OT: NHL Playoffs, NYR vs PIT, F.A.M.I.L.Y.
- Thread starter ClassOf02
- Start date
Went to Marty's house and no wife or kids because he was caught with the nanny and destroyed his family.
Ha. That gave me a laugh, nice.
Not defending what he did, but wouldn't say he "destroyed his family". His whole family (minus original wife) were there at his retirement weekend.
Florida has a ton of real young and inexperienced guys so the Isles will definitely have an experience advantage (although Jagr obviously has more experience than pretty much the rest of the nhl put together).
Florida could be a team that is rising, but this is probably a bit too early for them.
Greiss has been solid for stretches, but has never started an NHL playoff game so it is hard to know what to expect from him.
Agree. I see the Islanders winning that series. Red Wings will come out of that "bracket", though.
My cup prediction is Penguins over the Ducks in 6.
Dont know about the nanny, but not surprised. He's not called Uncle Daddy for nothing.
He's the best goalie of our generation,but he's also a pretty big scumbag.
Link: Uncle Daddy
2.5 cups??? How many finals have the Rangers made? The Devils were a much better organization for 15 years than the Rangers have been since the beginning of their putrid existence
When it comes to Devils vs. Rangers, this is pretty much ALL that matters.
Devils have been much, much more sucessful. Rangers, though recently, take the cake.
Attendance, parades, glamour don't matter to Devils fans. Why should it?
MSG Corp is god awful. All they care about attendence and TV content. Winning isn't a priority.
Agreed.Dont know about the nanny, but not surprised. He's not called Uncle Daddy for nothing.
He's the best goalie of our generation,but he's also a pretty big scumbag.
Link: Uncle Daddy
And Rangers fans would have loved him as their goalie. So funny some of these posts
Last edited:
LOL this is hilarious! Let's take a look back at the Rangers' Stanley Cups. Since everyone who has been alive long enough to see them win more than once is either dead or too old to remember such details, fortunately the internet has become much more widespread since the last time the Rangers won the Cup so that we can look up this information.
In 1928, the league consisted of only nine teams besides the Rangers. The regular season was 44 games, and to win the Stanley Cup, you needed to win no more than seven total playoff games.
In 1933, the league consisted of only eight teams besides the Rangers. The regular season was 48 games, and to win the Stanley Cup, you needed to win no more than seven total playoff games.
In 1940, the league consisted of only six teams besides the Rangers. The regular season was only 48 games, and to win the Stanley Cup, you needed to win eight total playoff games.
In 1995, the league consisted of 25 teams besides the Devils, which is more than 2.5 times as many teams the Rangers were up against in 1928, more than triple the amount of opponents the Rangers had in 1933, and more than quadruple the number of other possible champions in 1940. The regular season was....oh wait a minute......48 games long, well gee that number sounds familiar...and to win the Stanley Cup, you needed to win sixteen total playoff games, at least twice as many as the Rangers had to win in three of their four Cups.
So if the Devils have 2.5 Cups, how many do the Rangers have....2.27???? After a half-century head start.
I would take three Stanley Cup celebrations of any sort over one Stanley Cup "canyon" parade. This is the same tired typical Rangers rhetoric we've heard for over a decade now. They can't compare championships, so they have to pretend that how the championships are celebrated and size of the fanbase are more important. Oh yeah, and they also need to pretend that 1995 only counts as half somehow because the season was just as long or longer than the seasons in which the Rangers won all but one of their Cups, even though there were more than 2.5 to 4 times as many teams competing and the playoffs were twice as long.
Last edited:
Nice job by the pens last night. Not optimistic on the isles against the panthers. Too many question marks particularly between the pipes.
As a Ranger fan, I really hate defending the 4 Cups in however many years. But, people need to realize that prior to 1967 players were not drafted like they are today. Players were selected through the "Parent" clubs sponsorship of minor league teams. So, teams like Montreal and Toronto were cleaning up on Canadian talent, and other teams generally got the scraps. This is not an excuse, because, truth be told, at the time, there were only six teams, you'd think lightning in a bottle would happen. But, it is also true that the Rangers had some good teams that just came up short a number of years. Does anyone think its a coincidence that the Maple Leafs haven't won a Cup since . . . wait for it . . . 1967. About the same time the Canadiens strangle hold on the Cup was coming to an end.
This link will give a quick overview of "draft" rules prior to 1967:
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/draftindex.html
It is completely fair to say that for about a 15 year period, the Devils were a more successful team.
In my opinion, this was largely a result of leadership and good fortune. SO MANY of the Devils core took home team discounts instead of testing the open market; I've never figured out if it was loyalty, great salesmanship by Lou, or a combination. But, no one can disagree it had a hell of a positive impact on that franchise. The Devils are rebounding from a couple of bad years, and I expect them to be in the mix for a playoff spot next year; not guaranteed, but certainly they have a real shot.
As for the Islanders, it is a franchise built on one REALLY good team. After that team, their success has been non-existent. Their fanbase likes to bash the Rangers with the 1940 chant, and hell, it's valid (at least it was), but they have not one a single playoff series since 1993. That's a hell of a drought on its own, and I would argue a hell of a lot more damning. But, before the last five or so years, they were completely handcuffed by the incredibly STUPID DiPietro deal. This guy, hell of a goalie, had a history of injuries, and someone thought signing him to a FIFTEEN year deal was a good idea.
Okay, back to my Rangers, can they beat Pittsburgh? Yes. But, I don't think they will. I haven't seen a stretch all year, where the Rangers were playing great hockey. Their defense corps is not what it was two years ago, and defense wins at this time of year. To add Yandle and Boyle, we lost Anton Stralman, couldn't afford to keep Carl Hagelin and traded away a goal scorer in Anthony Duclair. I don't know that the Rangers win a Cup with those players, but I know they would be a better TEAM with them, and individual abilities in the playoffs pales in comparison to being able to roll four lines and get contribution from everybody. For my part, I'm ready for the coach to move on. He's tinkered with lines all year, did it again last night. Line combinations require chemistry, and that needs to grow from familiarity, you can't COACH it to happen.
That's all, my rant is done.
This link will give a quick overview of "draft" rules prior to 1967:
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/draftindex.html
It is completely fair to say that for about a 15 year period, the Devils were a more successful team.
In my opinion, this was largely a result of leadership and good fortune. SO MANY of the Devils core took home team discounts instead of testing the open market; I've never figured out if it was loyalty, great salesmanship by Lou, or a combination. But, no one can disagree it had a hell of a positive impact on that franchise. The Devils are rebounding from a couple of bad years, and I expect them to be in the mix for a playoff spot next year; not guaranteed, but certainly they have a real shot.
As for the Islanders, it is a franchise built on one REALLY good team. After that team, their success has been non-existent. Their fanbase likes to bash the Rangers with the 1940 chant, and hell, it's valid (at least it was), but they have not one a single playoff series since 1993. That's a hell of a drought on its own, and I would argue a hell of a lot more damning. But, before the last five or so years, they were completely handcuffed by the incredibly STUPID DiPietro deal. This guy, hell of a goalie, had a history of injuries, and someone thought signing him to a FIFTEEN year deal was a good idea.
Okay, back to my Rangers, can they beat Pittsburgh? Yes. But, I don't think they will. I haven't seen a stretch all year, where the Rangers were playing great hockey. Their defense corps is not what it was two years ago, and defense wins at this time of year. To add Yandle and Boyle, we lost Anton Stralman, couldn't afford to keep Carl Hagelin and traded away a goal scorer in Anthony Duclair. I don't know that the Rangers win a Cup with those players, but I know they would be a better TEAM with them, and individual abilities in the playoffs pales in comparison to being able to roll four lines and get contribution from everybody. For my part, I'm ready for the coach to move on. He's tinkered with lines all year, did it again last night. Line combinations require chemistry, and that needs to grow from familiarity, you can't COACH it to happen.
That's all, my rant is done.
The Rangers won't win this series because the problems they've been having all year haven't been addressed. And problem #1 is Dan Girardi's god awful play where he faces no repercussions. So it's no matter that he completely loafs it at the end of the 1st, allowing Sheary (I think) to easily skate past him and beat him to the puck, setting up the goal.
And these Rangers-Devils debates are moronic and make both sides look like idiots. Just because Brodeur was a scumbag and a historic sore loser, it doesn't change the fact that their run was one of the best the league has seen. Great management will do that. Lou was a stud back then.
And these Rangers-Devils debates are moronic and make both sides look like idiots. Just because Brodeur was a scumbag and a historic sore loser, it doesn't change the fact that their run was one of the best the league has seen. Great management will do that. Lou was a stud back then.
Girardi is certainly a big problem. This many years in the league you don't EXPECT an icing call, you play to the whistle, period!!
But he's not the only one that hasn't been held accountable. AV takes a very light approach with his players, and I'm not a huge fan of that. They're professionals, accountability comes with the territory. To keep McIlraith sidelined so that Boyle and Girardi play nightly is a disgrace.
Have to give credit where credit is due. FWIW, I am a Ranger fan, but I LOVE hockey. Any discussion that sticks to the merits, even when I disagree, I'm all in.
For example, divisional playoff series where conference seedings don't matter might be one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the NHL. Consider this, first round matchup of Chicago and St. Louis, one team has 107 points the other 103, should one of these teams AUTOMATICALLY be eliminated after the first round???? Huge upsets are one of the great things about playoff hockey, but when you pit two really good teams against one another in Round 1, you are doing the fans a great disservice.
Not only that, but Crosby's breakaway goal was born from a weak, lazy wrist shot from Girardi at the point -- into a massive crowd of Penguins who had been blocking shots all night. I don't know what positive thing he was thinking could possibly come from that. At least go with a slapshot -- that would have a chance of getting through our stunning the guy who blocks it. The weak wrister just allowed for a simple outlet pass to Cindy.
Thanks for the reminder. My blood pressure had just returned to normal, so much for that.
That was what shocked me, the announcers talked about all the shots we were taking. The Rangers threw pucks towards the net yesterday, to call the shots was optimistic to say the least.
But, you are 100% correct, if you throw a puck at the net from the side boards, and it gets blocked the middle of the ice is usually WIDE open, and Crosby is adept at Cherry Picking; think he learned it from Mario. Terrible decision by Girardi.
Question: Who sits when McDonagh comes back? Because Brady Skjei might have been our best defenseman last night.
Was thinking about this as well. I want Skjei to stay, but I suspect AV will go with the experienced veterans. If he does, it'll piss me off. One of Girardi or Boyle needs to sit. Hell, I'd have both Girardi AND Boyle sit and play Skjei and McIlrath.
Plus 1,000,000.
If mistakes are going to be made, I'd prefer it be our young, future blue liners, NOT the seasoned veterans that are supposed to know better.
Ding ding ding.
And I'm with you above on the lack of quality scoring chances. They didn't take advantage of the few they had. Stralberg gets loose on a 3 on 1 and he just waits and waits before missing the net? It's a 3 on 1...you have to be able to complete a pass or two there. As I told my buddies, it's mathematically impossible to not be able to pull one off.
Then you have Stepan finding the puck at his feet with Nash ahead for an easy breakaway, and he's so gassed from a full PK that he couldn't even attempt the break out pass. Instead they slowly make their way up the ice for a 2 on 1, and again, just an awful shot. I give that a pass because of how exhausted they were, but in the playoffs you have to take advantage of opportunities that present themselves (fail) and you can't gift goals (fail).
The pass to Nash (likely because of fatigue) was right between his skates. A better pass would have allowed him to shoot right away.
