Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e
Don't know how anyone can feel comfortable trashing the player when the team, as per the norm, has done ZERO to put him in a position to succeed.
Gaborik has NEVER been a consistent creator. He's a sniper. He'll produce under one of two conditions: either someone sets him up, or he has ample time and space. There's no one to set him up, and opposing teams figured out even LAST season, by February, that if you give him no time and space, if you stick to him like glue, then he's basically a non-factor since the Rangers can't do ANYTHING to help him.
The only circumstance under which Gaborik should be carrying the puck in over the blueline is on an odd-man rush or a breakaway. On this team, he has to carry the puck all the time, which is basically a guarantee that he won't be scoring. He gets driven into the halfboards or forced around the net, usually resulting in either a turnover or the Rangers typical puckshuffle along the boards that goes nowhere.
Gaborik has to be anonymous. He has to disappear and magically reappear in the slot or in the circle just as someone lands the puck right on the blade of his stick. Who's going to do that on this team? Nobody.
But as usual, fans expect players to do things that they've never been capable of doing before just because they're wearing a Ranger uniform.
You want Gaborik to score? Try getting someone to pass him the puck at the right time/place, or play a Lemaire neutral zone choke that will send Gaborik into the other team's zone all by himself 3 or 4 times a game. With neither of those things happening, I don't see how anyone can be upset at Gaborik or accuse him of playing poorly this season.
|
Bravo.
Get someone who can consistently put the puck on Gabby's stick when he uses his speed to blare past people WITHOUT the puck on his stick and let's see which two players on this team lead us in points. Gabby's bad at stickhandling past guys with his speed when he's carrying the puck, but without the puck he can do it consistently.
This is why we need Richards.