GAME DAY: NY Rangers @ Ottawa, 7:30PM, Thursday, March 8, 2012

SpezDispenser wrote:Find myself not a huge fan of Gilroy.

If the benchmark is pre-McClean Brian Lee, then he's a superstar.
He will only improve (much like Lee did) under the new coaching staff. I don't have high expectations for new comers to the team like Gilroy and Bishop. You can tell just from last game that Bishop worked with Wamsley. Anyone forward of goal takes more time to get into a new system with new guys. Gilroy will get there.

Cussing great win. It's amazing how ordinary we make the Rangers look. We are a really bad matchup for them, because we can handle their physicality (they are the #1 hitting team in the league). I think they dressed Biron in an effort to lose, to ensure they don't have to play us in the 1st round. If we somehow do get through the 1st round and run into the Rags in the 2nd...well...hopefully this trend continues.

tim1_2 wrote:Cussing great win. It's amazing how ordinary we make the Rangers look. We are a really bad matchup for them, because we can handle their physicality (they are the #1 hitting team in the league). I think they dressed Biron in an effort to lose, to ensure they don't have to play us in the 1st round. If we somehow do get through the 1st round and run into the Rags in the 2nd...well...hopefully this trend continues.

We would not face Biron in the post-season. That Zack Smith goal that elevated the Sens' spirits is an easy save for Lundqvist (for any goalie, actually -- that was a really, really bad goal). With Lundqvist in goal that game continues to be 1-0 Rags for a while until we make another mistake, while pressing for the equalizer. Rangers play a boring game and have a goalie who can take an early 1-0 lead and nurse it for the remaining 50-55 minutes.

A win is a win, I'll take it with a big grin. And I also know that we *did* beat Lundqvist earlier (and have had relative success against the Rangers in general in the past). But let's not overstate this win, either. This is the same team that blew a 2-0 lead and almost blew a 3-0 lead very recently. There are things to work on -- getting shots *on* net, blocking shots, reduce defensive zone turnovers and stop running around when such turnovers happen. And one of those middle-six forwards needs to step up, say "That top-six spot is mine!" and back it up.


Still very much a work in progress.

wprager wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:Cussing great win. It's amazing how ordinary we make the Rangers look. We are a really bad matchup for them, because we can handle their physicality (they are the #1 hitting team in the league). I think they dressed Biron in an effort to lose, to ensure they don't have to play us in the 1st round. If we somehow do get through the 1st round and run into the Rags in the 2nd...well...hopefully this trend continues.

We would not face Biron in the post-season. That Zack Smith goal that elevated the Sens' spirits is an easy save for Lundqvist (for any goalie, actually -- that was a really, really bad goal). With Lundqvist in goal that game continues to be 1-0 Rags for a while until we make another mistake, while pressing for the equalizer. Rangers play a boring game and have a goalie who can take an early 1-0 lead and nurse it for the remaining 50-55 minutes.

A win is a win, I'll take it with a big grin. And I also know that we *did* beat Lundqvist earlier (and have had relative success against the Rangers in general in the past). But let's not overstate this win, either. This is the same team that blew a 2-0 lead and almost blew a 3-0 lead very recently. There are things to work on -- getting shots *on* net, blocking shots, reduce defensive zone turnovers and stop running around when such turnovers happen. And one of those middle-six forwards needs to step up, say "That top-six spot is mine!" and back it up.

As you say, we've beaten Hank too. Also, let's not forget that we had our 3rd/4th string goalie in net. Not our fault some teams don't have the same goaltending depth. The Rangers better hope Hank doesn't get injured.

It was also nice to see Smith and Foligno get goals.

Do the Rangers play that differently when they are not in front of Lundqvist? Or have they started to show some chinks in their armour?

shabbs wrote:Do the Rangers play that differently when they are not in front of Lundqvist? Or have they started to show some chinks in their armour?

The Rangers give up A LOT more shots against when Hank is in net than when Biron is in. Something like an extra 7 or 8 shots against...a big difference. So obviously they try to "protect" Biron a little more.

