Hey Torts, Why again did you Rarely use McD on the PP?

[Bluenote13]

Theres several reasons the PP has improved, and McDonagh is a big piece. Richards reverting back to a player capable of making quick decisions has helped too.

Beyond personnel, fundamentals have been brought back into the PP. Theres always a guy in front, theres always players moving - nothing is stagnant. Good job by the new staff on this one.

And when it comes down to it, these were all simple adjustments. Richards looking like his old self puts it over the top.

Its more entertaining and thought provoking to discuss the negative - at least thats how I feel. Instead of painting me as some sort of all-encompassing hater, its better to assume that if I dont talk about something regularly, Im pretty happy with it.

Like the power play, or Lundqvist, or the defensive personnel, etc.

Well said. Some don't see the difference between blind hate and a good healthy discussion

 

[Tawnos]

And when it comes down to it, these were all simple adjustments. Richards looking like his old self puts it over the top.



Well said. Some don't see the difference between blind hate and a good healthy discussion

Good connection here. When things are good, they're usually simple. When they're bad, they're usually not.

 

[Blue Blooded]

Girardis been on the ice for something like 5 or 6 ESGA in the last 12 games.

7 5v5 GA, which is 50% of all 5v5 GA over that period and most on the team. It is not a positive indicator. He played 193.4 EV minutes over these 12 games.

For context, over the same period: McD: 6 in 203.5 minutes, Staal: 6 in 198.7 minutes, Strålman: 4 in 200.9 minutes.

Still, we have strayed massively from my point. Playing McDonagh with Strålman will put him in more offensive situations, and Staal can take the more difficult assignments with Girardi to optimize their respective skillsets.

The difference between McD and Staal is bigger offensively than defensively.

 

[Richter Scale]

I fall in that trap too, where I only discuss the negative sometimes. That said entertaining for whom? No one likes people that are always negative. Maybe entertaining for you.

I think the point is that it is more interesting to discuss the negative because (when there are people who disagree with you) it ideally results in a give and take debate where substantive points are made. The conversation can last and adds to a larger discussion.

If you're just discussing the good things that everyone agrees on, the discussion ends up being: "Yea, I love ____ too." Not exactly a great insight or discussion. Just fluff.

 

[Tawnos]

7 5v5 GA, which is 50% of all 5v5 GA over that period and most on the team. It is not a positive indicator. He played 193.4 EV minutes over these 12 games.

For context, over the same period: McD: 6 in 203.5 minutes, Staal: 6 in 198.7 minutes, Strålman: 4 in 200.9 minutes.

It is a positive indicator. Just because the rest of the team is also playing well defensively doesn't mean he isn't. 7 goals is not that many given the matchups he plays. In reality, you expect him and McD to be on the ice for the most goals against. It's the number that matters, not the comparison.

 

[OverTheCap]

Its more entertaining and thought provoking to discuss the negative - at least thats how I feel. Instead of painting me as some sort of all-encompassing hater, its better to assume that if I dont talk about something regularly, Im pretty happy with it.

Like the power play, or Lundqvist, or the defensive personnel, etc.

And to add to that, talking about what's negative usually leads to discussion about how to go about improving those areas - whether it be strategic or personnel. That's part of the reason why the trade discussions and the "Fire the coach/GM" threads are so lively.

In a PGT, I'll often discuss what the Rangers did wrong and how they need to improve upon on it. Not because it's negative, but because I feel it's more constructive and would lead to a more active discussion than saying "so-and-so had a good game, hope he keeps it up."

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I think the point is that it is more interesting to discuss the negative because (when there are people who disagree with you) it ideally results in a give and take debate where substantive points are made. The conversation can last and adds to a larger discussion.

If you're just discussing the good things that everyone agrees on, the discussion ends up being: "Yea, I love ____ too." Not exactly a great insight or discussion. Just fluff.

That's fine when you have a balance. When every post of yours is how mediocre the team is it gets old. Would you want to be around someone that constantly complains how bad work is at work? Or how bad life is? Constant negativity is annoying.

 

[Blue Blooded]

It is a positive indicator. Just because the rest of the team is also playing well defensively doesn't mean he isn't. 7 goals is not that many given the matchups he plays. In reality, you expect him and McD to be on the ice for the most goals against. It's the number that matters, not the comparison.

I can agree with this.

However, the Rangers had 136 shot attempts in Girardi's 193 minutes and 227 in Strålman's 200.9. Considering that Staal and McDonagh are roughly equivalent defensively while McDonagh seems to have a lot more offensive talent, wouldn't it make sense to put McDonagh in a more offensive situation with Strålman and put Staal in the defensive role next to Girardi? The two pairings already get virtually the same amount of 5v5 minutes as it is. Neither McD nor Girardi would have a reduced role.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Jesus guys, no one said you should only praise the team. I said just yesterday that I was disappointed in the way the team played. It's when you have 20 negative posts for 1 positive post that it gets old.

 

[stan the caddy]

They're 9-8 with a minus 7 goal differential. I think it's a little early for the I told you so's.

 

[Levitate]

They're 9-8 with a minus 7 goal differential. I think it's a little early for the I told you so's.

Considering they were with a -18 goal differential not long ago and are 7-3 in their last 10 games and have won 6 out of their last 7 I am certainly content with saying they are playing better

 

[ecemleafs]

They're 9-8 with a minus 7 goal differential. I think it's a little early for the I told you so's.

they were 3-7 with like a -30 GD tho so that record is quite a turn around...

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

They're 9-8 with a minus 7 goal differential. I think it's a little early for the I told you so's.

You again?

