Some people are making an informed judgment based on what they've seen during his NHL tenure thus far on both sides of the puck.
Others, like yourself, are basing your opinions on hope that he will become a more productive player.
I've been lurking on these forums for a few years now and I mostly enjoy reading the fans feedback on the games, I'm a Norwegian but I've been a rangers fan for a good 10 years now, but please don't hold that against me "RangerBoy", I wouldn't want to intrude on your own personal nhl team.
I just have a couple questions since I'm curious. you cite the defensive capabilities as a liability.
But afaik so far the only time he's been a "liability" is when he got outmanouvered yesterday by a play that even most people on here applauded as a really nice goal. And its happened to better defenders than Zucc.. So whats the problem ? It happens, it doesn't make anyone a liability if they get outplayed once. Hell, it was fantastic hockey. Even I could appreciate that one even if it meant a goal against. It is slightly puzzling that you attest that one incident as a testament to defensive weakness when there has been plenty of incidents like that in the league over the years.
And honestly haven't our own defensemen clowned it up bigtime this season ? I've seen Zucc snap the puck and make all kinds of good defensive contributions, not that they are spectcaular but they do deserve merit. I didnt catch the previous game but didnt zucc block the puck before the goal ? So cant really blame that one on him ? (Sorry if this isnt the case, this is what I was told after the game).
Yes of course he has shortcomings, he is short and tiny and he will get outmuscled from time to time, but there are plenty of big men on the Rangers that should have no problems compensating. Hell in his first match back he lead the numbers of Hits for gods sake. Weakling.
Since you like to argue so much about his lack of point production, shouldn't the benefit also be given on the other end of the rink, by analyzis of exactly how goals are given away and what cause it ? So far Zucc "caused" one by being the victim of a badass move that would have left most scratching their balls, and you can't possibly argue that anyone else would have gotten that one, give Huberdeau the credit he deserves and aknowledge that these things can actually happen. These players aren't bad just because they play for a bad team. Especially Huberdeau.
As for the opposite side of the pitch. Zucc is the best passer on the team, there is no actual question about this and the consensus of the people I see post here is that this is infact, so. He forechecks, he takes **** from no one and he gives his all when he is on the ice, can you honestly say that about the rest of the team ? Plus the obvious things like the way he skates and improved vision from his last stint here.
He could be better at positioning without the puck, but its not too bad.
I saw in another post in the Clowe thread that you gave Clowe all the credit for Zucc's 3-1 goal. But hasnt Zucc fed Richards a few of these open netters so far ? If you give Clowe the credit for Zuccs goal you should be giving Zucc the "goal credit" for all his passes that his teammates have failed to capitalize on. It was a amazing job by Clowe, and it was a great shot, simple as.
I honestly think that Zucc has some work to do on his defensive play, but it is not in the range of being a liability, nowhere near. Pretty sure Del Zotto has caused more goals against than Zucc has so far.
Giving criticism based on lack of production is a bit unfair when you are playing with a guy that only a few days ago sat in the locker room hiding his head in his hands because he is so heartbroken over his play. Richards is a star that is underperforming, and the players around him "suffer" because of it because their stats are hurting. This argument is so unfair, to anyone. In a ideal world Zucc would have 10 assists by now if the finishers were having a great day. Unfortunately that is not the case and let the flaming begin.
It is fair that you have concerns about the defensive play, but to label it a liability, and flame **** like the tripping penalty, citing it as lazy work is surely a argument that you can possibly believe. No one is on that ice just to "put a stick out, cba moving lol". How about you throw in some actual incidents and arguments to support your whole lability action since so far I've seen nothing that stands out compared to the rest of the team.
It is also slightly amusing to me that this particular argument flamed up after he played his best game for the rangers :p How does things like that even happen ?
Tl;dr: Stop looking at numbers and try to see the broader picture and don't dislike me because I'm Norwegian, I liked the rangers before it was cool.
