Game Analysis: #2 - 10/7/13 | New York Rangers @ Los Angeles Kings | Analysis

[mike14]

Really good game (finally got to watch the replay). Sure the 3rd goal was flukey as hell but it was earned with fantastic pressure all night. Not one Ranger had what I'd call a bad game.

Richards showed he still has a bit left to offer and he Nash seem to be combining pretty well, speaking of; give Nash those kind of opportunities most nights and he won't be going goalless.

It's so good to have a healthy Staal back, he's a beast out there. MDZ was good too but he was to work on getting his shot through traffic.

Lundqvist seems to be fighting the puck a fair bit but he still came up with the goods when it was needed.

Nice to get the first W on the board

 

[Ola]

Can't believe we went into LA and took 2 points, and only gave up 1 goal. But moreso...holy moly, I can't believe the forechecking, forcing-turnovers, go-get-em style the team played tonight. That was impressive, and the kind of display that 99% of the time we would see against the Rangers instead of by the Rangers.

I'm as big of a Torts fan as there was, and think too many fans turned on him. But if this is how the team will play under AV, then I'm jumping on the bandwagon. I definitely hope this is more the norm, rather than a fluke performance...wishful thinking, I know.

I think this is how we gotta play to win a Cup, to be honest.

Then I am sure that we will see our fair share of ups and down in the coming weeks, months and possibly even years.

We went into LA and (i) played really good hockey, (ii) took the lead, (iii) stayed out of the box pretty well, (iv) managed to keep our foot on the pedal pretty good.

You know, how would we look if we (i) had an off-night, (ii) gave up the first goal, (iii) lost our legs in the 3rd? Under Torts, we manage to hang in their pretty well despite freqently not playing that well. Its possible that when we play like we do now, we will have bigger ups but worse downs.

But in the end, I think this is how we gotta play to win a cup. I don't think we could have won a cup when playing to the point that we went to LA, or Boston, or whatever place and just focused on not making a misstake in the transition game and left being outshot 40-24 and hammered all night.

 

[SixGoalieSystem]

Was impressed with Pyatt. Looked like a new player out there.

Then again, he did look like a beast the first few games last year as well. Hopefully he can maintain it this year.

 

[The Horvatian One]

Understandable, I feel the same about Torts' system. Effective, but gets on your nerves after several years.

The biggest issue I had with Torts was his tendency to shell with a lead, and AV will have none of that, which I certainly like.

Ironic bc we like what we see from Torts. 2-1-2 is how a lot of the great and aggressive teams play out in the West. Something AV had a hard time adjusting too. Not sure if Torts deployed the same system in NYR?

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

You know what? First off... Told you guys.

Now time to talk about it. So I loved the game our guys played. Was a good pressure all game and our guys had great chances. I bet those go in if we weren't against a pretty damn good goalie. D looks okay.

 

[Vitto79]

Waking up to a win and brich w 2 goals. Right on !

 

[Levitate]

Another thing I like a lot is seeing the Rangers D use their mobility a lot more, especially in their own end, and being "allowed" to make plays instead of having to fling the puck around the boards. It really helped short circuit a lot of Kings pressure when they were able to make a play to keep possession of the puck in the defensive zone, even if they didn't necessarily get it out immediately

Would like to see fewer gaffs leading to odd man rushes, that happened a few times especially on the PK, but that always happens in hockey.

Also, on the gaff that lead to LA's goal, Girardi really cannot force that play like he did but Pyatt kind of trapped him by dumping the puck to with a Kings player right there. Frustrating mistakes like that I'd like to see fewer of

Finally, the Kings defensemen seemed to have this thought in their heads that the Rangers could not take the puck away from them, even though the Rangers were doing it over and over again all night. The Kings D just continued to hold onto the puck way too long, try to pass through the Rangers D, and get pushed off the puck after taking too long to make a play.

Kings made a lot of mistakes and I'd say they probably don't normally do that, but the Rangers also did a real good job of forcing mistakes and being in position to intercept passes, etc.

 

[Vitto79]

the Moore-Boyle-Callahan line stood out to me, wow it's great to have Cally back. Very good road period in a very difficult building to play in. Keep it up boys.

That's a good defensive trio. Missed the game so who was 4 th line c or did they shorten the bench in the 3rd?

 

[beastly115]

Wow, we won!?

I'm shocked but glad to see them get their first win, against the Kings no less.