They gave up 4+ goals in majority of their first 8 or so games. The fact that they're closing that gap and winning 6 of the last 7 is what playing better is. Please.

 

[stan the caddy]

They're still 9-8. Those games counted.

Remember that this was a succesful team prior to the coaching change. They go 7-3 and all of a sudden they're world beaters and SC favorites...

I'm not saying the wins weren't satisfying but it's early for the I told you so's. They have some tough games coming up against the likes of Boston, LA, Montreal, Tampa, and... Vancouver, who believe it or not, are playing better than the Rangers in a tougher division.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

They're still 9-8. Those games counted.

Remember that this was a succesful team prior to the coaching change. They go 7-3 and all of a sudden they're world beaters and SC favorites...

I'm not saying the wins weren't satisfying but it's early for the I told you so's. They have some tough games coming up against the likes of Boston, LA, Montreal, Tampa, and... Vancouver, who believe it or not, are playing better than the Rangers in a tougher division.

Those games counted in the standings but should mean little in the analysis of the team going further considering the injuries and system change.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

They're still 9-8. Those games counted.

Remember that this was a succesful team prior to the coaching change. They go 7-3 and all of a sudden they're world beaters and SC favorites...

I'm not saying the wins weren't satisfying but it's early for the I told you so's. They have some tough games coming up against the likes of Boston, LA, Montreal, Tampa, and... Vancouver, who believe it or not, are playing better than the Rangers in a tougher division.

Havent seen anyone say the bolded. Just like, on the other side, I havent seen anyone say they're the world's worst hockey team.

They are mediocre until further notice. Just like they've been for the majority of time under Glen Sather, and as an organization for the past 80+ years.

 

[NHRangerfan]

They're 9-8 with a minus 7 goal differential. I think it's a little early for the I told you so's.

Kind of early for a post saying kind of early...but clearly the PP is better than it has been the past few years even when not scoring the majority of the PP opps are generating chances...it is no longer a momentum killer.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Those games counted in the standings but should mean little in the analysis of the team going further considering the injuries and system change.

So, that counts, but the Rangers beating some pretty dreadful teams outside of Pittsburgh in this recent stretch doesnt count towards the analysis?

Im just trying to keep up with your arbitrary guidelines.

 

[stan the caddy]

Those games counted in the standings but should mean little in the analysis of the team going further considering the injuries and system change.

Every team is great if you don't count the bad games.

 

[Levitate]

If you're not going to offer any kind of analysis then complaining about their early games or saying their recent record wasn't against good enough competition is just pretty useless

 

[Graves94]

If you're not going to offer any kind of analysis then complaining about their early games or saying their recent record wasn't against good enough competition is just pretty useless

Exactly!

I though this was a McD on the PP thread, but while we're are it, name me a team that is better than the Rangers in the East besides Boston and Pitts? Or to re-phrase the question, besides the Pens and B's, which team in the East has less warts than the Rangers?

 

[stan the caddy]

Exactly!

I though this was a McD on the PP thread, but while we're are it, name me a team that is better than the Rangers in the East besides Boston and Pitts? Or to re-phrase the question, besides the Pens and B's, which team in the East has less warts than the Rangers?

Ultimately this is a **** John Tortorella thread. If the op really only wanted to talk about McD, he'd have made the McD Thread and talked about how good he's looked for the Rangers.

The whole point of the coaching change was that JT was holding the team back and he was the reason why they weren't better than the Pens and Bruins. Right now there's quite a few teams in the East that could knock off the Rangers. They beat some bad teams.

 

[Tawnos]

Ultimately this is a **** John Tortorella thread. If the op really only wanted to talk about McD, he'd have made the McD Thread and talked about how good he's looked for the Rangers.

The whole point of the coaching change was that JT was holding the team back and he was the reason why they weren't better than the Pens and Bruins. Right now there's quite a few teams in the East that could knock off the Rangers. They beat some bad teams.

Maybe. There's quite a few teams the Rangers could likely knock off too. Tampa and Pittsburgh are the only two teams with more ROWs than the Rangers. The Rangers have played Pittsburgh, Detroit, Montreal and Washington as teams above them in the East. They're 3-1 in those games. Right now, there really isn't enough evidence either way to support either statement.

The second part of that is that the coaching change wasn't really designed to improve the teams regular season performance, but rather their playoff performance. Whether or not they can will have to wait until April.

 

[Bardof425*]

They're still 9-8. Those games counted.

Remember that this was a succesful team prior to the coaching change. They go 7-3 and all of a sudden they're world beaters and SC favorites...

I'm not saying the wins weren't satisfying but it's early for the I told you so's. They have some tough games coming up against the likes of Boston, LA, Montreal, Tampa, and... Vancouver, who believe it or not, are playing better than the Rangers in a tougher division.

Good post. Torts is an idiot.

 

[RangerBoy]

Tortorella and Sullivan are now on their third NHL stop together. Apparently, the Canucks saw the same things in Sullivan that Tortorella sees.

“I can’t believe he’s still an assistant coach in this league,†Tortorella said. “It actually pisses me off. I don’t want to lose him but he’s such a good coach and it hasn’t been recognized. And he’s a better person.â€

“Right from the start we saw eye-to-eye on how to run a team,†Sullivan said. “We’re very different personalities. I’m not as confrontational as Torts can be. But, as far as how we see the game, we’re very similar.â€

http://www.theprovince.com/sports/Willes+Sully+Torts+Different+styles+same+vision/9044603/story.html

"Our power play sucked," Tortorella said, echoing Luongo's famous lament about his $54-million contract.

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Canucks+trip+with+loss+Ducks/9150059/story.html

Tortorella attaches himself to Sullivan and the results remain the same.