|
A Split Weekend for the Rangers: The Only Constant is Inconsistency |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rangers went from outhouse to penthouse in a span of 24 hours. After blowing a 2-1 lead after two periods Friday - their first time in 101 games that they failed to gain a point after leading after two - they earned some redemption in general and against their former coach Saturday. A much better and complete showing in the team's 5-2 win over Vancouver and John Tortorella.
The best thing we can say about the Blueshirts is that their one constant is their inconsistency. It's almost as if you can substitute in the Rangers for Forest Gump and say "Life is like the Rangers performance...you never know what you are going to get." Each game seems to be a whole new set of circumstances with little carryover from the prior contest. Play well in one game, not so much in the other. Lousy against one opponent. solid and/or dominant against the next. I guess that's why at 14-13, the Rangers are where they should be even though many of us thought they would be better at that stage.
Friday:
Larry Brooks and AV put it best:
Brooks - "The forecheck was negligible, sustained pressure was nonexistent, neutral-zone play was slipshod and clearing the defensive zone cleanly was nearly impossible after the first period"
AV- "Too many guys, their execution and compete level …we didn’t deserve to come out of here with a win and we didn’t."
The first period wasn't bad, as the Rangers somewhat dictated play, but after that, it was all Boston. I have seen where many felt the fight between Zdeno Chara and Brian Boyle spurred the Bruins on, but I don't share that same mindset. Boston won the game because they out-executed and outplayed NY, not because they were more physical or imposed their will.
As Glen wrote, AV said (when he spoke to Pierre McGuire during the game) the strategy was to try to increase coverage down low while purposely leaving the points open. Obviously, they needed to do a better job of closing off passing lanes to prevent the one-timers but the plan was to allow them to rip point shots and that led to Boston possessing the puck a lot as the Rangers were caught scrambling down low. I was shocked when I heard AV say that was the strategy. I mean, really. Did you not watch the highlights of the playoffs last year? Did you not see Torey Krug, Chara, Seidenberg, Boychuk all use their heavy shots to either score of get rebounds in front? Plus, how the hell can you give them 10-15 feet of room to shoot or makes cross-ice passes, like to Marchand, with no close-out or adjustment? In addition, that space created room for rebounds and deflections, as seen on Bergeron's tying goal that went off Girardi. While Boston did an excellent job of executing, the defensive game-plan stunk.
In addition, I thought Marc Staal had a horrific game. The blind pass to clear the zone weakly which was picked off and led to Chara's goal was just the icing on top of the cake in a bad game. Anton Stralman was solid, despite Staal's poor contest. Girardi also struggled a bit, excluding the goal that deflected off him, which wasn't his fault. Offensively, there was little sustained pressure, which was in stark contrast to the game 10 days prior. That lack of puck possession, which resulted in most of the play coming on the Rangers side of the ice, plus change in defensive style were in my opinion two of the big reasons for the loss. Based on the effort, it was no shock that come Saturday, changes had to be made.
Saturday:
While much of the focus leading up to the game was on the return of John Tortorella and match up with Vigeault, the Rangers' loss Friday changed the focus. If NY had won Friday, more might have been made of the game by the team, but coming off a loss, the goal was more to avoid a two-game losing streak with Torts a secondary concern. To help prevent that second defeat, substantial changes were made.
First, the forwards. The new line combinations were: Richards-Brassard-Callahan, Kreider-Stepan-Nash, Hagelin-DMoore-Zucc, Pouliot-Boyle-Dorsett. AV reunited Nash and Stepan and placed Kreider on that line as the trio with Zucc had struggled lately. Brassard, who had been a bit better offensively, was moved up, shifting Richards to the wing, where he played late in the pre-season and earlier this season. Pyatt, who was solid against Florida and I didn't think was bad against Boston, sat as Dorsett and his sore wrist was healthy enough to get back in. Moore, who has shown a bit more offensive skill than I thought he has, shift up to play with Hagelin and Zucc; which is actually an interesting third line since Hagelin can create pressure with his speed and Zucc has skill with the puck. That line also should be solid defensively.
On defense: McD-G, Staal-Stral, DZ-Falk. Del Zotto returned to the Rangers lineup after being a healthy scratch for two games with John Moore a healthy scratch. This might have more of a chance for MDZ to play on his normal side rather than a slight or criticism of Moore. Falk remained in due to his physical style of play.
In Net: Talbot. I thought that AV might allow Hank to play against Vancouver, but he opted to give Talbot his first start at MSG on the back-to-back.
