Toggle sidebar

Post-Game Talk: Light Flurry

3 Stars

  • Total voters
    95
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mack is on pace for the 2nd most points in a season so far this millennium
 
Machinehead said:
I'm mostly referring to the fact that we generated absolutely nothing for 40 minutes.
Click to expand...
Thats not true at all.

While we werent sustaining pressure we had multiple great scoring chances off the rush that georgiev stopped, or we somehow flubbed (especially one timers)

Not having sustained pressure is not the same as generating nothing.

Also, hard to generate a ton in the first when 25% of it was on the PK.
 
Ruggs225 said:
Thats not true at all.

While we werent sustaining pressure we had multiple great scoring chances off the rush that georgiev stopped, or we somehow flubbed (especially one timers)

Not having sustained pressure is not the same as generating nothing.

Also, hard to generate a ton in the first when 25% of it was on the PK.
Click to expand...
We had 1.8 expected goals at 5v5 for the whole game. That's nothing. The other team's goalie having to make a few saves is the norm.

Yes, it was a very tough opponent but our offensive generation stinks against everyone and whatever pair Lindgren is on not being to play offense is a pattern.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandiblesofdoom
McRanger92 said:
Lindgren and Miller finally stepped up. Please keep Trouba away from miller. Play jones over Gus.

Quick is the calming influence, let’s see how Igor responds.

Cuylle/Kakko just needs a C who will cause havoc in front. Another good game for them imo.

Big guys stepped up in the 3rd, including Meeka
Click to expand...
Yup....get them a decent C and use Jones as a spare/fill in /whatever and go to war with that . No big power moves costing us a fortune draft wise . I thought Schneider had a decent game in the first half ...second half I was sound asleep.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bl02
Machinehead said:
Everyone waves at MacKinnon as he goes by.

You can't just completely stop great players from getting chances.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is something Del Zotto eldued to (of all people) on a podcast.

He got reamed out by Torts for getting beat by a player (may have been Kucherov) and he told Torts something along the lines of "of course that happened, he's better than me!"

I'm also baffled that people want to point to that one play to try to define a "bad" game. It resulted in a 1v2 with Schneider actually in good position (was really, really, REALLY impressed with his gap integrity all game yesterday considering the assignment) and Quick gave up a bad goal.

Realize how no one says Quick didn't have a bad game bc of that goal? It's because he didn't. He was very good.

Know what was a bigger problem in the game yesterday? Lindgren getting owned by 4th liners.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gluten Free Breadman, ArPanet, mandiblesofdoom and 2 others
Machinehead said:
We had 1.8 expected goals at 5v5 for the whole game. That's nothing. The other team's goalie having to make a few saves is the norm.

Yes, it was a very tough opponent but our offensive generation stinks against everyone and whatever pair Lindgren is on not being to play offense is a pattern.
Click to expand...

I dont pretennd to know how these stats are calculated… but that doesnt seem remotely accurate.

Kreider alone had 2 or 3 glorious chances only to be stonewalled. Kredier had at least 2 in the first period alone. We also flubbed like 5 one timers that were shooting goalie not in position.

Goals were there for the taking. We just didnt execute.

There were alot of opportunities, even in the first period. Colorado made a couple really good defensive plays to break up some good opportunities as well.

We didnt have continued pressure, which if that plays a big part of expexted goals than i understand. But we absolutley had some great chances off the rush.

Once again fancy stats dont explain all the nuances of a game. A whiff of a one timer might not give u an expected goal for, but it is absolutely a chance generated, its just not executed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ncdoc and Gluten Free Breadman
Machinehead said:
I'm mostly referring to the fact that we generated absolutely nothing for 40 minutes.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the first was as bad as being portrayed here outside of the first maybe 3 minutes - until the good guys took care of the fist PK.
 
  • Like
Reactions: romba
kovazub94 said:
I don’t think the first was as bad as being portrayed here outside of the first maybe 3 minutes - until the good guys took care of the fist PK.
Click to expand...

I thought we had plenty of chances in the 1st, especially considering a 1-3 PP disparity in the first 12 minutes of play.
 
McRanger92 said:
I thought we had plenty of chances in the 1st, especially considering a 1-3 PP disparity in the first 12 minutes of play.
Click to expand...

Their best chances in the 1st came on the PK. Kreider had 2 himself.

Most of the 2nd was worse than the 1st though. They picked it up late in the 2nd and carried the rest of the game after.
 
Ruggs225 said:
I dont pretennd to know how these stats are calculated… but that doesnt seem remotely accurate.

Kreider alone had 2 or 3 glorious chances only to be stonewalled. Kredier had at least 2 in the first period alone. We also flubbed like 5 one timers that were shooting goalie not in position.

Goals were there for the taking. We just didnt execute.

There were alot of opportunities, even in the first period. Colorado made a couple really good defensive plays to break up some good opportunities as well.

We didnt have continued pressure, which if that plays a big part of expexted goals than i understand. But we absolutley had some great chances off the rush.

