GDT [RS #6] Rangers vs. Columbus Blue Jackets — Dinnertime Hockey

[RangersIn7]

1 minute ago, Morphinity 2.0 said:

Starting Halak here reminds me of them starting Georgiev in the first game of the season last year vs. WSH. Seemingly no rationale behind it other than "we've got a bunch of games coming up".

 

Similar results too. 

 

 

It’s a couple of shitty losses.

But in perspective… it’s October. 
Personally, I didn’t think San Jose would go to 0-6. Came in 0-5. Even terribly bad NHL teams don’t often lose 6 straight. 
 

Last night they were shit.

But it’s fine.

 

Theyve got like 75 games left.

[Pete]

10 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

I would say so, yes.

 

Your points are valid. But you generally need breaks and for some things to go your way to get that deep, no matter how good you are. 

Those breaks don't often include the other team losing top line players 2 games in a row.

 

They don't get past Pittsburgh if Crosby isn't hurt, IMO. 

 

Point being, they're basically coming back with the same team so something else has to change. 

[Pete]

48 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Yes, because breaks happen to every team. The Rangers aren't unique in benefiting from opposing injuries.

 

We all agree they're extremely flawed and are largely carried by elite goaltending, but I won't dismiss how far they got because of it, or any other factors. Some luck you make. Some you don't. But every team is subject to these factors to varying degrees and timing.

This is a very rosy spin that I'll allow you to enjoy, if it makes you feel better.

 

I could always go back to last playoffs GDTs and see how most everyone realize Crosby was completely dominant until he got hurt. 

 

Yes every team gets breaks but not all breaks are equal, and to bucket them all as "breaks" is naive, IMO. 

[Parsley]

59 minutes ago, Pete said:

Let's not forget the massive amount of good fortune the Rangers got on their way to the ECF. Crosby hurt, Jarvis hurt in Game 7, and at the end Tampa came in and were a step faster than the Rangers and the Avalanche were 3 steps faster than Tampa.

 

Were the Rangers really that close? 

I mean, 2 wins from the Finals whether they deserved it or not. Colorado clearly would have been huge favorites. Would have hoped for Igor to steal a Cup for them. 
 

I think where they finished last season was about right. One tier down from elite. I’d expect similar this season. Doesn’t mean they can’t be upset in the first rd. come playoff time. 
 

 

[Parsley]

I also don’t panic the first 10 or so games of a season. Schedule sucks, guys are settling in. Let’s see how November goes. 

[Morphinity 2.0]

19 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

It’s a couple of shitty losses.

But in perspective… it’s October. 
Personally, I didn’t think San Jose would go to 0-6. Came in 0-5. Even terribly bad NHL teams don’t often lose 6 straight. 
 

Last night they were shit.

But it’s fine.

 

Theyve got like 75 games left.

The SJS loss... whatever. It's a loss in a vacuum.

 

This loss vs. CBJ was not acceptable. The effort was not acceptable. The Rangers were at home with two days rest while CBJ played less than 24 hours prior.

 

And a lot of the same issues we saw last season are starting to pop up again - i.e. braindead defensive zone coverage. And when teams take away that middle seam so the Rangers can't go cross-ice, they've got nothing offensively.

 

I'm not panicking. The sky is not falling. But the team is still deeply flawed and these two losses really exposed those flaws.

[Phil]

7 minutes ago, Pete said:

This is a very rosy spin that I'll allow you to enjoy, if it makes you feel better.

 

I could always go back to last playoffs GDTs and see how most everyone realize Crosby was completely dominant until he got hurt. 

 

Yes every team gets breaks but not all breaks are equal, and to bucket them all as "breaks" is naive, IMO. 

 

It's not rosy, it's realistic. And I'm not arguing that all breaks are made equal. I'm arguing that all teams benefit from breaks — hence "to varying degrees and timing."

