Player Discussion Henrik Lundqvist Pt. III

[Inferno]

He looked good tonight...more in control. More fluid

 

[Igor Shestyorkin]

Ahh, and that is why the Hank retiring thing was hysterical.

 

[Chimpradamus]

No defense excuses Hank's play for the last year, he is still expected to save a certain amount of the (many) shots that come his way, he hasn't.

What's the excuse for having the best 5v5 percentage in the league? The PK was abysmal. Hank had a terrible game against Buffalo, but arguments like these hold no merit. The defense was overall a clown show last season. Blaming that on the goalie is weak.

 

[Ori]

If only hen-rik was an elite goalie, haha.
So few shutouts this season.

The main issue is still defense guys - just admit we lack Jacob Trouba on our RW position.

 

[East Coast Bias]

Brooks has a good writeup today on Hank.

http://nypost.com/2016/12/03/the-one-word-separating-this-lundqvist-from-the-great-lundqvist/

 

[Irishguy42]

Brooks has a good writeup today on Hank.

http://nypost.com/2016/12/03/the-one-word-separating-this-lundqvist-from-the-great-lundqvist/

Yep. His focus is lacking this season. He always seems a step behind.

Even on the Rask goal deflected off of Kreider. He was doing all the right moves to save it...just like...half a second behind.

Gotta think that if he was focusing a bit more, he would have noticed the puck half a second sooner...and make the save.

Needs to focus a tad more.

 

[Rangerfans]

I thought he looked real good today.

I do find it hysterical though when people talk about how "He wasn't screened! The behind the net camera showed..."

You mean that camera that is 15 feet up above everything, so you can see that view?

Gotcha.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

He obviously looked much better today (or I guess yesterday at this point) but I can't say he had a great game where at least one of those goals were ****. There has to be a time when he stops giving up **** goals. A goalie who is supposed to be at his level shouldn't be someone you're surprised when he has a clean game, it should be the other way around.

 

[Irishguy42]

All goalies give up **** goals. Even Price.

As for your final point, I'm not at that point. Lundqvist doesn't surprise me when he has a clean game.

Maybe it's just you and your obvious bias against him

 

[offdacrossbar]

Good win yesterday. Poor start as a team but solid last 20.

Wasn't a fan of either goal hank gave up. The stalberg goal was again in a word. Ugly. Went down. Slow glove that drops when he flinches. Beaten cleanly and again vulnerable high glove.

The 2nd was tough thru traffic but that's a save even he would admit he should make by covering low left along the ice. That's less reaction and more position and technique.

Otherwise played well.

 

[Chimpradamus]

Good win yesterday. Poor start as a team but solid last 20.

Wasn't a fan of either goal hank gave up. The stalberg goal was again in a word. Ugly. Went down. Slow glove that drops when he flinches. Beaten cleanly and again vulnerable high glove.

The 2nd was tough thru traffic but that's a save even he would admit he should make by covering low left along the ice. That's less reaction and more position and technique.

Otherwise played well.

First of all, was he beat cleanly? Didn't he get a piece of it and then it went in off the post (as a ton of goals this year, so many have gone in by him and then the crossbar/ post)? With a little bit more puck luck, he would saved about 5-6 less goals on this alone, if it went crossbar/ post out instead of in.

Second goal, totally disagree. If you can't track the puck, you play the percentages. You cover five hole, the center of the net and the most of the ice in a classic butterfly. You don't sprawl out to cover the entire bottom of the net, there will always be a gap at the posts if you're in the center.

How is a goalie supposed to cover five hole and the entire bottom of the net? Unless you sprawl out, you can't and if a goalie sprawled out when he can't see the puck, then you would look really ridiculous as a goalie.

 

[offdacrossbar]

First of all, was he beat cleanly? Didn't he get a piece of it and then it went in off the post (as a ton of goals this year, so many have gone in by him and then the crossbar/ post)? With a little bit more puck luck, he would saved about 5-6 less goals on this alone, if it went crossbar/ post out instead of in.

Second goal, totally disagree. If you can't track the puck, you play the percentages. You cover five hole, the center of the net and the most of the ice in a classic butterfly. You don't sprawl out to cover the entire bottom of the net, there will always be a gap at the posts if you're in the center.

How is a goalie supposed to cover five hole and the entire bottom of the net? Unless you sprawl out, you can't and if a goalie sprawled out when he can't see the puck, then you would look really ridiculous as a goalie.

more lowering the bar.

sounds good but not my take at all.

the stalberg goal was weak. whether it went on off the post or bar or glove, while sounding better than "beaten cleanly" as i stated, still doesnt matter. its a bad goal and he was beaten high glove side by a guy not known as a "sniper" by any stretch.

its more of what weve been seeing alot this season. 1 or maybe 2 stinkers per game. were spoiled i admit that, the guys been making that save in his sleep for years. he needs to be better.

on the 2nd goal, his butterfly would normally be enough and while he wasnt beaten 5 hole, he was beaten because he was over too far to the right side. watch the goal again, he's over too far and when he goes down into his "classic butterfly" he cannot cover that left side.

as I've been saying, his focus is off and his game has slipped.

watch the rask goal again

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Despite conceding 2 goals, Lundqvist had a better game than the one in Buffalo. That game in Buffalo, he looked like Bambi. He was struggling to stay on his feet. With that Eichel goal, he just lost his balance. He looked off.

