: Post Game Talk:
Washington at New York Game 4: TIED Our Shoes
View Single Post
05-09-2013, 11:50 AM
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: North Carolina
Originally Posted by
I've been saying this for a long time now...Hank plays too deep on long shots and leaves himself vulnerable to deflections. He needs to make himself as large as possible in net, and he does not.
Of course, when you score four goals a game...it's not so much of an issue!
I feel like far too many people in Ranger-land have this notion that Hank needs to play out farther because Giannone said it a few years ago, when he was being routinely beaten on his glove side. Hank is an athletic goalie who uses his positioning relative to the shooter to close angles, not his distance from the net. It's the same principle I explained earlier in this thread about why the Rangers collapse:
If Hank plays out farther, he runs the risk of getting hit not just by the opposing players driving to the front, but also his own collapsing defenders. It's a product of the system that best plays to the best Ranger's (Lundqvist's) characteristics. Could he play out a little deeper to try to take away some of the fluky or skilled deflections? Absolutely. But anyone who has ever played net will tell you that deflections, just behind back-hand shots, are the hardest shots to stop. Playing out a little farther may stop as much as 10% more of the deflection goals, but at what price? It opens up the entire ice behind him near the goal-line (where many teams, especially in the East, like to run their offense from), for one-touch passes that he can do absolutely nothing on. How many times does Hank make a save going post-to-post? I counted at least 3 in the last game alone. Those shots all start going in if Hank is playing farther out. Do you stop 1 out of every 10 deflections by playing out farther and risk getting 2 of every 3 post-to-post passes going in, instead?
Originally Posted by
I have to disagree with your disagreement
He may be occupying D but besides the Stepan goal in game 2 (which was, indeed, a fantastic pass by Nash) he hasn't utilized his line-mates enough for me to say he's making space for them.
I'll agree he does it moreso than Gaborik, but with 1 point in 4 games I can't say he hasn't been a huge disappointment. However, I have nothing to rag on since the rest of the team is stepping up finally so Nash can do his thing without the Rangers losing because of it.
Making space for your line-mates isn't the same concept as utilizing your line-mates. Making space is exactly what makes Nash dangerous, even when he isn't scoring at all. He consistently has the two best defenders on the Caps draped all over him at all times. The result? Boyle, Asham, Brassard, Stepan, Clowe, and the other role-players are producing. Do you think this is some magical formula by a more talented bottom-6 than years past? No, it's the difference having a deep team with a true offensive threat makes. Nash opens up space on the ice, not just for his own line-mates (whom, yes, are failing to capitalize thus far on that space), but for everyone else on the roster; something Gaborik never was able to do, and no offense player the Rangers have had since Jagr has done. There is a reason that the deepest teams go the farthest in the post-season. There is also a reason that also-rans become legendary in post-season runs on star-laden teams (Bryce Salvador?, Joel Ward?, Jason Chimera?). It's not because they "find another gear," as the pundits love to say. It's because their stars are taking away the match-ups, and the bottom-sixers, who still have some talent, are seeing guys like Jack Hillen and Steve Oleksy instead of Karl Alzner and John Carlson.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Dfence033