Player Discussion Kevin Shattenkirk

  • 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
  • We're expecting server maintenance on March 3rd starting at midnight, there may be downtime during the work.
I agree, not a great one-on-one defender.

Very different from not caring about defense, however.
I tend to agree with this. My point regarding him is that the points are great (who does not love seeing, at least to this point, the best looking PP that we have seen since Leetch/Zubov manned the points) but I worry that top line players make him look bad. Which has nothing to do with "caring". And those are the players that at least in the playoffs play the most.
 
  • Like
Reactions: E-Train
Imagine if we had yandle instead of Staal on this team?

McDonagh-Shattenkirk
Yandle-Smith
Skjei-DeAngelo

THE DREAM....

sorry way off topic, Yandle fit real well on this team
 
I tend to agree with this. My point regarding him is that the points are great (who does not love seeing, at least to this point, the best looking PP that we have seen since Leetch/Zubov manned the points) but I worry that top line players make him look bad. Which has nothing to do with "caring". And those are the players that at least in the playoffs play the most.

I wouldn't send Shattenkirk out against top players as the superior of the two defenders on his pair.

With McDonagh, I don't think it's a problem at all.
 
I wouldn't send Shattenkirk out against top players as the superior of the two defenders on his pair.

With McDonagh, I don't think it's a problem at all.
But if he is on the ice, it makes no difference if there is a superior player or not. More often then not, at least so far, he gets turned around and does not look good
 
But if he is on the ice, it makes no difference if there is a superior player or not. More often then not, at least so far, he gets turned around and does not look good

Our other options on the right side are Holden and Kampfer.

I'd rather Shattenkirk be protecting a lead.
 
Our other options on the right side are Holden and Kampfer.

I'd rather Shattenkirk be protecting a lead.

Goddammit that's so disgusting. I don't care if Smith has a rough start to the season plying Kampfer out there is terrible
 
We really should have a defensive guy on the right and Kampfer is not it. Smith has to be in the lineup.

I mean I can say that Smith needs to play better as well but whatever issue there is between AV and Smith needs to get resolved. Kampfer might be able to play a handful of games and hold his own as a 3rd pairing guy but it won't last and the Rangers need something better there
 
I wouldn’t send him out against top players because I’d rather have him the best chance to create offense rather than focusing on stopping Crosby/Ovechkin/Tavares etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: RoarLionRoar
I love the way that I put the word "look" in quotation marks to emphasize it and it still gets ignored and starts a narrative.

I said it "looks" like he doesn't care. That's different than "he doesn't care".
 
I wouldn’t send him out against top players because I’d rather have him the best chance to create offense rather than focusing on stopping Crosby/Ovechkin/Tavares etc
But isn't one of the arguments of this board is that a good offense is a good defense? So if he is creating offense, he is keeping the puck in the other end of the ice. Which limits the amount of time that Crosby/Ovechkin/Tavares etc spend in the Rangers end of the ice.
 
But isn't one of the arguments of this board is that a good offense is a good defense? So if he is creating offense, he is keeping the puck in the other end of the ice. Which limits the amount of time that Crosby/Ovechkin/Tavares etc spend in the Rangers end of the ice.
id like to add that players of the bolded ilk above make almost any defenseman look bad
 
But isn't one of the arguments of this board is that a good offense is a good defense? So if he is creating offense, he is keeping the puck in the other end of the ice. Which limits the amount of time that Crosby/Ovechkin/Tavares etc spend in the Rangers end of the ice.

He's not playing against those kinds of players though, he has the lowest qualcomp of Rangers defensemen based on corsi% and Toi% of his competition.

Also, leads the team with Skjei in Ozone starts.

Basically he's being sheltered to an extent to maximize his skill set which is PP, joining the rush and offensive zone play
 
He's not playing against those kinds of players though, he has the lowest qualcomp of Rangers defensemen based on corsi% and Toi% of his competition.

Also, leads the team with Skjei in Ozone starts.

Basically he's being sheltered to an extent to maximize his skill set which is PP, joining the rush and offensive zone play

He has the 9th highest in the NHL based on xGF.
 
He's not playing against those kinds of players though, he has the lowest qualcomp of Rangers defensemen based on corsi% and Toi% of his competition.

Also, leads the team with Skjei in Ozone starts.

Basically he's being sheltered to an extent to maximize his skill set which is PP, joining the rush and offensive zone play
Again I understand that. And that is the way to play him. But again, my point was that there is or was a rather strong contingent on these board who claimed that a good defense is a better offense. Which flies into the face of sheltering him against top line players as wouldn't you want the puck on the other side of the ice when the opposition's top players are on the ice?
 
Shattenkirk is this year's NYR all-star representative.

This is his 2nd all star selection.
 
His defense has been as advertised. He makes mistakes but his rate of shots against is very good. I have no problems with this.

I'm disappointed that he hasn't been producing lately and isn't driving corsi for at all.
 
Who cares about the All-Star game? It was a gimmick before, but at least it had some prestige to be selected as one of the best players. Now it's just a complete PR circus, where you're selected as "a good, available player on your team, while taking other picked players on other positions on other teams, into consideration".

You can't exactly mention All-Star nominations on your player resumé anymore, because it doesn't say much. The kindergarden rule where every team must be represented destroyed any relevance the All-Star game had left.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 4 Fighting

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad