Confirmed with Link: Ryan Lindgren Recalled (04/04/19)

[McRanger]

There's a big gap between a D-man (I feel like Rozsival or Malik was big on this) who refuses to chip the puck out of the zone and a guy like Girardi who almost only chips the puck out of the zone.

I'm not sure where Lindgren will fall. I'll have to see how his game develops, preferably after he's settled down.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

And when defending the problem with that is.......?

"What's the problem with constantly giving the puck back to the other team?"

It's about risk management. Hockey is a weird game and lots of times you are just fighting to live another day and chipping window is a good or at least fine play. But when it's the only consistent thing you can do to get out of your zone, ala Girardi, it's an issue and will limit your upside as a defenseman.

 

[True Blue]

"What's the problem with constantly giving the puck back to the other team?"

It's about risk management. Hockey is a weird game and lots of times you are just fighting to live another day and chipping window is a good or at least fine play. But when it's the only consistent thing you can do to get out of your zone, ala Girardi, it's an issue and will limit your upside as a defenseman.

You seem to have a short term memory when it came to Girardi. There was much more to his game. He was considered a legit top pairing shutdown defenseman. We should be so lucky that Lindgren carves out such a career.

 

[True Blue]

What I like about him so far is he seems to know exactly kind player he is and what he needs to do to be effective.

The game did not seem too big or fast for him.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

You seem to have a short term memory when it came to Girardi. There was much more to his game. He was considered a legit top pairing shutdown defenseman. We should be so lucky that Lindgren carves out such a career.

No, no short term memory. His only consistent way to exit the zone was chipping glass. He blocked shots and could clear the crease but he couldn't get out of the zone. His best Ranger years were being carried by Ryan McDonagh

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

The game did not seem too big or fast for him.

Partly because he's not trying to do too much. And he knows what he needs to do. He knows what his game is.

 

[True Blue]

No, no short term memory. His only consistent way to exit the zone was chipping glass. He blocked shots and could clear the crease but he couldn't get out of the zone. His best Ranger years were being carried by Ryan McDonagh

He was already an All Star and a top pairing defenseman long before McD came to town

 

[Filthy Dangles]

He was already an All Star and a top pairing defenseman long before McD came to town

He made the all star game in 2012 when McDonagh became a regular and played with him on the top pair. I mean he literally was a 'top pairing' defenseman prior in that he played on the top pair, he wasn't very good though. Remember the 2011 team when he and Staal were the top pair. It was very ugly.

 

[True Blue]

He made the all star game in 2012 when McDonagh became a regular and played with him on the top pair. I mean he literally was a 'top pairing' defenseman prior in that he played on the top pair, he wasn't very good though. Remember the 2011 team when he and Staal were the top pair. It was very ugly.

He was widely considered to be a legit shut down pairing d-man in the NHL before McD ever joined him. He and Stall were fantastic together. It may have been ugly for some because they were not considered puck moving defensemen, but there is actually much more to being a defenseman than that.

 

[Crease]

Staal/Girardi were a below-average first pairing. The Rangers best defense of Lundqvist's career was in 2014:

McDonagh/Girardi
Staal/Stralman
Moore/Klein

Before and since, Lundqvist carried his defense. As much as I like Staal and Girardi, an excellently built blue line in the early 2010s in their prime would have had them relegated to the second pairing.

 

[True Blue]

Staal/Girardi were a below-average first pairing.

Did your view of them go back in time or just start in the last several years?

 

[Off Sides]

Prospect not known for puck movement does not move puck well in first two NHL games.

 

[Crease]

Did your view of them go back in time or just start in the last several years?

If my view of them only started in the last several years, I would have said Staal and Girardi belonged on the third pairing.

 

[nyr2k2]

Again, with Lindgren. If you go back and read scouting reports of him from when he was in the USNTDP or when he was at Minnesota, they're almost all complimentary of his mobility and, accordingly, his ability to move the puck out of the zone, and also to make the first pass to start a transition. It's not an area he struggles in. He took some time to adjust in Hartford, but again, his coach was specifically complimentary of his ability to carry the puck out of the zone. He has gotten much better at this as the season has worn on.

He's never going to be Anton Stralman, skating around, carrying the puck, making those crisp and decisive first passes, but I am absolutely confident this will not be a weakness of his. If he somehow manages to stick for the rest of the season I guarantee no one will be talking about how he sucks getting the puck out of the zone in a couple months. He just needs time, like he needed in Hartford. It's been two games.

 

[emodwarf]

He was widely considered to be a legit shut down pairing d-man in the NHL before McD ever joined him. He and Stall were fantastic together. It may have been ugly for some because they were not considered puck moving defensemen, but there is actually much more to being a defenseman than that.

No one's saying moving the puck well is the end-all, be-all of being a d-man. Filthy Dangles was talking about Girardi's penchant for chipping the puck out of the zone, which was valid even in his prime.

Girardi making the all-star team one year and having great success for years shutting down powerhouse offensive players has nothing to do with his inability or unwillingness to have the puck leave the zone under team control. He wasn't named an all star because he could skate the puck out of the zone or make fast, smooth breakout passes.

 

[nyr2k2]

Kind of an aside, here, but I still feel like it's worth mentioning.

It's kind of unfair to look at Girardi now, through the lens of the modern-day game. When he broke into the league there wasn't a ton of emphasis on things like puck possession, controlled zone exits and zone entries, etc. As I remember it, it was kind of like the pre-lockout NHL but with less clutching and grabbing. There was still a ton of trapping, lots of teams that emphasized shot blocking to a high degree. Not much mention of Corsi or Fenwick or anything; analytics were still in their infancy. Accordingly, the game Girardi played was valued, and actually lauded. He was a simple, meat-and-potatoes, block shots, pin you to the corner, chip-and-chase defenseman that was good at that at a time when that was a valued commodity.

IIRC it was probably a little more than halfway through his career (to date) that things started changing, really, with more of an emphasis on analytics, maintaining possession of the puck, and so on. And by then, Girardi was what he was, and he probably wasn't capable of adapting to the shifts in what was emphasized on the ice. We can look at it now and say that his game was statistically ineffective, but it was not viewed that way then. It's like looking back at quarterbacks from 30 years ago, and saying they were terrible because they had a TD:INT ratio of 1, average passer rating of 70, threw twice as many picks, etc. It was a different game and different things were emphasized.

 

[True Blue]

Girardi making the all-star team one year and having great success for years shutting down powerhouse offensive players has nothing to do with his inability or unwillingness to have the puck leave the zone under team control. He wasn't named an all star because he could skate the puck out of the zone or make fast, smooth breakout passes.

This I agree with. Yes, he was not considered a good defender because of his puck moving skills.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Kind of an aside, here, but I still feel like it's worth mentioning.

It's kind of unfair to look at Girardi now, through the lens of the modern-day game. When he broke into the league there wasn't a ton of emphasis on things like puck possession, controlled zone exits and zone entries, etc. As I remember it, it was kind of like the pre-lockout NHL but with less clutching and grabbing. There was still a ton of trapping, lots of teams that emphasized shot blocking to a high degree. Not much mention of Corsi or Fenwick or anything; analytics were still in their infancy. Accordingly, the game Girardi played was valued, and actually lauded. He was a simple, meat-and-potatoes, block shots, pin you to the corner, chip-and-chase defenseman that was good at that at a time when that was a valued commodity.

IIRC it was probably a little more than halfway through his career (to date) that things started changing, really, with more of an emphasis on analytics, maintaining possession of the puck, and so on. And by then, Girardi was what he was, and he probably wasn't capable of adapting to the shifts in what was emphasized on the ice. We can look at it now and say that his game was statistically ineffective, but it was not viewed that way then. It's like looking back at quarterbacks from 30 years ago, and saying they were terrible because they had a TD:INT ratio of 1, average passer rating of 70, threw twice as many picks, etc. It was a different game and different things were emphasized.

Same with Staal, who was a beast physically and one of the toughest dmen to beat 1v1.

 

[PuckLuck3043]

Again, with Lindgren. If you go back and read scouting reports of him from when he was in the USNTDP or when he was at Minnesota, they're almost all complimentary of his mobility and, accordingly, his ability to move the puck out of the zone, and also to make the first pass to start a transition. It's not an area he struggles in. He took some time to adjust in Hartford, but again, his coach was specifically complimentary of his ability to carry the puck out of the zone. He has gotten much better at this as the season has worn on.

He's never going to be Anton Stralman, skating around, carrying the puck, making those crisp and decisive first passes, but I am absolutely confident this will not be a weakness of his. If he somehow manages to stick for the rest of the season I guarantee no one will be talking about how he sucks getting the puck out of the zone in a couple months. He just needs time, like he needed in Hartford. It's been two games.

Ya mean 2 games isn't long enough to know how a players NHL career is going to evolve?

 

[Kocur Dill]

I suppose Tyutin was carrying Girardi around kicking and screaming too?

Stop killing the guy,

Toots
Staal
McD

One way or another it worked with all 3 partners. Could it be he was just a prototypical not-so-flashy defenceman with an uncommon high motor and hustle that projected him into the upper pair for almost a decade? And yes he benefitted from Torts system. So?

Once his body burned out, his game fell off a cliff. Why does his legacy with this fanbase take such a hit after a decade of overachievement? The guy is a lunchpail legend.

The worst part about the 7 dark years was the legion of heartless mercenaries. Jagr changed that, Girardi and a few others we the core of that change.

I hope G, Staal, Cally, Duby, VP, Feds, Rozy etc... get more respect in hindsight the further we get from the freshness of their declining years.

 

[SA16]

Kind of an aside, here, but I still feel like it's worth mentioning.

It's kind of unfair to look at Girardi now, through the lens of the modern-day game. When he broke into the league there wasn't a ton of emphasis on things like puck possession, controlled zone exits and zone entries, etc. As I remember it, it was kind of like the pre-lockout NHL but with less clutching and grabbing. There was still a ton of trapping, lots of teams that emphasized shot blocking to a high degree. Not much mention of Corsi or Fenwick or anything; analytics were still in their infancy. Accordingly, the game Girardi played was valued, and actually lauded. He was a simple, meat-and-potatoes, block shots, pin you to the corner, chip-and-chase defenseman that was good at that at a time when that was a valued commodity.

IIRC it was probably a little more than halfway through his career (to date) that things started changing, really, with more of an emphasis on analytics, maintaining possession of the puck, and so on. And by then, Girardi was what he was, and he probably wasn't capable of adapting to the shifts in what was emphasized on the ice. We can look at it now and say that his game was statistically ineffective, but it was not viewed that way then. It's like looking back at quarterbacks from 30 years ago, and saying they were terrible because they had a TD:INT ratio of 1, average passer rating of 70, threw twice as many picks, etc. It was a different game and different things were emphasized.

I think this is more about people being wrong about what was important back then as opposed to his actual play being more valuable. His play was perceived as very valuable back then because things like shot blocking and chipping pucks out of the zone were believed to be a crucial part of defense but we know now that those things aren't the most important things. He was, of course, much better in his earlier years than the later years.

I think the QB comparison is a bit different. Yes, compared to today's QBs numbers from the 70s and 80s all look awful but if you look at them relative to their competition they look much better. There have been far more rule changes to favor offense in football while not as much has changed in hockey.

 

[nyr2k2]

I think this is more about people being wrong about what was important back then as opposed to his actual play being more valuable. His play was perceived as very valuable back then because things like shot blocking and chipping pucks out of the zone were believed to be a crucial part of defense but we know now that those things aren't the most important things. He was, of course, much better in his earlier years than the later years.

I think the QB comparison is a bit different. Yes, compared to today's QBs numbers from the 70s and 80s all look awful but if you look at them relative to their competition they look much better. There have been far more rule changes to favor offense in football while not as much has changed in hockey.

I understand that. I just think it's unfair to use a modern understanding of the game and what is important to judge guys from an earlier time. Ten, twenty years ago, there was a different understanding of how to play defense; if you told me half of the defensemen in the game sucked because they didn't excel at what we now know is important, I'd think that's crazy.

My point is just that guys should be evaluated in the context of their era. Even if the thinking in that era was wrong. And yes, I think of at least half of Girardi's career as occuring in a different era, the pre-analytics era.

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

For some reason when I look at their size, stats and physical play I see a similarity between Lindgren and Kasparaitis. Any thoughts on that?

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

Anybody have a feeling he was called up to raise his trade value in order to trade him in a package because they don't think he has much future here?

 

[darko]

Anybody have a feeling he was called up to raise his trade value in order to trade him in a package because they don't think he has much future here?

No.