Toggle sidebar

Post-Game Talk: #29 - 12/8/19 | RANGERS @ golden knights

  • 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
    145
duhmetreE said:
btw it ceases to amaze me on how bad/slow/stiff Marc Staal has become.

He's not an NHL player. You could think the game as great as anyone but if you're not physically capable... you're not an NHL player.
Click to expand...

Really would have rather bought him out and kept Shattenkirk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
Machinehead said:
Yeah he let it rip a few times. His shot needs a bit of polish but I don't mind his selection.
Click to expand...
And I've understood it's more of a question of attitude, taking the (good) shots come whatever. The decision making and the accuracy can come later, get the brain screwed on right first. I suppose we don't disagree much on this. :xbg:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Machinehead
TominNC said:
So if I like Shea I can just use an alternate spelling? The guy may be with us a decade or more and we’ll have two spellings in use around here? Weird
Click to expand...
Your “Shea” example makes no sense because “Shesterkin” was originally “Shestyorkin” in the hockey community. Why are we giving him an alternate spelling? First come, first served imo.
 
Fitzy said:
Really would have rather bought him out and kept Shattenkirk.
Click to expand...
Nope. Then where would Fox, Trouba, and ADA go? Besides, Shattenkirk can only do well when given exclusive time on the power play, a good defensive partner, and sheltered minutes. Trouba can do well in nearly every situation and doesn’t need an excellent defensive partner. He is the excellent defensive partner. He also allows ADA and Fox to get more suitable deployment for their style of play, which maximizes their development. With Shattenkirk here, even if we didn’t have Trouba, that wouldn’t happen. He would either get the tough minutes/deployments and suck, or ADA/Fox would get them, which would be bad for their development. Shattenkirk would just be redundant for us. Not to mention that Staal’s buyout wouldn’t be enough to solve our cap problem. That’s another reason why I liked the Shattenkirk buyout. It solved our cap problem with one move.

Short-term and with hindsight, it was the wrong move, but I fully believe that it was the right move long-term.
 
Oscar Lindberg said:
Doesn't matter to much now, but I can't imagine Shattenkirk on his off hand being worse than Staal

That's how awful Staal is
Click to expand...

shattenkirk can barely defend as a righty. He’s also only valuable when bringing offense. Now you’d be putting him on his backhand in the offensive zone at 5 on 5? I don’t think so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReggieDunlop68
I utterly don't get a continuous sentiment that Shattenkirk should have been kept instead of bought out during summer. To what end? Right-handed PPQB? We have plenty of these now as is (can't believe I'm actually writing this). A puck carrier, someone to generate offense from the back end? Check and check as well. On the other hand his frequency of defensive gaffes would make someone like ADA have a full right to point finger at Shattenkirk and laugh.

Shattenkirk is an offensive defenseman and the Rangers without him carry one of the best defenses in term of the offensive support in the league.

What am I missing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReggieDunlop68
Buchnevich89 said:
Nope. Then where would Fox, Trouba, and ADA go? Besides, Shattenkirk can only do well when given exclusive time on the power play, a good defensive partner, and sheltered minutes. Trouba can do well in nearly every situation and doesn’t need an excellent defensive partner. He is the excellent defensive partner. He also allows ADA and Fox to get more suitable deployment for their style of play, which maximizes their development. With Shattenkirk here, even if we didn’t have Trouba, that wouldn’t happen. He would either get the tough minutes/deployments and suck, or ADA/Fox would get them, which would be bad for their development. Shattenkirk would just be redundant for us. Not to mention that Staal’s buyout wouldn’t be enough to solve our cap problem. That’s another reason why I liked the Shattenkirk buyout. It solved our cap problem with one move.
Click to expand...
Shattenkirk has spent significant time on the top pairing with Hedman this season and is on the PP2 with Sergachev which doesn't get many minutes. I've seen Tampa fans refer to him as their best defenceman this season.

Besides, there are several teams that have all-righty pairings in their top-4. From the top of my head; Parayko-Pietrangelo and Weegar-Ekblad/Strålman this year and Pesce-Faulk last year. DeAngelo-Shattenkirk were great together last year and DeAngelo-Fox have been great together so far this season. Furthermore I think the move to make in shoring up our D is to consolidate a top 4 of Trouba, DeAngelo, Fox and Skjei while sheltering the hell out of the third pairing of Lindgren-Staal (or Rykov, Keane, Hajek). At least try it and see if it works, because we're getting buried out there as it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband and DanielBrassard
Blue Blooded said:
Shattenkirk has spent significant time on the top pairing with Hedman this season and is on the PP2 with Sergachev which doesn't get many minutes. I've seen Tampa fans refer to him as their best defenceman this season.

Besides, there are several teams that have all-righty pairings in their top-4. From the top of my head; Parayko-Pietrangelo and Weegar-Ekblad/Strålman this year and Pesce-Faulk last year. DeAngelo-Shattenkirk were great together last year and DeAngelo-Fox have been great together so far this season. Furthermore I think the move to make in shoring up our D is to consolidate a top 4 of Trouba, DeAngelo, Fox and Skjei while sheltering the hell out of the third pairing of Lindgren-Staal (or Rykov, Keane, Hajek). At least try it and see if it works, because we're getting buried out there as it is.
Click to expand...
I don’t trust any of our RHD to play the left side long-term other than Fox, and he’s a rookie. A very good one, but still a rookie. And I don’t want to risk stunting his development to accommodate Shattenkirk.

That Shattenkirk example in Tampa is a very small sample size. Do you also honestly think he would be as motivated if we didn’t buy him out? Shattenkirk would have sucked here, but being very motivated, he’s doing well in Tampa in a small sample size alongside an elite defenseman. Those two things do not have to be mutually exclusive. Throughout most of his career, he’s been the type of player that I’ve described. I’m not buying that he’s anything more than a #4. He was a #4 all his life, and 30 games don’t really change that for me yet. I don’t know if he’s still paired with Hedman, but that’s one of the best defensemen in the NHL. Wasn’t Jake Dotchin also playing very well when he was paired with him? And where is he now?
 
Last edited:
Buchnevich89 said:
Lol yes but that’s not all that went into the decision of buying him out
Click to expand...

of course not, but there are people here who tried to argue that Staal is/was a better player.

cutting shatty opened up the door for Fox. Well worth it for that alone but let’s not get it twisted, he’s basxially an Orr/Lidstrom hybrid compared to Staal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband and Buchnevich89
I would rather see one of the RHD playing the left side, because I think any of them, including Shattenkirk, would have been better on that side than Marc Staal.

Only thing is we would have had to find a trade partner for Namestnikov earlier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DanielBrassard
Shattenkirk doesnt fit this team anymore, neither does Staal but one shouldnt be connected to the other. I think Staal should be benched a lot once Hajek gets back, let him stew in it and see if he asks for a trade. If we retain half someone might take him on. Maybe Eric wants his brother around again.
 
Buchnevich89 said:
Your “Shea” example makes no sense because “Shesterkin” was originally “Shestyorkin” in the hockey community. Why are we giving him an alternate spelling? First come, first served imo.
Click to expand...
I would think the one the young man puts on the back of his jersey should do
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom