Game 1 between the Florida Panthers and New York Rangers was a snooze fest, with both teams showing rust and being ok with playing low event hockey. It ended with the Rangers losing Game 1, with some tough luck and two bad decisions really deciding the game. It’s ok though, as there were a bunch of positives to take from the game.

1. First and foremost, the Rangers losing Game 1 in the manner they did was not a cause for concern. They were not outplayed. They were not dominated. Despite what the announcers were saying about shots on goal, the Rangers were never out of the game and they were never trying to play catch up to the Panthers.

Game 1 at all strengths was actually pointing to a Rangers advantage in xG and HDCF%, per Natural Stat Trick. At 5v5, the Rangers were with acceptable ranges for The Formula at 47.13% xG. Not great, but good enough that they could have pulled it out with some better luck.

2. Speaking of luck, the Rangers just didn’t get bounces. Igor Shesterkin let in a rough one on the first goal and then Alexis Lafreniere scored on him later in the game to make it 2-0. Both of those goals were somewhat bad luck–the first goal was also courtesy of an Adam Fox screen. But you make your own luck, and there were two bad decisions that led to the goals against.

The own goal is the one with all the highlights, and it’s very clear what happened here. It was a bad decision by Shesterkin, remember the goalie directs traffic on these, to play the puck instead of letting Erik Gustafsson collect the puck and wheel it around. He then doubled down by playing the puck into a bad spot, creating the own goal.

The first goal against was courtesy of a bad decision by Artemi Panarin not to shoot the puck when he had the chance. Instead he turned it over and Florida scored. Two bad decisions, two goals against. The Rangers won’t make those mistakes again.

3. Some were concerned about effort. The effort was there, that wasn’t the concern to me. It looked like there was no effort because the game moved at a snail’s pace on both sides. Slow doesn’t mean no effort. We can point to Florida getting just 8 high danger chances as evidence the Rangers were sound defensively. They were just disjointed on offense and on the powerplay.

If anything, it looked like they were overthinking the game instead of letting it come to them.

4. The only concern from me was Adam Fox. The Rangers losing Game 1 doesn’t faze me at all, but Fox’s rough game does. It was clear against Carolina that he was off, and that has extended into this series. He’s clearly not as mobile as he should be, and it’s impacting the powerplay and his defensive zone play.

It’s unfair to call him a liability out there, as Fox at 50% is still better than half the defensemen in the league. But he’s clearly not what we expect from him. There is no good solution either. He either needs to play through it at 50% and hope for the best, sit and get replaced in the aggregate by Zac Jones and Erik Gustafsson, or have the Rangers go 11F/7D with Fox only playing for key offensive zone draws and powerplays.

None of these are good options, mind you. The Rangers losing Game 1 isn’t a huge issue, but Fox’s injury is.

5. With the Rangers losing Game 1, getting shut out in the process, the offense has come into question. The top-six are an even match for Florida, and they simply couldn’t get anything going consistently. They will adjust and they will be fine.

Lineup depth and scoring depth is where the Rangers should have the advantage, and if anything, this is where I think Peter Laviolette can make some adjustments. With the caveat that the we don’t know Filip Chytil’s health status, I think it’s time to create a more offensively inclined third line.

I love Alex Wennberg and he’s been great, but offense dies on his stick. It’s just not his skill set, and that’s fine. With the Rangers needing offense, moving him to a pure shutdown role with Jimmy Vesey and Barclay Goodrow might make the Rangers more effective.

The Will Cuylle-Filip Chytil-Kaapo Kakko line would be a defensively sound grinding machine, something the Rangers lacked in Game 1. In the right matchup, they’d feast. That would leave Vesey-Wennberg-Goodrow to eat tough minutes against one of Matt Tkachuk or Aleksander Barkov.

It’s unlikely to happen, but it should be an option.

6. Since I saw this in the comments, bringing in Matt Rempe probably doesn’t solve much aside from a bit of a youthful jolt. Rempe isn’t going to magically solve the shots on goal issue or the low event game play. That’s on the top-six. The Rangers losing Game 1 doesn’t mean blow up the lineup and start from scratch. It means review the video and adjust as needed.

Can Rempe help? Absolutely. But if he’s coming in, the only person he should realistically be replacing is Jimmy Vesey. That’s not a slight on Vesey, it’s just the role he plays can be subbed out for Rempe.

The Rangers losing Game 1 isn’t that big of a deal just yet. Let’s see how they respond in Game 2.

Share: 

More About: