3 is better than 1
How many playoff rounds did the Rags win in their first 3 Cups ? Less than 4? All fugazzi I guess
OT: 2022-23 NHL thread….Devils & Rangers & Islanders
- Thread starter zappaa
- Start date
How many playoff rounds did the Rags win in their first 3 Cups ? Less than 4? All fugazzi I guess
Yeah but they were REALLY GOOD decades.
I think that I'll take the Devils with their couple of good decades over the Rangers overall winning percentage and history of under achieving any day.
Not only are you a clown but you're a salty one, I love it.
I really don't understand some posters here. Their team has won ONE championship in 80 years but they crow about their winning percentage since 1982????
Moving on from the great punch debate, Florida and Seattle are on a roll. Both could make really deep runs. Speaking of droughts it seems like Toronto is going on a century without a cup.
Plus for most of the early years teams had exclusive rights to players within 50 miles or so. Toronto, Montreal and Detroit (since Canada is across the river) had major advantages at the time. Most of the league was Canadian players. It was not easy for the Rangers and Blackhawks pre-expansion.
I kind of think Florida is going to fizzle out. They're playing on a huge high right now, but all in all, they're not all that good. We'll see.
This is something that always gets lost in the history of the NHL. Montreal does not have all those Cups without this rule. It was very difficult for the US teams as a whole.
What I find ironic about this is, the Leafs last Cup coincided with the first true draft year.
Fair point. It just seems like the NHL always seems to have a low seed get on a roll and go deep.
I saw Marchand last night again at Malden Valley Forum (total dump of a rink BTW). Some people were asking to take pictures with him, but he was not in a good mood. So I didn't have the heart to deliver that return elbow to him for Mike Mcleod. Next time.
MODS. Can we start and keep a Devils only OT thread yet ?????
Is it hockey or devils hating ?????
There is now…
With NYR behind two non-original 6 teams and tied with a third in overall SCs, they obviously aren’t on the higher side of success.
That said, their rate of SC wins/seasons (with a SC) is higher than all the teams with 2 or fewer titles. That may be unexpected, but the NYR rank 12th at this rate.
The top 5 in SC wins/seasons (with a SC):
1. Mtl
2. Tor
3. Edm
4. Det
5. TB
The Pens, NYI, Col, NJ, and Chi round out the top 10.
I saw a number of NHL players in my days of working at the rink, usually their kids were playing on a team that had a game there, but one that stood out to me was when I saw Jamie Langenbrunner in 2010. He was captain at the time, they were having a terrible season, and had just lost 7-1 to Atlanta of all teams the night before. You could tell he wanted nobody to bother him. A couple weeks later, he was traded.
Funny story from one of my buddies who worked at a different rink. Martin Brodeur's son was playing goal for the away team. This rink has a zamboni entrance in the corner, and that area is roped off so that only employees are permitted in that corner and the adjacent area behind the goal. The big grumpy guy who was in charge of the place but knew nothing about hockey sees someone standing directly behind that goal watching the game, and asks my friend, "Who does that guy think he is standing back there?!" My friend goes, "Um, that's Martin Brodeur, sir." Boss goes, "Who? Well tell him he can't stand there!" My buddy, a diehard Rangers fan, tells him, "Sorry, I am not telling Mr. Brodeur to move."
The Leafs haven't even been in the Final since 1967.
That year,they beat an NHL All-Star team.
One night in 1965,they beat the Rangers 11-0 at MSG as Dave Keon scored two short handed goals.
Did you see my post above? Devils also have a much better winning % than the Rangers (49 to 45% roughly) - kyk was making **** up as usual.
First time since 89 I think…2 back to back playoff nights with a 4 goal scorer…
And crazy that both 4 goal scorers lost
As a Ranger fan, I think it is stupid to try and come up with other criteria to claim the Rangers have been more successful than the Devils. The 3 cups for the Devils (and 4 for the Islanders, even though they were back in the 80’s) trump anything that can be claimed in the Rangers’ favor until they win more Cups.
On the other hand, I also think it is stupid when Devils and Isles fans use the “historically bad franchise” angle to attack the Rangers. They haven’t won enough Cups, but they have a high rate of making the playoffs and have made a lot of decent runs. Historically bad is teams that almost have never been relevant (the first team that comes to mind for me is the Cubs before they had their one WS title, or the Lions never getting close let alone winning a Super Bowl.)
I hope everyone who watched Devil’s vs Canes last night noticed:
60 minutes of hockey was played WITHOUT a single defenseman from either team stopping behind their net and wingers circling back….allowing the opposition to set up their forecheck.
Rangers did it consistently
60 minutes of hockey was played WITHOUT a single defenseman from either team stopping behind their net and wingers circling back….allowing the opposition to set up their forecheck.
Rangers did it consistently
The Devils got thoroughly outplayed, but there were numerous huge non calls in the game too that could have changed the landscape of the game. The two biggest ones were Siegenthalers helmet being ripped off leading to a goal, and Hughes getting clipped which should have led to a 5 on 3.
What do you think about Gallant speaking to the press yesterday (normally coaches are fired before that happens if they are going to be fired)?
However, Drury hasn’t had a chance to meet with Gallant yet so there is still hope (maybe the ruling hasn’t come down from Sather/Dolan yet).
The Rangers have long been content to be "relevant". Because they always make money at the gate, it is about putting a competitive teams on the ice. This leads to a number of middling seasons, and very few dead last finishes. The Rangers have 1 first overall pick since the draft started (an underwhelming pick to this point), conversely, the Devils had 2 in the last 4 years.
Comparisons are crazy because so many things come into play. You cannot discount the Devils' runs between '94- 2010, but you have to accept that they benefitted from some very important home town discounts by some of their players; Brodeur and Stevens in particular. The fact that they put team before dollars was very important and kept a core together; the mindset on those teams was "championship" caliber. They EXPECTED to win and it was contagious throughout the lineup and also spread to any new additions to the roster.
The playoffs is where I think you find out if your team is soft, and it has less to do with physicality, and more with mentality. You will always have teams make a push against you in games during a series; how hard you push back is the difference.
After 7 games against a team that doesn’t use a 5 man forecheck and employs an antiquated breakout system, I knew the Devils would need a game to adjust.
Playing against a real gap and a man in your face is a completely different animal than facing the time and space allowing kings of hockey…the NY Rangers
I'm a little flummoxed that he doesn't understand why people are considering that he should be replaced.
Two questions I'd ask if I'm Drury:
-Did you think the tactics needed to be changed to reduce the impact of the Devils speed?
-What in Game adjustments did you make?
The answers to those questions are important.
And, jumbling the lines does NOT count as an adjustment; that is merely a reaction.
Truthfully he shouldn’t need to ask.
It was painfully obvious GG stuck with his system that allowed them to amass over 100 points.
The same system was a guarantee to fail during the playoffs.
It’s a system that requires your goalie to be your best player every night.
And your gifted players, a few among the best in the world be extremely efficient and opportunistic on their chances.
Playing against non playoff teams for Rangers was nothing more than out-talenting them… nothing to do with GG
True. I've learned there are 3 reasons why someone won't act. They are either unable, unwilling or unaware. ANY of these could be applied to Gallant's decision, but unwilling and unaware are the two biggest red flags. Imagine him answering: well I didn't think their forecheck could hurt us while we retreated and regrouped??? Most of us know this system can't work in today's game; I'm zlarmed that he doesn't.
Double Amen!
There were literally dozens of times I screamed at the TV when Rangers D men could have cut in front of their own net, turned on the speed and caught the Devils in a change with open ice.
Instead they methodically and with no urgency dragged the puck behind their net.
As I said, 60 minutes last night it didn’t happen once
Totally agree with the “content” part. Supposedly, home playoff games are VERY lucrative for the team, and I think leadership would rather have a guarantee they get 2-4 home playoff games a year than go through the cycle of some bigger runs but also more years of missed playoffs.
Textbook example for the problems with the Rangers defensive system is Brady Skjel.
He appeared to regress every year in the Rangers’ system to the point trading him away was no big deal and even welcomed by a lot of people.. On the Canes he has been a solid, 35-40 point scoring defenseman with positive +/-
I’m convinced, Millers progress would be astronomical in a modern system designed for him to use his speed and reduce his being stationary.
The kid is actually regressing, no fault of his own imo…
Drury I’m sure watches his nephew play in a modern, attacking system.
Gallant is a good man and great players coach.
I’d be ok with bringing in an “offensive coordinator” so to speak.
If I’m Drury I’m telling him your system is history, but if you want to stay here we’re going with an assistant coach who’s going to be all about speed, reducing time and space and zero reversing the puck behind the net
Gallant is a good man and great players coach.
I’d be ok with bringing in an “offensive coordinator” so to speak.
If I’m Drury I’m telling him your system is history, but if you want to stay here we’re going with an assistant coach who’s going to be all about speed, reducing time and space and zero reversing the puck behind the net
I agree Miller would be a monster if in structured, better system. At same time, it's not a coincidence that his breakout year offensively came at the expense of his play in his own end. Contract year too, so funny how that works...
I could live with this. You agree, you can keep your job; otherwise gonezo.
Some of Miller's issues result from Trouba thinking he can do Fox-like things; he can't. And it often leaves Miller hung out to dry in front of the net.
Truba is constantly dragging the puck behind the net, realizes he has no where to go and no one to pass to.
He puts Miller in a no momentum, no speed no man’s land
Unfortunately that doesn’t solve the problem of deployment, Gallant not matching lines, etc. unless you tell Gallant he is just going to be a figurehead who does the press conferences.
I would much rather see them go after someone like the assistant Carbery at Toronto as HC and pair him with a veteran defensive assistant (especially because if the Rangers don’t get Carbery we may be dealing with him as Washington coach for a long time).
Carbery has never been an NHL head coach, but at 41 he has been ECHL and AHL coach of the year and a successful NHL assistant, and coming from Toronto would take the Rangers out of the dark ages and into the analytics era.