The Stalberg goal can be debated and I think he should have had that one. The Rask goal was 50/50. He was screened and it is very difficult to see the puck that way.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

more lowering the bar.

sounds good but not my take at all.

the stalberg goal was weak. whether it went on off the post or bar or glove, while sounding better than "beaten cleanly" as i stated, still doesnt matter. its a bad goal and he was beaten high glove side by a guy not known as a "sniper" by any stretch.

its more of what weve been seeing alot this season. 1 or maybe 2 stinkers per game. were spoiled i admit that, the guys been making that save in his sleep for years. he needs to be better.

on the 2nd goal, his butterfly would normally be enough and while he wasnt beaten 5 hole, he was beaten because he was over too far to the right side. watch the goal again, he's over too far and when he goes down into his "classic butterfly" he cannot cover that left side.

as I've been saying, his focus is off and his game has slipped.

watch the rask goal again

Agreed with pretty much everything here.

Though not sure if his focus is off or if he's just aging.

 

[offdacrossbar]

Despite conceding 2 goals, Lundqvist had a better game than the one in Buffalo. That game in Buffalo, he looked like Bambi. He was struggling to stay on his feet. With that Eichel goal, he just lost his balance. He looked off.

The Stalberg goal can be debated and I think he should have had that one. The Rask goal was 50/50. He was screened and it is very difficult to see the puck that way.

i was right behind him at that game. watched him the entire time. even his body language sucked.

he struggled big time. his positioning was way off intent game too. he was working too hard for even routine saves that night and his rebound control was flat out miserable.

seeing it in person was tough, i felt bad for him. the 1st eichel goal was brutal for sure but the first one he gave up 18 sec in set the tone for the entire night.

anyone saying he's fine isnt watching him. time is not on his side, nor was the defense in the buf game for that matter.

his ability to steal games with a bad defense isnt what it was. that is the KEY issue. he's still very good, but with a so-so defense, he won't look it nightly anymore.

having said that, count me in the minority that feels no worse having raanta start and in fact, if this keeps up, might even prefer it.

well see.

 

[silverfish]

more lowering the bar.

sounds good but not my take at all.

the stalberg goal was weak. whether it went on off the post or bar or glove, while sounding better than "beaten cleanly" as i stated, still doesnt matter. its a bad goal and he was beaten high glove side by a guy not known as a "sniper" by any stretch.

its more of what weve been seeing alot this season. 1 or maybe 2 stinkers per game. were spoiled i admit that, the guys been making that save in his sleep for years. he needs to be better.

on the 2nd goal, his butterfly would normally be enough and while he wasnt beaten 5 hole, he was beaten because he was over too far to the right side. watch the goal again, he's over too far and when he goes down into his "classic butterfly" he cannot cover that left side.

as I've been saying, his focus is off and his game has slipped.

watch the rask goal again

If one of our players scored that Stalberg goal, it would have been a SNIPE.

This is the point I was trying to make earlier in the season when everyone was mad at me for calling the goals the Rangers were scoring soft goals.

 

[Igor Shestyorkin]

Maybe Hank should've had Stalberg's goal, but I think they underestimate the fact that it was a 3 on 1 and Girardi was the only one back.

Pretty sure he was already on his stomach before Stalberg was shooting(not saying the goal was Girardi's fault, because it wasn't).

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Maybe Hank should've had Stalberg's goal, but I think they underestimate the fact that it was a 3 on 1 and Girardi was the only one back.

Pretty sure he was already on his stomach before Stalberg was shooting(not saying the goal was Girardi's fault, because it wasn't).

Girardi took the pass away. That meant Lundqvist had to focus on the shot. It was not a horrible goal to give up, but he should have had it

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Girardi took the pass away. That meant Lundqvist had to focus on the shot. It was not a horrible goal to give up, but he should have had it

Yep, G actually played it nearly perfectly.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Yep, G actually played it nearly perfectly.

Yeah, that's defensive hockey 101. Take away the 2-on-1 and force your goalie to make the save 1-on-1 with the shooter. Stalberg had a really good shot, and I wish Henke came away with that save.

 

[Kovalev27]

more lowering the bar.

sounds good but not my take at all.

the stalberg goal was weak. whether it went on off the post or bar or glove, while sounding better than "beaten cleanly" as i stated, still doesnt matter. its a bad goal and he was beaten high glove side by a guy not known as a "sniper" by any stretch.

its more of what weve been seeing alot this season. 1 or maybe 2 stinkers per game. were spoiled i admit that, the guys been making that save in his sleep for years. he needs to be better.

on the 2nd goal, his butterfly would normally be enough and while he wasnt beaten 5 hole, he was beaten because he was over too far to the right side. watch the goal again, he's over too far and when he goes down into his "classic butterfly" he cannot cover that left side.

as I've been saying, his focus is off and his game has slipped.

watch the rask goal again

Yup

Honestly if Rask beat him clean with that shot I would have said hmm maybe was a great shot. It wasn't. It was short side and fairly average. Not inside the post not bar down. He got a big chunk of it but took his eye off it. Also wasn't ovechkin taking that shot it was a 4th liner.

Second goal he wasn't square at all. Dman drifted a bit and hank didn't go with him stayed to far over. Rarely do you see pucks go past his feet. He's too flexible. That's a flat out loss of angle. Again more focus issues.

As I've been saying and he prettt much alluded to, he's not big enough to trust technique and size. He's gotta be laser focused and quick with his reflexes if at his size he's going to play that deep. Unfortunately his game and size does not translate well to a lot of success as he slows down.

 

[Irishguy42]

Henrik Lundpads, amirite?

 

[East Coast Bias]

We now have SOG truthers. 2016 is a surreal time to be alive.

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

Brooks has a good writeup today on Hank.

http://nypost.com/2016/12/03/the-one-word-separating-this-lundqvist-from-the-great-lundqvist/

Interesting point there is about the 2013-14 season and how much he struggled in the first half. I remember him struggling, but I didn't realize his numbers were that bad, that far into the season.

 

[Igor Shestyorkin]

We now have SOG truthers. 2016 is a surreal time to be alive.

Honestly.