PDA

View Full Version : Bruins(4) vs.Rangers(6)



alias
05-14-2013, 12:11 PM
Rangers in 7

Rocklobster
05-14-2013, 12:13 PM
Rags in 5.

Hamsterkill
05-14-2013, 12:24 PM
This one's a little tough for me to call. I think Boston has a overall stronger team, but that New York would match up well against them.

I'll go Rangers in 7.

Doctego
05-14-2013, 02:08 PM
Boston in 7.

chgorman
05-14-2013, 03:04 PM
NYR wins in 7. Combined score of all 7 games - 4-3, 1-0 scores every game, Lundy out-duels Rask. Neither team scores much, both play great D and have spectacular goaltending.

Obvious exageration, but if you like lots of offence and scoring, like I do, this could possibly be the most boring series of all time. Those who love close, low scoring games will love this series.

Dubz
05-15-2013, 12:14 PM
Rags in 7

Its gonna be a low scoring series.

Doctego
05-15-2013, 03:12 PM
The good thing about this series is that, whenever either team is on the PP, you know that you can take a bathroom break.

Kyle
05-15-2013, 04:49 PM
The good thing about this series is that, whenever either team is on the PP, you know that you can take a bathroom break.

:lol: Right, and lucky for voters they only need to decide on a third star of every game behind Rask and Lundy.

Dubz
05-23-2013, 12:15 PM
I smell a buyout!!! Unless they can somehow sucker (once again....i dont know how they do it either) some other team to eat this contract.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=423824

Kyle
05-23-2013, 04:09 PM
Torts healthy scratches Richards in the worst coaching move of the season. God hes such a fucking overly-emotional fool. How people respect Torts year after year amazes me. Consistently has his team underperforming and makes embarrassing decisions like that.

Worst coaching decision of the year overwhelmingly.

dw13
05-23-2013, 04:13 PM
I have to give you credit, you are one jacked up hockey fan. :beer:

nyrblue2
05-23-2013, 10:20 PM
May seem easy to say after the fact, but I thought it was a fine move when I heard it today. The guy is playing 10 minutes or less per game for good reason - he's been slow and ineffective. Might as well put a couple bangers in there to play similar minutes (except the PP that Richards has no business being on anymore), only they're capable of hitting someone.

nyrblue2
05-24-2013, 10:57 AM
Interesting turning point of the game last night:

http://i.imgur.com/B6D6Jta.gif

dw13
05-25-2013, 05:24 PM
Looks like a great move at this point.

Kyle
05-25-2013, 08:54 PM
Looks like a great move at this point.

I don't get it - Is that sarcasm? They lost and benching Richards did nothing more than deprive the team of a needed potential game changer.

It was an asinine move by a desperate coach. That Richards was ever playing 10 minutes or less a night was always a crime in and of itself. Simply terrible coaching method.

dw13
05-25-2013, 09:30 PM
I don't get it - Is that sarcasm? They lost and benching Richards did nothing more than deprive the team of a needed potential game changer.

It was an asinine move by a desperate coach. That Richards was ever playing 10 minutes or less a night was always a crime in and of itself. Simply terrible coaching method.

Were we watching the same Richards this post season? He looked awful. Slow. Clunky. Mistake prone.

They were better off using their bottom 2 lines more like they did after he sat Richards. He was ineffective and while they were outplayed in the one game they won, atleast they gutted out a win. Richards looked as if he doesn't have any guts left. (And I love him, great player on his day).

Desperate? No question. Asinine? I don't think so personally.

Kyle
05-25-2013, 09:37 PM
Fair enough. I just don't understand "Looks like a great move" but I suppose his replacement was playing well or something? The Rangers looked no better without Richards.

Regardless, great players go through horrid stretches. You can't go giving a 20 minute 8 million dollar all star 10 minutes a night and expect him to earn his way up from it. You let him struggle and work it out on the top lines, its simply setting him up to fail and stripping his motivation to play him on the 4th line.

Hes looked awful but not nearly as awful as this decision. The Rangers have so many sorry forwards on that roster that playing Brad Richards less than 15-17 minutes a night is universally dumb. Richards is a potential 3-4 point night any night regardless how awful hes been. Its just a ridiculous move for a team desperately lacking offense - And then they barely average 2 goals a night regardless. At this point it just looks senseless.

dw13
05-25-2013, 09:54 PM
The question now is, do the Rangers buy out his contract?

Doctego
05-26-2013, 06:16 AM
The question now is, do the Rangers buy out his contract?

100%.

nyrblue2
05-26-2013, 12:51 PM
Kyle, either you didn't see more than a few minutes of the entire NYR season or you're in some strange sense of denial. Richards' "horrid stretch" has lasted all season - he was given top line and top PP minutes all season to try to get him out of his funk and it didn't work. He had his chance and didn't deliver. A playoff season in which you're behind is not the time to continue to wait it out and deal with his horrible play. The move to get his ass off the PP, off the top line and ultimately off the ice was the right move. In a series against a Bruins team that was out-"physical"-ing them, creating a 4th line with those appropriate type of players was the right move. I don't think of I've heard 1 other person question this move like you have.

Who cares if he is an $8 mil player? Myself, and obviously the coaches, didn't have any more confidence in him to score or positively contribute than the others. Richards had scoring to "offer" - he didn't come through. Haley, Newbury, Dorsett had physical play and forechecking to offer - no, it didn't magically create goals or ultimately change the series, but at least they were able to do that. Richards was outscored in the playoffs by Chris Kreider (less games and ice time per game than Richards and stuck on the 4th line until Richards was finally sat), Aaron Asham (less than 7 minutes a night) and Steve freaking Eminger. I had as much confidence that Taylor Pyatt would score 3-4 points in a game as I did with Richards.

Kyle
05-26-2013, 03:01 PM
By "Horrible all season" you're including his 16 point effort in 14 games in April that the Rangers went 10-4 during? Whos denying basic facts here, me or you? Including his good start you have 20 games of a 48 game season where he was extremely good and 28 more where he was basically a ghost looking horrible. As bad as that sounds, thats sadly somewhat of a status-quo from top-liners in today's low-scoring NHL. When does Torts receive blame for consistently failing with all star players in the playoffs over the last few years?

If Richards wasn't replaced with basically a turd, all of that sounds totally valid. But he was replaced with nobody and it just looks silly. You're coming at this from the perspective of a fan obviously extremely frustrated with a terrible season from a supposed star. Understandable but logic simply doesn't and can't ever possibly support benching Richards as a higher percent chance to win for the Rangers. You can argue the principal of a player with Richard's expectations under-performing to such an extent and letting his team down and basically stealing 8 mill and all that. Doesn't mean they had a better chance to win benching him. I won't argue that any of that is fucked up but benching him gave them no better chance to make a near-impossible 0-3 comeback against the Bruins. In that situation, before game 4, I don't want to see message sending, just changes made to win.

If I even wanted the comeback to be possible I ignore Richard's horrible play and simply give him 19 minutes of top line play a night. I don't bench the guy, I accept its do or die and if its going to be "do" its not going to happen without Richards playing superb hockey. You go all in no matter how bad hes been, that was the cards Torts was dealt and he played them the worst way possible.

"On" 40-50% of the time and "off" the other 50-60% is nothing new in this league. Franzen and Filpulla in Detroit disappear at LEAST half the season and most playoff games, they're still insanely crucial components of the team's success because they simply need one of these "off" players to show up on a random night to win. They may make 3-5 million less than Richards but again, his salary should have had nothing to do with deciding if he deserves a spot on the starting lineup today. They could've restructured or bought out later. Torts treats his stars like children and thats why he seems to eventually reach a point where he loses them. There simply wasn't 11 forwards playing better for the Rangers regardless if Richards was showing up or not. If 11 other forwards were playing good hockey the Rangers wouldn't have had an overall miserable post-season run. Which it was miserable, Washington might've decided to be even worse, but the Rangers were a miserably bad hockey team this playoff year. If not for Lundy that team was a bottom dweller and I'm not putting that on Richards.

Richards had HALF of a bad postseason run, and half a run he had no chance to produce because of terrible coaching. Richards on the 4th line at 9 minutes was always an absurdly dumb idea. That he was demoted after 1 goal in 5 games immediately following a magnificent month of april, only displays Tort's emotional method of coaching and short-term memory. Hockey is not a short-term memory sport, especially today's NHL where nightly production is a true gift limited to no more than 12-13 players in this league.

It was an irrational, emotional response. From the most emotional, and when hes angry irrational, coach in the league. Its not a stretch.

Doctego
05-26-2013, 10:10 PM
I understand what you're saying but I respectfully disagree. His play didn't warrant top line minutes or responsibilities. Your comparison to the Wings is off because those guys aren't their #1 C. Those are guys that can score as much in a playoff season as they can in the regular season. Richards wasn't scoring and was getting beaten defensively on a consistent basis. It was either the 4th line or no line for him. For 8-10 minutes max per game, they would be better off going with someone more adjusted to playing less minutes. His game isn't balls-out 4th line minutes.

I agree that Tortorella is an asshole with no patience but I had no problem with him benching Richards.