Jump to content

Gravesy

Members
  • Posts

    5,154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

Gravesy last won the day on January 6 2021

Gravesy had the most liked content!

About Gravesy

  • Birthday 03/08/1977

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Gravesy's Achievements

BSBH Rising Star

BSBH Rising Star (8/14)

  • Very Popular Rare
  • Reacting Well
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges

19.7k

Reputation

  1. My only problem with this is the wording really. "The Rangers taking calls on Kakko" reads as if they're seeing what they can get, with a view of getting rid of him I presume to regain some assets and recoup cap space. I don't like the sound of that. "The Rangers actively using Kakko as a trade chip" sounds much better to me, i.e. we're willing to use Kakko in a deal to get someone who improves the team immediately.
  2. Is this really a thing? Genuine question. I could see it if there's a situation where the Rangers and another team have more or less the same offer on the table, and Gorton chooses not to do business with the Rangers. But if the Rangers have the best offer surely he has to take it? He's GM'ing that team on behalf of owners and a team president. Surely he can't refuse to take the best offer on the table on the grounds that "they were mean to me".
  3. So last night you have two redirections from in close. That's not on the goalie. The 4th goal is a microcosm of this team and why blaming goaltending is wide of the mark: Barbashev crosses our blueline, our D is backing into Shesterkin instead of challenging and he's free to take his shot. Shesterkin saves and, somehow, Barbashev is allowed to get on his own rebound. The rebound ricochets off the boards and straight back out and the New York Rangers are beaten to the puck for the 3rd time in a space of like 5 seconds, leaving Marchessault with an empty netter. You can blame goaltending if you want to, but you're looking in the wrong place. Even if, like I've said, Shesty is having a down year. I think that's a pretty good way of putting it though. This team has no chance to go deep in the playoffs unless Shesty stands on his head.
  4. These last couple of pages: Fwiw, both sides have a point. You can't really make the case to drop anyone currently on PP1 for him. The idea that he doesn't have the skillset to produce on the PP is pretty ridiculous and unfounded.
  5. Well, I just don't agree that good goaltending fixes this team. It doesn't matter if you have the love child of Hasek and Roy in net with the team defense currently on display. Like I said, would a peak Igor help? Yes. Would he maybe even steal a couple of games? Again yes. But you're not doing shit in the playoffs if you play defense as a team the way they've played lately. The Vancouver game, for example. It doesn't matter how good the goalie is, if you give NHL players the that type of time and space in and around the crease goaltending can only take you so far. So yeah, I fully agree with the criticism of Shesterkin, I just think he's one of several issues rather than the issue.
  6. It's these. I don't buy the idea that Igor is "the real issue". He's very clearly not playing at his Vezina best, and he's not winning us games, and that's one of many issues. Over the last few weeks, the goalies have been hung out to dry by absolutely hideous team defense. There's only so much a goalie can do when you continuously let the best players in the world take free shots from the slot, whack away to or three times on rebounds, stickhandle unchallenged around the crease and come in on multiple odd man rushes and breakaways. Yeah, an Igor at his best makes some of the saves he hasn't made lately. And he might even steal a couple of the games we've lost. But relying on goaltending to steal games is not a viable strategy. This is not a defense of Igor in any way, because he's unquestionably not anywhere near his best, but I think describing him as "the" issue is missing the forest for the trees.
  7. They didn't need MacT or Anderson. I'd argue Matteau/Noonan were pretty important players. Yeah, it's impossible to be confident either way of course. We have to look at those trades in context of the league that year. Two teams were the class of the league; the Rangers and the Devils. The points difference in the regular season, I believe, was simply that the Rangers won all head to heads with the Devils. But they were tough, physical, even games. The feeling in the room at the time was that, for the Rangers, the cup went through the Devils. They knew they would have to beat them, and they knew that series would be total war both physically and mentally. So Keenan was absolutely adamant that they needed battled hardened, grizzled veterans and tough guys who could deal with what was to come. I mean, who knows. Maybe if they keep Amonte and Gartner they skate rings around the Devils and just outscore them. But, whatever you think of the trades, you have to say their idea of what that series was going to be like certainly came true. The Gartner for Anderson trade obviously looks brutal and the McT trade not much better. I don't think it's crazy to suggest those guys were important dressing room guys considering everything the Rangers have to go through to finally break the curse. Although the counter argument to that is that they already had a really strong leadership group. We'll never know if they win without the trades or not, but they certainly left them in a worse position in the long run. Whatever you think, it was worth it though.
  8. I feel like the only real difference is pucks that went in for him during his hot start aren’t at the moment. That is likely to revert to some form of median over the season. I thought he was visible and involved. No real issues with him at the moment bar end product.
  9. Absolutely no reason to start knee jerking with that line. He hasn’t been as good, but he hasn’t been bad either. He’s set up Panarin for clean breakaways in the last two, but no end product. It happens. I don’t see any need to move him unless he’s clearly an anchor, and we’re not there yet. We have bigger fish to fry in terms of getting the lines right too.
  10. The defense was worse? Stop it. He let in four goals that should have been stopped. He was dribbling rebounds right in front. The only goal that was unstoppable was the Matthew's to Marner tap in. He fucking sucked. Parts of column A, parts of column B. Igor was shit. But team defense has taken an absolute nosedive lately. We're back to the doldrums of Quinn and GG with guys just waving their sticks around, lack of aggression and assertiveness, puck watching, not cleaning out in front of our own net, breakdowns in structure. The works. That doesn't excuse Igor letting softies in, but it's a massive problem that we shouldn't let go because there's an easy fall guy in the goalie. Both aspects are deeply troubling to me.
  11. I'm not sure I make that deal for Tarasenko either. My point is, if you buy the idea that this is a special team with a great chance if they get some help at the deadline, you simply cannot allow yourself to be held hostage by your previous actions. Yes, the cupboard is bare and they've given away too many draft assets. But this is not the time to start thinking about the future. I understand that the bill comes due at some point, but you simply have to go for it if what we've seen so far keeps up. Teams like this doesn't come around all that often.
  12. It won't be a high pick. It's at best in the mid 20's. Whoever you pick there is basically a 50/50 proposition. You don't sit around and preserve that with a cup run staring you in the face, if it can be used on someone who gives you a better chance of getting you over the line. I completely agree that the Rangers have been far too quick to give up their high picks in general, but if they keep this up it's a special team, with a great coach and probably their best chance in a very long time. They should not let history get in the way of that.
×
×
  • Create New...