News Article: Lundqvist: 'I've questioned why we're not more pissed off after a loss'

[Edge]

It's incredibly hard for an offense to establish anything when your defense (for the most part) is incapable of making a pass and is pinned in its own zone all game long

I agree. Though that's not even what we were consistently seeing.

If TB was causing those issues every game, I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

 

[Doctyl]

I agree. Though that's not even what we were consistently seeing.

If TB was causing those issues every game, I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

TB did that in a lot of games. Our forwards are very good. They don't need to dominate possession to score. They can score off the rush and on limited chances. TB trapped hard in games 5 and 7. That coupled with our defense not being able to make a pass out of the zone (except Yandle who was making those passes to Glass) really hurt us.

 

[Edge]

TB did that in a lot of games. Our forwards are very good. They don't need to dominate possession to score. They can score off the rush and on limited chances. TB trapped hard in games 5 and 7. That coupled with our defense not being able to make a pass out of the zone (except Yandle who was making those passes to Glass) really hurt us.

Make no mistake, I'm really not disagreeing with you all that much.

I think the biggest difference is that I believe the Rangers still could've/should've won those games.

Not saying they have demolished the competition, heck it would've been a challenge. But I still feel this team was capable of overcoming the challenge - even with the factors you mentioned.

That's probably the central point we disagree on (with supporting elements coming out of that).

 

[Doctyl]

Make no mistake, I'm really not disagreeing with you all that much.

I think the biggest difference is that I believe the Rangers still could've/should've won those games.

Not saying they have demolished the competition, heck it would've been a challenge. But I still feel this team was capable of overcoming the challenge - even with the factors you mentioned.

That's probably the central point we disagree on (with supporting elements coming out of that).

I feel totally healthy we are still a coin flip with TB and CHI. ANA I wasn't really afraid of.

 

[Chimpradamus]

It takes a long time to change the retirement home culture that had festered in New York. There are still not enough players on the team that hates losing, that get that wild look in their eyes and are willing to sacrifice it all just not to lose.

I still mentally shiver thinking about when Jagr & company were dumped and the three albatrosses were brought in to lead the team to mediocrity. What an utter disaster. Such pathetic hockey. One guy on the team hated to lose, that was not enough.

How Chris "this loss won't ruin my weekend" Dreary was named captain says it all, what a disgrace. $7m to be the league's most overpaid bottom center and he was named captain?! Captain America huh, was it because of his shiny fasade, his former credentials, of his "has been"? Yeah, right, it was his "intangibles" (those things you can never name and never give an example of). Dreary was finally - not a minute too soon - thrown out, after his pockets had been stuffed with bills.

At least St Louis had the dignity to retire when he obviously lost it, Näslund did when he still had gas in the tank but wasn't up to his own standards, Chri$ Drury refused. He once again showed what an utter sorrow it was for NYR fans to see his name and what a joke it was he of all people was named captain. Leading by example huh? Be an anchor to your team and cash in whenever you can, at the expense of the success of your teammates. If you have nothing left as a hockey player, you can still sell what's left of your integrity and pride for millions. Force your employer to pay you not to do your job, because you're so horrible at it, before the inevitable retirement that should've come years (at least one and that's not even debatable) before it did. What an example of excellent leadership, huh? Captain Cash had his motivation set when he arrived to New York.

Dreaden was ditched (did they even frigging scout him before they signed him?!), another cash grabbing fasade, Fumblez was miraculously traded (thank you MTL for refusing to scout players as well). Just another bunch of years of Hank's career wasted on nothing.

My heart hopes Hank can win a cup in New York, my brain says he never will. Sadly, not enough players on the team have the mentality like him. "I've questioned why we're not more pissed off after a loss" says it all. Many players in NYR have the skill, but still not the mindset.

I guess it's wrong of me to blame the players and their glaring lack of character, when it's the guy who is paid for the responsibility that should take the blame. That $ather was never fired for this train wreck still baffles me, but then again, people did worse things with the Knicks. Tickets were still sold, so why would Dolan, Nolan or whatever his name is, care?

