|
Game 28: WPG 5 NYR 2, Same Pattern Again, Agitator Needed, Girardi's Value? |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rangers came into Monday night riding the high of a 5-2 win over the Canucks and former coach John Tortorella. In addition, to add some intrigue to the mix, they had a possible goaltending controversy - depending on how you believe and your own view - with Cam Talbot starting over Henrik Lundqvist for the second straight game. After the game, that high had been shunted right back to the low of one good game, one bad game in the 5-2 loss. Plus, that perceived goaltending controversy, toss that one out the window as Talbot came somewhat back to earth.
After a solid first period, in which they took a 1-0 lead less than three minutes in, the Rangers fell back to earth in the latter two frames. From about the 10 minute mark in the second, the Jets severely outplayed the Blueshirts, imposing their will on the game. Unfortunately, this is a pattern we have become all too familiar with this season, with several contests taking on the style of this one. Play well early, maybe have a lead, have other team step up their play, possibly by upping the physical quotient, Rangers don't match intensity coupled with a lack of execution, lead lost, game lost.
Larry Brooks spent most of his article saying that the Rangers had to turn back to the King and have him carry them as the Face of the Franchise. I will agree he still is the Face of the team but unsure that they ever really turned away from him, since for the most part, as he goes, so do the Rangers. The one piece I wholeheartedly agree with, which is something we have discussed often, is the following: " The Rangers are stuck in the middle. They don’t have enough top-end talent to play a skill-oriented game. They don’t have anywhere near enough size or muscle to impose their will on anyone. Their identity is anybody’s guess."
The problem also is has AV and the coaching staff figured out the identity? With Torts, you for the most part knew what you would get; a blue-collar effort nightly, tight-checking, shot-blocking, minimal scoring and reliance on Lundqvist to win. Now, they have gone from a man-to-man back to a zone style of D, though they still collapse down too much, which was to be changed. They are not a breakout type team with major transitional from D to O as the skills to do that, go tape-to-tape and end-to-end appear lacking. They cycle at times but don't generate enough and consistent chances. As was mentioned in the comments, is this viewed as a transitional and evaluation year, where changes to personnel will come with a change in philosophy?
The Rangers definitely need an agitator and a heavy-weight who can stand up to other teams and create a vibe that's lacking. Right now, they are too vanilla of a team with no one having an edge to stir things up when needed. This is why most of us would love a Chris Neil, a Zenon Konopka, Steve Ott, even an Anthony Peluso like Winnipeg has. Heck, to bring it closer to home, a Sean Avery type when Avery was effective and focused on hockey. That edge, attitude, vibe to get the team and crowd going when they are lagging is lacking, along with the toughness needed to win in the NHL consistently due to the lack of upper end talent, or at least talent that doesn't play like its top tier.
Separately, this year, more than in years past, a rash of players have been on the hot seat with the fans. It's been Derek Stepan. Then Rick Nash. Then Michael Del Zotto. Derick Brassard has seen his share, Ryan Callahan has gotten a turn, even Brad Richards. Now, at least in the blog, the crosshairs are firmly on Dan Girardi.
Two years ago, Girardi was viewed by many of us as a possibility for the Canadian Olympic squad. Now, a decent portion believe he should be traded before the deadline, and if he remains, not brought back next year. The truth lies somewhere in between. I don't any of us will question the notion that Girardi looks as if he was best suited to play in Torts' system. Blocking shots due to him playing in a tight checking style that enabled him to be very effective.
As others mentioned, he is not a great skater, his defensive zone coverage has been suspect while his offensive skills are middling at best. Factoring in all that doesn't mean he cannot be effective in AV's style, just that he won't play at the level we saw under Torts, which may have clouded our view and judgment on him. In addition, that also doesn’t mean I am ready to pull the plug and deal him now, unless they either fall out of playoff contention - doubtful given the division they are in - be willing to blow it up - does Dolan look likely to do so - or get blown away by an offer, which could happen but not probable.
The bigger question to be tackled down the road is whether or not he is brought back and for what price? When the Rangers signed him to the extension that gave him an AAV of $3.325 million we all felt they got bargain, and Girardi has exceeded the value of that deal. But his current play, at least in my view, doesn’t mean he should get a four-to-five year deal worth $5 mil+ plus per. Let someone else pay for that. In addition, as I have said before, I would love to see Stralman move up to play with McDonagh and reunite Girardi and Staal to try and recapture the magic they has a few years ago.
Girardi is still effective, is he a top-two d-man, probably not in this system, can he be a good second pairing one, yes, but with that comes a drop in perceived and actual value moving forward. As such, and mentioned by others, you can't waste that type of cap space on a player that seemed more and more dependent on the old coaching style to be successful. To be clear, I love G. He was the face of the defense under Torts, played major minutes, took a ton of abuse, yet was out there shift after shift against opponents top lines. But unfortunately the shift in coach and style doesn’t play to his strengths and that's what the Rangers have to look at the balance of the year and in the off-season, resuming he is not moved at the deadline.
New York Rangers Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»