Post-Game Talk: New York Rangers at New Jersey Devils - December 21

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are we still wrong about Shattenkirk's defense because of some numbers?

Anyway, this game was really entertaining. Hank was ridiculous. Not even mad.
It's not being wrong, it's people expecting him to be something he's not. Shatty is what he is.

He's an elite PP quarterback, a very good offensive defenseman who is limited in his own zone and prone to bonehead mistakes. That's what he is, that's what he is always been. It's about realizing that he is a net positive on the team. He brings enough to make up for his mistakes and be a very positive player on this team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crease
That's definitely a factor. But why don't we have the puck enough, that's the question.

Could it be that we depend too much on opportunistic moments and forced turnovers/mistakes by the other team? For example, some of our "popular plays" => we like to poke a puck loose into an area where a player can win a foot race. Or sometimes we cause turnovers at the blue line, or sometimes you'll see the guys dump the puck in and go in for a hard forecheck. If they win the puck, they often put it in the slot for someone to VERY quickly pounce on it (eg. think of Grabner or Kreider driving to the net). Basically, we wait for the other team to screw up and then we capitalize it.

Of course this isn't always the case or the only thing that happens, but I think it does happen a lot. I also understand that a part of it is forcing the team to screw up and it isn't always a passive "hey let's sit back!" but sometimes I think the team does fall back on that a little. Also, while these are great offensive opportunities, a lot of time they often end up feeling like spurts of puck possession, than sustained pressure. One of the times where I do see us having the puck a lot is if we get a decent cycle going. I think this happened against the Bruins game in the second period or so? That was actually quite glorious to watch.

I think another issue is that the team doesn't always know what to do if they don't have the puck. I don't even necessarily mean it in a negative/chasing the game type of way (though it can be). Rather, are they supporting each other, back checking, forechecking, or just moving/skating if they don't have it? If you watch the Leafs played (well, earlier in the year...not sure how well they've been doing now), I think the biggest thing that stuck out to me was how players were always doing something. It feels more structured that way than just making a stretch pass and hoping a player wins a foot race or trying to pop a puck away from the blue line, y'know?

And I think if a more defensively sound system was set in place, something just a bit more structured, they would be more confident in taking the puck and moving the puck. But right now, we'll get the puck for one play but it just gets lost, we let teams go through the neutral zone like better, then we take a beating in our own zone, etc. On the flip side, I think the other thing to consider is that we aren't a super high possession team either. So when people look at those kinds of stats, I think it's good to be mindful of what style a team plays, too.

Any ways, I guess those are some of my more recent thoughts. People talk about how much this team sucks but the thing is...it still amazing me how despite them sucking, they still score the way they do. It's why I do think it's a systems thing. I think the other thing to consider is that it can be an inconsistent one. When it doesn't work, we look like absolute shit. When it works, we can actually look okay. I do wonder if that's the gamble AV has to make with what he's set up with the team.

Yeap. Sorry I have a tendency to blabber and that may or may not have actually answered your question.
 
Could it be that we depend too much on opportunistic moments and forced turnovers/mistakes by the other team? For example, some of our "popular plays" => we like to poke a puck loose into an area where a player can win a foot race. Or sometimes we cause turnovers at the blue line, or sometimes you'll see the guys dump the puck in and go in for a hard forecheck. If they win the puck, they often put it in the slot for someone to VERY quickly pounce on it (eg. think of Grabner or Kreider driving to the net). Basically, we wait for the other team to screw up and then we capitalize it.

Of course this isn't always the case or the only thing that happens, but I think it does happen a lot. I also understand that a part of it is forcing the team to screw up and it isn't always a passive "hey let's sit back!" but sometimes I think the team does fall back on that a little. Also, while these are great offensive opportunities, a lot of time they often end up feeling like spurts of puck possession, than sustained pressure. One of the times where I do see us having the puck a lot is if we get a decent cycle going. I think this happened against the Bruins game in the second period or so? That was actually quite glorious to watch.

I think another issue is that the team doesn't always know what to do if they don't have the puck. I don't even necessarily mean it in a negative/chasing the game type of way (though it can be). Rather, are they supporting each other, back checking, forechecking, or just moving/skating if they don't have it? If you watch the Leafs played (well, earlier in the year...not sure how well they've been doing now), I think the biggest thing that stuck out to me was how players were always doing something. It feels more structured that way than just making a stretch pass and hoping a player wins a foot race or trying to pop a puck away from the blue line, y'know?

And I think if a more defensively sound system was set in place, something just a bit more structured, they would be more confident in taking the puck and moving the puck. But right now, we'll get the puck for one play but it just gets lost, we let teams go through the neutral zone like better, then we take a beating in our own zone, etc. On the flip side, I think the other thing to consider is that we aren't a super high possession team either. So when people look at those kinds of stats, I think it's good to be mindful of what style a team plays, too.

Any ways, I guess those are some of my more recent thoughts. People talk about how much this team sucks but the thing is...it still amazing me how despite them sucking, they still score the way they do. It's why I do think it's a systems thing. I think the other thing to consider is that it can be an inconsistent one. When it doesn't work, we look like absolute ****. When it works, we can actually look okay. I do wonder if that's the gamble AV has to make with what he's set up with the team.

Yeap. Sorry I have a tendency to blabber and that may or may not have actually answered your question.

Well said. For all the talk of a transition roster we play a transition system with little to no forechecking. This team can't continue to give up 35-40 shots a game and keep getting points, the law of averages is eventually going to expose the system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pld459666
We need for the score to reflect the effort if we hope for AV to get canned.

A 9-2 final last night would have been better for the Fire AV movement.
 
You said it. Vigneault's short-shift system and obsession with dumping in will always keep the Rangers possession and shot numbers low.

Changes come from the bench. If AV orders shifts of 1:00 or less and Shattenkirk has the puck at 0:45, he's not going to try a rush past center. To me, it's hockey's version of the pitch count -- AV's conditioned players (mentally and/or physically) to look for a change with or without the puck.

Can you imagine Brian Leetch on a shift leash? He would have never made it to the Hall of Fame.

Getting a chance to see one of his end to end rushes was sometimes the only reason I'd go to a game against a team like the Panthers on a Tuesday nights.
 
It's not being wrong, it's people expecting him to be something he's not. Shatty is what he is.

He's an elite PP quarterback, a very good offensive defenseman who is limited in his own zone and prone to bonehead mistakes. That's what he is, that's what he is always been. It's about realizing that he is a net positive on the team. He brings enough to make up for his mistakes and be a very positive player on this team.

Tell that to a good % of people here who thought and still believe Shattenkirk is top pair D. Everytime I would bring up his deficiencies, they would flip out and tell me to f*** off. Watch the Blues games. This is Shattenkirk. Far too many people are obsessed with hockey analytics. Shot suppression. Corsi. Shattenkirk is a not a good defender. He makes dumb decisions. Power play specialist. Not a top pair D. Good player. Not a top pair D or an elite D. Not even close. He was supposed to be the #1 D partner for Trucker. How long did that last?
 
I love hearing how the Rangers are a “tired” team. That was the theme during the post game show. Tired? The Rangers will play their 23rd home game tomorrow night. One road game out of the eastern time zone. Lundqvist has saved their butts with his play. He looks exhausted after these games. I know people will bring up his career numbers. Can we play every game at this level at 35/36?
 
There are plenty of problems. Too many to just single out one or two players. Vesey is ugh. Shattenkirk makes terrible decisions. Holden has terrible awareness. Zucc, for as good as he can be, is guilty of some terrible turnovers. Buchnevich is young and up and down. We get killed by teams that forecheck hard. Big teams that are strong in the corners give us fits. Just some of it.
 
Could it be that we depend too much on opportunistic moments and forced turnovers/mistakes by the other team? For example, some of our "popular plays" => we like to poke a puck loose into an area where a player can win a foot race. Or sometimes we cause turnovers at the blue line, or sometimes you'll see the guys dump the puck in and go in for a hard forecheck. If they win the puck, they often put it in the slot for someone to VERY quickly pounce on it (eg. think of Grabner or Kreider driving to the net). Basically, we wait for the other team to screw up and then we capitalize it.

