News Article: The Hidden Potential of the 3-6 New York Rangers

[Thirty One]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ne&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=twitter.com

Good article from Rob Vollman.

Click to read more...

 

[Kakko]

Great article.

Still won't change the mind of those who seriously want this team to tank...

 

[Ail]

Good read, and I think injuries followed by the poor start for Henrik definitely hit this team the hardest. I'm not drinking the kool-aid yet, however. This team still needs to prove the road-trip was a fluke and a very good example of Murphy's law rather than a team that's better looking on paper than the ice.

The one thing that isn't explained away by that article is the complete lack of effort and fire at times. There is no excuse for some of the apathy we saw during a few games.

 

[nyr2k2]

Our team shooting percentage will most certainly improve, though to what degree is unknown. We still lack legitimate offensive talent.

 

[Thirty One]

Our team shooting percentage will most certainly improve, though to what degree is unknown. We still lack legitimate offensive talent.

The Rangers 5-on-5 shooting percentage is 3.5%. Last year they were tied for 21st in the league with 7.4%, with largely the same roster. Only the Panthers were below 6%. It will definitely improve significantly.

 

[Tawnos]

The Rangers 5-on-5 shooting percentage is 3.5%. Last year they were tied for 21st in the league with 7.4%, with largely the same roster. Only the Panthers were below 6%. It will definitely improve significantly.

Yeah, if they were shooting at last year's level, they'd have double the number of goals right now. More wins? Maybe not.

Still, it's nice to see a somewhat positive article. It will be interesting to see how much of what he wrote bears itself out over the next couple of months.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

bleacher report =/= a news article...

 

[Ail]

bleacher report =/= a news article...

Yeah and I'm sure that's not an extreme bias since you would love for the article to be dead wrong.

Criticize the article, not the source.

 

[Thirty One]

bleacher report =/= a news article...

lol.

Bleacher report is recruiting some major talent. This one was written by Rob Vollman of Hockey Prospectus.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Yeah and I'm sure that's not an extreme bias since you would love for the article to be dead wrong.

Criticize the article, not the source.

Objectively it's not a news article. Bleacher Report is like a giant blog. As for the actual substance, it's basically just saying everything will get better. Here's a shortened version of the "news article":

Team Start: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this
Rationalizing the start: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this
Goaltending: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this
Defense: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this
Offense: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this

Best (read: most laughable) quotes:
"There's absolutely no reason why that system won't work in New York. The Rangers are just as deep in gritty, defensively responsible forwards as the 2010 Canucks."
"One thing that is clear throughout this analysis is that the Rangers have great depth up front, giving him lots of options."
"... a deep set of talented forwards that are soon to be unleashed by coach Alain Vigneault's proven system."

Bleacher Report, killin' it.

 

[Thirty One]

Team Start: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this
Rationalizing the start: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this
Goaltending: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this
Defense: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this
Offense: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this

And then he gave reasons that supported his views. But that must've been like reading a foreign language for you though.

 

[Ail]

Objectively it's not a news article. Bleacher Report is like a giant blog. As for the actual substance, it's basically just saying everything will get better. Here's a shortened version of the "news article":

Team Start: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this
Rationalizing the start: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this
Goaltending: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this
Defense: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this
Offense: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this

Best (read: most laughable) quotes:
"There's absolutely no reason why that system won't work in New York. The Rangers are just as deep in gritty, defensively responsible forwards as the 2010 Canucks."
"One thing that is clear throughout this analysis is that the Rangers have great depth up front, giving him lots of options."
"... a deep set of talented forwards that are soon to be unleashed by coach Alain Vigneault's proven system."

Bleacher Report, killin' it.

I read it, but thank you for the synopsis.

The only thing I almost agree with you on, is they are definitely giving the forwards more credit than they deserve.

It's really not fair to say whether or not AV works in NY until the team is healthy. Honestly, this team really only can get better, unless they start getting more injuries.

 

[nyr2k2]

The Rangers 5-on-5 shooting percentage is 3.5%. Last year they were tied for 21st in the league with 7.4%, with largely the same roster. Only the Panthers were below 6%. It will definitely improve significantly.

Who is to say we don't have an aberrational season with a shooting percentage around six percent? If any Rangers roster would be capable of that, it would be this year's squad with a concussed Rick Nash.

 

[Thirty One]

Who is to say we don't have an aberrational season with a shooting percentage around six percent? If any Rangers roster would be capable of that, it would be this year's squad with a concussed Rick Nash.

I would think that's about the bottom-rung of realistic, and that still represents a 70% increase. Add that to Lundqvist's save percentage rebounding from 0.890 and I think that's a lot of wins just from regression to the mean.

 

[ocarina]

Objectively it's not a news article. Bleacher Report is like a giant blog. As for the actual substance, it's basically just saying everything will get better. Here's a shortened version of the "news article":

Team Start: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this
Rationalizing the start: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this
Goaltending: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this
Defense: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this
Offense: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this

Best (read: most laughable) quotes:
"There's absolutely no reason why that system won't work in New York. The Rangers are just as deep in gritty, defensively responsible forwards as the 2010 Canucks."
"One thing that is clear throughout this analysis is that the Rangers have great depth up front, giving him lots of options."
"... a deep set of talented forwards that are soon to be unleashed by coach Alain Vigneault's proven system."

Bleacher Report, killin' it.

You know who Rob Vollman is, right? He's not exactly a teenage fanboy blogger. And if you actually read the article, he actually gives good in-depth analysis.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

You know who Rob Vollman is, right? He's not exactly a teenage fanboy blogger. And if you actually read the article, he actually gives good in-depth analysis.

He really doesn't here. That's probably why it's on bleacher report as opposed to an actually respectable outlet. It reads way more like a fanboy piece, regardless of the better work he's done in his life.

 

[haohmaru]

Funny thing is the Rangers always, ALWAYS suck on the West Coast and usually hideously so. Coupled with playing the Red Wings at home and the Blues at home, I was really expecting a 4-5, 3-5-1, 2-5-2 start. New coach, awful camp, 9 games and who knows how many miles and Hags/Cally out, etc... The record is about where I thought it would be, honestly.

 

[hi]

to people saying this is a good article

 

[ocarina]

to people saying this is a good article

Explain.

 

[hi]

Explanation: Read the article

 

[OverTheCap]

Some decent points, I think we all know the defense, Lundqvist, and some forwards such as Stepan are capable of playing better than what they have shown thus far.

However, Vollman is overstating our offensive depth and ability:

"great depth up front"

"deep set of talented forwards that are soon to be unleashed"

Even when healthy, the forward lineup is littered with question marks, and some players don't really fit into AV's system that emphasizes smooth skating. The fact that Sather has explored into the option of adding Prospal indicates that our depth isn't all that great.

 

[ocarina]

Explanation: Read the article

I did. And he brought up some good points of how statistically, the Rangers' transient factors are bad right now, and history says that they'll get better, so therefore, they shouldn't be written off yet. And he actually gives explanations for it.

A better explanation than the meaningless retort you just gave.

 

[Baby Punisher]

This article is nothing but white noise.

 

[Thirty One]

Explanation: Read the article

This article is nothing but white noise.

Good discussion. I never thought of it that way. You definitely bring up some good points.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Good discussion. I never thought of it that way. You definitely bring up some good points.

The blog post is nothing but drivel. There's no intelligent discussion to be had regarding it. That's what these people are saying.