fbpx

Tag: John Tortorella

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers

Feb 22, 2013

The Canadiens Own the Recent Rangers

The Rangers’ second meeting this week with the first-place Canadiens called for an email exchange with Andrew Berkshire of Eyes on the Prize.

The Rangers lost another game in which they led on Thursday night in Ottawa. Now their two-game road trip north of the border stops in Montreal on Saturday night for their second meeting with the first-place Canadiens this week.

Andrew Berkshire of Eyes on the Prize joined me for an email exchange to talk about why no one is giving the Canadiens the credit they deserve, why they are a bad matchup for the Rangers and what it’s like to have Brandon Prust on the Habs.

Keefe: John Tortorella called the Canadiens a “bad team” (which I ripped him for) after their win over the Rangers on Tuesday night. Henrik Lundqvist called the Canadiens “boring” despite their 3-1 win and now first-place spot in the Eastern Conference. No one seems to want to give the Habs credit for their strong start and five-game winning streak before their shootout loss on Thursday, but we are now one-third of the way through this shortened NHL season and while 17 games might not be a strong enough sample size in other years, it certainly is this year.

Why isn’t anyone giving credit to the Canadiens for their 11-4-2 start? They just won five games in seven days and beat the Hurricanes in Montreal and the Rangers in New York in less than 24 hours. They have outscored their opponents 18-9 over the last six games and outside of their loss to the Senators on Jan. 30 and their loss to the Maple Leads on Feb. 9, they have either won every other game or lost by one goal. The Canadiens might not have the type of stars other teams around the league do or an exciting and flashy style of play and maybe they are “boring,” but the Devils proved that “boring” can lead to championships in the NHL.

I’m buying into the Canadiens, but why isn’t everyone else?

Berkshire: As far as Torts goes, he’s always bitter after a loss it seems. His grumpy demeanor is funny from the outside at times, but it also wears thin. The Canadiens team he saw was playing its third game in four nights, all against teams that are fighting to get into the playoff picture. I don’t think the Canadiens were particularly great that night, but calling them a bad team is just Torts blowing hot air.

As for Henrik, I believe he also called them a smart team, which gives it a little context. The Canadiens played a boring brand of hockey against the Rangers on Tuesday, there is no denying that, but they were dog-tired and it ended up working.

I think the main reason no one wants to believe that the Canadiens are a good team is that, especially among the mainstream press, narratives are hard to shake. Under Jacques Martin the Canadiens were labeled a bad team, even though they were actually a good team. When they fell apart last year, many people felt like they’d been given justification for their former misgivings. And these are Habs fans! There are a lot of people who would rather be right than see their team win, and I think that was largely the case there.

As far as national media goes, the Canadiens were so bad last year for two thirds of the year that it was hard to believe they could possibly recover so quickly. At Eyes on the Prize, we go over a lot of data every day and we figured that a quick turnaround was more than possible, in fact it was highly likely. You can only be so bad when you have Carey Price, P.K. Subban and Andrei Markov heading up your back end. But it’s hard for a lot of people to move away from their opinions. The Habs were bad last year, so surely they would be bad again.

All this said, the Canadiens have still been one of the luckiest teams in the league, with high shooting percentages for several players that aren’t really sustainable. They’re going to lose more often in the next few weeks than they have so far this year, but they’re a playoff team in my opinion, maybe a Top 4 team in the East.

Keefe: I’m a Yankee fan, so I understand people wanting to be right and have their opinions be validated rather than having their team win.

It seems like there’s something different about the Rangers when they play the Canadiens. Actually I know there is. No matter how well the Rangers have played leading into the game or for how long they have been playing well, they always seem to either give an awful effort against or look like a completely different team when they face the Habs.

The Canadiens have won 11 of the last 17 meetings with the Rangers dating back to the beginning of the 2008-09 season. (I started counting with the 2008-09 season because the 2007-08 season featured the Rangers’ epic embarrassment on Feb. 19, 2008 when they blew a 5-0 lead in Montreal with 34:57 left in the game. I’m sure you remember that game well.) After Saturday’s game, the Rangers and Canadiens will only meet one other time this season (unless they meet in the playoffs) on March 30.

Why do you think the Rangers seem to never have their best game or anything that closely resembles their normal game when they play the Canadiens even though the names on the rosters change?

Berkshire: It’s an interesting question. I believe heading into that 5-0 comeback game the Rangers had dominated the Habs for a couple straight years, but I could be wrong.

I think part of it could be psychological. That game between the Rangers and Habs in 2008 was a turning point in that season for Montreal, and they blitzed through the rest of the season to finish first in the conference. One guy who always seems to be ordinary against the Habs is Lundqvist and we all know that he’s anything but ordinary. It’s possible that he’s still annoyed with that game a few years later. Something I’ve noticed with Lundqvist is that if you put a few past him, he stops fighting to make saves, and gets visibly frustrated.

