Why couldn't the Rangers get over the hump between 2012 and 2015?

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

The New York Rangers made a couple of deep runs during these years. Not sure if this is too recent for HoH but it's been on my mind lately as pandemic boredom has been going back through previous years.

In 2012, they lost to the Devils in the conference finals. The Kings would beat New Jersey for the Cup.
They lost to the Bruins in 2013 during the semi-finals (the Bruins went on to face Chicago).
The team made it to the Finals in 2014 when they lost to the Kings.
They lost to the Tampa Bay Lightning in 2015, who were defeated by Chicago for the Cup.

They lost to good teams who made deeper runs than they did. Were they just not deep enough? Missing key piece(s) (#2C? #1C?) ?

What did New York do -- or what didn't they do -- that teams like Boston or Washington differed?

Click to read more...

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

No depth.

Tough to go anywhere when you only have 3-4 forwards score at least 50 points.

Defensive depth was very suspect as well. Not much to worry about after McDonagh

 

[ESH]

No depth.

Tough to go anywhere when you only have 3-4 forwards score at least 50 points.

Defensive depth was very suspect as well. Not much to worry about after McDonagh

I’d argue that scoring depth was actually a strength for them. More that they were lacking top end scoring talent. Vigneault’s teams were always very sharp passers, and he emphasized quick puck movement.

Their defense seemed better than it was because Lundqvist was behind them.

 

[MadLuke]

Most winners in the 2010s had some elite talent upfront, gamebreaker able to make things happen

Derek Stepan 41 points in 75 games is the guy with most points, Derick Brassard the highest ppg.

I imagine that was supposed to be Rick Nash delivering a big playoff for them to get over the hump, that was not the guy you want to be the guy for winning the cup. What Gaborik did for the Kings that beat them in 2014 instead of what he did for them or Nash year after year being what could have pushed them over the hump I imagine.

I think depth was there and their strength, goaltending and big star D obviously, what was missing was an elite top end scorer wise.

 

[hacksaw7]

Relying too much on Lundqvist. They didn't have the top end goal scoring prowess. They were a very dedicated defensive (shot blocking, limiting chances etc) team and would eventually become a great skating team as well, but the finish was never consistently there. And also they weren't very good in playoff OT. Luck plays a hand in that as well

Also they seemed to play a lot of long, grinding 7 Game series simply because of how hard it was for them to put teams away, and that sapped them in the later rounds.

2012 no way they were beating LA if they got to the Finals. 2014 however they could've beaten them. Things just did not go their way that series

 

[jcs0218]

As mentioned by others, they didn't have the elite forwards up front.

A lot of 1st liners were better suited for 2nd line roles. A lot of 2nd liners were better suited for 3rd line roles. Etc.

1-2 players in the Kane, Kopitar, Toews, etc., calibre were missing.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

Yes, they lacked high end offense. Rick Nash had a good regular season, and was completely shut out in the 2014 SCF.

I remember reading some stat along the lines of that when Henrik Lundqvist allowed a third goal, the Rangers basically couldn’t win, in I don’t know how many playoff games.

 

[hacksaw7]

As mentioned by others, they didn't have the elite forwards up front.

A lot of 1st liners were better suited for 2nd line roles. A lot of 2nd liners were better suited for 3rd line roles. Etc.

1-2 players in the Kane, Kopitar, Toews, etc., calibre were missing.

True. Guys like Callahan, Hagelin, Anisimov, Dubinsky. Good players. Lots of heart and all. But not enough elite talent on top of them

 

[Mickey Marner]

I never thought of them as a team that should have won a cup but didn't. Great goalie, good defense, offense (or lack thereof) by committee, with a gaping hole at center. From 2012-2015 they actually played the most playoff games of any team, but were 21/27 teams in goals per game over that period. In their cup final year they spent approximately 22% of their cap space on Nash and Richards, who scored a combined 22 points in 25 playoff games. A very poor allocation of funds.

 

[The Panther]

Yeah, I think lack of depth up front. At the time, people still hoped Rick Nash would be elite.

Throw in a 40-goal scorer onto those Cup Finals' line-ups and maybe they win one.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

2012 happened because of 2 major reasons,

Reason 1 was they needed another top 6 scoring F to compliment Marian Gaborik,Brad Richards, and Ryan Callahan to a lesser extent. Brandon Dubinsky and Brian Boyle were both coming off career years and their value was at an all time high, unfortunately Torts was very high on both and as a result Sather didnt trade either when names like Rick Nash,Jeff Carter, and Bobby Ryan could have been had. 1 of them on lines 2 or 3 would have made a huge difference. Reason 2 was Torts system this take away space and block evreything did work during the season and I suppose it could have worked during the playoffs 2 except for 1 thing, the way Torts ran the D was terrible. He would play Anton Stralman and Stu Bickel on the 3rd pair, while perfectly capable NHL dman Steve Eminger would watch in street clothes. Torts would then play Bickel for a few shift and staple him to the bench for the rest of the game. As the games wore on he would then sit Del Zotto and by the late 2nd period and all of the 3rd they'd have A combination of McDonagh,Girardi, and Staal playing out the games while Anton Stralman would see a shift every now and then. What perplexes me most is he would run all 4 of his forward lines as he would sit Marian Gaborik(his top goal scorer) in favor of guys like John Mitchell and Brandon Prust late in games when they were down. It never made any sense to me, and because of these idiotic moves the series vs Ottawa went 7 games when it should have been over in 4. (They blew leads in Games 2 and 4.) The series vs DC was gonna be long regardless, but had they been fresh for the Devils series they could have won it in 5(Blew a lead in Game 2, where had they won they would have hosted Game 5 up 3-1). And as great as LA was that year remember they were 2 ot goals from losing that series in 5 to the Devils. Ughh had they ran this lineup below they could have won, but all mentioned above is why I want John Tortorella nowhere near this team, there should be an 11-12 Stanley Cup banner in the Garden right now and we this thread shouldn't exist ughh lol. Here's what they could have had had they dumbed Dubinsky and Boyle

Hagelin-Richards-Gaborik
Kreider-Stepan-Callahan
Fedotenko-Anisimov-Nash/Ryan/Carter
Prust-Rupp-Mictchell

Zucarello was the extra forward along with John Scott

Mcd-Girardi
Staal-Del Zotto
Stralman-Eminger

15 is a little different. But 1 thing that really stuck out in 15 was the Yandle trade. When they brought Yandle in analysts fans, bloggers etc etc were saying how they now have the best defensive lineup in the NHL which was all good and fine. However bringing in Yandle came at a price, the price was having to move Lee Stempniak to make room for him. While Stempniak was no star he was a solid bottom 6 option who could do everything. At first this wasn't really an issue but after Zuccarello got hurt in Round 1 and AV was forced to dress a 4th line of Tanner Glass-Dominic Moore-James Sheppard. As we all know AV loved to run 4 lines but that along with Marty St.Louis all of a sudden getting but by the age bug forced him to run 3 lines and some times even 2 lines. My other thing with 15 is this, had they played the Hawks that year im not sure they win, I think its definitely a 6 or 7 game series but I cant see the Rangers coming out on top. I remember breathing a sigh of relief when the Hawks beat Anaheim in 7. However had the Ducks pulled game 7 out, or won Game 2 in ot, or didn't take a penalty in Game 4 leading to Chicago's ot win(Ducks would have gone up 3-1 had they won) and somehow get there. Well the Rangers take the Ducks easily. Every time those 2 teams matched up the Ducks were not match for the Rangers speed and quick transition. That's the end of my long post.

 

[vikash1987]

I definitely feel that all the full-length 7-game series against Washington, Pittsburgh, Ottawa, and Tampa Bay depleted them to the point that they wouldn’t have had enough in the tank to win the Cup—especially without truly elite offensive talent beyond Gaborik and Nash.

But those Rangers teams sure as heck had character and fight in them.

I’ve always been amazed by how many of the players ended up moving to Tampa Bay, and also, how many ex-Lightning from the ‘04 Cup team were brought in by the Rangers: Richards, St. Louis, Boyle, Fedotenko, Torts behind the bench. Was the latter by design? I don’t remember now.

Also, a lot of unforeseen circumstances played a part in the Rangers’ playoff efforts. They were clearly galvanized in 2014 by Marty St. Louis after his mother’s passing, and they were clearly hurt badly by the loss of Zuccarello in 2015. Neither of those were structural/lineup decisions per se.

 

[McGarnagle]

My impression of the Rangers under Torts and later Vigneault was that they were basically a defensive turtle shell of a team with 4 gritty lines they could roll, a strong defense, and Lundqvist as an elite goalie. When they played Claude Julien's Bruins (who were a similar construction with perhaps more top-end scoring) it was notorious that all the games seemed to end in 1-0 shutouts either way for a few years there.

While defense is usually king in the playoffs, you need some kind of elite forward talent to score the goals that make the difference in the end. Gaborik and Nash only got half a season together before they decided they needed a center and traded Gaborik for Brassard. So they never really had a playoff run with more than one elite goalscorer who could take over a game. So they generally got stuck in those tight games decided by one goal and most of their series went to 7 games, which end up being coin flips. When they ran into teams that did the same thing that they did (defensively-minded grit), but better (Boston, LA), they got dismissed rather easily.

 

[Voight]

No elite offensive talent. Not for lack of effort; they thought they were getting Dallas or Tampa Richards when they gave him that mega deal, likewise they thought Nash and him would click and make a killer duo. They actually had some decent depth with Brassard, Hagelin, Kreider, Hayes etc up front

Yeah, I think lack of depth up front. At the time, people still hoped Rick Nash would be elite.

Throw in a 40-goal scorer onto those Cup Finals' line-ups and maybe they win one.

Never understood tha line of thinking. IMO it was pretty clear he had hit his peak in 2009 w/ 79 points. Granted he was 28 at the time of the trade and was going to a more talented team but still. What more were you expecting?

 

[Big Phil]

Was never impressed by them to be honest, I just think they weren't good enough, simply put.

They were always the team that sort of had to be there. Someone had to play either the Kings or Hawks in 2014 from the East. But I just never figured they were a team that were expected to thrive. Rick Nash for whatever reason was a woeful playoff performer in his career. He routinely got picked for Team Canada at the highest level because I guess they figured if they caught lightning in a bottle he was due, but he never thrived when he should have. Remember this for when how you see how much of a break a guy his size gets regardless of era. No GM wants to give up a guy that big with so much potential only to have him turn in to John Leclair. So a guy like Nash constantly gets the benefit of the doubt, but I was never impressed with him.

They had a HHOF goalie who carried them further than I would have guessed, and I think that's where it is left.

 

[NYR94]

It was a lack of elite offensive talent. Nash having two of the worst shooting percentages in the playoffs I've ever seen by a supposed star player didn't help.

It sounds counterintuitive in light of his resurgence with the Rangers but I think one thing that hurt the Rangers chances of winning a Cup during the Lundqvist era is that coming out of the 2004-2005 lockout they kept Jagr. Because an MVP-caliber performance by him and a great rookie season by Lundqvist ended their rebuild before it even really got going and prompted the Rangers to add Shanahan, Ward, Cullen, Drury, Gomez, etc in the coming years. The Rangers never really had a chance to have some bad years in the early cap era after tearing most of it down in 2003-2004 to recoup draft picks and hopefully nab a top offensive talent or two, preferably at center. I always felt that in the playoffs the Rangers had to gameplan around stopping the other team's star skaters (Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin, etc.) but their opponents didn't have to do the same thing for the Rangers because they lacked the game-breaking talent (outside of goal) that teams had to respect. The defense was also never as good as the team goals against suggested because Lundqvist made up for so many flaws. So the Rangers got away with a lack of top talent on offense and defense during the regular season but in the playoffs where you're playing against good to great teams every night, those shortcomings are eventually exposed. They rarely had that swagger even against the lower seeds in the first round that you would expect a team that was winning divisions/conferences to have. The Rangers during those years played too many nail-biters too early in the playoffs, too many close games, overtime games and game 7s. It always seemed harder to win than it should have been.

And now, about 15 years later, two good NYR front office people got fired for trying to do the patient, methodical rebuild the Rangers should have done the first time.

 

[gotyournose]

Was never impressed by them to be honest, I just think they weren't good enough, simply put.

They were always the team that sort of had to be there. Someone had to play either the Kings or Hawks in 2014 from the East. But I just never figured they were a team that were expected to thrive. Rick Nash for whatever reason was a woeful playoff performer in his career. He routinely got picked for Team Canada at the highest level because I guess they figured if they caught lightning in a bottle he was due, but he never thrived when he should have. Remember this for when how you see how much of a break a guy his size gets regardless of era. No GM wants to give up a guy that big with so much potential only to have him turn in to John Leclair. So a guy like Nash constantly gets the benefit of the doubt, but I was never impressed with him.

They had a HHOF goalie who carried them further than I would have guessed, and I think that's where it is left.

Rick Nash was one of the Canada’s best players for Canada in 2010. In 2014 due to Canada’s preferences of taking low risk players, Nash was stuck on 4th line. Who else could have replaced him and brought similar qualities to the table?

 

[86Habs]

Rick Nash was one of the Canada’s best players for Canada in 2010. In 2014 due to Canada’s preferences of taking low risk players, Nash was stuck on 4th line. Who else could have replaced him and brought similar qualities to the table?

Not to mention that Nash had played a TON of hockey for Canada on international-sized ice, and was still a superb skater at that point. The 2014 Canadian definitely emphasized players who were strong skaters, and had suited up for Canada at the World Championships and had experience playing on the larger ice surface, even if they weren't necessarily "stars" (Nash, Hamhuis, Bouwmeester, Duchene, Sharp).

 

[Big Phil]

Rick Nash was one of the Canada’s best players for Canada in 2010. In 2014 due to Canada’s preferences of taking low risk players, Nash was stuck on 4th line. Who else could have replaced him and brought similar qualities to the table?

He did well in enough, yes. Lots of players did in 2010. I am not sure he stood out specifically, but I do remember him for whatever reason having a good game in the gold medal game. I looked it up, he had 5 shots on net. I also remember that prior to the Parise tying goal it was Nash, Toews and Getzlaf as the forwards who were there for the faceoff. I guess that means Babcock trusted him, or at least thought he was playing well that game.

Now why couldn't Nash do this all of the time is my question?

 

[LightningStorm]

True. Guys like Callahan, Hagelin, Anisimov, Dubinsky. Good players. Lots of heart and all. But not enough elite talent on top of them

I never thought of them as a team that should have won a cup but didn't. Great goalie, good defense, offense (or lack thereof) by committee, with a gaping hole at center.

This sums it up pretty well. Their limited offense by committee was what held them back, especially since Richards and Nash weren't what they were before their arrival. Funny, these reasons listed also remind me of why the Rangers MSG roommates, the Knicks, never won a title in the 1990's despite contention. Also were a real grind it out team (Charles Oakley, John Starks, Anthony Mason), but not even Patrick Ewing could make up for how inept the team was offensively outside of him. The Michael Jordan hype machine likes to hype up those Knicks team as some great obstacle he overcame, and as a team who was good at the wrong time. But like these Ranger teams, and for similar reasons, I never saw the 90's Knicks teams as a great team who should've won a title but didn't, MJ notwithstanding.

Back on topic, I think 2012 was definitely the biggest missed opportunity for the Rangers. IMO that was the lone year out of these 4 where they lost to an inferior team. The main reason though is they clearly were playing below their regular season level that netted them the #1 East seed. @CharlestownChiefsESC already explained it in detail above, about how the cracks were showing even before the Devils series. Falling down 3-2 in R1 to Ottawa was telling. If they maintained their level from the RS I think they make the finals, and while the Kings were hot heading in, I'd like their chances better than 2014. The Rangers would've had home ice, Gaborik would be on their side this series, and the Kings didn't have the finals experience yet that they brought with them in 2014. Would've been a great SCF regardless.

The following 3 seasons was them simply losing to better teams though, which is why I don't look back on them as a team that is missing a cup. In 2013, they were completely overmatched against Boston. LA was better by 2014. In 2015, not only was Tampa better, but so was Chicago, their would be finals opponent. As a Lightning fan, they definitely made us work hard to win the 2015 ECF, but in the end our superior talent won out, which was the case for the Rangers opponents in most series they lost in this era.

 

[Hockeyholic]

Already mentioned.

But they never had that stud #1C.

Chicago had Toews.
LA had Kopitar
Boston had Bergeron

That means you are going to be in alot of close games. Which in turn means long unnecessary series (Ottawa in 2012 & Caps in 2015 as an example). Obviously that means a worn out bunch.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I never thought of them as a team that should have won a cup but didn't.

This was my immediate reaction as well. NYR were a pretty good team, but the scary clubs during that period were Chicago, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, to a lesser extent Anaheim and Boston. And then LA who worked some serious playoff magic three years in a row. The Rangers were in the mix, but they probably had two "humps" to get over -- one to become a top level contender, and then another to close the deal on a Stanley Cup.

 

[JaegerDice]

I never thought of them as a team that should have won a cup but didn't. Great goalie, good defense, offense (or lack thereof) by committee, with a gaping hole at center. From 2012-2015 they actually played the most playoff games of any team, but were 21/27 teams in goals per game over that period. In their cup final year they spent approximately 22% of their cap space on Nash and Richards, who scored a combined 22 points in 25 playoff games. A very poor allocation of funds.

Agreed.

They were a solid team, not elite. They had elite goaltending that often took them further than they deserved IMO.

In 2012, even if they get past the Devils (who actually had some of the better underlying numbers in the league), they would have been pasted by the Kings.
In 2013, even if they beat a superior Boston team (better high-end offensive talent, better high-end defensive talent, better depth, equal goaltending), they would have been defeated by Chicago.
In 2014, they lost to Kings, and they would have lost to Chicago too. Pretty much everybody agrees the WCF was the defacto SCF that season.
In 2015, Tampa had higher-end offense, higher-end defense and good enough goaltending. If they pull out Game 7, they lose to Chicago, who similarly out-skilled and out-depth the Rangers.

They're basically St Louis East. A Very good team that always had a few better teams ahead of them. Maybe if they keep the core together a little longer and the aging curves don't hit quite as hard, they pull out a cup at the end of the window the way STL did.

 

[Crease]

In all years, they lacked high-end forward talent that could break through elite defenses.

And other than their Cup year, they lacked high-end defensive talent, instead relying too heavily on McDonagh and Lundqvist.

I remain convinced they would have beaten Chicago in 2014, or at least made that series much tighter. The Kings were a nightmare matchup.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

With the news going around of Tarasenko being moved this thread actually just popped in my head again. In 2006 and 2010 they had 2 horrible 1st rund draft choices in Bobby Sangunetti and Dylan Mcilrath. Players selected after them in 06 and 10 were Claude Giroux and Vladimir Tarasenko respectively. If they had those guys in this era would it have won them a cup or 2?