You are a funny dude papa. Hawks win last year. Kings win the year before that. Bruins win the year before that. All means nothing. All in the past. Those teams cannot play in the playoffs. And who cares what they did in the regular season, that means nothing. So what do we judge things on in your version of reality...just the last 6 playoff games? If a team plays well does that mean they are built for the playoffs? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, so all good, but I think you have a lot of people in here confused on how you judge/view things papa.
i feel like i want LA now, IDK quick vs lundy whose the best goalie in the finals? gabby coming back to NYC? damn i want LA, chicago is meh already i do feel there better then LA. LA can disappear any night
It is pretty much unanimous...everyone I have seen has said we rather play the Hawks. I don't think I have seen one "expert" say the Kings. They all say we matchup better and "rather" play the Hawks. And I agree. The size and depth of the Kings would be tough for us I believe. And the travel is easier for us as well if we play the Hawks.
The Rangers would have the edge in goal, Chicago in forwards, D slighty to Chicago because they can really move and shoot. Speed would help the Rangers and theyve shown they can play well against them, though the playoffs are a different intensity. With Quick Lundqvists equal and 4 good lines they would be tough imo. Neither will be a walk in the park. If they can snag one of the first two and go from there it could be very interesting.
Rangers do not have the talent of either of these two teams. But hey, I am ecstatic THE TEAM has come this far. The final hurdle will be the toughest. GOOOO RANGERS.
Chuck, you call me what you want. You're the schmuck who pays $400 to be entertained for 2 1/2 hours. For the rest of you. An athlete thinks different than the schmucks who paid $400 to sit in the stands. And apparently that is something that is above the comprehension of most of this board. There is not one player on the Rangers that gives a damn about what happened the last 3 years. All they care about is in 2014, Boston is out and either LA or Chicago will be out tomorrow night. They will line up 20 on 20 for the next 2 weeks against whoever wins tomorrow night best 4 out of 7 gets the ultimate prize. They will put their pads on before game 1 just like whoever they play. And when the puck drops, the Rangers will have 6 on the ice just like whoever they play. The records for both teams will be 0-0. It is a race to 4 wins. And I can promise you, not one New York Ranger in the locker room gives a FUCK about the history of the last 3 years like a fan does. So Chuck, call me a funny dude or anything else you want. For the rest of you, try to think like an athlete who is on the brink of being at the pinnacle of their sport. They don't care about history. They care about getting 4 more wins before the 20 guys on the other side of the ice do. That's it. Period!
Papadoc I get what you're saying. I have no doubt that's exactly what the feeling in the Ranger room is. They aren't scared of anybody and they aren't looking at history or matchups or anything. They'll come out fired up and ready to play against either team, fully believing they can and will win. That's just what you do as a player in these situations. That's what I did and I'm sure that's what you and everyone else who played at a high level did. Can't reach that level without having that mindset. Chuck Puck Dis and others aren't saying that both of these teams are better and therefore will beat up on us. But as fans and observers, which for this series we ALL are regardless of our athletic glory days, I think it's very fair to say that the Hawks and LA's recent experience matters. They're big and they're battle tested. They both had very good regular seasons. From where I'm sitting all this matters. All teams might be equal at 0-0 but that doesnt mean one team doesnt have certain advantages over the other You brought up the Gmen in 2007...that's what made that win so damn awesome. Because the Pats were a dominant team and had just gone undefeated in the regular season. If none of that mattered it would have been just another Super Bowl no different than 86 or 90 or 2011 (most)Everybody on this board still thinks this team has a real shot to win the Cup. But I can't sit here and say both teams are equal just because the series starts 0-0. I dont think the teams are dead equal, but I also dont think the "better" team automatically wins. Rangers have shown real character these playoffs, no reason they cant take down 4 more wins against a real tough opponent.
No point Prod. He doesn't understand. Since he was an athlete, the whole board is lost in his opinion, it's all good. I said he was a funny dude, and I guess that is very offensive to him. He can curse and be a child, I have no issues with that. Sometimes people feel the need to do that when people disagree with them like most of us do in here. Papa has shown what he is all about, and good for him. It is a free country, and he is certainly entitled to his opinion, despite the fact that he is confusing all of us with his logic...LOL. All good. There are no favorites. There are no underdogs. Nothing that has happened up to game 1 of a series matters at all. The betting that happens, and point spreads, and favorites, and underdogs don't really exist. At the start of a series no team has any advantage at all. It is why the Hawks and Kings meet for the 2nd straight season in the WCF. Why the Bruins have been in 2 SCF's the past 4 years or so. Why the Heat are in 4 straight Finals. Why the Spurs are right there again. Why the Pats win their division every season. All teams are equal. Nothing else matters. No favs and no underdogs. The betting industry does not exist...it is all a myth.... AND me, and the 18,000 + fans that go to games, are all schmucks...LOL.
