Player Discussion John Gilmour

True Blue

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
30,092
8,362
Visit site
I can live with a guy that's weak-ish defensively if he's given a responsible partner that can help cover his mistakes, and maybe sheltered minutes and zone starts. That of course requires a coach that doesn't pull pairings and line combinations out of a hat. He looks like a guy that could thrive on the third pair with a steady partner, getting PP time and a lot of offensive starts.
Devil's advocate here. You already have a player like that in Shattenkirk (who, let's face it is not weakish defensively, but weak. Full stop). How many of your 6 defensemen can you afford to have playing sheltered minutes?
 

nyr2k2

Can't Beat Him
Jul 30, 2005
45,659
32,728
Maryland
Devil's advocate here. You already have a player like that in Shattenkirk (who, let's face it is not weakish defensively, but weak. Full stop). How many of your 6 defensemen can you afford to have playing sheltered minutes?
I definitely think you can manage two. And the reality is that Shattenkirk's offense is of a high enough level that you can't truly shelter him. You can try to give him better zone starts, but he's going to get his 20+ minutes every night because he doesn't just generate offense on the PP. I think you're talking about substantially less than that with Gilmour, for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RGY

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
36,499
10,479
Devil's advocate here. You already have a player like that in Shattenkirk (who, let's face it is not weakish defensively, but weak. Full stop). How many of your 6 defensemen can you afford to have playing sheltered minutes?
I brought this up in the Pionk thread. It’s an interesting point.
 

True Blue

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
30,092
8,362
Visit site
I definitely think you can manage two. And the reality is that Shattenkirk's offense is of a high enough level that you can't truly shelter him.
Not sure that I agree. The team was not playing him against the other team's top lines. Those opposing top lines play the most. If you are hiding Shattenkirk because if caught in any zone except the offensive one, results in better offensive chances for the opposition, his time becomes naturally sheltered. Let's face it, he has been playing like a glorified fourth forward. Unless his offensive numbers are off the charts, the Rangers just cannot afford for his minutes not to be sheltered.
 

True Blue

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
30,092
8,362
Visit site
I think the team will be run and gun next year. People just need to realize that.
Which, on a different yet much refrained note, is why I fear that AV is not going anywhere. Hope I am wrong, but as I have stated before....Sather loves his pond hockey and who better to be the head coach of a pond hockey team?
 

NYR Viper

Registered User
Sep 9, 2007
46,906
16,622
Jacksonville, FL
he plays just like Trevor Daley who has been a decently valuable player for many years in the NHL. Slightly undersized and at times will lost his assignment but his speed, ability to join the rush and ability to skate the puck out of trouble is valuable.
 

nyr2k2

Can't Beat Him
Jul 30, 2005
45,659
32,728
Maryland
Not sure that I agree. The team was not playing him against the other team's top lines. Those opposing top lines play the most. If you are hiding Shattenkirk because if caught in any zone except the offensive one, results in better offensive chances for the opposition, his time becomes naturally sheltered. Let's face it, he has been playing like a glorified fourth forward. Unless his offensive numbers are off the charts, the Rangers just cannot afford for his minutes not to be sheltered.
I'm just saying, the way you shelter Shattenkirk is not the same way you shelter Gilmour. I don't think a good coach would have any problems finding a spot for both of them, and putting them in positions to succeed.
 

Pavel Buchnevich

Drury and Laviolette Must Go
Dec 8, 2013
57,228
23,100
New York
I think two works.

The question here is whether Shattenkirk is in that group of two. If he is, its Gilmour or DeAngelo and not both. If not, maybe Gilmour and DeAngelo both works, but then you gotta consider that we also have Pionk who is undersized. Is that a big enough, tough enough defense? There's also the question whether you can have two guys on the same side who need sheltered offensive minutes. I don't think it will go well.

I've not been impressed by DeAngelo, so I'd go with something like this.

Skjei-Shattenkirk
Smith-Staal
Gilmour-Pionk
DeAngelo
 

nyr2k2

Can't Beat Him
Jul 30, 2005
45,659
32,728
Maryland
I think two works.

The question here is whether Shattenkirk is in that group of two. If he is, its Gilmour or DeAngelo and not both. If not, maybe Gilmour and DeAngelo both works, but then you gotta consider that we also have Pionk who is undersized. Is that a big enough, tough enough defense? There's also the question whether you can have two guys on the same side who need sheltered offensive minutes. I don't think it will go well.

I've not been impressed by DeAngelo, so I'd go with something like this.

Skjei-Shattenkirk
Smith-Staal
Gilmour-Pionk
DeAngelo
Yeah, I would make the argument that you could do Shattenkirk+Gilmour OR Shattenkirk+ADA, but not all three. That's just too much of a liability and also redundancy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pavel Buchnevich

Mikos87

Registered User
Mar 19, 2002
9,064
3,244
Visit site
I'm happy for the kid, but I dont think you can win with Gilly, Pionk, Ada, and Shatts playing every night.

Hes got NHL credibility now, and I love parts of his game. Lets see of he can keep it up.
 

Pavel Buchnevich

Drury and Laviolette Must Go
Dec 8, 2013
57,228
23,100
New York
Honestly, I think he is an NHLer right now.

Don't even care how premature that sounds; he does so much right and nothing egregious.

Its not premature, but I'm not sure the upside is all that high. He can't defend, at all, and he's not the smartest player. He's maybe a 6D. We can use all the NHL'er's we can get, but he's not a very good NHL'er, and he has parts of his game that will likely keep him from being better than a bottom pairing D.
 

Harbour Dog

Registered User
Jul 16, 2015
10,234
12,813
St. John's
Its not premature, but I'm not sure the upside is all that high. He can't defend, at all, and he's not the smartest player. He's maybe a 6D. We can use all the NHL'er's we can get, but he's not a very good NHL'er, and he has parts of his game that will likely keep him from being better than a bottom pairing D.

Yeah, you may be right.

Even if he is never more than a 3rd pairing guy though, that's much more than most of us expected at this time last year. I wouldn't say that I wrote him off, but I definitely had a few nails in his coffin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pavel Buchnevich

BobMarleyNYR

Rangers future on D
May 2, 2004
5,035
629
Alphabet
You guys sound ridiculous with the "sheltering" stuff. It's hockey, not a pillow fight. I've heard the term used but it's really the same concept with forwards. If a veteran sucks it up, you decrease his minutes, not "shelter his minutes." These are grown men. I get it when you talk about rookies, literally sheltering their growing abilities from overdoing it. By next season, if Gilmour, Pionk and DeAngelo are in the lineup, they don't need SHELTERING. If they're just not good enough, they'll need to get new players, at least temporarily... can anyone tell me why Stu Bickel and Dale Purinton had their minutes "sheltered?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband

nyr2k2

Can't Beat Him
Jul 30, 2005
45,659
32,728
Maryland
You guys sound ridiculous with the "sheltering" stuff. It's hockey, not a pillow fight. I've heard the term used but it's really the same concept with forwards. If a veteran sucks it up, you decrease his minutes, not "shelter his minutes." These are grown men. I get it when you talk about rookies, literally sheltering their growing abilities from overdoing it. By next season, if Gilmour, Pionk and DeAngelo are in the lineup, they don't need SHELTERING. If they're just not good enough, they'll need to get new players, at least temporarily... can anyone tell me why Stu Bickel and Dale Purinton had their minutes "sheltered?"
When you talk about sheltering a player, you're talking about his minutes but also his zone starts and his match ups. It's a term that has gained prevalence in the past five years. I don't know why it's so bothersome to you but it's not going away.
 

Synergy27

F-A-C-G-C-E
Apr 27, 2004
13,210
11,531
Washington, D.C.
When you talk about sheltering a player, you're talking about his minutes but also his zone starts and his match ups. It's a term that has gained prevalence in the past five years. I don't know why it's so bothersome to you but it's not going away.

This. 12 minutes a night vs. Crosby are a lot different than 12 minutes a night vs. Tanner Glass. Sheltering is about both quantity and QUALITY. Pretty simple concept. Sucks to have to rely on that with multiple players in the lineup though.
 

True Blue

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
30,092
8,362
Visit site
When you talk about sheltering a player, you're talking about his minutes but also his zone starts and his match ups. It's a term that has gained prevalence in the past five years. I don't know why it's so bothersome to you but it's not going away.
Especially matchups. You simply do not want Shattenkirk on the ice when a team's top line is out there. Nor Gilmour. And you really do not want them there if the defensive zone face off situation.
 

True Blue

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
30,092
8,362
Visit site
You guys sound ridiculous with the "sheltering" stuff. It's hockey, not a pillow fight. I've heard the term used but it's really the same concept with forwards. If a veteran sucks it up, you decrease his minutes, not "shelter his minutes." These are grown men. I get it when you talk about rookies, literally sheltering their growing abilities from overdoing it. By next season, if Gilmour, Pionk and DeAngelo are in the lineup, they don't need SHELTERING. If they're just not good enough, they'll need to get new players, at least temporarily... can anyone tell me why Stu Bickel and Dale Purinton had their minutes "sheltered?"
Being sheltered is being hidden from the opposition's top players or making sure that a Shattenkirk is not out there during defensive draws. Not just simply having your ice time reduced.
 

NYR Viper

Registered User
Sep 9, 2007
46,906
16,622
Jacksonville, FL
What we are discussing is a longer term issue. In the short-term, the Rangers should ice their best 6 defensemen. That includes ADA, Pionk and Gilmour. All (3) guys are part of the (6) best defensemen this organization has. Let them continue to develop. Mistakes will happen, they will learn as they go. If a trade opens up and another team has someone available who may tweak the structure of the defense you then trade one of these guys as they should have value. Where this team will be next year, I wouldn't be looking to ruin any of their values by sending hem down
 

BobMarleyNYR

Rangers future on D
May 2, 2004
5,035
629
Alphabet
I'm not really bothered by it I just think it's used enough that it's out of context... if you "dock" a guy's D-zone starts and SH time, you're really sheltering the team and that's it... I'm not trying to change the dictionary... why don't forwards get "sheltered?" Besides when reporters talk about rookies.

You're talking about not playing a guy in some situations which is limiting or cutting and not sheltering his minutes... does Pau Carey play sheltered minutes?
 
Last edited:

nyr2k2

Can't Beat Him
Jul 30, 2005
45,659
32,728
Maryland
I'm not really bothered by it I just think it's used enough that it's out of context... if you "dock" a guy's D-zone starts and SH time, you're really sheltering the team and that's it... I'm not trying to change the dictionary... why don't forwards get "sheltered?"

They do?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->