Post-Game Talk: MDSF #2 - 04/20/14 | Philadelphia Flyers @ New York Rangers - PART II
- Thread starter Megustaelhockey
- Start date
- Status
This game was too early for the Rangers, they had no legs, no speed. Simply not awake.
Even the coaches messed it up when they couldn't decide if Hank should be pulled or not, resulting in a too many men penalty.
The Flyers were better prepared.
This loss was bad, we've played twice in Philly this season and lost. Will it be any easier this time? Not so sure about that...
Even the coaches messed it up when they couldn't decide if Hank should be pulled or not, resulting in a too many men penalty.
The Flyers were better prepared.
This loss was bad, we've played twice in Philly this season and lost. Will it be any easier this time? Not so sure about that...
Yea, someone must've told them it was only noon after they scored those first 2 goals.
Not as lopsided as you might think. Blackhawks goals per game in the playoff year 2012-2013 is 2.78. Rangers playoff goals per game 2006-2007 through 2012-2013 is 2.33. Less than half a goal per game difference. That is with all the Blackhawks fire power and the Rangers pee shooters. Again that we are comparing Crawford and Lundqvist is very telling.
Not sure if serious?
Chicago's defensive core was better than ours. Keith that year was on another level than McDonagh, Seabrook is better than Girardi, Hjalmarsson is on the same level as Staal, and Leddy/Roszival are two solid depth defense men that are better than our depth defense men.
And in regards to the offensive core, I do not think it is even remotely close.
It is close with the defensive core, but giving the Rangers the nod in that regard even shows extreme bias.
Chicago is/was a better team in every respect. You're overrating our defensive core while underrating theirs.
Having played the position through college, I will tell you that the first goal was misplayed. He went for the poke and missed, leaving him completely out of position. It was an attempt that should be stopped, sans the shooter doing something extraordinary, which Voracek did not.
The third goal was a result of very poor rebound control. That shot should never come back out in front. It was misplayed, plain and simple.
Keep in mind that Hank gets criticized because he is accepted as our best player. It is no different than when Nash gets brow beaten, or now, MSL.
Hank is clearly capable of playing better. It is expected of him. He needs to deliver.
The only goal Hank would want back was the Voracek (first) goal. He bit too early on it, and Voracek waited him out. He made a nice move. Defense was lazy and way too forgiving in anticipating he would go to the net like that.
The other two goals had nothing to do with Lundqvist.
Second goal:
A shot from the point with traffic in front, the shot hits Schenn, bounces directly to Akeson, and he buries it. NO ONE was covering Akeson.
Third goal:
Schenn skates the puck up, tries to toe-drag and accidentally gives the puck to Adam Hall who McDonagh was not paying attention to. He gets a quick shot off, Henrik makes the initial save, and Brassard's lazy back checking allowed Schenn to walk right in and bury the rebound.
In technical goaltending terms, Lundqvist played that correctly. If you watch it again, the puck quickly ended up on Hall's stick, Lundqvist went half butterfly, paddle down to easily block the shot. A goalie's job is to stop the first initial shot, AND control the rebound IF THEY CAN.
This is obviously a bang bang play where you can't control the rebound, and if your teammates are covering properly, will easily clear that garbage out. Unfortunately, McDonagh was late on Hall's initial shot, and Brassard was completely lazy in his coverage on Schenn.
These breakdowns are what caused us to lose the game yesterday. Some of the people here make it out to be like Lundqvist gave up four Ron Francis/Mike Richter style goals in a row.
The Rangers gave up after the 2-0 lead. The Flyers played better, and deserved to win. Thats it.
Let's hope they realize they can't take any shift off if they want to win the series.
The other two goals had nothing to do with Lundqvist.
Second goal:
A shot from the point with traffic in front, the shot hits Schenn, bounces directly to Akeson, and he buries it. NO ONE was covering Akeson.
Third goal:
Schenn skates the puck up, tries to toe-drag and accidentally gives the puck to Adam Hall who McDonagh was not paying attention to. He gets a quick shot off, Henrik makes the initial save, and Brassard's lazy back checking allowed Schenn to walk right in and bury the rebound.
In technical goaltending terms, Lundqvist played that correctly. If you watch it again, the puck quickly ended up on Hall's stick, Lundqvist went half butterfly, paddle down to easily block the shot. A goalie's job is to stop the first initial shot, AND control the rebound IF THEY CAN.
This is obviously a bang bang play where you can't control the rebound, and if your teammates are covering properly, will easily clear that garbage out. Unfortunately, McDonagh was late on Hall's initial shot, and Brassard was completely lazy in his coverage on Schenn.
These breakdowns are what caused us to lose the game yesterday. Some of the people here make it out to be like Lundqvist gave up four Ron Francis/Mike Richter style goals in a row.
The Rangers gave up after the 2-0 lead. The Flyers played better, and deserved to win. Thats it.
Let's hope they realize they can't take any shift off if they want to win the series.
OverTheCap
Registered User
- Jan 3, 2009
- 10,454
- 184
Kane isn't good defensively, but Hossa is one of the best two-way wingers in the league.
That is a HUGE difference. Not sure what you are looking at. That is a top-10 team in the regular season compared to a bottom-5 team in the regular season.
If a team scored 2.78 Goals/Game in the regular season, THIS YEAR, they would rank 12.
If a team scored 2.33 Goals/Game in the regular season, THIS YEAR, they would rank 28.
If you do not think the difference is significant, I do not know what to say.
People are becoming delusional comparing Lundqvist's support to Crawford.
That's the whole point. If they were awake we wouldn't see a team collapse after being up by 2. Flyers started slow too, but after their first it was all them.
Also sloppy play by Lundqvist, maybe he couldn't spend enough time in the bathroom.
Emery was good, but Zucc had a huge chance, he has to score on those.
Offensively it is no contest. Defensively, it is a close call. Remember how we ran Roszival out of town and now he is a solid depth defenseman. Also, I am not sure if anybody in the game would take Hjalmarsson over Staal. I might be biased taking the Rangers D. However, my point is that we are comparing Crawford's playoff stats with the stats of one of the best goalie in the game.
Hossa has more defensive prowess in his pinky than our whole top 9 does in their bodies.
I would appreciate if you did not see yourself as qualified as being able to speak for me. If you want to get into again why I do not see the St. Louis trade as a good one, feel free to start another thread and we can again go back and forth on it.
YoSoyLalo
me reading HF
I think that suggesting Hossa is weak defensively is grounds for total loss of credibility. IMO, of course.
If you think the Rangers top 6 D are better than Chicago's, it's easier for me to understand your position no matter how absurd I think your opinion is. And you did not address the difference in forwards which is incredibly different in quality.
If you believe that the quality of shots against Crawford are equivalent to what Lindquist faces, I think you're way off.
So you believe Crawford is the key for Chicago. Amazing.
You are so wrong it is laughable. Hossa is an excellent defensive forward. Until now I thought this was common knowledge.
By false dichotomy what I meant is that I was getting the sense that people were viewing the debate as either/or. And not: Some of both. Something I’ve seen a lot of on these boards – where people twist an argument to its extreme. Anyhow…
I think it is a fair point that because it is the playoffs he becomes an "easy target." And none of my criticisms of him are meant to exonerate the rest of the team, which is equally or moreso at fault for many of NYR's playoff woes.
But I also see the flip side: I see a goalie who just signed a contract that will make him one of the highest paid players - not just the highest paid goalie - in the game. Being paid that kind of money, he needs to be game breaking, and be game breaking consistently. And he has certainly shown that in the playoffs at times. But, in my opinion, he has also shown a propensity to let up a few too many softies - and in many of those games I would call his play pedestrian, yes.
Like it or not, the play of the goaltender has the ability to influence the outcome of any given game more than any single other player on the ice (again, doesn't mean I'm saying you can field a team of traffic cones out there and expect to win). But when there is little or no room for error in the playoffs, you can't have more than a handful of games where your goalie plays that way. With all of that comes more scrutiny.
"Is the key," as in always? No. I don't think he is a goalie who will have the consistency to keep them competitive on his own.
But as in last year? Yes. He was not "the" key, but he was one of many keys to their success. He played very well in the playoffs last year. He doesn't do that, and they don't win.
Last edited:
Almost all from the past 12 Stanley Cup winners.
Yes - you summed it up pretty well. But I am also of the opinion that even if he had a team which performed better in front of him, he would need to be better in the playoffs in order to win it all.
I would also probably contest that this “isn’t how playoffs work.” Your assertion, that most goalies who win the cup have not been good goalies, is not at all accurate. The overwhelming majority of Stanley Cup winners since 2000 have had a goalie who played exceptionally well in the playoffs that year. The two exceptions are the 08-09 Pens and the 09-10 Blackhawks. Every other team had a goalie who not only played outstanding, but also elevated their games in the playoffs.
The SC winners since 2000 (and their PO stats from the year they won):
Chicago Blackhawks | Corey Crawford | 12-13 | 0.914 | 2.36 | 0.932 | 1.84
LA Kings | Jonathan Quick | 11-12 | 0.915 | 2.32 | 0.946 | 1.41
Boston Bruins | Tim Thomas | 10-11 | 0.921 | 2.48 | 0.940 | 1.98
Chicago Blackhawks | Antti Niemi | 09-10 | 0.917 | 2.34 | 0.910 | 2.63
Pittsburgh Penguins | Marc-Andre Fleury | 08-09 | 0.910 | 2.66 | 0.908 | 2.61
Detroit Red Wings | Chris Osgood | 07-08 | 0.905 | 2.49 | 0.930 | 1.55
Anaheim Ducks | J.S. Giguere | 06-07 | 0.913 | 2.53 | 0.922 | 1.97
Carolina Hurricanes | Cam Ward | 05-06 | 0.910 | 2.74 | 0.920 | 2.14
Tampa Bay Lightning | Nikolai Khabibulin | 03-04 | 0.908 | 2.72 | 0.933 | 1.71
New Jersey Devils | Martin Brodeur | 02-03 | 0.913 | 2.23 | 0.934 | 1.65
Detroit Red Wings | Dominik Hasek | 01-02 | 0.922 | 2.20 | 0.920 | 1.86
Colorado Avalanche | Patrick Roy | 00-01 | 0.910 | 2.54 | 0.934 | 1.70
Hank can certainly be considered one of the best regular season goalies of the past 9 seasons – and that’s fine and dandy. But he hasn’t done what most of these goalies have and elevated his game consistently throughout an entire playoffs. Few gave up 3 or more goals in 4 or more games in a single series. Few had back-to-back series in which they gave up 3 or more goals 3 times in those series. Hank has done both of these in the past two playoffs. Yes – his team hasn’t helped him – and they are a big part of the problem. But he also hasn’t done what other goalies have who have won. If/when he ultimately ends up winning, especially if it is with these Rangers, he will have to put up numbers like these guys in the playoffs; and that means elevating his play on a more consistent, series-to-series, and game-to-game basis. He can’t have more than a few off nights, and certainly can’t do it more than a few times in a series.
Chicago Blackhawks | Corey Crawford | 12-13 | 7 | 23 | 1 every 3.3 games | 0 | 1 | 0
LA Kings | Jonathan Quick | 11-12 | 2 | 20 | 1 every 10 games | 0 | 0 | 0
Boston Bruins | Tim Thomas | 10-11 | 9 | 25 | 1 every 2.8 games | 1 | 2 | 0
Chicago Blackhawks | Antti Niemi | 09-10 | 11 | 22 | 1 every 2 games | 1 | 3 | 1
Pittsburgh Penguins | Marc-Andre Fleury | 08-09 | 12 | 24 | 1 every 2 games | 1 | 3 | 1
Detroit Red Wings | Chris Osgood | 07-08 | 5 | 18 | 1 every 3.6 games | 0 | 0 | 0
Anaheim Ducks | J.S. Giguere | 06-07 | 5 | 17 | 1 every 3.4 games | 1 | 1 | 0
Carolina Hurricanes | Cam Ward | 05-06 | 8 | 23 | 1 every 2.9 games | 0 | 2 | 1
Tampa Bay Lightning | Nikolai Khabibulin | 03-04 | 7 | 23 | 1 every 3.3 games | 0 | 2 | 1
New Jersey Devils | Martin Brodeur | 02-03 | 7 | 24 | 1 every 3.4 games | 0 | 1 | 0
Detroit Red Wings | Dominik Hasek | 01-02 | 9 | 23 | 1 every 2.6 games | 0 | 2 | 0
Colorado Avalanche | Patrick Roy | 00-01 | 8 | 23 | 1 every 2.9 games | 0 | 0 | 0
| | | | | | | |
New York Rangers | Henrik Lundqvist | 12-13 | 6 | 12 | 1 every 2 games | 0 | 2 | 1
| | 11-12 | 8 | 20 | 1 every 2.5 games | 1 | 1 | 0
If your argument is that his game is already at such a high level that it can’t, or shouldn’t be expected, to be elevated further; I’m pretty unconvinced by that line of thought. Some of the greatest goalies in history were able to find another gear – from their already high-level play – in the playoffs when their teams won the Cup. [I included 98-99 Hasek, even though the Sabres didn’t win, because I’m copy-pasting part of a table I posted elsewhere, and it is perhaps one of the best examples of a goalie dragging a subpar team to the SCF.]
Patrick Roy | Canadiens | 85-86 | 0.910 | 2.54 | N/A | 1.93
| Canadiens | 92-93 | 0.910 | 2.54 | 0.929 | 2.13
| Avalanche | 95-96 | 0.910 | 2.54 | 0.921 | 2.10
| Avalanche | 00-01 | 0.910 | 2.54 | 0.934 | 1.70
Dominik Hasek | Sabres | 98-99 | 0.922 | 2.20 | 0.939 | 1.77
| Red Wings | 01-02 | 0.922 | 2.20 | 0.920 | 1.86
Martin Brodeur | Devils | 94-95 | 0.913 | 2.23 | 0.927 | 1.67
| Devils | 99-00 | 0.913 | 2.23 | 0.927 | 1.61
| Devils | 02-03 | 0.913 | 2.23 | 0.934 | 1.65
Quick did it in 11-12. Crawford, who had an amazing season last year improved on it even further in the 12-13 playoffs. Same for Thomas in 10-11. Same for many of the hall of famers who have won recently – Roy, Hasek, Brodeur.
And in fact, if you look at Hank’s overall playoff stats from the past two seasons, he is actually capable of playing at an even higher level in the playoffs than he does in the regular season. That may – in your mind – debunk everything I’ve said up to this point. And I understand if that’s what you want to argue.
But in my mind, the problem is that he doesn’t sustain that level of play throughout. And ends up having more average to poor games and series than he needs to if he wants to help his team advance. The playoffs aren’t very forgiving to players’ mistakes. My argument is that inconsistency is his problem.
--
All of that said, to address the rest of what you wrote: I do believe I acknowledged at the outset that Hank isn't the biggest problem on this team in general or in the playoffs. He is just who I chose to focus on - because it is a debate I find interesting, and for which I know there are opposing opinions. It is nothing new, in my mind, that the rest of the team is not up to snuff. I'm tired of lambasting them and Sather for it, and it doesn't make for an interesting discussion to sit here agreeing with most others on these forums who think Nash needs to ****in' step it up. Or that Stepan needs to get over whatever his problem is when it comes to playoff performance. Or that Richie was a useless POS last year. Or that the team as a whole is lacking.
Last edited:
I find it funny that after a win we're the best D in the league, after a loss our D sucks and there are a bunch better than ours. Seems about right. I think our D stacks up with anyone's defensively.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,354
I am qualified. Just got certified last week.
Did you not say that St. Louis needs to produce immediately because this is a WIN NOW trade?
The reason why people defend Lundqvist so much is plain as day in this thread. Gives an excuse as to people to bash the rest of the team.
Cmox
Registered User
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Other Sports: Philadelphia Phillies: The Road To .500 (2024 Edition)- Latest: LegionOfDoom91
-
-
Upcoming events
-
-
-
2024 NHL Draft Lottery Team that wins #1 pick - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 9Staked: $11,200.00Event closes- Updated: