WOW! Just ...WOW.
Always in position? Not really. Amac's biggest issues to me are that he's a subpar one on one hockey player. Wingers walk off the boards with the puck leaving him behind far more often than I care to count.
It's not that Amac is glaringly terrible in any one area, but he's average to below average in most areas, thus making him the type of guy who should play a limited 5-7 spot as opposed to 2-4.


Xxkeaner17xX
- keaner17

It'd be more bearable but I'd rather have those spots filled with a physical D rather then a Dman who excells at nothing and can't reach average status at any skillset that's important for a defenseman. I just don't see the point?

It'd be more bearable but I'd rather have those spots filled with a physical D rather then a Dman who excells at nothing and can't reach average status at any skillset that's important for a defenseman. I just don't see the point?
- Cptmjl

I suppose the thing I'd like to see is Hamonic paired with a top pairing guy. In reference to UIF's comment stating we don't have a top pairing guy, I'm not totally sure but I think if you paired Hamonic with a say a guy like Viz, he begins to look more like a top pairing guy, but when you pair him constantly with a bottom pairing player for 25 minutes a night, it becomes more difficult to adequately assess him.
I wouldn't put Amac in a Bruno territory, but he's only a notch or so above IMO.

Xxkeaner17xX

I suppose the thing I'd like to see is Hamonic paired with a top pairing guy. In reference to UIF's comment stating we don't have a top pairing guy, I'm not totally sure but I think if you paired Hamonic with a say a guy like Viz, he begins to look more like a top pairing guy, but when you pair him constantly with a bottom pairing player for 25 minutes a night, it becomes more difficult to adequately assess him.
I wouldn't put Amac in a Bruno territory, but he's only a notch or so above IMO.

Xxkeaner17xX
- keaner17

I think that's a pretty good description albeit a small "notch". Now that you mention it Vis might look good next to AMAC? I'd still spread those minutes out a little more evenly but that might be a good pairing? He's more defensively sound(I may hear it for this but I've been pleasently surprised with Vis's defensive prowess), more offensively sound. He's certainly more of a "first pairing" dman as they're usually described then AMAC.

damn you
- Cptmjl

you think this is easy for me??? its hard work being right all the time!!

you think this is easy for me??? its hard work being right all the time!!
- LetsGoIsles

You couldn't be more wrong.

You think this is easy for me??? It's hard work, being right all the time!!
- LetsGoIsles

Fixed.
keaner17

Based on what I saw last night, I don't think the players are the problem for the Rangers' D, there's just no support. You have one guy trying to cover an elite forward like Perry, and once he pulls a move, there's no one there to help out. Like I said last night, I think a lot of confusion with the new system is more the culprit than anything else, and I think they'll be fine once they get used to it. I don't care how down people are on the Rangers' players, they're obviously not this bad, unless you really believe Torts is the greatest coach to ever grace this game.
- UIF

you are right.. it's a new system, a new coach, and a lot of guys hurt. I only thought everyone had them as Toooooo good. They are not as awful as they played these last few game, but I did think and still do believe when they are not doing the 5 guys diving in front of every puck system or they sit forever... Their defense will be exposed a bit. ... again not to the extent it has this week .. but it isn't as good as it was thought either.

AMac-... I'll leave it alone b/c none of us will agree. I also know a lot about hockey and think he is very under-rated. That is all...

I'll say it again like I have before and most of the Ranger fans are echoing it on their thread today. Torts coached that team the way he had too. Those players just aren't that great. They don't have the horses. With that said they can be better but I think they were completely overrated.
- Cptmjl

Rangers are trying to be a team they are not. They are trying to play a style similar to the Pens, Caps Isles TBL etc. all these teams are built on offense, Rangers are built from the back. If they don't change it up a bit they are in for a long season

Fixed.
keaner17
- keaner17

grammar correcting?!!? thats so last week!!

Grammar correcting?!!? Thats so last week!!
- LetsGoIsles

fixed

Rangers are trying to be a team they are not. They are trying to play a style similar to the Pens, Caps Isles TBL etc. all these teams are built on offense, Rangers are built from the back. If they don't change it up a bit they are in for a long season
- mighty13duck

I don't necessarily agree. I Just think the Rags forwards aren't skilled as everyone thinks they are,
I think Stepan overachieved, Brassard won't be in his playoff form, Haglin is good in odd man breaks.

The Rangers are built to be a counter attack team, to score on rushes. They appear to not have the tools to play possession and cycle.

