Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

[RS #21] Rangers @ Anaheim Ducks — Ducks Tonight. Turkeys Tomorrow.


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Phil said:

 

He's given up 11 of 12 points. There are always extenuating circumstances. He's not been good.

And there it is.

 

The backup goalie is really only worth the points you earn when he plays.


 

Cam Talbot earned points.

Biron earned points.

Glenn Healy earned points.

 

Earn points.

 

Edited by RangersIn7
  • Bullseye 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Capt said:

You're fine and mine are a totally different thing.  This is not the same player they had the first two years.  Last year he wasn't the same either.  People will say look at his points but anyone who watches this team and is honest knows he's not been the same player.  People even now try to say his playoffs were ok too because well look at the points.  This is a bad team.  Everything people complain about with this team is emphasized in Panarin's game.  

 

The Rangers need structure, compete, and will.  This team is not going to score it's way to a cup.  So they better get their shit together as a system.  They better learn to defend.  It's an effort to score goals so it might behoove them to make team's earn them too.  

 

It's really not about whether Panarin is a great player or not.  It's whether he's a fit to what the Rangers need. 

Panarin started this season awesome. He was doing everything.  He wasn’t playing perimeter hockey. He was shooting and going to the hard to go to aeeas.  I don't know what happened,  but he has been a bit less electric.

 

I've said it from the beginning,  but I don’t think he meshes with Trochek. I'm surprised they haven't skated into each other. They don't seem to be on the same page. Trochek looks good and brings much to the table,  but I don’t think the combo works. 

 

I don't know how they can switch up the lines though. It's going to be all the weapons on one line, or they have to tear the bandaid off and separate Kreider from Zibanejad. 

 

Panarin/Kreider-Zibanejad- Panarin/Kreider 

 

Lafrenière-Trochek- Kakko/Kravtsov

 

Vesey/Kravtsov- Chytil- Goodrow/ Gauthier/Kravtsov/Kakko/Vesey/Blais

 

Vesey/Goodrow- Carpenter- Goodrow/Gauthier/Blais 

 

Orrrr

 

Panarin- Zibanejad- Kakko/Kravtsov etc..

Kreider- Trocheck- any combo of RW

Kid line

Rest of the garbage 

 

The Rangers could certainly use a more gritty powerforward type to stick in the top 6. Kreider is no longer considered as such. Maybe that's a problem in of itself. Are either of the Tkachuks  disgruntled yet? 

 

Maybe they just need Hunt back. It really did start going south when they put him on waivers. Thanks Vesey. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

The way Halak has played it wouldn’t hurt to switch to Domingue at this point.  Might even give a little more cap room.  I never can figure out cap situations in the NHL.  

Halak has a full NMC. He's here until he decides he doesn't want to be. 

 

They can't burn cap on a 3rd goalie. 

Edited by Pete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Valriera said:

The solution is quite simple really, which is to stop this ridiculous notion of unnecessary goalie rotation. Shesterkin can play a back to back where the second night is an easy game, like yesterday. GG been guilty of this all year

I completely disagree, you should be able to play your backup against the team that doesn't have a win in regulation this season.

 

If you're not starting your backup on the second game of a back-to-back on a West Coast trip against the team that hasn't won a game this season, when can you start him? 

  • Like 2
  • Bullseye 1
  • Keeps it 100 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Pete said:

I completely disagree, you should be able to play your backup against the team that doesn't have a win in regulation this season.

 

If you're not starting your backup on the second game of a back-to-back on a West Coast trip against the team that hasn't won a game this season, when can you start him? 

That’s my point tho and we went through this with Georgie - if he can’t reliably win those games then start him in the hard ones, but give the easy ones to shesty 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Valriera said:

That’s my point tho and we went through this with Georgie - if he can’t reliably win those games then start him in the hard ones, but give the easy ones to shesty 

How does that help? Either way you're losing 2 of 4 points. 

 

Shesty against LA and Halak against Ducks is the right move. Anything else points to the fear and desperation borne of bigger problems. 

Edited by Pete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Pete said:

I completely disagree, you should be able to play your backup against the team that doesn't have a win in regulation this season.

 

If you're not starting your backup on the second game of a back-to-back on a West Coast trip against the team that hasn't won a game this season, when can you start him? 


I agree with this as a general blanket approach to managing goaltender starts, but there’s more to it than absolving Gallant. First, it says a lot about Halak that nobody should feel comfortable starting him in such a game. Second, it says a lot about Gallant that he doesn’t seem to feel that way, especially coaching a team struggling to gain momentum and confidence. It’s utterly back breaking to see the kinds of goals go in that Halak is letting in. It makes a team that is already having trouble consistently scoring goals, know they have to score even more goals to win. It’s terrible for the team’s psyche right now, and I honestly think they clutch their sticks harder trying to score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, rmc51 said:


I agree with this as a general blanket approach to managing goaltender starts, but there’s more to it than absolving Gallant. First, it says a lot about Halak that nobody should feel comfortable starting him in such a game. Second, it says a lot about Gallant that he doesn’t seem to feel that way, especially coaching a team struggling to gain momentum and confidence. It’s utterly back breaking to see the kinds of goals go in that Halak is letting in. It makes a team that is already having trouble consistently scoring goals, know they have to score even more goals to win. It’s terrible for the team’s psyche right now, and I honestly think they clutch their sticks harder trying to score.

The backup goalie has to work. Igor isn't starting 82 games. He's going to play, he has to play, he's got an NMC.

 

No matter when you start him, it's a risk but that toothpaste can't be put back in the tube now.

 

Many things can be true at once. He stinks, but they haven't given him goal support, maybe because they're putting too much pressure on themselves, but BFD...Halak is going to play so they need to figure it out. So does he.

 

But I'll never agree that Halak shouldn't have started last game because even if Igor starts, the same logic will apply to the next Halak start. He's gonna play. It's inevitable.

Edited by Pete
  • Bullseye 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, jsrangers said:

How many games do you guys who seem to want to run Igor out there every night think he can play in the regular season without a significant increased risk of injury? Serious question for the sake of conversation.

 

From 2007-2012, Henrik at 25-30 years old averaged 68 starts a year and 3 years during that span he had 70 or more. Igor started 52 last year and is on pace for 58. I don’t think starting him for an important back-to-back or two is in danger of burning him out. Being inflexible about using him more is a bit cautious for my taste is all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

 

From 2007-2012, Henrik at 25-30 years old averaged 68 starts a year and 3 years during that span he had 70 or more. Igor started 52 last year and is on pace for 58. I don’t think starting him for an important back-to-back or two is in danger of burning him out. Being inflexible about using him more is a bit cautious for my taste is all.

 

That's old thinking at this point. 

 

And Igor is fragile. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And by the way, if you’re starting Igor 58 games out of 82 with the concern you’re worried about his health, you need to spend a good amount more than $1.5M on a backup goalie to fill in that many games. Either there’s a disconnect between Drury and Gallant on how much Shesterkin should be playing, or Drury made an egregious error knowing Halak was slated to play upwards of 25 games.

Edited by rmc51
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

** was putting this together when you posted yours. I think ultimately Drury failed miserably here.

 

I'm in the he's fragile and that you need two goalies in this day and age camp. It also seems like every time or at least the last 4-5 times Halak started there's a "he shouldn't start this one" theme or basically I would go with Igor. I just don't think it's possible. I think you need two goalies in this day and age, Halak hasn't been good, Drury should of done better here no doubt imo.  I also go back to the guy who always gets all kinds of credit over the years, Allaire, is heavily consulted if not basically chooses or at a minimum recommends who gets the goalie starts. 

 

 

Edited by jsrangers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Phil unpinned this topic
  • Drew a Penalty changed the title to [RS #21] Rangers @ Anaheim Ducks — Ducks Tonight. Turkeys Tomorrow.
On 11/25/2022 at 12:25 PM, Valriera said:

The solution is quite simple really, which is to stop this ridiculous notion of unnecessary goalie rotation. Shesterkin can play a back to back where the second night is an easy game, like yesterday. GG been guilty of this all year

Which means,  Gallant will play Halak from here out, until he wins. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, rmc51 said:

 

From 2007-2012, Henrik at 25-30 years old averaged 68 starts a year and 3 years during that span he had 70 or more. Igor started 52 last year and is on pace for 58. I don’t think starting him for an important back-to-back or two is in danger of burning him out. Being inflexible about using him more is a bit cautious for my taste is all.

 

Don't forget, Shesterkin had a bunch of injuries last season. He may be capable of more starts 

 

BUT, you need to play your back up. Halak wasn't a bad choice. There really wasn't much available in the price range. Who else was out there? My opinion was that it really didn't matter who the back up was.

 

I was fine with any loser or Hartford hot hand. Seems no matter who the back up is, the team grips their sticks too tight and fails to take any pressure off them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...