Coaching aside, do the Rangers have the horses to play an open game?

[Kershaw]

lol no.

The Rangers forward corps consists of mostly stone-hand grinders and tweeners with poor offensive IQ. Asking them to play an 'open' system is like forcing Ovechkin emulate Datsyuk defensively.

 

[SupersonicMonkey*]

Agreed. I think there is definitely some room for improvement with tweaks.

But can they outrun and out "puck possess" the top teams? I don't think so. And I think trying to do so is a recipe for failure with this roster, on MSG ice.

They don't particularly need to be a puck possession team in the mold of Detroit. But they need to pressure the puck more. Boston will put the puck in open areas and get there. Still keeping the puck away from their opponent. They know where their teammate will be and put the puck there. The Rangers have to be more aggressive, no more of the sit back and allow the opposition to dictate the pace.

The Rangers have some guys with speed. They need more of them. But it's clear that a change in systems could benefit this club. If they can add 2-3 more players with high-end speed that could change the look of the club a bit. Pyatt, Boyle, Clowe, Asham...dinosaurs. Too slow.

The ice at MSG should be better after this stage of the renovation. It won't ever be Edmonton. But the new ice plant should improve ice quality.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Agreed. I think there is definitely some room for improvement with tweaks.

But can they outrun and out "puck possess" the top teams? I don't think so. And I think trying to do so is a recipe for failure with this roster, on MSG ice.

This isnt the 08-09 roster that Tortorella walked into, which was a God damn disaster. This squad does have some potential to open up the game a bit. I agree that turning that switch up too much could lead to real problems -- especially considering the lack of depth.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

They don't particularly need to be a puck possession team in the mold of Detroit. But they need to pressure the puck more. Boston will put the puck in open areas and get there. Still keeping the puck away from their opponent. They know where their teammate will be and put the puck there. The Rangers have to be more aggressive, no more of the sit back and allow the opposition to dictate the pace.

That sure seems to be more of a mindset than a system. The '11-12 squad had that mindset, the '12-13 team didnt.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

I think 1 or 2 lines can open it up more than others, and should. But not as much as we think. Or some, myself included. They need to get a little more bold in the neutral and offensive zones instead of immediately dumping or trying to force a play all the time.

 

[iamitter]

A lot of the suggestions here are easily implemented just by using the forwards more aggressively in the defensive zone. When your forwards are higher up, your transition game options open up and you have a greater set of tools you can use once you start gaining the offensive zone.

 

[NHRangerfan]

I actually didn't have many problems with when they dumped the puck in. When you don't have a carry in option, you dump it in. When they could, they generally did. It's not like the usual was a dump on a 3 on 2. The issue stems from the fact that our collapsing defense also meant the forwards weren't as close to breaking out as they would be normally which means by the time they got to the opponent's blue line, they had no choice but to dump it.

Pressuring their defensemen more, not sending as many guys behind our own net and not sending all three forwards to the boards behind their net, utilize the middle of the ice more for passes out (easier with no collapsing D). Change those things and I'm fine with the rest of our game. Sometimes dumping is the right move. Sometimes banking the puck out using the boards is the right move. Sometimes blocking the shot is the right move. The issue is that it isn't 100% of the time.

Our players won't change, though. Girardi is still going to block tons of shots and Callahan is still going to dump the puck a lot. That's just how they play. I'm interested in seeing how changing the system changes some of our other players.

This is a great post..I totally agree on the dump it was overblown by many on the board, and for the most part I think they did a good job of reading the D and dumping or carrying based on that

 

[3rd Guy High]

Every one is talking about this line or that line like all of our offensive mindset should come from our forwards. This is wrong. Our strength is in our defense, it just has never been used.

We have very capable defensemen aside from Girardi. I truly believe we are going to see some amazing things out of Moore and McDonagh this year.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

We brought it up; We need guys in front of the net. Too many times have we seen the front wide open with only opposing team members..

 

[pld459666]

Former Ranger and current The Sports Network analyst Ray Ferraro is not so sure.



Full Article

Well, no. No, I do not think that they have the personel to play an open game.

That said, I am not looking for them to or expecting them to play an open game in the true sense of the word.

I am expecting them to devise an offensive scheme based on the players they have that does not constitute continously dumping the puck in and chasing it every time they approach the blue line.

A craftier break-out would allow for more freedome in carrying the puck over the blue line OR result if a strategic dumping of the puck as opposed to that being the formula.

I believe we have better offensive players that what we have shown with or without Nash.

But I believed that the Torts system of keeping pucks along the wall and below the goal line also kept the pucks away from prime scoring locations such as the front of the net.

Any coach that comes in and looks to play a run and gun game will not be here long.

This is not a black or white issue. This is a grey area that we need to be in in regards to having balance. We need to achieve a balance that we have not had in years.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

We don't have to be the Penguins, I prefer that we weren't, but they can fix a few things:

Stop collapsing and letting the opposition have a shooting gallery. Pressure the puck carrier instead.
Carry the puck into the zone more.
Actually chase the puck after dumping it in.

This will open up the system without being a detriment defensively.

I highlighted the word "fix" because it's entirely inappropriate and demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding hockey strategy on your part.

