article: What the Lightning?s Success Says About the New York Rangers

[Niko]

While I know Tampa hasn?t hoisted the cup, this article raises interesting questions. If all of these players were still current rangers, where do you think we?d be as an organization? Was it the roster, the coach or the culture of the team that had the biggest impact on always being a bridesmaids and never a bride?

 

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/lightning/2018/05/07/what-the-lightnings-success-says-about-the-new-york-rangers/

 

?Meet the guys who have been around, been there, done that. They've been to a Cup final, been to a conference final, been most any place but the top. Girardi has played in 132 playoff games. McDonagh has played in 106. Stralman has played in 97. Think that doesn't help? Think that doesn't matter??

[Phil]

What Tampa's success says about the Rangers is a simple answer: with an elite talent or two (Stamkos/Kucherov and Hedman), the Rangers, not the Lightning, would be Cup favorites.

 

 

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

[Niko]

What Tampa's success says about the Rangers is a simple answer: with an elite talent or two (Stamkos/Kucherov and Hedman), the Rangers, not the Lightning, would be Cup favorites.

 

 

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

 

 

With out being down on Nash, wasn’t Nash brought in to be that guy for us?

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

What Tampa's success says about the Rangers is a simple answer: with an elite talent or two (Stamkos/Kucherov and Hedman), the Rangers, not the Lightning, would be Cup favorites.

 

 

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

 

this exactly. we had the entire supporting cast. that is evidenced by how many of our former players are winning cups/fitting in with true contenders.

 

We've had the goaltending. We've had the depth. What we didn't have was the elite player to give us a leg up. That's why I think we should try to trade up to the top 3. If we can add a player with elite potential, added to the depth of prospects we added, we could be set up to be a very good team.

[Phil]

With out being down on Nash, wasn?t Nash brought in to be that guy for us?

 

Yes, but even at his height, when you could maybe argue he belonged in that conversation, they were still missing the other half (D).

 

Now, if they never made the horrible mistake of letting Stralman walk and traded G when they had the chance to snag any two of Rakell, Palmieri, and Vatanen frok ANA? They'd be right there.

 

 

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

[Vodka Drunkenski]

We did have an elite talent, in the wrong position.

[ThirtyONE]

all those players are complimentary players. Really really good players. But G and Mac are on the 2nd pair. Callahan is a 4th liner. Miller is playing with Steven Stamkos.

 

All those players were asked to be 1st over the boards for the rangers... and that is why they never won.

[josh]

Let's talk after they win the cup.

 

 

 

As mentioned - top end talent playing like top end talent. (Nash, Richards, St. Louis)

 

Sprinkle in some young prospects hitting that ceiling early on, at the right time, and your goaltender not losing you games...

[Future]

Blah blah blah...it says that picking #1 and #2 is what matters most.

[Phil]

all those players are complimentary players. Really really good players. But G and Mac are on the 2nd pair. Callahan is a 4th liner. Miller is playing with Steven Stamkos.

 

All those players were asked to be 1st over the boards for the rangers... and that is why they never won.

 

Precisely.

 

It helps to illustrate how the Rangers almost certainly had the proper supporting cast (given how far that cast, plus Lundqvist took them). They just needed that added element of someone to rely on game in/game out that they never really had. Especiallly on the blue line.

[Slobberknocker]

couple of bounces and they beat the kings.

 

Nash was supposed to be the guy. his playoff performance was horrid.

 

we had a great team for a long time that was fun to watch. they just didn't get it done.

 

hard trophy to win, probably the hardest of all sports.

 

this is a shoulda coulda woulda thread.

[Parsley]

couple of bounces and they beat the kings.

 

Nash was supposed to be the guy. his playoff performance was horrid.

 

we had a great team for a long time that was fun to watch. they just didn't get it done.

 

hard trophy to win, probably the hardest of all sports.

 

this is a shoulda coulda woulda thread.

 

Yup. Cup was the Rangers to be had in 2014. They simply blew it with the lost leads, bad calls, bad bounces and excruciating OT losses. So close, yet so far. Loved that team so much.

 

:(

 

 

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

[Fatfrancesa]

Well our superstar that these other teams don’t have is hank. Forever it was stated that hank propped up an inferior group to contender status. He was and is paid at the same level as the other superstars. Maybe the supporting cast wasn’t as inferior as thought. I do think hank had a hall of fame career. What I also think is that the position of goalie is overrated due to the fact the difference between hank and the average goalie is far smaller than the elite center Crosby to the average guy Stepan. Add in the fact that any nhl starting goalie can get hot and the difference at that point is zero. In the end it tells me that while you need goaltending to win, it’s foolish to make your goalie the highest paid player on your team.

[Future]

Well our superstar that these other teams don’t have is hank. Forever it was stated that hank propped up an inferior group to contender status. He was and is paid at the same level as the other superstars. Maybe the supporting cast wasn’t as inferior as thought. I do think hank had a hall of fame career. What I also think is that the position of goalie is overrated due to the fact the difference between hank and the average goalie is far smaller than the elite center Crosby to the average guy Stepan. Add in the fact that any nhl starting goalie can get hot and the difference at that point is zero. In the end it tells me that while you need goaltending to win, it’s foolish to make your goalie the highest paid player on your team.

Based on what? Let's just say Crosby is the best center and Stepan is the 20th-best.

 

If Crosby has 90 points and Stepan has 55, it's a 35-goal difference. Think Henrik didn't save 35 goals over whoever was #20 in a given year? At 30 shots a game, the difference between a .925 sv% and a .900 sv%, in 60 starts, 45 goals (135 vs. 180). So I don't really get what this comparison means.