Other than perhaps some latent mental frustration lasting from that game, I don’t really think there’s a logical explanation. The Rangers are a strong team, especially defensively that they shouldn’t be too far below .500 against the Habs.

It reminds me a little of the Habs and Leafs. The Leafs have been a terrible team by pretty much any measure for the last five or so years, while the Canadiens have been OK to strong over that time, yet they split the games down the middle. Something about the way the two teams match up that isn’t readily apparent causes results that shouldn’t happen.

Keefe: Brian Gionta has been one of my favorite players in the league since he debuted during the 2001-02 season even though his career has been spent with New Jersey and Montreal. I had the chance to watch him in college at Boston College and admired his scoring ability and his style of play despite being 5-foot-7, which he’s listed at, but appears way, way smaller.

Scott Gomez was also a personal favorite of mine after his Calder Trophy campaign in 1999-2000 despite playing for New Jersey and I was ecstatic when the Rangers signed him before the 2007-08 season. I was even more ecstatic when they were able to trade him to the Canadiens before the 2009-10 season.

The two of them formed the EGG line in New Jersey with Patrik Elias before teaming up in Montreal, but now their careers have gone separate ways with Gionta being the captain of the Canadiens and Gomez being told to go home for the year before ending up with the Sharks.

How much do you enjoy getting to watch Gionta play for your Canadiens and how did you feel about Gomez’s time and unusual departure?

Berkshire: I’m one of the few Canadiens fans who doesn’t harbor any ill will against Scott Gomez. It’s not his fault that Glen Sather signed him to an insane contract and it’s not his fault that Bob Gainey gave up Ryan McDonagh and Chris Higgins for him (two players that are younger and better than he is).

Gomez had the misfortune of being in Montreal when his career plateaued and he began to decline into old age and he was eviscerated for it. That said, he did have one very good year in 2009-10, and probably could have had a second one in 2010-11 if the Pacioretty-Gomez-Gionta line was a thing from the start of the season to the end.

I enjoyed watching Gomez’s transition game and neutral-zone play, which is still a strong skill set of his, but the rest got to be pretty mind-numbing by last year. I was glad to see him go, although it was still surprising. I think in the end, the buyout is good for both the Canadiens and Scott Gomez, who no longer has to worry about being labeled overpaid.

Gionta on the other hand, has been excellent for the Habs. He’s also at the age where his scoring has taken a slight dip every year, from a near 40-goal pace in his first year, to near 30, to an injury plagued year and now he’s likely a 25-goals-per-82-games kind of player.

He’s still solid defensively and plays a strong possession game against top competition though, and he rarely takes a shift off. Watching Gionta go in on the forecheck against Zdeno Chara and winning the puck battle tells you all you need to know about the Habs captain.

Keefe: Brandon Prust became an important part of the Rangers after being traded to New York in the Olli Jokinen deal three years ago. His grinder style of play and his willingness to fight anyone at anytime made him a blue-collar player and fan favorite in the city. My friend Dave went so far as to buy a Prust jersey last season, which I strongly advised him not to do.

So far this season Prust has already has two goals and five points after having just five goals and 17 points in all 82 games last year. He has a plus-7 rating, leads the league in penalty minutes with 76 (on pace to break his career high even in a shortened season) and is second in the league with six fighting majors. At four years and $10 million it seemed like the Habs overpaid for Prust in the summer, but he is giving them everything he gave the Rangers in two-plus seasons and more. Right now the Rangers could use Prust, but instead he’s helping your team try to achieve the 1-seed this season.

Berkshire: I really like Brandon Prust. I think his contract is a little too much money for a little bit too long, but that’s what happens with unrestricted free agents who have a unique skill set.

He’s already a fan favorite here, which has led to fans and media completely overblowing his value to the point where our local sports radio station asserted that he’s been the second most important player on the team this year. That’s pretty crazy and I wrote about what his real value is to the team on Wednesday.

I think he’s an above average fourth liner who can play on the third line if necessary, something the Canadiens have four of now along with Travis Moen, Colby Armstrong and Ryan White. He’s also been lights-out on the penalty kill, which is a welcome surprise since he was only middling by the numbers on the Rangers.

Is he going to be worth his contract by the last year of it? I don’t know, but for now I really like what he brings to the team.

Keefe: When the two teams met on Tuesday night, it was ugly. It was the second-worst game of the year for the Rangers after their 3-0 home loss to the Penguins on Jan. 31.

On Thursday night the Rangers blew a third-period lead to the Senators, and lost in a shootout, to drop their second straight game in which they led and it was their third loss in a row in which they scored the first goal. The Canadiens also lost on Thursday, but it was the first in six games as they blew a two-goal lead to the Islanders and lost in a shootout.

Saturday night will be the second-to-last meeting of the season between the Rangers and Canadiens (the last one is March 30) and hopefully we see a better all-around game than we saw on Tuesday. But in the bigger picture, what do you see for the Rangers and Canadiens over the remaining two-thirds of the season?

Berkshire: I think what we’ll see on Saturday is a much more entertaining game than what we saw on Tuesday. The Canadiens were extremely disappointed with how the game ended against the Islanders with Max Pacioretty being particularly fired up. The Canadiens are also a much stronger home team than they are on the road and won’t be coming off of three games in four nights.

Similarly, I think the Rangers are going to be a lot better as well. It’s possible that Rick Nash will be back in the lineup and that’s a big boost on its own, but I also think they have something to prove after the last game. I think we’ll see a high tempo game.

As for how the season will go, I think the Habs will be taking a step down sooner or later, because they’re not as good as their record. They should challenge the Bruins for the division title, but I’m not sure that they’re there yet. They’re a playoff team though, and a pretty good one.

The Rangers don’t seem to be the team they were last year. They’re still fantastic defensively, but they lost quite a bit of depth when the traded for Rick Nash, and they seem to miss Brandon Prust on the fourth line. They’re still a playoff team in my mind. I don’t think they’re as good as the Penguins over an 82-game season, but over this 48-game one, they could begin a hot streak that propels them up the standings to a division title.

Read More

Blogs • Rangers

Feb 20, 2013

John Tortorella Thinks the First-Place Canadiens Are a Bad Team

John Tortorella didn’t have much to say after the Rangers’ 3-1 loss to the Canadiens, but he said enough.

There isn’t much to say about a 3-1 home loss to the best team in the Eastern Conference and John Tortorella proved that after Tuesday night’s embarrassment.

Tortorella provided no insight into what the eff happened to the Rangers between Sunday night and Tuesday night, with or without Rick Nash (who he also didn’t provide any information on) because why would Tortorella need to tell anyone why his team can’t seem to consistently hold or increase a lead?

It was another night where the power play put up a zero and the Rangers’ power play now has three goals in 27 opportunities in February and the man advantage is dead last in the NHL at 10.9 percent for the season. It was another night where the Rangers outshot their opponent and didn’t win and another night where they failed to convert high-quality scoring chances. And it was another night where Brian Boyle failed to score a point, extending his scoreless streak to seven straight as the Tortorella favorite now has one assist in 12 games this season. But he did lead the team with six hits! Hits!

But for everything I say about Boyle (all of which is true), it was a full team loss against the Canadiens. Henrik Lundqvist said, “They play it extremely boring” and I’m not sure if he was praising or trying to mock the Habs, but maybe it’s time the Rangers played “it” boring. Because if playing it boring gets you two points every game and first place in the conference, well that’s way more fun than losing.

After the Rangers lost to the Devils two weeks ago, I said I would start a tradition on Keefe To The City and analyze John Tortorella’s postgame press conference after every Rangers loss. I missed the 4-3 shootout loss to the Islanders on Valentine’s Day because it was Valentine’s Day and if I was watching hockey instead of celebrating it then I would certainly be watching hockey on Valentine’s Day next year. So here’s John Tortorella after Tuesday’s 3-1 loss to the Canadiens.

On the game as a whole.

“I thought it was probably one of the worst hockey games I’ve been involved in. Both teams. But they were better than we were.”

There’s no doubt it might have been one of the worst games Tortorella has ever been involved in, but that would mean that he doesn’t remember the Rangers’ 3-0 loss to the Penguins at the Garden on Jan. 31.

I’m not really sure how Tortorella can stand there after losing a home game to the top team in the Eastern Conference and say that both teams played poorly. Not only did the Canadiens beat the Rangers on the road, but the Canadiens played the Hurricanes at 7:30 p.m. on Monday night in Montreal and won 3-0. 23 hours and 30 minutes after the Canadiens-Hurricanes game started, the Canadiens and Rangers began play at Madison Square Garden. In less than 24 hours the Canadiens beat the current 3 seed in the Eastern Conference (thanks to Gary Bettman’s division winner system) and then flew to New York City and depending on what time they arrived at their hotel in New York (I’m guessing early Tuesday morning) they either beat the Rangers the following night or that same night.

The Canadiens deserve a pass for poor and sloppy play and 15 shots on goal. The Rangers, however, last played on Sunday at home against the Capitals. They slept at their own homes in their own beds on Sunday and Monday night and the only travel they had to endure was to the team’s practice facility and to Madison Square Garden. Maybe just maybe Tortorella shouldn’t be grouping the Rangers’ effort with the Canadiens’ effort?

