Post-Game Talk: 11/19/13 Boston @ Rangers

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

for me, i'll take the team thats generating chances consistently.

goals come and go, but if youre generating chances, the shooting percentage will eventually return to the mean, and you'll put up good offensive numbers.

ive seen a lot more good than bad over the past few weeks from this team.

That opinion is shared by quite a few posters. I respect it.

I'll even agree with it if results actually back it up.

 

[TankLarkin]

I'm usually pretty cynical and last night was indeed frustrating (it's as if the Rangers to a man think they get bonus points for hitting the opposing goalie's crest instead of picking a corner), BUT if they can play like they did last night AND FINISH THINGS OFF once and a while this team is going to be fun to watch. Add a little more toughness (Haley) on fourth line and I'll be a happy camper.

 

[Jim Ramsay]

I know the Rangers practiced today at 11:30, does any one know if the lines remained intact?

As far as last night goes, the thing that makes the loss sting so much is that I think the Rangers played well enough to win....but didn't.

I think this team is definitely more creative than they were last year, but at the end of the day they have to start finding a way to put the puck in the net at even strength.

Rask was absolutely on top of this game last night, the one deflection that Nash had on net that Rask stopped with his shoulder was a great save.

As far as Lundqvist goes, he played a strong game, but I bet if you were to ask him he would say he probably should have at least stopped one of the goals. Unfortunately, for him since the rangers have only scored 2 goals in the past three games.....every goal against him is magnified.

Richards, while not playing awful, doesn't seem near as noticeable on offense as he was to start the year.

Even though he has to shoot when he has those chances, I've really liked Zucc's game this year. He has very good vision out there and I love the tenacity he has to muck it up with any one on the ice.

Girardi should take a discount if he wants to remain a ranger, he seems even a bit slower this year and I don't think his decision making has been very good.

Callahan is probably still playing with an ailing hand, he doesn't seem as noticeable right now as he usually is.

 

[Thirty One]

I know the Rangers practiced today at 11:30, does any one know if the lines remained intact?

They did, except Del Zotto skated with Falk.

 

[Idlerlee]

They did, except Del Zotto skated with Falk.

I'm glad, despite losing, that was a solid performance

 

[McRanger]

The idiotic part is that you make some sort of plea that we should be discussing core issues with this team, and then turn around and say we should be discussing Lundqvist.

Last year it was Tortorella, this year - for some stupid reason - its Lundqvist.

This team is 27th in the league in scoring goals. Want your core issue? There is it. Same spot its always been - right at the top.

Where to begin?

1) I never mentioned "core issues". I did use the word core in my post. But I wasn't talking about core issues anymore than I was talking about apple cores.

2) Lundqvist is a "core issue". He is not a "core concern" or a "core problem" but he is the most important player in the entire organization. His continued excellence and pending contract upgrade are two extremely important factors in the teams future success.

3) Again, scoring has nothing to do with Lundqvist or goaltending. You can keep writing it like some OCD goof who can't control himself but it doesn't change that fact. Brian Boyles foot speed has nothing to do with Staals work on the penalty kill. Taylor Pyatts concussion has nothing to do with Zuccarello's height. Cam Talbots puck handling skills have nothing to do with Ron Duguay's wardrobe decisions.

4) If you do not want to discuss Lundqvist than please feel free not to respond. No one on this board will feel robbed if you do not put in your two cents. Trust me.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Where to begin?

1) I never mentioned "core issues". I did use the word core in my post. But I wasn't talking about core issues anymore than I was talking about apple cores.

2) Lundqvist is a "core issue". He is not a "core concern" or a "core problem" but he is the most important player in the entire organization. His continued excellence and pending contract upgrade are two extremely important factors in the teams future success.

3) Again, scoring has nothing to do with Lundqvist or goaltending. You can keep writing it like some OCD goof who can't control himself but it doesn't change that fact. Brian Boyles foot speed has nothing to do with Staals work on the penalty kill. Taylor Pyatts concussion has nothing to do with Zuccarello's height. Cam Talbots puck handling skills have nothing to do with Ron Duguay's wardrobe decisions.

4) If you do not want to discuss Lundqvist than please feel free not to respond. No one on this board will feel robbed if you do not put in your two cents. Trust me.

Sure, I'll quietly and reluctantly step away from your query, which has provided so much conversation and thought-provoking banter.

 

[stan the caddy]

All shots are not created equal. Go look at Scott Gomez's stats. A perfectly placed corner is worth about 100 shots into the goalie's belly.

They have to eliminate the turnovers and sloppy play. It's nice to see them hold the puck in Boston's end but one mistake can outweigh all of that.

 

[vladmyir111]

So how many games is it now this season...(I can count 5 or 6 out of the 21)...that the opposing goaltender has been out shot and the quality was the same or better than Lundqvist has faced and yet we lose by a goal?

Seems to me someone interested in 8 million dollars a year should probably figure out a way to stop being outplayed by backups and 41 year olds.

Sure, scoring 2 or 3 goals would be super nice, but we're getting 35+ shots on net in each game and *insert random goalie* seems to be winning each duel.

Hopefully it's just puck luck and the laws of averages of the universe, but if we're still 20-20 a couple months from now and this trend continues, might want to take another look at this.

 

[Fanned On It]

It was a soft backhanded shot five hole. That's not the kind of shot most players get on a breakaway if someone's not impeding you. Sometimes, players go backhand forehand and slide a backhand between the legs, but he didn't even do that.

The problem is, while Hank is not allowing a lot of goals his team isn't allowing a lot of opportunities. He also gave up a soft goal in at least 3 one goal losses (Ana, NJ, Bos). Two of those he really didn't face much, he did have some tougher chances against NJ. It's not one game.

