To be fair, there are far more of those that rant in the anti camp than the positive camp, part of which is because the anti-people are pissed off, by definition.
Player Discussion Henrik Lundqvist part IV
- Thread starter Megustaelhockey
- Start date
- Status
To be fair, there are far more of those that rant in the anti camp than the positive camp, part of which is because the anti-people are pissed off, by definition.
TheTakedown
Puck is Life
- Jul 11, 2012
- 13,689
- 1,480
I hear you on not having faith in the goalie, so that definitely plays a part in it.
But the other side of the coin is that the game is very different compared to 10 years ago. On top of that, I know those defensemen you listed were in fact terrible, but were any of them bottom 10 in the league at some point? Let alone TWO of them?
Staal was a legit #1 pair, then, and Girardi was a very legit #2 guy.
Malik, in my opinion, is one of the most underrated defensemen I have ever seen as a Ranger. In all the years I have been watching, Malik was probbably top 5 at making the breakout pass out of the defensive zone.
Poti was also underrated for the same reason Malik was. Big guys who are not physical are despised by many of the fans.
That's a far better group than this season's group.
There are, agreed. Although the "defend at all costs" crowd (which is different to the positive crowd) somhow seem to be louder somehow.
Believing that Hank's play has slipped fromits lofty standards, and that that slip, along with his cap hit may lead to issues moving forward shouldn't be an opinion that gets shouted down.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
So three people is now the entire board? And that's exactly why it's hyperbolic nonsense. It's coming from a typical white knight poster and it's eye-rollingly off base.
You have three guys that bash him for everything and another three or so that refuse to ever criticize him. The garbage hyperbole evens out.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
There are? I can truly only think of three people. I can think of a ton that offer criticism, but none are in the "rant" camp or "anti" camp. I just think that the level of discussion on the guy is so awful and toxic currently. It all started when he became unable to be criticized at some point. That, in turn, set certain people off to pick at his every mistake. Which then inspired more white knighting. Which then inspired more unwarranted criticism.
It's the downside of fanboys.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
I think they are louder because they deem any criticism unwarranted and "hating". We've seen legitimate discussions of poor positioning or poor reaction time or poor puckhandling shouted down how many times now? I can't even comprehend at this point. When you can't discuss something, it breeds anger.
Anthony5967
Registered User
Stumbled across this, curious to see what you guys think. I agree with him one some.
http://doinow.com/nyr12716/
http://doinow.com/nyr12716/
romba
Registered User
So your saying our 8.5 mil goalie isn't below average? Great news!
"In the one win against King Halak, the Rangers scored 5 goals for King Excuses." LOL
Anthony5967
Registered User
Cannot stand that guys tweets. If he needs an elite d around him then maybe he is not elite like the guy in the article I posted says and he is not wrong. He has been brutal.
Anthony5967
Registered User
Can you at least agree with any of what that guy says? Granted, I do not know that guy writing the blog from a hole and the wall and had that sent to me but is he wrong with some of the stuff he says? Have the backups not outplayed him at times? Has he ever taken self responsibility more than a handful of times since he has been here in 2005? Hell, if he did that I think some would have less anger towards him but the constant ripping of the defense is overblown. It was fine at the start of the year but they were winning because they were on an offensive tear, the goalie has been off all year.
Captain Lindy
Formerly known as Kreider Beast
Anthony5967
Registered User
I believe that was the Isles ice girl years ago who claims Hank bumped her in the crease because she was scraping his crease and he did not want her or any of them in it during the breaks.
Captain Lindy
Formerly known as Kreider Beast
Can you at least agree with any of what that guy says? Granted, I do not know that guy writing the blog from a hole and the wall and had that sent to me but is he wrong with some of the stuff he says? Have the backups not outplayed him at times? Has he ever taken self responsibility more than a handful of times since he has been here in 2005? Hell, if he did that I think some would have less anger towards him but the constant ripping of the defense is overblown. It was fine at the start of the year but they were winning because they were on an offensive tear, the goalie has been off all year.
I don't agree with what any of that basement dweller blogger writes. He has a personal vendetta against Henrik.
He's a horrible person, and for someone as obese as himself, to even bring up Shannon Hogan's weight is extremely unprofessional, and extremely out of line.
