Holocene
Registered User
Hank, Nash, Stepan, Staal and the PP playing well combined with the team settling into the system.
PDO is an iffy stat to begin with and 15 or so games is such a small sample size. It's more useful over a whole season.It's PDO, an approximate measure of puck luck
Ummm... that's kind of the point. The Rangers may be able to maintain such terrible percentages over 15 games or so, but they'll even out, as we're seeing now.PDO is an iffy stat to begin with and 15 or so games is such a small sample size. It's more useful over a whole season.
Ummm... that's kind of the point. The Rangers may be able to maintain such terrible percentages over 15 games or so, but they'll even out, as we're seeing now.
Forwards back checking. When they don't, opposition walks through neutral zone, the D gets blamed for playing like crap, and we give up horrendous scoring chances and have blown coverage all over the place. When they back check it's a major difference. Perfect example... look at the Stralman hit on Greene. Stralman sees Nash coming back and can make that hit. And Stralman's position was such that he was basically forcing Greene toward Nash, so even if Greene gets by Stralman, Stralman slows him down or directs him right into Nash. Great back check by Nash, gorgeous read on the play by Stralman, and really our whole 5 on the ice played that well.
A team that really contends.What is the definition of a real contender?
Hank, Nash, Stepan, Staal and the PP playing well combined with the team settling into the system.
1. Henrik Lundqvist is playing like the team's best player
2. Rick Nash is playing like the team's 2nd best player
3. The defense has less holes/confusion
A team that really contends.
1. Henrik Lundqvist is playing like the team's best player
2. Rick Nash is playing like the team's 2nd best player
3. The defense has less holes/confusion
This team should be a 3-6 seed in a pretty bad eastern conference. What is the definition of a real contender? This team still seems earmarked to get run over by Boston's size or Pittsburgh's skill. This Rangers team doesn't possess enough of either.
Forwards back checking. When they don't, opposition walks through neutral zone, the D gets blamed for playing like crap, and we give up horrendous scoring chances and have blown coverage all over the place. When they back check it's a major difference. Perfect example... look at the Stralman hit on Greene. Stralman sees Nash coming back and can make that hit. And Stralman's position was such that he was basically forcing Greene toward Nash, so even if Greene gets by Stralman, Stralman slows him down or directs him right into Nash. Great back check by Nash, gorgeous read on the play by Stralman, and really our whole 5 on the ice played that well.
When our forwards don't back check, the D are playing D, forwards trying to score, and it's two non-cohesive disjointed units that end up having horrible break downs and chasing the other team like headless chickens. There are obviously numerous other factors, but that is what glaringly jumps at me as the dominant difference between when this team plays well or looks like ice crapades.