 

Also, any NHL skater can get hot.

[josh]

Well our superstar that these other teams don’t have is hank. Forever it was stated that hank propped up an inferior group to contender status. He was and is paid at the same level as the other superstars. Maybe the supporting cast wasn’t as inferior as thought. I do think hank had a hall of fame career. What I also think is that the position of goalie is overrated due to the fact the difference between hank and the average goalie is far smaller than the elite center Crosby to the average guy Stepan. Add in the fact that any nhl starting goalie can get hot and the difference at that point is zero. In the end it tells me that while you need goaltending to win, it’s foolish to make your goalie the highest paid player on your team.

 

Based on what? Let's just say Crosby is the best center and Stepan is the 20th-best.

 

If Crosby has 90 points and Stepan has 55, it's a 35-goal difference. Think Henrik didn't save 35 goals over whoever was #20 in a given year? At 30 shots a game, the difference between a .925 sv% and a .900 sv%, in 60 starts, 45 goals (135 vs. 180). So I don't really get what this comparison means.

 

Also, any NHL skater can get hot.

 

none of this matters when it comes to playoffs.

Guys gotta show up. All of them.

 

Guys get the superstar label when they show up when it means the most.

 

Your 50-point Stepan could be your 1.3 ppg Toews during a run and you get the cup.

Nash 10 points in 25 games

Richards 12 in 25

Stepan 15 in 24

St Louis 15 in 25

Brassard 12 in 23

Zucc 13 in 25

 

If your top guys are scoring points, it allows the rest of the team to do what they do best, instead of trying to change their game to compensate for others. TB has a well built line up and guys can play to their ability.

[Gravesy]

But, to be fair, the ?other? teams have that goaltending.

Rinne, Hellebuyck, Fleury, Vasilevskiy and Holtby are all at the same level as Hank at his best.

 

The fact is the ex Rangers crew at Tampa are all great supporting cast players but they don?t win championships without elite talent in front of them. Neither does a great goalie. Put guys like Stamkos, Kucherov and Hedman into those Rangers teams and they?d be very close to going all the way.

I think you could also argue the Rangers never had a line like the Palat/Gourde/Point line during those runs.

[NY Chief]

couple of bounces and they beat the kings.

 

And a couple of bullshit calls.

[Mr.wiskers]

You also have to take the head coach into account. AV once upon a time had the twins, Messier, Kesler, Burrows, Edler, Luongo in 2011-2012 and didn?t win. I think all those guys were top players. So you have to take the coaching into account as well.

 

 

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

[Fatfrancesa]

But, to be fair, the “other” teams have that goaltending.

Rinne, Hellebuyck, Fleury, Vasilevskiy and Holtby are all at the same level as Hank at his best.

 

The fact is the ex Rangers crew at Tampa are all great supporting cast players but they don’t win championships without elite talent in front of them. Neither does a great goalie. Put guys like Stamkos, Kucherov and Hedman into those Rangers teams and they’d be very close to going all the way.

I think you could also argue the Rangers never had a line like the Palat/Gourde/Point line during those runs.

 

They do at a fraction of the cost. It matters in s hard cap league. None of what I’m saying is to diminish hank. He’s an all time ranger great and hall of fame player. I just don’t think goaltending is a place where you want a guy making the most on your team. Your not winning paying league minimum either but there are plenty of good goalies making 3-5 million

[josh]

You also have to take the head coach into account. AV once upon a time had the twins, Messier, Kesler, Burrows, Edler, Luongo in 2011-2012 and didn’t win. I think all those guys were top players. So you have to take the coaching into account as well.

 

 

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

 

That's not even that stacked. Plus, Messier turned 53 during that season.

[Mr.wiskers]

Oh, sorry Messier Retired in 2004?why didn?t you just correct me

 

 

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

[josh]

I did. Then made a Messier joke. :cool:

[Vodka Drunkenski]

Plus if you make a mistake such as not realizing Messier played his last season with Vancouver 6 years before AV was made the head coach, you should expect a little bit of ribbing

[Mike]

Based on what? Let's just say Crosby is the best center and Stepan is the 20th-best.

 

If Crosby has 90 points and Stepan has 55, it's a 35-goal difference. Think Henrik didn't save 35 goals over whoever was #20 in a given year? At 30 shots a game, the difference between a .925 sv% and a .900 sv%, in 60 starts, 45 goals (135 vs. 180). So I don't really get what this comparison means.

 

Also, any NHL skater can get hot.

 

You can?t compare positions with ranking them in that form. More C?s play than goalies do. But for discussion purposes, if Crosby is on your roster instead of _____, 2 things are highly in your favor:

1. A much higher percentage of scoring a goal

2. A much high percentage the other team won?t have the puck.

 

I?d rather have Crosby and fuckin Tokarski over Lundqvist and Zibs or Stepan.

[Phil]

You can’t compare positions with ranking them in that form. More C’s play than goalies do. But for discussion purposes, if Crosby is on your roster instead of _____, 2 things are highly in your favor:

1. A much higher percentage of scoring a goal

2. A much high percentage the other team won’t have the puck.

 

I’d rather have Crosby and fuckin Tokarski over Lundqvist and Zibs or Stepan.

 

Completely agreed. It's like puck on a string with someone like Crosby. But your roster does still need to be competent to limit chances against. Just look at Edmonton. Not even a 100+ point McDavid could save them from Talbot.