|
Lack of Chemistry, Too Many Penalties, D-Men Down Have Rangers 0-1-2 |
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, thanks to all who have carried the blog while I have been out for the Jewish Holidays. There is one more Wed-Sat night and then, hopefully, my schedule gets back to normal, enabling me to regularly blog.
Chemistry:
As we have discussed, chemistry is an odd thing. It's hard to quantify and determine which groupings will have it, but eminently noticeable when it's missing or working well. In the case of the Rangers, injuries - to Wolski, Sauer, and Staal - have impacted the chemistry on the offensive and defensive pairings. As Glen said, in the off-season, and early in the pre-season, the gameplan was to have Wolski skate on the top line with Gabby and Richards. That plan, along with the hope for consistent production, may have been the reason why the Rangers kept Wolski and his $3.8 million salary, instead of buying him out and saving $3.4 million. A groin injury scrapped those plans, causing reshuffling.
Torts decided to break up the Pack line, a group that appeared to have that unspoken chemistry, by moving Dubi to the top line, a move that I liked because I thought that Dubi would provide some of the grit the line needed and felt Feds could somewhat seamlessly slide in. That proved not to be the case, as while Gabby did have a goal, the top line strugged in Europe, prompting another change. Stepan now went from center to left wing, shifting Dubi back to the Pack line while also reuniting the Feds-Boyle-Prust combination.
One would have thought that the reuniting of the second and third line was the panacea that the team needed to provide consistent pressure, but Saturday showed that was not the case. While Stepan played well on the top line, who generated several good chances, the Pack line was basically non-existent, and other than the goal scored by Prust, the third line didn't generate that much. Part of the lack of consistency might have been due to the flow being interrupted by the constant parade to the penalty box, but the team is clearly a work-in-progress. This is also evidenced by the fourth line's struggles. Zucc did little with his time, earning his demotion. As others said, the jury, which was in doubt at the beginning of the year, is now clearly out on Zucc. He will need to show something down in Hartford to even be considered for a call up if injuries strike. In addition, he looks to be a tweener, not consistently good enough for a top-six spot and not strong or gritty enough for a third or fourth line role, which sounds eerily similar to Erik Christensen.
Penalties:
Coaches, fans, players harp on the notion on you must stay out of the box. Yet the Rangers continue to lead the league in PIM. Saturday was no different as the team took eight penalties, two of which resulted in Isles' goals, including the game-winner by John Tavares. We can complian all we want about ticky-tacky and borderline calls, but the bottom line is you have to adjust to how the referees are calling the game and find a way to stay out of the box. To be average 20.7 minutes of penalties in the first three games of the year - that's a third of a game in the box - is unacceptable. It is exacerbated by the average performance of what is usually a solid group of penalty killers, who have allowed three goals in 19 chances. Not horrible, and yes, it's a small sample size, but PPG in key moments have hurt the Rangers, who also are 0-for-12 on the man advantage, which makes the three goals scored against them on the PP loom even larger. I am less concerned about when the Rangers are on the man advantage, as the talent the team has should come to the forefront. However, on the PK, the loss of Staal is huge, which has had a tricke-down effect to the rest of the team.
D-Men Down:
The loss of Staal as we all know is huge for the Rangers. Not just for the impact he has on the ice, both at even strength and shorthanded, but for the impact he has on the rest of the team and defensive pairings. His absence has resulted in the Rangers splitting up the McD and Sauer - more on him in a second - pairing. which has had a trickle down impact on the other combinations. Girardi and McD have been solid, very liitle complaints there. However, now with the absence of Sauer, who one has to wonder why they rushed him back for Europe, unless they were so worried about playing Bell and/or Woywitka, the defense is a shell of it's former self. In addition, Sauer would have stepped in for Staal on the PK against the Isles, and his absence was obviously felt there as well. MDZ is struggling defensively and perhaps his focus of trying to be better on his own end has also negated his potential offensive impact. Erixon has been solid and better than expected, but he is grtting his feet wet and learning at the major league instead of AHL level. Eminger has not been the veteran presence that we all thought he would be when the team re-signed him this off-season while Woywitka showed in his one game why he was placed on waivers.
The problem is no one knows how long Staal, and possibly now Sauer, will be out. Concussions as we have seen are a tricky thing. That doubt as to when he will be back may hamper the Rangers in trying to acquire a d-man, along with the modicum of salary cap room. As others have said, a move may be necessary, but in my view, not so much as the unknown as to when Staal will be back but because of the unknown when he does return. Each time he takes a hit or goes down, you will have to wonder what the impact will be to his brain and will he be sidelined again? I would love Ryan Suter, but that is not happening. Enstrom, likely the same, though if Winnipeg's struggles continue, he might be available sooner rather than later. Oduya and Aucoin - yes, they are better than Woywitka, but let's assume Sauer is back after the West Coast trip - projecting he is out based on Bell's call up, even though it was only a hedge - are those two better than Erixon or at worse Eminger?
The Staal dilemma could hover over this team for a while, and a proper resolution, either his return or move to acquire another d-man, could determine the fate of the Rangers.
Newbury etc:
With Zucc getting sent down, the call up of Newbury was a wise one. He can provide some grit, will not look out of place on the fourth line, and if Torts shortens his bench, he can do what's needed for that line in limited minutes.
All the talk of Hagelin and Bourque is very premature. While Hagelin is off to a brilliant start and Bourque has struggled a bit, remember, it's a small sample size. If the Rangers do need another forward, I think it will be John Mitchell who gets the call. That would give Hagelin and Bourque more time to get acclimated to the pro game and Rangers' system. In addition, if Hagelin is called up down the road, the question is do you move the Feds-Boyle-Prust line down to the fourth line to give Hagelin third line minutes or move Hagelin to the third line, bumping Feds or Prust down?
Last, as others have said IT'S THREE GAMES. I know we wear our fandom on our sleeves and expect perfection nightly, but we all know that's unrealistic. With Staal and Sauer out, the defensive struggles are not surprising. Yes, nine goals in three games are not ideal, though one was an empty-netter, but it has to be balanced by the team only scoring five goals. Given the talent up front, one would have expected better, but that gets back to my chemistry discussion above. Once 10 games have passed, if the offensive struggles remain, then it will be time to worry. Until then, growing pains are to be expected, though that doesn't mean we have to like it. If the Rangers had won one in Europe and were 1-1-1, would the criticism of their overall performance be as harsh? The West Coast swing may show a lot about the unity and backbone of this team. For me a 2-2 trip would be progress and 3-1 would exceptional. If they go 0-4 or 1-3, then it will be time to ratchet up the concerns. Until then, don't panic.
New York Rangers Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»