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

[Thirty One]

Mind blown.

I was blinded by hate during that period. That guy could never do right in my book.

I should make a Rangers scapegoat quiz.

Who was the last Ranger defenseman to score 45 points or more in a single season?

Should have expected the overreaction, just not on this level.

Neither team played great I think Boston played closer to their potential than the Rangers.

Was a pretty blah game from both teams, expect more from the Rangers next game, still think we take the series.

Asham was trash

 

[Richter Scale]

Nope was at Jonathan mostly. I have no problem with someone saying, "Henrik could have been better." or "Wasn't Henrik's best game." So long as they also recognize the faults of the rest of the team. He comes in the PGT after every loss crying about Henrik yet defends the offense and players like Boyle relentlessly. Now without even watching the game. Boyle gets a lot of **** for no reason, but how are you going to defend a bottom 6 grinder and **** on the only reason your team isn't drafting top10 every year.

Dude is ridiculous.

Gotchya. Didn't read through the whole thread, so didn't see anyone else *****ing about Hank who also said they didn't watch the whole game. On the same page as you then.


Anyway, re: the Fleury comparison people are making right now --

There are trade offs. I wouldn't trade Hank for virtually anything, but having a goalie eating up close to $7 mil in salary in a cap world will limit what you can do with the rest of the team. Fleury makes $5 mil. This, close to $2 mil, difference - combined with the salary tied up in Drury and Redden's buyouts - leaves the Rangers with a lot fewer options than the Pens have. Those two factors are a big part of why the Pens have a much deeper forward corps than the Rangers (not to mention almost anyone in the NHL).

There may be some legitimacy to going for the solid, lower paid goalies and hoping they go on a tear in the playoffs or have a breakout season. Look at StL, and Chicago this year.

 

[RangerBoy]

Bruins fan here. How do you guys manage to keep people from getting infracted when blaming Hank? That's unreal. You can't win 1-0 hockey games all the way to the cup.

The Rangers wouldn't have made the playoffs if it wasn't for Lundqvist. Forget about winning a playoff round.

 

[Callagraves]

Primetime Emmy was money in Game 7 though.

Every player was made of solid gold in that game.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

We didn't challenge their D nearly enough. I'm not looking for 5 goals in a game. But they had three rookies out there and we were taking shots mostly from the outside or those incredibly infuriating wristers from the point which don't end up even getting through. We weren't nearly physical enough on the boards.

I refuse to put the blame on one person. Hank let in softies? Ok. Well, our offense didn't capitalize, either. Cally had a completely open net and missed.

Also, OT does matter. They still had to play it. If the team has a mentality of "well, we shouldn't even be in this OT" then they don't deserve to win. Not irrelevant at all.

Hank is not the only one to blame. He is however the face of the franchise and its most important player he deserves a disproportional amount of blame. When he has a great game he is called a god, people are ready to marry him, and they want a statue built for him near MSG (I'm pretty sure I actually read this too). Then when he has a stinker, all of a sudden he can't get blame. It works both ways.

Oh and I never said that the team's attitude is "we shouldn't even be here". My point is, that it's irrelevant in judging his performance since we shouldn't have even been there.

 

[Zappy]

Gotchya. Didn't read through the whole thread, so didn't see anyone else *****ing about Hank who also said they didn't watch the whole game. On the same page as you then.


Anyway, re: the Fleury comparison people are making right now --

There are trade offs. I wouldn't trade Hank for virtually anything, but having a goalie eating up close to $7 mil in salary in a cap world will limit what you can do with the rest of the team. Fleury makes $5 mil. This close to $2 mil difference - combined with the salary tied up in Drury and Redden's buyouts - leaves the Rangers with a lot fewer options than the Pens have. Those two factors are a big part of why the Pens have a much deeper forward corps than pretty much anyone in the NHL.

There may be some legitimacy to going for the solid, lower paid goalies and hoping they go on a tear in the playoffs or have a breakout season.

I get it, but I can't really get on that bandwagon. He is making that money and performing like a rockstar most of the time.

If we want to talk about money and cap room, we should talk about the underperformers that are wasting dollars. cough Richards cough

 

[nyranger61494]

I should make a Rangers scapegoat quiz.

Who was the last Ranger defenseman to score 45 points or more in a single season?


Asham was trash

I know that one!!! Same season. (Hit him with your purse) Poti!!!


As for last night's game, I thought Hank was very good at times. The second goal went off of Stepan's stick. Don Cherry, say what you want about the man, highlights that point alot in Coach's Corner. That changed the puck's projection and threw off Hank in my opinion. I am sure he wants Chara shot back.

Thought there were some good signs. Boyle line forechecked well and had some strong shifts. McDonagh was an animal. Nash showed signs of life towards end of game. We definitely need more from our first line. We will be ready to play Sunday.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

That was a bad game that the Rangers had a chance to steal.

We couldn't steal it.

The right team won last night. Our two goals were opportunistic, feeding off of defensive lapses in the Bruins. Their goals came through their style of play, and working for 'em.

Torts was right: there was no identity to that game. Both teams were just "playing". The penalties taken by Emminger gave the game a personality, and it gave it to the Bruins. Stupid penalty, and as usual, that's the one that killed us.

I'll admit, I have always, and will always, HATE Emminger. I can deal with stupid forwards, but not D-men. I can't wait for Staal to come back, and I was rooting for Torts to nail Emmy's idiot ass to the bench. He plays hard, and he hits, but my god is his decision making idiotic. I hate when he's on the ice, I hate when he takes himself out of position for a hit, and I hate when our #7 defenseman takes a penalty that results in a PP goal and giving up the lead in the playoffs.

Come back Staal. #44 is a detriment to any team.

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.

 

[Callagraves]

I'm mad that we didn't steal a game that went to OT, but, am I the only one not terribly worried?

I do feel the Rangers will play better, and while I want them to win, and fully expect them to compete, they have actually met my expectations making it to the 2nd round.

 

[Richter Scale]

I get it, but I can't really get on that bandwagon. He is making that money and performing like a rockstar most of the time.

If we want to talk about money and cap room, we should talk about the underperformers that are wasting dollars. cough Richards cough

I wasn't suggesting the Rangers get rid of Hank. Just pointing to how that big salary impacts what the rest of the roster looks like, and so - at least in part - whether this team has a good offense or not. It isn't the only factor - but it contributes to it.

Pittsburgh, one of the better teams in the league, has a pretty awful defense, and a big hole in goal. In a cap world, you're not going to have every aspect of the team be stellar. Something is going to have to suffer; whether it is depth, offense, defense, goaltending, not having top tier scoring talent, etc.

That said, right there with you on Richie. Not necessarily on board to buy him out this summer. But if his ****** play continues next season, by all means.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

Blackburn, Dunham, Holmqvist, McClennan, Markkanen, Labarbera, Weekes, ValleyCat...

Which of those would you guys rather see instead of Hank?

Some of you might want to switch to bottled water, there is a significant issue in large cities what with prescription drug residuals and all.

 

[bathgate]

The Rangers wouldn't have made the playoffs if it wasn't for Lundqvist. Forget about winning a playoff round.

Unfortunately, Lundqvist MUST be the best player for the Rangers to advance. Ludqvist has no margin for error. He just can't be ordinary

 

[Zappy]

Hank is not the only one to blame. He is however the face of the franchise and its most important player he deserves a disproportional amount of blame. When he has a great game he is called a god, people are ready to marry him, and they want a statue built for him near MSG (I'm pretty sure I actually read this too). Then when he has a stinker, all of a sudden he can't get blame. It works both ways.

Oh and I never said that the team's attitude is "we shouldn't even be here". My point is, that it's irrelevant in judging his performance since we shouldn't have even been there.

That still doesn't really make sense to me. OT is still a period in the game. It is still a time when you can make a difference and win the game. Regardless of how we got there, the offense (and even the defense) didn't even show up for that period.

Playoff teams are (generally) on a similar level playing field, especially by Round 2. Games like this go to OT for that reason. So, if your team can't win or even show up in an OT period, I think that is a much bigger problem than a goalie giving up soft goals here and there.

He does deserve some blame - so we will just agree on that one point and that's all.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Unfortunately, Lundqvist MUST be the best player for the Rangers to advance. Ludqvist has no margin for error. He just can't be ordinary

He was pretty ordinary in games three and four of the Capitals series IMO.

We won those games.

 

[Thirty One]

He was pretty ordinary in games three and four of the Capitals series IMO.

We won those games.

Do you have something against cliches?

 

[nyranger61494]

Blackburn, Dunham, Holmqvist, McClennan, Markkanen, Labarbera, Weekes, ValleyCat...

Which of those would you guys rather see instead of Hank?

Some of you might want to switch to bottled water, there is a significant issue in large cities what with prescription drug residuals and all.

If it means he won't be on NHL Network as an analyst...

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I wasn't suggesting the Rangers get rid of Hank. Just pointing to how that big salary impacts what the rest of the roster looks like, and so - at least in part - whether this team has a good offense or not. It isn't the only factor - but it contributes to it.

Pittsburgh, one of the better teams in the league, has a pretty awful defense, and a big hole in goal. In a cap world, you're not going to have every aspect of the team be stellar. Something is going to have to suffer; whether it is depth, offense, defense, goaltending, not having the top tier scoring talent, etc.

That said, right there with you on Richie. Not necessarily on board to buy him out this summer. But if his ****** play continues next season, by all means.

Honestly, in theory, we have a team now that when healthy is without real weaknesses in THEORY. With Staal healthy we have a very solid D-crew. Maybe the best in the league. Of course in practice, someone always seems to have a subpar stretch. MDZ and Girardi can be inconsistent. Hagelin is not a great top 6 player, but is a great complimentary player that doesn't look out of place in the top 6, so not a real hole. Stepan and Callahan are definitely top 6 players. Of course in practice, Callahan has been a playoff under-performer his entire career. In theory, Brassard, Zucc, and Nash are top 6 players. In practice of course Nash has been MIA. Clowe if he were healthy would be a great 3rd liner. Richards, is young enough to not be the complete garbage he is now and SHOULD be a great 3rd line center. Dorsett is a pretty solid 3rd liner. The 4th line is decent too, Asham as a very good 4th liner for example, so is Boyle.

Reason I say in theory is that I feel like we've assembled a team that while lacking in superstar talent outside of goal (even then Nash and McDonagh will be Olympians most likely on the 2 best teams in the olympics), doesn't have many weaknesses. The problem is a few guys are injured and a bunch of guys are under-performing. Then again, that's probably true of EVERY team. You think Chicago doesn't have under-performing or injured players? Sather did a good job with this roster. Though my biggest worry is that those under-performers seem to be that EVERY playoff.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Blackburn, Dunham, Holmqvist, McClennan, Markkanen, Labarbera, Weekes, ValleyCat...

Which of those would you guys rather see instead of Hank?

Some of you might want to switch to bottled water, there is a significant issue in large cities what with prescription drug residuals and all.

More straw men. Do you feel like you say something profound when you make an argument that has nothing to do with anything being said? There's one goalie I MIGHT take over Hank and it's Quick (age not considering). Even then, while he's a great playoff performer recently, I trust Hank more in the regular season and we don't have the luxury of waiting for the playoffs pretty much every year but last. That said, he is not blameless. I'm certainly going to blame him when he deserves it.

 

[aufheben]

Hank retiring would be the worst day ever.

I know we all like to grumble on how we don't get guys like Stamkos or Crosby in the draft, when in a sense, we kinda have. He just prevents goals and doesn't score them.

Even on the pedestal, I still think his importance is understated.

He's definitely the playoff MVP so far.

 

[Doctyl]

Blackburn, Dunham, Holmqvist, McClennan, Markkanen, Labarbera, Weekes, ValleyCat...

Which of those would you guys rather see instead of Hank?

not fair you conveniently left out the best goalie to ever pass through the NYR organization. Prince Chad Johnson

 

[*Bob Richards*]

not fair you conveniently left out the best goalie to ever pass through the NYR organization. Prince Chad Johnson

I really wish I was around to see this.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

That still doesn't really make sense to me. OT is still a period in the game. It is still a time when you can make a difference and win the game. Regardless of how we got there, the offense (and even the defense) didn't even show up for that period.

Playoff teams are (generally) on a similar level playing field, especially by Round 2. Games like this go to OT for that reason. So, if your team can't win or even show up in an OT period, I think that is a much bigger problem than a goalie giving up soft goals here and there.

He does deserve some blame - so we will just agree on that one point and that's all.

It's a HUGE problem that the team didn't show up in OT. That said, people that bring up Hank's performance in OT as a means of absolving him make no sense. Hank put HIMSELF in that position.

 

[Doctyl]

I really wish I was around to see this.

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

 

[*Bob Richards*]

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

I love you.

 

[Kershaw]

And Lundqvist in the last 2 years (including playoffs) has had a below 2.00 GAA. Though that is per 60 minutes, but I would be shocked if it wasn't less than 2. Granted, around 2 means that scoring 2 goals will get us only in OT. However it also means that he has had A LOT of games where he has given up fewer than 2 goals. All that is besides the point. I watched the game. Most of the game Boston's offense consisted of harmless bad angle shots (hell even OT). Boston's offensive performance was just as mediocre as our. If we can't win 2-1 with Hank when the other team puts up a bunch of bad angle shots (sure there were a couple of good ones, but hey that happens, this is the NHL), then we won't go far. We'll have to win 2-1, 1-0 games in this series. Rask wasn't very good either. Normally this game would have been 1-0. BTW, you bring up how terrible scoring 2 goals is. How many teams score 3 goals a game? I believe there were like 6 in the whole NHL in the NHL. For 80% of the teams scoring 3 goals in the regular season (when the scoring is easier to come by) is an above average performance. That's in 48 games against a lot of different defenses, the VAST MAJORITY worse than Boston's (even with the injuries), the VAST MAJORITY against goalies worse than Rask.

Lol.

GAA is essentially a backup stat. Save Pct. is the stat to look for.

Besides, the stats disagree with your biased view. It's clear that you detest Lundqvist for some reason. Lundqvist has worst Fenwick/Corsi against in the playoffs, meaning the team plays like absolute ******* in front of him night in, night out. Game 1 of the series was no different. Brutally outplayed in the game.

You stop 94% of shots, the offense better help. They didn't and they blew it again. The rest of the team is garbage compared to Hank. The only elite player on the NY Rangers.