Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Now this is getting fun.

Let's see, what's happened recently? After scoring a few seconds into the third period in Boston, we proceeded to stop scoring goals, scoring only 1 in the following 11 periods of hockey. This took us through a 1-0 fifth-round shootout loss to the Devils that was one of the best hockey games of the decade (except that it had to end in a shootout, because a tie is apparently not exciting?), followed by a 2-0 terrible effort against the Senators, and an equally embarrassing 4-1 loss to the Blues (the only goal there came from the fourth line; Voros got an assist in what was his first game back in the lineup since the New Years home-and-home, and was +1 on the night). The goal drought extended through the first period against the Canadiens Sunday night, after which we were down 2-0 and the Garden was booing.

Then we somehow figured something out. Some combination of Avery's performance against the Stars, and Tortorella reading my blog and giving other lines more ice time, and Aaron Voros not being Donald Brashear... whatever it was, we figured out that you can't score goals just by putting a bunch of "goal-scorers" on the ice. We figured out that hockey is a physical game. As Conn Smythe allegedly said, "if you can't beat them in the alley, you can't beat them on the ice."

We came out physical for that second period. Even Wade Redden fought. And somehow, since then, this same group of guys (well, basically the same, excepting some Voros/Brashear/Lisin/Kotalik switchups) that could only score 1 goal in 11 periods of hockey have scored 14 in 5. Somehow, we became a team that, as Larry Brooks put it, could stand to benefit from "a plan that gives them rollover goals."

So how does this happen? Who are these guys? What's the difference between this week's Rangers and last week's?

A number of things, actually. First of all, we need to be realistic. Yes, we've had 5 inspired, physical, great all-around periods of hockey. But that doesn't mean we're going to score another 14 in the next 5, or that it's the start of a streak that will take us to the top of the conference, or anything. It's less than two games.

With that out of the way, what we can be excited about is a work ethic. There's not a big difference in statistics, like winning faceoffs or shots on goal. But we're playing a physical game. We seem to have figured out that all those little pushes and shoves, all those times you knock a guy down after he knocks you down (or before, even!), all those small battles for pucks along the boards, all those footraces on icings: these are the things that add up to goals.

I don't know exactly why we figured it out. Some of it is likely "well, nothing else was working." When a team starts to get desperate, it starts to get physical. We have to hope that if success continues, physicality doesn't proportionally diminish. We probably took a cue from the famous Lifetime movie event, The Sean Avery Story (working title: Sloppy Second Chances). It probably also helped that we replaced Donald "I fight now? No? OK." Brashear with an actual physical player in Aaron Voros. It's important to note the difference here: no doubt Brashear is (or, at least, was) a better fighter than Voros. But Voros sticks his body into every play, and Brashear just skates around. That's the kind of thing that wins hockey games: using your body to make a difference in the play.

I'm not sure what my point is. Things aren't going to stay as good as they are. But there's reason to believe that the "more fun to watch" Rangers we all promised each other at the beginning of the season might have shown their faces recently, and they might not be going away as often as they used to.

Do I sound like a neglected child yet?

I guess what I'm saying is: any night where Wade Redden fights a guy is a good night.

No comments:

Post a Comment