 

They're extremely flawed. They were also extremely lucky that Crosby got hurt when he did. I don't disagree that with a healthy Crosby, they probably lose that series. I simply disagree with the fact it happened being held against them like this giant unfalsifiable caveat. "what if this, what if that" — this and that didn't happen. What did happen is they won. Then they beat another team they shouldn't have. Then they went up two games to none against the defending Stanley Cup Champions and had them on the fucking ropes up 2-0 in game three. They collapsed because of their flaws, but they earned how far they made it in the first place. Both things are true at once.

[Pete]

4 minutes ago, Parsley said:

I mean, 2 wins from the Finals whether they deserved it or not. Colorado clearly would have been huge favorites. Would have hoped for Igor to steal a Cup for them. 
 

I think where they finished last season was about right. One tier down from elite. I’d expect similar this season. Doesn’t mean they can’t be upset in the first rd. come playoff time. 
 

 

My point is, they trotted back out the same team and doesn't seem they've changed the plan, or that they're getting 50G Kreider or historic Shesty...so where's that leave them? 

[Pete]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

 

It's not rosy, it's realistic. And I'm not arguing that all breaks are made equal. I'm arguing that all teams benefit from breaks — hence "to varying degrees and timing."

 

They're extremely flawed. They were also extremely lucky that Crosby got hurt when he did. I don't disagree that with a healthy Crosby, they probably lose that series. I simply disagree with the fact it happened being held against them like this giant unfalsifiable caveat. "what if this, what if that" — this and that didn't happen. They won. They made it the ECF. They went up two games to none against the defending Stanley Cup Champions and had them on the fucking ropes up 2-0 in game three. They collapsed because of their flaws, but they earned how far they made it in the first place. Both things are true at once.

https://www.blueshirtsbrotherhood.com/topic/21926-rs-6-rangers-vs-columbus-blue-jackets-—-dinnertime-hockey/?do=findComment&comment=935652

 

[Phil]

Just now, Pete said:

My point is, they trotted back out the same team and doesn't seem they've changed the plan, or that they're getting 50G Kreider or historic Shesty...so where's that leave them? 

 

Right where they were, most likely. Relying on elite goaltending, that hasn't gone away, and an elite power play, that also hasn't gone away. It's a risky way to build a successful team, but it's who they are. We gotta ride the hand.

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Right where they were, most likely. Relying on elite goaltending, that hasn't gone away, and an elite power play, that also hasn't gone away. It's a risky way to build a successful team, but it's who they are. We gotta ride the hand.

Or hidden option like figure out a fucking plan when you don't have the puck. 

 

I'm really kind of tired of hearing about how "it worked last year"... It didn't work, the reason they lost to Tampa with the same symptoms that showed up all year long. They didn't get power plays, and they couldn't score at even strength.

 

Now everyone's back saying how good they were, and that's great but they weren't good enough. 

Edited October 24, 2022 by Pete

[RangersIn7]

12 minutes ago, Morphinity 2.0 said:

The SJS loss... whatever. It's a loss in a vacuum.

 

This loss vs. CBJ was not acceptable. The effort was not acceptable. The Rangers were at home with two days rest while CBJ played less than 24 hours prior.

 

And a lot of the same issues we saw last season are starting to pop up again - i.e. braindead defensive zone coverage. And when teams take away that middle seam so the Rangers can't go cross-ice, they've got nothing offensively.

 

I'm not panicking. The sky is not falling. But the team is still deeply flawed and these two losses really exposed those flaws.

They’re going to play 82 in 6 months.

There are going to be clunkers in there. For everyone. You just don’t know when they’re going to come

[Pete]

This isn't game 6. It's game 100 and something of the same issues. 

[Phil]

9 minutes ago, Pete said:

Or hidden option like figure out a fucking plan when you don't have the puck. 

 

I'm really kind of tired of hearing about how "it worked last year"... It didn't work, the reason they lost to Tampa with the same symptoms that showed up all year long. They didn't get power plays, and they couldn't score at even strength.

 

Now everyone's back saying how good they were, and that's great but they weren't good enough. 

 

It did work. It got them to Tampa in the first place. It just didn't work to a championship.

 

We all recognize the flaws. Where we disagree is the extent to which we point them out and doom the team's chances at a championship over them.

 

The fact they got to the ECF last season and had the defending champions on the ropes up two games to none with a 2-0 lead in game three tells me that this formula, no matter how flawed, does work. It's just high-risk. I'd personally rather a more coherent defensive structure, even at the expense of some of their offense, but this is who they are.

[Pete]

13 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

It did work. It got them to Tampa in the first place. It just didn't work to a championship.

 

We all recognize the flaws. Where we disagree is the extent to which we point them out and doom the team's chances at a championship over them.

 

The fact they got to the ECF last season and had the defending champions on the ropes up two games to none with a 2-0 lead in game three tells me that this formula, no matter how flawed, does work. It's just high-risk. I'd personally rather a more coherent defensive structure, even at the expense of some of their offense, but this is who they are.

It worked because Trouba knocked out Crosby. Is that part of the Blueprint ?

[Phil]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

It worked because Trouba knocked out Crosby. Is that part of the Blueprint ?

 

Yes. Because Trouba is still on the team, and is a highly-physical, highly relied upon component of their blue line. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he injures another player or three in the playoffs this year.

[-ERIK-]

why bother playing Kravy if you give him 6 mins?

At least give him a chance even if he gets injured again or sucks.

[Pete]

Just now, Phil said:

 

Yes. Because Trouba is still on the team, and is a highly-physical, highly relied upon component of their blue line. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he injures another player or three in the playoffs this year.

Oh God stop it already. The plan now includes injuring the other teams best player? Do you hear yourself? 

[Pete]

1 minute ago, -ERIK- said:

why bother playing Kravy if you give him 6 mins?

At least give him a chance even if he gets injured again or sucks.

He played 11:33.

 

How can anyone come out of watching whatever happened last night and sit there and complain about one rookies ice time? 

[Phil]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

Oh God stop it already. The plan now includes injuring the other teams best player? Do you hear yourself? 

 

I mean, I don't know what to tell you. This is who they are. Flawed, but successful. That's The Blueprint™. You don't have to like it. I certainly don't. But I won't rationalize away every facet of their success to pure luck when it's clearly a result of what they've built.

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

I mean, I don't know what to tell you. This is who they are. Flawed, but successful. That's The Blueprint™. You don't have to like it. I certainly don't. But I won't rationalize away every facet of their success to pure luck when it's clearly a result of what they've built.

It was successful to a point last year, largely because of Igor. Being a .940 goalie.

 

I don't think "Hope for a PP and Igor" counts as a real strategy. 

 

GG needs to show something or he's going to be right on schedule for departure after 2.5 seasons. 

Edited October 24, 2022 by Pete

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

It was successful to a point last year, largely because of Igor. Being a .940 goalie.

 

I don't think "Hope for a PP and Igor" counts as a real strategy. 

 

GG needs to show something or he's going to be right on schedule for departure after 2.5 seasons. 

 

No disagreement.

[-ERIK-]

7 minutes ago, Pete said:

He played 11:33.

 

How can anyone come out of watching whatever happened last night and sit there and complain about one rookies ice time? 

I was watching jets and Rangers and going back and forth, I thought he only played 6 mins ,I Barely saw him.

Being everyone played kind of crappy I thought maybe he'd get more icetime 

[siddious]

1 minute ago, -ERIK- said:

I was watching jets and Rangers and going back and forth, I thought he only played 6 mins ,I Barely saw him.

Being everyone played kind of crappy I thought maybe he'd get more icetime 

I missed chunks of the game last night but actually thought he was more noticeable than in his previous games including pre-season. Not saying he had a great game by any stretch but I did notice him a few times. 

[Pete]

13 minutes ago, -ERIK- said:

I was watching jets and Rangers and going back and forth, I thought he only played 6 mins ,I Barely saw him.

Being everyone played kind of crappy I thought maybe he'd get more icetime 

I would actually give GG some credit for not trotting out rookies to get their butt handed to them the way the vets did!