Post-Game Talk: ECSF #1 - 5/16/13 | New York Rangers @ Boston Bruins - Damnit!

[SnowblindNYR]

Agree to disagree, for a guy that doesn't get much rest and started every game down the stretch leading up to the playoffs two days isn't much. The longer you're away from the game the easier it is to lose focus as well.



Technically sure, but if you lose game one you still have an opportunity to redeem yourself. The pressure isn't the same in game 1 as it is in game 7.



Are you sure about this? Do you have a spreadsheet of all his "soft goals" throughout his career? Otherwise I would assume he let's in a relatively equal number of soft goals during the regular season and playoffs, just that maybe we notice them a little more in the playoffs?

If he was letting in a lot more soft goals in the playoffs his numbers wouldn't be so good...

No, of course I have no actual proof of this, just my observations. If you haven't noticed I harp on him for bad goals in the regular season too. I notice them well. I WILL say, that bad goals in the regular season are less memorable, though I still remember a soft goal he gave up to Toronto late in the season and that he had a poor game against Winnipeg. Anyway, I'd sometimes see him give up a goal and think it's been a while since I've seen him give up a goal like this. I haven't seen all of the games this year, but I honestly don't remember a goal as bad as the Chimera goal in any of the games. Maybe even the Chara goal.

He won't necessarily have worse stats if he gives up more soft goals for 2 reasons:

1) The games are tighter checking so you can't compare the 2 situations.

2) As I said he has worse than usual games but also better than usual games. They average out about the same. He had 3 games in 4 where he gave up 3 goals last season, outside of the first 3 games of the season last year, that happened very rarely if at all last season. He also had 2 shutouts. He had 2 shutouts in the entire season last year.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I hate how people feel like they need to **** on the team to defend Lundqvist. Somehow we're OVERachieving. People create cartoony images of players they don't like on the team and use their weakness when analyzing the team. I do that with Lundqvist too sometimes, but I don't question his talent or think he's overachieving. We have plenty of talent, a lot of is underachieving (Nash, Richards, Cally). People just like to ***** for no reason. We have as much talent if not more than most teams in the NHL. We're not the Pens or Hawks but we have enough talent that we shouldn't be seeing the "woe is me" the Rangers are horrible posts.

 

[rkhum]

Was it me or did it sound like there were a lot of Rangers fans there?
I saw blue, heard cheering when we scored, and during the second period did anybody catch the "Potvin sucks" whistle?

 

[Cake or Death]

If Lundqvist is getting this much grief for a few occasional mediocre goals, I'd hate to see what this place would've done to Mike Richter.

 

[darko]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=722907&highlight=prince+chad

I feel bad for those 2 posters.

 

[chosen]

60% Hasek, 20% Roy, 10% Richter, 10% Broduer.

I will take 100% Hasek, thank you.

 

[chosen]

If Lundqvist is getting this much grief for a few occasional mediocre goals, I'd hate to see what this place would've done to Mike Richter.

This group would have wanted Richter executed. Imagine the reaction here if Hank gave up goals from the blue line and out.

 

[Whiplash27]

This is going to be an anxiety driven series. I'd be surprised if there are any games that are decided by more than one goal (EN not counting).

 

[Fataldogg]

I know you want to pretend like we played worse to absolve Lundvist but PLEASE. Their 3rd goal was a very nice one. However the first was an uncovered slap shot from the point and another one was a slapshot from pretty the point along the boards. If that's not "opportunistic" I don't know what is. At least our second goal was created by us and not some soft goal/fluke. Their first 2 goals were more opportunistic than our 2.

Both goals Rask gave up were soft.

If both goalies performed to their standards, it would have been 0-0 heading into OT. That's the reality of it. Rangers fans like yourself just want to pretend that the goals Rask gave up weren't soft, to validate Lundqvist for the loss. The bottom line, if Rask is on, we don't have a goal.

If Lundqvist was beaten five hole from as far out as Stepan was, he would have been ripped apart. If Lundqvist gave up a shot with medium velocity over the shoulder from the point, ala McDonagh, he would have been ripped apart.

Rask gave up those goals. Lundqvist gave up two soft goals. Then it came down to OT and we were outshot 18-4. It has nothing to do with Lundqvist.

And again, you said Lundqvist faced 43 cupcake shots right? So you wanted him to have a 3rd straight shutout basically? Is that what you honestly expected? Because you're certainly implying he should have had both goals, thus he should have let up no goals, thus resulting in 180 minutes of no goals against. If you expected that

Star criticizing that bum Rick Nash. I get that Lundqvist isn't above criticism, but he's the last player on the team that deserves it. NASH SHOULD BE THE OBJECT OF EVERYONE'S CRITICISM AT THIS POINT.

 

[thepoeticgoblin]

"If we can't win by scoring 2 goals in this series then we're screwed."

I'm just going to bump this post. It sums up just how spoiled we've become. One of the dumbest things I've ever read online. This poster is blaming Lundqvist for losing, demanding that he never allows more than 1 goal.

The Lundqvist debate I'll just answer with: 8G, 4W 4L, 2SO, 1.76 GAA, 0.945%.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

This group would have wanted Richter executed. Imagine the reaction here if Hank gave up goals from the blue line and out.

Yea but Richter has a cup.

 

[Giroux tha Damaja]

So is a Flyers fan welcome in here this time of year? I like how Torts and Cally carry themselves, and I'm a goalie so of course Hank gives me bro-ners. Long story short: I'm trying to get up on this bandwagon. Is there somebody I can see about a Rangers Bandwagon avatar?

 

[The Gloaming]

So is a Flyers fan welcome in here this time of year? I like how Torts and Cally carry themselves, and I'm a goalie so of course Hank gives me bro-ners. Long story short: I'm trying to get up on this bandwagon. Is there somebody I can see about a Rangers Bandwagon avatar?

Depends on if you like watching overtime losses.

 

[ltrangerfan]

Both goals Rask gave up were soft.

If both goalies performed to their standards, it would have been 0-0 heading into OT. That's the reality of it. Rangers fans like yourself just want to pretend that the goals Rask gave up weren't soft, to validate Lundqvist for the loss. The bottom line, if Rask is on, we don't have a goal.

If Lundqvist was beaten five hole from as far out as Stepan was, he would have been ripped apart. If Lundqvist gave up a shot with medium velocity over the shoulder from the point, ala McDonagh, he would have been ripped apart.

Rask gave up those goals. Lundqvist gave up two soft goals. Then it came down to OT and we were outshot 18-4. It has nothing to do with Lundqvist.

And again, you said Lundqvist faced 43 cupcake shots right? So you wanted him to have a 3rd straight shutout basically? Is that what you honestly expected? Because you're certainly implying he should have had both goals, thus he should have let up no goals, thus resulting in 180 minutes of no goals against. If you expected that

Star criticizing that bum Rick Nash. I get that Lundqvist isn't above criticism, but he's the last player on the team that deserves it. NASH SHOULD BE THE OBJECT OF EVERYONE'S CRITICISM AT THIS POINT.

Bottom line:

IMO... If Lundy gives up as many soft goals as Rask the Rangers won't win the series.

 

[reffree]

Bottom line:

IMO... If Lundy gives up as many soft goals as Rask the Rangers won't win the series.

Unless you start playing hockey.
I'm an outsider so take it with a grain of salt, but what was Bruins D lineup last game?

3 rookies, two being undersized.
A number 6 dman who normaly play 10 minutes and handle the puck like a grenade
A bang up Boychuk who's not the best at handling the puck too.
A 36ish Chara playing 40ish minutes.

So Bruins #1, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 Dmen.

Where was the pressure on them?

I know playing soft hockey means giving less scoring chance, mean it's easier on your goalie, but against that D corp I think the reward of pressuring them might have been higher than the cost.

 

[chosen]

Yea but Richter has a cup.

Osgood has 3. The god of goaltenders.

 

[Blue Blooded]

So is a Flyers fan welcome in here this time of year? I like how Torts and Cally carry themselves, and I'm a goalie so of course Hank gives me bro-ners. Long story short: I'm trying to get up on this bandwagon. Is there somebody I can see about a Rangers Bandwagon avatar?

If I had any type of PS skills I'd whip up a bandwagon avatar in the mould of:

"A XXX fan rooting for the Rangers?" "Anything can happen"

The first statement with a background picture of the relevant team.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1413357&page=12