HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Today's Brooks article is interesting.... (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=37880)

Fletch 12-22-2003 05:00 AM

Today's Brooks article is interesting....
 
and I gotta say I disagree with Mr. Brooks. First, he wants Big E on Holik's right so they can cycle and dominate, yeah, yeah, yeah. With Nedved sucking, that really weakens this team down the middle.

Second, while I agree that while Barnaby does not deserve to have less ice time than Hlavac (and he mentioned Simon and Carter (and I think, aside from a game or two, Carter's been a gamer over the last 7 or 8)), I'm not sure that Simon and Barnaby are the horses I ride (which he suggests). Meaning, they're good for 12-13 minutes, but 18?

Third, he suggests moving Barnaby and Simon back with Messier. I don't mind that too much, but who centers the fourth line? Nedved? I'd bench Nedved before I give him 10-12 minutes with Ortmeyer (and I'd bench Hlavac before that too); and I'm not against either benching.

And basically Brooks states that Kovalev and Carter really don't fit in. While Kovalev hasn't scored a ton of goals and ain't the player he was in PITT, he still has set up a ton, many of which have been converted, most of which were blown, and leads this team in scoring - and has still somehow been mediocre.

I'll go back to this once more: Kovalev on Lindros' right should happen, and put Rucinsky on the left. Barnaby and Simon with Mess in the middle. Holik centering Carter and Lacouture - a checking unit that goes against top lines. Lacouture's not the ideal guy there, but that's the way this team was structured. Hlavac waived - Nedved sat - and a fourth line of Scott-Rheaume-Ortmeyer (a true fourth line). When Lundmark returns, he's to Holik's or Lindros' left, with Rucinsky playing with Holik again or DLac dropping down to the fourth line. What to do with Nedved - if it doesn't work, he can replace Mess and Mess goes to the fourth line.

Enough of a shake-up? I think so. I think with the personnel this team has, that may be ideal. A real top line. A real checking unit. A real fourth line. The second line's OK. Unfortunately the ckecking unit needs to make up for goals not scored by the second unit, but both Holik and Carter are capable.

OK, now that gets this team to compete better on the forecheck, etc. What about defense? Should Nedved be moved? Should Nedved and Poti be sent to fetch a decent defensive defenseman, and, say, a pick or b-level prospect? That's a tough one given this team's center situation - Mess and Messier, err, Lindros. But how long do you keep an ineffective second line center who may be moveable? He's not effective as a fourth liner. He shouldn't sit on the bench. What should be done?

True Blue 12-22-2003 05:09 AM

I'd actually like to see something akin to what you suggested earlier on, Fletch. I think it is time to have a top line that has both Lindros and Kovalev on it. The other wing should be either Simon or Matty. Hlavac should be sat or waived. He's like a hole on the ice. Nedved does deserve some bench time, but I think that he CAN turn it around.
Simon/Matty-Lindros-Kovalev
-Nedved-
Simon/Matty-Holik-Carter
Scott-Messier-Ortmeyer

One of Nedved's wings should be Lundmark. But he is not coming back until February. I admint, I have no idea of what to do for a second line.

Melrose_Jr. 12-22-2003 05:21 AM

http://nypost.com/sports/rangers/4667.htm

I also had a number of problems with this article.

Quote:

anyone who believes that the Rangers aren't seriously contemplating a move for Curtis Joseph - who had three outstanding games for Detroit last week - is delusional.
Ooooooo, 3 "outstanding" games!?!?!? :eek: That's still about 10 fewer than Dunham's had this season. And is Holland really in any hurry to even consider trading Cujo with Hasek and Legace on the shelf? A move for Cujo wouldn't surprise me in the least, but unlike Brooks, I don't believe Ranger goaltending is a problem and if it is, it's not one that can be saved by a goaltender with worse numbers than either of our current guys. If you read between the lines, Brooks is merely making a pitch for a Ranger move, not reporting anything of substance. I guess I'm delusional. :rolly:

I totally disagree with ALL of his suggestions for the forward lines and frankly, I'm getting pretty sick of talking, nay, thinking about it. We've seen just about everyone play with everyone and nothing works with any consistency. Shift players around all you want, combinations are OBVIOUSLY not the problem here.

Fletch 12-22-2003 05:51 AM

Mj...
 
it wasn't just combos. I was removing Nedved and Hlavac from the lineup. They're in a second line role and not performing it. Putting them on a fourth line make little sense. What I had done is created a real fourth line. While Rheaume isn't going to light the world on fire, he can play an effective fourth line center role, and that is be defensively responsible, bang the body, win faceoffs, and crash the net - as can Scott and Ortmeyer. I was trying to create roles within each of the 16 forwards, and make sense of those roles, and play guys in familiar positions.

Agreed on goaltending...so Dunham's not giving up two or less goals in every game. Even a goalie goes through a few games of medioricy. Let him find his game again. He hasn't been bad, just not playing the way he needs to for an inept team to win games.

NYIsles1* 12-22-2003 06:08 AM

Seems like Brooks just likes to keep folks talking. Kind of like all the trade rumors he calls exclusives that never happen and get ripped from the people he makes them about.

Two weeks ago he wrote a passionate article saying Messier should play the fourth line, now he wants him back with Simon and Barnaby?

Now he wants Lindros back on right wing when he wrote he never belonged there to begin with?

This is as sad as his three days to save the season quote before the Isles game. Rangers beat the Isles and lost to Ottawa, what really changed?

All hype, no substance.

JR#9* 12-22-2003 06:13 AM

To me the lineup has to start and end with making sure that Lindros and Holik are the top 2 centers and the guys we have to ride if we are to get things going.

Lindros has been the best forward we've had when he's played despite the getting jerked all over the lineup.Holik has cooled a bit but was playing great hockey and the kind we need from him.

As far as the lines I agree and have been saying for a while that Kovalev should be w/Lindros.I'd put either Matty or Simon on the other side and let them go to work.

Simon-Lindros-Kovalev
Rucinsky-Holik-Carter
Hlavac-Nedved-???(Lundy when he comes back)
Rheame-Mess-Ortmeyer

The bottom line is Lindros and Holik have to get major minutes and we have to ride these 2 to a playoff spot and Nedved until he picks up his game has to get his minutes reduced.Mess too for that matter.

Kodiak 12-22-2003 06:14 AM

I don't think we need anything as drastic as Brooks is proposing. What I would like to see is a flipping of Lindros and Holik. Rucinsky and Kovalev did play well with Lindros, and I think it's ridiculous that our best offensive center is playing with checking wingers while our best checking center is playing with our best offensive wingers. With the way that Simon and Barnaby have played this year, why wouldn't we want a line of Simon-Holik-Barnaby out there making life miserable for the opposing top line? Oh right, it involves matching lines and using Holik in the role he thrived in. What a stupid idea.

True Blue 12-22-2003 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kodiak
Oh right, it involves matching lines and using Holik in the role he thrived in. What a stupid idea.

I have said for a while now that Sather cannot seem to understand 2 things that are a staple in today's NHL. 1) Line-matching and 2) changing on the fly.
I just cannot fathom how, night after night, he cannot seem to understand the importance of matching Holik against the other teams top line and players. Talk about ignoring the simplest thing that COULD put his team in a better postion to win games. Unreal.

Melrose_Jr. 12-22-2003 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch
it wasn't just combos. I was removing Nedved and Hlavac from the lineup.

It would be one thing if Nedved and Hlavac's play was bad in comparison to the rest of the team, but that's not the case. Everyone at every position is failing to do their job consistently. If you have a roof with 18 leaks in it, what good does it do to fix 1 or 2 of them?

