Post-Game Talk: Tampa Bay Lightning at New York Rangers 12/1/14

[offdacrossbar]

Quite the rant when you read my post wrong.

I said, the play of him giving up the puck on the EN goal. Where he lost the puck with no pressure and fell down leading to the EMPTY NET (6th) goal.

Before ranting so obnoxiously, why don'y you make sure you've read the post correctly?

my bad bro. i did read post wrong. apologies.

it was a bad t/o leading to the e/n.

im sick and tired of reading all about JM sucking basically because he isnt ryan mcdonagh.

as ive said may times, kid gets a bum rap for his mistakes which are no different than the mistakes made by the other 6 dmen when they play.

lets make a gif of girardi and staal. now that would be something.

weve got much bigger issues than JM. he wont bring much back if hes moved and we wont be much better if he sits.

play him.

 

[Beer League Sniper]

Patience does. His stats from October are wildly different from November.



Those are stats from a post on the main NHL board.

He's been the antithesis of consistent this season.

.941 SV% in wins, with 28.2 SA/G.

.873 SV% in losses, with 28.4 SA/G.

I understand the occasional soft goal. I understand that a goalie isn't going to make every tough save. But Henrik is completely falling apart in a large percentage of games. Give the team a chance to win, that's all I'm looking for. If Hank gives up even one less goal last night, I'm not all that upset. He's not making any of the big saves right now. I understand that many of those goals are hard shots to stop. Just keep one or two of those out of the net.

If Cam Talbot turns in that performance, I'm not happy, but he doesn't eat hardly any cap. In a sense, "you get what you paid for." Getting that same performance from a guy who makes more than Shea Weber, Claude Giroux, Ryan Getzlaf, etc., is tough to swallow.

 

[offdacrossbar]

hanks gotta be better.

while hes clearly one of the best, if not the best, net minders in the world, his resume does little when it comes to wins and losses right now.

sure other teams respect us when they see hank in net, hes down right intimidating, but right now, hes very average and needs to be better.

he'll tell you that too. he'll tell you he hasnt been good enough.

it begins and ends with #30.

if he plays like this all season we miss the playloffs.

he he plays like hank, we can hoist a cup.

 

[nevesis]

I understand the occasional soft goal. I understand that a goalie isn't going to make every tough save. But Henrik is completely falling apart in a large percentage of games.

This is pure fiction.

The difference being that the team is failing in front of him leaving him to face odd-man rushes, high-percentage scoring chances, and more times than not the other team (they get paid too) are going to bury those chances.

This is what hockey is. Guys score goals when given great chances, especially in the NHL. He can only do so much.

The first, second, third, and fifth goal last night were direct results of the team in front of him failing, more specifically his own defense.

You have to have an astute understanding of the game to actually understand this concept. I wish more here could, so we wouldn't have this discussion game in, game out. It's exhausting.

 

[Gardner McKay]

He's been the antithesis of consistent this season.

.941 SV% in wins, with 28.2 SA/G.

.873 SV% in losses, with 28.4 SA/G.

I understand the occasional soft goal. I understand that a goalie isn't going to make every tough save. But Henrik is completely falling apart in a large percentage of games. Give the team a chance to win, that's all I'm looking for. If Hank gives up even one less goal last night, I'm not all that upset. He's not making any of the big saves right now. I understand that many of those goals are hard shots to stop. Just keep one or two of those out of the net.

If Cam Talbot turns in that performance, I'm not happy, but he doesn't eat hardly any cap. In a sense, "you get what you paid for." Getting that same performance from a guy who makes more than Shea Weber, Claude Giroux, Ryan Getzlaf, etc., is tough to swallow.

So you ignore the stats I posted (which proves my point) only to twist statistics in order to prove a point that is not relevant to the conversation we were having? Alrighty then...

hanks gotta be better.

while hes clearly one of the best, if not the best, net minders in the world, his resume does little when it comes to wins and losses right now.

sure other teams respect us when they see hank in net, hes down right intimidating, but right now, hes very average and needs to be better.

he'll tell you that too. he'll tell you he hasnt been good enough.

it begins and ends with #30.

if he plays like this all season we miss the playloffs.

he he plays like hank, we can hoist a cup.

He played like this for a decent portion of last season (our start last year was putrid). We came 3 wins away from hoisting the cup.

 

[TheDirtyH]

.941 SV% in wins, with 28.2 SA/G.

.873 SV% in losses, with 28.4 SA/G.

Goalies usually have good sv%s in wins and bad ones in losses. I agree that Hank's been inconsistent, but these are not the right numbers to prove it.

 

[True Blue]

I love how conveniently you leave out Henrik not making a big save for his life, and Staal playing like a career AHLer.

Nah. It's because we're small

Size is one of the issues. Staal has been inconsistent, as I have alluded to when stating that the entire defense has been mediocre.

To me, the issues of this team are not on Henke. He has not been great, but the entire team has been exactly what their record says they are. Mediocre.

 

[PromNite]

Oh man this is like a truffle for Photoshoppers LOL

This screams of a Major League quote.

"Come on, Staal, get in front of the damn puck! Don't gimme this 'ole' ********!"

 

[Ori]

We got swept 3-0 vs. Tampa and I'm glad it's not in playoffs.
We've 3 difficult matches against Detroit away, Pengs home at MSG, and then Canucks on the road.

 

[PromNite]

You just said "playing over their heads", hence, unsustainable.

Do you think Tyler Johnson is a point per game player?

It's another team where everything is going right for them. Similar to the Islanders.

Tampa are obviously a much better team than them, though.

He very well could be. He was in the Calder race last year, and with that team's offensive depth, it's within his reach.

 

[Vinny DeAngelo]

I think it all leads back to the man to man system... It takes so long to adjust to the system and even when it is working it gives up a bunch of good chances

 

[Raspewtin]

Size is one of the issues. Staal has been inconsistent, as I have alluded to when stating that the entire defense has been mediocre.

To me, the issues of this team are not on Henke. He has not been great, but the entire team has been exactly what their record says they are. Mediocre.

It is completely unfair to blame Hank for this team's struggles, true.

But his play has warranted criticism.

I find it hard to believe they will be playing this way in February.

 

[Blueshirt Special]

I think it all leads back to the man to man system... It takes so long to adjust to the system and even when it is working it gives up a bunch of good chances

Yep. And when you combine that with major roster changes and injuries galore, you get a very good team flirting with .500 which is no surprise to me. I fully expected this even before Boyle broke his hand. I expect it to continue in December. If we don't have the ship righted by mid-January though, this could be the dreaded letdown year.

It happens.

 

[PromNite]

This is pure fiction.

The difference being that the team is failing in front of him leaving him to face odd-man rushes, high-percentage scoring chances, and more times than not the other team (they get paid too) are going to bury those chances.

This is what hockey is. Guys score goals when given great chances, especially in the NHL. He can only do so much.

The first, second, third, and fifth goal last night were direct results of the team in front of him failing, more specifically his own defense.

You have to have an astute understanding of the game to actually understand this concept. I wish more here could, so we wouldn't have this discussion game in, game out. It's exhausting.

So, going by this post, it is a mistake to pay a goalie a large portion of your cap, ala Lundqvist. That money is better invested in skaters that can lower the quality of chances. Because, in your own words, more often than not, the other team is going to bury those chances anyway.

 

[nevesis]

So, going by this post, it is a mistake to pay a goalie a large portion of your cap, ala Lundqvist. That money is better invested in skaters that can lower the quality of chances. Because, in your own words, more often than not, the other team is going to bury those chances anyway.

The money Lundqvist makes is a result of his elite play over the previous 9 years. He got his retirement contract because of everything that happened from the moment he filled in for Kevin Weeks, to last December when he signed his new contract.

This fan base have been spoiled having him as your goalie. Many don't realize how much worse this team would be, and how little playoff experience this team would have in the past 8 years without him.

He's been the main reason the Rangers have been relevant for a majority of his tenure here.

 

[Beer League Sniper]

So being the highest paid goalie in the league for all those years isn't enough? Now, he deserved a retirement contract because of prior service that he was paid handsomely for?

Do you even listen to yourself? You dismiss and insult any poster who has the gall to criticize the highest paid player on the team when he's playing like ass.

The poster above said it perfectly: if every single high-quality chance this team gives up that ends up in the back of the net is no fault of the goalie, why pay elite money for a goalie at all?

Sure, you can look at it on a shot-by-shot basis and say that you can't really blame the goalie for not stopping it. However, elite goalies stop many of those shots. It's what makes them elite. Even mediocre goalies stop some of them. We're getting hardly any from our elite goaltender thus far this season. Will Hank turn it around? I think so, but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve the criticism he's getting. He's costing us points in the standings with his overall performance this season. We would have at least a few more points in the standings with even a statistically mediocre goalie.

We're paying for an elite goalie, and we're getting a terrible one. It's easy to see why people are upset.

 

[Raspewtin]

So being the highest paid goalie in the league for all those years isn't enough? Now, he deserved a retirement contract because of prior service that he was paid handsomely for?

Do you even listen to yourself? You dismiss and insult any poster who has the gall to criticize the highest paid player on the team when he's playing like ass.

The poster above said it perfectly: if every single high-quality chance this team gives up that ends up in the back of the net is no fault of the goalie, why pay elite money for a goalie at all?

Sure, you can look at it on a shot-by-shot basis and say that you can't really blame the goalie for not stopping it. However, elite goalies stop many of those shots. It's what makes them elite. Even mediocre goalies stop some of them. We're getting hardly any from our elite goaltender thus far this season. Will Hank turn it around? I think so, but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve the criticism he's getting. He's costing us points in the standings with his overall performance this season. We would have at least a few more points in the standings with even a statistically mediocre goalie.

We're paying for an elite goalie, and we're getting a terrible one. It's easy to see why people are upset.

This really needs to be stickied. Seriously.

You're allowed to expect a few big saves every game when you're paying your goalie almost 9 million a year, the largest contract ever given for the position.

Saying "eh, it's not his fault" after every goal we give up is getting really old. He's not getting beaten by shots that he had no chance on. He's getting beaten on some tough but saveable shots.

It's absolutely warranted to criticise a goalie who isn't making big saves, and should be.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

What I find funny is that you have always found reason to **** on Lundqvist. Always. Is sacred the right word? No. Forgive most of us who are willing to look past a bad 20 game stretch when you factor in that Lundqvist has been a top 3-5 goaltender in this league since he entered it in 2005. Are there goalies playing better than Henrik right now? Yeah. That doesn't mean they are a better goaltender overall. Would Brassard be a better C than Crosby if Brassgod outscored him by 15 points over the first 25 games? No. It is a ridiculous notion. Equally as ridiculous as some folks comparing MAF and other bottom tier goaltenders to Henrik.

Honestly, I am more concerned over Kreider, Zuccarello, and Staal than I am with Lundqvist (a guy who has been the definition of consistency for nearly 10 years).

He has a 20 game bad stretch every ****ing year. Maybe he'll show up for more than a two thirds of a season some year, or give back some of his paycheck.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

The money Lundqvist makes is a result of his elite play over the previous 9 years. He got his retirement contract because of everything that happened from the moment he filled in for Kevin Weeks, to last December when he signed his new contract.

This fan base have been spoiled having him as your goalie. Many don't realize how much worse this team would be, and how little playoff experience this team would have in the past 8 years without him.

He's been the main reason the Rangers have been relevant for a majority of his tenure here.

LMAO, dude, he still has to earn his pay. He's being paid that money to provide us elite goaltending now.

 

[Open Mind]

What I find funny is how sacred Lundqvist is. I'm not saying that the Lightning aren't better. It's just that I find it funny, that everyone here is ok saying that another team is better or another player is better than one on our team, but once in comes to Lundqvist, no one's better. At this point in time Lundqvist is a ****** goalie. Will he improve, probably, but right now he sucks.

I don't think any athlete is above honest critique, and saying Hank's off lately is fine. At the same time, I am not overly worried. If he was coming off a bad season last year, and was struggling now, perhaps then we might infer this as a pattern. But he just had an outstanding playoff, this calendar year, a few months back. Based on that, you have to rationally ask yourself: is it more likely he needs to make some tweaks to confidence and/or technique, or do you think he magically fell apart, when he was outstanding a mere 6 months ago?

I try to look at other big picture elements and I tend to not panic with Hank for a number of reasons. One, I've been watching the NYR for nearly 5 decades and HL is the best goalie I've seen on this team, and the most consistent. And I say this with concrete ease. Two, I take factors beyond straight performance into account. For instance, and this is an oft over-looked but vital element, but Hank almost never misses time to injury. How many other big name goalies have missed significant time during Hank's career, where Hank has not? Three, I look at Hank's history. He generally reminds me of water heating on a stove. Cool at the start, gradually heating up, and hot by the end. This pattern seems to exist fairly consistently, coupled with the pattern that he is generally healthy and playing by season's end, which all indicates to me not to worry over this.

Hank was bad last night and isn't playing great thus far. But he is regarded as a very, very hard working goalie off the ice. He is always honest about his own performance and is very self-accountable, and he has, over his career, almost always righted his ship as the season went along and has generally been fairly excellent by end of season. For me, this isn't a matter of holding Lundqvist sacred, it's more a matter of pattern recognition and noting what he has realistically and consistently done his entire career. A career which, for the record, will see him easily enshrined in the hockey hall of fame and noted as the best goalie in this team's very long history.

 

[Krams]

The money Lundqvist makes is a result of his elite play over the previous 9 years. He got his retirement contract because of everything that happened from the moment he filled in for Kevin Weeks, to last December when he signed his new contract.

This fan base have been spoiled having him as your goalie. Many don't realize how much worse this team would be, and how little playoff experience this team would have in the past 8 years without him.