Once again fancy stats dont explain all the nuances of a game. A whiff of a one timer might not give u an expected goal for, but it is absolutely a chance generated, its just not executed.
Click to expand...
We did have some chances but not many. We had 23 shots. That's a low total in basically any era.

Most people on here only watch the Rangers. That's fine, but it creates a bubble. We're in a very high-scoring league and we watch a team on the regular that has never been good at offense in this era relative to their competition.

We see them doing a lot more than the Torts teams but teams were scoring a goal and a half per game less back then.

Even the Avalanche, who everyone said looked dangerous, got fewer chances in that game than they usually do.

So when people call out our generation, saying "we had 2 or 3 great chances" isn't proving them wrong. In 2024, teams get 2 or 3 great chances at least every period. The Avs had 13 high-danger chances. That's 4+ per period. That's a run of the mill night for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tiggles and mas0764
Machinehead said:
We did have some chances but not many. We had 23 shots. That's a low total in basically any era.

Most people on here only watch the Rangers. That's fine, but it creates a bubble. We're in a very high-scoring league and we watch a team on the regular that has never been good at offense in this era relative to their competition.

We see them doing a lot more than the Torts teams but teams were scoring a goal and a half per game less back then.

Even the Avalanche, who everyone said looked dangerous, got fewer chances in that game than they usually do.

So when people call out our generation, saying "we had 2 or 3 great chances" isn't proving them wrong. In 2024, teams get 2 or 3 great chances at least every period. The Avs had 13 high-danger chances. That's 4+ per period. That's a run of the mill night for them.
Click to expand...
We have a lack of execution.

our passes are off, or we flub a shot, or we shoot it 5 miles wide.

The chances are there. Our execution is just poor many times.

We had multiple odd man rushes in the first. However they resulted in few shots on goal bc of what i mentioned before. Ao the opprotunity is there, the chance is there the final execution just isnt. And its like an inch or two off here or there.

its a small nuance, and i think thats what the difference is between some of the numbers and what people see.

You say we ony got 23 shots. Yes, but that is bc we flubbed so many shots or missed the net completely.

Possession wise, yes we we horrid in the beginning of the game and we couldnt sustain any pressure. That has been something that is a recurring theme. Not arguing that.
 
Ruggs225 said:
We have a lack of execution.

our passes are off, or we flub a shot, or we shoot it 5 miles wide.

The chances are there. Our execution is just poor many times.

We had multiple odd man rushes in the first. However they resulted in few shots on goal bc of what i mentioned before. Ao the opprotunity is there, the chance is there the final execution just isnt. And its like an inch or two off here or there.

its a small nuance, and i think thats what the difference is between some of the numbers and what people see.

You say we ony got 23 shots. Yes, but that is bc we flubbed so many shots or missed the net completely.
Click to expand...

Poor execution is like... the worst excuse you could ever make for the performance of a sports team.

What are you even saying here? The Rangers would be as good as other teams if they didn't mess up on plays as much?

No kidding dude. Every team would be a cup contender if they could play better than they are actually playing.

The goal is to win the Stanley's Cup not Schrodinger's Cup.
 


giphy.gif
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: DoTheBlue, mandiblesofdoom, bl02 and 1 other person
Ruggs225 said:
We have a lack of execution.

our passes are off, or we flub a shot, or we shoot it 5 miles wide.

The chances are there. Our execution is just poor many times.

We had multiple odd man rushes in the first. However they resulted in few shots on goal bc of what i mentioned before. Ao the opprotunity is there, the chance is there the final execution just isnt. And its like an inch or two off here or there.

its a small nuance, and i think thats what the difference is between some of the numbers and what people see.

You say we ony got 23 shots. Yes, but that is bc we flubbed so many shots or missed the net completely.

Possession wise, yes we we horrid in the beginning of the game and we couldnt sustain any pressure. That has been something that is a recurring theme. Not arguing that.
Click to expand...
People only say "we just didn't execute chances" when it's convenient.

When we had 2.51 expected goals against Ottawa and scored 6 on a goaltender, nobody said anything. When Seattle came in and we scored 5 goals on 2.08 expected it wasn't "great finishing by the Rangers!"

That's why I really take "well, we had chances, we just didn't finish them" with a grain of salt. It's a completely one-way narrative. People notice when good chances don't go in. When it does go in, it's just a goal, regardless of how good the chance was.

Having a few good chances that didn't go in doesn't mean you had a wealth of chances. Good teams get good chances constantly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greg02 and frozenrubber
will1066 said:


giphy.gif
Click to expand...

Shocker! :sarcasm:Schneider should be playing top 4 with MIller and Trouba bottom pairing with whoever.
Not only better for Schneider's development but Schneider is better. Again most NHL coaches would never demote a guy like Trouba unfortunately
 
  • Like
Reactions: skipmowerman
bl02 said:
Shocker! :sarcasm:Schneider should be playing top 4 with MIller and Trouba bottom pairing with whoever.
Not only better for Schneider's development but Schneider is better. Again most NHL coaches would never demote a guy like Trouba unfortunately
Click to expand...

He wears the "C"!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom