide of the net and it deflected into the goal. It was a long time ago but if I remember correctly he was out of the lineup for a while.

 

[eco's bones]

Your equating two entirely different situations.

If you have a machine at a convenience store pick an arbitrary set of numbers for you, and you win, then that was "lucky."

If a team that was methodically planned loses one game because of one random event, that is also "unlucky."

But if that team that is methodically planned continually fails to reach the prize over the long term, it's not luck, it was poor planning.

It doesn't surprise me people don't like what I'm saying. A lot of people want to believe there's some kind of eternal justice system. There's nothing particularly fair about the human condition and never has been. Some things can be controlled--some things not so much.

 

[Jersey Girl]

You're not going to win if you don't play hard. Luck won't you save you then--if that's what you mean.

What I mean is there are some things that will happen that you won't have any control over and they may be good or they may not be so good. One guy hits the post and it bounces off the other post and out--no goal--another guy shoots wide by two feet but it bounces in off another guy.

I remember a long time ago--Jan Erixon scoring a goal. It happened this way. He got hit in the face with a slap shot going wide of the net and it deflected into the goal. It was a long time ago but if I remember correctly he was out of the lineup for a while.

I'm sure that happened - and Jan Erixon was one of my all-time favorite Rangers when I was little! - but the bottom line while anything can happen once, teams tend to make their own luck.

In the Flyers series someone here said Couturier's breakaway goal around McDonagh was luck because while Couturier was skating so fast the puck at one point bounced off his skate and kept going forward for him. That's not luck - it's Couturier putting himself in the best possible position to score at that point.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

It doesn't surprise me people don't like what I'm saying. A lot of people want to believe there's some kind of eternal justice system. There's nothing particularly fair about the human condition and never has been. Some things can be controlled--some things not so much.

I don't believe there is any true justice in the world.

Are you saying that the Rangers limited amount of success over the last 70 years is simply do to chaotic, unforgiving, and entropic universe in which we live?

They haven't built well. Plain and simple. Good teams can compensate for the randomness that happens. Weaker teams can't compensate.

 

[OverTheCap]

Your equating two entirely different situations.

If you have a machine at a convenience store pick an arbitrary set of numbers for you, and you win, then that was "lucky."

If a team that was methodically planned loses one game because of one random event, that is also "unlucky."


But if that team that is methodically planned continually fails to reach the prize over the long term, it's not luck, it was poor planning.

Yup. When the same issues constantly arise in the playoffs - the PP troubles, the inability to score, the poor faceoff percentage, the big name players continually falling short - it is beyond luck at this point.

I do think that luck exists - for example, when Staal got hit in the eye with a puck last year, that was unlucky. But some teams are better equipped to overcome bad luck than others, whether it be because they have the depth or because other players are stepping up in a teammate's absence.

 

[eco's bones]

I'm sure that happened - and Jan Erixon was one of my all-time favorite Rangers when I was little! - but the bottom line while anything can happen once, teams tend to make their own luck.

In the Flyers series someone here said Couturier's breakaway goal around McDonagh was luck because while Couturier was skating so fast the puck at one point bounced off his skate and kept going forward for him. That's not luck - it's Couturier putting himself in the best possible position to score at that point.

I'll agree that you can make some luck through hard work--just continuing to drive hard to the net and put pucks in the crease area and sooner or later some will start bouncing in the net.

There are plays that happened though that are just ****ed up. Puck hits the glass the wrong way on a shoot-in with the goalie taking a stroll behind the net to play it and instead it deflects back completely different and into his net. **** happens. Bad calls--the referee deciding a goalie was run over when the player was very purposely driven into him. Bad calls happen all the time--they can help you--they can hurt you but they tend to help the more talented teams more whether they're hard working teams or not.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Back to topic -

I'm feeling it! Gonna even it up tonight and go back to Pittsburgh an entirely more confident team!

Rick Nash is going to come through!

Let's Go Rangers!!!!

 

[eco's bones]

I don't believe there is any true justice in the world.

Are you saying that the Rangers limited of success over the last 70 years is simply do to chaotic, unforgiving, and entropic universe in which we live?

They haven't built well. Plain and simple. Good teams can compensate for the randomness that happens. Weaker teams can't compensate.

I'm not going to say what the Rangers were like before 1972--I didn't watch them then. Some think those early 70's team to be among the better teams never to win a cup. The Rangers have made a lot of mistakes in my own time. The Rick Middleton trade way back then but even the Davidson trade gutted the team of it's physical players. The Rangers haven't won the cup more than that one time in 1994 because really apart from the 91-92 and the 93-94 teams they were never arguably the best team. They have sometimes been a very, very good team but very rarely the best team. The Bruins of the early 70's, the Flyers and Canadiens of the late 70's, the Islanders of the early 80's, the Oilers of the late 80's, the Penguins of the early 90's, the Red Wings and the Devils of the late 90's were all better teams. And out of all that there were factors beyond their control--they never had a chance to get players like Bobby Orr or many of the Canadiens best players. No shot at Raymond Bourque. They weren't an expansion team that had a chance to get Denis Potvin or a bottom feeder to get Mario Lemieux or Crosby/Malkin.

 

[eco's bones]

I'm sure that happened - and Jan Erixon was one of my all-time favorite Rangers when I was little! - but the bottom line while anything can happen once, teams tend to make their own luck.

In the Flyers series someone here said Couturier's breakaway goal around McDonagh was luck because while Couturier was skating so fast the puck at one point bounced off his skate and kept going forward for him. That's not luck - it's Couturier putting himself in the best possible position to score at that point.

I'll agree that you can make some luck through hard work--just continuing to drive hard to the net and put pucks in the crease area and sooner or later some will start bouncing in the net.

There are plays that happened though that are just ****ed up. Puck hits the glass the wrong way on a shoot-in with the goalie taking a stroll behind the net to play it and instead it deflects back completely different and into his net. **** happens. Bad calls--the referee deciding a goalie was run over when the player was very purposely driven into him. Bad calls happen all the time--they can help you--they can hurt you but they tend to help the more talented teams more whether they're hard working teams or not.

 

[Jersey Girl]

I'll agree that you can make some luck through hard work--just continuing to drive hard to the net and put pucks in the crease area and sooner or later some will start bouncing in the net.

There are plays that happened though that are just ****ed up. Puck hits the glass the wrong way on a shoot-in with the goalie taking a stroll behind the net to play it and instead it deflects back completely different and into his net. **** happens. Bad calls--the referee deciding a goalie was run over when the player was very purposely driven into him. Bad calls happen all the time--they can help you--they can hurt you but they tend to help the more talented teams more whether they're hard working teams or not.

The post so nice he did it twice!

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I'm not going to say what the Rangers were like before 1972--I didn't watch them then. Some think those early 70's team to be among the better teams never to win a cup. The Rangers have made a lot of mistakes in my own time. The Rick Middleton trade way back then but even the Davidson trade gutted the team of it's physical players. The Rangers haven't won the cup more than that one time in 1994 because really apart from the 91-92 and the 93-94 teams they were never arguably the best team. They have sometimes been a very, very good team but very rarely the best team. The Bruins of the early 70's, the Flyers and Canadiens of the late 70's, the Islanders of the early 80's, the Oilers of the late 80's, the Penguins of the early 90's, the Red Wings and the Devils of the late 90's were all better teams. And out of all that there were factors beyond their control--they never had a chance to get players like Bobby Orr or many of the Canadiens best players. No shot at Raymond Bourque. They weren't an expansion team that had a chance to get Denis Potvin or a bottom feeder to get Mario Lemieux or Crosby/Malkin.

So your saying that since the 70's the Rangers have been "unlucky" because in the case of the bruins and red wings, those teams drafted, traded for, and developed better players?

Or, although it may be a sneaky way to do it, The Rangers were "unlucky" that the Penguins instead of icing expensive mediocre teams, as the Rangers did, they decided to take the chump's way out and tank for great picks?

Let's say this year the Rangers were as dominant as the (I vomit when I say this) early 80's islanders, but Lundqvist was the goalie. If Lundqvist got rammed and went down and we lost that is bad luck, but if we were such a team we would be back next year.

This is a fixed league. There is a limited talent pool. Teams share revenue. They play by the same rules, and they have a ton of footage and analytics to assess each other. The Rangers haven't been able to get their **** together for years.

I hope they win tonight. I loathe the Penguins, but I will repeat myself. If they crap out in a similar fashion to the last two games, luck had very little to do with it.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

Back to topic -

I'm feeling it! Gonna even it up tonight and go back to Pittsburgh an entirely more confident team!

Rick Nash is going to come through!

Let's Go Rangers!!!!

I love the new you. Let's Go Rangers!!!!!!

 

[jerseyjinx94]

So your saying that since the 70's the Rangers have been "unlucky" because in the case of the bruins and red wings, those teams drafted, traded for, and developed better players?

Or, although it may be a sneaky way to do it, The Rangers were "unlucky" that the Penguins instead of icing expensive mediocre teams, as the Rangers did, they decided to take the chump's way out and tank for great picks?

Let's say this year the Rangers were as dominant as the (I vomit when I say this) early 80's islanders, but Lundqvist was the goalie. If Lundqvist got rammed and went down and we lost that is bad luck, but if we were such a team we would be back next year.

This is a fixed league. There is a limited talent pool. Teams share revenue. They play by the same rules, and they have a ton of footage and analytics to assess each other. The Rangers haven't been able to get their **** together for years.

I hope they win tonight. I loathe the Penguins, but I will repeat myself. If they crap out in a similar fashion to the last two games, luck had very little to do with it.

 

[Calad]

Kreider looked good tonight. Hopefully the rest of the team can bring it with him on Friday to bring the series back to NY

 

[trilobyte]

Kreider looked good tonight. Hopefully the rest of the team can bring it with him on Friday to bring the series back to NY

Kreider showed some good stuff. It was good to see him back. I hope he gets more games in.

Lets Go Rangers, but man oh man they are so out-classed. Super-human efforts are not in this team's playbook.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Alright...here's some positivity.

If we win this series, we'll win the cup.

 

[AHB*]

Alright...here's some positivity.

If we win this series, we'll win the cup.

What are our odds of winning this series?

Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure the Rangers have never come back down 3-1.

That being said, I'm usually a "anything can happen" kind of guy, but with Nash and MSL doing what they do and McD clearly injured, I've got a feeling we're going to be done in in 5.

 

[Dr. Ogrodnick]

What are our odds of winning this series?

Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure the Rangers have never come back down 3-1.

That being said, I'm usually a "anything can happen" kind of guy, but with Nash and MSL doing what they do and McD clearly injured, I've got a feeling we're going to be done in in 5.

Nope, they have not. Once in 1939 down 3-1 they were able to push it to a 7 game series. Maybe if the Penguin's plane crashes, or they get mysteriously locked out of their home arena and have to forfeit will the Rangers have a chance.

 

[Bones45]

OK so everyone knows I'm not a 'glass is half full' type of girl, I hate Sather and truly believe we will never win anything until he finally retires to Banff on his own volition in 15-20 years or so.

That said, I don't understand the incessant negativity regarding our chances in this series - I actually thought we played well last night - REALLY WELL. Yes, I can feel the change in momentum in this series as well as anyone, but my goodness, if we play the rest of the series like we played last night, I think we really have a fighting chance here. I'm not kidding.

I thought we had more jump last night than in any game since early in the Flyers series. We carried a lot of the play, but we certainly had a lot of bad puck luck - I'm still not sure how that optical illusion of a shot by Zuke stayed out. And we did everything we wanted regarding traffic and deflections in front of Fleury - just no luck of a puck finding it's way into the net.

I think AV is doing a masterful job of pushing buttons, and I really like the way he's handling the schedule questions. Going into last night he said his team was as fresh as can be, to attempt to implant that into his players' minds, and last night he calls it a stupid schedule - to implant into his players' minds that they'll be feeling better Wednesday night. Totally agree with Trautwig's take on this (and totally disagree with Brooks here) - terrific motivation.

Oh, don't get me wrong - if and when the time comes, I'll be blasting Sather. I still completely disagree with the Richards signing and the Nash, Clowe and St Louis trades - and I said as such in all those threads at the time they happened. I'm really getting sick of being right. And the person who told me the day of the St Louis trade we just acquired the best winger in the world owes me an apology - you know who you are!

And we really need a lot more from a lot of players - the usual suspects, and also some that don't get mentioned in this regard as often - Zuke, McDonagh, Boyle, Hagelin, Girardi, etc.

Oh, and memo to Hank - it's legal to pound your stick on the ice in the last five seconds of a power play to let your team know the player is about to come out of the box - how many times can we get caught like this before Benoit Allaire at a practice stops making sure Hank's butt is firmly planted on the goal line for a second, and says - 'Oh Hank, I forgot to tell you one thing goalies tend to do in North America...' Seriously.

I honestly believe we can win this series - Pittsburgh is not all that good (being down to the Bruins would be a whole different animal), and at some point Fleury will go back to being Fleury - hopefully before the handshakes instead of after. We win the next game we go back to Pittsburgh a revived, younger, fresher, stronger team.

Then next summer Sather can trade more of our future for Joe Thornton, or Dan Boyle, because that's what Nash/St Louis/Whoever needs to get going. And so it goes...

Nothing cooler than a hockey girl who actually knows the game.

Care to come over to the other side?

 

[Jersey Girl]

Nothing cooler than a hockey girl who actually knows the game.

Care to come over to the other side?

LOL wasn't sure what you meant by the 'other side', and I was prepared to respond that I am an avid heterosexual - and then I noticed your avatar! Yeah, uh...no. The only thing I hate more than Sather is the Islanders.

And it turns out, after last night, I have to admit I don't know crap about hockey. I honestly thought we were ready for a breakout game that would break Fleury's (and the entire Penguins') confidence just like Columbus had done on more than one occasion. And then last night happened. My goodness...

 

[silverfish]

Positivity?

The Rangers are playing so god damned bad, that it's encouraging to see that most of these games have been close on the scoreboard.

Just imagine... Imagine if we had a power play functioning at 15% effectiveness? This series would at worst be 2-2, and at best be 3-1 Rangers.

 

[Bones45]

LOL wasn't sure what you meant by the 'other side', and I was prepared to respond that I am an avid heterosexual - and then I noticed your avatar! Yeah, uh...no. The only thing I hate more than Sather is the Islanders.

And it turns out, after last night, I have to admit I don't know crap. I honestly thought we were ready for a breakout game that would break Fleury's (and the entire Penguins') confidence just like Columbus had done on more than one occasion. And then last night happened. My goodness...

LOL..I would expect nothing less. No intent to hijack the thread, but I've been an Isles fan since 83 -- and still going. I can't quit now.... nowhere to go but up!

(and still never tempted to move to the "Dark Side" )

 

[EpicDing]

Well, FWIW, I just had a dream (complete with postgame interview) where Marc Staal won us game 6 in overtime on the PP. he got a breakaway, skated just inside the blueline, and shot, and Fleury fleuryed.

So theres that.

 

[Ail]

Well, FWIW, I just had a dream (complete with postgame interview) where Marc Staal won us game 6 in overtime on the PP. he got a breakaway, skated just inside the blueline, and shot, and Fleury fleuryed.

So theres that.

lol he shot just inside the blueline on a breakaway? The Rangers even make stupid decisions in our dreams.

 

[EpicDing]

lol he shot just inside the blueline on a breakaway? The Rangers even make stupid decisions in our dreams.

Yeah that's why I thought it may be true.