He's been the main reason the Rangers have been relevant for a majority of his tenure here.

A contract isn't a reward. It's an agreement between the player and the team regarding services (rendered by the player) and compensation (from the team). You can't make a contract for a service that has already been performed, so it's only good for the present and future.

I know you're not stupid, and that didn't teach you anything. I understand what you're trying to say, and I agree that the anger directed towards Hank is extreme right now. But I don't think it's valid to object to criticism by pointing to Henrik's prior accomplishments. He's on the cap now. And as such, it's perfectly acceptable to contrast the cap hit to his present value.

I don't think I agree with Revelation and the rest, but you need to frame the counter argument in terms of post contract extension Lundqvist, and his merit.

 

[OverTheCap]

I think it all leads back to the man to man system... It takes so long to adjust to the system and even when it is working it gives up a bunch of good chances

Yeah, this team resembles last year's team in that regard - they look like they are still getting a hang of the system.

The problem is that there are lots of players who were here last year who should have a firmer grasp of the system by now. I'm hoping McDonagh's issues are just injury-related, because he's a guy who thrived in AV's system last year but this season he's been handling the puck just as poorly as Girardi or Staal.

The forwards have had their fair share of defensive struggles as well. Dom Moore has made some very uncharacteristic errors with the puck this year. Some of the forwards are so eager to break out offensively that they abandon their defensive responsibilities and provide little puck support for the defensemen.

I think eventually they'll be fine, but if they want to execute man defense consistently, some roster tweaks are in order.

 

[nevesis]

LMAO, dude, he still has to earn his pay. He's being paid that money to provide us elite goaltending now.

Previous posters and yourself are taking my response completely out of context. I was simply explaining that the money he is paid has nothing to do with the situation as a whole. He is paid because of his previous accomplishments. Put his contract aside.

No where did I say this is justification for him not making saves.

It's also not to say that he isn't making saves on high-percentage chances. He DOES. But no one remembers those as much as the ones that end up in the back of the net.

My point in a nutshell was this:

The team in front of him is directly responsible for allowing those high-percentage scoring opportunities to arise, which in the NHL are going to be capitalized on more so than not.

If the team in front of him plays better, he will as well. He can only do so much to carry a team on his shoulders day in, day out.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Previous posters and yourself are taking my response completely out of context. I was simply explaining that the money he is paid has nothing to do with the situation as a whole. He is paid because of his previous accomplishments. Put his contract aside.

No where did I say this is justification for him not making saves.

It's also not to say that he isn't making saves on high-percentage chances. He DOES. But no one remembers those as much as the ones that end up in the back of the net.

My point in a nutshell was this:

The team in front of him is directly responsible for allowing those high-percentage scoring opportunities to arise, which in the NHL are going to be capitalized on more so than not.

If the team in front of him plays better, he will as well. He can only do so much to carry a team on his shoulders day in, day out.

Except I refuse to believe that the team all of a sudden became as bad as his numbers show. He's a culprit as much as the team. When he plays well you're the first one to crow about his great play, I don't remember you assigning as much credit to the team for their good play when Lundqvist has a good game as you assign blame when he has a bad game. You're trying really hard to seem objective, but you're not. You clearly feel a bond to him because he's had a great career for the most part and you play the same position. That said, it's understandable, but you clear don't do as good of a job of crediting the team when they play well and Lundqvist has a good game, as when they play poorly and he has a bad game.

 

[Beer League Sniper]

Previous posters and yourself are taking my response completely out of context. I was simply explaining that the money he is paid has nothing to do with the situation as a whole. He is paid because of his previous accomplishments. Put his contract aside.

No where did I say this is justification for him not making saves.

It's also not to say that he isn't making saves on high-percentage chances. He DOES. But no one remembers those as much as the ones that end up in the back of the net.

My point in a nutshell was this:

The team in front of him is directly responsible for allowing those high-percentage scoring opportunities to arise, which in the NHL are going to be capitalized on more so than not.

If the team in front of him plays better, he will as well. He can only do so much to carry a team on his shoulders day in, day out.

We could have added another very solid defender (~$3M AAV) if Lundqvist made what Jonathan Quick makes ($5.8M).

We could have kept Stralman and still signed Boyle if Lundqvist made what Halak makes ($4.5M).

Why pay a goaltender elite money if you're not getting a return on it?

And FWIW, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have given Lundqvist that contract. We gave him that contract because he makes saves that no other goaltender can make. He's not making many of those saves, and we're over a quarter of the way through the season. He's already thrown up as many stinkers as he usually does in an entire season, slumps and slow starts included. It's perfectly justifiable to criticize him for it.