If you follow him on twitter, you would know. I can't post any of the vitriol he spews here because it would violate many rules.
Inferno
Registered User
silverfish
got perma'd
Chimpradamus
Registered User
So it's white-knighting now to not agree on goals being softies, because I think the term is excessively used in a shallow way? With "this board" I mean the usual suspects and you purposely choose to misunderstand me.
Wth? You blabber off about me being obnoxious about my analysis, while doing so yourself in the same post. You've seen me answer alot of criticism about Lundqvist, while unconsciously forgetting it's alot of the ridiculous criticism I've been responding to. Don't throw stones in a glass house in your grand speech about hype, with your own home-made hype.
Then I don't agree with "bad goal analysis" when I see Hank has been screened on the shot - which is VERY often ignored. Is it considered blasphemy now to disagree with an opinion?
Have some of you totally forgotten what a message board is all about? Apparently so.
Just because I defend Lundqvist to what I consider unconstructive or outright wrong criticism, from misreading the entire situation where a goal was scored, that's now fanatism? Vally and bloggers are getting laughed at their ignorance of hockey, because they don't agree with the mass NYR Board keyboard general opinion, which is massively constructed from such great analysis as "all goals were bad tonight, he lost us the game". That's it. Ow, what great analysis, NBC better get their reqruitment department a memo.
What do you want me to say? That I require an actual constructed opinion and I shoot down poorly written posts constructed of nothing but half-flaming and the presented insights a middle grader can produce? That's white-knighting now? Is that the desired level of this board? To spew shallow one liners between the gulps of beer like it's twitter? Awesome.
So tone done your bickering, because you are just as guilty as anyone else.
I think the original question as of why Lunqvist has to be among the best goaltenders of this league for this team to be successful, is a lot more warranted question, than why Lundqvist can't play superb hockey 82 games every season + the playoffs. Every season.
A goalie that is probably a Hall of Famer when he retires has about 15 who think he plays bad, 5 who think he should've retired the moment he played his first game and about 2-3 who think it's fine. I think he's played below his average, but it's not the suicide level alot of posters are constructing it to be. And that 2-3 thinks it's still fine is a huge problem, because a bunch of posters openly adress this as they basically have to go to their safe space. See any problem with the line of thinking here, you spoiled *****?
Imagine any other goalie playing for this team. What if Fleury would've been drafted and played for NYR? Holy ****. The board would've permanently been destroyed when he had like a GAA of 7 in the playoffs against Philly.
Perspective, anyone? NOPE. He's playing bad RIGHT NOW. ADHD craft calling earth, over.
Last edited:
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
You are silverfish, analytics extraordinaire, and the furthest thing from a basement bottom dweller.
silverfish
got perma'd
To be fair, this is a lot better analysis than Pierre letting us know which state each player was conceived in.
Who needs hockey when you have R?
You are silverfish, analytics extraordinaire, and the furthest thing from a basement bottom dweller.
I am eyjee. spell it right
[unless RangerBoy asks, then I am Burt Macklin, FBI]
JimmyG89
Registered User
- May 1, 2010
- 9,633
- 8,064
I believe this is the best way to look at it.
We all know Hank has to be the best if not top 3 goalie in the NHL for this team, as constructed, to be successful. The issue is that the results haven't been there early in the season. It's not like this hasn't happened before.
From the beginning of the 2013 season to 1/1/14:
12-15-2
.908 sv%
2.70 GAA
His stats for the rest of the regular season:
21-9-3
.931 sv%
2.08 GAA
To me, Hank hasn't been great, but he will get better. His career splits and recent splits will show that his worst month of the season is almost always December. It might get worse that what he has now.
Until we see that he doesn't pick it up in January and February, you have to believe that it will happen.
Player big P
no more striptease no more flashes
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
Uh. He "has to be among" the best goaltenders because he's ****ing being paid to. He needs to play up to his cap hit. That's how a team succeeds. This is not rocket science.
Also, love the personal shots. Can you comment without them or is that your go to? Calling me spoiled? How random.
By the way, you regularly dodge actual in game commentary on his play to focus on the hyperbolic nonsense. It's another pattern.
- Status