Thanks Prod. And I agree with everything you said expect 1 thing. The Gmen win in 2007 was so awesome to us fans because the Pats dominated the reg season. But to the players, they believed they could beat the Pats. I owned a nightclub back in 2007. My manager was a good friend and a Pats fan. For the days leading up to the game, he asked almost every day what I thought and who was going to win. I told him if the game was low scoring at halftime, we would win. He came to me at halftime, I looked at him and said, your dreams of an undefeated season are over. We played the Pats tough in the last game of the regular season. We knew how to play them Point is, if you want to take any history, take the fact that the Rangers beat the Hawks twice this year and were 1-1 against LA. Take the fact that we now roll 4 lines. Take the fact that all 4 lines are a scoring threat. Take the fact that we don't sit back with a lead anymore. Take the fact that since December, we have been just as good as LA and Chicago. And take the fact that we have enough guys with experience to teach the young guys as we go. At the news conference after game 6 when all the reporters were gloating and throwing praise on this Rangers team, Richey said it best. "We're not done yet." So it's not like we don't have experience. And the guys who haven't been in a Cup Finals have played in 2 of the last 3 Conference finals. We will not be overwhelmed.
And you nailed it Prod. Of course we have a shot against the Kings or Hawks, that's why they play the games. But we are the underdog, no way to argue it. Doesn't mean we can't/won't win, just means going in the WC winner is the fav no doubt. Favs can be beaten though, so let's drop the puck and see how it goes.
Papa, this is where you get lost...NO ONE is saying the players go into these games saying we have no shot. The other team is so much better. The other team is a huge fav. Why should we even play the games. NO ONE is saying that in here. No one believes the players feel that way, and they shouldn't. BUT there are favorites in sports papa, that's just reality. There are better teams and worse teams in sports papa. Again that is just reality. The Giants were a huge underdog, and yet won the game. I am sure they thought they could win, but guess what...they are not stupid...they knew there were up against it and big underdogs, and overcame that and still won. The Rangers will also know they are an underdog in the SCF, and that's okay. Underdogs win sometimes papa, again why they play the games. The Rangers will go in fully believing they can win, and rightfully so because we can win. But they are the underdogs, and what has happened in the recent past does matter in terms of telling you the Hawks and Kings are both very good teams, worthy of being the fav into the SCF. From there we see how it goes once they drop the puck.
Chuck, I apologize for the language. For some reason, you get me really fired up. So I'm going to ask you this, in 2007, Were the Gmen the team with SB experience or was it the Pats? I'm going to wait for the response before I say anything else.
It's all good. And the Pats were. They won the SB in 2003 and 2004. We hadn't been to the SB since we lost in 2000. What is your point? If it is see the team with the experience lost and therefore proves that the past and experience means nothing, then we disagree. The point to me is just because one team is a big fav, and the Pats were a big fav per the point spread into that SB, doesn't mean the other team cannot win still. That is why they play. I am 100% sure the Giants believed they could win. I am 100% sure the Rangers believe they can win. And both are 100% right for feeling that way. NO ONE in here is saying the Hawks and Kings have the experience and therefore cannot lose. All we are saying, what every hockey expert is also saying, is the Hawks and Kings are both very good teams. They have both wons cups and been to SCF's recently. They are the fav against the Rangers, but the Rangers can win and will play their butts off. That is all I have heard thus far. From that POV the Rangers are getting respect. I have seen everyone pick the WC winner to win the series, BUT all of them have said I see a long hard series and the Rangers will play well. That's a fair POV. We will be the underdog, but we can still win...no doubt about it. That is why they play the games.
The only place you and I disagree, and I think most of the board disagrees with you, is you appear to believe that there is no fav. That despite the Hawks and Kings winning cups recently and making finals recently that all means zero. We disagree with you there. We believe the West is the fav and the recent success matters for those teams, including better regular seasons. BUT we all agree with you that the Rangers can win. The Rangers 100% should believe they can win. And that's why they play the games. Upsets happen, and just because you are the fav with experience and a track record does NOT mean you just automatically win.
Here is my point. When I watch the interviews post game, I not only listen to what they player says but I also watch their demeaner. There is a difference in saying all the right things and believing it. I think we can agree on that. Are they struggling to find words to answer the question. Are they looking directly at the reporters or are their eyes wondering. Those kind of things. The Rangers believe what they are saying! That's all I need to believe they are confident they will win. Now here is where we differ. I could care less what the so-called experts think. The experts have to pick 1 team or another so they have something to talk about. Most of them are clueless ( Katie Strang) or bias ( the nbcsn crew) from their playing days to give a couple of examples. So you, like most fans listen to the media and believe what they say. I watch and listen to the players to get my conclusions.
1 more thing I need to add to the 1st paragraph. If the players don't feel like they are underdogs, I don't either.
I just read Popodocs posts and I have no idea what his point was. Nice reference to a Super Bowl upset that is irrelevant to playoff hockey. The Kings won a cup as an 8 seed. Previously the lowest seed team past 20 years to win cup was '95 a Devils as a 5 seed and that was a strike shortened season. Guess what that tells us: Regular seasons typically matter when judging success in playoffs. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No point in going round and round on this. I think we are generally agree. No one is saying the media said it or the experts are picking the West team, so we believe it, all we are saying is the West team deserves to be the fav, just like the Pats deserved to be the fav, BUT at days end we play the games and can certainly still win. So I think we generally all agree with you, you just may have a little different way of viewing it, which is all good. We'll play the games and see how it goes. That we can all agree on for sure....
Rangers have a decent shot regardless of who they play. I also think they got favorable matchups in playoffs. Not taking anything away from them but getting Philly with a hurt Mason getting the flawed Pens and avoiding Boston was great for us. Throw in the Price injury and we got some breaks but still played great playoff hockey. I do feel like the Rangers have destiny on their side as another poster mentioned. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
