Even AV has stated this. If tonight goes bad, he's making changes.
- mrhattrick27

Del Zotto out.

Del Zotto out.
- OLDSCHOOL#6

fans won't have him to kick around tonight

I still say it's a major disservice to him to have him playing right side.

fans won't have him to kick around tonight

I still say it's a major disservice to him to have him playing right side.

- jimbro83

Bouchard for Del Zotto

Bouchard for Del Zotto
- mighty13duck

can't do it dude

Even AV has stated this. If tonight goes bad, he's making changes.
- mrhattrick27

I almost want them to lose tonight now. I hate this lineup, a little less hate with Miller in the lineup, but regardless there is too much fecal matter--in the form of roster players--fo me to be ok with things remaining the same.

Bouchard for Del Zotto
- mighty13duck

Flu....

I almost want them to lose tonight now. I hate this lineup, a little less hate with Miller in the lineup, but regardless there is too much fecal matter--in the form of roster players--fo me to be ok with things remaining the same.
- MidnightMarauder

I want them to win obviously but I do agree. There is a lot I dislike about this roster that makes me really pessimistic.

For me, it's like the Jets. I'm fine with the loses and the struggles if its the young guys that we want to become big time contributors that are struggling. Not when its Pyatt, Boyle, Moore, etc. I'd eventually like to see...

Richards-Stepan-Cally
Hags-Brassard-Zucc
Kreider-Miller-Fast/Kristo
Pouillot-Boyle-Dorsett

That lineup just seems a hell of a lot better....Granted Hags healthy helps.

I want them to win obviously but I do agree. There is a lot I dislike about this roster that makes me really pessimistic.

For me, it's like the Jets. I'm fine with the loses and the struggles if its the young guys that we want to become big time contributors that are struggling. Not when its Pyatt, Boyle, Moore, etc. I'd eventually like to see...

Richards-Stepan-Cally
Hags-Brassard-Zucc
Kreider-Miller-Fast/Kristo
Pouillot-Boyle-Dorsett

That lineup just seems a hell of a lot better....Granted Hags healthy helps.
- mrhattrick27

If Nash is going to be out long term, and I'm beginning to think he is, they may as well let the kids play. It's just a further example of the delusional thinking of mangement, players like Pyatt, Moore, MZA and some extent Dorsett are just taking up space.

If Nash is going to be out long term, and I'm beginning to think he is, they may as well let the kids play. It's just a further example of the delusional thinking of mangement, players like Pyatt, Moore, MZA and some extent Dorsett are just taking up space.
- OLDSCHOOL#6

I'm not thrilled with Boyle either.

I want them to win obviously but I do agree. There is a lot I dislike about this roster that makes me really pessimistic.

For me, it's like the Jets. I'm fine with the loses and the struggles if its the young guys that we want to become big time contributors that are struggling. Not when its Pyatt, Boyle, Moore, etc. I'd eventually like to see...

Richards-Stepan-Cally
Hags-Brassard-Zucc
Kreider-Miller-Fast/Kristo
Pouillot-Boyle-Dorsett

That lineup just seems a hell of a lot better....Granted Hags healthy helps.
- mrhattrick27

Fast can get sent down; he hasn't shown me a whole lot. He's one of the many, obviously, because 95% of this lineup has been atrocious.

But Kristo over Fast, as long as Kristo is ready of course.

Ideally, if Nash is out long term, this is how I would love this lineup to look like:

Richards-Stepan-Callahan

Kreider-Brassard-Kristo

Hagelin-Miller-Zuccarello

Pouliot-Boyle/Moore-Dorsett.

The lesser of two evils, choosing Boyle over Dominic Moore but both have equally accomplished nothing positive so it's a coin flip.

No matter how you slice it though, this is not a good lineup, without Hank and the defense significantly stepping their respective games up. These forward groups aren't outgunning the better offensive teams in the league.

tonight we begin our march towards this, first 5 games are forgotten


- jimbro83

Dan Rosen at NHL.com had an interesting nugget of information this morning, noting that “Brian Leetch was prepared to move back to New York to join Mark Messier on the New York Rangers’ coaching staff” should Messier win the head coaching job in New York. Leetch would have been one of Messier’s assistants, likely –my assumption– working with the defensemen and the powerplay.

Instead, Alain Vigneault was named head coach, and Leetch wound up working in Brendan Shanahan’s Department of Player Safety office.

You know what I don't get, the heat that MZA is getting. He is a playmaker. He is a natural passer. Its great if he scores, but its not his fault that when he makes the initial play, the next guy can't follow up with another good pass or shot. Zucc is doing his part (as well as he can under the situations) in moving the puck correctly. Its not his fault he's not getting the A's cause someone can't finish the play. He's got more hustle to his game than almost everybody else. He's always around the puck, he's even playing physical. He might be one of the team leaders in takeaways right now too.

Dan Rosen at NHL.com had an interesting nugget of information this morning, noting that “Brian Leetch was prepared to move back to New York to join Mark Messier on the New York Rangers’ coaching staff” should Messier win the head coaching job in New York. Leetch would have been one of Messier’s assistants, likely –my assumption– working with the defensemen and the powerplay.

Instead, Alain Vigneault was named head coach, and Leetch wound up working in Brendan Shanahan’s Department of Player Safety office.
- jimbro83

Think Messier would have instituted the same defensive style Tortorella implemented? The defense would look just as lost, the team would have likely been just as humilaited thus far and the Rangers would be getting laughed at, league-wide, more so than their current reality if Messier was the bench boss.

It's the roster and how they are playing, not Vigneault and Co.

Think Messier would have instituted the same defensive style Tortorella implemented? The defense would look just as lost, the team would have likely been just as humilaited thus far and the Rangers would be getting laughed at, league-wide, more so than their current reality if Messier was the bench boss.

It's the roster and how they are playing, not Vigneault and Co.
- MidnightMarauder

I still think the right choice was made choosing Vigneault over Messier.

Think Messier would have instituted the same defensive style Tortorella implemented? The defense would look just as lost, the team would have likely been just as humilaited thus far and the Rangers would be getting laughed at, league-wide, more so than their current reality if Messier was the bench boss.

It's the roster and how they are playing, not Vigneault and Co.
- MidnightMarauder

Exactly, its not the system that causes Staal to double team the shooter on a 2 on 2 and allow the other guy to just skate around him and put in the rebound. Its plays like that that make you scratch your head like, what? Did he really just forget about covering the other forward that just went around him?

I think the same could have been said about Torts. The Rangers HAD tons of scoring chances under Torts, its not his fault they routinely missed the net, shanked the one timers, didn't shoot, etc... Much of the on ice fault falls on the players not converting and making the right play when its there.

Exactly, its not the system that causes Staal to double team the shooter on a 2 on 2 and allow the other guy to just skate around him and put in the rebound. Its plays like that that make you scratch your head like, what? Did he really just forget about covering the other forward that just went around him?

I think the same could have been said about Torts. The Rangers HAD tons of scoring chances under Torts, its not his fault they routinely missed the net, shanked the one timers, didn't shoot, etc... Much of the on ice fault falls on the players not converting and making the right play when its there.
- xcheckmajor

if you don't like the coach you blame the coach

if you like the coach, you blame the players

just the way it goes

Exactly, its not the system that causes Staal to double team the shooter on a 2 on 2 and allow the other guy to just skate around him and put in the rebound. Its plays like that that make you scratch your head like, what? Did he really just forget about covering the other forward that just went around him?

I think the same could have been said about Torts. The Rangers HAD tons of scoring chances under Torts, its not his fault they routinely missed the net, shanked the one timers, didn't shoot, etc... Much of the on ice fault falls on the players not converting and making the right play when its there.
- xcheckmajor

It all falls on Sather; the roster is highly flawed. It makes me sick to admit it but all of the Ranger haters were not far off when they mocked us by saying: "without Lundqvist, this team sucks." He covered up a lot of holes this lineup's had since he burst onto the scene in 2005-2006.

Once Jagr took off this team has struggled to score goals with regularity. The defense was always decent but Lundqvist was always the foundation to the Rangers being a relatively consistent team.

The one blip on the radar was 2011-2012 and they were so close to finishing the deal. But every other year they struggle to score three goals a game and are never a serious cup contending team.

The players assembled are just not good enough to contend for the cup. There is hope, with some good prospects on the verge, but overall Sather has done us fans a gigantic disservice for 14 f&cking seasons. He should be spit shining Lundqvist's shoes and adhering to his every wish; without him the Rangers are likely a ninth or tenth seed every season since 2005-2006.

It all falls on Sather; the roster is highly flawed. It makes me sick to admit it but all of the Ranger haters were not far off when they mocked us by saying: "without Lundqvist, this team sucks." He covered up a lot of holes this lineup's had since he burst onto the scene in 2005-2006.

Once Jagr took off this team has struggled to score goals with regularity. The defense was always decent but Lundqvist was always the foundation to the Rangers being a relatively consistent team.

The one blip on the radar was 2011-2012 and they were so close to finishing the deal. But every other year they struggle to score three goals a game and are never a serious cup contending team.

The players assembled are just not good enough to contend for the cup. There is hope, with some good prospects on the verge, but overall Sather has done us fans a gigantic disservice for 14 f&cking seasons. He should be spit shining Lundqvist's shoes and adhering to his every wish; without him the Rangers are likely a ninth or tenth seed every season since 2005-2006.
- MidnightMarauder

I just don't know why but I see this Roster as completely flawed when a year ago it looked like a cup contender yet only Gaborik for Brassard up front has changed.

It basically comes down to this, I agree with the Rangers higher ups that at times last yr the Rangers were unwatchable, they were. I get moving to a more wide open offensive system. However, do the Rangers have the horses to do it? They don't really have a 2nd scoring option in the top 6 other than Nash, Richards is scoring right now but I consider him more of a passer, not a sniper. Their players with speed are some of the younger guys like Miller and Kreider and they're not being played over someone like Pyatt.

I'm hoping for best case and hopefully some of these guys we're not expecting to score can put the puck in the net due to the system once they learn it fully. Then at the trade deadline maybe they can address their deficiencies in the scoring and toughness areas.

It all falls on Sather; the roster is highly flawed. It makes me sick to admit it but all of the Ranger haters were not far off when they mocked us by saying: "without Lundqvist, this team sucks." He covered up a lot of holes this lineup's had since he burst onto the scene in 2005-2006.

Once Jagr took off this team has struggled to score goals with regularity. The defense was always decent but Lundqvist was always the foundation to the Rangers being a relatively consistent team.

The one blip on the radar was 2011-2012 and they were so close to finishing the deal. But every other year they struggle to score three goals a game and are never a serious cup contending team.

The players assembled are just not good enough to contend for the cup. There is hope, with some good prospects on the verge, but overall Sather has done us fans a gigantic disservice for 14 f&cking seasons. He should be spit shining Lundqvist's shoes and adhering to his every wish; without him the Rangers are likely a ninth or tenth seed every season since 2005-2006.
- MidnightMarauder

On paper, I still don't think the team is too far off. Coming into the season, I think almost everyone would agree that they were exceptionally strong in net, and had one of the best defensive cores in the league. Down the middle of the ice, Stepan, Brassard, Richards and Boyle/Moore is strong unit at the pivot. Even on the right side, they are pretty strong with Nash and Callahan manning the wings on the Top 2 lines. The left side is where they can use some significant help, IMO.

I just don't know why but I see this Roster as completely flawed when a year ago it looked like a cup contender yet only Gaborik for Brassard up front has changed.
- mrhattrick27

You miss Dubi and Artem, too? Those deals pretty much look like one large trade that sent Dubinsky, Anisimov, Gaborik, Erikson to CBJ for Brassard, Nash, Dorsette, and John Moore.

Hmmm...

On paper, I still don't think the team is too far off. Coming into the season, I think almost everyone would agree that they were exceptionally strong in net, and had one of the best defensive cores in the league. Down the middle of the ice, Stepan, Brassard, Richards and Boyle/Moore is strong unit at the pivot. Even on the right side, they are pretty strong with Nash and Callahan manning the wings on the Top 2 lines. The left side is where they can use some significant help, IMO.
- Pete V

It looks like you are talking about a healthy Ranger lineup. The left side, when healthy, is Hags and Richards as your top two.

It looks like you are talking about a healthy Ranger lineup. The left side, when healthy, is Hags and Richards as your top two.
- mames11

Not quite sure that the Rangers keep Richards on the leftside when Hags comes back. Maybe they do, but I also think that may have been a short term solution made necessary by the fact that Hagelin was out, and Kreider (who I assume they were counting on to be a Top 6 left winger) didn't make the team.

Not quite sure that the Rangers keep Richards on the leftside when Hags comes back. Maybe they do, but I also think that may have been a short term solution made necessary by the fact that Hagelin was out, and Kreider (who I assume they were counting on to be a Top 6 left winger) didn't make the team.
- Pete V

yeah, was just gonna say, eventually Hagelin and Kreider should be regulars on the left side in this lineup.