|
|
Publisher
Posts: 1114
 
Location: USA | So there's talk of having a 48-56 game season to allow next season to start on time. My question is, does that help or hurt the Rangers...or does it not really matter? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4816
 
| Fish - 2020-11-15 5:15 PM
So there's talk of having a 48-56 game season to allow next season to start on time. My question is, does that help or hurt the Rangers...or does it not really matter?
The Rangers are a playoff team, they can trot out three lines that will play with any other teams. A couple question marks on the fourth line. Probably a improved Defense with Lindgren, Fox and DeAngelo another year wiser, Johnson a question mark but a couple young guys banging on the door. Potential All Star goaltending. A quick start would do wonders for one of the youngest teams in the league. Time is your ally to make up ground over a 80 game season, a 50 game season not so much. I’d say pretty important to get off the snye quickly. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 850
| The Rangers have done nothing as of yet to show they are a playoff team. They won't be until several young players take a big step up. So to me, a shortened season hurts the Rangers as young players need more games to improve. Also, younger teams tend to benefit from longer seasons. Young legs stay fresher. A shortened season once again would benefit and older team like the Islanders. There is no need to shorten the season. Just play games more often. NHL teams take too much time between games as it is. Teams will have to learn not to play top pairing defenseman 25+ minutes a night. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4816
| You obviously slept through the second 1/2 of last season when the Rangers had a good record and we’re knocking on the playoff door when the season shut down. Better start this season, come together like later last season and they will be in the playoffs. |
|
| |
|
Publisher
Posts: 1114
Location: USA | The Rangers went 14-4 in February - apparently it was alliteration month - and by that time they had moved on from some of the earlier season experiments. Obviously in a shortened season, the ability to put a streak like that has a bigger impact on the season. On the other hand, it started in game #50, which would be too late in a shortened season, so they'd have to work on that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 492
| itsmcilrathtime - 2020-11-16 5:45 AM
The Rangers have done nothing as of yet to show they are a playoff team. They won't be until several young players take a big step up. So to me, a shortened season hurts the Rangers as young players need more games to improve. Also, younger teams tend to benefit from longer seasons. Young legs stay fresher. A shortened season once again would benefit and older team like the Islanders. There is no need to shorten the season. Just play games more often. NHL teams take too much time between games as it is. Teams will have to learn not to play top pairing defenseman 25+ minutes a night.
I cannot believe that I actually agree with you for once. Look at how easily they were bounced by Carolina. The "Second Season" is a totally different ball game -- always has been. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 139
Location: Czech Republic | Rangers have a lot of young players. They need to play a lot.
So I'm saying it's not beneficial to the Rangers in the long run.
|
|
| |
Does a shortened season help or hurt the Rangers?
