Post-Game Talk: Rangers @ Blackhawks

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Don't discount The Carcillo Effect

Not as immense as the Liles-effect where the Leafs go from winning the Winter Classic to getting their ***** kicked by a mediocre Rangers team, at home

 

[Samuel Culper III]

So now that Rangers beat one of the best teams in the NHL, does it mean we are a Cup team?

Certainly makes me worry that we're buyers. This team just loves swimming in place. We're not drowning but we can't pull ourselves out of the water either. Just floating in mediocrity, forever and ever.

 

[vladmyir111]

Certainly makes me worry that we're buyers. This team just loves swimming in place. We're not drowning but we can't pull ourselves out of the water either. Just floating in mediocrity, forever and ever.

If only Kreider could jump the whole team out of the pool!

 

[Leonardo87]

Other way around, 3p in 4gp.

And I don't think points are a good way of evaluating a player in such a small sample. I think he was decent in the first three games, but fantastic in this one. Let's hope he can keep it up.

Putting Cally on the PP instead of Stepan isn't a good idea IMO. Cally is great on the PP and should definitely be on it, but his role is in front of the net - he isn't good at moving the puck around. He should either replace Kreider on the first unit or Pouliot on the second.

However, considering that we have PP goals in 8 of the past 11 I don't think we should mess with it much at the moment. Cally will have to wait a bit.

Ahh yeah they took away that assist on that Hagelin goal, because Hags barely touched it, he got the goal and Cally lost the assist. Still was a big part of that play though.

Cally played over 20 mins last night, AV wanted to use him for top 5 on 5 time which was smart, and wanted to use him as the unit right after the PP to keep the momentum going, that also worked.

As per being on the PP, if Pouliot or Kreider get dry, then they should use Cally. I also would not change it, but give Cally more 5 on 5 which AV has.

 

[Pizza]

Rangers suck all year.

Rangers add Carcillo to lineup.

Rangers beat the Blackhawks in Chicago.

Hmmmm....

...not sayin it's aliens.

 

[Machinehead]

You guys remember the Fedotenko Factor? That **** was wild.

 

[Ola]

A bit OT, but something I found quite interesting was when Dreger was asked about how many teams play man-man defense in this league, and he was like "eh ahm maybe a handful", and then refrained from giving examples.

I think I in most areas could give at least a fundamental description of how 20-25 teams in this league are playing, but the man-man / zone defense is much harder to have a good track of. I defintiely understands Dreger's confusion too. The extreme zone D's of course sticks out and are easy to spot, Pitt is playing extreme zone, NJD, Boston and co of course too. We under Torts.

But look at Chicago and Detroit? What are they playing?

If you put a GPS tracker on the D's in Chi and Det to compare them with the D's in NJ or Pittsburgh, it would be hard to come to the conclusion that they play the "same" system. Hjalmarsson, Oduya, Roszival and Leddy several times followed their guy around in a way a D in Pitt or NJ never would do. Hjalmarsson pushed up towards the blueline several times. Its the same with Detroit. The D's in NJ and Pittsburgh for example just parks at each side of each post.

I am just confused about what we are trying to do here in NY in this aspect, what is going wrong. Do we intend to play like Chi, but fails? Do we intend to do something diffrent than Chi, which means a risk for the plan to be flawed?

We are also sometimes like night and day from game to game. Do our style fit some teams but not others? Do we revert to a more zone style at times which helps us (it has definitely seemed like we play more zone when Talbot is in the net)? Or does the criss-crossing attack of Tampa just expose us?

 

[Levitate]

A bit OT, but something I found quite interesting was when Dreger was asked about how many teams play man-man defense in this league, and he was like "eh ahm maybe a handful", and then refrained from giving examples.

I think I in most areas could give at least a fundamental description of how 20-25 teams in this league are playing, but the man-man / zone defense is much harder to have a good track of. I defintiely understands Dreger's confusion too. The extreme zone D's of course sticks out and are easy to spot, Pitt is playing extreme zone, NJD, Boston and co of course too. We under Torts.

I wouldn't say NJ plays extreme zone, they seem to play a high puck pressure system when it's down along the boards. They'll have at least 2, sometimes almost three guys pressuring the puck carrier while the other two stay in front of the net/slot, and rotate those guys around as the puck moves. It goes back to the point, everyone locks into their zone/shotblocking, it goes down low, they pursue hard.

 

[Pizza]

A bit OT, but something I found quite interesting was when Dreger was asked about how many teams play man-man defense in this league, and he was like "eh ahm maybe a handful", and then refrained from giving examples.

I think I in most areas could give at least a fundamental description of how 20-25 teams in this league are playing, but the man-man / zone defense is much harder to have a good track of. I defintiely understands Dreger's confusion too. The extreme zone D's of course sticks out and are easy to spot, Pitt is playing extreme zone, NJD, Boston and co of course too. We under Torts.

But look at Chicago and Detroit? What are they playing?

If you put a GPS tracker on the D's in Chi and Det to compare them with the D's in NJ or Pittsburgh, it would be hard to come to the conclusion that they play the "same" system. Hjalmarsson, Oduya, Roszival and Leddy several times followed their guy around in a way a D in Pitt or NJ never would do. Hjalmarsson pushed up towards the blueline several times. Its the same with Detroit. The D's in NJ and Pittsburgh for example just parks at each side of each post.

I am just confused about what we are trying to do here in NY in this aspect, what is going wrong. Do we intend to play like Chi, but fails? Do we intend to do something diffrent than Chi, which means a risk for the plan to be flawed?

We are also sometimes like night and day from game to game. Do our style fit some teams but not others? Do we revert to a more zone style at times which helps us (it has definitely seemed like we play more zone when Talbot is in the net)? Or does the criss-crossing attack of Tampa just expose us?

Gotta give you credit Ola. You dig up probably the most interesting nugget from the whole game in terms of what the commentators actually talked about.

The long and short that I took from it was the AV system is VERY difficult to play well, let alone master....which is why very few teams ever use it.

Setting up a zone system gives your players less to think about and adapt to play to play, game to game.

At least that's what I understand.

Good ears fella.