How did the changes work out? Kreider was beast, as he was all over the place. I am sure he wanted to have a monster game in front of Torts, since there a major school of thought that Torts buried the kid last year. I may agree to that up to a point, but Kreider struggled with an ankle injury and failed to really impress in the AHL. He then carried those issues up to the NHL after his promotion and never really was able to get back to the form he had in the playoffs against Washington. Plus, Torts also harped on him to be a more complete player by focusing on defense, not just offense.
That said, as was pointed out in the comments on the blog, he was a top player on the BC Eagles for four seasons, he was a star during his run in the WJCs, he had an immediate impact in his NHL debut. Everything was seemingly easy for him. But then the lockout happened and he had a tough time in the minors during it. He got off to a slow start last season; once the lockout ended. Tortorella was not playing him much, which costs him his confidence. Then this year, he was sent down to start the year. But he regained that confidence in the minors. AV started using him more and more, which built on his confidence, culminating in his hat trick Saturday (after just one goal his last 14 games). Plus, Nash had a goal and two assists while Stepan had two assists (but now just one goal in his last 12 games). If Nash can only stay healthy, the dominance and elite skills we have started to see as he rounds himself back into shape and form should only be more and more on display.
Del Zotto looked much more comfortable on the left side and blasted a slap shot for a power play goal. The question now becomes what do you do? Does Del Zotto stay in the lineup and you have him play with Falk sticking on the right side due to the physical presence he brings that the other blueliners lack? Do you sit Falk, play Moore and have him play the right side? Or, do you reunite Moore and MDZ and shift Del Zotto back to his weaker side? If it was a showcase, well, the Rangers and Del Zotto each got what they wanted.
Talbot made a career-high 35 saves in his first ever start at MSG for the win. He was his usual calm and poised self between the pipes, making key saves when needed. There seems to be no question that the Rangers play differently in front of him. Maybe it's the view that Lundqvist will bail them out and they need to be better for Talbot, but whatever the reason, there is a tangible difference as to the Blueshirts play when Talbot is in net. To make matters more interesting, AV has now opened a can of worms not committing to Lundqvist on Monday when NY plays Winnipeg with two days off before they face Buffalo. If he thinks this is a motivating tactic to the team and Lundqvist, he is barking up the wrong tree. I would expect Hank to play, but if not, all this does is create tension on a team that already has enough issues lately.
We also saw that Boyle has no business fighting since Chara and Bieksa kicked the crap out of him. Glad he came to the defense of his teammates, in the case, Kreider, who Bieksa looked like he wanted to get to, and felt the need to do so, but he is clearly out his element there. I was happy Dorsett stuck up for Del Zotto, who was hit 2:51 into the third by an forearm to the head by Sestito, who then gave crap to the Rangers' bench. What I also liked is that he waited to the game was really out of hand to avoid putting the team at a major disadvantage. That said, the team clearly needs another or a heavyweight to fulfill these tasks and prevent liberties from being taken.
A split weekend.
Did we learn any more about this team we didn't know before? I was happy to see the resiliency from the team Saturday after a poor effort Friday. As was written in the blog comments, the same view from both schools of thought likely remains. "One that believes there is enough talent on the roster that if they continue to improve, make a few tweaks to the roster and things fall right they could go far in the playoffs. The second group believes the team does not have the ability to compete with the top teams in the league. They also feel that major changes, and not minor tweaks, are needed to improve the roster to the point of legitimate competition." After Friday, the second school was dominant. After Saturday, the first.
So we are somewhere in the middle. Tweaks will be needed. Another big body would be nice. A physical shut down d-man or consistent righty d-man in addition to a return to form, by Girardi. A forward who can score (maybe Cammalleri, Glencross when he returns..there will be teams out West dealing before too long). That said, there is talent here. The problem is that talent is latent way too often. In games like Saturday, it comes to forefront and all looks fine. In contests like Friday, they get outplayed and the world is coming to end. Then most think that they can't compete with the Bostons, Chicagos. San Joses, LAs, Pittsburghs of the world, each of who may and likely has most talent than the Rangers. But you can use the talent you have as long as it comes with effort and a smart game plan, which as we saw Friday, was lacking in each case.
However, I don't think you will find anyone that will say the team is "terrible," at least when that person is rational and not speaking out of frustration. In fact, many would suggest a problem is the team isn't or hasn't been terrible enough. They aren't terrible enough to get a top-three draft pick in order to select a franchise player as Chicago, Boston, LA and Pittsburgh have done at recent points.
The New York Rangers - consistently inconsistent, which clearly needs to change or 40, 50. 60 games - you insert the number - from now, we will be having the same arguments and conversations we are today on December 1.
New York Rangers Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»