Post-Game Talk: #46 Rangers @ Panthers

[Dangleberry]

All we have to do is force the next 2 games into OT and we're in.

 

[Jabroni]

I can't? You make goaltending sound like the easiest job in the world. First goal is on Hank, because, well, half the rosters on the ice were in front of the goal and it was deflected, but he still should have saved it. Should've? Don't you mean could've? Ok. Nevermind that the pointmen always have a field day in our zone and all our players do is screen our own goaltender. And if our opponents don't deflect it, our players will. One wine bottle to the team this season, I wonder why? Because this happens every frigging game and this collapse strategy is collapsing on itself? No, it must be because of Hank.

The second goal is of course purely Hank's fault. Well sure, it was on a PP, it was scored by an uncontested player - standing all alone right in the slot - on a tip-in shot, on a pass that forced Hank to move laterally, but other than that, my god what a weak goal! He sure was sleepwalking the entire game! He obviously didn't understand how important this game was. Those highlight reel saves he made were just an anomaly.

Calling the 2nd goal a bummer is one thing. Calling it "horrendeus" is ridiculous. Throwing him under the bus like you just did is icing on the cake. Which hyperboles will you have left when he has a truly bad performance? For all it's worth Jonathan, blaming a loss such as this one on the goalie is so... I don't know what. Hyperbolian in itself?

You call me a Lundqvist homer, I call you Rangers fans affected by the Lundqvist syndrome. You've become so spoiled when it comes down to goaltending having that guy between the pipes for so many years, you've lost perspective. "Scott Stajcer makes that save". I will enjoy reading the GDTs the first season after Hank is gone. It'll be 500 pages of goaltending bashing and it'll take a decade before any goaltender is good enough to be able to play in the Garden again without being thrown under the bus by the crowd.

Agreed completely with your comments on the second goal. He was moving to where he anticipated the puck to go, but it was deflected back in the other direction and went through his legs.

 

[Championship*]

You can't prove things by stating data from a small sample size. And in fact given that there is a spread of teams who win and that only one team can win per year it's going to be essentially impossible for there ever to be a statisitcally significant sample size to tell you how often a given seed should expect to win.

Additionally even with your useless sample size I don't know if you are trying to dispute my point or prove my not. I said the two number 1 seeds combined should have ~36% to win the Cup. I don't know what we can expect it to be for the 2 and 3 and I'm at work now and don't have time to try and work it out but if you say the 2 drops to maybe 25% and the 3 drops to maybe 10% (maybe that's low for the 3 but the 3 seed is often much worse than the 4 or 5). that gives you 71% right there.

I never said it was disadvantageous to be a top seed. I just said a lower seed is still very capable (and yes, still unlikely) of winning. But ever writing a team off because of a seed is just wrong. This is not the NBA where the difference between the 1 and 8 is extremely large. There is a lot of parity and the differences between teams in the tier of playoffs is not that great that one is expected to win a given game 80-90% of the time.

Until lower seeded teams start winning with regularity then I'm still right.

"Anything can happen"

I could win the lottery today
I could be struck by lightning
The penguins could massacre the Rangers in 4 games
Rangers Stanley cup champions 2013

Of those four which is MOST LIKELY to happen?

 

[Ail]

I'm still trying to figure out what Hank did wrong to get the blame for anything last night.

Gets screened by 3-4 players and a goal is deflected and goes in and that's his fault?

When that happens, you try to be as big as you can in front of the net and HOPE you get a piece.

He did nothing wrong there.

on the 2nd goal I don't see what he could have done any differently. The pass that got deflected in was also screened. Another situation where you are moving side to side, two players in close and one guy in the high slot un-touched.

At some point you have to tip your cap to the other team for a nice play which that was.

Lundqvist was not the problem last night. Not even close.

That's the hilarious irony of it. On one hand they claim the Panthers' D looked good, Markstrom was the better goalie and the otherwise anemic Rangers' offense played well, but the Panthers kept them at bay. However when it comes to the Panthers' goals it was Hank's fault and they were stoppable on a routine night for him. Makes complete sense.

Chimp hit the nail on the head, dead on. It's ridiculous people are claiming that second goal especially was soft or should have been saved. Lundqvist has bad games and bad goals, and he even has them at bad times. Last night was not one of those nights.

 

[Ail]

Until lower seeded teams start winning with regularity then I'm still right.

"Anything can happen"

I could win the lottery today
I could be struck by lightning
The penguins could massacre the Rangers in 4 games
Rangers Stanley cup champions 2013

Of those four which is MOST LIKELY to happen?

But dude... anything can happen!