I like the idea of divisional playoffs since the schedule is designed to be balanced division-wide rather than conference-wide, so divisional playoffs are more fair, but to me the wild card spots screw it up. If you're going with divisional playoffs, then the first two rounds should consist of teams only playing division opponents, so that afterwards you can determine who the champion of each division is. With wild cards, you can't do that because if a wild card team makes it to the conference finals, they could end up winning the "championship" of a division they aren't even in, and meeting another team from their actual division in the conference final. As far as huge upsets though, the wild card format will usually maintain the 1 vs. 8 matchup since the top team in the conference plays the lower wild card team.
He was looking for a deflection or to create a scramble in front of the net. Shooting it harder isn't the better play, that probably would have just created the exact same result, and he didn't really have time to wind up for a slapper because Crosby was right on him. What he should have done was just put it across to the other defenseman (Staal I think?). That guy was wide open and if he had gotten the puck, he had a teammate wide open right in front of or next to the net for a screen/deflection/rebound. I guess Girardi didn't see that developing. I'm surprised he has been a regular in the lineup this long, he seems to cause a lot of goals against.
Girardi might have had a chance to prevent that goal after his turnover if he would have stayed with Crosby, but instead he lazily let him blow right by him, and then had to make a desperation dive to try to stop the pass through the neutral zone. Also, getting open for a breakaway pass isn't cherry picking. Cherry picking has a negative connotation because it generally means either blatantly going offsides in games where it is not called, such as pick-up games, or ignoring defense to hang out for a head-man pass before your team gets the puck. This isn't what he was doing here since Crosby was the one whose pressure caused Girardi to turn over the puck. Once he saw the turnover happening, he got open.
This is a fair point about the coaching, but I think that AV was a good choice at the time coming off a coach that was completely the opposite. Typically, when guys are disciplinarians or too lax with the players, the act wears thin after a few years. That may be partially to blame for some of the defensive play.
There is no excuse for being beaten to that puck on that first goal.
Hard to come away from last night's game thinking that Crosby was cherry picking. He played very solid in the defensive end. He looked to me to be thoughtfully choosing his spots to stretch out the defense while still being responsible defensively. That is exactly what you want your high skill guys doing.
I like the divisional setup. It provides more rivalries in the earlier rounds, and I'm okay with Chicago and St. Louis having to play earlier. They didn't win their division -- if either had done so, they would have had an easier matchup.
Previously, you also had the issue of the #3 seed in each conference being the winner of a bad division, so it is not like that was perfect either.
Personally, I'm tired of playing Washington and Pittsburgh seemingly every year. And I thought that before the Rangers were big underdogs this time around.
First off, it was a GREAT pass, but Crosby was already at the blue line, so he definitely "cheated" up ice. It was probably calculated, but he gave himself a hell of a head start. He even struggled to stay onside, LOL. And, FWIW, HELL of a shot.
I'm not really worried about the "easier" matchups, it's just a shame that 2 teams with 100+ points face off in Round 1, and 1 has to go home. There is a whole other issue with a 2nd seed in the division (and possibly the conference) being the road team by Round 2. Teams will lose a lot of money that way; there's a lot of revenue to hosting playoff games.
Are you actually serious with this? He wasn't "cheating" up ice, he was getting open for a good scoring chance, after his own defensive play forced the turnover. You're acting like he broke some sort of unwritten rule or was just dawdling around the neutral zone waiting for a pass, which isn't what he did, and even if it was, you should be happy because it would have basically given the Rangers a powerplay. Maybe if Crosby wasn't doing his part on defense, Girardi would have had more time and would have noticed his partner wide open to his left.
Here's the video of the goal. You can see Crosby stepping up on Girardi, which forces Girardi to put the puck towards the traffic in front instead of finding an open man and trying to make a play. As soon as Crosby notices the shot being knocked down by a teammate, he breaks free. If this is "cheating" up ice then I guess wide receivers are "cheating" downfield when they outrun their coverage on a long bomb down the sideline.
For those of you looking for Rutgers Hockey gear,here is a ton of stuff---http://achastore.com/rutgers/
