HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Marian Gaborik

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-23-2013, 10:47 PM
  #126
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heyoooo View Post
You dont need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

You dont need to be a coach to know this system doesnt work with these players.

I actually think most of us here would like to see if you really understand it yourself. So go ahead and explain Tortorella's system better than he would.

This teams issues are deeper than just whining over Gaborik.
Its a wing lock system in the neutral zone. The Rangers bait the opposition to the strong side and attempt to force the opposition to turn over the puck.

This happens by getting the puck deep, F1 applies pressure to one side of the net, opposition moves puck up opposite wall, F2 applies pressure, F3 steps up to intercept.

If they fail to create a turnover, they attempt to force the opposition to dump it.

This is a set play that they've been running since at least last year.

In the defensive zone Rangers will box out the middle. They'll allow the opposition the outside. They'll even allow the opposition down low at times. They'll gladly take the low percentage outside shots as long as they aren't giving up high percentage shots in the middle.

Once possession is regained, and here's where I complain about the lack of a real puck skating/puck moving, mobile defenseman, they'll stretch the opposition out by sending a sometimes risky long pass that they'll intentionally tip at the red line, getting the puck deep. This forces opposition defense to turn around and race Rangers fore checkers who already have forward momentum, to the puck.

Its one option if the other forwards are covered.

The Rangers are a reactionary team for the most part. They work on capitalizing on opposition mistakes.

The possession aspect is winning battles on the boards, winning races to pucks.

A lot of the dump ins are reactionary plays, if there are no options available and gaining the zone with the puck is too risky, getting it deep is ALWAYS the correct decision. 100% of the time. If nothing else it forces the opposition to gain 200 feet of ice. And at that time the wing lock play is already in effect. Forcing the opposition to patches of ice that benefit you.

Its a chess match.

Tortorella doesn't stifle creativity, when players have the ability to create. Be it both the motor skills and the opportunity if the play dictates it.

Nash can create his own space. He has that ability. Gaborik does NOT. Gaborik relies on his teammates to create space for HIM. Which is fine, if he could at least do them the favor of engaging when they need support and when there is no one else close enough to apply pressure. Can't do that if you're not skating or giving effort!

There is far more involved in it. This is scratching the surface. Not touching on face offs, and recognizing each player's assignments in each zone in each situation (puck possession, on the defensive, 5v5, 4v4, PK).

So again...what else? You're so adamant that the systems are at fault, explain.

The Rangers do not have the personnel to forego assignments and responsibility as a whole.

Veteran players should understand and embrace what is expected of them.

Rookies who are adjusting to the speed of the game, learning how to read the plays at that speed, should be allotted more leeway. Mistakes will happen and they need to learn how to correct them.

Veterans being paid 7+ million to be leaders and performers do NOT get the same leeway.

Gaborik wants to score he needs to put the effort into all three zones and skate to get to pucks. He isn't doing any of the above at all consistently and that's why he's "playing poorly". Zero effort.


Last edited by Bob Richards: 02-23-2013 at 11:24 PM.
SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
02-23-2013, 10:52 PM
  #127
Radek27
Registered User
 
Radek27's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,118
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Radek27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
They've been a defense first, grind it out team since day 1 bro.
Your right but why are we still running this kind of system? We have the best goalie in the league, a solid D and three top line talents up front. This team has changed since Torts got here but his style and system hasn't changed to fit his new players.

If a new coach started the job today and looked at this roster I doubt he would decide to run this kind of grind it out defensive system. When he first got here Christensen was doing spot duty as the top line center now we have Richards, Gabby and Nash. It's time to open it up a bit don't you think?

Radek27 is offline  
Old
02-23-2013, 11:01 PM
  #128
Heyoooo*
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 987
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
I asked YOU to explain it, because YOU are the one spamming the boards incessantly about how the "system" doesn't work.

But sure I'll explain a little of it.

Its a wing lock system in the neutral zone. The Rangers bait the opposition to the strong side and attempt to force the opposition to turn over the puck.

This happens by getting the puck deep, F1 applies pressure to one side of the net, opposition moves puck up opposite wall, F2 applies pressure, F3 steps up to intercept.

If they fail to create a turnover, they attempt to force the opposition to dump it.

This is a set play that they've been running since at least last year.

In the defensive zone Rangers will box out the middle. They'll allow the opposition the outside. They'll even allow the opposition down low at times. They'll gladly take the low percentage outside shots as long as they aren't giving up high percentage shots in the middle.

Once possession is regained, and here's where I complain about the lack of a real puck skating/puck moving, mobile defenseman, they'll stretch the opposition out by sending a sometimes risky long pass that they'll intentionally tip at the red line, getting the puck deep. This forces opposition defense to turn around and race Rangers fore checkers who already have forward momentum, to the puck.

Its one option if the other forwards are covered.

The Rangers are a reactionary team for the most part. They work on capitalizing on opposition mistakes.

The possession aspect is winning battles on the boards, winning races to pucks.

A lot of the dump ins are reactionary plays, if there are no options available and gaining the zone with the puck is too risky, getting it deep is ALWAYS the correct decision. 100% of the time. If nothing else it forces the opposition to gain 200 feet of ice. And at that time the wing lock play is already in effect. Forcing the opposition to patches of ice that benefit you.

Its a chess match.

Tortorella doesn't stifle creativity, when players have the ability to create. Be it both the motor skills and the opportunity if the play dictates it.

Nash can create his own space. He has that ability. Gaborik does NOT. Gaborik relies on his teammates to create space for HIM. Which is fine, if he could at least do them the favor of engaging when they need support and when there is no one else close enough to apply pressure. Can't do that if you're not skating or giving effort!

There is far more involved in it. This is scratching the surface. Not touching on face offs, and recognizing each player's assignments in each zone in each situation (puck possession, on the defensive, 5v5, 4v4, PK).

So again...what else? You're so adamant that the systems are at fault, explain.

The Rangers do not have the personnel to forego assignments and responsibility as a whole.

Veteran players should understand and embrace what is expected of them.

Rookies who are adjusting to the speed of the game, learning how to read the plays at that speed, should be allotted more leeway. Mistakes will happen and they need to learn how to correct them.

Veterans being paid 7+ million to be leaders and performers do NOT get the same leeway.

Gaborik wants to score he needs to put the effort into all three zones and skate to get to pucks. He isn't doing any of the above at all consistently and that's why he's "playing poorly". Zero effort.
1) Youre basically telling us what we already know. Its a capitalize on mistakes system at its core that doesnt have the right personnel anymore and needs to be adjusted into allowing more open play instead of clogging up areas and dumping the puck in when Gaborik isnt great at retrieving pucks. When youre *****ing enough about Gaborik and Richards to execute, I think that pretty much says it all. Kreider and Hagelin are fit for the speed of getting in on the forecheck. Nobody else is. They need to be executing their offensive ability which is carrying the puck in and setting up give and goes, etc.

As far as blocking shots, we dont need to be doing that nearly as much and risking the health of core players while also seemingly deflecting more shots into our own net. Usually youre supposed to let the goalie see the shot as is.


Last edited by Bob Richards: 02-23-2013 at 11:24 PM.
Heyoooo* is offline  
Old
02-23-2013, 11:02 PM
  #129
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,209
vCash: 500
I don't think anyone is expecting Gabby to suddenly become Callahan. It's more about some semblance of a base amount of effort.

There was a shift tonight in the 2nd period which was the epitome of what many take issue with. Gaborik just made a great deflection at the left post off a long lob from Richards that missed wide off the back boards and into the right corner.

The Montreal Dman got the puck at about the hash marks. For whatever reason Gabby is standing still, watching the opposing team attempt a breakout. He is literally standing there watching. Meanwhile, Pyatt comes completely across the ice, from the LW, to pressure the puck carrier in the right corner who is Gabby's man and who is trying to clear the zone.

And you know Pyatt didn't get there first because he was faster.

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
HatTrick Swayze is offline  
Old
02-23-2013, 11:02 PM
  #130
Lundsanity30
Registered User
 
Lundsanity30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radek27 View Post
Your right but why are we still running this kind of system? We have the best goalie in the league, a solid D and three top line talents up front. This team has changed since Torts got here but his style and system hasn't changed to fit his new players.

If a new coach started the job today and looked at this roster I doubt he would decide to run this kind of grind it out defensive system. When he first got here Christensen was doing spot duty as the top line center now we have Richards, Gabby and Nash. It's time to open it up a bit don't you think?
Torts is incapable of adjusting anything but his belt buckle

Lundsanity30 is offline  
Old
02-23-2013, 11:08 PM
  #131
Heyoooo*
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 987
vCash: 500
In 09-10, I also recall a number of oddman rushes all year because our dmen would pinch much much more, which is pretty much "safe is death."

It was a more uptempo style.

Heyoooo* is offline  
Old
02-23-2013, 11:23 PM
  #132
trilobyte
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alberta
Posts: 12,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heyoooo View Post
In 09-10, I also recall a number of oddman rushes all year because our dmen would pinch much much more, which is pretty much "safe is death."

It was a more uptempo style.
I too recall that many of those pinches ended in disaster. Was that when Marc Staal was being pushed to jump up into the offense more often? Anyway, looking at teams that do the pinch well, they have such talent that not only does their risky behaviour mostly result in glory, but if they screw up, they have a fighting chance at getting back fast to make amends.

Tonight, I was totally disgusted by Richards on the second goal, and his lethargic action.

I'm tired of thinking about this team right now. They are missing some key players, but really, what's the excuse? They look like something the dog threw up.

trilobyte is offline  
Old
02-23-2013, 11:25 PM
  #133
Bob Richards
Global Moderator
Mr. Mojo Risin'
 
Bob Richards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 45,612
vCash: 50
Attack the point, not the poster. Play nice.

__________________
"New day, new hope. Richards Buyout 2014". -Ail
Bob Richards is offline  
Old
02-23-2013, 11:25 PM
  #134
Lundsanity30
Registered User
 
Lundsanity30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,864
vCash: 500
For one thing, we have a bunch of AHL kids up right now, we no longer have feds prust dubi aa etc. And despite me still hating the system last year they were at lea. Capable of doing it.. with the selection of a few like nash hags cally pyatt, this team isnt. This roster is more suited for opening up the ice and when they were allowed to do it, they were scorong goals

Lundsanity30 is offline  
Old
02-23-2013, 11:32 PM
  #135
Heyoooo*
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 987
vCash: 500
Well, as far as the system goes, theres really nothing to explain.


When youre still using the same offensive strategy on the PP as you are 5 on 5, somethings wrong.

Heyoooo* is offline  
Old
02-24-2013, 03:22 AM
  #136
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,701
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heyoooo View Post
You dont need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
No reason to get excited.

McRanger is offline  
Old
02-24-2013, 06:37 AM
  #137
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,599
vCash: 500
IMO, Gaborik is the 7th most important Ranger and your #7 is not worth 7.5 million. This is not about how good he is in a vacuum, to me. It is about his rate of pay vs play on the ice.

I expect every player to try all the time. After that, the coach and GM can appraise them. When you take shifts off, I wouldn't pay you the league minimum.

Gaborik is not a first year player who will learn a lesson from a benching. If he doesn't get it yet he never will.

chosen is offline  
Old
02-24-2013, 11:52 AM
  #138
GarretJoseph
Registered User
 
GarretJoseph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 7,506
vCash: 500
I wouldn't move Gaborik. He'll come around. Not many 40 goal scorers in this league. In fact only 4 guys scored 40 or more goals last season. Stamkos, Malkin and Neal. Gabby finished 3rd in the league with 41. We made quite a few moves and including this season made a few minor deals so you have to expect this team will continue to make some more minor deals, maybe pick up a rental. I don't care if we finish 8th, Look at what LA did last year. Last year we were #1 and could have easily been knocked out by the #8 seed. Give this team time. We are only a point out of a playoff spot with 2-3 games in hand.

GarretJoseph is offline  
Old
02-24-2013, 05:42 PM
  #139
Krams
Carpe dizzem
 
Krams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Selkirk, NY
Posts: 3,336
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
IMO, Gaborik is the 7th most important Ranger and your #7 is not worth 7.5 million. This is not about how good he is in a vacuum, to me. It is about his rate of pay vs play on the ice.

I expect every player to try all the time. After that, the coach and GM can appraise them. When you take shifts off, I wouldn't pay you the league minimum.

Gaborik is not a first year player who will learn a lesson from a benching. If he doesn't get it yet he never will.
Is this legitimately your opinion? Because you should be embarrassed. Gaborik is the only one on this team who can consistently put up even 30 goals a year. He's done 40 twice. You show me who else outside of Jagr in recent years has come even close.

Krams is offline  
Old
02-24-2013, 05:50 PM
  #140
Jabroni
Moderator
The Corporate Mod
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,532
vCash: 500
Relax. I'm going to have to start handing out infractions if the attacking continues.

__________________
Jabroni is offline  
Old
02-24-2013, 05:50 PM
  #141
Heyoooo*
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 987
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFW View Post
Is this legitimately your opinion? Because you should be embarrassed. Gaborik is the only one on this team who can consistently put up even 30 goals a year. He's done 40 twice. You show me who else outside of Jagr in recent years has come even close.
Dude just give it up. There are simply two groups of people concerning Gaborik, those who appreciate him and those who dont. (I do)

No convincing is going to be done otherwise. Its the way it is. Everyones got their own agenda and blueprint for this team.

Heyoooo* is offline  
Old
02-24-2013, 07:26 PM
  #142
Bob Richards
Global Moderator
Mr. Mojo Risin'
 
Bob Richards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 45,612
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jabroni1994 View Post
Relax. I'm going to have to start handing out infractions if the attacking continues.
Apparently this concept is a novelty to some people. It really isn't that difficult.

STOP FLAMING EACH OTHER.

Bob Richards is offline  
Old
02-24-2013, 09:09 PM
  #143
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFW View Post
Is this legitimately your opinion? Because you should be embarrassed. Gaborik is the only one on this team who can consistently put up even 30 goals a year. He's done 40 twice. You show me who else outside of Jagr in recent years has come even close.
Funny, I'm not embarrassed. Here is the list of Rangers who I would rather not lose instead of Gaborik, (in no particular order):

1. Lundqvist
2. McDonagh
3. Staal
4. Girardi
5. Callahan
6. Nash

Which players would you get rid of before him?

While Hagelin and Kreider are currently not in that group, they might be in a year.

chosen is offline  
Old
02-24-2013, 09:46 PM
  #144
Jabroni
Moderator
The Corporate Mod
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
Funny, I'm not embarrassed. Here is the list of Rangers who I would rather not lose instead of Gaborik, (in no particular order):

1. Lundqvist
2. McDonagh
3. Staal
4. Girardi
5. Callahan
6. Nash

Which players would you get rid of before him?

While Hagelin and Kreider are currently not in that group, they might be in a year.
Hagelin could eventually be in that group.

He might be # 7 right now.

Jabroni is offline  
Old
02-24-2013, 09:53 PM
  #145
Krams
Carpe dizzem
 
Krams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Selkirk, NY
Posts: 3,336
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
Funny, I'm not embarrassed. Here is the list of Rangers who I would rather not lose instead of Gaborik, (in no particular order):

1. Lundqvist
2. McDonagh
3. Staal
4. Girardi
5. Callahan
6. Nash

Which players would you get rid of before him?

While Hagelin and Kreider are currently not in that group, they might be in a year.
He's more important to the success of this team than every single player on that list not named Lundqvist and Nash. I'd rather lose Gaborik than somebody like McDonagh when taking into consideration age and salary as well as defensive depth. But that was not the question. The question was the importance of each individual player to the success of the team as a whole.

Goals win games.

Krams is offline  
Old
02-24-2013, 10:05 PM
  #146
Heyoooo*
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 987
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFW View Post
He's more important to the success of this team than every single player on that list not named Lundqvist and Nash. I'd rather lose Gaborik than somebody like McDonagh when taking into consideration age and salary as well as defensive depth. But that was not the question. The question was the importance of each individual player to the success of the team as a whole.

Goals win games.

He switched it up to be convenient.

I do agree that the three most important players to this teams' success is Lundqvist, Gaborik and Nash.

Heyoooo* is offline  
Old
02-24-2013, 10:06 PM
  #147
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 27,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFW View Post
He's more important to the success of this team than every single player on that list not named Lundqvist and Nash. I'd rather lose Gaborik than somebody like McDonagh when taking into consideration age and salary as well as defensive depth. But that was not the question. The question was the importance of each individual player to the success of the team as a whole.

Goals win games.
I find this to be the attitude of quite a few people on these boards, however, what is better? Scoring a goal, or stopping one from occurring on your team? Hockey is a 2way game

NYR Viper is offline  
Old
02-24-2013, 10:08 PM
  #148
Heyoooo*
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 987
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Boyler87 View Post
I find this to be the attitude of quite a few people on these boards, however, what is better? Scoring a goal, or stopping one from occurring on your team? Hockey is a 2way game

Theyre both important, and Lundqvist is the foundation of this team/MVP and has been since hes been here, but you cant win games 0-0. Someone has to score. That comes down to Gaborik and Nash.

Heyoooo* is offline  
Old
02-24-2013, 10:17 PM
  #149
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 27,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heyoooo View Post
Theyre both important, and Lundqvist is the foundation of this team/MVP and has been since hes been here, but you cant win games 0-0. Someone has to score. That comes down to Gaborik and Nash.
That was my point. Until Gaborik can create offense and be a consistent threat I disagree.

NYR Viper is offline  
Old
02-24-2013, 10:24 PM
  #150
Dangleberry
Registered User
 
Dangleberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Queens, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,138
vCash: 500
Gaborik comes and goes, as was mentioned 100x already he's a streaky scorer so he can't be depended on every night. Same goes for Nash, he was never looked to be as "that guy." So, as it stands at the moment we don't have a single consistent threat a la Stamkos.

Dangleberry is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:29 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.