View Single Post
Old
04-14-2013, 11:34 PM
  #290
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenith View Post
All that indicates is that he isn't generating quality chances like he was in 11-12. That Gaborik would engage along the wall, hustle to a loose puck, and disrupt the forecheck with his speed. This year, Gaborik did none of that. He glided around the ice, never moved his feet, and was completely useless on the forecheck. He never utilized his speed. His body language and his play indicated to me that he was holding himself back.
There is no question that he was struggling, but I got the same vibe from him like I did during the late December to mid January of last season. Players go through rough 30-40 game stretches.

Here is a very good post by SA16:

Quote:
View Post
Gaborik has 19 points in 33 games this year.
Nash had 20 points in 33 games last year from Nov 21 to Feb 3. (and now 28 in 29 this year)
Ovechkin had 22 in 31 last year from Oct 8 to Dec 17 (and now 32 in 33 this year)
Kovalchuk had 18 in 34 points two years ago from Oct 8 to Dec 26 (83 in 77 the year after)
Pat Kane had 19 in 33 games last year from Dec 26 to Mar 6 (42 in 33 this year)
Getzlaf had 19 in 32 games last year from Dec 10 to Feb 21 (38 in 34 this year)
Eric Staal had 20 in 36 last year from Oct 7 to Dec 27 (36 in 32 this year)
Perry had 20 in 30 from Dec 2 to Feb 10 last year (28 in 30 this year)
Elias had 24 in 36 games from Oct 8 to Dec 31 two years ago (78 in 81 the year after)
Hossa had 18 in 31 games from Oct 20 to Feb 9 (injuries in the middle) two years ago (77 in 81 the year after)

Small samples. You can always find subsets of data in a large dataset to show something like that. Just so happens Gaboriks poor start is at the beginning of a year and in a short year so the numbers aren't masked by previously good numbers. These are pretty much all guys who have been consistent 70+ point guys (almost with the exception of Nash even)
Gaborik, like all NHL players, even the consistent PPG guys (like him) can go through rough stretches. But we are making conclusions after a rough 35 game stretch as opposed to the whole body of work Gaborik had the season before.

Quote:
Also, his shot has clearly gotten worse. Even on his good chances, he never seemed to get much on the puck.
Sorry, I don't buy this. I don't see how his shot has diminished in one offseason. It's bad shooting percentage and he's been wiring pucks playing the point in Columbus (but his goals have been redirections in close). He wired the puck against the Isles in OT.

Quote:
I think in general

That's why his shooting percentage is so low.
It's low for a variety of reasons, but I certainly don't see him throwing muffins on net like say Prust would. Frankly, I would've been more concerned with Gaborik's play this year if he stopped shooting the puck, but that wasn't happening. He was getting the same number of scoring chances, even if he didn't create it on his own.

Quote:
It wasn't a knee jerk move at all, the lack of quality play from Gaborik was there for 2 months, and he isn't signed long term. That trade isn't "tossing him away like a piece of meat". Trading Simon Gagne for Matt Walker and a 4th is what I would apply that to. For Gaborik, the Rangers got 3 good, young pieces - center depth in Brassard, a great checker in Dorsett, and a budding defenseman in Moore. You can spin your agenda against Brassard, but he consistently produces 40+ points, and adds creativity to the forward group. He's not going to play a ton, and he isn't going to play against tough competition. Thus far, he has definitely added depth to our offense, and has been effective in the lesser role he's been put in. That's all that was needed from him, and it has helped the team's play in a lot of ways.
And the Rangers lineup is still largely flawed. They addressed minimal pieces - a checker, a 1-dimensional center and a bottom pair defenseman. Roster wise, this team is a lot less deep than it was last season heading into the playoffs, hence my rantings. Brassard isn't as good as Dubinsky, Anisimov, I doubt Dorsett could be as good as Prust, Pyatt is much worse than Fedotenko, Powe is worse than Mitchell and Moore is on par with Erixon. Nash is much better than Gaborik for us with his ability to maintain puck possession on a team that is starved for possession time, however is the upgrade from Gaborik to Nash worth all the downgrades elsewhere in the lineup, I say not even close. This team is no closer at a title than they were in 2010-11.

Quote:
Also...4 seasons? Gaborik was the best forward on the team in 09-10, and 11-12. Definitely not in 10-11, where, despite his okay numbers, he was piling up goals against weak teams and wasn't consistently productive like he was in the other two years. Callahan and Dubinsky were far better than Gaborik that season. This year? I'm not going to dignify that asinine implication with a response.
Meant in total time during his tenure. On average, he was the team's best forward.

Kershaw is offline