Devil's advocate here. You already have a player like that in Shattenkirk (who, let's face it is not weakish defensively, but weak. Full stop). How many of your 6 defensemen can you afford to have playing sheltered minutes?
Player Discussion John Gilmour
- Thread starter nevesis
- Start date
-
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
A new coach will give Smith every chance to earn a spot
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
I definitely think you can manage two. And the reality is that Shattenkirk's offense is of a high enough level that you can't truly shelter him. You can try to give him better zone starts, but he's going to get his 20+ minutes every night because he doesn't just generate offense on the PP. I think you're talking about substantially less than that with Gilmour, for sure.
NYR Viper
Registered User
Savant
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2013
- 39,366
- 11,988
Not sure that I agree. The team was not playing him against the other team's top lines. Those opposing top lines play the most. If you are hiding Shattenkirk because if caught in any zone except the offensive one, results in better offensive chances for the opposition, his time becomes naturally sheltered. Let's face it, he has been playing like a glorified fourth forward. Unless his offensive numbers are off the charts, the Rangers just cannot afford for his minutes not to be sheltered.
Which, on a different yet much refrained note, is why I fear that AV is not going anywhere. Hope I am wrong, but as I have stated before....Sather loves his pond hockey and who better to be the head coach of a pond hockey team?
NYR Viper
Registered User
he plays just like Trevor Daley who has been a decently valuable player for many years in the NHL. Slightly undersized and at times will lost his assignment but his speed, ability to join the rush and ability to skate the puck out of trouble is valuable.
I'm just saying, the way you shelter Shattenkirk is not the same way you shelter Gilmour. I don't think a good coach would have any problems finding a spot for both of them, and putting them in positions to succeed.
Pavel Buchnevich
"Pavel Buchnevich The Fake"
I think two works.
The question here is whether Shattenkirk is in that group of two. If he is, its Gilmour or DeAngelo and not both. If not, maybe Gilmour and DeAngelo both works, but then you gotta consider that we also have Pionk who is undersized. Is that a big enough, tough enough defense? There's also the question whether you can have two guys on the same side who need sheltered offensive minutes. I don't think it will go well.
I've not been impressed by DeAngelo, so I'd go with something like this.
Skjei-Shattenkirk
Smith-Staal
Gilmour-Pionk
DeAngelo
The question here is whether Shattenkirk is in that group of two. If he is, its Gilmour or DeAngelo and not both. If not, maybe Gilmour and DeAngelo both works, but then you gotta consider that we also have Pionk who is undersized. Is that a big enough, tough enough defense? There's also the question whether you can have two guys on the same side who need sheltered offensive minutes. I don't think it will go well.
I've not been impressed by DeAngelo, so I'd go with something like this.
Skjei-Shattenkirk
Smith-Staal
Gilmour-Pionk
DeAngelo
Yeah, I would make the argument that you could do Shattenkirk+Gilmour OR Shattenkirk+ADA, but not all three. That's just too much of a liability and also redundancy.
I'm happy for the kid, but I dont think you can win with Gilly, Pionk, Ada, and Shatts playing every night.
Hes got NHL credibility now, and I love parts of his game. Lets see of he can keep it up.
Hes got NHL credibility now, and I love parts of his game. Lets see of he can keep it up.
Harbour Dog
Registered User
Pavel Buchnevich
"Pavel Buchnevich The Fake"
Its not premature, but I'm not sure the upside is all that high. He can't defend, at all, and he's not the smartest player. He's maybe a 6D. We can use all the NHL'er's we can get, but he's not a very good NHL'er, and he has parts of his game that will likely keep him from being better than a bottom pairing D.
Harbour Dog
Registered User
Yeah, you may be right.
Even if he is never more than a 3rd pairing guy though, that's much more than most of us expected at this time last year. I wouldn't say that I wrote him off, but I definitely had a few nails in his coffin.
BobMarleyNYR
Rangers future on D
You guys sound ridiculous with the "sheltering" stuff. It's hockey, not a pillow fight. I've heard the term used but it's really the same concept with forwards. If a veteran sucks it up, you decrease his minutes, not "shelter his minutes." These are grown men. I get it when you talk about rookies, literally sheltering their growing abilities from overdoing it. By next season, if Gilmour, Pionk and DeAngelo are in the lineup, they don't need SHELTERING. If they're just not good enough, they'll need to get new players, at least temporarily... can anyone tell me why Stu Bickel and Dale Purinton had their minutes "sheltered?"
When you talk about sheltering a player, you're talking about his minutes but also his zone starts and his match ups. It's a term that has gained prevalence in the past five years. I don't know why it's so bothersome to you but it's not going away.
Synergy27
F-A-C-G-C-E
This. 12 minutes a night vs. Crosby are a lot different than 12 minutes a night vs. Tanner Glass. Sheltering is about both quantity and QUALITY. Pretty simple concept. Sucks to have to rely on that with multiple players in the lineup though.
Especially matchups. You simply do not want Shattenkirk on the ice when a team's top line is out there. Nor Gilmour. And you really do not want them there if the defensive zone face off situation.
Being sheltered is being hidden from the opposition's top players or making sure that a Shattenkirk is not out there during defensive draws. Not just simply having your ice time reduced.
NYR Viper
Registered User
What we are discussing is a longer term issue. In the short-term, the Rangers should ice their best 6 defensemen. That includes ADA, Pionk and Gilmour. All (3) guys are part of the (6) best defensemen this organization has. Let them continue to develop. Mistakes will happen, they will learn as they go. If a trade opens up and another team has someone available who may tweak the structure of the defense you then trade one of these guys as they should have value. Where this team will be next year, I wouldn't be looking to ruin any of their values by sending hem down
BobMarleyNYR
Rangers future on D
I'm not really bothered by it I just think it's used enough that it's out of context... if you "dock" a guy's D-zone starts and SH time, you're really sheltering the team and that's it... I'm not trying to change the dictionary... why don't forwards get "sheltered?" Besides when reporters talk about rookies.
You're talking about not playing a guy in some situations which is limiting or cutting and not sheltering his minutes... does Pau Carey play sheltered minutes?
You're talking about not playing a guy in some situations which is limiting or cutting and not sheltering his minutes... does Pau Carey play sheltered minutes?
Last edited:
BobMarleyNYR
Rangers future on D
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
2025 Stadium Series Detroit Red Wings vs Columbus Blue Jackets - Ohio Stadium, ColumbusWagers: 9Staked: $9,816.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