 

[Thirty One]

Until lower seeded teams start winning with regularity then I'm still right.

"Anything can happen"

I could win the lottery today
I could be struck by lightning
The penguins could massacre the Rangers in 4 games
Rangers Stanley cup champions 2013

Of those four which is MOST LIKELY to happen?

Lightning.

 

[The Gloaming]

At least Ailurophile watched the game. It sounds like some others scoreboard-watched the entire game.

 

[Championship*]

The realistic statistical chance to win the Cup is not the point. If you go in to the post-season with a mediocre roster and playing uninspired hockey, you're going to get put down like a blind dog with bunk legs. I don't care if your statistical chance is 99.9%. Last year there was a good reason to be excited and positive for the playoffs. No one expected that team to win the East, and on paper it wasn't a team people expected to dominate, but they were playing good hockey most of the year and Henrik had a career year.

This year is just like every other year the Rangers scrape by in to the post-season. Why would you have anything other than low expectations? To torture yourself?

Anything can happen. I can walk out my door this morning and find a pile of gold on my car, and a leprechaun dancing around playing a ****ing pan flute. I could go to work today and get made CEO. I could find a dragon egg on the side of the road and hatch it. However, realistically I can walk out my door, get in my car, go to work, and come home like I do normally every day and nothing extraordinary or unusual will happen. That's because even though ANYTHING can happen, at ANYTIME, the things most likely to happen, given my situation and the way the world is around me, are going to happen. Not fanciful ******** from wishful thinking.

The playoffs are delaying the inevitable. RESET BUTTON please.

This post cannot be restated enough.

"Anything can happen"


Next year I'm gonna make the rangers. Because, you know, anything could happen, right?

 

[Championship*]

At least Ailurophile watched the game. It sounds like some others scoreboard-watched the entire game.

I watched the whole game. I don't care if they put up 1000 shots. Playoffs on the line, you cannot lose to the worst team in the league.

 

[JD123]

All we have to do is force the next 2 games into OT and we're in.

If that will be the case I will make sure to stock up on anti-anxiety meds. Those would not be fun games to watch. Bottom line is wake the **** up and grind out a win in Carolina.

 

[The Gloaming]

I watched the whole game. I don't care if they put up 1000 shots. Playoffs on the line, you cannot lose to the worst team in the league.

I know that all of their shots sucked.

I'm talking about people blaming Hank for two deflected goals.

 

[JD123]

I'm still trying to figure out what Hank did wrong to get the blame for anything last night.

Gets screened by 3-4 players and a goal is deflected and goes in and that's his fault?

When that happens, you try to be as big as you can in front of the net and HOPE you get a piece.

He did nothing wrong there.

on the 2nd goal I don't see what he could have done any differently. The pass that got deflected in was also screened. Another situation where you are moving side to side, two players in close and one guy in the high slot un-touched.

At some point you have to tip your cap to the other team for a nice play which that was.

Lundqvist was not the problem last night. Not even close.

Agreed! You let a team hang in and eventually you will get burned. You score no goals thru two periods against the worst team in hockey. A team that has nothing to lose with young players busting their butt. Eventually they will get a screen/deflection/a bounce that leads to a goal and YOU get BURNED! The powerplay continues to hurt this team and that is the main reason they can never close out or bury a team. If they bury a powerplay goal in the first two periods they bury the Panthers.

 

[Dangleberry]

If that will be the case I will make sure to stock up on anti-anxiety meds. Those would not be fun games to watch. Bottom line is wake the **** up and grind out a win in Carolina.

That would be the easier way. This is the Ranger's we're talking about here.....

 

[aufheben]

This post cannot be restated enough.

"Anything can happen"


Next year I'm gonna make the rangers. Because, you know, anything could happen, right?

The playoffs are unpredictable, upsets happen every year. You guys talking about dragon eggs and whatnot doesn't prove anything.

Go ask Penguins fans if they want to play us.

 

[Bardof425*]

I hated the call right away... especially when we have a PP... they can ice the puck over and over until they get an EN goal. It only took one this time... but there was what? 1:02 on the clock still.

In effect Torts made the game 1:00 shorter while down by a goal.

Dumb.

I don't like this call because we routinely lose the draw at the beginning of our PP and they clear. Now they can end the game by hitting a open net which makes the points tentative and defeats the purpose of having the man advantage. With 20 seconds left and a draw in their zone (true desparation time), I pull Hank and take my shot. Not before.

 

[Bardof425*]

Lightning.

Agree

 

[Bardof425*]

That would be the easier way. This is the Ranger's we're talking about here.....

Anyone who knows this team, knows that the Jets will win tomorrow night and we will lose and Saturday will mean everything.

 

[LittleKev6D9]

The playoffs are unpredictable, upsets happen every year. You guys talking about dragon eggs and whatnot doesn't prove anything.

Go ask Penguins fans if they want to play us.

They sure do. Just like in March Madness there were a handful of quality upsets. Too bad the best team in the tournament ended up winning the whole thing.

Maybe, the Rangers can claw their way to the ECSF, or even ECF. But a great team is going to win the Cup, and this is not a great team. They are a good team.

 

[Kershaw]

If the difference between being last in the league and 1st in the east is Henrik Lundqvist, he's not getting paid enough.

Agreed.

Edit: Well actually, disagree. He is getting paid on par for a franchise player.

 

[Chimpradamus]

... If you're going to stand in the line of sight of the shot - you better be blocking the puck because you're making quite a bit harder for the keeper to pick up. I've been known to knock my own players out of the way if they're close enough to me no different than if it was an opponent...

This is the part that I specifically want to comment on. We are 46 games into the season and it's almost over. We are at the playoff crunch. Every single game we've had issues with shots going right through from the point. Every time it's dangerous and a potent scoring threat.

Their pointmen is at a point where MSG can start charging them for rent. Collapse, collapse, collapse. What's worse is, our players aren't being as effective blocking the shot as what legitimize them standing there like they're in a line buying beer, effectively blocking Hank's view every single time. Or even worse, they not only block Hank's view, they deflect the puck as well into the pinball machine of death. Sure, we're high in the shot blocking apartment yet again this year. But it is worth it?

As to my question: What has our coach done to correct this during these 46 games? If it doesn't work, adapt! Get them out of there, attack the point, focus on the rebounds instead of the initial shot, do anything! Anything is better than making your own goalie feeling an urge to strangle you. Honestly, I would rather see us take the Boston approach and rely on the goalie to make the initial save - by making sure he sees it - and focus on the rebound.

"We struggle. Randomize lines."
"We struggle, let's yell at them a little."
"We struggle, let's randomly bench somebody."
"We struggle, more JAM!"
"That line is working, let's split them up to even out our scoring distribution! Return to randomize. Oh, look, we're struggling again!"

Great coaching, Torts! This is going awesome! It's not as if we're not completely screwed if we don't score the first goal, essentially making us a mediocre bubble team as standard. Flip a coin. A big problem why is we can't score the first goal on the road, because your strategy only works if you have the last change apparently (70 goals scored at home, 48 away).

It's not as if we consistently allow a goal from the point, because this problem hasn't been corrected whatsoever since game 1. It's not as our PP sucks ass because you and your dumbnut to your right continue with moves like putting the passing wizard Dan Girardi (I like Girardi, but he's not a puck distributor yet by any stretch of the imagination) on the point and other small strokes of genius. We haven't had a PP run well with Girardi since he arrived here. Do you know what the definition of insanity is, John?

The personel is fine. The coaching and his strategy for what is effective hockey is not.

 

[aufheben]

They sure do. Just like in March Madness there were a handful of quality upsets. Too bad the best team in the tournament ended up winning the whole thing.

Maybe, the Rangers can claw their way to the ECSF, or even ECF. But a great team is going to win the Cup, and this is not a great team. They are a good team.

Alright well, I don't know anything about basketball except its orange, but in hockey the President's Trophy winner more often than not, doesn't win it all. I don't think the Rangers are going to win it this year, (next), but I'm not gonna act like I know it.

 

[Thirty One]

but I'm not gonna act like I know it.

You don't fit in here.

 

[LittleKev6D9]

Alright well, I don't know anything about basketball except its orange, but in hockey the President's Trophy winner more often than not, doesn't win it all. I don't think the Rangers are going to win it this year, (next), but I'm not gonna act like I know it.

I'm pretty sure the President's Trophy winner wins the Cup more than any other seeding (1st in other conference, 2nd in East, 2nd in West, etc.)

I don't have stats for backing up, but I read that somewhere.

 

[aufheben]

I'm pretty sure the President's Trophy winner wins the Cup more than any other seeding (1st in other conference, 2nd in East, 2nd in West, etc.)

I don't have stats for backing up, but I read that somewhere.

Well, even if that's true, that doesn't necessarily mean a PT+Cup winner happens often. The only PT+Cup winner post-lockout was the 07-08 Red Wings. Actually, more than half (4) of the post-lockout PT winners were eliminated in the quarterfinals, aka by the 8th seed.

 

[GFiP*]

Still pissed about this game, don't even want to watch hockey for the next few days...