skullsmasher Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Hate to say it but that team might be the real deal finally. 7 in a row and they seem deeper than I can ever remember them being. Thoughts? Is this a deep playoff running team? Tough to answer realistically without being biased for me.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blown01NJ Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onddeck Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 gonna (hopefully and possibly) die out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justdo3043 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) greattt....i hope not im sure im not the only guy who knows to many ranger fans Edited November 16, 2011 by justdo3043 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) They have had possibly the easiest schedule in the entire league. Look at the teams they're played this year. Out of 16 games, I count maybe 3-4 hard opponents. Just wait till they hit real playoff teams. EDIT: Yep: http://www.playoffstatus.com/nhl/easternsosag.html The Rangers have had the 4th easiest schedule in the league thus far. For comparison, Devils have had the 7th hardest schedule. Plus I don't think that link includes tonight's games - ie, the Rangers playing the Islanders and Devils playing Boston. Rangers probably moved up a spot or two on easiest schedule list while Devils moved up on hardest schedule. Edited November 16, 2011 by Amberite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) They have had possibly the easiest schedule in the entire league. Look at the teams they're played this year. Out of 16 games, I count maybe 3-4 hard opponents. Just wait till they hit real playoff teams. I hate this 'schedule' argument with the Rangers, it's ridiculous. First of all, did they not beat the Canucks and Sharks (thought they beat the Kings too but that was an OT loss), arguably the two toughest teams they've played? Secondly, I guess people forgot or overlooked their Around the World odyssey to start the season. Going from Europe to NY to Western Canada and back is a joke...and they went .500 on a trip that made our nightmare trip to begin '07-08 that everyone complained about look like child's play. Maybe it's just their usual October-November hot start, but it's certainly better than I thought they'd be at this point, partly because of the trip. And yes, they are better than they've been in prior years because of Richards and the young defensemen developing - and for all the bellyaching about how we miss Zajac, they've also done this without Marc Staal (their best d-man) btw. Edited November 16, 2011 by NJDevs4978 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I hate this 'schedule' argument with the Rangers, it's ridiculous. First of all, did they not beat the Canucks, Sharks and Kings? Secondly, I guess people forgot or overlooked their Around the World odyssey to start the season. Going from Europe to NY to Western Canada and back is a joke...and they went .500 on a trip that made our nightmare trip to begin '07-08 that everyone complained about look like child's play. Maybe it's just their usual October-November hot start, but it's certainly better than I thought they'd be at this point, partly because of the trip. And yes, they are better than they've been in prior years because of Richards and the young defensemen developing - and for all the bellyaching about how we miss Zajac, they've also done this without Marc Staal (their best d-man) btw. Don't discount the "schedule" argument so easily. Take a look at the strength of schedule for both eastern and western coast teams: http://www.playoffstatus.com/nhl/easternsosag.html http://www.playoffstatus.com/nhl/westernsosag.html Notice a pattern? In general, the teams at the bottom of the lists (ie, teams with easiest schedules) are the teams with a higher Self % (winning percentage) than the teams at the top of the lists. Yes, the Rangers beat a few good teams, but so does every team in the league (including the Devils). That doesn't discount the fact that out of their 16 games, maybe 4 were against real opposition. You provide a schedule like that to almost any team in the league, and you'll have a nice record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) Don't discount the "schedule" argument so easily. Take a look at the strength of schedule for both eastern and western coast teams: http://www.playoffstatus.com/nhl/easternsosag.html http://www.playoffstatus.com/nhl/westernsosag.html Notice a pattern? In general, the teams at the bottom of the lists (ie, teams with easiest schedules) are the teams with a higher Self % (winning percentage) than the teams at the top of the lists. Yes, the Rangers beat a few good teams, but so does every team in the league (including the Devils). That doesn't discount the fact that out of their 16 games, maybe 4 were against real opposition. You provide a schedule like that to almost any team in the league, and you'll have a nice record. 'Strength of schedule' is going to be very skewered after fifteen games because teams (like say, the Canucks and Sharks) can get off to slow starts. Besides, it's not as if they're squeaking by the majority of the time, they've won a few of these games fairly comfortably, and 10-3-3 is 10-3-3. WITHOUT their best defenseman and after an insane road trip. Edited November 16, 2011 by NJDevs4978 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 the rangers are not a good team, and are certainly not 'the real deal'. we'll see how they look with staal, but they're bad right now. tonight was an exception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) 'Strength of schedule' is going to be very skewered after fifteen games because teams (like say, the Canucks and Sharks) can get off to slow starts. Besides, it's not as if they're squeaking by the majority of the time, they've won a few of these games fairly comfortably, and 10-3-3 is 10-3-3. WITHOUT their best defenseman and after an insane road trip. Come on, honestly, have you LOOKED at the games they've played? Here, let me do it for you, and I'll even bold the teams that are at least slightly good: Kings (I'll barely give this - the Kings are almost a .500 team) Ducks Islanders Canucks Flames Oilers Jets Maple Leafs Senators Sharks Ducks Canadiens Jets Senators Hurricanes Islanders How can you look at that schedule and honestly think the Rangers are the "real deal"? That is like a who's who of the league's scrubs. And here, take a look at our schedule thus far: Flyers Hurricanes Kings Predators Sharks Penguins Kings Coyotes Stars Maple Leafs Flyers Jets Hurricanes Capitals Capitals Boston Notice a difference? So essentially, after 16 games, the Rangers have had 3 tough games, while we've had 13. Hmm. Edited November 16, 2011 by Amberite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunninWithTheDevil Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 we say this every year until they eventually fizzle mid-to-late January 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random Poster Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 'Strength of schedule' is going to be very skewered after fifteen games because teams (like say, the Canucks and Sharks) can get off to slow starts. Besides, it's not as if they're squeaking by the majority of the time, they've won a few of these games fairly comfortably, and 10-3-3 is 10-3-3. WITHOUT their best defenseman. Actually, looking at their record, it's a case of the way the NHL separates wins and losses that makes teams look better on paper. The NYR are a 10-6 team in all reality just like the Devils are an 8-8 team. I just hate how this league separates losses in OT/SO and "regualtion" losses in actual standings. Separating them is one thing as a stat, but completely eliminating them from the actual loss column is another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) How can you look at that schedule and honestly think the Rangers are the "real deal"? That is like a who's who of the league's scrubs. Are there really a lot of 'bad' teams in the NHL though? They haven't even played the Blue Jackets, who are one of the few truly hideous teams. With all the parity in this league, there's a lot of below average/average/slightly above average teams and just about all of the teams you named fall in that general category. So do the Rangers, for that matter...but if they were below average or 'not that good' they wouldn't be doing as well as they have been so far. we say this every year until they eventually fizzle mid-to-late January That's the Ranger cynic's best argument, not the arbitrary schedule one, which doesn't take into account the length of the road trip. They are a bit like the football Giants in that they do tend to start well...we'll see where they are by the halfway point. Notice a difference? So essentially, after 16 games, the Rangers have had 3 tough games, while we've had 13. Hmm. But your classification of what a 'tough' game is is a bit arbitrary. Are Dallas and Phoenix going to be considered tough games by the end of the year? I certainly didn't think they'd be one when the season started but they've both gotten off to good starts. What's a tough game, playing a team that made the playoffs last year? One that's off to a good start this year? Plus the Isles are the Rangers' main rival, I'd hardly consider those 'easy' games, no matter where both teams are in the standings. Edited November 16, 2011 by NJDevs4978 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Are there really a lot of 'bad' teams in the NHL though? They haven't even played the Blue Jackets, who are one of the few truly hideous teams. With all the parity in this league, there's a lot of below average/average/slightly above average teams and just about all of the teams you named fall in that general category. So do the Rangers, for that matter...but if they were below average or 'not that good' they wouldn't be doing as well as they have been so far. Yes, there are plenty of 'bad' teams. Parity is bullsh!t and you should know that by now. Bottom-dwelling teams are there for a reason, and that is that they suck and can't compete on a consistent basis against top teams. The Rangers haven't just played poor competition thus far, they're played some of the worst teams in the league (barring Blue Jackets, as you pointed out). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsfan26 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 A winning streak in the first two months of the season means nothing when the playoffs start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Made a $50 bet that they wouldnt make the playoffs... they better not make it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Okay, let's look at score tied Fenwick among these teams: Kings - 48.2% Ducks - 41.0% Islanders - 49.4% Canucks - 53.4% Flames - 50.8% Oilers - 48.3% Jets - 50.3% Maple Leafs - 49.3% Senators - 50.4% Sharks - 52.4% Ducks - 41.0% Canadiens - 52.9% Jets - 50.3% Senators - 50.4% Hurricanes - 47.3% Islanders - 49.4% Score tied Fenwick isn't going to be overly meaningful because of the schedule issues - teams who've played the Rangers twice get a boost, for instance, since the Rangers have been so poor. But still, NJ: Flyers - 50.3% Hurricanes - 47.3% Kings - 48.2% Predators - 42.4% Sharks - 52.4% Penguins - 52.6% Kings - 48.2% Coyotes - 51.9% Stars - 46.4% Maple Leafs - 49.3% Flyers - 50.3% Jets - 50.3% Hurricanes - 47.3% Capitals - 54.9% Capitals - 54.9% Boston - (Damn, the site seems to have eaten it right as I went to get this info) Anyway, point is, the Rangers are going to play tougher teams, and they're going to struggle unless Lundqvist is really good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 29th Pick Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 The Rags have a good team...no doubt, but every year in late Oct/Nov into Dec they play great and seem to be a top team......then the holidays come and after new years they are spent and play .500 and go on a losing streak near the end of the season..........just watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skullsmasher Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 The Rags have a good team...no doubt, but every year in late Oct/Nov into Dec they play great and seem to be a top team......then the holidays come and after new years they are spent and play .500 and go on a losing streak near the end of the season..........just watch. I sure hope so...There is nothing I hate more than happy ranger fans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Both Philthy and Rangs are scary -- part of me is glad they're both closer to doing things right -- I mean at least there is a whiff of hockey in there. BUT the other part of me still has my hockey sensibilities offended because I just hate the heart of their system the very way I love the heart of the Devils system. In all honestly though I much prefer the entire league improving and playing the game as it should be despite the added competition. To me the NHL is getting back to hockey in many respects and that can only be a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joonas #6 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Rangers fvcking suck. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Seriously -- why did I bother to reply to have it pushed out with the astute observation above Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitico12 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 The Rags have a good team...no doubt, but every year in late Oct/Nov into Dec they play great and seem to be a top team......then the holidays come and after new years they are spent and play .500 and go on a losing streak near the end of the season..........just watch. They have a very good coach in John Tortorella. He is an excellent team builder and if they buy into his system and his ways, this team can go far... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam85491 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Rangers suck! Flyers swallow! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATLL765 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 They've definitely made themselves into a better team since ridding themselves of Gomez and Drury, without signing huge contracts to mediocre players, they put themselves in a better position no matter what else happens. They're defense, while young, is getting better, but without Staal, I think they'll falter eventually, as they really don't have anyone past Girardi who's truly proven themselves to be reliable. As for their offense, it's far harder working and less buy a fading star player like than in past years. Adding Richards is definitely a boost for Gaborik who had a year even worse than Kovy's last year, but even with those two, the emergence of Stepan and Callahan being like a baby switched at birth that was meant for the Devils, yet somehow finding his way to the Rags, they're still lacking a bit as far in the department of top end talent. So the bottom line for me is that they're a much better team than in the past, but they're still one or two steps away from being a "top tier" team in the Eastern Conference. We've all seen the Rags make hot starts and fall off as the year goes on and Torts wears on their minds, but I believe they can definitely make the playoffs this year, not in the top 4, but they can really challenge for the 5-8 spots. My prediction: They make the playoffs, but it'll be a first round exit for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.