Collapsing defense is a hockey strategy. It's not a mistake, it's not wrong, it's a strategy. One that has worked quite well at times I might add. High pressure D can be picked apart by quick puck movement. It can lead to high quality scoring chances. This is something the collapsing D avoids. No easy scoring chances, keep everything from low percentage areas. You're INTENTIONALLY conceding certain areas, the bad scoring areas. You don't like defensive breakdowns? You'll hate high pressure D.

Carry the puck into the zone more. Like torts was telling guys, even if you can carry I want to see a dump out there! Yeah, no. That wasn't happening. Torts just preached responsible hockey. Don't try some low percentage carry with a high chance for a neutral zone turnover and a quick break the other way. This is hockey 101. For all styles of play. Thing is we don't have good puck carriers, that's why we dump so much.

This last point is perhaps the most nonsensical of a nonsensical list of "fixes". We would dump and change instead of dump and chase when it was time for a line change. We'd chase a dump when it wasn't time for a line change. You see in hockey, you often have to change lines on the fly. So, in order to prevent odd man rushes against you or to prevent leaving your team short in your own zone a common practice is to dump the puck into the other teams zone (hopefully all the way to the wall as far away from your own net as possible) and change so you won't be leaving yourself vulnerable to the other team's O.

All of your "fixes" would be detrimental defensively.

 

[NHRangerfan]

I highlighted the word "fix" because it's entirely inappropriate and demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding hockey strategy on your part.

Collapsing defense is a hockey strategy. It's not a mistake, it's not wrong, it's a strategy. One that has worked quite well at times I might add. High pressure D can be picked apart by quick puck movement. It can lead to high quality scoring chances. This is something the collapsing D avoids. No easy scoring chances, keep everything from low percentage areas. You're INTENTIONALLY conceding certain areas, the bad scoring areas. You don't like defensive breakdowns? You'll hate high pressure D.

Carry the puck into the zone more. Like torts was telling guys, even if you can carry I want to see a dump out there! Yeah, no. That wasn't happening. Torts just preached responsible hockey. Don't try some low percentage carry with a high chance for a neutral zone turnover and a quick break the other way. This is hockey 101. For all styles of play. Thing is we don't have good puck carriers, that's why we dump so much.

This last point is perhaps the most nonsensical of a nonsensical list of "fixes". We would dump and change instead of dump and chase when it was time for a line change. We'd chase a dump when it wasn't time for a line change. You see in hockey, you often have to change lines on the fly. So, in order to prevent odd man rushes against you or to prevent leaving your team short in your own zone a common practice is to dump the puck into the other teams zone (hopefully all the way to the wall as far away from your own net as possible) and change so you won't be leaving yourself vulnerable to the other team's O.

All of your "fixes" would be detrimental defensively.

Key word in bold...at times, the strategy of collapsing and conceding areas of the ice also leads to chasing in your own zone for long periods of times which IMO leads to poor offense. If you want to collapse you need to be physical and make teams pay a price for playing in your zone and retake posession of the puck quickly.

Every coach talks about making the other teams go 200 feet for a scoring opportunity, the collapsing defense insures that you make yourself go 200 ft for a scoring chance.

I agree that the angst on this board regarding dumping the puck is way overblown.

 

[The Mouth]

the answer is yes. if the NY Islanders can do it, so can the Rangers.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Key word in bold...at times, the strategy of collapsing and conceding areas of the ice also leads to chasing in your own zone for long periods of times which IMO leads to poor offense. If you want to collapse you need to be physical and make teams pay a price for playing in your zone and retake posession of the puck quickly.

Every coach talks about making the other teams go 200 feet for a scoring opportunity, the collapsing defense insures that you make yourself go 200 ft for a scoring chance.

I agree that the angst on this board regarding dumping the puck is way overblown.

Yeah, of course it's not 100%. My point was that nothing is effective 100% of the time. But people around here are literally saying that collapsing is something that has to be "fixed" which implies high pressure is correct. And that's absurd. They're two different strategies, each with benefits and pitfalls. To say moving to high pressure has no downside is idiotic and it's echoed around here way too much for my liking.

 

[NHRangerfan]

Yeah, of course it's not 100%. My point was that nothing is effective 100% of the time. But people around here are literally saying that collapsing is something that has to be "fixed" which implies high pressure is correct. And that's absurd. They're two different strategies, each with benefits and pitfalls. To say moving to high pressure has no downside is idiotic and it's echoed around here way too much for my liking.

I should have inserted after that first sentence, my apologies

Totally agree with this post, and I think a good coach adjusts based on the opponent...if I'm coaching against the Rangers I would collapse because the D doesn't scare me...if I'm playing the Sens I pressure the points because I don't want to give Karlsson time or space.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Sather just read this thread and signed Orb to a 5 year, 45M deal.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

the answer is yes. if the NY Islanders can do it, so can the Rangers.

The Rangers have no one on their roster as dynamic as Tavares, for starters.

The Islanders are also one of the worst teams in the league defensively. Even with Lundqvist, there will be that give and take.

 

[Machinehead]

The roster as it stands? No.

But it's not far away.

 

[The Mouth]

The Rangers have no one on their roster as dynamic as Tavares, for starters.

The Islanders are also one of the worst teams in the league defensively. Even with Lundqvist, there will be that give and take.

Yes I agree we have no Tavares or Streit, but the Rangers collectively have a better offensive team if lead in an offensive direction. They have the ability to play an up tempo game with their D- men with MDZ and Mcdonagh and Staal if he is healthy. Brassard, Stepan, Nash, Callahan all could get 20+ goals. They also have two speedsters in Kreider and Hagelin. The Islanders personnel wise have awful defensive defenseman except for Hamonic. The Rangers are a much more balanced team and most importantly dont have a garbage can in net.

 

[bernmeister]

No, but we make 4-5 smart trades and the guys we are planning on produce, we can be closer to having a full stable.

 

[Boruto]

Was going to say this in the AV thread but the problem that we have always had is Torts' one-philosophy-fits-all mentality as someone phrased it before me. When he was hired, he was hired on a different mentality but overtime as his approach to the game became out of date and easy to predict and counter, his ultimate flaw lead to his and our downfall and that is his inability to adapt.

One philosophy on all lines is pretty accurate for Torts. Those who executed this philosophy well rose to the top. Boyle, Prust, Stepan, Callahan. Those who did alright stuck around in Rupp, Pyatt, Mitchell etc. and those who didn't suffered and dropped down to the fourth line in a grind philosophy in Richards, Gaborik, and others.

The best thing about AV apparently, is his ability to get the most out of his top players and the people who insist on saying Torts is similar to AV and AV is not much of a change from Torts is glancing over some of the biggest flaws to John Tortorella who without his flaws being exposed, would be planning the NYR training camp right now. He fed different types paper through the printer, you have your soft printing paper, conforming A4, thicker media print paper and all the rest. As opposed to using them for specific things and setting the printer to specific setting, he jammed it all through extra rough and tumble print which destroys most softer paper and wrinkles the conforming A4s.

If AV can get players into the right roles and most importantly allow our D to jump into the play in a meaningful way and support the offense, we could definitely play MORE of a run and gun game. Why play a full on Blitzkrieg when we have our D core and Henrik? Our top forwards are great, bottom six isn't bad at all with the addition of Dorsett and maybe even a Clowe along with Pyatt whose worked well under AV before. Boyle is going to be used often and perhaps contribute like he did before. Asham has a good shot. If the defense in MDZ can help with the outlet and transition which I'm convinced he can and McD takes on the offensive roles that we all know he's ready for and we get our arguably best transitions outlet dman in Staal back, we can go end to end.

The scoring for the bottom six relies heavily on the defenseman outletting plays and jumping in and AV's success will depend on how he uses our strongest asset imo.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

No, but we make 4-5 smart trades and the guys we are planning on produce, we can be closer to having a full stable.

Thats it? Huh. Why didnt anybody think of that???

 

[Tawnos]

By the way, we don't need an offensive system. We just need a defensive system that is flexible enough to allow us to score when needed.

 

[ncmike]

Well, no. No, I do not think that they have the personel to play an open game.

That said, I am not looking for them to or expecting them to play an open game in the true sense of the word.

I am expecting them to devise an offensive scheme based on the players they have that does not constitute continously dumping the puck in and chasing it every time they approach the blue line.

A craftier break-out would allow for more freedome in carrying the puck over the blue line OR result if a strategic dumping of the puck as opposed to that being the formula.

I believe we have better offensive players that what we have shown with or without Nash.

But I believed that the Torts system of keeping pucks along the wall and below the goal line also kept the pucks away from prime scoring locations such as the front of the net.

Any coach that comes in and looks to play a run and gun game will not be here long.

This is not a black or white issue. This is a grey area that we need to be in in regards to having balance. We need to achieve a balance that we have not had in years.

I should have inserted after that first sentence, my apologies

Totally agree with this post, and I think a good coach adjusts based on the opponent...if I'm coaching against the Rangers I would collapse because the D doesn't scare me...if I'm playing the Sens I pressure the points because I don't want to give Karlsson time or space.

But that was torts problem. He never adjusted

 

[SupersonicMonkey*]

That sure seems to be more of a mindset than a system. The '11-12 squad had that mindset, the '12-13 team didnt.

Agree. Too much overturn in one summer. Not saying the Nash trade shouldn't have happened, and Prust was ridiculously overpaid. But an overhaul like that can hurt a club's identity.

The Gaborik trade was a step in the right direction. Brassard and especially Moore have a lot of upside. Dorsett is a good 4th line player.

My main gripe with the current roster is a lack of speed in the bottom six. And the lack of a true puck rushing defenseman, although i see potential in Moore and McDonagh in that respect.

If we can replace Pyatt, Clowe, Asham, and Boyle (unlikely, he's a good 4th line center) with some fast versatile guys that could transform the identity to be more of what Sather was talking about.

I fear going into free agency but Nystrom, Raymond, Stalberg. Guys like that could help. I'd prefer to fill those spots from within or via trades to cut down on cap spending.

Happily, the draft and free agency are very soon. So we will start to see the direction in which they intend to go.