Number Twenty Nine wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Find myself not a huge fan of Gilroy.

If the benchmark is pre-McClean Brian Lee, then he's a superstar.
He will only improve (much like Lee did) under the new coaching staff. I don't have high expectations for new comers to the team like Gilroy and Bishop. You can tell just from last game that Bishop worked with Wamsley. Anyone forward of goal takes more time to get into a new system with new guys. Gilroy will get there.

And if he doesn't they'll just cut him loose. No big deal.

How about young Klinkhammer? What a jewel that guy is.

If Klinkhammer continues like this it'll be hard to get him out of the lineup. Did you see that rush at the end of a long, long shift (they iced it twice and couldn't change). Wow, I didn't know he had wheels like that, and another gear at the end of a grueling shift.

And the goals should come. Big body, doesn't mind getting right on top of the goalie, he'll get some garbage goals soon enough.

On the other hand, does anyone really think he is our solution to the top-6 problem? I see him like another Greening -- big, fast (not sure what his shot is like) but I'm not sure how he is when handling the puck, or if he's got an accurate shot, or what his hockey sense is like. He's done well at the AHL level and, unlike Locke, he's got NHL-calibre size and speed. So, you never know.

The solution to our top-6 problem is Parise, Silverberg, Zibanejad...not necessarily in that order.

wprager wrote:If Klinkhammer continues like this it'll be hard to get him out of the lineup. Did you see that rush at the end of a long, long shift (they iced it twice and couldn't change). Wow, I didn't know he had wheels like that, and another gear at the end of a grueling shift.

And the goals should come. Big body, doesn't mind getting right on top of the goalie, he'll get some garbage goals soon enough.

On the other hand, does anyone really think he is our solution to the top-6 problem? I see him like another Greening -- big, fast (not sure what his shot is like) but I'm not sure how he is when handling the puck, or if he's got an accurate shot, or what his hockey sense is like. He's done well at the AHL level and, unlike Locke, he's got NHL-calibre size and speed. So, you never know.

Absolutely not. Which is why I would have liked to see some rental forwards to fill the top 6. Mind you, and I'm not sure why, the arrival of Klinkhammer really has seemed to spark the Turris line.

SeawaySensFan wrote: the arrival of Klinkhammer really has seemed to spark the Turris line.

THE KLINK!

wprager wrote:If Klinkhammer continues like this it'll be hard to get him out of the lineup. Did you see that rush at the end of a long, long shift (they iced it twice and couldn't change). Wow, I didn't know he had wheels like that, and another gear at the end of a grueling shift.

And the goals should come. Big body, doesn't mind getting right on top of the goalie, he'll get some garbage goals soon enough.

On the other hand, does anyone really think he is our solution to the top-6 problem? I see him like another Greening -- big, fast (not sure what his shot is like) but I'm not sure how he is when handling the puck, or if he's got an accurate shot, or what his hockey sense is like. He's done well at the AHL level and, unlike Locke, he's got NHL-calibre size and speed. So, you never know.

I already used Greening as a comparison, kind fo same play wise but also in that they are/were both the short solution to top 6 winger problem. Not sure either are or will be long-term solutions, but both are very effective bottom 6 role players at worse. Problem is, so is Foligno.

Riprock wrote:

wprager wrote:If Klinkhammer continues like this it'll be hard to get him out of the lineup. Did you see that rush at the end of a long, long shift (they iced it twice and couldn't change). Wow, I didn't know he had wheels like that, and another gear at the end of a grueling shift.

And the goals should come. Big body, doesn't mind getting right on top of the goalie, he'll get some garbage goals soon enough.

On the other hand, does anyone really think he is our solution to the top-6 problem? I see him like another Greening -- big, fast (not sure what his shot is like) but I'm not sure how he is when handling the puck, or if he's got an accurate shot, or what his hockey sense is like. He's done well at the AHL level and, unlike Locke, he's got NHL-calibre size and speed. So, you never know.

I already used Greening as a comparison, kind fo same play wise but also in that they are/were both the short solution to top 6 winger problem. Not sure either are or will be long-term solutions, but both are very effective bottom 6 role players at worse. Problem is, so is Foligno.

We officially have too many players vying for spots in the bottom 6 next season:

Klinkhammer
O'Brien
Winchester (sadly doubt he's back)
Butler
Foligno
Greening
Condra
Daugavins
Z.Smith

Neil

Basically the bolded players seem to have spots locked up...so do we go with:

Foligno - Z.Smith - Neil
Greening - O'Brien - Condra

and if so, where does Klinkhammer fit? Or Daugavins? Or even Zibanejad?

Something's gotta give - and the good news is we're dealing from a position of strength, perhaps we can make a package deal for a young D-man.

SpezDispenser wrote:

Riprock wrote:

wprager wrote:If Klinkhammer continues like this it'll be hard to get him out of the lineup. Did you see that rush at the end of a long, long shift (they iced it twice and couldn't change). Wow, I didn't know he had wheels like that, and another gear at the end of a grueling shift.

And the goals should come. Big body, doesn't mind getting right on top of the goalie, he'll get some garbage goals soon enough.

On the other hand, does anyone really think he is our solution to the top-6 problem? I see him like another Greening -- big, fast (not sure what his shot is like) but I'm not sure how he is when handling the puck, or if he's got an accurate shot, or what his hockey sense is like. He's done well at the AHL level and, unlike Locke, he's got NHL-calibre size and speed. So, you never know.

I already used Greening as a comparison, kind fo same play wise but also in that they are/were both the short solution to top 6 winger problem. Not sure either are or will be long-term solutions, but both are very effective bottom 6 role players at worse. Problem is, so is Foligno.

We officially have too many players vying for spots in the bottom 6 next season:

Klinkhammer
O'Brien
Winchester (sadly doubt he's back)
Butler
Foligno
Greening
Condra
Daugavins
Z.Smith

Neil

Basically the bolded players seem to have spots locked up...so do we go with:

Foligno - Z.Smith - Neil
Greening - O'Brien - Condra

and if so, where does Klinkhammer fit? Or Daugavins? Or even Zibanejad?

Something's gotta give - and the good news is we're dealing from a position of strength, perhaps we can make a package deal for a young D-man.

I listen to Montreal radio quite a bit and to summarize what they generally say is "man, I wish we had ___________ " on the Habs. And it's not just Spezza or Michalek or Alfie. It's just about anyone you can name, in particular Greening, Neil, Smith and even Klinkhammer (already.)

Having said all that, I would say we have multiple trade chips for the upcoming off-season and I'd love to see a deal that boosts a couple of needs.

Yeah, trade bait for sure...maybe just for picks though. Butler's value is pretty low at this point, although I'm sure someone would deal a later pick for him.

I really like the bottom 6 you propose:

Foligno - Z.Smith - Neil
Greening - O'Brien - Condra

Those 6 bring a little something of everything, including scoring.

Foligno, Daugavins, Klinkhammer and O'Brien are all RFAs.

tim1_2 wrote:Yeah, trade bait for sure...maybe just for picks though. Butler's value is pretty low at this point, although I'm sure someone would deal a later pick for him.

I really like the bottom 6 you propose:

Foligno - Z.Smith - Neil
Greening - O'Brien - Condra

Those 6 bring a little something of everything, including scoring.

Yeah, I like that too. Probably with Daugavins as the 13th F because of what he brings on the ice + in the locker room. I don't think we can take O'Brien out of the lineup, I don't think you'll see any kind of digression from Klink, so basically it comes down to Klink and Foligno and Greening vs Silfverberg and Zibanejad for one of the two remaining top six spots, with one odd man out.

Riprock wrote:Foligno, Daugavins, Klinkhammer and O'Brien are all RFAs.

All easy signings except possibly Foligno (who could be dealt IMO).