On the icing that was waved off and led to the Canadiens’ first goal.

“They told me that they were yelling to Michael, “No icing” because they said he was shielding the player when he was going back for the puck. They said they didn’t think he was skating completely going to the puck. Doesn’t matter. That doesn’t cost us the game. No excuse there. Two bad teams playing and we were worse than they were.”

Even though Tortorella believes this play didn’t cost the Rangers the game, and yes they deserved to lose anyway, the play did have an impact on the outcome of the game since every play does whether or not he will admit it. After praising his team’s effort in a loss to the Devils just two weeks ago, Tortorella did say, “No excuse there,” so I have to give him credit for not talking about how well the team played despite what the scoreboard said. But let’s look at the last sentence of his quote, which sounds very similar to how he opened his postgame press conference.

The Canadiens are the hottest team in the Eastern Conference and have won five straight games, outscoring opponents 15-5. Three of those wins have come on the road and all five of them came in a one-week period. They are in first place.

The Rangers have lost two of their last three games, all at home, and their only win in the three games came against the last-place Capitals. Last Tuesday they blew a three-goal lead with 11:16 left to play in Boston, but won in a shootout. Last Thursday they blew a two-goal lead after the first to the Islanders and lost in a shootout. In seven of their 15 games they have been held to two goals or less and have scored just three goals in the last seven periods. They are in ninth place.

How is the team in first place just as “bad” as the team in ninth place that they just beat? How is the team in first place “bad” at all?

Tortorella kept it short with the media after the loss and finished with this gem before walking away.

“That pretty much sums it up, huh?”

A poor effort in a home loss following a day of rest with nothing to show for on the power play? Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

Read More

Blogs • Rangers

Feb 6, 2013

John Tortorella’s Postgame Conference: A Tradition Like No Other

John Tortorella’s postgame press conferences have sparked a new tradition.

The Rangers lost on Tuesday because they won on Saturday. When you’re a team playing .444 hockey, you usually follow a win with a loss and a loss with a win. (If you’re a betting man, you might want to take the Rangers on Thursday against the Islanders.) But when you’re a team trailing the Canadiens, Maple Leafs,  Islanders and Jets in the standings, you’re not a good team. Through nine games the Rangers aren’t a good team.

The Rangers fell behind early to the Devils on Tuesday night, couldn’t regain momentum and forced me to question the actual meaning of the phrase “power play” with an 0-for-5 night on the man advantage, which included a four-minute power play. Saturday’s game against the Lightning made me once again think the team might have the type of seven-game winning streak in them they had last season from Oct. 31 to Nov. 15 and instead they put together as painful of an offensive showing as they did last Thursday against the Penguins. Tuesday night in Newark was another poor effort from the Rangers in which they failed to score more than one goal for the fourth time in nine games. Or was it?

According to John Tortorella, the Rangers didn’t play poorly aside from special teams. The only problem with Tortorella’s evaluation of the loss is that there isn’t a column in the standings following overtime losses for “Head Coach Thought His Own Team Played Well” and they don’t give out any points for that either. If you watched Tortorella’s postgame answers it was clear that he was correctly upset with the power play, but he was also more than a little delusional about the result of the game since the Devils were the team that scored three goals and the Rangers were the team that scored one goal.

So we’re going to start a tradition here on Keefe To The City and analyze John Tortorella’s postgame press conferences after Rangers losses (and I guess wins too if he happens to be upset about winning), using the same format from his preseason interview with Mike Francesa.

On whether or not he’s upset with the power play.

“Well, Sam you know my answer and I’m not going to go through it here, so you know my answer with that. We were the better team 5-on-5 tonight, it’s our special teams that let us down.”

Sam Rosen asked the question so Tortorella fired back at Rosen, who whether you like his play-by-play calling or not, couldn’t be any nicer of a broadcast personality. So for the Rangers head coach with a New York resume that boasts a 14-18 postseason record, two first-round exits, one Conference Finals loss and one missed postseason to talk down to the TV voice of the Rangers is always a good look.

Tortorella is aware that he is the head coach of the Rangers, right? Because he makes it sound a lot like he isn’t associated with the special teams and he is upset with their production as if he doesn’t decide who is on the power play. (That’s for Michael Del Zotto, who despite being the least talented player on the ice on the power play, feels like he should be the one the power play runs through and the one to shoot. Imagine if you put Louis CK, Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock and Ricky Gervais in a room to talk about comedy, which HBO did, but you also put Seth Rogen in that room and he was the one talking over everyone and trying to lead the conversation. That’s Michael Del Zotto on the power play.)

If Tortorella isn’t going to address the question with the media or if he doesn’t feel the need to address it with the media, who is he going to address it with? The power play is now 3-for-35 on the year after an 0-for-5 night on Tuesday, which means they were 3-for-30 before Tuesday’s loss, which means that he clearly hasn’t gone “through it” anywhere with anyone.

On if the problems on the power play are correctable.

“Yeah. Yeah they are. They are. There’s no sense of me running it down here with you guys. It’s been a struggle. It hurt us again tonight. I liked a lot of things about our 5-on-5 play with a number of people, but tonight it’s special teams.”

Ah, again Tortorella doesn’t think he needs to “run it down here.” He’s going to save that discussion for the big boys who have put together power-play units that have produced three power-play goals in 35 attempts. Those numbers would be good for Mark Teixeira and Curtis Granderson combined average in the postseason, but for a team with real talent on the power play, it’s unacceptable.

As for the 5-on-5 talk, that’s nice that the Rangers played well with even strength and if only the part of the games when even strength play occurred counted then yes, I would have also like the 5-on-5 play a lot too. But special teams are a part of the game. A big part of the game. And right now the Rangers have the worst power play in the league and the 18th-ranked penalty kill.

On if it’s frustrating to have a good game and then follow with a slow start.

“Actually I didn’t think we had a slow start. I thought we started pretty well.”

The Rangers didn’t have a slow start. They only trailed after five minutes of play and didn’t get on the board until 6:28 of the third period. No big deal.

“Again, we get scored on, which was a gift. Michael turns it over, Gabby turns if over first, Michael turns it over. I thought we gave them two free ones.”

Here’s a little secret: the free goals count too. Whether Michael Del Zotto stands in line at Macy’s to have a goal for the Devils gift wrapped with a bow and a card or whether Ilya Kovalchuk goes end to end and dangles through five Rangers before going top tit on Henrik Lundqvist, they count the same.

On the play of the rookies and the job security of players.

“Absolutely they’re probably going to take some people’s jobs. Because I tell you with our hockey club right now we have some guys that are really playing hard and we got some guys that look scared to me and tentative.”

Any guesses on the “hard” players and the “scared/tentative” players for those whose jobs are in jeopardy? I have some.

Hard
Taylor Pyatt

Scared/Tentative
Carl Hagelin
Brian Boyle
Jeff Halpern

I don’t really know where to put Derek Stepan here. If Tortorella is serious about taking guys out of the lineup then I think Stepan has to be on the bubble between these two categories. But Stepan also has this weird Nick Swisher-like aura to him in that if I put him in the Scared/Tentative group it’s going to upset a lot of people since there are Rangers fans out there who wouldn’t have gone through with the Nash deal if Stepan was included. (I didn’t say intelligent fans.) Stepan does have five points though, which is two more than those three have combined.

“We’ll see where we go with our lineup, but I’ll tell you right now, we’re not waiting.”

Tortorella has a chance to win me over here. If he’s going to threaten the job security of players then go through with it. Don’t just throw it out there to the media because it sounds tough if you aren’t going to act upon it.

I have seen 14:25 from J.T. Miller and I already know that the Rangers were eight games late on calling him up to the NHL. If you didn’t know that Tuesday night was his NHL debut, you wouldn’t have known from the way he played and handled himself, especially on the power play. He has to be in the lineup. Brian Boyle and Jeff Halpern don’t.

Read More

Blogs • Rangers

Feb 1, 2013

Rangers Look Lost in Latest Loss

The Rangers haven’t looked like a team capable of winning the Stanley Cup this season. There’s still 41 games left to play, but at the same time, there’s only 41 games left to play.

The New York Rangers are going the same place the two Russians were at the beginning of Boondock Saints, according to Detective Greenly. That place? “Nowhere!” OK, that’s not completely true since there are 41 games left and the entire conference is separated by eight points, but for anyone who watched Thursday night’s 3-0 loss to the Penguins, you can’t help but think the Rangers are the NHL’s version of two dead guys on top of trash bags in a South Boston alley.

Thursday night was bad. It started off bad, got worse and then became unwatchable, so I headed for the exit with over two minutes left and left the booing of the Blueshirts to those fans who either called out of work on Friday or who struggled through the workday on Friday despite an abundance of Gatorade, greasy food and Advil.

My girlfriend surprised me with tickets to the game an hour before the puck dropped and it was the first time I would be seeing the Penguins in person since they lost to the Bruins 3-0 on Nov. 10, 2009 in Boston. Evgeni Malkin didn’t play in that game, James Neal was in Dallas and Bill Guerin was still in the league and on the Penguins. (Eric Godard even dressed for the Penguins!) So as a hockey fan, I was excited to see Sidney Crosby with Malkin and Neal, but as a Rangers fan, I was worried about what they could do the Rangers’ search for consistency. It only took 1:24 for Malkin to justify my worrying.