 

[Pistachio]

Last season Zucc played with Boyle for a bit. I liked it. Boyle was a big body who could move people out of the way, giving Zucc some room. And boyle has a great way of protecting the puck, so when he does get a pass from Zuccarello, he doesn't have to shoot or pass it again instantly like Brassard and Poulololololiot seem to do this season. Nash is kind of the same type of player as Boyle, so either would fit well for Zuccarello I think. (Not including Nash's extravagance)

 

[RangerBoy]

The Rangers didn't run around in their end and leaving so many players open. They still had two players attack the player with the puck to get the puck back. I read McDonagh discussing that. Under Tortorella,they would sit back and let the play come to them. Now they're going after the puck carrier and pressuring him in their own zone. They were so used to play the old way.

Rick Nash probably played his best game as a Ranger. He didn't score a goal. All-around game.

AV used Stepan late in the PK a few times. He used Boyle,Pyatt,Moore and Dorsett on the PK. Is he worried about giving Stepan too much time coming off the contract "holdout". It wasn't really a holdout. Stepan and Callahan are the main PK duo. Callahan played one shift on the PK at the end. Is AV going to use Stepan and Callahan less on the PK? Same thing when Hagelin returns. The Sedins weren't used on the PK in Van under AV. Stepan,Callahan and Hagelin are different players than the twins.

The Rangers had so many chances to put this game early. Quick played well but they need to finish on some of those chances.

 

[Levitate]

Rick Nash probably played his best game as a Ranger. He didn't score a goal. All-around game.

Robbed a couple of times by Quick...also did a real good job intercepting passes and making it hard for the Kings to move up the ice. It'd be great if he played with that fire every game

Agreed they need to finish their chances better but some of those you can only shake your head at the save the goalie made. Also, Pouliot is the "snakebitten" Ranger so far this year...lots of chances, and either something goes wrong or the goalie makes a great save

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Ironic bc we like what we see from Torts. 2-1-2 is how a lot of the great and aggressive teams play out in the West. Something AV had a hard time adjusting too. Not sure if Torts deployed the same system in NYR?

You know the complaints Nucks fans had about AV? Sitting on a lead, boring style of play, poor matchups, etc? Well......those are the exact complaints Ranger fans had with Torts. Considering both fan bases are happy with the switch and both teams are playing differently, looks like both coaches have changed their style a bit. Kinda funny comparing notes between the two boards...sounds like Torts and AV were twins.



And woohoo (and a sweet vCash haul!) for a good win last night. Love that terrible selfie goal on Quick, and his reaction to the jeering later.

Nice to see Richards playing better, but I won't be convinced it's the real deal unless he's still doing it by December. That goal off the defender's stick as almost as lucky as the last goal. But, it all counts in the end.

San Jose is going to be a tough matchup, but they are beatable.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Ironic bc we like what we see from Torts. 2-1-2 is how a lot of the great and aggressive teams play out in the West. Something AV had a hard time adjusting too. Not sure if Torts deployed the same system in NYR?

Eh, the Kings are a team out west, so I don't think we took them by surprise. A lot of it comes down to execution.

 

[Ola]

The Rangers had so many chances to put this game early. Quick played well but they need to finish on some of those chances.

Good point. It is a bit of a delicatess problem for a team that has not been able to play a solid hockey game for 3.5 years, but we are a bit short on top notch fire power.

 

[Synergy27]

I think this is how we gotta play to win a Cup, to be honest.

Then I am sure that we will see our fair share of ups and down in the coming weeks, months and possibly even years.

We went into LA and (i) played really good hockey, (ii) took the lead, (iii) stayed out of the box pretty well, (iv) managed to keep our foot on the pedal pretty good.

You know, how would we look if we (i) had an off-night, (ii) gave up the first goal, (iii) lost our legs in the 3rd? Under Torts, we manage to hang in their pretty well despite freqently not playing that well. Its possible that when we play like we do now, we will have bigger ups but worse downs.

But in the end, I think this is how we gotta play to win a cup. I don't think we could have won a cup when playing to the point that we went to LA, or Boston, or whatever place and just focused on not making a misstake in the transition game and left being outshot 40-24 and hammered all night.

This is what I've been harping on for awhile now. It is wrong to downplay Torts' accomplishments here, but this team was just not taking the next step playing under him. They still might not progress under AV, but they are absolutely doing the right thing by trying.