I don't necessarily agree. I Just think the Rags forwards aren't skilled as everyone thinks they are,
I think Stepan overachieved, Brassard won't be in his playoff form, Haglin is good in odd man breaks.

The Rangers are built to be a counter attack team, to score on rushes. They appear to not have the tools to play possession and cycle.
- Danformo

Ding Ding Ding! This is why Torts used the system he did. The other option is what we are seeing now. Or at least it's what he suspected might happen if he loosened the leash so to speak.

Ding Ding Ding! This is why Torts used the system he did. The other option is what we are seeing now. Or at least it's what he suspected might happen if he loosened the leash so to speak.
- Cptmjl

Torts is not the dummy some though he was. The Rangers do not have the horses to play a big offensive game.

I suppose the thing I'd like to see is Hamonic paired with a top pairing guy. In reference to UIF's comment stating we don't have a top pairing guy, I'm not totally sure but I think if you paired Hamonic with a say a guy like Viz, he begins to look more like a top pairing guy, but when you pair him constantly with a bottom pairing player for 25 minutes a night, it becomes more difficult to adequately assess him.
I wouldn't put Amac in a Bruno territory, but he's only a notch or so above IMO.

Xxkeaner17xX
- keaner17

Bruno Gervais is a -60 in his islanders career and Andrew MacDonald is a +7. Can we agree that comparison is not really accurate ?

Bruno Gervais is a -60 in his islanders career and Andrew MacDonald is a +7. Can we agree that comparison is not really accurate ?
- Isles316

They have the same exact problems with their games though so no

Torts is not the dummy some though he was. The Rangers do not have the horses to play a big offensive game.
- ses111

That's my stance on the subject. He resorted to that defensive play bcs he felt he had too. Why else would he do it? Suddenly change his coaching style for the fack of it?

They have the same exact problems with their games though
- Cptmjl

MacDonald isn't perfect but he's not the garbage player everyone on here is making him out to be either. The guy has good #s playing top 4 minutes and now top 2 minutes against top players on opposing teams. I think he makes poor decisions with the puck at times but positionally he's excellent and he's also excellent one no one.

MacDonald isn't perfect but he's not the garbage player everyone on here is making him out to be either. The guy has good #s playing top 4 minutes and now top 2 minutes against top players on opposing teams. I think he makes poor decisions with the puck at times but positionally he's excellent and he's also excellent one no one.
- Isles316

First bold... It's actually just me

As far as the second bold I think that's one of the weaker areas of his game. One on one he's not coming out with the puck especially when referring to behind the net or in front of it for that matter. Guy is weak on the puck.

Bruno Gervais is a -60 in his islanders career and Andrew MacDonald is a +7. Can we agree that comparison is not really accurate ?
- Isles316

Comparison? I said MacDonald is a notch above him. That said, let's let go of the +/- stuff, as that's more of a team stat than individual stat.

xxkeaner17xx

MacDonald isn't perfect but he's not the garbage player everyone on here is making him out to be either. The guy has good #s playing top 4 minutes and now top 2 minutes against top players on opposing teams. I think he makes poor decisions with the puck at times but positionally he's excellent and he's also excellent one no one.
- Isles316

I wouldn't have disagreed with you until that one...
Xxkeaner17xX

First bold... It's actually just me

As far as the second bold I think that's one of the weaker areas of his game. One on one he's not coming out with the puck especially when referring to behind the net or in front of it for that matter. Guy is weak on the puck.
- Cptmjl

Exactly. Amac RARELY wins one on one battles along the boards.

Xxkeaner17xX

Comparison? I said MacDonald is a notch above him. That said, let's let go of the +/- stuff, as that's more of a team stat than individual stat.

xxkeaner17xx
- keaner17

I think he's about 5 notches above him. And if its a team stat, most of those numbers were accrued while on the same team

I wouldn't have disagreed with you until that one...
Xxkeaner17xX
- keaner17

I really think his positional play which many on here think is excellent is far from it. I really wonder if some of these guys are watching the same MacDonald i am? Perfect time for you to throw out a Ronald MacDonald picture

That's my stance on the subject. He resorted to that defensive play bcs he felt he had too. Why else would he do it? Suddenly change his coaching style for the fack of it?
- Cptmjl

Torts was Sather's scapegoat. Torts made it easier with the way he was with the media. Torts still got a bad deal. Sather should be the first one to go.

I think he's about 5 notches above him. And if its a team stat, most of those numbers were accrued while on the same team
- Isles316

thats not what he means by a team stat...and just because its more of a team stat than an individual stat doesnt make it a good stat.