Toggle sidebar

Post-Game Talk: #10 - 10/29/19 | lightning @ RANGERS

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates

3 Stars of the Game

  • Total voters
    189
Status
Not open for further replies.
Machinehead said:
It all fell onto his chin.

hqdefault.jpg
i
Click to expand...
I resemble that remark.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Machinehead
Glen Sathers Cigar said:
I'm not sure how it's "delusional to think" that Buffalo had 23 scoring chances when that's what the stats say. The score doesn't always tell the whole story. Just because we won by a fair margin does not mean it's crazy to think they had a lot of scoring chances. If anything, it makes perfect sense: a team gets up by a wide margin and the other team is desperate and taking chances and putting on pressure trying to get back in the game.
Click to expand...
While I wholeheartedly agree with the second part of this thought,... it is insane to think Buffalo had that many quality chances. Don't know where you are getting that 23 scoring chances, but it so wrong. It's rare any team gets that many good chances. And if it were true, Buffalo would have won this game. This stat, wherever it comes from, is way off base. It is definitely not the quality chances coaches talk about in pressers.

You can easily watch the game and count on your fingers how many good chances any team has. And as I have mentioned, and you alluded to, in high scoring events those numbers go up. There's more to good play, like a strong forecheck, force turnovers, take away time and space, that they excelled at in this game. They were like a wet tee shirt and stifled Buffalo.

We played well against TB, don't get me wrong. It was a strong effort, even if we wouldn't' have pulled it out with 7 minutes left. But we were in full control vs Buffalo.
 
In full control vs Buffalo? I'm going to have to disagree.

20192020-20147-cfdiff-5v5.png

20192020-20147-5v5.png


Yes, it was a good game. Outside of the first half of the second period, it was a rather even-ish back and forth between the teams. The only real difference in that game was...Hutton. Not the overall team strength.
 
I know it’s not what everyone envisioned by I’m actually really liking Smith and Andersson as a tandem. I think they’re having a good time together, and are always looking to make the most of their minutes.

That was one of the best games I’ve ever seen Chytil play.

Staal needs to be the 7D.
 
  • Like
Reactions: effen, TheDirtyH, belford22 and 1 other person
aufheben said:
I know it’s not what everyone envisioned by I’m actually really liking Smith and Andersson as a tandem. I think they’re having a good time together, and are always looking to make the most of their minutes.

That was one of the best games I’ve ever seen Chytil play.
Click to expand...
I agree, but Twitter and sometimes HF keep telling me that Smith is bad because he's a defenseman playing as a forward.

Or something like that...
 
  • Like
Reactions: SA16 and Lone Ranger
Irishguy42 said:
I agree, but Twitter and sometimes HF keep telling me that Smith is bad because he's a defenseman playing as a forward.
Or something like that...
Click to expand...

Smith deserves a lot of credit for what he's doing right now. Sure, he likely has little choice if he wants to remain a Ranger, but his ability to credibly perform at forward, after being a defenseman his entire career, should be recognized.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband, lucky13, BleedBlueNYR and 1 other person
Lone Ranger said:
Smith deserves a lot of credit for what he's doing right now. Sure, he likely has little choice if he wants to remain a Ranger, but his ability to credibly perform at forward, after being a defenseman his entire career, should be recognized.
Click to expand...

Playing forward is not something new...He actually played forward before reaching the NHL. He also played forward for the Red Wings.

"Smith had 22 goals and 85 points in 66 games as a forward with a AAA team, the Toronto Marlboros, in 2004-05." (Quoted from: Red Wings' Brendan Smith views temporary move to forward as opportunity to help, not demotion)
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
Lone Ranger said:
Smith deserves a lot of credit for what he's doing right now. Sure, he likely has little choice if he wants to remain a Ranger, but his ability to credibly perform at forward, after being a defenseman his entire career, should be recognized.
Click to expand...

I read some stuff about how his brother Reilly helped him work on his forward skills over the summer
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
Irishguy42 said:
In full control vs Buffalo? I'm going to have to disagree.

20192020-20147-cfdiff-5v5.png

20192020-20147-5v5.png


Yes, it was a good game. Outside of the first half of the second period, it was a rather even-ish back and forth between the teams. The only real difference in that game was...Hutton. Not the overall team strength.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what these graphs represent. Including those Corsi figures thrown out occasionally. I have good reason to believe they are flawed.

Bottom line; Rangers were learning to play with the lead vs Buffalo. And passed with flying colors. Don't think for a moment that had no effect late in crunch time against TB when we took the lead. They kept the pressure on, and did not fall back into a prevent D. Where do you think they learned that?
 
ohbaby said:
I have no idea what these graphs represent. Including those Corsi figures thrown out. I have good reason to believe they are flawed.

Bottom line; Rangers were learning to play with the lead vs Buffalo. And passed with flying colors. Don't think for a moment that had no effect late in crunch time against TB when we took the lead. They kept the pressure on, and did not fall back into a prevent D. Where do you think they learned that?
Click to expand...
Saying something is flawed because you don't understand it is a really bad take.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glen Sathers Cigar and Irishguy42
ohbaby said:
I have no idea what these graphs represent. Including those Corsi figures thrown out occasionally. I have good reason to believe they are flawed.

Bottom line; Rangers were learning to play with the lead vs Buffalo. And passed with flying colors. Don't think for a moment that had no effect late in crunch time against TB when we took the lead. They kept the pressure on, and did not fall back into a prevent D. Where do you think they learned that?
Click to expand...

How can you have good reason to believe something is flawed when you don't know what it represents?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Krams and Irishguy42
Machinehead said:
Saying something is flawed because you don't understand it is a really bad take.
Click to expand...
Like you never assumed some shit was iffy :laugh: I agree tho I’m not sure it’s flawed but I’ve been on a circumstance where I looked at some shit like that ain’t right and it was right.
 
There's more to this game, that can't possibly be represented on graphs. What I meant to say was,... I don't know what those graphs mean., but the Corsi figures I know are fatally flawed in their design.
 
ohbaby said:
I have no idea what these graphs represent. Including those Corsi figures thrown out occasionally. I have good reason to believe they are flawed.

Bottom line; Rangers were learning to play with the lead vs Buffalo. And passed with flying colors. Don't think for a moment that had no effect late in crunch time against TB when we took the lead. They kept the pressure on, and did not fall back into a prevent D. Where do you think they learned that?
Click to expand...
You pretty much just said “ I don’t understand this... therefore it must be flawed.”
I’m not trying to pick on you... but you have to admit that that’s some “flawed” logic. Haha
 
  • Like
Reactions: Krams and ohbaby
lucky13 said:
You pretty much just said “ I don’t understand this... therefore it must be flawed.”
I’m not trying to pick on you... but you have to admit that that’s some “flawed” logic. Haha
Click to expand...
I explained what I meant, one post above yours.
 
"The other Corsi figures I know"

There is only one Corsi measurement.

There are no "other Corsi figures"

You don't know what you're talking about. By most "eye test" accounts and analytic measurements, the Rangers did not have "full control" of the Sabres game lmao. They did have the xGF edge by a small margin, sure. I will give you that. But not enough to asse "full control."

Anyway, back to this game. It was awesome. I hope we do it again on Saturday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rongomania
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom