Big Blue Huddle

Bottom line is a receiver cannot do anything unless he gets the ball thrown his way. We saw Bellinger can be productive in year one. I suspect he will get more looks this year and people will see he can be a legit threat.

I have him as my breakout player this year.

Quote from: MightyGiants on Today at 10:20:41 AMJones had 160 passing attempts, while Taylor and DeVito had 358 attempts (combined).  Why are you blaming Daniel Jones for Bellinger's short comings?

I will clarify as u are correct - Jones AND the other QBs. Certainly don't wanna upset the jones or bust club

Quote from: jgrangers2 on Today at 10:31:22 AMThe series has been chippy since game 1. Rempe won't change that and the idea of a deterrent is an old school hockey trope that needs to die. He also can't skate with this team and would be a liability when on the ice. There's a reason he played just 4 minutes of a game that went over 80.

I'd argue that yesterday might have been their best game at evens in this series. If not for some bad early turnovers and a bad penalty late, this series might be over. Also, the Trouba discussion has to happen sooner rather than later. He's been on the ice for something like the last 7 goals against. We could legitimately see a guy get handed the cup by Bettman and bought out a month later.

In game 4, yes he played around 5 mins, but his average ice time throughout the post season is 6.21. Brodzniski played 8.41 last night - you're not scrapping around finding large minutes to replace either one.

However, I do think Carolina have attempted to take more liberties without him in the line-up, there were a number of boarderline incidences last night he could he have kept in check, plus you had Vesey dropping the gloves in Game 3. I don't think that crap occurs with him in the line-up. Furthermore, he's taken 8 PIMs in the post season, again not a disproportionate amount in my view.

My final point to starting him, over Brodzniski only, is the buzz he brings to the home ice crowd - I think that's worth it.

Of course, just my two pennies.

With or without him - I firmly expect them to close tomorrow night.

Edit - Agree on Trouba. Absolutely a liability when he's not in the box for errant penalties. It's certainly the rangers biggest question mark right now but I don't see a change happening.

"Poor pass rusher"
"Had a career high 13.5 sacks.."

Quote from: jgrangers2 on Today at 11:50:37 AMI appreciate the energy aspect but, beyond that, I'm not sure what else he brings. He's not a highly skilled offensive or defensive player and not a great skater. He's a liability against a team like Carolina that can skate circles around him. There's also that the refs clearly have an eagle eye on him and he's a penalty waiting to happen, which is probably part of why Laviolette hasn't had him out there late. I think the fact that he played just 4 minutes of an 80+ minute game on Tuesday speaks volumes. I just don't know that the positives with him outweight the negatives.

If he is a liability as you have said, why is the Rangers' record with him active (20-2) materially better than their record without him ?

I think it would be fair to say that he is not the reason for that great 20-2 record given he isn't on the ice that much, but, given the results, I think it's hard to argue he is a material liability that other teams have successfully exploited. If that were true, his presence would have led to more losses in 22 games than just 2.

I think Rempe is what he is - a borderline player who brings a lot of energy and physicality to the table. I would also suggest that it's a bit unfair to conclusively judge him as a player given he is a rookie who played basically 1/3 of the season. If we did that with LaFreniere he'd be off the team by now. Rempe's presence on the ice was felt plenty of times this year, and I don't just mean fighting.

And as far as the fighting goes, he has been fighting way less in the last ten or so games he played than he did originally. From what I have seen, he has been out there throwing the body around and getting in the slot and setting screens, etc.

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on Today at 10:43:02 AMI don't think Rempe is just a deterrent and nothing more than that. His being in the lineup fires up the fans and the rest of the team. I don't know if you've been to a home game since his arrival, but when he is on the ice fans start immediately chanting his name and the energy level both in the stands and on the ice percolates visibly.

I'm not suggesting he is more than what he is, which is a fringe player on the outside looking in (hence his not having been active recently). I would disagree that he brings nothing additive to the table though, if that is what you are saying.

I appreciate the energy aspect but, beyond that, I'm not sure what else he brings. He's not a highly skilled offensive or defensive player and not a great skater. He's a liability against a team like Carolina that can skate circles around him. There's also that the refs clearly have an eagle eye on him and he's a penalty waiting to happen, which is probably part of why Laviolette hasn't had him out there late. I think the fact that he played just 4 minutes of an 80+ minute game on Tuesday speaks volumes. I just don't know that the positives with him outweight the negatives.

Quote from: MightyGiants on Today at 11:11:35 AMI am not sure what the point of that extreme binary question is.  Are you suggesting the offense wouldn't have looked significantly better with their two most important players healthy?

My original point was that you had people on this forum saying the Giants were going to be "something special" in 2023 based on their observations over the summer through the preseason, and that the eventual reality on the ground was in stark contrast to that. I further noted that that disconnect has occurred plenty of times in the past, both with us and with other fan bases around the league. I specifically noted the disconnect between the intense optimism seen here and the woefully poor performance in week one, which is generally the most reflective week of how well prepared the team was over the various stages of camp and the preseason.

You seemed to disagree with (and want to discredit) my observation by pointing out that Waller, who played the whole game and for another 7 weeks after that, wasn't 100% perfectly healthy and that Andrew Thomas missed some of the game. I personally don't agree that those two issues are why we lost 40-0 or that had every relevant member of the team been 100% healthy (an extreme rarity for any NFL team in any game), that things would have been dramatically different in that game.

To me that game illustrated a lack of preparation of the team and also the team's lack of overall talent and depth. To isolate one or two injuries, even to starters, simply does not debunk the above.

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on Today at 11:07:18 AMSo your argument is that if both of those players had been 100% healthy in all four quarters, we would have instead looked good in that game instead of losing 40-0?

I am not sure what the point of that extreme binary question is.   Are you suggesting the offense wouldn't have looked significantly better with their two most important players healthy?

Quote from: MightyGiants on Today at 11:05:34 AMThomas was injured very early in the game and Waller had been injured prior to the game and was not playing like he had in camp.

So your argument is that if both of those players had been 100% healthy in all four quarters, we would have instead looked good in that game instead of losing 40-0?

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on Today at 11:04:16 AMHow did any of those impact the week one game, which is what I was referencing?

Thomas was injured very early in the game and Waller had been injured prior to the game and was not playing like he had in camp.