Game Analysis: #1 - 10/3/13 | New York Rangers @ Phoenix Coyotes Analysis

[Callagraves]

Golden Gloves Nasher. Really though, it screamed faux toughness to me. The game was all but over. The hit he was "responding" to was clean. And then once the fight started Nash looked like he instantly regretted dropping the gloves.

He'll win me over with a little more figurative fight in his game.

Come on Kel, what do you expect from Rick Nash? It wasn't a brilliant fight, and Nash didn't have a good night by his standards, but it was unarguably a step in the right direction.

I'm not so nuts about fighting after a clean hit, but after our team played a full night with no fight in the game, you have to imagine the guys feel a bit inspired watching that. I'm not suggesting that Nash act as an enforcer (LOL), but I agree that it needs to be a sign of intensity to come.

And as for it being faux toughness, I don't know what you want him to do. He picked a fight with a big guy, who may very well be bigger than him. He didn't fight with skill, but he didn't exactly slash him and skate away. Not much more you can ask from your top forward, fighting wize

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

Golden Gloves Nasher. Really though, it screamed faux toughness to me. The game was all but over. The hit he was "responding" to was clean. And then once the fight started Nash looked like he instantly regretted dropping the gloves.

He'll win me over with a little more figurative fight in his game.

You really do complain about everything.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Come on Kel, what do you expect from Rick Nash? It wasn't a brilliant fight, and Nash didn't have a good night by his standards, but it was unarguably a step in the right direction.

I'm not so nuts about fighting after a clean hit, but after our team played a full night with no fight in the game, you have to imagine the guys feel a bit inspired watching that. I'm not suggesting that Nash act as an enforcer (LOL), but I agree that it needs to be a sign of intensity to come.

And as for it being faux toughness, I don't know what you want him to do. He picked a fight with a big guy, who may very well be bigger than him. He didn't fight with skill, but he didn't exactly slash him and skate away. Not much more you can ask from your top forward, fighting wize

I actually just went back to rewatch the fight to see if I was being to hard on him, but then I came out of it thinking I wasn't tough enough on him the first time. I watched the highlight of the fight from the post game show and Duguay himself said that when Nash went over there Nash didn't realize he would have to get in a fight, that's not what he wanted to do, but it's good to see anyway etc.

 

[Hire Sather]

It really isn't a good thing that the only time we noticed Nash was after his silly fight.

Brief cameo on the Staal goal I guess, but he was pretty much invisible.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

I actually just went back to rewatch the fight to see if I was being to hard on him, but then I came out of it thinking I wasn't tough enough on him the first time. I watched the highlight of the fight from the post game show and Duguay himself said that when Nash went over there Nash didn't realize he would have to get in a fight, that's not what he wanted to do, but it's good to see anyway etc.

What are you talking about...Nash clearly instigated the fight and for good purpose.

Stepan was shaken up by a nasty hit. I don't give a **** if it was legal, someone should stand up for your best player when he gets treated like that.


Jeez people are impossible to please around here.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

What are you talking about...Nash clearly instigated the fight and for good purpose.

Stepan was shaken up by a nasty hit. I don't give a **** if it was legal, someone should stand up for your best player when he gets treated like that.


Jeez people are impossible to please around here.

Nah, watch it again. Nash goes over to talk, but he doesn't drop the gloves first and seems actually surprised when the other guy does.

 

[JohnC]

Props to Kel. A few posts without mentioning Torts. Seriously

 

[Garv23]

A non-fighter sticks up for his teammate taking on a dude that's 6'6" and even that is getting piled on after one game?! hahaha thank God this place makes up about 1% of the actual Ranger fanbase. That doesn't matter though. The only thing that matters is that even though it wasn't Probert vs. Coxe, Nasher just gained more respect from every player in the locker room. It's just going to make the team closer and stronger.

 

[Thesensation19*]

WHAT I DISLIKED:

1) Too many players rushing up at once without thought
You can blame at least two of their goals on Thursday on this and many more from pre-season so it looks like a habit that is part of their system. We want to attack attack attack but then we leave ourselves open for easy goals. On a good forecheck, it shouldnt be one defender running around trying to clear the puck while the other one looks to cut up the ice. You need reassurance that if the puck is lost, pass is tipped or its turnover that you have a presence and a safety.

2) Not going man to man in the zone
Its not a system. Its simple hockey smarts. When there is a body in the slot. Get on his *** and move him out. When the puck is rebounded off of the goalie, pick up a man and dont play with his stick. The pre-modern era of hockey would be dissapointed at how often it happens by defenders today but especially toward the Rangers Defense. No presence in front of our own net. Sad. That was at least two goals you can blame there too.

3) Creative offense but not many quality shots
We had a fair amount of shots. Yes we were outshot which is our biggest dilemma but another issue of ours is that our amount of shots were not high quality. We took so many shots from bad angles and far distances. I mean, granted it was a strong defensive team we played but we will come along stronger. And granted that the team went into somewhat of a lock down mode when they went up by 2 goals but these are excuses. We took too many shots from bad areas. We need more shots, more pressure and more moving around to help us gain more quality shots

---Our offense does look 2x better than it did under Torts. More creative but can be better. And I will blame a new system for now but wont be my excuse for long.
---Our defense looked weak. Torts always had our defense prepared to battle. Our defense only looked to attack offensively and you can tell that was the game plan. It screwed us and I fear it will screw us a lot this year if we dont fix the small things.
--- Its the first game + some pre-season games so I know the team will improve. A lot of teams so far have had issues.



Things I liked

1) AV game plan
AV had said that Mike Smith was the best puck handling goalie. So it comes to no surprise that the team was dumping the puck in for Smith to get it and charge him with full forces. Idk if it was truly his game plan to continuously give Smith the puck and try to intercept his playing of the puck. But we did it like 10x, it worked like 4x and we almost scored on it easily those 4 times. An inch from scoring all of them but bad bounces.

2) The offense-
I said the quality of shots need to be improved. I always believe that. But ultimately we have a much better offense. I like it. We move, were creative, were eveyrthing we couldnt be under Torts. I like it, and we will improve from it




Also. I

I really really like Benoit Pouliet lol
I think hes a player that you can win a Cup with. Hes strong off the puck. Hes kinda gritty. Hes poised and creative. And I love his defensive abilities. He knows where to be and how to play all positions. High hockey IQ. I love it.

 

[Thesensation19*]

WTF is going on here? It's one loss in a very long regular season and that one loss was more fun to watch than any game last year. As a fan I really enjoyed what the team tried to do in its transition game and through the neutral zone. We may not even make the POs but it sure as hell will be exciting hockey. Cheer up *****es.

I am not as scared for the team as you may believe but even though its one game... that one game + some pre-season games I have seen bad habits emerging from this system. So excuse me if I step away from the boxscore the amount of games and watch the style at play...

Too many players are jumping the gun on the breakout. Meaning, we have too many guys attacking when we dont even clearly have the possession of the puck and that has screwed us a lot so far under AV.

I am not scared that we picked up the wrong guy. I am sure we can improve on these small but valuable aspects of the game. But right now I have seen a few things that really are bothering me and if they are not fixed then you will see GAA of 3 and 4 commonly.



----As a fan myself, I hate comments like yours. Sorry but its true
You believe last nights game was more fun than any game last year?! So you enjoy watching your team lose 4-1... you enjoy your team only scoring 1 goal and you enjoy us giving up a goal per period and some extra! Horrible statement.

Yes! It was nice to see more passing done in the neutral zone. But its not fun to see the team not play smart defensively and give up 4 goals. That was the easiest hat trick you could have given a player. Horrible.

You know I wouldnt care if we played a great game and lost like 2-1 or 3-1 or 3-2. But we played bad.

If we miss the playoffs. That means we lost a lot of games. We probably lose a lot of games because we focus to much on attack and not enough on simple defensive positioning and coverage. That is not fun hockey whatsoever. That is pond hockey.

 

[Garv23]

WHAT I DISLIKED:

1) Too many players rushing up at once without thought
You can blame at least two of their goals on Thursday on this and many more from pre-season so it looks like a habit that is part of their system. We want to attack attack attack but then we leave ourselves open for easy goals. On a good forecheck, it shouldnt be one defender running around trying to clear the puck while the other one looks to cut up the ice. You need reassurance that if the puck is lost, pass is tipped or its turnover that you have a presence and a safety.

2) Not going man to man in the zone
Its not a system. Its simple hockey smarts. When there is a body in the slot. Get on his *** and move him out. When the puck is rebounded off of the goalie, pick up a man and dont play with his stick. The pre-modern era of hockey would be dissapointed at how often it happens by defenders today but especially toward the Rangers Defense. No presence in front of our own net. Sad. That was at least two goals you can blame there too.

3) Creative offense but not many quality shots
We had a fair amount of shots. Yes we were outshot which is our biggest dilemma but another issue of ours is that our amount of shots were not high quality. We took so many shots from bad angles and far distances. I mean, granted it was a strong defensive team we played but we will come along stronger. And granted that the team went into somewhat of a lock down mode when they went up by 2 goals but these are excuses. We took too many shots from bad areas. We need more shots, more pressure and more moving around to help us gain more quality shots

---Our offense does look 2x better than it did under Torts. More creative but can be better. And I will blame a new system for now but wont be my excuse for long.
---Our defense looked weak. Torts always had our defense prepared to battle. Our defense only looked to attack offensively and you can tell that was the game plan. It screwed us and I fear it will screw us a lot this year if we dont fix the small things.
--- Its the first game + some pre-season games so I know the team will improve. A lot of teams so far have had issues.



Things I liked

1) AV game plan
AV had said that Mike Smith was the best puck handling goalie. So it comes to no surprise that the team was dumping the puck in for Smith to get it and charge him with full forces. Idk if it was truly his game plan to continuously give Smith the puck and try to intercept his playing of the puck. But we did it like 10x, it worked like 4x and we almost scored on it easily those 4 times. An inch from scoring all of them but bad bounces.

2) The offense-
I said the quality of shots need to be improved. I always believe that. But ultimately we have a much better offense. I like it. We move, were creative, were eveyrthing we couldnt be under Torts. I like it, and we will improve from it




Also. I

I really really like Benoit Pouliet lol
I think hes a player that you can win a Cup with. Hes strong off the puck. Hes kinda gritty. Hes poised and creative. And I love his defensive abilities. He knows where to be and how to play all positions. High hockey IQ. I love it.

This is an excellent post! I very much agree with all the assesments. I'd add that on D, we HAVE to get tougher in front of Hank. This is a major problem.

I too think Pouliet will wind up being a strong part of this team.

 

[Thesensation19*]

Comparing Dubinsky to Lucic might be one of the more asinine things I've read on here. That and using the word elite in any sentence describing him.

He has this patented move where he'd get across the blueline with the puck, and at the top of the circle he'd turn his back towards the play and stick his ass out he'd then fiddle around with the puck for a little while before having it knocked off his stick and out of the zone.

He's also never scored 20 goals with a goalie in the net.

His feet only moved about a quarter of the time in the offensive zone as well. Kids head is about 10x bigger than it should be.

Why do you say that?
Lets look at stats as many people here love to do.

If you look at last year the stats are pretty comparable. There was a point where Dubinsky was a 40+ point player and even hit 54 until he hit a dip defensively but last year was solid for him. I think he even had a better PPG than Lucic.


Dubinsky has 233 points in 422 games.
Lucic has 239 points in 405 games.

Pretty comparable lol. Both players can be counted on to play top 6 or bottom 6 minutes. Both players are known for 100 PIM seasons and counting. They are both known as grinders and gritty players. Big bodies who will fight but can also be counted on to score...

Dubi in a full year had 207 hits and 36 blocked shots. 21 giveaways. 37 takeaways
Lucic has 201 hits, 26 blocked shots, 46 giveaways and 25 takeaways.

Lucic played 7 more games.




Like I said. Pretty dam comparable.



Are you describing Dubinsky or Nash? I cant recall Dubinsky ever turning his back attacking the net, let alone losing it. I vividly remember it having him do it once but cant recall anything about it.

Rick NASH loves to do that move though. He loves coming into the zone and using his frame to do exactly what you said. Hes done it quite a few times as a Ranger so far. I would say at least 10 times. Never scored once doing it, and though hes done it a few times and created a good chance. I would say most times nothing good came from it and it was predictable.

 

[Thesensation19*]

if you watched last nights Columbus vs NYI game then you would understand why I love Dubinsky.

On the PP what does the guy do? Sit in front of the net. What happens when its shot and the isles pick up the rebound. Dubinsky roughs him up, steals the puck and hands it off for a clean shot and goal.

Hes a presence. His offense has dropped but theres a reason why hes playing. Hes a good player that can play PK, PP, top 6, bottom 6, late minutes and what not. Hes solid on the faceoffs.

One thing he does more than Lucic. He can play Wing or Center also. Does lucic even play PK?

 

[Thesensation19*]

This doesnt mean that it wont happen. But honestly we took a step back with Rick Nash trade.

John Tortorella is a great coach. He got his players in the best shape of their lives. The more I read about how his firing went down, the more I believe that certain players needed to go and not the ones that Sather traded away.

We had the #1 team in the East. We went to the conference finals. We were one of the leagues youngest teams and one of the toughest. We won games playing good, smart, strong hockey. Everyone claims that it was Torts system to block shots but thats not true. All he asked was guys give it their all. I think the idea that Torts installed block shots got out of hand in the media.

Either way. I believe now that Glen Sather ruined that team.

We had an extremely young team. But we had a roster and system that they all bought into.

We traded Dubinsky and Anisimov for a high priced, top level, "scorer". His style of play is NOTHING like Torts. So we got rid of two young, capable, high potential, well rounded, cheap players. For 1 high priced, slow moving guy who can score goals. It changed our entire philosophy.

We let Prust walk. We thought Asham would be his replacement. Story of the Rangers life. Letting strong hearted players like Prust and Orr go cuz they ask too much then we go after guys for just as much money but dont do anything in NY.


Losing those 3 guys also killed our chemistry. Prust, Delo Zotto and Boyle were best buds and you can see that really helped chemistry. Everyone got everyones back. Dubinsky was a guy who would get anyones back. Anisimov was young and strong. We had 4 strong lines.


Why did we do that trade... All because the boys up in the office were not impressed with our offense. Not creative, no fun to watch.
LAME!

We won games and everytime we won a playoff game I partied hard and it was fun! Thats what hockey is about. Winning. Not entertaining offense.

Everytime I see Dubinsky now I get mad about that trade.

Granted I am happy we have Brassard, poiulet, Moore. But we could have made that trade regardless. Heck. We could have waited a year and signed Nash anyway!

 

[stan the caddy]

I'm a big Dubi fan, I miss Dubi, but that was the right move to make at the time. Guys like Rick Nash don't come available that often.

The trade killed the depth of the Rangers. The front office had to move Gaborik to get the depth back.

The guy that really ****ed everything up was Chris Kreider. The trade would have worked out great if Kreider could have filled the depth lost in the trade.

Rick Nash was awesome last season. I know he didn't play well in the playoffs but no one really did. He was certainly a good fit on last year's team.

 

[Vidic15*]

This doesnt mean that it wont happen. But honestly we took a step back with Rick Nash trade.

John Tortorella is a great coach. He got his players in the best shape of their lives. The more I read about how his firing went down, the more I believe that certain players needed to go and not the ones that Sather traded away.

We had the #1 team in the East. We went to the conference finals. We were one of the leagues youngest teams and one of the toughest. We won games playing good, smart, strong hockey. Everyone claims that it was Torts system to block shots but thats not true. All he asked was guys give it their all. I think the idea that Torts installed block shots got out of hand in the media.

Either way. I believe now that Glen Sather ruined that team.

We had an extremely young team. But we had a roster and system that they all bought into.

We traded Dubinsky and Anisimov for a high priced, top level, "scorer". His style of play is NOTHING like Torts. So we got rid of two young, capable, high potential, well rounded, cheap players. For 1 high priced, slow moving guy who can score goals. It changed our entire philosophy.

We let Prust walk. We thought Asham would be his replacement. Story of the Rangers life. Letting strong hearted players like Prust and Orr go cuz they ask too much then we go after guys for just as much money but dont do anything in NY.


Losing those 3 guys also killed our chemistry. Prust, Delo Zotto and Boyle were best buds and you can see that really helped chemistry. Everyone got everyones back. Dubinsky was a guy who would get anyones back. Anisimov was young and strong. We had 4 strong lines.


Why did we do that trade... All because the boys up in the office were not impressed with our offense. Not creative, no fun to watch.
LAME!

We won games and everytime we won a playoff game I partied hard and it was fun! Thats what hockey is about. Winning. Not entertaining offense.

Everytime I see Dubinsky now I get mad about that trade.

Granted I am happy we have Brassard, poiulet, Moore. But we could have made that trade regardless. Heck. We could have waited a year and signed Nash anyway!

What the hell does this mean? He's locked up long term. This post reeks of ignorance.

Nobody in the media had an agenda against Tort's collapsing defense. It was us, the fans, who watch hockey with an analytical eye. We made Torey Krug look like Niklas Lidstrom in the Boston series last year. Torts became too rigid. I truly believe he lost perspective and started worry about his own ass more than seeing his team take the next step.

Columbus can have Dubinsky and Anisimov. I got tired of Dubi being a borderline second line player. Anisimov lacks the intensity to ever do any significant in the big games or the playoffs. He needs a constant kick in the butt, it seems.

 

[Callagraves]

I'm a big Dubi fan, I miss Dubi, but that was the right move to make at the time. Guys like Rick Nash don't come available that often.

The trade killed the depth of the Rangers. The front office had to move Gaborik to get the depth back.

The guy that really ****ed everything up was Chris Kreider. The trade would have worked out great if Kreider could have filled the depth lost in the trade.

Rick Nash was awesome last season. I know he didn't play well in the playoffs but no one really did. He was certainly a good fit on last year's team.

I can't blame Kreider for not being ready. He's a young guy, and he's got massive expectations on him. It's tough to place blame.

If anything, I'm more like to blame Slats for going into the season with that bottom six. Losing Dubi, Artie, Prust, Feds, and Mitchell, compared to the guys he replaced them with? Ugh.

 

[haveandare]

Nash is getting a ton of flack over 1 meaningful game. Let's come back 40 games into the season and see if he's still a slow, overpaid "scorer" who wasn't worth Dubi and AA.

As many of you know, I liked Torts overall and I really liked the team before the trades. But, lets be real, that team made it that far with everything going right for them. They had a very, very easy path to the SCF and they made it look hard and then fell short. As much as I liked that team's style, I really don't think they'd ever win a cup like that. Teams with powerhouse offenses and solid defenses would have beat them every time. They were defensive and that was it. They weren't ever going to beat the Kings, Hawks, Bruins of the league in a 7 game series IMO. They needed scoring and they got Rick Nash, who is very good at scoring, at a discount because his team was handcuffed. Dubi was a good chracter guy. AA was alright in all sense, great in none. Erixon might never be worth much of anything. The first would have been nice to keep, but what can you do? The only thing I'd do different is I honestly would have kept Prust even at his insane contract knowing that the team already lost a lot of it's old character in the Nash trade and that whoever was brought in to replace Prust would likely fall short and still make a good bit of coin. Aside from that, I have no complaints. Gabby wasn't much in terms of team character and trading him got the team 3 big pieces that filled holes. I'd do that every time.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

Dubi isn't on the team. Deal with it.

 

[Callagraves]

Nash is getting a ton of flack over 1 meaningful game. Let's come back 40 games into the season and see if he's still a slow, overpaid "scorer" who wasn't worth Dubi and AA.

As many of you know, I liked Torts overall and I really liked the team before the trades. But, lets be real, that team made it that far with everything going right for them. They had a very, very easy path to the SCF and they made it look hard and then fell short. As much as I liked that team's style, I really don't think they'd ever win a cup like that. Teams with powerhouse offenses and solid defenses would have beat them every time. They were defensive and that was it. They weren't ever going to beat the Kings, Hawks, Bruins of the league in a 7 game series IMO. They needed scoring and they got Rick Nash, who is very good at scoring, at a discount because his team was handcuffed. Dubi was a good chracter guy. AA was alright in all sense, great in none. Erixon might never be worth much of anything. The first would have been nice to keep, but what can you do? The only thing I'd do different is I honestly would have kept Prust even at his insane contract knowing that the team already lost a lot of it's old character in the Nash trade and that whoever was brought in to replace Prust would likely fall short and still make a good bit of coin. Aside from that, I have no complaints. Gabby wasn't much in terms of team character and trading him got the team 3 big pieces that filled holes. I'd do that every time.

Not to nitpick, but, the Caps beat the Bruins, and we beat the Caps.

 

[Riverdale]

Along with Stepan, Nash was our best forward last year. He was one of the most exciting forwards to watch on the Rangers since Jagr.

If we had Dubi and AA people would be saying "We need a goal scorer" and probably suggesting to move one or both of them.

This team will have take some time to get used to a new coaching style and way of playing. Lets be patient instead of pointing fingers at every player. My only complaint with Nash, in regards to last year, is that he needs to show up int he playoffs now.

 

[JoeGarelli]

after rewatching the game, the rangers actually looked good.. nash fight looked like hanzal completely started it..

but anyone notice brown got an instigator on his fight with dorsett? normally when you instigate with a visor its an extra 2, he didnt get that.. anyone know why?

i was at the game live, only noticed nash a few times, noticed him alot more on the broadcast.. but checking TOI. richie (+4 min), stephan (+4), brass (+2), zucc (+2), pyatt (+1 second).. all played a bit more then nash.. people complain about nash.. but if he isnt playing in the 18-22+ minute range, hes going to be less effective. gotta force feed nash ice time..

 

[aufheben]

Faux toughness?

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Faux toughness?

Yes. I don't buy into line of thought that says toughness=fighting, and fighting=not wearing gloves for like at least 15 seconds. Nash plays like a ***** out there all game and then you say he played tough because he was standing on the ice not wearing gloves or holding a stick for 15 seconds? I don't. I don't think one fight when the game is already over means he played a tough game.

It reminds me of like in tv/movies where someone pulls out a gun and now they're a tough guy. Anyone with a gun becomes a tough guy. The person isn't tough, it's the gun that makes them tough. Here we have Nash pulling out a gun (dropping the gloves) and people seeing that as Nash is now a tough guy. No he's not. He's just playing the "fight" card, automatic assumptions of toughness result. But they shouldn't.

 

[JoeGarelli]

Yes. I don't buy into line of thought that says toughness=fighting, and fighting=not wearing gloves for like at least 15 seconds. Nash plays like a ***** out there all game and then you say he played tough because he was standing on the ice not wearing gloves or holding a stick for 15 seconds? I don't. I don't think one fight when the game is already over means he played a tough game.

It reminds me of like in tv/movies where someone pulls out a gun and now they're a tough guy. Anyone with a gun becomes a tough guy. The person isn't tough, it's the gun that makes them tough. Here we have Nash pulling out a gun (dropping the gloves) and people seeing that as Nash is now a tough guy. No he's not. He's just playing the "fight" card, automatic assumptions of toughness result. But they shouldn't.

well its more like hes the sidekick who sheepishly pulls out his gun.. if you watch the reply nash has a look on his face like ****ing seriously man? he didnt want to fight.. i think he just didnt want to get punched in the face..

honestly who the **** cares how tough nash is? how tough was jagr? if we are defining toughness by hitting and fighting.. nash plays every top dman in the league, thats tough..

not sure why you're whining.. nash is a top 10 player in the league; the rangers are lucky to have him.