View Single Post
02-12-2013, 09:57 AM
NYR Viper
Registered User
NYR Viper's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 33,444
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
The reason I like this Boyle debate is because it comes down to a philosophical breakdown of where this team is headed.

If/when Boyle gets back into the lineup, will Torts prefer to give him the same type of shutdown assignment? If so, it doesnt really matter what line hes on because hes going to get big even strength minutes against the oppositions top line.

Or is this team in a place where that shutdown role can go out the window because Torts feels he has a team that can consistently bring it to the opposition? If Miller wasnt a teenager and had more experience, this would be a lot stronger of an argument.

My personal take? You never know how a specific game is going to play out. Why leave your only legitimate shutdown option in the press box? Im not here to say Boyle is some sort of great defensive player on his way to a Selke, but the truth of the matter is theres noone else on the roster capable of fulfilling his specific role.
This I agree with totally. I would actually feel pretty comfortable with a shut-down line of:


But the issue becomes, if this line is getting 10 minutes a game (not a stretch of the imagination), that decreases the ice time of the 3rd line which Callahan is on.

That is the issue with splitting up Gaborik, Richards, Nash and Callahan onto (3) lines while also wanting to have a "shut-down" line.

Interesting debate for sure.


Also, something of note, when Boyle gets back in the line-up, if that is indeed the 4th line, the Rangers really only need a couple of other forwards to PK during the game. That means more rest for Nash, Stepan, Hagelin and Callahan when you have PK horses lie Halpern, Boyle and Powe on the bench. It also keeps everyone in the game and allows the coach to more evenly distribute ice time.

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote