Marian Gaborik

[SupersonicMonkey*]

You dont need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

You dont need to be a coach to know this system doesnt work with these players.

I actually think most of us here would like to see if you really understand it yourself. So go ahead and explain Tortorella's system better than he would.

This teams issues are deeper than just whining over Gaborik.

Its a wing lock system in the neutral zone. The Rangers bait the opposition to the strong side and attempt to force the opposition to turn over the puck.

This happens by getting the puck deep, F1 applies pressure to one side of the net, opposition moves puck up opposite wall, F2 applies pressure, F3 steps up to intercept.

If they fail to create a turnover, they attempt to force the opposition to dump it.

This is a set play that they've been running since at least last year.

In the defensive zone Rangers will box out the middle. They'll allow the opposition the outside. They'll even allow the opposition down low at times. They'll gladly take the low percentage outside shots as long as they aren't giving up high percentage shots in the middle.

Once possession is regained, and here's where I complain about the lack of a real puck skating/puck moving, mobile defenseman, they'll stretch the opposition out by sending a sometimes risky long pass that they'll intentionally tip at the red line, getting the puck deep. This forces opposition defense to turn around and race Rangers fore checkers who already have forward momentum, to the puck.

Its one option if the other forwards are covered.

The Rangers are a reactionary team for the most part. They work on capitalizing on opposition mistakes.

The possession aspect is winning battles on the boards, winning races to pucks.

A lot of the dump ins are reactionary plays, if there are no options available and gaining the zone with the puck is too risky, getting it deep is ALWAYS the correct decision. 100% of the time. If nothing else it forces the opposition to gain 200 feet of ice. And at that time the wing lock play is already in effect. Forcing the opposition to patches of ice that benefit you.

Its a chess match.

Tortorella doesn't stifle creativity, when players have the ability to create. Be it both the motor skills and the opportunity if the play dictates it.

Nash can create his own space. He has that ability. Gaborik does NOT. Gaborik relies on his teammates to create space for HIM. Which is fine, if he could at least do them the favor of engaging when they need support and when there is no one else close enough to apply pressure. Can't do that if you're not skating or giving effort!

There is far more involved in it. This is scratching the surface. Not touching on face offs, and recognizing each player's assignments in each zone in each situation (puck possession, on the defensive, 5v5, 4v4, PK).

So again...what else? You're so adamant that the systems are at fault, explain.

The Rangers do not have the personnel to forego assignments and responsibility as a whole.

Veteran players should understand and embrace what is expected of them.

Rookies who are adjusting to the speed of the game, learning how to read the plays at that speed, should be allotted more leeway. Mistakes will happen and they need to learn how to correct them.

Veterans being paid 7+ million to be leaders and performers do NOT get the same leeway.

Gaborik wants to score he needs to put the effort into all three zones and skate to get to pucks. He isn't doing any of the above at all consistently and that's why he's "playing poorly". Zero effort.

 

[Radek27]

They've been a defense first, grind it out team since day 1 bro.

Your right but why are we still running this kind of system? We have the best goalie in the league, a solid D and three top line talents up front. This team has changed since Torts got here but his style and system hasn't changed to fit his new players.

If a new coach started the job today and looked at this roster I doubt he would decide to run this kind of grind it out defensive system. When he first got here Christensen was doing spot duty as the top line center now we have Richards, Gabby and Nash. It's time to open it up a bit don't you think?

 

[Heyoooo*]

I asked YOU to explain it, because YOU are the one spamming the boards incessantly about how the "system" doesn't work.

But sure I'll explain a little of it.

Its a wing lock system in the neutral zone. The Rangers bait the opposition to the strong side and attempt to force the opposition to turn over the puck.

This happens by getting the puck deep, F1 applies pressure to one side of the net, opposition moves puck up opposite wall, F2 applies pressure, F3 steps up to intercept.

If they fail to create a turnover, they attempt to force the opposition to dump it.

This is a set play that they've been running since at least last year.

In the defensive zone Rangers will box out the middle. They'll allow the opposition the outside. They'll even allow the opposition down low at times. They'll gladly take the low percentage outside shots as long as they aren't giving up high percentage shots in the middle.

Once possession is regained, and here's where I complain about the lack of a real puck skating/puck moving, mobile defenseman, they'll stretch the opposition out by sending a sometimes risky long pass that they'll intentionally tip at the red line, getting the puck deep. This forces opposition defense to turn around and race Rangers fore checkers who already have forward momentum, to the puck.

Its one option if the other forwards are covered.

The Rangers are a reactionary team for the most part. They work on capitalizing on opposition mistakes.

The possession aspect is winning battles on the boards, winning races to pucks.

A lot of the dump ins are reactionary plays, if there are no options available and gaining the zone with the puck is too risky, getting it deep is ALWAYS the correct decision. 100% of the time. If nothing else it forces the opposition to gain 200 feet of ice. And at that time the wing lock play is already in effect. Forcing the opposition to patches of ice that benefit you.

Its a chess match.

Tortorella doesn't stifle creativity, when players have the ability to create. Be it both the motor skills and the opportunity if the play dictates it.

Nash can create his own space. He has that ability. Gaborik does NOT. Gaborik relies on his teammates to create space for HIM. Which is fine, if he could at least do them the favor of engaging when they need support and when there is no one else close enough to apply pressure. Can't do that if you're not skating or giving effort!

There is far more involved in it. This is scratching the surface. Not touching on face offs, and recognizing each player's assignments in each zone in each situation (puck possession, on the defensive, 5v5, 4v4, PK).

So again...what else? You're so adamant that the systems are at fault, explain.

The Rangers do not have the personnel to forego assignments and responsibility as a whole.

Veteran players should understand and embrace what is expected of them.

Rookies who are adjusting to the speed of the game, learning how to read the plays at that speed, should be allotted more leeway. Mistakes will happen and they need to learn how to correct them.

Veterans being paid 7+ million to be leaders and performers do NOT get the same leeway.

Gaborik wants to score he needs to put the effort into all three zones and skate to get to pucks. He isn't doing any of the above at all consistently and that's why he's "playing poorly". Zero effort.

1) Youre basically telling us what we already know. Its a capitalize on mistakes system at its core that doesnt have the right personnel anymore and needs to be adjusted into allowing more open play instead of clogging up areas and dumping the puck in when Gaborik isnt great at retrieving pucks. When youre *****ing enough about Gaborik and Richards to execute, I think that pretty much says it all. Kreider and Hagelin are fit for the speed of getting in on the forecheck. Nobody else is. They need to be executing their offensive ability which is carrying the puck in and setting up give and goes, etc.

As far as blocking shots, we dont need to be doing that nearly as much and risking the health of core players while also seemingly deflecting more shots into our own net. Usually youre supposed to let the goalie see the shot as is.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

I don't think anyone is expecting Gabby to suddenly become Callahan. It's more about some semblance of a base amount of effort.

There was a shift tonight in the 2nd period which was the epitome of what many take issue with. Gaborik just made a great deflection at the left post off a long lob from Richards that missed wide off the back boards and into the right corner.

The Montreal Dman got the puck at about the hash marks. For whatever reason Gabby is standing still, watching the opposing team attempt a breakout. He is literally standing there watching. Meanwhile, Pyatt comes completely across the ice, from the LW, to pressure the puck carrier in the right corner who is Gabby's man and who is trying to clear the zone.

And you know Pyatt didn't get there first because he was faster.

 

[LaffyTaffyNYR]

Your right but why are we still running this kind of system? We have the best goalie in the league, a solid D and three top line talents up front. This team has changed since Torts got here but his style and system hasn't changed to fit his new players.

If a new coach started the job today and looked at this roster I doubt he would decide to run this kind of grind it out defensive system. When he first got here Christensen was doing spot duty as the top line center now we have Richards, Gabby and Nash. It's time to open it up a bit don't you think?

Torts is incapable of adjusting anything but his belt buckle

 

[Heyoooo*]

In 09-10, I also recall a number of oddman rushes all year because our dmen would pinch much much more, which is pretty much "safe is death."

It was a more uptempo style.

 

[trilobyte]

In 09-10, I also recall a number of oddman rushes all year because our dmen would pinch much much more, which is pretty much "safe is death."

It was a more uptempo style.

I too recall that many of those pinches ended in disaster. Was that when Marc Staal was being pushed to jump up into the offense more often? Anyway, looking at teams that do the pinch well, they have such talent that not only does their risky behaviour mostly result in glory, but if they screw up, they have a fighting chance at getting back fast to make amends.

Tonight, I was totally disgusted by Richards on the second goal, and his lethargic action.

I'm tired of thinking about this team right now. They are missing some key players, but really, what's the excuse? They look like something the dog threw up.

 

[*Bob Richards*]

Attack the point, not the poster. Play nice.

 

[LaffyTaffyNYR]

For one thing, we have a bunch of AHL kids up right now, we no longer have feds prust dubi aa etc. And despite me still hating the system last year they were at lea. Capable of doing it.. with the selection of a few like nash hags cally pyatt, this team isnt. This roster is more suited for opening up the ice and when they were allowed to do it, they were scorong goals

 

[Heyoooo*]

Well, as far as the system goes, theres really nothing to explain.


When youre still using the same offensive strategy on the PP as you are 5 on 5, somethings wrong.

 

[McRanger]

You dont need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

No reason to get excited.

 

[chosen]

IMO, Gaborik is the 7th most important Ranger and your #7 is not worth 7.5 million. This is not about how good he is in a vacuum, to me. It is about his rate of pay vs play on the ice.

I expect every player to try all the time. After that, the coach and GM can appraise them. When you take shifts off, I wouldn't pay you the league minimum.

Gaborik is not a first year player who will learn a lesson from a benching. If he doesn't get it yet he never will.

 

[GarretJoseph*]

I wouldn't move Gaborik. He'll come around. Not many 40 goal scorers in this league. In fact only 4 guys scored 40 or more goals last season. Stamkos, Malkin and Neal. Gabby finished 3rd in the league with 41. We made quite a few moves and including this season made a few minor deals so you have to expect this team will continue to make some more minor deals, maybe pick up a rental. I don't care if we finish 8th, Look at what LA did last year. Last year we were #1 and could have easily been knocked out by the #8 seed. Give this team time. We are only a point out of a playoff spot with 2-3 games in hand.

 

[Krams]

IMO, Gaborik is the 7th most important Ranger and your #7 is not worth 7.5 million. This is not about how good he is in a vacuum, to me. It is about his rate of pay vs play on the ice.

I expect every player to try all the time. After that, the coach and GM can appraise them. When you take shifts off, I wouldn't pay you the league minimum.

Gaborik is not a first year player who will learn a lesson from a benching. If he doesn't get it yet he never will.

Is this legitimately your opinion? Because you should be embarrassed. Gaborik is the only one on this team who can consistently put up even 30 goals a year. He's done 40 twice. You show me who else outside of Jagr in recent years has come even close.

 

[Jabroni]

Relax. I'm going to have to start handing out infractions if the attacking continues.

 

[Heyoooo*]

Is this legitimately your opinion? Because you should be embarrassed. Gaborik is the only one on this team who can consistently put up even 30 goals a year. He's done 40 twice. You show me who else outside of Jagr in recent years has come even close.

Dude just give it up. There are simply two groups of people concerning Gaborik, those who appreciate him and those who dont. (I do)

No convincing is going to be done otherwise. Its the way it is. Everyones got their own agenda and blueprint for this team.

 

[*Bob Richards*]

Relax. I'm going to have to start handing out infractions if the attacking continues.

Apparently this concept is a novelty to some people. It really isn't that difficult.

STOP FLAMING EACH OTHER.

 

[chosen]

Is this legitimately your opinion? Because you should be embarrassed. Gaborik is the only one on this team who can consistently put up even 30 goals a year. He's done 40 twice. You show me who else outside of Jagr in recent years has come even close.

Funny, I'm not embarrassed. Here is the list of Rangers who I would rather not lose instead of Gaborik, (in no particular order):

1. Lundqvist
2. McDonagh
3. Staal
4. Girardi
5. Callahan
6. Nash

Which players would you get rid of before him?

While Hagelin and Kreider are currently not in that group, they might be in a year.

 

[Jabroni]

Funny, I'm not embarrassed. Here is the list of Rangers who I would rather not lose instead of Gaborik, (in no particular order):

1. Lundqvist
2. McDonagh
3. Staal
4. Girardi
5. Callahan
6. Nash

Which players would you get rid of before him?

While Hagelin and Kreider are currently not in that group, they might be in a year.

Hagelin could eventually be in that group.

He might be # 7 right now.

 

[Krams]

Funny, I'm not embarrassed. Here is the list of Rangers who I would rather not lose instead of Gaborik, (in no particular order):

1. Lundqvist
2. McDonagh
3. Staal
4. Girardi
5. Callahan
6. Nash

Which players would you get rid of before him?

While Hagelin and Kreider are currently not in that group, they might be in a year.

He's more important to the success of this team than every single player on that list not named Lundqvist and Nash. I'd rather lose Gaborik than somebody like McDonagh when taking into consideration age and salary as well as defensive depth. But that was not the question. The question was the importance of each individual player to the success of the team as a whole.

Goals win games.

 

[Heyoooo*]

He's more important to the success of this team than every single player on that list not named Lundqvist and Nash. I'd rather lose Gaborik than somebody like McDonagh when taking into consideration age and salary as well as defensive depth. But that was not the question. The question was the importance of each individual player to the success of the team as a whole.

Goals win games.

He switched it up to be convenient.

I do agree that the three most important players to this teams' success is Lundqvist, Gaborik and Nash.

 

[NYR Viper]

He's more important to the success of this team than every single player on that list not named Lundqvist and Nash. I'd rather lose Gaborik than somebody like McDonagh when taking into consideration age and salary as well as defensive depth. But that was not the question. The question was the importance of each individual player to the success of the team as a whole.

Goals win games.

I find this to be the attitude of quite a few people on these boards, however, what is better? Scoring a goal, or stopping one from occurring on your team? Hockey is a 2way game

 

[Heyoooo*]

I find this to be the attitude of quite a few people on these boards, however, what is better? Scoring a goal, or stopping one from occurring on your team? Hockey is a 2way game

Theyre both important, and Lundqvist is the foundation of this team/MVP and has been since hes been here, but you cant win games 0-0. Someone has to score. That comes down to Gaborik and Nash.

 

[NYR Viper]

Theyre both important, and Lundqvist is the foundation of this team/MVP and has been since hes been here, but you cant win games 0-0. Someone has to score. That comes down to Gaborik and Nash.

That was my point. Until Gaborik can create offense and be a consistent threat I disagree.

 

[Dangleberry]

Gaborik comes and goes, as was mentioned 100x already he's a streaky scorer so he can't be depended on every night. Same goes for Nash, he was never looked to be as "that guy." So, as it stands at the moment we don't have a single consistent threat a la Stamkos.