Post-Game Talk: Rangers @ Bruins

[Idlerlee]

Hank carries Rangers on his back. Fact of the matter is that the Rangers wont be Rangers without Hank, I dont see any good reason to even discuss an option where he leaves the team after the season.

 

[RangersHank*]

AV

Seems pretty angry. Apologies if i'm not allowed to post links or anything.

http://nypost.com/2013/11/29/rangers-cough-it-up-in-third-period-in-3-2-loss-to-bruins/

 

[SnowblindNYR]

What I don't get it how you criticize a great goaltender, who has been a big part of this team's success over the last decade. I learn to appreciate everyone who got us out of the dark ages (I think people already forgot seven consecutive years of non-playoff hockey). Since he took us to the dance, now he is supposed to win it all for us? He already got close, on a team that ran out of gas against the Devils.

I see him for what he is, a highly consistent goaltender who has helped manage to make this team a consistent playoff bubble team. He is not the piece to win the Stanley Cup. If you expect that from him, you're setting him up for failure.

Today's loss was a team loss. Not on Lundqvist. Lundqvist let up one soft goal. Rask let up two soft goals. Rask's team found a way to win, because, well, they're the better team.

Lundqvist is just one piece of the puzzle. Just like McDonagh, and Nash. He is a key piece you build your team around, he is not THE piece for the team to win it all. Ovechkin is the perfect example, top-3 player in the world, still doesn't have a Stanley Cup because his team is shallow, and it isn't constructed as a Cup Contender.

So, personally, I think this non-sense of blaming Lundqvist for today's loss, or the fact that he hasn't won a Cup, is complete non-sense and it makes you come off as an absolute hater.

He's not Hasek, Roy, or Brodeur. Lundqvist could be better this season, but honestly, he has still shown to be an average starting goaltender. Him, at his worst, is average amongst all league goaltenders. People on here are spoiled.

Again, I think you're in for a rude awakening when Lundqvist leaves and Talbot is forced to start 70+ games a season. Unless you're already convinced that Talbot is the missing piece for the Cup? Or that a perennial AHL goaltender, who just started playing at the NHL level at 27, is ready to take on the starter role, exceed what Lundqvist has done in the last eight years (multiple Vezina nominations, Vezina winner, Gold Medal winner) and than carry the team on his back to the Stanley Cup.

He's not a bad goaltender. I don't understand the constant hate for him. Just because fans appreciate him. The guy can have a bad game. He can have an average season. He is human. And people do critique him, including myself, when he doesn't play well. Lundqvist even calls himself out in post games and says he has to be better. We all know when he doesn't play well.

There are many other players to get on, starting with Callahan, Stepan, Richards, Nash, Girardi and Staal who have all underperformed. What did you think of Nash in the post season last year? What do you think of Stepan's game all of this season? Do you think captain Callahan is really the leader necessary to take this team to the next level? Start putting things in perspective. Your constant hate for Lundqvist gets comical at points.

Today, you point out the soft goal. Yet, you omit the Rangers having 2 shots in the 3rd period, and a total of 10 shots in the last 40 minutes... How do you omit that? To make Lundqvist LOOK even worse, and put more blame on him for the loss?

I believe I have conceded that this is mediocre team. I said I'd trade Girardi and Callahan, in addition to Lundqvist. I also said provided a list of players I'd keep. Meaning there are a bunch of players I'd get rid of. On the trade thread I said this team is not THAT far off, but they're missing huge pieces like the #1 center. That said, they've been in position a number of times this season where the D was good enough to win even with a bad offense that Lundqvist gave up a softy. I appreciate Lundqvist for what he is, a guy that's been the best goalie in the since the lockout till this season that was prone to prolonged periods of bad play but still had great regular seasons. Come playoffs he's Jackyl and Hyde, either amazing or horrible. This season he's been average at best. The defense since game 6 has been IMO no worse than the defense in 11-12. In fact as I posted in 21 games in March and April when Lundqvist slumped the team allowed almost a goal per game more than the Rangers have since their poor start, in fact they allowed more goals per game if you include the first 5 games. We're good enough defensively now to at least not be .500. Would we have 10 more points? No. However, it's disheartening watch the Rangers spot a goal before they drop the puck every game. Sure the offense is disheartening too, but the best player on offense is Rick Nash, who is no superstar and is a winger. I hold Lundqvist up to standards a superstar needs to be held under, while everyone on the Rangers board does the opposite and absolves him of everything because he was good once.

 

[trueblue35]

There's really no use arguing with you with you think that the Chara goal was not a bad goal. You will obviously just continue making excuses for the guy. At least when he has a good clean game I give him credit, you have so little objectivity that you can't even admit when your God gives up a soft goal. An unscreened point shot by Jesus himself would be a softy. I don't care that it was a bomb. Is it the softest goal he even gave up this season? It's arguably less soft than the goal against Florida. Soft nonetheless and in the 3rd period in a tied game. I can't have a conversation with you if you can't even admit when the guy makes a mistake. Why can I say that he was unbelievable against Dallas and LA? At least I can swallow my pride and admit that. You can't swallow your pride and say he gave up a softy.

My question is what makes the gwg a soft goal?

 

[Unpredictable1]

I defend Lundqvist and most other goalies on certain goals against, I'm a goalie by trade so it's in my blood.

But Henrik has to stop that Chara shot. You have to go all or nothing on that situation - he should have charged out to cut a bit more the angle down (I know that's not his nature) but when you're staring down the hardest shot in the league and he has a clear lane to shoot... it's up to you to become humongous big.

 

[Crease]

My question is what makes the gwg a soft goal?

Unless the guy goes pipe and in, I kick myself in the ass when if I give up an unobstructed shot from the point. It doesn't matter how fast it comes in; if you're out where you're supposed to be, there's just no net to shoot at. In fact, the bigger the cannon, the more reason to come out and take away the guesswork.

 

[Unpredictable1]

Unless the guy goes pipe and in, I kick myself in the ass when if I give up an unobstructed shot from the point. It doesn't matter how fast it comes in; if you're out where you're supposed to be, there's just no net to shoot at. In fact, the bigger the cannon, the more reason to come out and take away the guesswork.

Totally agree.

While I don't call it a soft goal - it's a shot that has to be stopped. I've let them in before and been infuriated with myself, while on the bench my teammates are mad they let someone have an uncontested shot and try to deflect me blaming myself.

Henrik knows he should of had that. That shot was his.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

My question is what makes the gwg a soft goal?

An unscreened point shot? Are you serious, dude?

 

[Unpredictable1]

An unscreened point shot? Are you serious, dude?

While I say he should of stopped it, I don't think it was a soft goal.

Panthers' second goal the other night was soft. Charmin soft.

 

[Crease]

While I say he should of stopped it, I don't think it was a soft goal.

Panthers' second goal the other night was soft. Charmin soft.

Agree. When I review my own performances, I think everyone could have been stopped. But objectively there are three categories of goals in my book:

1. Ones you just tip your cap to the other team for.
2. Scoring chances you feel you should have gotten a piece of.
3. Softies/brain lapses.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Trades are fun and deflect criticism for a short time. Like a President going to war to suffocate a sex scandal.

Make trades. We need new scapegoats. Boyle is a 4th liner now and we need new blood to criticize.

Thats why I miss 90s. zillions of trades.

 

[Pastafazul*]

the rangers are good because we are the most knowledgeable, insightful, loyal fans on the face of the earth and eventually the front office we'll hear us and get what we need!

a nasty dman with a shot

a rugged forward who will have some ability and pummel the guy who ****s with nash

 

[SnowblindNYR]

While I say he should of stopped it, I don't think it was a soft goal.

Panthers' second goal the other night was soft. Charmin soft.

That goal was worse, but this one was bad. If it hit post and in, I wouldn't be as hard on it, it just outmuscled him. I know it wasn't Dan Girardi shooting at him, but no matter who it is you have to stop a point shot that's unscreened. It wasn't the worst goal of the season that has to be the one against the Devils (or Panthers). Still soft.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Win a game: Good effort, lucky bounces
Lose a game: Team has no talent, is a bad team, loses to a better team, trade everyone, no depth, everyone sucks, only <posters fav player> had a good game, rest need to improve, no skill, cant finish.

\o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ Completely reasonable

when we beat dallas we were crucifying the forwards for getting run off the ice and praising lundqvist deservedly so. I had posted a retort to Championships inane harping on that stat but maybe I got carried away and it was removed. It could be I forgot to post it too. But just in case it was a case of going too far I guess all I can say is screw it. I agree with those saying the 3rd goal was a bad goal to give up. But after watching the forwards for 2 periods I could care less if Henrik had given up 3 of those in the 3rd. I want to see a good hockey team.

 

[Idlerlee]

when we beat dallas we were crucifying the forwards for getting run off the ice and praising lundqvist deservedly so.

Yes that is true.. no rule without exceptions

 

[Doctyl]

im officially launching my Girardi for Rocket Richard campaign

 

[Zil]

The more I watch this team, the more I wonder if they wouldn't benefit from some controlled roster demolition. Outside of McDonagh, Stepan, and possibly Kreider, this core just doesn't have enough talent. Put Girardi and Callahan on the market at the deadline and see if anyone is willing to blow them away with an offer. Would anyone give us something for Brassard? How about D. Moore? Let junk like Pyatt and Pouliot walk. Re-sign Hank and Stralman and go from there.

 

[Unpredictable1]

That goal was worse, but this one was bad. If it hit post and in, I wouldn't be as hard on it, it just outmuscled him. I know it wasn't Dan Girardi shooting at him, but no matter who it is you have to stop a point shot that's unscreened. It wasn't the worst goal of the season that has to be the one against the Devils (or Panthers). Still soft.

Wow your hate really runs deep then. You're coming across that pretty much the vast majority of the goals scored on Henrik are soft if you consider that a soft goal - which really is washing away your opinion for most on here and why you get so much flak.

Should Henrik had that blast? Yes, but Chara has scored plenty of those in his career. Is it something to get your panties in a knot over? No.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Wow your hate really runs deep then. You're coming across that pretty much the vast majority of the goals scored on Henrik are soft if you consider that a soft goal - which really is washing away your opinion for most on here and why you get so much flak.

Should Henrik had that blast? Yes, but Chara has scored plenty of those in his career. Is it something to get your panties in a knot over? No.

If you read the majority of the posts, your view is in the minority and not mine. I'm sure plenty of great players score goals that the goalie should have. It was easily a soft goal. It just wasn't the softest one he's given up. It was soft however and at a bad time.

 

[Unpredictable1]

If you read the majority of the posts, your view is in the minority and not mine. I'm sure plenty of great players score goals that the goalie should have. It was easily a soft goal. It just wasn't the softest one he's given up. It was soft however and at a bad time.

I don't think the majority of people are saying that was a soft goal.

But whatever floats your boat, cheers.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I don't think the majority of people are saying that was a soft goal.

But whatever floats your boat, cheers.

Read the reaction after it was scored. Even the announcers said it. To me "soft" and "should have had it" is pretty much the same thing. Most people said it was a soft goal specifically after Chara scored. You can't score from the blueline unscreened, I'm sorry.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Read the reaction after it was scored. Even the announcers said it. To me "soft" and "should have had it" is pretty much the same thing. Most people said it was a soft goal specifically after Chara scored. You can't score from the blueline unscreened, I'm sorry.

It wasn't "from the blueline". It was point blank from essentially the slot, coming off the stick of the player who possesses the hardest shot ever recorded.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

It wasn't "from the blueline". It was point blank from essentially the slot, coming off the stick of the player who possesses the hardest shot ever recorded.

I took a look at it again and it wasn't from the blueline. It was about halfway from the slot to the blueline, still far away and still a bad goal.

BTW, is it just me or did the Bruins have 6 player? WTF? That should have been a penalty, unreal, what screw job.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

*6 skaters

 

[Machinehead]

I'm actually watching every goal against this year to find out how many Girardi scored. Will be back in about 15 minutes with the number.