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

[NYRFANMANI]

I kind of get it, what Hank is pointing at. We all have witnessed our players seldomly sticking up for one another. For years that is now.

Even more interestingly, the one guy that sticks out of the bunch is Zucc. And we like rather silently accepted that. Here and there a poster pointed it out, that it's crazy that it took years and a midget to finally have a guy on the team ,that doesn't take **** as much as the others, or is sticking up for his teammates.

We all remember the years where Hank could be run over without any big retaliation or consquences. It drove me crazy for sure. That changed a little over the last two season. But as a whole the majority of players and parts of the fanbase seem saturated and happy on the wins alone, we amassed over the last 5 seasons or so.

For years that's been the issue with this team. We are just not mean enough. Opposing teams know it and used it against us in the past. More or less effectively.

The team is too passive at times. Which is shown by the frequent shot blocking. I have no suggestions but to get meaner from within.

 

[Thordic]

I have no suggestions but to get meaner from within.

Yet people are set to run McIlrath out of town on a rail.

 

[haveandare]

I kind of get it, what Hank is pointing at. We all have witnessed our players seldomly sticking up for one another. For years that is now.

Even more interestingly, the one guy that sticks out of the bunch is Zucc. And we like rather silently accepted that. Here and there a poster pointed it out, that it's crazy that it took years and a midget to finally have a guy on the team ,that doesn't take **** as much as the others, or is sticking up for his teammates.

We all remember the years where Hank could be run over without any big retaliation or consquences. It drove me crazy for sure. That changed a little over the last two season. But as a whole the majority of players and parts of the fanbase seem saturated and happy on the wins alone, we amassed over the last 5 seasons or so.

For years that's been the issue with this team. We are just not mean enough. Opposing teams know it and used it against us in the past. More or less effectively.

The team is too passive at times. Which is shown by the frequent shot blocking. I have no suggestions but to get meaner from within.

Not so sure about that. Does being meaner beat LA or TB? I don't see how.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Not so sure about that. Does being meaner beat LA or TB? I don't see how.

I know. If this was such an issue the team wouldn't have come from behind and made it to the SCF and ECF. Apparently those teams we played against were so mean that instead of curb stomping us when we were down 1-3 and 0-3 they instead decided to let us win the series. Maybe the Rangers lost to two of the best teams in the league? That's usually what happens in the ECF and SCF. LA almost lost the series too. The Rangers blew leads thanks to poor defense and poor calls leading directly to goals.

 

[Doctyl]

I'd rather win the majority of the games we play than have the ability to beat the living **** out of another team when we lose.

 

[R2theDizzlE]

I'd rather win the majority of the games we play than have the ability to beat the living **** out of another team when we lose.

I think anybody reasonable should think that way. We're not a goon squad.

 

[pld459666]

It's an odd thing to feel, but I have always hated losing more than I enjoyed winning.

I have heard people say these things for decades and until the first time I heard it, I never understood why the sting of losing lasted longer than the joy of winning did.

I want more players on this Rangers team like that.

 

[Infinitum Vitae*]

What makes you say Carter doesn't have to try hard? He's a top 6 NHL forward, I'm sure he tries hard.

And he was 2C on a stacked team that surely had a handful of guys who compete like Hank on it.

There's be countless reports questioning his work ethic. And that in the locker room he really didn't care if he won or lose.

 

[Infinitum Vitae*]

Not so sure about that. Does being meaner beat LA or TB? I don't see how.

I don't think he meant being goons. Mean as in your pissed off that your losing and or lost and never want that happen to again.

A lot of people get the wrong idea when someone say "Mean".

 

[haveandare]

There's be countless reports questioning his work ethic. And that in the locker room he really didn't care if he won or lose.

Compared to other top tier NHL athletes maybe. Compared to most people, I think any NHL player who plays top minutes year after year after year works pretty damn hard at what they do. The league is tight and there's a lot of talent - if someone isn't working at all, they're donezo.

And again, he's one person from a very good team. His lack of this type of edge doesn't speak for his whole team any more than the presences of that same edge in Hank speaks about everyone on NYR.

I don't think he meant being goons. Mean as in your pissed off that your losing and or lost and never want that happen to again.

A lot of people get the wrong idea when someone say "Mean".

That's not being "mean," that's being competitive. And either way, NYR didn't fall short last year or the year before because they weren't mean enough or competitive enough - they got beat by two really good teams, last year while they were suffering from a multitude of d injuries.

 

[NYRFANMANI]

I know. If this was such an issue the team wouldn't have come from behind and made it to the SCF and ECF. Apparently those teams we played against were so mean that instead of curb stomping us when we were down 1-3 and 0-3 they instead decided to let us win the series. Maybe the Rangers lost to two of the best teams in the league? That's usually what happens in the ECF and SCF. LA almost lost the series too. The Rangers blew leads thanks to poor defense and poor calls leading directly to goals.

Resilience, for which our team should be feared around the globe, considering PO-series, has absolutely nothing to do with being a mean team.

Hell, I'd bet if we'd be a meaner team (ceteris paribus) we wouldn't have had to overcome 3-1 series deficits to begin with.

 

[Whiplash27]

They are players who are rich, live in NYC, and are treated to a life of luxury by the team in every aspect... Of course a lot of guys aren't going to get angry when they lose. There's a reason why there was a time when players weren't allowed to live in NYC.

 

[NYRFANMANI]

They are players who are rich, live in NYC, and are treated to a life of luxury by the team in every aspect... Of course a lot of guys aren't going to get angry when they lose. There's a reason why there was a time when players weren't allowed to live in NYC.

This is also an issue I'd consider. Money.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Resilience, for which our team should be feared around the globe, considering PO-series, has absolutely nothing to do with being a mean team.

Hell, I'd bet if we'd be a meaner team (ceteris paribus) we wouldn't have had to overcome 3-1 series deficits to begin with.

Supposedly we were beat because the other teams were meaner. Ok so we got down 1-3 because other teams were meaner then? How did we manage to overcome their meanness and win the series? Were only TB and LA mean? It's a terrible argument it doesn't have anything factual behind it. It cherry picks one aspect, in this case "meanness" and gives it an over inflated importance without the use of any sort of data (observable or quantifiable) in order to justify a terrible argument. My tone is a little harsh but I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking the argument.

 

[NYRFANMANI]

Supposedly we were beat because the other teams were meaner. Ok so we got down 1-3 because other teams were meaner then? How did we manage to overcome their meanness and win the series? Were only TB and LA mean? It's a terrible argument it doesn't have anything factual behind it. It cherry picks one aspect, in this case "meanness" and gives it an over inflated importance without the use of any sort of data (observable or quantifiable) in order to justify a terrible argument.

RESILIENCE!!! I literally answered your point before you brought it up.

We were intimidated by a lot of teams. But our resilience bailed us out! When we win games it's because our speed and creativity intimidated other teams. When we lost, it usually was because we were intimidated physically.

And this is observable if you have an eye for it. If not that's your problem tbh.

 

[OverTheCap]

I think Henrik's comments were not so much about fighting/sticking up for each other, but more about challenging oneself to continually improve and doing whatever it takes to eliminate mistakes that were made during a loss so that it doesn't happen again.

Ruminating on a loss for too long isn't ideal, but at the very least, the players should be thinking about what they could have done differently and how they can correct any issues going forward. I think there have been quite a few Rangers through the years who are more concerned about the NY lifestyle/money/off ice activities, etc. than putting in the work necessary to improve themselves as a player.

 

[Edge]

Personally, when I think of meanness of an edge, I'm really not thinking of dropping the gloves or throwing an elbow. I'm thinking of a certain mentality, an "Oh hell no you don't" kind of vibe. I don't always see that with this group.

When I think of this group, I think of a lot of natural ability. I seldom question the actual talent level of the club. Often times, my questions are usually directed at what I can't help but view as a "we're going to own this thing" type of mentality. I know we talk about this team's ability to come back, but I often myself feeling that they are in those situations in the first place because they failed to capitalize on early opportunities to control things. It's like having a child who is really smart, but who waits until the night before to do his/her science project. The child is smart/talent enough to get a B+, but I know they were capable of an A.

Frankly, I think having an edge or a swagger to our game is the difference between being close to the peak, or just below it. I honestly believe, even today, that we were talented enough to beat Tampa Bay, Anaheim or Chicago. I just was never sold that the team really believed that, or was unwilling to accept anything less.

I don't believe we need a team full of Lundqvists, just a few more guys with similar mentalities sprinkled into our group of skaters.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

I don't think he meant being goons. Mean as in your pissed off that your losing and or lost and never want that happen to again.

A lot of people get the wrong idea when someone say "Mean".

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

 

[haveandare]

Personally, when I think of meanness of an edge, I'm really not thinking of dropping the gloves or throwing an elbow. I'm thinking of a certain mentality, an "Oh hell no you don't" kind of vibe. I don't always see that with this group.

When I think of this group, I think of a lot of natural ability. I seldom question the actual talent level of the club. Often times, my questions are usually directed at what I can't help but view as a "we're going to own this thing" type of mentality. I know we talk about this team's ability to come back, but I often myself feeling that they are in those situations in the first place because they failed to capitalize on early opportunities to control things. It's like having a child who is really smart, but who waits until the night before to do his/her science project. The child is smart/talent enough to get a B+, but I know they were capable of an A.

Frankly, I think having an edge or a swagger to our game is the difference between being close to the peak, or just below it. I honestly believe, even today, that we were talented enough to beat Tampa Bay, Anaheim or Chicago. I just was never sold that the team really believed that, or was unwilling to accept anything less.

I don't believe we need a team full of Lundqvists, just a few more guys with similar mentalities sprinkled into our group of skaters.

Even with all the injuries they had at the end? I'm not sure I can agree. With both teams having full healthy rosters, yes, for sure.

 

[Edge]

I dunno, I feel like a decent smattering of important guys seem pretty hardcore about winning. Hank, obviously, McD, Girardi, Staal, Stepan, Nash, Zucc, D. Moore. That's the core leadership right there. That seems like enough guys with the right attitudes to me, assuming they are doing the job of pushing that way of approaching the game on their teammates and holding everybody accountable.

See now I'm not sure I see some of those guys pushing those around them. I can see it from guys like Zucc, but Nash or Staal? I don't see it.

I think a lot of these guys genuinely like each other. That in and of itself isn't a bad thing. But I do wonder if everyone likes each other a little too much.

I compare it to what I've seen at times in different offices. Everyone gets along really well. But at the same time, no one really pushes anyone else. There's not that healthy level of competition or just enough ball busting that serves as a catalyst when the team gets into a rut.

I'm not talking about guys calling each other out in the press or kicking the crap out of each other in practice. It's more subtle than that - like watching a pitchers body language after he gives a homerun, or a quarterback after he throws an interception. I never get the sense that this team is pissed. Even indirectly, with some of AV's comments I get the vibe that there are times he's lighting fires under people's *****. It's not that they don't care, they very much care. But I'm not sure those feelings manifest themselves in a reaction that says "this stops now."

Like I said, it's hard to explain. All I can say is that when you've seen it, you remember it, and when you don't see it you notice it. And it's near impossible to accurately explain to someone who hasn't seen it, doesn't see it or isn't capable of seeing it.

 

[mike14]

Without more context the whole thing is meaningless. For all we (and potentially Hank) know, the guys that don't look pissed after a loss are actually so angry they can't sleep properly afterwards.
Just because you don't show the signs didn't mean you don't have the symptoms.

 

[Doctyl]

We didn't lose because we didn't care enough. We lost because our weakest position was decimated with injuries. Losing Zucc didn't help either, but we already had a weak defense and having 2/3 of the group playing injured put us in a hole. Also AV made an awful awful decision in a must win game.

 

[Edge]

Even with all the injuries they had at the end? I'm not sure I can agree. With both teams having full healthy rosters, yes, for sure.

Interestingly enough, yeah I do. Not to rehash something I've said already, but if this was a team that looked done in the previous games, I'd be more inclined to think that the injuries sapped them of a lot of their danger. But this was a team that was incredibly talented and showed a sick level of ability in games 4 and 6. But the offense dried up in games 5 and 7. You just can't go 120 minutes without scoring on home ice.

 

[Doctyl]

Interestingly enough, yeah I do. Not to rehash something I've said already, but if this was a team that looked done in the previous games, I'd be more inclined to think that the injuries sapped them of a lot of their danger. But this was a team that was incredibly talented and showed a sick level of ability in games 4 and 6. But the offense dried up in games 5 and 7. You just can't go 120 minutes without scoring on home ice.

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

 

[Edge]

Without more context the whole thing is meaningless. For all we (and potentially Hank) know, the guys that don't look pissed after a loss are actually so angry they can't sleep properly afterwards.
Just because you don't show the signs didn't mean you don't have the symptoms.

This isn't a jury trial. We're unlikely to get a smoking gun here. We're not going to have video proof, or an expose, or some hidden footage that tells us without a doubt that there is at least concern there.

However, when watching the team, when hearing AV's carefully chosen words, when hearing some comments from Lundqvist, there is, at the very least, some reasonable cause to believe this more than just meaningless.

Could it all completely overblown and completely off-base? Sure. But generally speaking, I've seldom, if ever seen a situation where enough of the same things, be it observed/said/implied about a team, didn't at least have a pretty fair amount of backing behind it. It doesn't make this a bad team, or the players bad guys, but it certainly can be a pretty decently sized factor in the difference between what this accomplishments compared to what it accomplishes.