Of course this isn't always the case or the only thing that happens, but I think it does happen a lot. I also understand that a part of it is forcing the team to screw up and it isn't always a passive "hey let's sit back!" but sometimes I think the team does fall back on that a little. Also, while these are great offensive opportunities, a lot of time they often end up feeling like spurts of puck possession, than sustained pressure. One of the times where I do see us having the puck a lot is if we get a decent cycle going. I think this happened against the Bruins game in the second period or so? That was actually quite glorious to watch.

I think another issue is that the team doesn't always know what to do if they don't have the puck. I don't even necessarily mean it in a negative/chasing the game type of way (though it can be). Rather, are they supporting each other, back checking, forechecking, or just moving/skating if they don't have it? If you watch the Leafs played (well, earlier in the year...not sure how well they've been doing now), I think the biggest thing that stuck out to me was how players were always doing something. It feels more structured that way than just making a stretch pass and hoping a player wins a foot race or trying to pop a puck away from the blue line, y'know?

And I think if a more defensively sound system was set in place, something just a bit more structured, they would be more confident in taking the puck and moving the puck. But right now, we'll get the puck for one play but it just gets lost, we let teams go through the neutral zone like better, then we take a beating in our own zone, etc. On the flip side, I think the other thing to consider is that we aren't a super high possession team either. So when people look at those kinds of stats, I think it's good to be mindful of what style a team plays, too.

Any ways, I guess those are some of my more recent thoughts. People talk about how much this team sucks but the thing is...it still amazing me how despite them sucking, they still score the way they do. It's why I do think it's a systems thing. I think the other thing to consider is that it can be an inconsistent one. When it doesn't work, we look like absolute ****. When it works, we can actually look okay. I do wonder if that's the gamble AV has to make with what he's set up with the team.

Yeap. Sorry I have a tendency to blabber and that may or may not have actually answered your question.

This looks like something I would've typed. Good post.
 
Tell that to a good % of people here who thought and still believe Shattenkirk is top pair D. Everytime I would bring up his deficiencies, they would flip out and tell me to **** off. Watch the Blues games. This is Shattenkirk. Far too many people are obsessed with hockey analytics. Shot suppression. Corsi. Shattenkirk is a not a good defender. He makes dumb decisions. Power play specialist. Not a top pair D. Good player. Not a top pair D or an elite D. Not even close. He was supposed to be the #1 D partner for Trucker. How long did that last?

Shattenkirk reminds me a bit of Bobby Rousseau by the time he got to the Rangers. I know most of you don't know who Rousseau is.
 
Perfection isn't necessary. Despite the shootout result, a part of the game I will always be skeptical about, I enjoyed the game. Lundqvist was unbelievable, Zucc was sweet, enjoyed the effort displayed by the 4th line.

Great story with Brian Boyle. Good for him amazing for him to tie it and then the SO winner. It's a story.
 
AV is 100% on the hook for this one. If your team can't get up to play against a division rival where you're both fighting for points, thats on the coach. There is enough talent on this team which is why we are not abysmal, but if you're hemorrhaging shots and Grade A scoring chances on a consistent basis, the coach is to blame.

The shooter selection was awful and he deserves to be torn apart for it but we were only there thank to our Lord and Savior King Henrik.

and don't give me this "Vesey was 2 for 4 in shootouts!" crap. You could accidently be 2-4 in the shootout.

to add, our defense has been so bad lately. Can it possibly be worse with DeAngelo? Bring him up.
 
One other thing, for a transition team I feel like our 2-on-1 game is really lacking. Too many forced passes to a guy on the wing who has no angle for a shot, who then either has to take a bad shot or try to force it back through the crease where there's usually a prone defender blocking any real chance of the pass making it through. Sometimes when you have a good angle you just need to let it rip. We get too cute.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad