Prospect Info: The Athletic ranks Rangers as 11th best system

[Edge]

I don't know if it's easy to pinpoint a style the Rangers will be looking for moving forward.

I think they certainly added a lot of guys who think they can form the frame of the vehicle they are trying to build.

But I also don't believe there's a particular aversion to what we call "high skill" players.

In some cases the Rangers haven't been in a position to grab such players, and in other cases they didn't like the risk/reward.

But I don't believe the Rangers are opposed to going that route if they like a kid --- as seen with Kravtsov, Chytil, Buchnevich.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I don't think the Rangers look for anything stylistically with goalies and forwards. We see a variety of types one players. With defensemen, I think they prioritize skating, puck moving, "neutral zone play" over quantifiable offensive or defensive skills.

 

[pblawr]

It does seem like the Rangers have a habit of drafting / acquiring defensemen who can skate and move the puck well, but have had limited offensive production. McDonagh, Skjei, Lundkvist, Hajek, Lindgren, and Miller all seem to fit that mold. Based on the results with McDonagh and Skjei, it seems like the Rangers have been successful in betting that those guys will develop offensively, at least so far.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

It does seem like the Rangers have a habit of drafting / acquiring defensemen who can skate and move the puck well, but have had limited offensive production. McDonagh, Skjei, Lundkvist, Hajek, Lindgren, and Miller all seem to fit that mold. Based on the results with McDonagh and Skjei, it seems like the Rangers have been successful in betting that those guys will develop offensively, at least so far.

I was talking about under Gorton.

Look at the two first round defensemen he took this draft. They aren't regarded that highly for their offensive or defensive play, its athleticism, skating, puck moving. All important parts of the game, but its not necessarily the offensive or defensive parts.

Among our main defensive prospects, none are standout offensive or defensive players. We'll see how it works. I'm not really convinced this strategy yields especially high upside players.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

It does seem like the Rangers have a habit of drafting / acquiring defensemen who can skate and move the puck well, but have had limited offensive production. McDonagh, Skjei, Lundkvist, Hajek, Lindgren, and Miller all seem to fit that mold. Based on the results with McDonagh and Skjei, it seems like the Rangers have been successful in betting that those guys will develop offensively, at least so far.

Lundkvist's lack of production was really more of a fact of where he was playing rather than how he was playing.

 

[NYR Viper]

I was talking about under Gorton.

Look at the two first round defensemen he took this draft. They aren't regarded that highly for their offensive or defensive play, its athleticism, skating, puck moving. All important parts of the game, but its not necessarily the offensive or defensive parts.

Among our main defensive prospects, none are standout offensive or defensive players. We'll see how it works. I'm not really convinced this strategy yields especially high upside players.

I'm not sure I agree with this. They tend to value guys who can skate, that I agree with. They value guys who can pitch in offensively while maintaining their defensive positioning, that I agree with. I think in today's NHL those are good qualities especially for a defenseman. I do agree that they tend to shy away from the more 1-dimensional guys in favor of more 2-way guys but I disagree that the 1-way guys have higher upsides to 2-way guys.

We used to have these conversations all the time when McDonagh was younger. What is more valuable, a guy who can play PK, PP and the most difficult even strength minutes while putting up 30-40 points as a defenseman or a guy who is a prime PP guy, depth PK guy and a guy who you have to shelter slightly at even strength but scores 50-60 points as a defenseman?

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I do agree that they tend to shy away from the more 1-dimensional guys in favor of more 2-way guys but I disagree that the 1-way guys have higher upsides to 2-way guys.

We used to have these conversations all the time when McDonagh was younger. What is more valuable, a guy who can play PK, PP and the most difficult even strength minutes while putting up 30-40 points as a defenseman or a guy who is a prime PP guy, depth PK guy and a guy who you have to shelter slightly at even strength but scores 50-60 points as a defenseman?

I don't consider those players to be "two way guys", so thats the point of disagreement. Being a great skater or puck mover doesn't make you a two way guy. We were told that Day was that because he didn't play defense well or score points. Thats not to say Day's situation applies to all these others because it doesn't, but thats kind of the type of player they prefer. Skating and puck moving. Figure out the rest later. I tend to think that those players have a harder time turning into decent NHL'ers. Its preferable to have McDonagh's or players of that ilk, but there are only so many of those players in the NHL. You aren't going to develop 7 McDonagh's. An NHL roster is a roster of role players.

Thats why I think you need to be drafting and acquiring a variety of defensemen that includes specialists in certain areas of the game. As I said, I think you end up with a bunch of very safe, but comparatively low-upside guys, who don't have the tangible offensive or defensive skills. And among the "specialist" prospects they've drafted and acquired, I'd say DeAngelo and Lindgren among those in and around the NHL team right now is a pretty underwhelming return. Its questionable whether these guys are even NHL'ers, so I think the team definitely has a need to acquire more of these types of players because otherwise we'll have too many of the same type of player with no role specialization. I don't think thats good, especially when these are not particularly high upside players.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I'm not sure I agree with this. They tend to value guys who can skate, that I agree with. They value guys who can pitch in offensively while maintaining their defensive positioning, that I agree with. I think in today's NHL those are good qualities especially for a defenseman. I do agree that they tend to shy away from the more 1-dimensional guys in favor of more 2-way guys but I disagree that the 1-way guys have higher upsides to 2-way guys.

We used to have these conversations all the time when McDonagh was younger. What is more valuable, a guy who can play PK, PP and the most difficult even strength minutes while putting up 30-40 points as a defenseman or a guy who is a prime PP guy, depth PK guy and a guy who you have to shelter slightly at even strength but scores 50-60 points as a defenseman?

I think the some of the disconnect comes from the continued impression of what a good defensive defenseman is.

There are guys who may make some "obvious" plays on the regular but the only reason they're making those plays is because they did everything else wrong leading up to that (Hello Dan Girardi or if you want a more modern comparison, Mattias Samuelsson.) For what ever reason, getting in a passing lane after you turned the puck over will always get more attention/praise than completely shutting down a rush before it has a chance to turn into anything. Guys who excel at the latter are almost always better defensive players. I mean good on a guy if he puts out the fire that he started, but he should have never even lit the match.

 

[romba]

I think the some of the disconnect comes from the continued impression of what a good defensive defenseman is.

There are guys who may make some "obvious" plays on the regular but the only reason they're making those plays is because they did everything else wrong leading up to that (Hello Dan Girardi or if you want a more modern comparison, Mattias Samuelsson.) For what ever reason, getting in a passing lane after you turned the puck over will always get more attention/praise than completely shutting down a rush before it has a chance to turn into anything. Guys who excel at the latter are almost always better defensive players. I mean good on a guy if he puts out the fire that he started, but he should have never even lit the match.

Completely agree but that’s where it also gets muddy. Sometimes it’s obvious when the other team’s dman makes a miraculous recovery following a glaring mistake and you can say my number 1-2 dman should never have made the original error and so the highlight reel recovery never should have occurred and therefore the credit given is, and should be, limited. But when its a close call it can be tough to quantify and reputation guides most on whether the right play/choice was made. Sure if you get a large enough data set you can start to figure out who’s in general better at avoiding the original mess up/turnover, but with regard to specific plays I feel like reputation significantly influences peoples conclusions.

 

[Tawnos]

I think the some of the disconnect comes from the continued impression of what a good defensive defenseman is.

There are guys who may make some "obvious" plays on the regular but the only reason they're making those plays is because they did everything else wrong leading up to that (Hello Dan Girardi or if you want a more modern comparison, Mattias Samuelsson.) For what ever reason, getting in a passing lane after you turned the puck over will always get more attention/praise than completely shutting down a rush before it has a chance to turn into anything. Guys who excel at the latter are almost always better defensive players. I mean good on a guy if he puts out the fire that he started, but he should have never even lit the match.

Let's be clear, players of Girardi's ilk are also really good at making those plays after their teammates have turned the puck over too. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, a lot of times when the Rangers were unsuccessful in retrieving the puck in their overloads, the D in the slot was in the unenviable position of having to defend against mini-odd man situations from behind the net or across the slot. This type of D is typically good at defending those situations. And they also excel at it when the other team has the puck and got into the zone through no fault of their own (say, down the opposite wing).

The mistake, though, is thinking that these things are mutually exclusive from being good with the puck. As my dad said in a discussion we were having about this topic the other night, every defenseman is going to have strengths and weaknesses. The stronger the strengths and the fewer the weaknesses, the better overall defenseman you have. It's perfectly possible to have a defenseman who is good at breaking up plays like above, who is also good at gap control and pushing the play out of the D zone, but might not be very good in the offensive zone.

I personally don't think of one skillset as being more valuable than another. I value a D who can break up plays in the D zone. The quality of a player has more to do with how strong their strengths are than anything else. In a very simplistic way, I'm saying that a player with an ability to break up plays at level X is just as valuable as a player who can move the puck at level X. A lot of people think otherwise, that some skills are more valuable than others. That's where this is all a matter of opinion.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Let's be clear, players of Girardi's ilk are also really good at making those plays after their teammates have turned the puck over too. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, a lot of times when the Rangers were unsuccessful in retrieving the puck in their overloads, the D in the slot was in the unenviable position of having to defend against mini-odd man situations from behind the net or across the slot. This type of D is typically good at defending those situations. And they also excel at it when the other team has the puck and got into the zone through no fault of their own (say, down the opposite wing).

It's perfectly possible to have a defenseman who is good at breaking up plays like above, who is also good at gap control and pushing the play out of the D zone, but might not be very good in the offensive zone.

I personally don't think of one skillset as being more valuable than another. I value a D who can break up plays in the D zone. The quality of a player has more to do with how strong their strengths are than anything else. In a very simplistic way, I'm saying that a player with an ability to break up plays at level X is just as valuable as a player who can move the puck at level X. A lot of people think otherwise, that some skills are more valuable than others. That's where this is all a matter of opinion.

The D you described in your middle paragraph is what a good defensive D is these days.

If you’re only good at one of the three, you are not a good defenseman. I question how good Girardi is/was at defending those situations. Pretty sure his royal road chances against have been horrendous since it became a thing. Some of it being system based, others of it being him not knowing where the f*** to be (sort of ties into the system thing, but not entirely.)

I’d prefer putting together a D that allows as little to go wrong as possible. I completely understand that breakdowns happen that won’t be the fault of the D at all, but I’ll live with those as long as they’re making the competent play 90% of the time. Your goalies will thank you and you’ll give up fewer goals in general.

 

[Tawnos]

The D you described in your middle paragraph is what a good defensive D is these days.

If you’re only good at one of the three, you are not a good defenseman. I question how good Girardi is/was at defending those situations. Pretty sure his royal road chances against have been horrendous since it became a thing. Some of it being system based, others of it being him not knowing where the **** to be (sort of ties into the system thing, but not entirely.)

I’d prefer putting together a D that allows as little to go wrong as possible. I completely understand that breakdowns happen that won’t be the fault of the D at all, but I’ll live with those as long as they’re making the competent play 90% of the time. Your goalies will thank you and you’ll give up fewer goals in general.

Were royal road stats tracking when a D was the primary defender trying to prevent the opportunity from turning into a legit chance on goal or just when he was on the ice for them? The former would be an interesting stat... the latter doesn't mean anything for this. Admittedly I haven't kept up with them.

I think there's still a place for those players... mostly because there just aren't enough of the other kind in existence.

 

[RangerBoy]

Pronman had a chat on Friday

Sebastian G.
Aug 31, 2:00pm
Would you move vitali Kravstov up a tier after his recent performance

4

Corey Pronman
Aug 31, 2:08pm
@Sebastian G. I'm considering it.

3

Recap: Corey Pronman answers your prospects questions

From very good NHL prospect to high-end NHL prospect

 

[eco's bones]

I don't think the Rangers look for anything stylistically with goalies and forwards. We see a variety of types one players. With defensemen, I think they prioritize skating, puck moving, "neutral zone play" over quantifiable offensive or defensive skills.

I agree even the more stay at home defensemen like O'Gara and Lindgren skate pretty well.

Lundkvist is a player who I think does have a lot of offensive skill and Miller is a player who might develop. Miller is still pretty new to the position. Both of them IMO are going to need at least two years before they're ready to turn pro. Lundkvist did spend half a year in the SHL but looking at him at the draft he looks more like a boy right now than a man. Miller has the size and strength to play right now but he's got to develop into his position more.

Of the other D prospects--Hajek and Rykov are the most hybrid--they combine decent size with very good two way games. Lindgren is more of a stay at home and physical player.

They are all really good D prospects--it's just a matter of giving them enough time and waiting for them to be ready. Hajek has said he thinks he can make the team out of training camp though--we'll see.

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

I agree even the more stay at home defensemen like O'Gara and Lindgren skate pretty well.

Lundkvist is a player who I think does have a lot of offensive skill and Miller is a player who might develop. Miller is still pretty new to the position. Both of them IMO are going to need at least two years before they're ready to turn pro. Lundkvist did spend half a year in the SHL but looking at him at the draft he looks more like a boy right now than a man. Miller has the size and strength to play right now but he's got to develop into his position more.

Of the other D prospects--Hajek and Rykov are the most hybrid--they combine decent size with very good two way games. Lindgren is more of a stay at home and physical player.

They are all really good D prospects--it's just a matter of giving them enough time and waiting for them to be ready. Hajek has said he thinks he can make the team out of training camp though--we'll see.

I think O'Gara's skating is nowhere near as good as Lindgren.

Rykov seems to be used primarily as a defensive defenseman in the KHL.

 

[eco's bones]

I think O'Gara's skating is nowhere near as good as Lindgren.

Rykov seems to be used primarily as a defensive defenseman in the KHL.

I get that O'Gara is not a very easy player to like but he does skate very well.

 

[kovazub94]

I get that O'Gara is not a very easy player to like but he does skate very well.

For a big guy.

 

[eco's bones]

For a big guy.

In some respect he's a bit like Nick Holden--with less of a creative spark and less physical play---not that Holden was any great shakes in either of those departments. He skates and moves the puck well enough as long as you don't expect him to make plays that lead to goals. Defensively--he gets in the way and his skating is good enough that he can recover fairly well when he loses position. Which is to say he's a f***ing boring as hell player to watch and one who is very easy to dislike and will be even easier to dislike when he's playing on a crap team. It wouldn't shock me if he made the team out of training camp but if he plays with any regularity he's going to be this year's target of Rangers fans.

I don't care about him all that much. His skating is pretty good for his size--yeah. Credit where it's due. My preference for larger D with stay at home job descriptions is I'd rather they were gnarly assholes to play against. In that respect O'Gara does not do a whole hell of a lot for me. He's just another softy taking up space with no real long term future for us....or at least I don't see it. But that said there are other forwards and defense who may be around for a year or two but replaceable when some of the younger guys show they're ready.

 

[kovazub94]

...I don't care about him all that much. His skating is pretty good for his size--yeah. Credit where it's due. My preference for larger D with stay at home job descriptions is I'd rather they were gnarly *******s to play against. In that respect O'Gara does not do a whole hell of a lot for me. He's just another softy taking up space with no real long term future for us....or at least I don't see it. But that said there are other forwards and defense who may be around for a year or two but replaceable when some of the younger guys show they're ready.

Agree.

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

In some respect he's a bit like Nick Holden--with less of a creative spark and less physical play---not that Holden was any great shakes in either of those departments. He skates and moves the puck well enough as long as you don't expect him to make plays that lead to goals. Defensively--he gets in the way and his skating is good enough that he can recover fairly well when he loses position. Which is to say he's a ****ing boring as hell player to watch and one who is very easy to dislike and will be even easier to dislike when he's playing on a crap team. It wouldn't shock me if he made the team out of training camp but if he plays with any regularity he's going to be this year's target of Rangers fans.

I don't care about him all that much. His skating is pretty good for his size--yeah. Credit where it's due. My preference for larger D with stay at home job descriptions is I'd rather they were gnarly *******s to play against. In that respect O'Gara does not do a whole hell of a lot for me. He's just another softy taking up space with no real long term future for us....or at least I don't see it. But that said there are other forwards and defense who may be around for a year or two but replaceable when some of the younger guys show they're ready.

I think Holden is faster and more agile. O'Gara is more like Staal, but Stall is also probably more agile.

 

[eco's bones]

I think Holden is faster and more agile. O'Gara is more like Staal, but Stall is also probably more agile.

Well it's your right to think whatever you like.

I will say this. O'Gara came in the Holden trade along with their 3rd rounder (Joey Keane). He very obviously (at least to me) was someone Gorton was interested in looking at. He wasn't just a player being dumped and that the Rangers kept him up to play and they let him finish the season out should tell you that there was something that Gorton and the Rangers pro scouts (at least some of them) liked about him. So......saying he's not in the picture for next season? is IMO premature because IMO he is in the picture.

Just because he's a player that most everyone on this forum doesn't like doesn't mean the Rangers don't see some value in him--and it's the same deal at the draft--why take this schmuck and not that guy who's on all the draft lists?--yet that's what happens at least some of the time.

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

Well it's your right to think whatever you like.

I will say this. O'Gara came in the Holden trade along with their 3rd rounder (Joey Keane). He very obviously (at least to me) was someone Gorton was interested in looking at. He wasn't just a player being dumped and that the Rangers kept him up to play and they let him finish the season out should tell you that there was something that Gorton and the Rangers pro scouts (at least some of them) liked about him. So......saying he's not in the picture for next season? is IMO premature because IMO he is in the picture.

Just because he's a player that most everyone on this forum doesn't like doesn't mean the Rangers don't see some value in him--and it's the same deal at the draft--why take this schmuck and not that guy who's on all the draft lists?--yet that's what happens at least some of the time.

At the time I was also intrigued by him and his size. But I did not really like his play, so I am hoping that he is not in the picture, unless he drastically improved over the summer. Bruins pretty much saw enough of him and wanted to get rid of him because they had much better defensive prospects. the main piece of Holden trade was the 3rd rounder.

 

[Ori]

I`m excited about the future - it`s a huge improvement for this franchise.

 

[OrlandK]

I don't think its a stylistic thing that we don't have any elite talent. I think we went 4 years in a row without a 1st round draft pick. The Athletic just rated all players in the NHL and we have one in the top 100 - the King @ 88. It's very hard to get an elite player unless you draft in the top 10; that's why we traded for a #7 last year but we settled for Lias when our preferred choices were all taken. Could have had Casey Mittelstad. probably a mistake to pass on him. But got lucky with Chytil who has a chance. And Kravtsov seems to have a chance too. Teams in the top tier generally have at least a couple of elite players and right now we have none. We can hope that our good but not great prospects become elite but that is rare, not the rule.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I don't think its a stylistic thing that we don't have any elite talent. I think we went 4 years in a row without a 1st round draft pick. The Athletic just rated all players in the NHL and we have one in the top 100 - the King @ 88. It's very hard to get an elite player unless you draft in the top 10; that's why we traded for a #7 last year but we settled for Lias when our preferred choices were all taken. Could have had Casey Mittelstad. probably a mistake to pass on him. But got lucky with Chytil who has a chance. And Kravtsov seems to have a chance too. Teams in the top tier generally have at least a couple of elite players and right now we have none. We can hope that our good but not great prospects become elite but that is rare, not the rule.

Great post. This is exactly the issue with this organization. It was the issue with the team under the previous generation when we went to the Cup final, and the issue with the current rebuild. You can't win in the NHL without top end skaters. Having the best goalie in the league and a good crop of skaters doesn't get it done.