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

Our Blueline Youth got worse this year

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-15-2010, 01:03 AM
  #26
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlundqvist30 View Post
And that is based on what exactly?
Based on the fact that nobody I know of who follows him regularly saw enough improvement from year to year.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 01:07 AM
  #27
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayAreaRanger View Post
There seems to be either this overhyping of prospects, or completely ragging on them.

It seems like people like you don't understand that a re-evaluation up or down is neither overhyping or completely ragging on prospects.

If a prospect is ranked B+ at the beginning of the year and at the end of the year I re-evaluate him with a grade of B, that doesn't mean that I am completely ragging on him.

Not every compliment is an A+, and not every criticism is an F.

Every year, prospects have to be re-evaluated either up or down. Some go up a lot, some go down a lot, most are moved just a little either way.

My issue is that a large majority of our prospects went down. My issue was never that prospects are all F's right now.

Anyone who understood it as such is clearly not particularly bright. Anyone who understands things on an all or nothing basis, with nothing in between, please put me on the ignore list and never read anything I write because pretty much NOTHING I ever write is all or nothing, it's all just a matter of degree.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 01:07 AM
  #28
LyNX27
Registered User
 
LyNX27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 2,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Based on the fact that nobody I know of who follows him regularly saw enough improvement from year to year.
It's clear you don't know me.

LyNX27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 01:19 AM
  #29
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyNX27 View Post
It's clear you don't know me.
No, I don't. You may be watching him on a regular basis, but I have no knowledge of that. If you do watch McD with any consistency, I'd love to hear your opinion.

Btw, here's what Leslie just wrote, "No longer considered a prospect at the highest level, McDonagh was traded to the Rangers as part of the deal with Montreal that sent Scott Gomez to the Canadiens. Although there was some disagreement about his development, McDonagh's first two seasons at the University of Wisconsin showed him to be more of a two-way player than the offensive blueliner that had been hoped for."

She also dropped him from #3 (and top 50 in the whole NHL) to #8.

Not ragging on him, not claiming he's a bust, but clearly she's not writing that he's excelled above expectations. He's in the long line of Ranger prospects who did "ok" this year, just not as well as had been hoped.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 02:22 AM
  #30
LyNX27
Registered User
 
LyNX27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 2,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
No, I don't. You may be watching him on a regular basis, but I have no knowledge of that. If you do watch McD with any consistency, I'd love to hear your opinion.

Btw, here's what Leslie just wrote, "No longer considered a prospect at the highest level, McDonagh was traded to the Rangers as part of the deal with Montreal that sent Scott Gomez to the Canadiens. Although there was some disagreement about his development, McDonagh's first two seasons at the University of Wisconsin showed him to be more of a two-way player than the offensive blueliner that had been hoped for."

She also dropped him from #3 (and top 50 in the whole NHL) to #8.

Not ragging on him, not claiming he's a bust, but clearly she's not writing that he's excelled above expectations. He's in the long line of Ranger prospects who did "ok" this year, just not as well as had been hoped.
If you didn't notice, my location is set to Madison, WI. I have seen all games this season and most games last season. I was at the outdoor game and sometime catch the replays on local TV if they happen to be up and I have some free time from my businesses. (This is not to say that I am close-minded to opinions of players from Madison)

Everyone is clearly entitled to their opinions and obviously some might feel I am wrong or they might not look at something in the same way. I would not say that Ryan is plateauing as much as he is settling in, finding a niche, and finding himself as a player. One of the reasons people might not like McD is the "sexiness" factor. He doesn't show up on the scoresheet as much as stat guru's would like but it really is his ability to play with stability on all zones of the ice which sets him apart. His skating is also a strength.

To quote from HF, the main detraction from his "sexiness" he had season ago is...

Quote:
McDonagh's first two seasons at the University of Wisconsin showed him to be more of a two-way player than the offensive blueliner that had been hoped for.
He's also fairly physical when he needs to be and plays well positionally. He has been getting steadier on the defense end. His passing has, and looks to be crisp as ever.

LyNX27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 06:28 AM
  #31
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 32,975
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
No, I don't. You may be watching him on a regular basis, but I have no knowledge of that. If you do watch McD with any consistency, I'd love to hear your opinion.

Btw, here's what Leslie just wrote, "No longer considered a prospect at the highest level, McDonagh was traded to the Rangers as part of the deal with Montreal that sent Scott Gomez to the Canadiens. Although there was some disagreement about his development, McDonagh's first two seasons at the University of Wisconsin showed him to be more of a two-way player than the offensive blueliner that had been hoped for."