Really well played, entertaining game from the Rangers last night. That's really all I ask for, so thanks guys!

 

[Ola]

Was impressed with Pyatt. Looked like a new player out there.

I just must comment on this.

Every other post is about Bolye and or Pyatt playing well. They did. But believe me it is -- not -- because they all of a sudden were reborn.

Why did Boyle and Pyatt play well? It is because we managed to do the following:

1. Pass the puck up ice from our end.

2. Collect it in the neutral zone.

3. Pass the blueline as a collective unit.

4. Take the puck to the net, or be forced into the corners.

And its from there Boyle and Pyatt started working on their stuff.

Last year we had the puck in our own end. One of our Ds shot the puck hard up along the boards, where it was redirected by a forward, possibly one of Boyle or Pyatt at around the redline, so that the puck ended up behind the net. The bottom line was this. The puck was going behind the net in the attacking zone. Our forwards where at the redline, and from their they started to chase after it. Instead of breathing down the neck of the D, they started a zone behind the play. Hence why only guys like Carl Hagelin managed to pressure Ds on a regular basis. And we where also not in synch at all, because our D's where constantly roaring up the ice to get to the blueline every time we looked for help to get them to keep the puck in.

And I've been saying this for ages in relation to people on this board admireing guys like Bickell, Nolan and the other bigger guys on LA, and many others. Heck, even Lucic for sure. Like sure, they are doing a good job. But they never would have done a good job for us if we played like last year.

Its all about letting a player play to his strengths. To have a PF play to his strength, you need to find a way to get him involved in the play. Close to the puck. And to have support on top of it all, you can pressure a D all you want but if the D just can throw the puck away because the points are protected, or there are other holes, it won't matter.

We managed to do that last night.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Really liked the energy the team showed. More hits in the first 10 min than all the preseason games combined. Dzone coverage was solid too which is a must to get some Ws.

Still concerned with the lack of finish. Easily could have been a OT/SO loss. Hopefully that continues to get better. EDIT and I don't mean that based on play. Obviously the Rangers outplayed them and deserved the win. But 2 flukey goals tonight, they've got to continue to build and finish better.

 

[Bardof425*]

Last season Zucc played with Boyle for a bit. I liked it. Boyle was a big body who could move people out of the way, giving Zucc some room. And boyle has a great way of protecting the puck, so when he does get a pass from Zuccarello, he doesn't have to shoot or pass it again instantly like Brassard and Poulololololiot seem to do this season. Nash is kind of the same type of player as Boyle, so either would fit well for Zuccarello I think. (Not including Nash's extravagance)

Boyle played a great game (except on the PP which he shouldn't see) but let's calm down. The 2nd line and Zucc need to be offensively productive for the Rangers to succeed. That will not happen
In your scenario. The Kings brought out the best in our guys who are paid to grind; Boyle, Pyatt, Dorsett, Moore. Btw, McD was stellar, shutting down rush after rush. Boy is he taken for granted around here.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

yeah, our big players really played well...we're not the toughest team in the league, but we do have a lot of bigger players, and when they go toe to toe and dont wilt like pansies, we can be an effective team. case in point was Brian Boyle...he was a frikkin animal on the puck tonight.

This was something that stood out to me. He was just a hound in the Offensive zone. He worked his ass off to fight for the puck. He frequently used his length to go over the opposing players shoulder and screw up his ability to corral the puck. Boyle is at his best when he's being a bit of a bully and naturally uses his size. It's not even about intimidation it's about him thinking "this puck is mine" and making it happen.

Again thank you Richards for waking up to start this season. ******* you Big Brich for that awful turnover.

Hank was fighting it imo but he was clearly not outplayed. He made some big saves he just made it look difficult. Usually he makes it look easier. Still the results were a great game by him. I laughed hard when I saw that comment considering that 3rd goal we scored and the fact that we won

Pulled this from the main board thread... Sutter in the press conference:



I love when coaches or players give reporters sass when they ask stupid questions.

Sutter is a pretty man and a funny son of a b to boot

 

[Blue Blooded]

Some additional thoughts.

Still not sold on the first line (despite the two goals). They all had offensive zone start percentages at 80%+, yet struggled to create and maintain offensive pressure. Almost all of their chances were off of turnovers (most of which were forced by Stepan, he's awesome!). They had that super-shift where they changed with the Brassard line half way through, but other than that it was just quick strikes off of turnovers.
Grade (ECTS): C

The Brassard line gets a lot of positive buzz here, and I'm not sure I agree with all of it. They can create offensive pressure at times, but they're also inconsistent. Everyone raves about Zucc's game, but I thought it was pretty mediocre by his standards. A few nice passes and forced a few turnovers, but on the whole I expect more from him. He was better last year. Hopefully he gets going again.
Grade: C

The third line was amazing once again. Boyle and Callahan had OZ start percentages of 10% and 16.7% respectively yet still produced good possession numbers. Exactly what you want from your shutdown line.
Grade: A

The fourth line was once again an abomination, they are a huge liability out there. The only Ranger forwards with sub 50% CF% were D. Moore (21.1%!), Dorsett (12.5%!!), and Asham (7.1%!!!). Something needs to change or we will have to roll three lines for the remainder of the season, those numbers are completely unacceptable. Dorsett did draw two penalties which I guess is something.
Grade: E (They didn't concede any goals, I'm being nice thanks to the win)

McDonagh-Girardi was better than against Phoenix, but it is hard to be worse than they were in that game. Still found themselves unnecessarily trapped in their own end too often, and Girardi had a big part in the Kings' goal, but still some improvement.
Grade: D

Staal-Del Zotto did OK, once again got heavy offensive zone starts and once again didn't really do much with it. Like the first line, they should be creating more chances considering their deployments. Had a solid game defensively.
Grade: C

Moore-Strålman had a curious game. I could have sworn that they mostly got to play with the 4th line for the first two periods (and their beyond abysmal possession numbers), yet they put up by far the best possession numbers out of all defencemen. They had one defensive gaffe where Moore was deked out by Nolan and subsequently fell on Strålman creating a partial breakaway. But great breakouts throughout the game and good offensive support.
Grade: B

Overall grades: 5v5: B, PK: B, PP: F, 4v4: F.

Grading system: A = exceptional, B = very good, C = good, D = mediocre, E = barely adequate, F = unacceptable

 

[SixGoalieSystem]

I just must comment on this.

Every other post is about Bolye and or Pyatt playing well. They did. But believe me it is -- not -- because they all of a sudden were reborn.

And no one is saying they were.

Nothing happens in a bubble and Pyatt (I think Boyle looked very similar to how he's played on good days previously) looking like a new player obviously has to do with more than his abilities.

At the same time I think we saw things from him that quite clearly were improved from last year regardless of the system. He showed a physical presence in the d-zone he seemed to lack last year and his skating looked better. Looks in better shape.

Being put in a role and situation where it's easier to succeed helps, but you have to credit the player as well.

As I mentioned he did have a similar start last year (Several posters pegged him as Dubinsky's replacement and wanted him in the top six) so I'll hold off on the jubilation, but if he can contribute like he did last night (preferably without taking a puck to the face), I'll be very happy they decided to hold on to him.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I like the transition game that AV preaches. Its quite clear that when the Rangers have possession of the puck, the message is go-go-go. I think this philosophy may run into some hurdles in the future, namely on the defensive side of the puck and the fact this team sorely lacks finishers. 2 strange goals and a strong team effort on D mitigated any worries last night.

I still think, beyond any system changes, the biggest thing about last night was that the Rangers upped their compete level. They hounded loose pucks all night and created several turnovers as a result.

 

[KreiMeARiver*]

I didn't really watch the game, as the Dodgers were on (YES!!) but apparently we looked pretty good? Brad Richards with 2 goals?

"Dogs and Cats living together, mass hysteria!" - Pete Venkman

I'll take the points... keep it going tonight!

 

[OverTheCap]

Night and day from the Coyotes game - they really upped their effort level and pressured the puck last night. That is what they have to bring every game. The PK also looked a lot better.

Richards looks much better so far, hopefully he can sustain it. Lundqvist had a better game than last week, although his rebound control could stand to improve a bit.

The ability to finish (or lack thereof) still concerns me. Brassard and Zucc are redundant on a line together because they are both primarily playmakers. Pouliot looks like he could be this year's versions of Higgins, great opportunities but can't finish. And while I thought Pyatt-Boyle-Callahan was a great as a forechecking/energy line last night, I don't think they are going to score many goals - lots of missed shots and low-percentage, weak backhand wristers. The team could use more finishers.