Toggle sidebar

Around the NHL VI

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thunderhead said:
Maybe they just had a bad day when they played us .
Click to expand...

Well we played them twice and beat them twice. Why not give us some credit? I prefer to think that we're closer to the team that's been shutting teams down defensively before the Olympics rather than the team we've been the last few games.
 
someone stole hank said:
And yet they can't beat us
Click to expand...

The fact that they didn't beat us in the first game after Sochi doesn't mean they can't beat us lol

They had 10 guys in Sochi out of 20 playing that night. They never even went home to Chicago; New York was their first stop in the US. And we won 2-1. We had 6 Olympians but two didn't play that night (Hank and Zucc). Plus they all came home to NY, unlike the Hawks who met their teammates in NY. The Hawks are still THE class of the NHL, IMO. Won't be surprised by another Hawks/Bruins final at all. Our win over them is meaningless.
 
SERE 24 said:
The fact that they didn't beat us in the first game after Sochi doesn't mean they can't beat us lol

They had 10 guys in Sochi out of 20 playing that night. They never even went home to Chicago; New York was their first stop in the US. And we won 2-1. We had 6 Olympians but two didn't play that night (Hank and Zucc). Plus they all came home to NY, unlike the Hawks who met their teammates in NY. The Hawks are still THE class of the NHL, IMO. Won't be surprised by another Hawks/Bruins final at all. Our win over them is meaningless.
Click to expand...

They're still better than us, but we beat them twice. Sure we didn't have 2 Olympians playing for us, but on the other hand we didn't have 2 Olympians playing for us. We didn't have our starting goalie and our best forward (at the time). Why is it so easy for Rangers fans to criticize their own team but so hard to give them credit? What makes Rangers fans find only the negative in everything? We're not better than Chicago, but give us credit for having a good game. They also had like 3 days off. They weren't the same but the Rangers played a great game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SnowblindNYR said:
They're still better than us, but we beat them twice. Sure we didn't have 2 Olympians playing for us, but on the other hand we didn't have 2 Olympians playing for us. We didn't have our starting goalie and our best forward (at the time). Why is it so easy for Rangers fans to criticize their own team but so hard to give them credit? What makes Rangers fans find only the negative in everything? We're not better than Chicago, but give us credit for having a good game. They also had like 3 days off. They weren't the same but the Rangers played a great game.
Click to expand...

People also tend to forget how terrible the hawks were before the 10'season...how do you think they got toews and kane
 
So not St Louis, nor Callahan, nor Vanek, nor Gaborik had a point in their first games with their new teams?

More like scrub deadline, amirite?
 
SnowblindNYR said:
They're still better than us, but we beat them twice. It's really disgraceful that you can't even give the Rangers credit. Sure we didn't have 2 Olympians playing for us, but on the other hand we didn't have 2 Olympians playing for us. We didn't have our starting goalie and our best forward (at the time). Why is it so easy for Rangers fans to criticize their own team but so hard to give them credit? What makes Rangers fans find only the negative in everything? We're not better than Chicago, but give us credit for having a good game. They also had like 3 days off. They weren't the same but the Rangers played a great game.
Click to expand...

How am I criticizing them? It's fantasy land to think we would actually compete with them in a real seven game series. That's not criticism; they're the freaking Blackhawks. They've won the cup twice in the past three years and look primed to put up a strong defense of it again this year. Beating them in a couple of regular season games that are virtually meaningless to them is nice, and felt good, but it's nothing to hang our hats on. We're really grasping at straws if the best thing we can say about our team is "but we beat the Blackhawks twice in the regular season!!"

And my mention of them having literally 10 of their 18 skaters returning from Sochi and literally not even going home but flying straight to NY to be on a hotel on the road is actually pretty relevant. That's a huge number. Either way, it's not criticizing the team. I didn't say anything negative about them. The post wasn't like "we can't touch the Hawks, our defense blows and our forwards can't score to save their lives. We suck and we're missing the playoffs so we should just tank." It was just, basically "we beat them but it's not something to be used as indicator of where we're at or how good we are."

And YOU of ALL people have no right to say not starting Hank was a disadvantage with how much you've berated him, not just this year but at virtually all times.
 
Tune into the Sharks Pens game on NBCSN if you're going to be up late. Awesome start. No whistle for the first 5:30 of the game. A lot of energy in the game.
 
SERE 24 said:
How am I criticizing them? It's fantasy land to think we would actually compete with them in a real seven game series. That's not criticism; they're the freaking Blackhawks. They've won the cup twice in the past three years and look primed to put up a strong defense of it again this year. Beating them in a couple of regular season games that are virtually meaningless to them is nice, and felt good, but it's nothing to hang our hats on. We're really grasping at straws if the best thing we can say about our team is "but we beat the Blackhawks twice in the regular season!!"

And my mention of them having literally 10 of their 18 skaters returning from Sochi and literally not even going home but flying straight to NY to be on a hotel on the road is actually pretty relevant. That's a huge number. Either way, it's not criticizing the team. I didn't say anything negative about them. The post wasn't like "we can't touch the Hawks, our defense blows and our forwards can't score to save their lives. We suck and we're missing the playoffs so we should just tank." It was just, basically "we beat them but it's not something to be used as indicator of where we're at or how good we are."

And YOU of ALL people have no right to say not starting Hank was a disadvantage with how much you've berated him, not just this year but at virtually all times.
Click to expand...

Except I didn't say you criticized them, just that Rangers fans love criticizing the team when they do something wrong, but when they do something well you give them no credit (that's you in this situation). And what was the excuse the first time we beat them? You just don't want to give the Rangers credit at all for playing a good game. I never said we were better the Hawks, but to say that it meant nothing is ridiculous. It shows that when we're playing well we can play with anyone. Until this rough stretch we also destroyed the Avs and beat the Pens who we completely outplayed. I never said we'll beat the Hawks in a best of 7, but you saying that it doesn't show that we're a good team when we're playing our best and is meaningless shows that you have an agenda. You'd rather make excuses why the Rangers aren't good than give the team credit for playing well. As far as Lundqvist, I love it you seem to disagree with me about him but so that you can trash the Rangers you'll pretend like it wasn't a disadvantage. Lundqvist when he's playing well is a much better goalie than Talbot, except he's not played well that often this season, but going into the olympics he had a very nice stretch (though I will say the D helped him a lot).
 
SnowblindNYR said:
Except I didn't say you criticized them, just that Rangers fans love criticizing the team when they do something wrong, but when they do something well you give them no credit (that's you in this situation). And what was the excuse the first time we beat them? You just don't want to give the Rangers credit at all for playing a good game. I never said we were better the Hawks, but to say that it meant nothing is ridiculous. It shows that when we're playing well we can play with anyone. Until this rough stretch we also destroyed the Avs and beat the Pens who we completely outplayed. I never said we'll beat the Hawks in a best of 7, but you saying that it doesn't show that we're a good team when we're playing our best and is meaningless shows that you have an agenda. You'd rather make excuses why the Rangers aren't good than give the team credit for playing well. As far as Lundqvist, I love it you seem to disagree with me about him but so that you can trash the Rangers you'll pretend like it wasn't a disadvantage. Lundqvist when he's playing well is a much better goalie than Talbot, except he's not played well that often this season, but going into the olympics he had a very nice stretch (though I will say the D helped him a lot).
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was an advantage to play Talbot. I just think it's funny that you can't stand Hank and think he should be backing up Talbot this year until it suits your own agenda. Anyhow, I really haven't failed to give the Rangers credit. I simply said beating the Hawks in some regular season games really isn't an indicator of anything.

We played a good game against a good team that wasn't playing their best. It always feels good to beat a big time contender. I didn't say it was meaningless for the Rangers either; I said it was fairly meaningless for the Hawks, who are basically guaranteed a top playoff seed and are already the defending the champs, playing a borderline playoff team and non-rival.

There's really nothing wrong with what I said. We beat the Hawks in the regular season; woo hoo. I gave them credit for a good game played the night that it happened. It's a week later and we're struggling to stay in the playoff picture while they're still the team to beat in the NHL. If the only way we can make ourselves feel better is to say "but they can't beat us" when they're blowing teams out, it's really not much. My point was, in response to a post that literally said "they can't beat us" that, just because we have beaten them certainly isn't any kind of indicator that they "can't" beat us. Relax.
 
SERE 24 said:
I didn't say it was an advantage to play Talbot. I just think it's funny that you can't stand Hank and think he should be backing up Talbot this year until it suits your own agenda. Anyhow, I really haven't failed to give the Rangers credit. I simply said beating the Hawks in some regular season games really isn't an indicator of anything.

We played a good game against a good team that wasn't playing their best. It always feels good to beat a big time contender. I didn't say it was meaningless for the Rangers either; I said it was fairly meaningless for the Hawks, who are basically guaranteed a top playoff seed and are already the defending the champs, playing a borderline playoff team and non-rival.

There's really nothing wrong with what I said. We beat the Hawks in the regular season; woo hoo. I gave them credit for a good game played the night that it happened. It's a week later and we're struggling to stay in the playoff picture while they're still the team to beat in the NHL. If the only way we can make ourselves feel better is to say "but they can't beat us" when they're blowing teams out, it's really not much. My point was, in response to a post that literally said "they can't beat us" that, just because we have beaten them certainly isn't any kind of indicator that they "can't" beat us. Relax.
Click to expand...

I mean that post was stupid. But you basically saying that it means nothing that we beat them is silly. What agenda do I have? The one that gives our team props for beating a great team despite missing 2 of their best players? I **** on Lundqvist because I feel like he's underachieving but when he's playing well he's a better goalie than Talbot. The fact that we beat Chicago without Lundqvist standing on his head is impressive no matter how much you want to discredit the win.
 
I know we weren't very good in the last game against Boston, but damn Washington is just not a good team. 16 shots against Boston? We had 14 shots in like 10 minutes against them and over 40 total.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom