Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Rangers to Add "Muscle and Grit" for Next Season


Phil

Recommended Posts

This is why the Rangers need more muscle in there lineup.they get run during the playoffs by Carolina and they don?t retaliate. Meanwhile Las Vegas just hammers the living hell out of Vancouver and Ryan Reeves only gets a one game suspension but they continue through the playoffs. The Rangers should model themselves after Las Vegas golden nights. They should be big mean and skilled. Not Smurf type hockey

 

Year after year the more physical teams make deep runs and win cups. Yes the NHL is faster and more skilled than ever but look at Tampa. Look at Vegas. They are grown ass men, not boys. Look at St. Louis last year. And Washington before that. Men.

 

Youngest teams in the league do not win playoff series. We have some lumps coming our way. But that's a part of the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 222
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Points aren't his game, but Reaves isn't the sole example. The entire build of the Knights might be. Marchessault (5' 9) is their smallest forward and they don't have a single defender under 6'0 (Schmidt). They're a big team who can't be pushed around. Not because of Reaves, but because their whole composition is built for big boy hockey.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Points aren't his game, but Reaves isn't the sole example. The entire build of the Knights might be. Marchessault (5' 9) is their smallest forward and they don't have a single defender under 6'0 (Schmidt). They're a big team who can't be pushed around. Not because of Reaves, but because their whole composition is built for big boy hockey.

 

Well, I don't even the physical size of the team that's important either. As you said, Marchessault is tiny. He still plays with an edge to his game. Brad Marchant might be the hardest forward to play against in the NHL and he's small too. It's about attitude more than size.

 

Rangers have a few guys who I can see thriving in playoff conditions and some who have already done it. Trouba, Lindgren, Lemieux, Kreider. Panarin has proven he's capable. Mika to some extent. But players like Buch, Kakko, Chytil, and Fox will have to make an adjustment. And quite frankly, I don't think Buch is the kind of player you want in a big role. Perimeter players do not survive in the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't even the physical size of the team that's important either. As you said, Marchessault is tiny. He still plays with an edge to his game. Brad Marchant might be the hardest forward to play against in the NHL and he's small too. It's about attitude more than size.

 

Of course, but physics are physics. It's a lot harder to move someone who is 6'2, 225 than it is if they're 5'10, 185.

 

Rangers have a few guys who I can see thriving in playoff conditions and some who have already done it. Trouba, Lindgren, Lemieux, Kreider. Panarin has proven he's capable. Mika to some extent. But players like Buch, Kakko, Chytil, and Fox will have to make an adjustment. And quite frankly, I don't think Buch is the kind of player you want in a big role. Perimeter players do not survive in the playoffs.

 

Agreed. The team is homogenous. They need a little red meat.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s weird though. I get the feeling Buch has another gear he refuses to go to for whatever reason. Like one year something is going to happen to him where he snaps and just goes off. Probably in another sweater but still lol

 

I get what you're saying. The tools are obviously there, it's just a question of putting it together consistently and over the course of a full season. I feel like Kreider is a similar, although better version of that. But that is what separates the really good players and the merely good/ok. It's just as much a mental thing as it is about skill imo. It's hard to be able to go 82 nights a regular season and however many nights during playoffs. The really good ones have that in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd argue both Kreider and Buch leave plenty to be desired. The difference is, when Kreider isn't scoring, he can at least bring some other element/aspect to the game. When Buch isn't scoring, he just isn't there. He turns into Enver Lisin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd argue both Kreider and Buch leave plenty to be desired. The difference is, when Kreider isn't scoring, he can at least bring some other element/aspect to the game. When Buch isn't scoring, he just isn't there. He turns into Enver Lisin.

 

Yeah, that's what I meant. The tools are there for both players, but neither is really able to consistently perform. It's a bit like the golf analogy; every single player on tour is a stud on the driving range. I think Kreider, in terms of raw tools, has what is needed to be a 75 point player. But he isn't, and it's probably as much a mental thing as anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Kreider "takes games off" narrative that Rangers fans have is bullshit, IMO. Yes, he goes through goal scoring droughts, but so do 99% of NHL players.

 

When he's not in the lineup, it's quite obvious. And that's part of the reason I'm glad the Rangers kept him. There just aren't many players like him in the league.

 

 

Buch, on the other hand, is just a guy on most nights. Some nights he scores or looks engaged but aside from that he's a warm body. I actually think this offseason is the time to trade him. He's going to be supplanted on that 1st line very soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's definitely not about "scoring droughts." Every player does go through those. But there are absolutely games where he's invisible. The difference between he and Buch is that while both can go invisible, there's a stop gap between scoring and not scoring, which is still having some kind of impact on the game. Kreider can do that. Buch can't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing Buch with tears in his eyes on the bench is something I hope to never see again. Hoping he gets moved. I think he falls short between the ears. Certainly not worthy being on the first line. As for CK, more of an impact player but still needs to find the consistency, contract makes that even more obvious now going forward.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Four full seasons of waiting on Buch is a long time. Players reaching their potential as late as Zib did is unusual. I have no problem with keeping Buch around so long as no one is taking his position away. That will happen eventually. In the interim, we could trade him, but he wouldn't bring much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buch's biggest benefit is that the team largely lacks impact RW options at the moment. If Kakko is for real, he's going to usurp him, but beyond that, there's a world of nothing at the moment. Especially with Fast potentially leaving via free agency. Kravtsov is at least another year away. Gauthier and Lemieux aren't top-line threats, and neither are any of the AHLers (Elmer, Rueschhoff, Richards).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Buchnevich looked good in the playoffs. He was aggressive, got to dirty areas, threw some hits, to go along with that talent he has. It’s almost like he’s gotten to where Quinn wants him. Hate to see you move a guy that finally developed into what you want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt they will. They have no depth beyond him.

 

fact which highlights a big reason and gap this team needs to fill with guys having to take big steps forward. Can't afford too many swings and misses along the way without stunting the progression we hope to see as a group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His most recent deal was worth $1.9 million in actual salary, so probably $2.5–3 million on the open market depending on just how much someone is willing to over pay him. $2.5 million would be about the absolute maximum I'd give him. Basically, the deal Martin got in free agency years ago for the same role. Perhaps the flat cap will push that down some, but he's not taking a haircut. It's north of $2 million in AAV for sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...