 

[haveandare]

It takes a long time to change the retirement home culture that had festered in New York. There are still not enough players on the team that hates losing, that get that wild look in their eyes and are willing to sacrifice it all just not to lose.

I still mentally shiver thinking about when Jagr & company were dumped and the three albatrosses were brought in to lead the team to mediocrity. What an utter disaster. Such pathetic hockey. One guy on the team hated to lose, that was not enough.

How Chris "this loss won't ruin my weekend" Dreary was named captain says it all, what a disgrace. $7m to be the league's most overpaid bottom center and he was named captain?! Captain America huh, was it because of his shiny fasade, his former credentials, of his "has been"? Yeah, right, it was his "intangibles" (those things you can never name and never give an example of). Dreary was finally - not a minute too soon - thrown out, after his pockets had been stuffed with bills.

At least St Louis had the dignity to retire when he obviously lost it, Näslund did when he still had gas in the tank but wasn't up to his own standards, Chri$ Drury refused. He once again showed what an utter sorrow it was for NYR fans to see his name and what a joke it was he of all people was named captain. Leading by example huh? Be an anchor to your team and cash in whenever you can, at the expense of the success of your teammates. If you have nothing left as a hockey player, you can still sell what's left of your integrity and pride for millions. Force your employer to pay you not to do your job, because you're so horrible at it, before the inevitable retirement that should've come years (at least one and that's not even debatable) before it did. What an example of excellent leadership, huh? Captain Cash had his motivation set when he arrived to New York.

Dreaden was ditched (did they even frigging scout him before they signed him?!), another cash grabbing fasade, Fumblez was miraculously traded (thank you MTL for refusing to scout players as well). Just another bunch of years of Hank's career wasted on nothing.

My heart hopes Hank can win a cup in New York, my brain says he never will. Sadly, not enough players on the team have the mentality like him. "I've questioned why we're not more pissed off after a loss" says it all. Many players in NYR have the skill, but still not the mindset.

I guess it's wrong of me to blame the players and their glaring lack of character, when it's the guy who is paid for the responsibility that should take the blame. That $ather was never fired for this train wreck still baffles me, but then again, people did worse things with the Knicks. Tickets were still sold, so why would Dolan, Nolan or whatever his name is, care?

The character of teams from 5-10 years ago has nothing to do with today's team.

And that mentality doesn't win or lose championships IMO - this isn't a Disney movie. They lost this year because they had 2 healthy d men. They lost the year before because they got beat by a better team.

Look at the "character" the kings have shown after multiple cups. Character isn't determining wins and losses except for the truly awful teams like the NYR of old.

 

[Infinitum Vitae*]

mean
adjective, meaner, meanest.
1.offensive, selfish, or unaccommodating; nasty; malicious: a mean remark;
He gets mean when he doesn't get his way.

2.small-minded or ignoble:
mean motives.
Synonyms: contemptible, despicable.

I think you're the one who is getting the wrong idea

Nope. I've seen a lot of players like that when their losing. Nice try tho

 

[mrhockey193195]

Amazing that some people question the character and the lack of will to win with this team. I wonder how many of those people we fans in the late 90s and early 00s. After watching that brand of hockey, you would never complain about a Rangers team not caring ever again.

And objectively, this team is one of the most focused and driven in the NHL, and their results show that. I imagine just about everyone in that locker room is pissed when they lose - most won't overtly show it the way Hank does. And even if some guys aren't as intense as Hank - well, I'd argue having some of those guys helps the team keep loose and relaxed in big games.

I can't believe we're talking about "will to win" with a team that was one good period away fro back-to-back Stanley Cup Finals.

 

[East Coast Bias]

Glad to see we have come full circle since June and we're back to our resident lockeroom experts questioning the character of the players, and whether the lockeroom needs a shake up.

 

[Raspewtin]

Amazing that some people question the character and the lack of will to win with this team. I wonder how many of those people we fans in the late 90s and early 00s. After watching that brand of hockey, you would never complain about a Rangers team not caring ever again.

And objectively, this team is one of the most focused and driven in the NHL, and their results show that. I imagine just about everyone in that locker room is pissed when they lose - most won't overtly show it the way Hank does. And even if some guys aren't as intense as Hank - well, I'd argue having some of those guys helps the team keep loose and relaxed in big games.

I can't believe we're talking about "will to win" with a team that was one good period away fro back-to-back Stanley Cup Finals.

lol literally this

They all should learn to make the pouty faces Toews makes so they can show they care more

 

[nevesis]

Glad to see we have come full circle since June and we're back to our resident lockeroom experts questioning the character of the players, and whether the lockeroom needs a shake up.

I don't think anyone is claiming that, but I posted this article for a few reasons. To show what Hank has been up to in the off-season (waking up at 5:45am for the past few weeks to workout on the ice) and to open up a discussion about what he said concerning why more players aren't more angry when they lose.

Thats coming straight from the leader of the team. Definitely warrants a conversation here. Especially in the long, boring off-season.

 

[Edge]

I don't think anyone is saying there is a locker room problem or that a shakeup is needed.

I think most of the comments speak to the belief that a little something is missing, or may be missing.

That's a mighty big difference.

Look, I love this team. But it's almost gotten to the point where this group is like a sacred cow. I think we can critique the team, and point to comments that allude to what we think may be an area that needs work, without it being construed into this over-emotional response.

 

[alkurtz]

This is just a low key team....that is the mix of players we have. Put I don't think you can equate stoic behavior after a loss with not caring. Everyone reacts according to their own personality. You don't have to throw things and rant to take a loss hard. You don't have to curse the sky after a hard loss in order to prove that you are internally pissed off.

Now, I'm not in the locker room and only know what I see on television. If Henrik thinks there is a problem, then there likely is. But sometimes I feel highly emotional players like Henrik cannot fairly judge others who internalize loses and seethe inside.

I don't see how, after the enormous regular season we had last year when the team played as well or better than any other Ranger team I have seen, including 94 and the great teams of the early 70s, that this team had a leadership problem. If anything, from the outside looking is, it seems our leadership group, including younger leaders like Stepan and McD plus vets like Moore, Staal, and Girardi (and others) was not anything but strong.

Sure I wish Nash showed more emotion. But he is what he is and at this point in his career will not change. My beef with Nash is not effort but his inability to ramp his game up during the playoffs. Maybe you can call that effort...maybe it is a sign of something else.

As for captains....leadership comes in all styles. There isn't one way to lead. Yes, we all have that image of the ultimate captain, Messier, with that intense game face. That is one way and it certainly is society's ideal. But there are also the strong silent types like McD will probably be. There are the guys like Cally who tried to lead from on-ice example. There are the players who have such a veteran presence that they automatically have the respect of everyone in the room such as Drury. You can criticize his on-ice performance as his skills eroded but I don't think anyone on the Rangers had anything negative to see about the positive impact he had on everyone.

I think a large part of the captain's job is stuff we just don't see: in the locker room when there is no media around, on the team bus or plane, at team meals and at the hotel....in private conversations with other players. That is where a captain earns his letter. We only have the barest of hints about how captains are off the ice.

Like everyone, I like fiery players who play with outward heart and desire. How can you not appreciate Zuc? But I also realize that quiet leadership based on effort, poise, keeping you head when everyone else is losing theirs, (to paraphrase I think Kipling) and sheer everyday presence, determination, and competence is also leadership.

Henrik wears his heart on his sleeve and we all love him for it. Listening to him after loses his often heart-wrenching. But just because another player doesn't react as emotionally doesn't mean he doesn't feel the loss just as much. Hockey is the most emotional game of all, but emotions can be channeled and expressed in many ways.

 

[Baby Punisher]

Also, this article won't ruin Chris Drury's weekend...

That's exactly who I thought of when I read the title to this thread.

 

[Edge]

As for captains....leadership comes in all styles. There isn't one way to lead. Yes, we all have that image of the ultimate captain, Messier, with that intense game face. That is one way and it certainly is society's ideal. But there are also the strong silent types like McD will probably be. There are the guys like Henrik wears his heart on his sleeve and we all love him for it. Listening to him after loses his often heart-wrenching. But just because another player doesn't react as emotionally doesn't mean he doesn't feel the loss just as much. Hockey is the most emotional game of all, but emotions can be channeled and expressed in many ways.

I appreciate and agree with a lot of what you wrote. I would probably argue that the team doesn't need (and probably wouldn't function very well) with too many guys who wear their heart on their sleeve, even if they were as talented and passionate as Lundqvist. Ideally, every good team has a balance of personalities. I think the Rangers have a good mix, I think 99 percent of fans would say the same. I just think they could probably use a few more guys who bring the emotion and energy. At the end of the day, I think that's what several of us are saying. Not an overhaul, not a rebuild, not a bad lockeroom, just one that ideally might benefit from a little more expression and visible passion. Based on several comments from people in and around the team, it would appear that there's some concurrence with that point of view.

 

[Open Mind]

I'm saying some guys don't have to try hard to win so compete is just bs

I have never seen this to be the case. Whether it was Gretzky, Lemieux, Jordan, Magic, Bird, Seles, or anyone. The concept that anyone can think it's easy undermines the massive, massive, massive work any champion did to even get to win at that level. Larry Bird breaking his ankle in high school and him still shooting free throws, hour after hour after hour, day after day. Jack Nicklaus practicing so many hours his hands were bloodied.

I'm not going to debate the topic. Read bios of winners and top achievers and you'll see the same things over and over and over. You'll see people who typically say talent at top levels is so even it's not enough to win on. You'll commonly see that champions cite things like immense belief and self-confidence, thousands and thousands of hours of practice, hatred of losing, supremely high standards, unreal work ethic, relentlessly drilling fundamentals into themselves, and so on. Few I've seen ever list talent as the cause of victory...

Talent is never enough. With few exceptions, the best players are the hardest workers.
-Magic Johnson

The biggest thing for me is the passion that I've always had. Passion is the most important part. It's not skills or talent or any of that stuff.
-Sidney Crosby

No matter how great your natural talent, there is only one way to obtain and sustain it: work.
-Jack Nicklaus

There may be people who have more talent than you, but there's no excuse for anyone to work harder than you do.
-Derek Jeter

I've viewed myself as slightly above average in talent. And where I excel is ridiculous, sickening work ethic.
-Will Smith

Talent alone is not enough. I'm not out there sweating for three hours every day just to find out what it feels like to sweat.
-Michael Jordan

When you get to that level, it's not a matter of talent anymore - because all the players are so talented.
-Hakeem Olajuwon

If you work harder than somebody else, chances are you'll beat him even though he has more talent than you.
-Bart Starr

I was always willing to work. I was not the fastest or biggest player but I was determined to be the best football player I could be on the football field and I think I was able to accomplish that through hard work.
-Jerry Rice

Talent is cheaper than table salt. What separates the talented individual from the successful one is a lot of hard work.
-Stephen King

If people knew how hard I worked to get my mastery, it wouldn't seem so wonderful at all.
-Michelangelo

 

[alkurtz]

And that is why rooting for this team over the last years has been such a pleasure even though we have not won a Cup.

We are a hard-working team. We never lose because of a lack of effort. It is a culture started by Renney, reinforced by Torts, and encouraged by AV.

We have all seen players of immense talent, the Zherdevs, Christensens, Marcel Hossas, of the world not have successful NHL careers because they did not put in the hard work necessary to realize that talent.

We have so many overachievers on this team, from Stepan, a 2nd round draft pick who has become a #1 center, to Girardi, who dare I say it? became a 1st pair defenseman even though he was undrafted, to Zuc, having to make up for his lack of size with the effort that got him a chance to make an NHL roster, to others.

Who on this team is an underachiever?

In many ways our success over the next few years will depend on how hard Kreider, Miller, and Hayes are willing to work to maximize their considerable abilities.

Even, again I hate to say it, Tanner Glass, a player of extremely limited ability and marginal (at best) NHL talent, has carved out an NHL career for himself and made himself a favorite of many coaches, through his effort and willingness to do things that others can't or won't. As much as I agree with everybody else by Glass, I admire what he has done with his career.

Henrik, of course, is a major part of that team ethic. Although he seems to always get off to less than stellar starts, lets in the occasional goal that leaves you shaking your head (but all goalies no matter how great do), no one can ever question his work ethic. He is an example to all.

 

[CHGoalie27]

Everything this guy does and says is perfect.

 

[Barnaby]

I appreciate and agree with a lot of what you wrote. I would probably argue that the team doesn't need (and probably wouldn't function very well) with too many guys who wear their heart on their sleeve, even if they were as talented and passionate as Lundqvist. Ideally, every good team has a balance of personalities. I think the Rangers have a good mix, I think 99 percent of fans would say the same. I just think they could probably use a few more guys who bring the emotion and energy. At the end of the day, I think that's what several of us are saying. Not an overhaul, not a rebuild, not a bad lockeroom, just one that ideally might benefit from a little more expression and visible passion. Based on several comments from people in and around the team, it would appear that there's some concurrence with that point of view.

I agree with everything you've said thus far.

 

[alkurtz]

On further reflection, I thought of something did not bother me last season.

The Rangers are essentially a veteran team that prides itself on sticking to their system.

I sometimes felt that we had difficulty with teams, especially younger teams, that would bring a lot of emotion to their games.

I felt that this was why they had trouble with the Islanders early in the season. The Rangers couldn't match the enthusiasm and resulting energy the isles brought to the ice. Of course, later in the season we kind of figured it out.

I also think this is why we sometimes have problems in early playoff rounds or early in individual playoff games. Other teams would come out amped and would put us on our heels. Once that early adrenaline would fade away, our more in control system would take over.

So, yeah, in retrospect, I wish we had some more emotional players. Hard for a goalie, confined to their crease, to be the emotional leader of a team, at least on the ice.

 

[Tawnos]

Part of the question is how many emotional players do we really need? I remember having a team with a very similar concern in 06-07. They brought in Sean Avery and he ignited the whole team.

Granted that not every player is Avery, but adding one player who brings that fire can be enough, provided that he's not just playing a 4th line role.

What we need at this point is for Kreider and Miller to have their natural personalities assert themselves more. To this point, they've generally taken a backseat to the veteran leaders on the team. Well, Kreider is no longer a "kid" and Miller has established himself.

If you have guys like that playing with more fire, it raises the emotional level of the whole team.

 

[Xref]

Sounds like Hank thinks there's a problem in the locker room. If not, why say this??

 

[haveandare]

Sounds like Hank thinks there's a problem in the locker room. If not, why say this??

To me, in context it read more like he's saying that he thinks about every detail and wonders about how it helps the team win or not, down to small emotional and sort of subjective details like this.

I read it more as him saying that he thinks about the game and the team and how to win from every possible angle, not that he doesn't think their room is good.

 

[Doctyl]

Sounds like Hank thinks there's a problem in the locker room. If not, why say this??

What? Did you just read the click bait headline?

"The comment seemed to be less about the Rangers' actual desire to win and more about Lundqvist striving to be a better player in every way."

 

[Edge]

I think there's a difference between feeling there is room for improvement and a problem.

I think most people would agree that there isn't a problem. The debate seems to be whether or not there is room for improvement, and if so, how much.