Post-Game Talk: GDT: #7 - 10/17/18 | RANGERS @ capitals | 7:00 - NBCSN

[ReggieDunlop68]

Did name-dropping Peter Bondra get you confused looks?

He was too busy talking about Sergei Gonchar.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I didn't think it was that difficult to understand my position.

No I'm aware of your premise.

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

How are you guys really this mad about this loss? We got a point against the defending cup champs and a roster that has 300% more talent than ours. The fact that we battled hard enough to keep this close and continue to fight back after giving up goals should speak volumes.

Are you guys really expecting us to win these match ups with the roster we have?

My take:

I still don't understand the Claesson situation at all. The guy is clearly an NHL defenseman; trade him. We're sitting ADA in favor of a guy whose a solid 3rd pairing defenseman on a team that's rebuilding and that needs to give the young players playing time. The signing makes no sense and neither does him being in the lineup over ADA. Handedness, matchups etc mean nothing for this current team. We should NOT be playing to win right now; we should be playing to develop and draft in the top 3. This franchise just doesn't get it.. the formula is so simple.

Do you have a roster capable of winning a cup? Yes? Cool, play to win every game and sit kids over guys like Claesson.

Does your roster have literally 0% chance of winning a cup? Yes? Cool, play the kids, trade dead weight or guys that have no way of contributing in our effective window of competitiveness in 2 or 3 years (looking at you Spooner, Names, Claesson, Staal etc) and draft high. It's been the formula for winning in this league since the lockout but we just don't seem to get it

I also don't understand why they are ruining Chytil, he needs to be dominating in AHL playing 20 minutes in all situations and I don't understand Buchnevich playing only 10 minutes. This coach has issues. and the GM has issues and is clearly not addressing them and not making the trades he needs to make.

Also only 14 hits? Wasn't this coach going to make sure they finish checks? Or was it make sure they cash checks?

 

[Shesterkybomb]

So this is the second coach having the same issues with Buchnevich. I'm starting to get worried about what he actually is. I see the skill, but I also see what the coach is seeing and why hes in the dog house. Right now hes more Zherdev than Kovalev.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I also don't understand why they are ruining Chytil, he needs to be dominating in AHL playing 20 minutes in all situations and I don't understand Buchnevich playing only 10 minutes. This coach has issues. and the GM has issues and is clearly not addressing them and not making the trades he needs to make.

Clearly...AV is still the coach.

 

[will1066]

So this is the second coach having the same issues with Buchnevich. I'm starting to get worried about what he actually is. I see the skill, but I also see what the coach is seeing and why hes in the dog house. Right now hes more Zherdev than Kovalev.

Beautiful analogy.

 

[JohnC]

In the past 2 years I’ve oftentimes found myself wondering what exactly Mats Zuccarello does here anymore.

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

The concept of hiring a great coach constantly eludes this team. The perfect coach for rebuild would have been Paul McLean he would have made them play the right way, play physical and work hard, and finish all their checks. The guy we got is all talk and no action.

 

[TheGortonConspiracy]

That last OT line was abysmal... but I want to put the onus on Zucc for the GWG, he just did circles on the hash mark instead of playing man coverage. Completly wide open Niskanen in front of the net was a facepalm for the finale of an otherwise well defended game. Was an enjoyable game otherwise. And Pionk looked worthy of top pairing minutes tonight, on the contrary to what the majority of posters in here have been saying this far into the season

 

[PuckLuck3043]

The concept of hiring a great coach constantly eludes this team. The perfect coach for rebuild would have been Paul McLean he would have made them play the right way, play physical and work hard, and finish all their checks. The guy we got is all talk and no action.

You don't think they played well and worked hard the last 2 nights?

 

[mrhockey193195]

Jesus, did you look at Crosby's amateur numbers.

Omg winning doesn't breed ****.

Look...when the new horse shows up, they honestly don't give a **** about the last guy.

And there is no exception. Look at the cup winners.

Furthermore, the Devils did draft well and later instead of just tanking, the bent and nearly broke every single other rule to win, so that's a bad example even though they didn't have a no1 OA.

Reg, you're the best. I respect your opinions and always have, but I disagree on this one. There are as many, if not more examples of teams that have tanked that failed to turn their franchise around than there are of teams that tanked that managed to become cup winners.

Jesus, did you look at Crosby's amateur numbers.

Did you see RNH's numbers in junior? What about Cody Hodgson? How about Matt Duchene?

Crosby's numbers were stratospheric. Tavares' numbers were as good, if not better. Note how Tavares turned into a superstar, while Crosby turned into a definitely-top-fifteen, probably-top-ten player of all time, and Tavares is not sniffing the top 150. Maybe circumstances of their early days in the NHL played a role? Maybe not. Regardless, those kind of players don't come every year. And there are rarely multiple of them in the same draft (exception being 04 with Ovi and Malkin), so you better be picking first. And even then...well, look at EDM.

Furthermore, the Devils did draft well and later instead of just tanking, the bent and nearly broke every single other rule to win, so that's a bad example even though they didn't have a no1 OA.

Forget not having a #1 pick...they basically didn't have a top 15 pick (they had one, #10 in 96 which they used on Lance Ward). After 1994, when they established themselves as a "franchise of winners" (my term), and up to 2000 (aka these are the picks that would have made the team and/or had influence from guys like Lemieux, Steves, Daneyko, Brodeur, Niedermayer, etc.), look at who they drafted and where:

Elias (51)
Souray (71)
Sullivan (233)
Sykora (18)
McCauley (79) - note, mostly developed by TOR
Mason (122) - note, mostly developed by NSH
Colin White (49)
Willie Mitchell (199)
Clemmenson (215)
Gomez (27)
Gionta (82)
Commodore (42)
Martin (62)
Rupp (76)

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

The concept of hiring a great coach constantly eludes this team. The perfect coach for rebuild would have been Paul McLean he would have made them play the right way, play physical and work hard, and finish all their checks. The guy we got is all talk and no action.

It's like the Shining. AV is the coach, and always has been the coach.

But you've always been the coach Mr. Vigneault...

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

You don't think they played well and worked hard the last 2 nights?

you call 14 hits playing hard?

 

[Rangerfans]

One more Mets reference. Hank is the DeGrom of hockey.

I mean no disrespect (sincerely), but that is a terrible analogy.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Back on topic, that was a great game. Entertaining, and this team continues to compete. Zucc really f***ed up the GW in OT, it's disappointing how at times he's so capable of playing solid defense and at other times, he's completely lost. Hank was amazing as usual, Pionk had his best game as a Ranger. Buch and Chytl, albeit with very little ice time, continue to give the coach no reason to play them more. Kreider and Zib were great. Fast continues to be the most likable Ranger with his work ethic, bad penalty aside. I've been very, VERY happy with Smith so far this season.

 

[Rangerfans]

you call 14 hits playing hard?

You do realize what our roster looks like, yes?

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Reg, you're the best. I respect your opinions and always have, but I disagree on this one. There are as many, if not more examples of teams that have tanked that failed to turn their franchise around than there are of teams that tanked that managed to become cup winners.



Did you see RNH's numbers in junior? What about Cody Hodgson? How about Matt Duchene?

Crosby's numbers were stratospheric. Tavares' numbers were as good, if not better. Note how Tavares turned into a superstar, while Crosby turned into a definitely-top-fifteen, probably-top-ten player of all time, and Tavares is not sniffing the top 150. Maybe circumstances of their early days in the NHL played a role? Maybe not. Regardless, those kind of players don't come every year. And there are rarely multiple of them in the same draft (exception being 04 with Ovi and Malkin), so you better be picking first. And even then...well, look at EDM.



Forget not having a #1 pick...they basically didn't have a top 15 pick (they had one, #10 in 96 which they used on Lance Ward). After 1994, when they established themselves as a "franchise of winners" (my term), and up to 2000 (aka these are the picks that would have made the team and/or had influence from guys like Lemieux, Steves, Daneyko, Brodeur, Niedermayer, etc.), look at who they drafted and where:

Elias (51)
Souray (71)
Sullivan (233)
Sykora (18)
McCauley (79) - note, mostly developed by TOR
Mason (122) - note, mostly developed by NSH
Colin White (49)
Willie Mitchell (199)
Clemmenson (215)
Gomez (27)
Gionta (82)
Commodore (42)
Martin (62)
Rupp (76)

I'm talking about the difference between a 15% chance and zero. Not a guarantee. The Rangers don't want to tank dirty, so no Penguins or Capitals for them, and they don't want to play dirty, so no Devils.

The current Edmonton disaster is possibly a bigger outlier than dynasties that were actually successful.

 

[PuckLuck3043]

you call 14 hits playing hard?

I watched both games and yes I thought for the most part they played hard. Hit numbers don't always tell the full story. Sometimes you have more hits the less you have the puck, it doesn't mean you are playing well.

 

[Rangerfans]

Am I the only one who didn't think Hank had a great night? Should have had Carlson's and one of Ovi's goals. Felt he was outplayed by Holtby. Not complaining because Hank has been really good, but I see a lot of people posting Hank saving the team again. I didn't see it.

Hank should have had Ovi’s goal. But Hanks has saved a fair amount of shots that should have been goals. We should have lost to San Jose, Hank was the reason why the Nashville game was close, and the reason we won in a SO against Colorado.

So while I understand that you are not complaining, it sounds like you are not giving him a pass even though he has saved our bacon.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

You do realize what our roster looks like, yes?

WeNeverGetaGoodTeamBusDriver

 

[Rangerfans]

I also don't understand why they are ruining Chytil, he needs to be dominating in AHL playing 20 minutes in all situations and I don't understand Buchnevich playing only 10 minutes. This coach has issues. and the GM has issues and is clearly not addressing them and not making the trades he needs to make.

Also only 14 hits? Wasn't this coach going to make sure they finish checks? Or was it make sure they cash checks?

You’re assuming that he’s being ruined because he’s not playing in the AHL. Maybe they plan to send him down after X amount of games.

Buch? You make it sound like he’s a super star. He’s not. If there is a puck battle in the corner and Buch is there, you can play the odds that he will not only lose the puck battle, but be on the ground.

I like Buch, but he utterly disappears just like others. I have no problem with it.

 

[Rangerfans]

Beautiful analogy.

My God, that is a wonderful analogy. I agree completely.

 

[mrhockey193195]

I'm talking about the difference between a 15% chance and zero.

The Rangers reached 3 ECF and 2 SCF in 4 years with the method that I prefer: emphasis on scouting and development, emphasis on drafting character players, putting young players in positions to succeed (i.e., surrounded by veterans and in winning environments). Yes, I agree they hit a one-in-a-(insert large number here) home run by drafting Hank. But guys like Cally, Girardi, Dubinsky, McDonagh, Stepan, Hagelin, etc. all had major roles in the Rangers becoming just about everything but cup champs. To me, that's a recipe for success. If you get a top-5 pick superstar in the process? Great. But I don't think you should plan around that.

The current Edmonton disaster is possibly a bigger outlier than dynasties that were actually successful.

PIT, WSH, LA, and CHI all "tanked", sucked for a while, and accumulated a ton of top picks. I grant you that. But I'd say, take LA out of the equation, because only Doughty had a positive influence on those teams winning cups. The other key players? Kopitar (11th), Brown (13th), Quick (72nd). Granted, Carter was a big piece and was traded for with a top-5 pick (Johnson), ditto for Richards (Schenn...plus Simmonds...just a horrible trade). But I'd still argue that the Kings didn't need any top-5 picks outside of Doughty to win those cups.

So, to me, you've got three teams that have tanked and won cups in the last ten years. Look at the other teams that have "tanked" and not gotten further than the Rangers doing it the "right way". St. Louis, Edmonton, Buffalo, Florida, NYI, CBJ, etc.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Hank should have had Ovi’s goal. But Hanks has saved a fair amount of shots that should have been goals. We should have lost to San Jose, Hank was the reason why the Nashville game was close, and the reason we won in a SO against Colorado.

So while I understand that you are not complaining, it sounds like you are not giving him a pass even though he has saved our bacon.

They should be shaming Hank for stopping so many.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

The Rangers reached 3 ECF and 2 SCF in 4 years with the method that I prefer: emphasis on scouting and development, emphasis on drafting character players, putting young players in positions to succeed (i.e., surrounded by veterans and in winning environments). Yes, I agree they hit a one-in-a-(insert large number here) home run by drafting Hank. But guys like Cally, Girardi, Dubinsky, McDonagh, Stepan, Hagelin, etc. all had major roles in the Rangers becoming just about everything but cup champs. To me, that's a recipe for success. If you get a top-5 pick superstar in the process? Great. But I don't think you should plan around that.



PIT, WSH, LA, and CHI all "tanked", sucked for a while, and accumulated a ton of top picks. I grant you that. But I'd say, take LA out of the equation, because only Doughty had a positive influence on those teams winning cups. The other key players? Kopitar (11th), Brown (13th), Quick (72nd). Granted, Carter was a big piece and was traded for with a top-5 pick (Johnson), ditto for Richards (Schenn...plus Simmonds...just a horrible trade). But I'd still argue that the Kings didn't need any top-5 picks outside of Doughty to win those cups.

So, to me, you've got three teams that have tanked and won cups in the last ten years. Look at the other teams that have "tanked" and not gotten further than the Rangers doing it the "right way". St. Louis, Edmonton, Buffalo, Florida, NYI, CBJ, etc.

I explained before that had the Rangers just stank it up to about 2009 while Hank was hitting his prime, we would of had a cup.

Instead we had to augment his play with mercenaries.

Look everyone is mincing my words. I just want the cup, and I'm being clear in my argument. This is getting into PT Barnum territory.