Fletch 12-22-2003 06:27 AM

Understandable MJ...
 
but again, what I'm trying to say is that Nedved and Hlavac are not getting it done as second liners. They can't be checkers and they aren't fourth liners. Messier leads the team in goals and Barnaby and Simon are playing well, and have been for most of the season. Why not make them a 'second' line, getting less time than Holik and Lindros, but nonetheless, classified as a second scoring line. And the fourth line is akin to what most fourth lines in the league are - a real energy line for a change. A fighter, who can bang and skate. A defensive forward who can win faceoffs and who too will bang. And a young, defensive-minded forward not afraid to get his nose dirty and will take the shot if afforded to him.

I'm just trying to get things to make a bit more sense. The reason why I excluded Hlavac and Nedved are twofold. Aside from being consistently bad all season, right now, I'd rather have Lindros-Holik-Messier as centers before Nedved. So that leaves the fourth line on which I don't think Nedved's suited. Hlavac just doesn't fit in. Had about two decent games all season. He's more of a liability than anything.

Melrose_Jr. 12-22-2003 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch
what I'm trying to say is that Nedved and Hlavac are not getting it done as second liners.

Agreed. I don't think that's as much a reflection of them as players as it is an environment where everyone is having a problem "getting it done". Simply rearranging players, or substituting 1 player for another doesn't address the problem in my mind.

Don't misunderstand, there are a lot of players in the lineup who simply shouldn't be there, but their presence is not the difference between winning and losing now.

True Blue 12-22-2003 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
If you have a roof with 18 leaks in it, what good does it do to fix 1 or 2 of them?

You get wet in 16 spots instead of 18. :rolly:
Seriously, if removing Hlavac from the lineup is going to make us even marginally better, isn't that better than nothing at all? This is becoming Ulanov and Kamensky part deux. Why continue to ride a player who is not even close to responding?

Fletch 12-22-2003 07:58 AM

While there are many flaws...
 
removing two people does rationalize things somewhat. Honestly, I'd rather have both Barnaby and Simon on a second line that Hlavac. Their scoring is better and they bring other things to the table. And if Hlavac's not on a second line, he shouldn't be in the lineup - playing 10 minutes a game and no PP does nothing for him.

While the lineup I suggested seems like it changes little, it actually changes a good deal. Instead of clogging Nedved and Hlavac on the PP, there may be room to sit Holik in front during each PP, or Simon in front, among other things. Of course, Sather would now have to match, and that's an impediment. Further, the top line will have to score, and that's an impediment, but I just like the idea of having guys play the minutes/roles that make sense. Before we had too many second liners, playing wherever. In my suggestion, there seems to be four lines.

Melrose_Jr. 12-22-2003 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
This is becoming Ulanov and Kamensky part deux.

It's really not. Hlavac's inability to contribute anything is a far cry from Igor or Val who literally cost us games on a nigthly basis.

I'm going to have to bow out of this thread because, although I see what everyone's trying to accomplish with their personnel suggestions and agree with everyone's thoughts on individual players, I no longer believe that lineup changes will have any impact on the performance of the team as a whole.

Laches 12-22-2003 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
It's really not. Hlavac's inability to contribute anything is a far cry from Igor or Val who literally cost us games on a nigthly basis.

I'm going to have to bow out of this thread because, although I see what everyone's trying to accomplish with their personnel suggestions and agree with everyone's thoughts on individual players, I no longer believe that lineup changes will have any impact on the performance of the team as a whole.

---Yep, as I've said before, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Bluenote13 12-22-2003 11:58 AM

Line combo talk was all the rage back during our 'rivals' days, but come on! It's been how many years, with countless players going in and out of this lineup??? It's obviously more than just getting the chemistry of the mish mash together. So what is it?

Gretzky-Muckler-Low-Messier-Sather

It's time to finally say goodbye to the 1980's Oilers.

Son of Steinbrenner 12-22-2003 12:58 PM

Larry Brooks is at best a moron and at worst a liar. i swear to god its a shame anybody would take what he says seriously.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:02 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.