HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Why is the Rangers Defense Considered Bad?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-31-2007, 12:29 PM
  #1
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,579
vCash: 500
Why is the Rangers Defense Considered Bad?

In every publication I read lately previewing the season everyone claims that the Rangers have a terrible defense and the sole reason for their success last season was Lundqvist.
I think this is terribly wrong. While Lundqvist was great last season, he isn't the sole reason for how good the Rangers did in the 2nd half.

I made a spreadsheet with the shot totals for each game since December 30 (the last 43 games). In that time, the Rangers won 20 games, Lost 15, and Tied 8 (games that went to shootout).

As a total, the Rangers faced 1175 shots.
This averages out to 27 shots per game.

Breaking it down by month, in that last game in December, Henrik faced 23 shots.

In January, the Rangers played 11 games, facing a total of 295 shots. This averaged out to a 27 shots per game total.

In February, the Rangers played 12 games, facing a total of 303 shots. This averaged out to a 25 shots per game total.

In March, the Rangers played 15 games, facing a total of 437 shots. This averages to 29 shots per game.

In April, the Rangers played 4 games, facing a total of 117 shots. Averaging to 29 shots per game.

Overall in the 20 games that the Rangers won in this period, they faced 513 shots, an average of 26 shots against.

In the 15 games that they lost, they faced 427 shots, averaging to 28 shots a game.

In the 8 games that went to shootout (ties), they faced 235 shots, averaging to 29 shots a game.


What does this all mean? Well it does show that the Rangers defense was very good in the 2nd half. Having shot totals averaging less than 30 a game is very good. The Rangers had one of the least amounts of goals allowed in the 2nd half, part due to Henrik and IMO a huge part due to the defense. A defense doesn't let up that little amount of shots if it's not good. Henrik can only stop the shots, the defense are the ones who prevent the shots from reaching the net.

What we also can notice here is the fact that the Rangers averaged less shots against in games that they won. This could mean that in games in which the shot totals are kept lower, the Rangers are either lightening the workload on Henrik by playing great defense or by overpowering the other team on offense. Either way, these are games that are more often won.

Of course this data doesn't show for mistakes that defensemen may make that lead to goals, but every player makes mistakes from time to time. This post is meant to show how good the Rangers team defense was last season.

Either way, I just felt the need to prove the point that our defense isn't as bad as the "experts" tend to think it is. I think that this year with the combination of a more powerful offense, a solid defense that may become even more solid with the addition of Staal, and a spectacular goaltender who will be even better, this team may just be the team to take us to the cup.


Last edited by WhipNash27: 02-03-2011 at 10:04 AM.
WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 12:36 PM
  #2
HockeyBurd*
 
HockeyBurd*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,579
vCash: 500
"Why is the Rangers Defense Considered Bad?"

Because there are no glamorous names on the blueline and most journalists or other teams fans can't be bothered to actually watch games and know what they are talking about.

HockeyBurd* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 12:37 PM
  #3
ThirtyFive
Registered User
 
ThirtyFive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 1,295
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to ThirtyFive
They just say that because there are no "name" players on D.

ThirtyFive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 12:37 PM
  #4
snowcloud
Registered User
 
snowcloud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,890
vCash: 500
Good post, NYRChazzer. I agree. Our D is more than the sum of it's parts and I think Roszival is greatly underrated. They play a defensive system that emphasized puck possession that contributes to the low shots against...on a good night, of course

snowcloud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 12:46 PM
  #5
dkatzism
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Because bad means good.

  Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 12:48 PM
  #6
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 21,166
vCash: 500
the single biggest reason the rangers defense looked so horrendous to start the season, was the offense.

almost none of othe forwards were coming back with even a 1/2 effort. the defenseman were left all alone, play after play after play after play. the rangers have a great system, not a great defense. the great system protects the defenseman by making the forwards part of the resistance that the other team has to go through rather than an afterthought. i think the the rangers defense excels at is getting the puck out of the zone, quickly, to the forwards.

once the forwards redoubled their commitment to defend, the numbers instantly got better. in this day and age of hockey, with no clutch and grab allowed, if your forwards dont come back hard, and often, your d will get torched. once the rangers accepted that, their numbers became instantly better.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 01:47 PM
  #7
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 13,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by inferno272 View Post
the single biggest reason the rangers defense looked so horrendous to start the season, was the offense.

almost none of othe forwards were coming back with even a 1/2 effort. the defenseman were left all alone, play after play after play after play. the rangers have a great system, not a great defense. the great system protects the defenseman by making the forwards part of the resistance that the other team has to go through rather than an afterthought. i think the the rangers defense excels at is getting the puck out of the zone, quickly, to the forwards.

once the forwards redoubled their commitment to defend, the numbers instantly got better. in this day and age of hockey, with no clutch and grab allowed, if your forwards dont come back hard, and often, your d will get torched. once the rangers accepted that, their numbers became instantly better.
Totally agree Inferno, i was just going to post that and you beat me to it. Its a simple plan on defense (and all areas of the rink) every night and if done correctly it works wonders. Thats one of the reasons why Girardi fit in so well at the end of the year. Hes got the style that works on this team.

Good breakdown Chazzer.

Sometimes you'll just have to live with misinformed criticism, but I would rather this be the case then everyone saying that the Rangers have top 5 D and a top 5 O and should win the cup.

Let the naysayers be naysayers, the Rangers have counteracted them pretty well the last few seasons.

HockeyBasedNYC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 02:04 PM
  #8
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,292
vCash: 500
As bad as some may think it is--which it isn't--it looks like it's going to get better and better in the next several years with the addition of the Staal, Baranka, Sauer and Sanguinetti. The future of our defense IMO looks very bright.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 02:13 PM
  #9
Nich
Registered User
 
Nich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wantagh
Country: Croatia
Posts: 6,895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkatzism View Post
Because bad means good.
damn straight....

Nich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 02:13 PM
  #10
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
The Rangers' defense,,,

is considered bad because it does not have any 'names'. But you can't look at individual defensemen when determining if this team's defense is good or bad. It's team defense that matters. Lundqvist is part of that team defense. Having good faceoff guys who can win a defensive zone draw while on the PK is good defense. Having Jagr out there 22 minutes per game dominating with the other teams' defensemen and forwards in their own zone for 1/3 of the game is good defense. Having guys who support each other, while not being dominant individually, is good defense. Could the Rangers' defense improve? Absolutely. If you traded-out Malik for a stud defensive defenseman and had a quality offenseman in the mix, this team would have a hard time not being considered shoe-ins for the Stanley Cup. Is this team's overall defense quite good and will compete night-in and night-out? It should, so long as the offense continues to dominate, the centermen continue to win faceoffs, the goalie plays like an elite goalie, and they continue to support each other on the ice. A break down in one or two of those areas will show cracks and potentially a weak defense.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 02:16 PM
  #11
Choice
Registered User
 
Choice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: nyc
Country: Lithuania
Posts: 3,464
vCash: 500
I agree with most of you are saying, but I think a lot will come down to whether Rozsie can play most of 07-08 like he did last year's playoffs.

Choice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 02:16 PM
  #12
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
inferno...

I actually somewhat disagree. What we saw in the first third of the season or so was a few things. One, Lundqvist was not dominant - too many soft goals. Two, Rozsival was not good at all in October, as he was coming off an injury and no camp. Malik was more awful than Rozsival in October - perhaps it was the tooth, perhaps something else. Jagr was not dominating offensively and therefore the chances against were greater. What it showed is that the defensemen on this team need a good deal of help because individually, they aren't that great. Collectively, with an elite goalie, and a dominating offense, the numbers do look great.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 02:27 PM
  #13
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 21,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
I actually somewhat disagree. What we saw in the first third of the season or so was a few things. One, Lundqvist was not dominant - too many soft goals. Two, Rozsival was not good at all in October, as he was coming off an injury and no camp. Malik was more awful than Rozsival in October - perhaps it was the tooth, perhaps something else. Jagr was not dominating offensively and therefore the chances against were greater. What it showed is that the defensemen on this team need a good deal of help because individually, they aren't that great. Collectively, with an elite goalie, and a dominating offense, the numbers do look great.
the quality of shots on goal that henrik was taking were insane. he definitely did give up some softies, but he also gave up a lot of goals in general even if you ignore the softies. the rangers were scoring tons of goals at that time, but did so while sacrificing defense. we were all talking about it, how the forwards wanted to win 9-8 type games, but how they werent good enough to do that.


i guess we can agree to disagree, but im steadfast in my belief that it was the forwards who killed us.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 02:32 PM
  #14
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by inferno272 View Post
i guess we can agree to disagree, but im steadfast in my belief that it was the forwards who killed us.
Naah....it was ALL Hossa & Malik.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 02:40 PM
  #15
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 21,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
Naah....it was ALL Hossa & Malik.
now that you mention it...


Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 02:43 PM
  #16
NYR94
Registered User
 
NYR94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,949
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NYR94
Because misinformed hockey writers and fans believe that good defense only comes from the defensemen, so if you have a lot of big names on the blueline, your team defense must be good.

As Boston fans how good their D was last year with "names" like Chara and Stuart. And that's not the point anyway (to bash only Chara and Stuart for the team's defensive troubles), because the guys on your blueline are just one factor that contributes to team defense.

How many Minnesota Wild defensemen are big names? And all that team did was lead the NHL in GAA.

NYR94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 02:45 PM
  #17
TheSchwab
Registered User
 
TheSchwab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 2,080
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to TheSchwab
I agree with the concept... There are no studs (besides the 2 youngings Staal and Girardi ) On the line, so people automatically assume its bad. Im a Mara fan, he gets the job done with no flashy bs.

But about the stats that Chazzer provided - i dont consider an average of 27 shots per game a good D, i call that average... If they can get it equal or below 24 shots a game, that will be great.

TheSchwab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 02:49 PM
  #18
Mirinho
Registered User
 
Mirinho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 1,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
Naah....it was ALL Hossa & Malik.

I hope this will not be another "blame Malik" thread.

If the team is playing defensive style like NYR you don't need big names in D ... you need hard workers who will work on Jagr and other offensive players. I like NYR defense (of course I would take Kaberle T., Phaneuf ..., but I am realistic so I am satisfied with defenders we have)

new defenders to the team = will they fit to the team? how long will they settle? will they be better than defenders we had? ... it's not easy change 3 defenders - how long is our defense together (Rozsival, Tyutin, Malik, Lundquist ...) = now we can benefit from that

Mirinho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 03:07 PM
  #19
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 13,225
vCash: 500
Its not about the amount of shots really, its about the quality.

HockeyBasedNYC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 04:07 PM
  #20
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 21,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSchwab View Post
I agree with the concept... There are no studs (besides the 2 youngings Staal and Girardi ) On the line, so people automatically assume its bad. Im a Mara fan, he gets the job done with no flashy bs.

But about the stats that Chazzer provided - i dont consider an average of 27 shots per game a good D, i call that average... If they can get it equal or below 24 shots a game, that will be great.
no way is girardi a stud bro. hes a nice #5 defenseman, but he is in no way shape or form a stud. id definitely rank toots ahead of him too because of his physical game.

on our young defensive depth id rank girardi behind staal, sauer, tyutin, and possibily baranka.

sanguinetti needs more time before we can be sure of what we have.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 04:28 PM
  #21
TheSchwab
Registered User
 
TheSchwab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 2,080
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to TheSchwab
Quote:
Originally Posted by inferno272 View Post
on our young defensive depth id rank girardi behind staal, sauer, tyutin, and possibily baranka.
1. staal
2. tyutin
3. girardi
4. others

imo, girardi is under-rated... you cant teach smooth.

TheSchwab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 04:37 PM
  #22
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 21,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSchwab View Post
1. staal
2. tyutin
3. girardi
4. others

imo, girardi is under-rated... you cant teach smooth.
hes remarkable in the fact that hes so unremarkable. he has very little offense to speak of (at this level), an ok break out pass, ok physical presence (perhaps even lower than "ok") but a good stick check, and excellent hockey sense.

Sauer is everything Girardi is, but he has the physical game as well. hes a helluva prospect.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 04:56 PM
  #23
Madness
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Iraq
Posts: 550
vCash: 500
Well it's bad compared to other teams' D corps (not our division).

One by one they're not so good but as a unit they get the job done, don't forget that our D gets a lot of help defensively from the forwards and of course from Lundqvist, but as soon as Lundqvist plays a little worse and/or the forwards don't help out we clearly see the deficiencies in Some of our D's game.

Madness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 04:58 PM
  #24
The Perfect Paradox
Beyond Good and Evil
 
The Perfect Paradox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,578
vCash: 500
its because if theirs no big names everybody thinks that our d sucks,meanwhile it doesn't. People don't watch the games and draw that conclusion. And also were the Rangers, i bet if any other team had our d no one would say that it sucks.


Last edited by The Perfect Paradox: 08-31-2007 at 09:02 PM.
The Perfect Paradox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2007, 05:43 PM
  #25
mmfs*
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,709
vCash: 500
Your D sucks.
























mmfs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 10:29 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.