She also dropped him from #3 (and top 50 in the whole NHL) to #8.

Not ragging on him, not claiming he's a bust, but clearly she's not writing that he's excelled above expectations. He's in the long line of Ranger prospects who did "ok" this year, just not as well as had been hoped.
Who is Leslie?You're basing your opinions on what Leslie thinks? That's the your problem right there.

Who said McDonagh has done just "OK" this season?Leslie? She thought Stepan was a smallish fast finesse player when it was mentioned that Stepan was actually an average skater with average size but had excellent hockey sense and just knows how to play the game.

If you want opinions on McDonagh,there are plenty in the NCAA prospects thread. Or maybe its beneath you to check that thread.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 06:46 AM
  #32
Mio41
Ron Harris #3
 
Mio41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 2,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Gilroy: Only 13 points, probably will finish with about 15. Worse than expected and we can no longer regard him as a likely PP #2.
How is going to get any PP points when he plays the last 13 seconds of every PP?

Mio41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 06:50 AM
  #33
Mio41
Ron Harris #3
 
Mio41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 2,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyviper87 View Post
I think Gilroy has actually been pretty good overall. He has shown some flashes of being a good defenseman and his defense is much better than we all thought. I think the offense will come with time and his natural skating ability will take hold once it becomes more "second-nature" and he stops thinking so much. He just needs time.

I agree, he will only get better with more experience, we were 7-1 when he was jumping into the play and Torts backed him off and now in the back of his mind he has to think with every mistake he will be benched...

Mio41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 07:19 AM
  #34
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 24,832
vCash: 50
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
No, I don't. You may be watching him on a regular basis, but I have no knowledge of that. If you do watch McD with any consistency, I'd love to hear your opinion.

Btw, here's what Leslie just wrote, "No longer considered a prospect at the highest level, McDonagh was traded to the Rangers as part of the deal with Montreal that sent Scott Gomez to the Canadiens. Although there was some disagreement about his development, McDonagh's first two seasons at the University of Wisconsin showed him to be more of a two-way player than the offensive blueliner that had been hoped for."

She also dropped him from #3 (and top 50 in the whole NHL) to #8.

Not ragging on him, not claiming he's a bust, but clearly she's not writing that he's excelled above expectations. He's in the long line of Ranger prospects who did "ok" this year, just not as well as had been hoped.
He's still Top 50 on HF, for what that's worth.

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 07:28 AM
  #35
arunnair87
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 291
vCash: 500
MCD is a +20 in I can't remember how many games... There's no reason to fear for him yet. As for potter, the few games he has been up for us has he been out for a goal against? Not last year at least year albeit it was 3 games.

arunnair87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 07:33 AM
  #36
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 24,832
vCash: 50
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by arunnair87 View Post
MCD is a +20 in I can't remember how many games... There's no reason to fear for him yet. As for potter, the few games he has been up for us has he been out for a goal against? Not last year at least year albeit it was 3 games.
I have him at +19 in 37 games. He's the best all around defenseman on one of the best teams in the nation.

nyr2k2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 07:35 AM
  #37
lovetherangers
Registered User
 
lovetherangers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 345
vCash: 500
Defensemen take a much longer time to develop than fowards and goalies, and it is impossible to predict (in some cases) who will or won't pan out. Take Staal for instance. He has been playing for 3 years and is still learning and getting better. I still think he is a season or two away reaching his level. Gilroy has never played more than 50 or so games in a year, and made a big jump from College to the NHL in one year. I still think he will be good. MDZ is developing nicely, but makes alot of rookie mistakes, it happens. I still think he will be our PP quarterback of the future. Those 3 will be cornerstones to build our future Defense around. Take McDonough, and between Sangs, and Sauer, if only one of them develop, there are 4 defensmen for the next 10 years. Add a couple FA's and there's your defense. Best case all three pan out, and we're set. I think defense will be solid for us in the coming years. I'm more worried about offense when it comes to prospects.

lovetherangers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 07:58 AM
  #38
egelband
Registered User
 
egelband's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Yokohama
Country: United States
Posts: 2,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR94 View Post
One can't emphasize enough how patient you need to be with young defensemen. Give these players time.
yes! i have been happy with what the young guys have done. just not physical enough. but they can all lug the puck and pass. if they had more than one scorer to receive their passes...

egelband is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 07:58 AM
  #39
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,701
vCash: 500
The "problem" with McDonagh is more about the hype he got when the Habs picked him years ago. He was hyped as this amazing defenseman who could score 60 points and shut down other teams.

Basically I'm saying he was overhyped.

By the time he was traded to the Rangers I think we all figured he wasn't that defenseman he was hyped to be around the draft, and that he was more of a strong defensive type with good skills. Most resonably expected a ceiling as a decent first pairing or a very good second pairing guy. This year hasn't done anything to change that...if anything it's solidified the idea that he's the type of steady defenseman the Rangers need right now in their lineup.

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 08:40 AM
  #40
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 18,942
vCash: 500
From my point of view:

-Staal, I don't know, D's are exposed if you don't have a succesful transition game. It don't matter if its Chris Philips in Ottawa or Marc Staal in NY. He is better this year then last year. And a good team that would show.

-Girardi, there were somewhat of a lovefest for him a year ago. I like him, but I thought it was strange that most D's we had were lynched by fans while G never was mentioned. I think he have been more steady this year then last year.

-MDZ have ARRIVED. We have a offensiveminded dmen who will be top 15 in his mold for the coming 15 years. The best offensiveminded D we have produced since Zubov.

I love his play in camp last year, and have had high hopes on him. But he have exceeded them 10 fold.

-Sanguinetti, I've had somewhat of a bad feeling about him for a long time. I liked him when I saw him in the CHL, but then when I saw him in the WJC's he really worried me.

He have been pushed to focus waaaayy to much on his "defensive", and really have lost a step offensively. He have all the tools, but the game isn't there. I think he will play in the NHL one day, but it reminds to be seen at what capacity.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 09:00 AM
  #41
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,701
vCash: 500
I think Staal gets really underappreciated. He plays a ton of minutes against the best in the league and does so many things well out there that it's ridiculous. He's not flashy but he's very effective and it's obvious the coaches are comfortable with throwing him out there over and over again when the team needs him

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 09:25 AM
  #42
GAGLine
HFBoards Sponsor
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,092
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Here's what I think. Our defense looked a lot more impressive in October than it does right now.

MDZ: No longer on a hot streak, but very impressive. No problems here, but look below.

Gilroy: Only 13 points, probably will finish with about 15. Worse than expected and we can no longer regard him as a likely PP #2.
I won't bother to comment on the rest, but I have to say that your analysis of these two is extremely shortsighted, particularly Gilroy. You really think you've got these players all figured out when they have yet to even complete their rookie seasons?

Do you understand the difficulty in jumping from one level to the next? Look at Anisimov. He was a PPG player in the AHL and he isn't even close to that this year in the NHL. Doesn't mean he never will be. The level of play is much higher and it takes players time to adjust.

The same can be said for both MDZ and Gilroy. They both made big jumps up to the NHL level. They've both shown the ability to be very good players. But it will take time for all the parts of their game to come together.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 09:33 AM
  #43
Stugots
Kolo, Kolo Kolo!
 
Stugots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 6,436
vCash: 500
And people wonder why we never re-build... it's because fans are so damn impatient and write off players, LET ALONE rookies, after one season.

Stugots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 09:43 AM
  #44
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 16,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stugots View Post
And people wonder why we never re-build... it's because fans are so damn impatient and write off players, LET ALONE rookies, after one season.
Is that the reason? Or is it because management is incapable of coming up with a comprehensive plan to aid the longterm health of this franchise?

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 09:46 AM
  #45
dtrap
Registered User
 
dtrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,720
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to dtrap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Is that the reason? Or is it because management is incapable of coming up with a comprehensive plan to aid the longterm health of this franchise?
It certainly doesn't help that some of the people who complain that we should rebuild also would complain if we didn't win for a few years...

So to answer your question...it's a bit of both...tho I still think a better plan is coming together for management...

dtrap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 09:50 AM
  #46
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 16,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtrap View Post
It certainly doesn't help that some of the people who complain that we should rebuild also would complain if we didn't win for a few years...

So to answer your question...it's a bit of both...tho I still think a better plan is coming together for management...
This may sound a bit harsh, but in most cases management doesnt give a flying **** what the fans think as long as they keep coming to the games and buying merchandise.

Specifically with New York City and the Rangers, the Garden will be filled every night no matter how bad we are.

Besides, I dont think we have to be brutally bad. I think its impossible to perform a true rebuild when an in-his-prime Henrik Lundqvist is in net. Its about asset management and a longterm vision. Theres really no reason that Prospal/Jokinen/Girardi should currently be on this team. Sure, people would ***** about it if the team tanked and missed the playoffs, but they'd get over it rather quickly.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 10:00 AM
  #47
dtrap
Registered User
 
dtrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,720
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to dtrap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
This may sound a bit harsh, but in most cases management doesnt give a flying **** what the fans think as long as they keep coming to the games and buying merchandise.
Oh I know. I've said this a million times. Trust me...I worked in the OHL and I can tell you from experience...management really don't give a flying **** what the fans think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Specifically with New York City and the Rangers, the Garden will be filled every night no matter how bad we are.
That is not true at all. During the Dark Ages of the late 90's and early 2000's they weren't selling games out like they do now. It was the winning that brought people back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Besides, I dont think we have to be brutally bad. I think its impossible to perform a true rebuild when an in-his-prime Henrik Lundqvist is in net. Its about asset management and a longterm vision. Theres really no reason that Prospal/Jokinen/Girardi should currently be on this team. Sure, people would ***** about it if the team tanked and missed the playoffs, but they'd get over it rather quickly.
I respectfully disagree again. 1) I really don't think we have enough NHL ready prospects in the system to bring up. I know some might disagree but our really good prospects aren't NHL ready. 2) Sometimes its a good thing to let your rookies learn via trial by fire and throw them right in there. I just don't see this situation being one where that is a good idea. 3) You have to have some vets that actually produce on the team.

dtrap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 10:05 AM
  #48
hlundqvist30*
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
No, I don't. You may be watching him on a regular basis, but I have no knowledge of that. If you do watch McD with any consistency, I'd love to hear your opinion.

Btw, here's what Leslie just wrote, "No longer considered a prospect at the highest level, McDonagh was traded to the Rangers as part of the deal with Montreal that sent Scott Gomez to the Canadiens. Although there was some disagreement about his development, McDonagh's first two seasons at the University of Wisconsin showed him to be more of a two-way player than the offensive blueliner that had been hoped for."

She also dropped him from #3 (and top 50 in the whole NHL) to #8.

Not ragging on him, not claiming he's a bust, but clearly she's not writing that he's excelled above expectations. He's in the long line of Ranger prospects who did "ok" this year, just not as well as had been hoped.
With all due respect to Leslie, I'll take the opinion of the dozen who have watched most of Wisconsin's games over the opinion of one person who has probably watched no more than 3, if any at all.

hlundqvist30* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 10:26 AM
  #49
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 16,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtrap View Post


That is not true at all. During the Dark Ages of the late 90's and early 2000's they weren't selling games out like they do now. It was the winning that brought people back.



I respectfully disagree again. 1) I really don't think we have enough NHL ready prospects in the system to bring up. I know some might disagree but our really good prospects aren't NHL ready. 2) Sometimes its a good thing to let your rookies learn via trial by fire and throw them right in there. I just don't see this situation being one where that is a good idea. 3) You have to have some vets that actually produce on the team.
Im afraid the first part is absolutely true. Just a simple search of NHL attendance from the early 2000's, when things were really ****ed up, shows that MSG's average attendance was over 18,000 per game...doesnt mean people showed up, but the tickets were bought, and as we've said, thats all Dolan and company care about really.

As for the selling off of Prospal/Jokinen/Girardi, who cares if we dont have prospects ready to produce? As I said, those moves would be made for an eye for the future at the expense of free agents that likely wont be returning, especially in Prospal and Jokinen's case. Those guys probably could have netted us 3 additional picks in the top 100. Even with them on the team, the best case scenario is that we squeak into the playoffs with these guys, get killed in the first round, and then they walk away.

Some longterm plan...

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 10:30 AM
  #50
BrianLeetch2
Registered User
 
BrianLeetch2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Toms River NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 727
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BrianLeetch2 Send a message via MSN to BrianLeetch2
I think we look the same on D as we did before the season started.

Staal has gotten better

MDZ is still learning and making alot of mistakes but he is still oh so young...Offesnivly i dotn care about his point total you see him make plays every night out there and he would have easily 15 to 20 more points this year if this team knew how to score.....his passing and vision is inasne and whats scary is he is going to get even better at that over time

Gilroy also is still learning at this level but we cant expect any more then a bottom pairing out of him he will get bettert as well

MCD i watched him play only in 2 games ever so i really dont know much about him from only what i read....but i do have a friend (someone i talk to alot) who watches alot of wisconsin games and says he is their best D man and he knows enough about hockey that i value his opinion and i asked him where do you think he will project as on the rangers he said most likely a 3rd or 4th dman with an outside chance at top 2.

Right there we already have 4 dmen for the next 10 years easy and thats not even counting Sangs and the rest of the pool

BrianLeetch2 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 06:15 PM.

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.