Before I could tell my girlfriend about his one-timing abilities from the right side, Henrik Lundqvist was late to his left and it was 1-0 Pittsburgh. Had I known the Rangers would Sunday Skate their way to their fourth loss of the year over the next 58:36, I would have gladly walked over to The Flying Puck and watched a game or a team worth watching.

The box score says the Rangers were outshot 29-28. Either the official scorer at MSG is a relative of Tomas Vokoun or part of the new CBA is that the league is recording shots the way points are given out on Around the Horn because there’s no way the Rangers had 28 shots or one shot less than the Penguins. And even if the Rangers did have 28 shots, which I don’t think they did, how many of those shots were high-quality scoring chances? I think I remember two and I had one beer at the game, so I can’t blame my memory of the Rangers’ scoring chances on that. At most there were three, possibly four. (Apparently Derek Stepan had six shots last night! Six! He still wears number 21 right? Maybe I did have more than one beer?) But I’ll stick with two because I remember those and one of them came from the guy who is here to score big goals against teams like the Penguins and to be the focal point of the offense. So let’s start with him in an attempt to turn the Rangers’ season around before this season turns into a countdown to baseball’s Opening Day the way the Giants’ season turned into a plea to end the lockout and then a countdown to start the hockey season.

Rick Nash
Rick, Rick, Rick. Am I really writing something negative about you after just seven games? No, of course not. It’s not all that positive, but there isn’t much positivity to go around with this team. And I’m not here to wish Brandon Dubinsky and Artem Anisimov were still on the team rather than Nash because even if he finishes the rest of this season with the same exact numbers he has through seven games, I won’t say that.

The number 1 criticism of Nash prior to becoming a Ranger (well, aside from nonsensical postseason career arguments and cap-hit BS) was that he didn’t pass the puck. Now only unintelligent people would use that as a criticism for an elite goal scorer who actually had no one to pass to on his team (and even if he did, he’s a goal scorer, not a playmaker), but in nine years in Columbus, Nash finished with more goals than assists five times, which is semi-unheard of for one of the best scorers in the world.

We are seven game into the season. Rick Nash has one goal. It’s not like he isn’t getting the scoring chances because he is getting several every game, he’s just not finishing when he does. But for all the one-on-one moves and the amazing highlights of him creating space and using hesitation for a shot in the slot, it’s time for Rick Nash to carry the team for a few games in a way that only he, Marian Gaborik and Henrik Lundqvist can.

Henrik Lundqvist
Remember, Lundqvist is in the selective Jeter/Rivera/Eli class of complete immunity to criticism (unless it’s done sarcastically). So this isn’t me questioning Lundqvist’s play over the first seven games. This is me asking Hank to kindly play like the Vezina winner he was last year.

Lundqvist has started all seven games this year and has allowed 18 goals. Last season, Lundqvist allowed his 18th goal in the eighth game of the year, so he hasn’t been that off when it comes to the start of the season. It just feels differently because that season started in October and this one started in January and that season was 82 games and this one is 48 games. Do you see what I’m getting at? There isn’t an October, November and December and 34 other games to balance things out. Lundqvist is going to play as much as he did at the end of the 2010-11 season when the Rangers didn’t have a backup and there isn’t time for Henrik Lundqvist to not be Henrik Lundqvist. Unless he plans on sprinkling 11 shutouts in at some point.

John Tortorella
The Rangers have a depth problem. (I’m aware that Ryan Callahan and Chris Kreider are out. Thanks for clarifying that.) Is that Tortorella’s fault? No. That’s the guy upstairs who could do pretty much anything at this point to destroy James Dolan’s life and still hold his job. But complaining about Glen Sather’s track record in New York would be like complaining about the Noroton Heights, Rowayton, Green’s Farms and Southport stops on the Metro North. They’re always going to be there and there’s nothing you can do about it, so just deal with it. (But really does Norwalk need a South Norwalk and East Norwalk stop? Two stops? This is worse than BU having three stops on the B train in Boston.)

But what is Tortorella’s fault is the way he chooses to use the players that Sather has given him. Is there anyone who still loves that Tortorella loves Brian Boyle? Is there anyone in the Kings organization who thinks, “Man, I really wish we didn’t trade Boyle to the Rangers in exchange for that third-round pick” when they see Boyle playing? Of course not. But Boyle is going to continue to play in important spots because of his “defense,” which is almost as ironic as James Shields being called “Big Game James” or Matt Ryan being called “Matty Ice.” Unfortunately, Boyle isn’t the only issue.

Do we really need to see the fourth line following the Penguins taking a 2-0 lead? There’s 19:32 left in the game. You’re trailing by two goals to the Penguins. So let’s put out the fourth line for an energy shift to bang some bodies and likely provide nothing offensively since the clock is not a factor!

Did Michael Del Zotto getting sent down for part of the 2010-11 season get him off the hook for the rest of his Rangers career when it comes to playing defense? Or does his career .45 points per game allow him to only worry about offense?

I don’t want to get on John Tortorella too much here because it’s only seven games and he did lead the team past the first two rounds of the playoffs last year and he did win the Stanley Cup with Tampa Bay nine years ago, so it’s hard to criticize the man given his incredible amount of success in New York. But if Tortorella wants to tilt his head and look at media members asking him questions in his press conferences like a dog who ate something dogs aren’t supposed to eat from the trash and then recycled it on to the living room floor, he might want to get his team over .500. Acting the way John Tortorella does is fine when you’re winning more than every other game. Right now the Rangers aren’t even doing that.

Read More

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers

Jan 31, 2013

Rangers and Penguins Searching for Consistency

The Penguins are back in New York for their second game against the Rangers and with both teams struggling early on this season it called for an email exchange with James Conley of PensBurgh.

The Rangers and Penguins were supposed to be the class of the Eastern Conference. And they still might be at the end of the season, but after six games the East’s best two teams from last year are both 3-3-0.

James Conley of PensBurgh joined me for an email exchange to talk about what’s wrong with the Penguins right now, what happened in the playoffs against the Flyers last year and how Matt Cooke completely changed his style of play.

Keefe: From the moment the lockout ended until Game 1 of the season, I told anyone who would listen to me that the Rangers, Penguins and Bruins would be the class of the East (in no particular order). But after six games, only the Bruins have held up their end of my preseason prediction bargain. The Rangers and Penguins? They’re both 3-3-0 with one-eighth of the season gone.

The Rangers’ three losses have come against the Bruins, your Penguins and the Flyers. Three postseason teams a year ago, and two of the three teams I believed to be the best in the East this year.

The Penguins’ three losses have come against the Maple Leafs, Jets and Islanders. Three non-postseason teams a year ago and having seen the Leafs against the Rangers on Saturday night, I can’t believe the Penguins lost to them.

After starting out 2-0 against the Flyers and Rangers, the Penguins are 1-3-0 and have been outscored 14-6 against some very inferior opponents (on paper). It’s early, but then again with only 48 games, it’s not that early.

Let’s open this up with how concerned you are, if at all, about the Penguins right now.

Conley: Concern is a good word for the Penguins right now. The shortened season really makes it hard to implement changes and it’s becoming apparent that something must change. The margin for error is just so, so slim. Like you mentioned, it’s only six games at 3-3-0, but it’s still a significant chunk of the season. If the Penguins decide they need to make some changes — whether that’s matching lines, new personnel or going deep and making an organizational change — they aren’t going to have the kind of time they’d like to let something new work itself out.

The other concern, and maybe this is related to the first, is their inability to make tactical changes and apply them within a 60-minute game window. It started in Pittsburgh last Wednesday with Toronto. The Maple Leafs pressured the Penguins in one-on-one battles where the Flyers and Rangers didn’t, and the Pens weren’t able to respond. Teams are feasting on the Penguins’ cute setups and turning them into goals. That has gone on for the last four games, and it seems like every team that is willing to do the work can upset the Penguins’ game plan exactly as the Flyers were able to do last Spring.

Is it just rust? It stands to reason that a team that relies on high-skilled, timing plays would need some adjustment time to account for the joke training camps following the lockout. But the Penguins’ problems seem to go back to late last season, when the team quit “beating” their opponents and simply outscored them. It seems like they’re hesitant to beat clubs by playing the physical game, by cycling the puck, by chipping and chasing. The team was successful in the spring of 2011 even after Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin went down with injuries because they adjusted their game plan to address their weaknesses. With those two in the lineup, it seems like no one wants to make the smart, simple but boring plays that a team has to make a thousand times in any one game if they want to be successful. That it carried over from last year’s playoff thud to now seems less like an aberration and more like a fundamental flaw. I’m not sure that’s a problem that can be addressed with line-matching and a bag skate.

Keefe: I know what it feels like to be concerned because I feel the same way with the Rangers. Maybe not to the extent that you do since the Rangers’ losses were against the Bruins, Penguins and Flyers, but because every loss is that magnified this season and every win seems to feel like things are fixed. But I also like that each game and each game’s two points are so significant and that each week is packed with three-plus games and the postseason is just three months away.

You mentioned last season, which I wanted to talk about because I don’t think anyone could have envisioned it ending the way it did for the Penguins. They were the four seed in the playoffs even though they had the second-best record in the East (Ladies and gentlemen, the NHL playoff system giving the division winners the top seeds!) and missed out on having the No. 1 overall seed by a point. But then they lost to the Flyers in six games, after having a 2-1 series lead, (though I don’t think I need to remind you), because of 30 goals allowed in a six-game series! 30! Three … zero! (Not that the Flyers were that much better having allowed 26, including 10 in Game 3.)

Despite the Rangers’ No. 1 seed last year, I thought the Penguins were the best team in the league. And if the season were 83 games instead of 82 then maybe the Penguins win the East and their playoff path changes and they are spending the summer with the Cup. But for a team that struggled to get by the Flyers in the first round, maybe it didn’t matter who the Penguins faced last season in that their early postseason exit was inevitable.

Conley: All about the matchup. The Penguins took the regular season series from the Rangers 4-2. Ditto the Bruins (3-1-0), Capitals (2-1-1) and Panthers (3-1-0), and split their series’ with the Devils (3-3-0) and Senators (2-2). The Flyers were the only East playoff team of a year ago to have a winning record against the Penguins (4-2-0).

That’s not to say another team couldn’t have beaten them. In fact, the losses now are definitely indicative of problems that first surfaced late last year and were loudly exploited by a fast, smart Flyers team (as in the Pens outscoring teams as opposed to actually outplaying them, as I mentioned before). The Flyers had the formula for success against the Pens before anyone else, and now we’re seeing other teams implement that game plan. It was definitely the worst possible matchup they could have drawn. But as we’ve seen in the losses this year, clubs are taking cues from the Flyers — pressuring the Pens into making bad plays, capitalizing on their turnovers and slamming the door shut on Bylsma’s infuriating faith in the stretch pass. The Pens like to talk ad nauseum about “getting to their game.” Opposing teams are starting to get to the Pens’ game regularly. These things do have a shelf life.

At this point, the book is out on how to beat the Pens. It only took two games to figure out the new power play, which after Wednesday’s practice had Malkin on the point and James Neal back to the position where he scored 18 power play goals last season. Still, the other elements of their game — high-risk puck retrieval, using the boards to make the tip-pass deep into the offensive zone, the blue line power-play drop pass — all those things have been figured out. Simply showing up and competing at a level commensurate to their opponents would be a good place to start, but there need to be serious, systemic changes to the breakout and power play if they ever plan to adjust to the clubs which have already adjusted to them.

Keefe: I hope John Tortorella has time to read this before Thursday’s game as you give away the Penguins’ never-changing game plan because the Rangers haven’t defeated the Penguins since Jan. 6, 2012 and have lost the last five matchups.

On Tuesday night, the Islanders’ Colin McDonald became the second player suspended by Brendan Shanahan this season when he ran the Penguins’ Ben Lovejoy from behind.

Matt Cooke has been suspended five times (four with the Penguins), including the first round of the 2010-11 playoffs for his ridiculous actions. Cooke changed his game following that suspension and played in all 82 games last season, the first time he had done so in nine years, and scored a career-high 19 goals and posted his highest points total (38) in nine years as well. He also recorded a career low in penalty minutes with 44.

If someone started watching hockey and the Penguins in 2011-12 for the first time, they would have thought Cooke was an effective player and a great secondary scoring option for the Penguins. But for anyone who watched Cooke was prior to last season, it seems unfathomable that he could completely change his style of play and not be the most dangerous and reckless player in the league.

To me, Matt Cooke will always be the guy extending his elbow after hitting Marc Savard in the head or the guy who created the textbook video for boarding when he rocked Fedor Tyutin from behind. But that doesn’t mean that’s the case for everyone.

What do you think of Cooke now and what’s your perception of his style of his play pre-2011-12 and post-2011-12?

Conley: The change certainly seems to be genuine. The players obviously have great respect for Ray Shero, and I can’t imagine a more influential voice in all of hockey than Mario Lemieux. Both of them laid out an ultimatum for Cooke. Cooke’s obviously an intelligent player and person, so it’s not unfathomable that he could make that change.

I think for a lot of guys, that style of play used to be their ticket into the league. It almost became Cooke’s ticket out. Every player is doing what he needs to do to stick, whether it’s score goals, block shots or fight and piss people off. For Cooke, the agitator role was his meal ticket. The culture of the game changed, so he had to change with it.

For fans who only see Cooke a few times a year, that reputation is going to precede the player. Maybe that’s why no one thought Cooke could reinvent his game at his age. But I think being a little older played to his advantage, being experienced enough to know what was at stake. The reputation before his suspensions was obviously awful, and at least in Pittsburgh the shift in his style was a big story last year. I don’t know how he’s perceived league-wide, or whether all is forgiven, but anyone who can’t acknowledge that he has adapted and adopted a cleaner style is probably still a little salty about his past.

Read More