Devil Dog Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Glen Sather on the Rangers playoff chances: "When we get Leetch back, and Bure and Radek Dvorak, we'll be right in the middle of things." If he had been able to start the sentence with..."With Bob Hartley as our new coach, and when we get..." Maybe then he would have been in the middle of the playoffs. Right now with the Avs tomorrow followed by the Sens, Blues and Flyers right after the All Star break their season could effectively be over by the 10th of February. Can any level headed Ranger fan explain to me why Sather didn't go after Hartley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bg. Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Aaron my friend, believe what you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedved 4 President Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 /\ Because Sather is an idiot. I said it all along, he should have fired Trottier and picked up Hartley before he signed elsewhere. Even if Hartley got away, we'd still be better under Schoenfield IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammyk Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 /\Because Sather is an idiot. I said it all along, he should have fired Trottier and picked up Hartley before he signed elsewhere. Even if Hartley got away, we'd still be better under Schoenfield IMO Who's to say Hartley would have even accepted the job? He seemed to have wanted to go to Atlanta when he didn't have to do anything for a year and a half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamode Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Not for nothin' but my team hasn't lost 6 of its last 7 playoff games over the past two years. Gotta love ranger fans talking about the playoffs...a good portion of them have never actually seen the rangers play in the playoffs!!! "My gran'daddy done told me....." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarbingerOfSorrow Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Get ready to uncover another square tomorrow night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRASHER Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 It undoubtedly pleases most regulars here that the Rangers are out of the playoss again. However, it is very bad for the league that the most visible team in the NHL is not drawing TV viewers every spring. (I never saw the Devils play until the 94 playoffs were on national TV. I dropped the Rangers like a dead frog right then.) The league needs the Rangers to produce and draw fans. I'm sorry but this is the biggest load of PR stupid media crap I've ever heard and I HATE when I hear it on TV !!! If it's so essential "that a NY team makes the playoffs" why did the RATINGS BLOW WHEN THE YANKEES AND METS PLAYED IN THE WORLD SERIES !?!?!?... Simple no one outisde of NY LIKES NY (well at least pre-9/11), if the league did its JOB and promoted good PLAYERS and GOOD TEAMS (and especially good goalies, and state that some of the best goalies of ALL TIME are playing now and made that a reason to GO TO A GAME instead of listening to Mario Lemieux drivel and whine cause all she cares about is stats, we'd have a MUCH better promoted game).. you think the Oilers, Flames and Canucks give a rat's damn about the team that pays players more then their whole payroll can't rent a team ?? I think not .. I think I'll stop raning now and save it for the Flyers *l* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 The ratings sucked for the Subway Series because people outside of New York don't like New York. Either way that series went, New York wins. It'd be like rooting for a side in the Iran-Iraq war. The Rangers are the NHL team that everyone loves to hate. If they squeaked into the playoffs one of these years (and I do think next year, if they hire the right coach, they will be in the playoffs), ratings for their series would be higher both in New York and probably in the city they are playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRASHER Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 NHL ratings are so low (once again more blame for the AWFUL job Gary Bettman is doing cause he's more worried about safety nets and teaching players how to dribble the puck and find a way to incorportate FREE THROWS into the game then marketing what he HAS), that it may look GREAT to the NHL, but in reality Major League Soccer prolly gets better TV ratings, how nice would it be to see the players and personalities on commercials for stuff that WASN'T hockey games... you'd prolly add more of a fan base with the causal person cause no sport has more marketable, friendly and entertaining personalites outside of the WWE then the NHL... but we never see it.. but if they wanna be happy with the 2-something ratings.. swell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 The NHL cannot promote itself just by using television. A person who didn't play hockey as a child is not going to all of the sudden start watching hockey. The reason why people watch sports is often in part because they grew up playing them, and know something about them. Most people don't have a clue about hockey. So, essentially, the NHL has to get more involved on a community level, which I think to some extent it has. Football, baseball, basketball, and soccer are all simpler games to play, which is why hockey will probably languish behind them in terms of popularity.. Soccer hasn't gained popular acceptance in the U.S. because it's a very boring game at the professional level. I love the World Cup but can't stand a minute of that MLS crap. Hockey, on the other hand, is a very fast moving game. It just has to find a bigger fan base than the hardcore fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRASHER Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 I actually did about 10 years ago, but that was the girlfriend at the time's infulence (the one good thing she did for me ) It would be nice if they actually did SOMETHING to make the game look like something people would want to watch instead of trying to "open it up" each year in and year out because that only makes your product look boring and unwatchable to the casual fan... and there's only so many times the real fans of the game can get 3-4 more people into the game, esp at modern ticket prices !! and I don't think football and baseball are "simpler" then hockey (you take the puck, you shoot with a stick, you put it in the net) that's WAY easier to expain to someone then football or even baseball *l*... and I feel like when I even see NBA highlights on ESPN, I feel like I am looking at a prison line-up (just my biased opinon !) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 I'm not saying the rules, I'm saying the equipment.. one ball is enough for soccer, which is why soccer is so incredibly popular all over the world, it takes almost nothing to play it. Same thing with basketball here in the US, although it also needs a hoop. Football in its lowest form only needs a ball, and hockey needs only a ball and bat. With hockey, everyone has to at least have a stick.. and when played in any organization, it needs tons of equipment.. You could be looking at a prison lineup with the NBA but that doesn't change the game. NBA players are much more visible than NHL guys simply because they don't have to wear any kind of protective headgear.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias 2662 Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 I don't know if anyone has said this but ties and overtime losses basically count as 1/2 of a loss so it might take less than 9 losses to top them out at 85. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
point Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 I checked the standings, and while the Rangers look out of it completely, they have a lot of competition for woeful play. They are only 4 points behind the two teams tied for 7th place. While they have played more games than the others, perhaps they will get more rest and play a bit stronger, they might get a lift from Slats honeymoon, Dunham or Blackburn might get hot (!), Bure might return like the second coming of JC. Mario might not come back to pul the Pens back in the race. A lot can happen in 10 weeks. Hey, the Jets found a way to stumble into thre NFL playoffs, so, who knows. I got my order form for playoff tix from Lou Lamorriello today, and I would love to see the Devils play the Rangers in another series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilMinder Posted February 1, 2003 Author Share Posted February 1, 2003 Posted by: Blackjack Jan 30 2003, 01:23 PM The biggest problem with hockey is that you need ice. Sticks skates and other types of gear could be mass produced cheaply if there was enough demand, but there is just no cheap way to do ice unless it's below freezing outside. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by: NJDev25 Jan 30 2003, 01:45 PM There's a local high school hockey league here that has grown to 30 schools, all competing for ice time on a handful of rinks. They have to drive halfway across the county to practice at 4 am or 11 pm to get in practice time. The Stars have a funding program with area cities to build rinks, plus there are a few others, but they just can't keep up with demand. Add in the little kids, and the adult leagues, and it's a real problem. Cute story - yesterday I went to see my son's college baseball doubleheader (yes, baseball already, in the miserable cold). Anyway, there was a little kid - about 6 or 7 - and all he could talk about was the Stars and hockey. He knew everything there was to know about the Stars; he knew about the recent trades and who had gone where, and who had come in; and stats and records. And he plays in a whatever age-group league. Five years ago that never would have happened here. Very cool! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by: Pepperkorn Jan 30 2003, 01:49 PM Oh MAN I'd go freaking nuts with sh!t skates...you have to have quality or you can't DO anything!!! And the better you are the more you need the good stuff! Your mind can't be on your equipment -- you have a job to do and stuff! you can't mass produce quality -- but you're right about the ice too. And of course I can do a total 180 and say all you need is a frozen pond and skates and you're set - for the fun of it kind of play -- really pond hockey was the first sport I remember playing - I was never cut out because I was a girl - I guess though because skating is the great equalizer when you're a kid -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by: mrsheeps Jan 30 2003, 03:55 PM i remember wanting to play hockey when we lived in richmond... "not cold enough/no ice rinks close by"... then i wanted to play hockey when we lived in chicago... "we don't have enough money, your father needs a better job"... "then i wanted to play hockey when we lived in new jersey... "your father has a better job, but this area costs a lot of money, and by now you're already too old... now i'm at college in dc and i'm basically too old to start... plus it would mean travelling to southeast and risking getting jumped or taking a 45 minute drive to a rink half the size of a normal rink with twice the people. so i'm stuck. but i did get nice skates for christmas! (i think they're nice at least...) if only i went to college in new jersey i'd finally be able to learn how to use them!!! used to have to rent those crappy leather figure skates... if you spend 18 or so years in those skates, transitioning to hockey skates isn't as easy as it would seem, especially stopping... i can still go back and forth from forwards and backwards and all but i can't stop for the life of me! and i disagree with triumph, i don't think hockey is only appreciated by those who played it. for me all it took was going to a couple of games... the games on tv were ok and all but it really takes a couple games in person - in different seats too - to appreciate it. if our cameramen could only be trained by the cameramen in toronto!!! i love watching @ tor games on tv just because they can actually capture the excitement of the game... in my opinion if our cameramen were trained better and the cameras were scattered around in better positions, the game would be a lot more interesting on the tv... just yesterday we watched the tor @ car game on espn and one of my roommates (not a hockey fan) complained that he couldn't see the puck... now usually i don't have a problem cause when you understand how players use their sticks and move around the ice you can find the puck much more easily, but how is the nhl going to get this guy hooked if he doesn't even now what to look for? brett hull for commisioner!!! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by: NothingFace Jan 30 2003, 04:33 PM Sorry, I don't have anything to add, I just didn't want to be left out of this historical thread... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by: '7' Jan 30 2003, 05:22 PM over 2900 views, that's incredible. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by: HarbingerOfSorrow Jan 30 2003, 06:36 PM Hopefully, DM will be able to transfer this thread to the new board. It's too good to lose! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by: mrsheeps Jan 30 2003, 06:37 PM yeah, with all the subject changes and such, it's a good read start to finish -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by: DevilMinder Jan 30 2003, 06:47 PM Nothing is being lost, all files are just being moved to a beefier server. I have backed everything up anyway! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by: HarbingerOfSorrow Jan 30 2003, 06:48 PM MMMMM. BEEFY!!! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by: HarbingerOfSorrow Jan 30 2003, 10:49 PM Well, the Rangers lost again tonight (albeit in overtime). Time to uncover another square! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by: Hasan4978 Jan 30 2003, 11:33 PM HOS unfortunately the OT loss doesn't count for enough to take off a square, alas. Though it was an excellent effort by the Avs, no Sakic no Roy, down 3-2 late in the third. Every 2 OT losses we should take off a square, though, since that's like a win and a loss. Or maybe we can take off half a square -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by: MantaRay Jan 31 2003, 11:14 AM I just want to say that every time I come to this thread I cry from laughing at Risky's Holik upper crust Golf suit. Hilarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackjack Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 I don't know if anyone has said this but ties and overtime losses basically count as 1/2 of a loss so it might take less than 9 losses to top them out at 85. The 85 point thing includes two one point games, so either ties or overtime losses. The Rangers just had one of them last night. After their next 1 point game you could start taking down a number for every 2 ties/overtime losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 Don't have anything to add to this thread but though that I would have to make a post to what will probably the longest thread in the Forum history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westcoastdevfan Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 I still think the Rangers $uck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilMinder Posted February 1, 2003 Author Share Posted February 1, 2003 Should I remove a tile from the pic? I mean they did get one point still.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackjack Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 Nah, let them tie or lose in overtime one more game, then after than you take off a tile for every two ties/ot losses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westcoastdevfan Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 I watched the NYR and 'Lanche game on ESPN. After the Rangers rallied to take the lead it was as if they instantly became cup contenders. I think Gary Thorne should have been embarrassed with himself. He should have known they would blow it. The writing was on the wall. It would be too fairy-tailish if the the new coach behind the bench was able to rally the troops and lead them to a come from behind win over a good team like Colorado in front of a raucus home crowd. I am sick and tired of the biased Ranger coverage on ESPN. They have played like 12 Ranger games and the Devils have yet to appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarbingerOfSorrow Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 The 'Lanche giveth and the 'Lanche taketh away. Silly Rangers!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Thank goodness Abeschier wasn't as big a sieve two nights ago as he was tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarbingerOfSorrow Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Hey now. David knows where his priorities are. Beating the Rangers is always priority #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Aebischer wasn't a sieve at all tonight. His team played like crap in front of him. In fact, Aebischer made most of the better saves. He will be a very good #1 when Roy retires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts