Since six games is hardly enough of a sample size to really gauge what this Rangers team is all about, we are left to only speculate whether the 2-4 start is the sign of a team still shaking off the early-season cobwebs, or if it’s indicative of some serious, not easily cured deficiencies.
How you look at it depends on your point of view.
The optimist says that Jaromir Jagr will eventually find his rhythm playing alongside Scott Gomez or Chris Drury and he’ll be ready to big challenge the numbers he put up in 2005-06.
The pessimist says Jagr is a year older and the Rangers made a serious mistake not bringing back Michael Nylander.
The optimist says the overall lack of offensive production, especially at even strength, is just a byproduct of players pressing too much in the early going, and that it’s only a matter of time before the goals start coming in bunches.
The pessimist says the Rangers’ much-hyped attack simply isn’t as good as we thought it was.
The optimist says the Rangers’ defense was this bad, if not worse, at this point a year ago, and they eventually grew into a solid, cohesive unit that was better than its individual parts.
The pessimist says the defense simply isn’t good enough to make this team into a Cup contender, and the Rangers targeted the wrong areas in the offseason.
You could go on for days, covering everything from the goaltending to the coaching to the use of the third and fourth lines. The Rangers get another chance to clarify things at 4 o’clock against the Bruins. Because the more games they play, the more the patterns take hold.