It's just that its now become a trend. Even though it's only been a few games, you could probably count the amount of games the Rangers outshot the other team on one hand.
This cannot continue.
Here's how I view the team.
Take last year's team (limit the GA and you'll be competitive in most games) and add a better PP and the team is right there. Richards was supposed to add to the PP production. Is he enough?
The hope is that Boyle, Dubi, Anisimov, can up their offensive game a bit otherwise the team takes a step back.
On defense, the team misses Staal. There is little proven offensive talent on the back line. We can talk about potential but it currently isn't showing through.
The team needs to focus and hit the net a bit more but my guess is what you see is what you got. I believe The Rangers are a reasonable middle of the pack playoff team based solely on their defensive style. The PP will dictate how far they can go.
Maybe the fans who scream "shoot" are on to something?
Sarcasm aside I think the Rangers really do need to shoot the puck more sometimes. I know shots are about quality as well as quantity and you can't just fire every time the fat lug in 409 tells you to. But I have seen plenty of examples this year of the Rangers foregoing a quality shot for a not so quality pass. It seems like they're looking for perfect play, which is an issue we've had for awhile now.
This is one issue I had with the Richards singing. He's a very good player who has helped and will help our offense. But he does bring the same sort of mentality of setting up the perfect play. What the Rangers are missing is more of a shoot first and ask questions later mentality. Richards is a good pick up, but he's not gonna fill that void.
I don't believe that. Someone is messing up somewhere. Del Zotto alone would make us about 10th in missed shots.
I'll tell you why were 27th. How many times could we possibly miss the net considering how few shots we attempt? By percentage, I would say we're way up there. By total, how many shots could you possibly miss when you struggle to muster 15 in a game?
For example if I attempt 4 shots and miss 3, and you attempt 30 shots and miss 10, you missed alot more than I did, but in reality you were for more accurate.
Im not talking about the (bad) Del Zotto joke. Im trying to find a point when you originally said this:
Not sure if thats an excuse, an observation that seems to be wrong, or what.
It's extreme hyperbole. I'm not worried about shots on goal this early into the season.
__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB "Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
Sestito still on the make a wish tour. - rholt168
Really it's more chances. Everyone out there can't be a sniper. Every shot on goal isn't going to go in. What help is there if we shoot 10x a game into the goalie's chest? We need more chances, more quality chances.
They need to improve the Power Play. If they score ONE extra Power Play goal per game, on average, their GF/G will be significantly better, and they'd legitimately be a threat in the Conference.
It comes down to special teams. That's the difference maker in this era.
For the most part, their attention to detail has been very good.
-Gabby(77) and Cally(60) account for 40% of the rangers forwards shots
-Gabby(77), Cally(60), Richards(38) and Steps(36) account for 61%
-Boyle(25), Dubinksy(24) and Anisimov(23), Prust(20) account for 27%
Pretty big drop off between the top 4 shots on net producers and the next four. Additionally, Boyle, Dubi and Ani all are floating around a 4% scoring percentage. Those guys need to shot more and score more for long term success. Obviously Boyle and Prust aren't counted on and expected to score at high rates but Dubi and Ani need to pick it up.
The one encouraging thing are the goals and shots from our defense.
i guess it was a little inside joke that people didn't get.
Quote:
The Battlefield 3 presentation at EA's E3 2011 press conference kicked off with a soldier admiring his toy dinosaur keepsake. Most of you, myself included, probably didn't read much more into this moment than "Oh hey, look! A dinosaur!"
There's more to it than that, though. A while back, a thread on 4chan was started by someone claiming to work for Activision. Their post asked for feedback on Modern Warfare, and the replies proceeded to talk all about the startling lack of dinosaurs in those games. So the guys at DICE decided to put a Dinosaur into the game.
Everyone tries to pick corners too much. Very rarely do any of the forwards on our team just flip a low shot on net and try to get rebounds, everyone always tries to go top corner and they usually miss.
I said this in some other thread. Obviously we're not hitting the net, but there is another reason. We're passing better, and taking better shots. That's why we're still scoring, and have really high Shooting%
Our Rangers lack Offensive Skill??
Wow, you could have fooled a lot of fans/hf posters around here with that statement. Perhaps the answer is we are "the gang that can't shoot straight." Maybe we should be shooting at a soccer net instead of a hockey net.
I feel like unless we have 12 1st line players playing on lines 1-4 some people will never be happy with our offense.
Why should we be happy with a blatantly mediocre offense? A lot of fans on this forum penciled Richards in for 90 points when he signed and Gaborik for 40+ goals. I made the following post back in July; Who is Richards going to pass to in order to reach 90 points? He's not playing with Neal, Benn or Erikson anymore.
Let's face facts, we need another legit finisher on this team in addition to Gaborik. In so far as the paltry # of shots taken, shot more and aim better!
Why should we be happy with a blatantly mediocre offense? A lot of fans on this forum penciled Richards in for 90 points when he signed and Gaborik for 40+ goals. I made the following post back in July; Who is Richards going to pass to in order to reach 90 points? He's not playing with Neal, Benn or Erikson anymore.
Let's face facts, we need another legit finisher on this team in addition to Gaborik. In so far as the paltry # of shots taken, shot more and aim better!
I don't agree.
There are many excuses in this thread (we don't hit the net etc), but facts are -- and they are obvious from everyone who watches this team play -- that we are completely shut down for big parts of many games, and when we gain momentum -- its not like we are elite either.
Anyone will agree with this description:
-A fundemental source for offense on this team is the ability to create turnovers from a high forechecking game!
Right? Of course, that's what Torts himself is saying. Another way, and a eqaully good description of the same statement, is the following:
-We live on misstakes made by the other team.
Its the exact same thing (a D should never cough up the puck in their own end. Its a "misstake" when they do!)! And when you descripe the above fact from that perspective, it also explains why we are so -- downright -- streaky. Why it seems like we constantly play like 15 minutes of hockey and get 1 or 2 shots on goal -- because most teams don't make misstakes the first 15 minutes of a hockey game. And so forth.
We play one style. Most other(/all?) successful teams play another style. People want to debate which style is the best? Sure go ahead. I can say one thing for sure though, for sure, and that is that we must become better in other prime areas of the game than over forechecking game. Because, and sometime it seems like this is easy to forget, you forecheck when the other team has the puck down deep in their end. The game is played in many other areas of the ice, and you attack with the puck from your own end to start with. And in those areas we are just not good at all to be perfectly honest. Its like you even ccoul question if there is a framework in place.
And if you look at team like Boston, its the opposite. They forecheck just as we do. They play defense just as we do. But when they get the puck in their own end, they do something we don't, they play a structured team game, get the puck up ice without loosing controll of it, and they get it to the net of the rush. And it has nothing to do with individual talent and what not. Its coaching. Set plays, shift after shift after shift. Chicago is a bit diffrent, but in that area its the same thing too. You have two coaches in those two towns who have spent an awful lot of time for several years getting their D's to be able to execute passing plays up ice. Completely opposite to our long passes up the boards that are tipped into the attacking zone.
If we get the puck in a odd man situation, sure we try to attack of the rush. But if the other team is somewhat organized, our objective is not to take the puck to the net if we got it in our own end. Our only objective it seems is to get it deep. And that's just not the case in Chicago or Boston for example. There are distinct diffrences in the X and O's on the board between those two teams and our Torts coached team. Before the lockout, nobody tried to be "fancy" in the neutral zone. That have changed now.
The problem described in this thread won't change before we get better at managing the puck from our own end and up ice. The problem is not that Richards is not playing with a sniper that suits his style, the problem is that we spend alot of time chasing the puck all over the ice instead of pinning the other team down in their end or taking the puck to their net of the rush. If anything we ought to look for a D who can keep the puck within the team.
I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head here. Only thing I would disagree with is the need for a new defenseman.
Hopefully this issue will be solved by either shortening the passes or our young d getting better at this as the year progresses.
But these long home run passes should be eliminated, as torts needs to realize we do not have St Louis and Lecavalier, and this is not the 2004 Lightning.
We need to adapt to the talent that we have, and we are at our best when we create turnovers. I am far from an NHL Coach, and don't think i could do a better job, but it does seem this team would be at its best running a loose - 1 - 2 -2 for check, rather then the aggresive forecheck we have now that leads to a ton of odd man breaks for the opposing team
Last edited by jskramer83: 11-22-2011 at 08:37 AM.
