Is it Too Soon to Suggest Moving Goodrow?

[The Dude]

1 hour ago, Keirik said:

  I dont see how in the world it shows anything negative about HIM when he was never specifically brought in for goals, yet managed to make a decent impact in 5 v 5 situations. If anything, it shows exactly why he is valuable. If the top 6 does the majority of their damage on the PP, then other guys that contribute a decent amount in other situations whole also providing intanglbes.

 

If you dont like the guy thats one thing, but lets at least be a bit realistic here. He had a fine season last year. What exactly were you expecting more than leadership, 13 goals, 33 points, and can slide up and down?  Hes maybe 1m overpaid but thats the nature of a UFA signing. 

 

You brought up his 5 v 5 scoring. Not me  6th on the team at even strength goals doesn't really add up to anything when the team was one of the worst in the league at even strength.  It puts him at the bottom of the pile of garbage if he's 6th. 

 

What I was expecting was him making this team harder to play against.  A physical, pestering, in your face player that would PK, and win tons of faceoffs. He didn't really do that. He had some key defensive plays where he sacrificed his body in the playoffs,  but ultimately didn't really impact many games.  Teams took physicality to the Rangers and walked all over them.  He may have had career numbers offensively,  but he didn't really do what I expected from him.  Especially when slotted up. 

 

I'm flat out saying why I don't like him here. Its not some puzzle. They paid him and Nemeth money that should have went towards keeping their top RW. I don't buy into the hype about his importance as a winner as a 4th liner. His "game" isn't coming put fully as a Ranger. He's pretty ordinary physicality.  He's not some sort of match up nightmare for other teams. That's what I was expecting. 

[The Dude]

Double post.

 

Gauthier is a god. 

Edited October 30, 2022 by The Dude

[Scott]

Kind of tough to assess his playoff value based off last year no, when he was battling a broken bone in his foot or ankle and was only able to dress in 9 of the 20 games.

 

Based on that I would say yes too soon. 

[Keirik]

32 minutes ago, The Dude said:

You brought up his 5 v 5 scoring. Not me  6th on the team at even strength goals doesn't really add up to anything when the team was one of the worst in the league at even strength.  It puts him at the bottom of the pile of garbage if he's 6th. 

 

What I was expecting was him making this team harder to play against.  A physical, pestering, in your face player that would PK, and win tons of faceoffs. He didn't really do that. He had some key defensive plays where he sacrificed his body in the playoffs,  but ultimately didn't really impact many games.  Teams took physicality to the Rangers and walked all over them.  He may have had career numbers offensively,  but he didn't really do what I expected from him.  Especially when slotted up. 

 

I'm flat out saying why I don't like him here. Its not some puzzle. They paid him and Nemeth money that should have went towards keeping their top RW. I don't buy into the hype about his importance as a winner as a 4th liner. His "game" isn't coming put fully as a Ranger. He's pretty ordinary physicality.  He's not some sort of match up nightmare for other teams. That's what I was expecting. 

I know I brought up his even strength production. It’s one of the exact things that makes him worth being here. I never said you brought it up. I said I don’t see how his production at even strength is anything to scoff at. You said it was. Even if he were brought in for other things, I still think you’re missing the point. He wasn’t brought in for any one specific thing outside of Stanley cup experience and being productive in other areas on the ice that aren’t prime offensive minutes.

6th on the roster in EV goals

7th in total points

2nd in short handed points

1st among forwards in blocked shots

4th among forwards in hits

2nd for most faceoffs won/ faceoff % (not counting Copp’s .2 difference higher in 18 games)

 

   He’s playing difficult minutes. He’s making a difference in those minutes. They won 50+ games last year and for a very large part of the year before the trade deadline the only acquisitions that really made an impact on this team were Gallant, Reaves, and Goodrow.  To a lesser extent Hunt since he basically just took over for Blais but was more of a passenger during the Bread and Strome tour.

 

im not even in love with Goodrow but I can’t complain at all about his impact on the team. I think he was a very good pickup for us. 

 

 

[The Dude]

3 minutes ago, Keirik said:

I know I brought up his even strength production. It’s one of the exact things that makes him worth being here. I never said you brought it up. I said I don’t see how his production at even strength is anything to scoff at. You said it was. Even if he were brought in for other things, I still think you’re missing the point. He wasn’t brought in for any one specific thing outside of Stanley cup experience and being productive in other areas on the ice that aren’t prime offensive minutes.

6th on the roster in EV goals

7th in total points

2nd in short handed points

1st among forwards in blocked shots

4th among forwards in hits

2nd for most faceoffs won/ faceoff % (not counting Copp’s .2 difference higher in 18 games)

 

   He’s playing difficult minutes. He’s making a difference in those minutes. They won 50+ games last year and for a very large part of the year before the trade deadline the only acquisitions that really made an impact on this team were Gallant, Reaves, and Goodrow.  To a lesser extent Hunt since he basically just took over for Blais but was more of a passenger during the Bread and Strome tour.

 

im not even in love with Goodrow but I can’t complain at all about his impact on the team. I think he was a very good pickup for us. 

 

 

Every stat you're throwing out there kinda helps my point and doesn't really enforce yours. You want to prop up his production, but then retract it and throw your hands up with a "I'm just saying " tone. 

 

Fact is, he's not playing difficult minutes. He's not in a checking role to match up with top lines or any line. He's just kinda there. 

 

I'm not understanding what you're talking about with players who made a difference compared to the season prior. A goalie having a historic year, a guy scoring 50+ goals, a Norris candidate D man, a resurgence of Trouba, Zibanejad getting over covid and a "down " 96 point year from Panarin are exact reasons for the teams success. Not Goodrow, Hunt and Reaves as additions. Come on man. You're leaving a lot out. 

 

The team was reliant on 2 things. The goalie and the PP. Kinda proving even more how ineffective Goodrows intanglbes are to the team.  They stunk defensively as a whole and were typically man handled in physical games.  

 

Again.  I expect aggressive play, good defensive prowess, top notch faceoff skill, annoyance  along with marginal offensive output. He provides one if those and its the least they need of him. It's the one thing that you keep bringing up.  Granted it's something Gallant seems to want from him. He deploys him pretty poorly  and doesn't seem to stress any kind of team defense. 

 

If that's the way they are going to play, I'd rather stacked offensive talent instead of square pegs in round holes with forcing 20 point players into the top 6 to make them 30 point players.. 

[Keirik]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Every stat you're throwing out there kinda helps my point and doesn't really enforce yours. You want to prop up his production, but then retract it and throw your hands up with a "I'm just saying " tone. 

 

Fact is, he's not playing difficult minutes. He's not in a checking role to match up with top lines or any line. He's just kinda there. 

 

I'm not understanding what you're talking about with players who made a difference compared to the season prior. A goalie having a historic year, a guy scoring 50+ goals, a Norris candidate D man, a resurgence of Trouba, Zibanejad getting over covid and a "down " 96 point year from Panarin are exact reasons for the teams success. Not Goodrow, Hunt and Reaves as additions. Come on man. You're leaving a lot out. 

 

The team was reliant on 2 things. The goalie and the PP. Kinda proving even more how ineffective Goodrows intanglbes are to the team.  They stunk defensively as a whole and were typically man handled in physical games.  

 

Again.  I expect aggressive play, good defensive prowess, top notch faceoff skill, annoyance  along with marginal offensive output. He provides one if those and its the least they need of him. It's the one thing that you keep bringing up.  Granted it's something Gallant seems to want from him. He deploys him pretty poorly  and doesn't seem to stress any kind of team defense. 

 

If that's the way they are going to play, I'd rather stacked offensive talent instead of square pegs in round holes with forcing 20 point players into the top 6 to make them 30 point players.. 

I never said Goodrow is the sole reason for success. I said there were very little changes roster wise. Huge difference. There’s no doubt guys making 8m+ on ANY team (Trouba, Mika, Bread, Fox even though extensive didn’t set in until now) play a much bigger role in the success or failures of a club. Add in Shesty who only isn’t being paid 8m because of timing and Kreider having a career year. They ALWAYS were going to play a bigger role in success than guys in the bottom six so I’m not sure where you are going with this.

 

    Every stat I posted doesn’t go towards your point. It goes to why Goodrow was brought here. These are necessary parts of the game that have to come from somewhere. The league isn’t built on just stacking offensive players everywhere. Ask Edmonton fans how well that’s played out thus far for them in the McDavid/Draisaitl era. 
   I don’t mind arguing with you, but I have no idea what the point of saying stuff like this is.

  

Quote

You want to prop up his production, but then retract it and throw your hands up with a "I'm just saying " tone

 
  There’s really no tone in my words. Let’s just stick to the topic to make things easier. We are just disagreeing on Goodrows value. I get it. You don’t see his value. I do, and I provided the stats  eyond just offense that the organization probably points to as to why he was worth the slight overpayment to bring him here, and that’s without going through the behind the scenes he likely does as well. His career offensive year was mostly gravy. I personally think guys like Reaves and Goodrow helped change the identity of this team. You could see it day one. I thought he was fine last year. 
 

 

Honestly, it sounds to me like you were expecting a center version of 28 year old Patric Hornqvist.  

[The Dude]

2 hours ago, Keirik said:

I never said Goodrow is the sole reason for success. I said there were very little changes roster wise. Huge difference. There’s no doubt guys making 8m+ on ANY team (Trouba, Mika, Bread, Fox even though extensive didn’t set in until now) play a much bigger role in the success or failures of a club. Add in Shesty who only isn’t being paid 8m because of timing and Kreider having a career year. They ALWAYS were going to play a bigger role in success than guys in the bottom six so I’m not sure where you are going with this.

 

    Every stat I posted doesn’t go towards your point. It goes to why Goodrow was brought here. These are necessary parts of the game that have to come from somewhere. The league isn’t built on just stacking offensive players everywhere. Ask Edmonton fans how well that’s played out thus far for them in the McDavid/Draisaitl era. 
   I don’t mind arguing with you, but I have no idea what the point of saying stuff like this is.

  

 
  There’s really no tone in my words. Let’s just stick to the topic to make things easier. We are just disagreeing on Goodrows value. I get it. You don’t see his value. I do, and I provided the stats  eyond just offense that the organization probably points to as to why he was worth the slight overpayment to bring him here, and that’s without going through the behind the scenes he likely does as well. His career offensive year was mostly gravy. I personally think guys like Reaves and Goodrow helped change the identity of this team. You could see it day one. I thought he was fine last year. 
 

 

Honestly, it sounds to me like you were expecting a center version of 28 year old Patric Hornqvist.  

So, is Goodrow a reason the team turned around and became a contender or not?  Why bring him up along with Reaves and Gallant as the only additions to the team pre deadline? Seriously why say it, if it's not any kind of driving point in what we are talking about? 

 

Just random facts or something? No. You're trying to tie Goodrow into the success of a team that got a better coach and got elite performance from a goalie in his first full season and a 50 goal season from a guy that historically under performed, to go along with a team that was already on the brink of being good. You can't say you're not saying something,  then turn around and pretty much say it.  I mean, you do later in this post. So...

 

The team had more confidence,  but couldnt that have more to do with Gallant as well as already being pretty good? It was basically the same roster as the year prior. Minus Buch- but plus Goodrow, Reaves, Nemeth, and later Schneider. You're bringing up 2 players and right here you say they are a driving force in changing the teams identity. Again. You are saying it, because Reaves is just a cheerleader and not really an on ice performer. Game 1 of last year was a let down. So the only other addition that matters is Goodrow.....

 

Their identity is still the same. They aren't tough. They are still a PP driven team. They still get physically pushed around and man handled  They are a poor defensive team. They scare nobody and rely on their PP and their goalie. Nothing has really changed,  but the wins.  It's not a new formula. It's not a new identity that teams fear. Their identity is far from the things you cite Goodrow for being good at. It's not like he's setting an example that others follow. He's just there. Doing part of his thing 

 

The thing is the stats you provided don't put him in the tops of any category, but blocked shots. One stat out of the 6 you provided were for what I expected from him. 

 

When I bring up your tone, it's in regards to posting his offensive stats, but then saying he wasn't brought in to score..... then saying it's exactly why he made a difference...  then not understanding why I don't care about his even strength production or any production.

 

I don't care about his even strength production on a shitty even strength team. But you kept pointing to it as why you think he has done what was expected of him. Then brought middle of the forward pack stats for everything else and meh numbers for faceoffs on a terrible faceoff team.. 

 

What I expected out of Goodrow was Barclay Goodrow and Blake Coleman from the Tampa Bay Lightning. Hard to play against,  rigid, in your face, defensive minded, buzz saws that you could put on the ice against other teams top players, to knock off their game and walk that line.  Tone setter. Energy. A different look for the bottom 6. Seriously thought he'd be the center on a 3rd line that could do a multitude of things, but mainly be an energy line that could produce. 

 

I don't see that from him. He can be good defensively. He'll block some shots. Blocked some big ones in the playoffs.  But the gravy you are bringing up (even strength scoring and career offensive numbers) as being a difference maker isn't what I wanted out of him. Sure. It's goooood. I'm not going to seriously sit here and say that's a bad thing. It's just not what I think he's here for or necessarily good at. 

 

But if you feel he's as big of a leader as it seems you make him out to be. OK. I guess I see your side. It's not always about the stats. He came with the wins, so naturally you'd think there's part of the connection. I don't see a big difference in style of play from before he came here with his so called intanglbes. I see none of it in his game on a consistent basis and I don't see it rubbing off onto other players. They are terrible defensively. 

 

 

 

Edited October 30, 2022 by The Dude

[Sod16]

He reminds me of when they brought in Mike Keane and Brian Skrudland.  They were OK with the Rangers, but they were not the same as they were in the unique circumstances from which they came.  Considering the difficulties in trading him, I'd get used to him being here for awhile.  After the Chytil injury (and there may be more) we'd have no one to center the third line without him.