Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,354
I had forgotten about it.OMG Matt Zaba!
Anyone remember the Antoine Lafleur pick?
THANKS A LOT!
I had forgotten about it.OMG Matt Zaba!
Anyone remember the Antoine Lafleur pick?
Not really, I was just pointing out how bad it was and still could be, which some people seem to ignore.
I don't know why you would be surprised, it's called a "let down game" something that happens with professional athletes from time to time, he had put so much focus and energy into those elimination games that he was bound to come back down to earth for at least one game. Which is all I imagine it will be.
Please you backtracked faster than a politician on those comments because people were calling you out on it. It's nothing new, you've been exceedingly harsh on players mid game in the past because of your emotions. Not a big deal, call it what you want the fact is you seem to be more comfortable on the Rangers board bashing him.
Why does he play some of his biggest games in the playoffs? Probably because he performs well in big situations, game one of a series isn't exactly a pressure cooker, I'd rather he allow a bad goal in that game than in an elimination game.
It also has quite a bit to do with the team in front of him, neither goalie played especially well last night and Hank seemed to be fighting the puck most of the time. The Rangers could have easily won that game, Boston applied more pressure and played better in the overtime so they won, they deserved it. Hank is the least of my worries. Name me one goalie that hasn't allowed 1-2 bad goals in a series, heck even multiple times in a series. They all have goals they'd want back, the difference in some cases is that the team in front of that goalie still managed to win the game, making the mistakes matter less.
1) Ok, fair enough.
2) I know what a let down game is and if he didn't have 2 days to cool down (though that also have cooled his hot game off), I would think you're onto something. With 2 days off (an eternity in the playoffs) he should have been able to overcome any burnout.
Game 1s count as much as elimination games. If he plays better in game 1s, maybe he doesn't face the elimination games.
My problem is that he gives up soft goals more frequently in the playoffs than he has in the regular season (at least the last couple of years).
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.
Hank isn't solely the problem but:
1)I'd rather take Brodeur in his prime. With that said, Hank is elite. We wouldn't be focusing on his play if the Rangers could score on a regular basis.
2)The way the PP is going The team might as well decline the PP.
3)The penalty kill right now shouldn't give up more than 2 goals a game.
4)The team is playing with a "superstar" that is now playing 4th line, a second offensive threat whose role is to find the open man, and a captain who isn't exactly hot offensively.
5)The Rangers are playing without 1 top D man, playing with a CBJ marginal Dman, a 6th Dman who truly is marginal but it's all you have, and a 23 yr that lacks a consistency from game to game.
Yet despite all the issues the team has tons of heart and I believe over achieves. They are right there in the Boston series and it's very winnable. However, I believe that the holes will be highlighted should they get to Pittsburgh.
You forgot Jason Muzzatti.
Wow those were some dark days.
If we're hand picking goalies I'd like to take prime Hasek and Roy frankenstein'd with a touch of prime Brodeur thrown in. Thanks
I remember being 14 and going to Mike Richter Night at the garden. They were playing Minnesota and Dunham gave up 4 of the ********* goals ever and we lost 4-3 after being up 3-1 I think and everyone in the Garden was so mad. Here we are honoring the best goalie we ever had, who won us the cup and Dunham ***** the bed.
Hmm...I feel like we're missing someone...60% Hasek, 20% Roy, 10% Richter, 10% Broduer.
60% Hasek, 40% Lundqvist, 30% Roy, 25% Brodeur, 10% RichterHmm...I feel like we're missing someone...
I don't want that choker anywhere near Goaliestein60% Hasek, 40% Lundqvist, 30% Roy, 25% Brodeur, 10% Richter
What the hell is wrong with you people
What the hell is wrong with you people
Hank isn't solely the problem but:
1)I'd rather take Brodeur in his prime. With that said, Hank is elite. We wouldn't be focusing on his play if the Rangers could score on a regular basis.
2)The way the PP is going The team might as well decline the PP.
3)The penalty kill right now shouldn't give up more than 2 goals a game.
4)The team is playing with a "superstar" that is now playing 4th line, a second offensive threat whose role is to find the open man, and a captain who isn't exactly hot offensively.
5)The Rangers are playing without 1 top D man, playing with a CBJ marginal Dman, a 6th Dman who truly is marginal but it's all you have, and a 23 yr that lacks a consistency from game to game.
Yet despite all the issues the team has tons of heart and I believe over achieves. They are right there in the Boston series and it's very winnable. However, I believe that the holes will be highlighted should they get to Pittsburgh.
are you talking about goaliestein or comments like "ZOMG IF WE HAD A CHEAPER GOALIE THAN LUNDQVIST WE COULD BUY AN OFFENSIVELY CAPABLE TEAM"
I know right? How could they have forgotten J.S. Giguere when talking playoff hockey?What the hell is wrong with you people