Livefyre Profile

Activity Stream

I think people missed a very important part of that clip. Particularly when Steps calls Nash "the old decoy". Nash has not been scoring but they guy is playing hard he's getting chances as he is not lost on the ice. He's also got quite a few points this postseason. That goal was a perfect example of how when Nash has the puck it's easy for teams to forget about other guys on the eyes via Kreider. Steps noticed it and so should we.

3 months, 2 weeks ago on Conversation @ http://nyrangersblog.com/2014-articles/lundqvist-presents-broadway-hat-to-st-louis.html

Reply

I forget where, but in one of the posts someone brought up the fact that Pitt was covering the boards well and pinching hard, which prevented us from breaking out and causing a lot of trouble in our own zone.  The concern is that the Rangers have tipped their hand by showing their weaknesses which Boston/Habs could potentially exploit. However, I think that the strategy directly resulted in the Rangers' 4+ odd man chances throughout the game.  Albeit, if we can't convert on those like we couldn't last night then Bos/Mon may be willing to take the risk in order to direct the play in our own zone.  At the end of the day, I don't think you take that risk without your back to the wall, given how well we did break out with an odd man rush time and time again last night.  At the end of the day, this team still needs to learn how to finish!!!

3 months, 3 weeks ago on Conversation @ http://nyrangersblog.com/

Reply

"... which gave them the league’s 26th best worst shooting percentage of 7.9%.

A big reason for the lack of pay dirt was that opponents had an impressive 92% save percentage against the Rangers."

The only problem I have with this statement is that it makes no sense.  You can't say that opponents save % is a reason for the poor shooting percentage.  They are mutually related, i.e. if your shooting % is 7.9, then your opponents save % will ALWAYS be 92%, because the sum of the two is 100%.  A shot is either going to be a goal, or a save (and arguably a post but who wants to argue semantics??).

The real REASON for the low shooting % AND the high save % you get into later, by addressing the lack of shot quality etc.  But I just read that sentence and didn't like it and needed to comment.  Sorry.  Otherwise, good post, and agreed. 

4 months ago on Conversation @ http://nyrangersblog.com/

Reply

@gravey94 @dicknashtyI love Scotch.  Scotch, Scotch, Scotchity Scotch Scotch. - Jokes aside, I agree with you.

At the end of the day Cally's "Worth" is relative.  Sather can only look at his team, and its needs and determine what value he is willing to pay to secure that for this team.  If another team, such as Buffalo determines that Cally's an integral and indispensable part of what they are trying to accomplish, they may be willing to pay more of a premium to get him.  At the end of the day, it just comes down to what does Cally bring to the table and how bad do we NEED him.

I do believe that there is a LOT to be said for the intangibles that he brings to our game.  Remember when he was out in the beginning of the season and we were all crying about how much we missed his grit?  Dare I say since Christmas this team found that grit (especially Benoit Pouliot - who at one point I would scream GIVEAWAY every time he touched the puck).  Did Cally bring that to this team?  Did he bring that by example?  If you could really say that with certainty, they wouldn't call it an intangible.

The bottom line is that the while I love Cally, I said it back in November that I don't know if he is coming back next year.  Based on the reports in the media, he almost certainly will have to be willing to take a home-town discount on this one.

7 months ago on Callahan, Rangers to Talk Contract This Week; Multiple Teams Calling With Interest

Reply

@gravey94 Where the hell do you get a Starbucks Venti latte for $1.65??  I'd pay that all day!  That's like getting Cally back at 5 yrs. 4 per.

7 months ago on Callahan, Rangers to Talk Contract This Week; Multiple Teams Calling With Interest

Reply

Should have made the entire team do push-ups on the ice each time Fatty let one in, while he stood there eating his Donuts "1...2...3...4...I...let...rangers...score!"

7 months ago on Lundqvist to Start vs. Islanders at Yankee Stadium

Reply

My only concern is what line combinations do you throw around in that event?  I'm reluctant to split Zucc/Brass/Pouliot. That leaves:


Kreider - (Richards/Miller) - Nash

Cally - (Miller/Richards) - Hags

Zucc - Brass - Pouliot

Boyle - Moore - Carcillo

7 months, 2 weeks ago on Why Not Jump Start Stepan With A Healthy Scratch?

Reply

@shoot_the_goalie @dicknashty @TruBluEsp I don't disagree with you on the Kreider/Brass/Nash - they did look really good against Boston (though Nash had a hard time against Boston).  I was actually responding to your first line combos.  With reagrd to making space - I don't think there is really anyone on the team right now capable of making space, which is causing a lot of our troubles offensively.

10 months, 1 week ago on Lundqvist Out vs. Flyers; Zuccarello Possible Scratch

Reply

@TruBluEsp I have to agree with you but for this:

Kreider - Richards - Cally

Miller - Brassard - Pouliot

Personally, I think you try to find that preseason chemistry between to French-Canadians again on the third.  While Miller is a natural center, I think his play as the third line winger gives that line much needed Jam (how I miss my Tortsisms) and strength on the forecheck.  Let Brass and Pouliot tic tac toe around with Miller beasting his way around the net and in the corners.  Same for the second line... it's too soft the way you work it out.  Let Cally do the dirty work while Richards sees the ice, and Kreider.. lets hope he finds his shot ala Gabby because I'm still not convinced he's a power forward.  I think he could snipe some nice feeds from Richards with Cally there to deflect.  More balance to the lines there too.

10 months, 1 week ago on Lundqvist Out vs. Flyers; Zuccarello Possible Scratch

Reply