He went forehand backhand 5-hole did he not? It's a move you see plenty of NHL'ers use on breakaways that tends to get the goalie's legs to open up. And it WAS a lean breakaway in my book considering that Callahan had no effect on Paille whatsoever.

 

[Thirty One]

All shots are not created equal. Go look at Scott Gomez's stats. A perfectly placed corner is worth about 100 shots into the goalie's belly.

Scott Gomez' career shooting percentage is higher than the total of this Ranger team, currently.

 

[stan the caddy]

Scott Gomez' career shooting percentage is higher than the total of this Ranger team, currently.

I get that but the point that I'm making is just because you get a lot of pucks to the net doesn't mean the goals are just going to start going in. Obviously they won't average a goal per game for the season but I'd expect this team to struggle. This team has a history of making opposing goalies look good.

I remember when they played Neuvirth in the playoffs and everyone wanted to throw pucks at him. He walked away with like .950 sv% iirc.

 

[offdacrossbar]

I know the Rangers practiced today at 11:30, does any one know if the lines remained intact?

As far as last night goes, the thing that makes the loss sting so much is that I think the Rangers played well enough to win....but didn't.

I think this team is definitely more creative than they were last year, but at the end of the day they have to start finding a way to put the puck in the net at even strength.

Rask was absolutely on top of this game last night, the one deflection that Nash had on net that Rask stopped with his shoulder was a great save.

As far as Lundqvist goes, he played a strong game, but I bet if you were to ask him he would say he probably should have at least stopped one of the goals. Unfortunately, for him since the rangers have only scored 2 goals in the past three games.....every goal against him is magnified.

Richards, while not playing awful, doesn't seem near as noticeable on offense as he was to start the year.

Even though he has to shoot when he has those chances, I've really liked Zucc's game this year. He has very good vision out there and I love the tenacity he has to muck it up with any one on the ice.

Girardi should take a discount if he wants to remain a ranger, he seems even a bit slower this year and I don't think his decision making has been very good.

Callahan is probably still playing with an ailing hand, he doesn't seem as noticeable right now as he usually is.

all good points. its easy to agree with those assertions and conclusions.

i still say we played really solid games vs la and boston. we outplayed 2 very good teams for most of those games. we cant score = we lost. thats the difference.

 

[McRanger]

Sure, I'll quietly and reluctantly step away from your query, which has provided so much conversation and thought-provoking banter.

As long as simple concepts need to be explained and re-explained there will always be a dearth of intelligent conversation on these boards.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

He went forehand backhand 5-hole did he not? It's a move you see plenty of NHL'ers use on breakaways that tends to get the goalie's legs to open up. And it WAS a lean breakaway in my book considering that Callahan had no effect on Paille whatsoever.

Maybe a little, but then Lundqvist got fooled easily, it wasn't much of a forehand backhand move. Also, I rarely see that move work (with the attempted finish between the legs). Usually it's between the bar. However, I'd bet it's 100 times easier to put a weak shot between the legs than roof it backhand.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Maybe a little, but then Lundqvist got fooled easily, it wasn't much of a forehand backhand move. Also, I rarely see that move work (with the attempted finish between the legs). Usually it's between the bar. However, I'd bet it's 100 times easier to put a weak shot between the legs than roof it backhand.

I dont see the need to analyze this play like the Zapruder film.

Wouldn't you agree that if a goaltender gives up 2 goals in an NHL game, the team should expect at least a point out of it?

 

[wolfgaze]

Was anyone else a bit frustrated that the Rangers weren't shooting 5-hole on Rask? Not suggesting he's necessarily weak there but for a goaltender who is so sound positionally, the chances in most situations are quite slim that the shooter is going to be able to pick off the corners perfectly without missing the net or hitting the goaltender and having it deflect wide. At least with shooting 5-hole you can try to create a juicy rebound. Would have liked to have seen Kreider try this on his 2 close scoring chances or Zuccarello when he passed up his shot.... Just shoot it low and hard at the 5-hole and head to the net for a rebound opportunity.

 

[Idlerlee]

Was anyone else a bit frustrated that the Rangers weren't shooting 5-hole on Rask? Not suggesting he's necessarily weak there but for a goaltender who is so sound positionally, the chances in most situations are quite slim that the shooter is going to be able to pick off the corners perfectly without missing the net or hitting the goaltender and having it deflect wide. At least with shooting 5-hole you can try to create a juicy rebound. Would have liked to have seen Kreider try this on his 2 close scoring chances or Zuccarello when he passed up his shot.... Just shoot it low and hard at the 5-hole and head to the net for a rebound opportunity.

Go for the nads!

 

[Vidic15*]

Go for the nads!

Absolutely. The vibration alone is debilitating.

 

[Unpredictable1]

As far as Lundqvist goes, he played a strong game, but I bet if you were to ask him he would say he probably should have at least stopped one of the goals.

Absolutely and thus is the life of goalie. You know in your head when you did a misplay and it ended up in the back of net when to world it doesn't seem like there was anything you could do. You get frustrated when a guy fools ya or squeaks one by. Comes with the position.

Or when you get a bit overconfident on a guy whose more of a grinder/plugger then he rips the perfect shot off the crossbar and in (ex: Thornton's goal)

I don't think anything should be done with the lines. However, hopefully Nash shakes the rust soon.

 

[Pastafazul*]

Cally should not be playing with skilled players. He doesn't have the think speed in order to work with more creative line mates. Cally will either freeze and telegraph a mediocre pass, make a blind risk play, or the safe dump around the boards. He is killing that line. I have never seen Cally have any chemistry with Richards whatsoever.

every once in awhile u come across a gem of a post, thank u!