HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Will the Rangers hit 3 goals per game under AV? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1479253)

SouthJerseyRanger 08-02-2013 08:59 AM

Will the Rangers hit 3 goals per game under AV?
 
The Vancouver Canucks were able to in 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12... but didn't in the weird lockout season.

Can AV being the same offensive success to the Rangers?

broadwayblue 08-02-2013 09:10 AM

No, at least not this year I don't believe we will be a top 6 offense in the NHL. I'll be happy improving from 2.63/2.71 of the last two seasons to 2.80 or so.

HatTrick Swayze 08-02-2013 09:23 AM

Absolutely not. I would be shocked.

When the Rangers have two players like the Sedins, IMO the two most under-appreciate stars of the last 5+ years, who can single-handedly create offense for 20 minutes a night...sure.

Although apparently the only reason why they couldn't hit that number last year was Torts. All aboard the NYR summer hype train!

Hollywood Hulk Hogan 08-02-2013 10:22 AM

Please, don't make me spit out my morning coffee while dying from laughter

RangerBoy 08-02-2013 10:34 AM

Why not? More offensive starts in the offensive zone for the offensive guys. The Rangers have better depth at center. More offense out of the bottom six. A small improvement in the PP. Any improvement in the PP. A different defensive system. Less shot blocking. The forwards won't collapse down low leaving the points unguarded. The forwards might actually get the puck in open space. Better puck possession. Torts wants to the bring the Ranger style of shot blocking to VAN. More puck possession. Samuelsson should really help the Rangers D. He helped Yandle learn how to defend and then get up into the play. Marc Staal told Jim Cerny how much he liked working with Samuelsson in the spring of 2006 at Hartford. Get more O from the D. Kreider is the X factor. Skating ability. Size. Danny Kristo is a right handed shot which helps the Rangers PP. AV said even having one righty shot changes the PP. In VAN,they played all lefties without Kesler who was always hurt. The Rangers have Stepan and Callahan. The latter will miss the first 2 weeks with the shoulder.

Matt4776 08-02-2013 10:37 AM

I will wear my NYJ Brett Favre jersey everyday from June 2014-October if the Rangers score more than 3 GPG next year.

Blue Blooded 08-02-2013 10:50 AM

To hit 3 G/G we need a working PP, and I don't think we have enough PP skilled right handed players to pull off anything above mediocre in that regard.

The top 5v5 scoring teams Chicago and Tampa scored 2.25 5v5G/G. The Rangers had awful shooting luck but still managed a 13th place with 1.90. That should increase just by regression, and the personnel changes in the offseason should improve it even further. I could see them improve to something like 2.0-2.05 which likely puts us somewhere 5th-8th.

Now to the PP, or rather the 5v4 PP. Washington led the league with 0.833 5v4G/G, we had less than half of that (0.416) which put us 23rd. I won't count on a very big improvement, but let's say we improve to 0.45.

That would give us ~2.5G/G 5v5+5v4, leading Pittsburgh had 2.94 last year.

Add ~0.33 G/G from the other situations (5v3, 4v4, 4v5, EN, PS, etc.) and we get 2.83 which should put us somewhere around 6th-10th in GF.

With Hank and our D, that puts us into contention for highest goal differential in the league and likely for the President's Trophy as well.

Trxjw 08-02-2013 10:52 AM

I'd be surprised if they did, but if a lot of kids take major steps forward, it wouldn't be impossible.

Bleed Ranger Blue 08-02-2013 11:34 AM

3 goals per game is a lot. I think loosening the reigns will create a small boost to the offense, hopefully without sacrificing anything on the defensive side of the puck. But, overall, I dont think we have good enough players to average 3 per game the entire season.

The Sedins aren't walking through that door.

Thirty One 08-02-2013 11:47 AM

I think it's funny, when Vigneault was hired in 2006 by the Canucks, he was the guy that was going to tighten them up. When Torts was hired here, well.... http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...d.php?t=667953

Now their both totally re-branded for their new teams.

It's fun to imagine that the team will be drastically different under Vigneault, but I think it's being oversold.

http://rangersunlimited.com/wp-conte...7/avchange.gif

Bleed Ranger Blue 08-02-2013 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -31- (Post 69865769)
I think it's funny, when Vigneault was hired in 2006 by the Canucks, he was the guy that was going to tighten them up. When Torts was hired here, well.... http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...d.php?t=667953

Now their both totally re-branded for their new teams.

It's fun to imagine that the team will be drastically different under Vigneault, but I think it's being oversold.

http://rangersunlimited.com/wp-conte...7/avchange.gif

I think its the underlying reason that people whine for a coaching change -- so they can get a new guy that they can project their hopes and dreams onto.

Unfortunately, the realism of rosters catch up with new coaches and this sort of attitude. I find it incredible that people could watch this happen with the Rangers over and over again, and still moan about how the coach (whoever it may be) is the problem and not the guy that hired that coach and built an inadequate roster.

M Gaz 08-02-2013 12:03 PM

Nash and Stepan =/= the Sedins. All I want is for AV to get our PP out of the basement and get us to start scoring in the playoffs.

Loffen 08-02-2013 12:09 PM

3 GPG average? lolwat. These guys? Nein. We've seen way too many golden chances on open nets wasted over the years.






I hope I'm wrong though.

eco's bones 08-02-2013 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue (Post 69866003)
I think its the underlying reason that people whine for a coaching change -- so they can get a new guy that they can project their hopes and dreams onto.

Unfortunately, the realism of rosters catch up with new coaches and this sort of attitude. I find it incredible that people could watch this happen with the Rangers over and over again, and still moan about how the coach (whoever it may be) is the problem and not the guy that hired that coach and built an inadequate roster.

Agree--though with the caveat that 'maybe' Torts days here had come. Really though bringing in Nash meant losing a lot of guys that were important to the success of the 2011-12 team and Slats did a really ****** job of replacing them. Sather during his time here has made a number of good moves/trades--he's also had a lot of stinkers--some of which he was able to pawn off on other teams. His first few seasons as GM of the Rangers were atrocious.

The main thing is if you want to score a lot of goals--1) you need the right personnel and 2) usually there's a defensive trade off--as you tend to give up more goals. Really to me this constant mantra 'we don't score enough' is overrated. To me scoring enough comes down to scoring one more goal than the opposition in any given game.

KreiMeARiver* 08-02-2013 12:16 PM

If Stepan and Brassard take that next step as playmakers, Kreider lives up to potential, Richards returns to form, and Kristo surprises, then yes....it's possible. haha

Highly unlikely, though.

Inferno 08-02-2013 12:59 PM

i dont think its easy to say 1 way or another. i could easily see both cases being possible.

the rangers couldnt really score a lot because their PP sucked
fix the PP, get a little more offensive production from Brad Richards and Kreider, and yeah, i could see us getting the 3 mark.

Bleed Ranger Blue 08-02-2013 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eco's bones (Post 69866621)
Agree--though with the caveat that 'maybe' Torts days here had come. Really though bringing in Nash meant losing a lot of guys that were important to the success of the 2011-12 team and Slats did a really ****** job of replacing them. Sather during his time here has made a number of good moves/trades--he's also had a lot of stinkers--some of which he was able to pawn off on other teams. His first few seasons as GM of the Rangers were atrocious.

The main thing is if you want to score a lot of goals--1) you need the right personnel and 2) usually there's a defensive trade off--as you tend to give up more goals. Really to me this constant mantra 'we don't score enough' is overrated. To me scoring enough comes down to scoring one more goal than the opposition in any given game.

Again, I have a pretty tough time fully endorsing the bolded statement given the roster turnover and the short season -- ESPECIALLY being it came off the Rangers most successful season in a generation.

eco's bones 08-02-2013 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue (Post 69868097)
Again, I have a pretty tough time fully endorsing the bolded statement given the roster turnover and the short season -- ESPECIALLY being it came off the Rangers most successful season in a generation.

I know a lot of posters here were after Torts' head. I don't think I was really one of them--though I thought that at least some criticisms against him had a kernel of truth. I don't however necessarily think that any of his potential replacements are going to do better or aren't going to be subject to the same kind of critiques shoved Torts' way a couple years down the road from now. Anyway there were things about Tortorella--not just on ice that rubbed a bit the wrong way at times.

Any team is going to have strengths and weaknesses. The Rangers strength quite naturally (just because of Lundqvist) is from the goal on out and the further out from the goal the weaker the team is. By contrast the Flyers are strong up front year to year but goal and defense is always a bit shaky and in the long run--a good D with some offense tends to be better than a good O with some defense. Getting both good offense and good defense at the same time in a cap world is a real trick. You need good drafting-- astute free agent signings and trades knowing all along that the window for keeping what you got together is going to be very small. And if we're going to be critiquing Sather--he makes too many mistakes even if he has a talent for dumping them on someone else. Each mistake at the least is a time delay that sets the team back for a while until it's rectified.

Punxrocknyc19* 08-02-2013 02:16 PM

imagine if the power play continues to struggle....

OverTheCap 08-02-2013 02:28 PM

The last time the Rangers averaged 3 goals a game was in 2005-06, which was a high scoring season due to teams adjusting to the new post-lockout rules. 16 teams averaged 3 or more goals a game that year.

Since then, there are usually around 3-5 teams that are capable of scoring 3 goals a game on a regular basis. Looking at this team's roster, I highly doubt the Rangers will be one of those teams.

Raspewtin 08-02-2013 04:32 PM

Possible, but not probable. Like someone else mentioned, if their PP is at LEAST effective, and they score in the playoffs, I don't even care. But I don't think high 2 low 3 is impossible. Just the roster has a lot of question marks (Kreider? Zucc? Brass and Step repeat? Richie?) If Kreider and Zucc breakout and Richie does 60-65 points, it's absolutely possible.

Aufheben 08-02-2013 04:42 PM

Why stop at 3? I think we'll see a slight increase, but it's hard to imagine the New York Rangers averaging 3 goals a game. Could you imagine how happy that would make Hank?

Ola 08-02-2013 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broadwayblue (Post 69862003)
No, at least not this year I don't believe we will be a top 6 offense in the NHL. I'll be happy improving from 2.63/2.71 of the last two seasons to 2.80 or so.

There is a bit of a "multiple" though when it comes to scoring goals, that is attributable to the opposition.

There are high scoring teams and low scoring teams in this league. All teams have good nights and off nights.

But, if you are a strong defensive team that struggles offensively; the high scoring teams will make sure not to give anything away; the low scoring team will make sure not to give away even an inch because the first goal in that game often wins it all; teams will have a tendency to show up against you because they know a point is easily won if you play it thight; and so forth and so forth.

If you get a rep as a run and gun team, you also will play diffrent opponents. Games open up. And a game that is 4-3 after 30 minutes, often ends 6-5 because teams aren't afraid that one misstake might cost them the game because they know they can score goals etc.

In the end, AV is not a offensive coach. It's an oxymoron to call a coach offensive minded. You can't attack without the puck and if you can't defend you cant attack.

AV will not handcuff his players to the same extreme extent as Torts, but it will take time to substitute those plays Torts drilled in with something more creative. It also takes personel changes.

So I have no reason to expect big changes. But if we loosen up a little bit, it could show more in terms of GF and GA because of the dynamics of a hockey game.

Riche16 08-02-2013 08:30 PM

No

Not without a PP

Oak 08-02-2013 09:00 PM

I highly doubt it but I expect a slight 5v5 improvement. All I am really hoping for is an improvement on our PP. If AV can succeed in that I will be very happy.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:05 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.