The Rangers started off last season horribly on offense and they got caved seemingly every game. Not even close to what we've seen so far this season. Shesterkin was better, that's about it.
Post-Game Talk: duck @ RANGER
- Thread starter EdJovanovski
- Start date
The Rangers started off last season horribly on offense and they got caved seemingly every game. Not even close to what we've seen so far this season. Shesterkin was better, that's about it.
Synergy27
F-A-C-G-C-E
My memory is foggy at best, but I’d say that it’s not very similar stylistically. Graves and Kreider in the crease is similar, but the ‘94 PP really ran through the two HOFers on the blueline distributing the puck perfectly. That PP didn’t have a dominant half board one timer to funnel the puck to either.
2021 numbers after 4
CF - 49.07 (18th in the league)
xGF% - 46.00 (21st in the league)
They weren't very good to start last year.
They didn't break the 40 shot mark until game 14 last year. They've already done it twice this year.
Edit: They had 39 vs Tampa in the opener. Their lowest shot total so far this year has been 35 (Minnesota, and that one would have likely been worse has they don't scored on 1 out of every 5 shots they took.) The game they finally broke 40 (14th game, vs CBJ) was the THIRD time all year they had 30 or more in 2021-22. This team has already surpassed that.
I get that they haven't exactly been knocking of a murderers row of teams, but they look WAY better to start this year than they did last year. I expect that the results will actually be worse than they were last year, but if we're looking at things in terms of sustainability, this group has it going way better than last year's team did.
Last edited:
bleedblue94
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2004
- 9,228
- 9,676
They didn't get "caved" early last year, they lost their first two games and then won 6 of 7. They also got points in 13 of their first 16 games. Don't just spout stuff that isn't true...
egelband
Registered User
- Sep 6, 2008
- 16,063
- 14,830
Yeah. I remember a team that was more lunch pail than this current group. It was a way different style back then, as you all know. That ‘94 team was built well for the era. Lots of depth. Smarts. That team was more like the recent Tampa teams. Very smart. Never out of it. Enough skill when and where it’s needed.
bleedblue94
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2004
- 9,228
- 9,676
Thanks, this is helpful.
They played caps, stars, habs, and leafs to start the year and were 2-1-1 in those games. I think harder matchups overall than this year but corsi is much better 5v5 obviously. Reason for optimism!
Caved doesn't mean that they lost, it means that they were dominated in terms of puck possession. They were in their own zone more than not and didn't get many chances of their own. They relied on super human efforts from Shesterkin. It wasn't even close to how they've played through 4 games this year.
Had 39 shots in another game too.
bleedblue94
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2004
- 9,228
- 9,676
What the hell are you arguing? I'm not saying they played the same last year. Stop trying to argue against things I didn't say. f***s sakes
It's October, all the defensive concerns are the same for every team. What's great to see is that this team generates chances incredibly well. Panarin is even shooting the puck. They just have a totally different level of confidence than last year. The D will tighten up. Shesterkin will lock in. And if they keep shooting and attacking like they have been, it's gonna be a very fun year.
You wanted to know how they played last year, I said much worse than this year. You're getting angry because all of your posts are nonsense and I'm discrediting them.
bleedblue94
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2004
- 9,228
- 9,676
No I'm getting irritated bc you keep trying to manipulate an argument. You got pissy bc I said I'm guarded from beating up on bad or struggling teams bc we have the skill that SHOULD dominate early season. You then have tried to take that and turn it into me somehow saying they aren't playing better this year then last year and then continue to argue that when I never said the opposite. Having cautious optimism isn't a reason to get upset at someone. Let's see what happens up to and including the 25th and then we will have a better idea. What's wrong with that?
You said you wonder what their play was like last year. The insinuation was that it was probably good too because of their skill. If that wasn't the insinuation my bad. But either way I was telling you that it was way worse. And if the insinuation wasn't that it was good last year, why would it even be relevant?
And being guarded is fine but then you say things like 3 in 4 nights don't matter just to find a reason to discredit their start because they God forbid lost to an average but not terrible team on the road.
bleedblue94
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2004
- 9,228
- 9,676
So you jumped on me bc you assumed what I was insinuating, got it. Ha
Just move on
If the point of bringing up last year was not to say that they were as good as last year to start as this year, what was the point of bringing it up? And regardless I answered your question and you said I was arguing.
bleedblue94
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2004
- 9,228
- 9,676
No, uninstalled answered my question, you're just trying to nag and stir shit like my hs ex at this point bc you can't follow grammar and appreciate that people use certain wording for a reason when they say things like "should" vs "will" or "alway," and then doubled down on it by assuming why I asked a question or whatever the hell else you kept doing. Just move on. I'm literally not arguing with you, I'm asking you to stop putting words in my mouth and then trying to argue against them
I think you can really sum up the difference in this teams start last year vs this year with this:
Zibanejad and Panarin have gotten off to fire starts this year. They did not last year. Thats not to diminish from the positive impact a few other guys have had (Kakko has clearly had a positive impact on Zibanejad, which is saying a lot because Kreider has been pretty bad to start the year) but when your best players are the best players on the ice for either team, you're probably going to win and look pretty good doing it.
Zibanejad and Panarin have gotten off to fire starts this year. They did not last year. Thats not to diminish from the positive impact a few other guys have had (Kakko has clearly had a positive impact on Zibanejad, which is saying a lot because Kreider has been pretty bad to start the year) but when your best players are the best players on the ice for either team, you're probably going to win and look pretty good doing it.
I don't think anyone has to be excited about our start or be convinced our play will extrapolate neatly across 82 games.
I don't know what about deciding that for oneself is an 'argument.'
The Rangers have had great start. 3-1-0. Averaging nearly 40 shots a game. You can only play the team on the schedule, and anything you can say about Tampa or Minnesota being bad defensively in week one of the season could just as easily apply to the Rangers. They outplayed both teams. Last year was also the highest scoring season in decades IIRC. Who's to say that trend won't continue?
I don't know what about deciding that for oneself is an 'argument.'
The Rangers have had great start. 3-1-0. Averaging nearly 40 shots a game. You can only play the team on the schedule, and anything you can say about Tampa or Minnesota being bad defensively in week one of the season could just as easily apply to the Rangers. They outplayed both teams. Last year was also the highest scoring season in decades IIRC. Who's to say that trend won't continue?
Matt Rentfree
Registered User
That was a looong time ago, so it's not so clear in my head, but the PP ice time among forwards was a lot more spread out iirc. You could see any and/or all of Messier/Graves/Gartner/Amonte/Kovalev/Nemchinov/Larmer/Tikkanen on the PP.
Also keep in mind that the D pairing of Leetch-Zubov had 102 reg season PP points combined.
I don't think its the right question to ask anyway.
How does this PP stack up against the other PPs in the league? I'd say they're as good as any of the top units and by the time the season is out they may finish at #1.
The PP has been awesome for a while now. IF they figure out how to score more 5v5 most other teams are going to be completely f***ed before the games even start.
gravey9
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 2,941
- 6,299
Beginning of 93-94 was very different team than end of that year.
Beginning had amonte, gartner, graves, messier, kovalev, tikannen, leetch, zubov, James patrick and Darren turcotte. Tons of firepower and speed for era. But by end of year half of those guys were gone and replaced by harder to play against vets - larmer, noonan Matteau, mactavish, olczyk, etc. just a very diff squad. Plus only a year or two earlier they had traded away weight for tik.
That team was a juggernaut offensively but Keenan wanted to remake the squad for the playoffs. Traded away so much skill. We likely over did it on getting rid of youth and skill for grit and as a result limited our window and wasted a bunch of richter and leetch’s prime for one shot at cup.
This team currently has similar firepower to pre-playoff push 93-94 squad, but shesty is better than Ricky (though Ricky was a make a big save when you need one type who had tons of battle). Zubov was a true x-factor as we suddenly had two high end puck movers. But bottom 6 on those squads was really skilled with tik and nemchinov. I would give 93-94 squad an edge in offensive depth but we need to see how the kids develop. So many differences in terms of eras of hockey and salary cap.
I will say, Rangers have never had a 21 year old kid who looked as dominant on the boards as Kakko since mid 80s when I started watching. Graves was closest. Kovalev was more dipsy do than bull in china shop. Kakko is one of a kind.
I can only imagine the reaction if HFboards was around then to Keenan's trades.
Matt Rentfree
Registered User
I would have single handedly crashed the boards when I found out we traded Tony Amonte.
mrmovies779
The Greatest Teacher,Failure is.
- Feb 5, 2013
- 7,502
- 7,497
Clean up the mental mistakes in the defensive zone and this team will be a nightmare for anyone to play
Boris Zubov
No relation to Sergei, Joe
I'm going to sleep or I'd expand more on this reply, but Kovalev was both dipsy do AND bull in a china shop. There were only a handful of guys in the league harder to knock off the puck than he was. One was Lemieux, one was Jagr & another was Lindros. There might've been a handful of others, but my brain is mush.
As far as the power play comparison, that team had Leetch & Zubov...not comparable at all. Plus the different era's & the goalie equipment makes it a non-starter. Both were/are equally glorious to watch, however.
The mistakes didn't really even come in their own end.
Goal 1 - Weird borderline offsides play led to Anaheim possession. Lindgren sets a bit of a screen but this was a shot that Igor should have had. This was weird, kind of unlucky, but ultimately Igor should have had it.
Goal 2 - Odd man rush the other way, Kreider for what ever reason decides to try to pick up a guy who was already marked leading to Zegras being able to get a breakaway. If Kreider makes a straight line for Zegras instead of catching up with who ever passed the puck to him and gliding through the NZ, this goal probably never happens (My money would be on Kreider catching Zegras.)
Goal 3 - Don't ask me what Lindgren was doing on the rush up ice before turning it over... I don't know and neither does anyone else.
Goal 4 - Forget how this one got started, but Igor gets too aggressive coming out of his net on a broken play off the rush and Laf is late picking up his guy.
Lots of unnecessary risks were taken in this game and a ton of them came in the 3rd. Miller in parcitular was pinching like the team was down by 3 instead of up by 3. I get that the message was probably to not back up and let them back in it, but there needs to be some control to your chaos, this was just chaos which led to them... well not getting back into it, but making things closer than they actually were (this was a 10-2 game that some how ended up 6-4.)
The lack of focus on the details is something they'll need to iron out.
