"Blame the refs" vs. "Blame the team"...which camp are you in?

[ReggieDunlop68]

I don't get this line of thinking. You don't just score at will at this level! It's the finals for a reason. With that in mind, a pp doesn't negate a GOAL that shoud have been disallowed with a PP awarded to us. As for favorable calls for and against, I'd say the non calls heavily favored LA. The Rangers whole game is predicated upon speed which was largely negated by their mastery of obstruction and interference. So, either way the calls favored the opposition.

You don't understand the reasoning that people perceive that the refs cost us the entire series because the Rangers couldn't capitalize on all the other opportunities?

And in terms of scoring at will, ask Mark Messier about game 6 of the ECF in 1994 the next time you see him.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Why do you have to be in "either" camp? I believe this goes 7 without the refs but we lose. I also believe that the Rangers played VERY VERY poorly in key times. I'm in the league of both.

That said it's not a "loser mentality". I'm sorry this goes a lot deeper than that. When your league puts incompetent boobs in 2 of 5 games at the greatest stage in the sport, and arguably the greatest stage ever given the two markets, to put it mildly there are problems with the league. Whoever said that can't see the forest for the trees. It's not an "oopsydaisy". It's emblematic of a league that lacks any credibility in my eyes right now. If these are the best refs this league can come up with, this league has serious, serious problems. That's way bigger than blaming one random series in SC history on the refs. The league is rotten at the core and this series was everything that's wrong with it.

 

[Idlerlee]

Questionable calls will even out eventually, and is really nothing to discuss. It leaves a incredibly sour taste when calls that are unquestionably wrong directly result in goals against.

Game 2 and Game 5 especially.

If players of any team had any kind of intregrity they would rectify the sitaution, but that kind of sportsmanship is too much to ask for, all the time hockeyplayers are diving like little girls.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

the problem with the bad calls is it seemed like they almost always ended up in the back of our net as a direct result of the call, and when we got favorable calls, we never made the opposition pay.

the reason for that?

inconsistent PP.

the reason for that?

Brad Richards.


i point my fingers squarely at him as the biggest disappointment in these playoffs for the Rangers.

It's funny their PP wasn't really better than ours. Our percentages would be probably near identical if Pouliot scored in game 4 1 second earlier. They did get that big goal in game 5. Hell, you can argue our PP was better. They allowed 2 shorthanded goals in the series to our zero.

 

[Cake or Death]

I think it is normal to initially lay blame at the refs and I certainly did my share of it. But as a person who writes non-fiction success material for a living, I had to come back to what I know is correct and drop the ref blaming. Honestly, can you find a true champion who blames external circumstances for their results? With respect to the topic at hand I think this says it well:

"One thing about championship teams is that they're resilient. No matter what is thrown at them, no matter how deep the hole, they find a way to bounce back and overcome adversity." -Coach Nick Saban​

^ We did not do that in the Final, LA found ways to do it all playoffs. Tip of the hat to them. Beyond blowing off steam I do not think one can blame the refs and I believe the following statement, from one of our own, speaks volumes on the matter:

"The sign of a winner is to come back under any adversity." -Mike Richter​

Again, we did not do that. Hank probably further etched his path to the Hall these playoffs, but this NYR team lost. What will define them is how they respond to it.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I think it is normal to initially lay blame at the refs and I certainly did my share of it. But as a person who writes non-fiction success material for a living, I had to come back to what I know is correct and drop the ref blaming. Honestly, can you find a true champion who blames external circumstances for their results? With respect to the topic at hand I think this says it well:

"One thing about championship teams is that they're resilient. No matter what is thrown at them, no matter how deep the hole, they find a way to bounce back and overcome adversity." -Coach Nick Saban​

^ We did not do that in the Final, LA found ways to do it all playoffs. Tip of the hat to them. Beyond blowing off steam I do not think one can blame the refs and I believe the following statement, from one of our own, speaks volumes on the matter:

"The sign of a winner is to come back under any adversity." -Mike Richter​

Again, we did not do that. Hank probably further etched his path to the Hall these playoffs, but this NYR team lost. What will define them is how they respond to it.

That may be true when you're playing Vancouver circa 94, not when you're playing one of the top 2 winners in recent memory in the Kings. I'm sorry I disagree. It's so easy to say that, but reality is when you're the underdog and playing a great team manufactured adversity by the refs will **** you up. Teams in general are too close, but when one is better than the other, that's enough of an edge. 3 gift goals in 5 games is way too much to give a team like the Kings in a series that featured 3 OT games and 5 OT periods.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

I am in the camp of inconsistent calls and lack of finishing ability from our team, so both. The answer that takes many more items into account

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

That may be true when you're playing Vancouver circa 94, not when you're playing one of the top 2 winners in recent memory in the Kings. I'm sorry I disagree. It's so easy to say that, but reality is when you're the underdog and playing a great team manufactured adversity by the refs will **** you up. Teams in general are too close, but when one is better than the other, that's enough of an edge. 3 gift goals in 5 games is way too much to give a team like the Kings in a series that featured 3 OT games and 5 OT periods.

Wait...I'm confused...

LA was better than us and we were the underdogs, but the refs gifted the series to the favorites, the Kings, because the Rangers were not as good, yet the Rangers would have capitalized if they were gifted the series because underdogs...

I am not following this.

 

[Sayba]

I blame the refs, not saying we would have won the series but the refs took away the opportunity to make it a longer series where you never know.

 

[TruBlue]

Blame the team...In every sport every coach tells their team not to leave the outcome in the hands of the officials.

Sometimes one team is better than the other and that's as simple as it gets...NHL officiating has been terrible for decades...we got out share of good and bad so no this isn't the reason.

The reason is one team was able to hold off the onslaught when they say on the lead and the other team (NYR) wasn't...once you get to OT anything can happen and the Kings converted when the Rangers didn't.

I would really question the wisdom of trying to PK every 3rd period we had a lead...dumping the puck to make a line change was the 3rd period strategy and it came back to bite them in every game except 3 (no lead) and 4 (Thanks to Hank)

 

[NYR713]

I definitely don't blame the refs. Rangers played hard, some calls and luck went both ways. I don't blame the whole team either, just the big money guys who didn't play like big money guys. The way our young core players played, they should have been supplemental scorers rather than the majority of our top scorers carrying the team during the playoffs.

Richards is awful. He chipped in some points in the earlier series but he's an absolute turnover machine. When he does actually get a pass to a teammate, it's usually in their skates. He wasn't bad as a 3rd line center, 5 on 5, but isn't being paid to be a 3rd line center. He's horrendous on the point on the PP too.

Nash did a lot of the little things, but his heart was missing a lot of the time. Plus, you don't pay a guy 7.8M to do the little things. That is what someone like Dom Moore and Brian Boyle are paid less than 2M to do. Nash is paid big bucks to score goals and he just didn't do it.

MSL was average. He had some great moments and disappeared for long stretches. And he can't stay on his skates when there is an adult hockey player near him. I don't know how Tampa protected his size, allowing him to score so much when he was with them because he looked like a guy who barely has the physical abilities to compete with the big men of the NHL, whereas Zucc plays well above his size level. Maybe it's age, but how did this guy win the scoring title last season, PPG with Tampa this season(with Stamkos injured half the season) then pretty much immediately drop to almost .5 PPG with NY? I just don't get it.

With the depth players doing their jobs and Hank standing on his head, this team could have performed that much better if these guys, taking up 20M+ in cap space(about 1/3 of last seasons cap), played the way they're paid to.

 

[KOVALEV022473]

You don't understand the reasoning that people perceive that the refs cost us the entire series because the Rangers couldn't capitalize on all the other opportunities?

And in terms of scoring at will, ask Mark Messier about game 6 of the ECF in 1994 the next time you see him.

What does this reply even mean? Your wit and sarcasm is just way out of my league. My point, as elementary as I tried to make it was that opportunities don't = goals. This is the last I'll comment on this, as I'll never change your mind, and you'll definitely not change mine.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

I'm in the "credit LA" camp.

The Rangers played a more than solid series. It just seemed like, in key moments, LA just ramped it up and took over. In the 3rds and OTs we can look back at chances...but it always felt like the Kings were in control. Not because of a lack of trying, effort, poor gameplan from the Rangers...LA was just better when it mattered IMO.

 

[yrrebbor]

The refs made bad calls, but the Rangers blew A LOT of opportunities and leads.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Wait...I'm confused...

LA was better than us and we were the underdogs, but the refs gifted the series to the favorites, the Kings, because the Rangers were not as good, yet the Rangers would have capitalized if they were gifted the series because underdogs...

I am not following this.

An underdog team can beat a better team in a 7 game series. Pro sports, especially hockey where so much depends on luck and a goalie is not like a math problem. It's not as simple as LA>NYR. I don't think they were gifted the series, I think LA probably takes the series in 7 not 5, if not for incompetent reffing. That said, due to luck and Lundqvist going into superhuman mode at times, no one knows how it would have ended. The Kings should have lost games 2 and 5, but the refs made sure they didn't. So unless the Kings changed their intensity or something in game 4, we'd likely be up 3-2. At that point, while I still think LA would win the series, a Lundqvist masterpiece along with a fluky bounce or two could mean that we're parading the cup despite not being as good as LA. Or are you one of the people that doesn't believe that the better team ever loses? That's simplistic thinking.

 

[RangerBlues]

Rangers could not finish. Simple as that.

 

[aufheben]

I'm in the "credit LA" camp.

The Rangers played a more than solid series. It just seemed like, in key moments, LA just ramped it up and took over. In the 3rds and OTs we can look back at chances...but it always felt like the Kings were in control. Not because of a lack of trying, effort, poor gameplan from the Rangers...LA was just better when it mattered IMO.

Hah, this. There's two teams on the ice.

 

[Wolfy*]

The refs made bad calls, but the Rangers blew A LOT of opportunities and leads.

Yeah both teams had to deal with some questionable officiating, but I'm sure the refs did the best they could in a very intense game.

In my opinion this thread should be closed.

We really shouldn't sound like a bunch of losers. We fought really hard but eventually fell to the better opponent. We should be proud of our team!

 

[haveandare]

i give credit to the opposition.

damn good team.

Absolutely. I think were gonna look back on that team when some of their youth develops more and see that it was a serious juggernaut.

We were deep, but couldn't match their depth.

Also, maybe I'm alone on this, but I blame AV to an extent. That defensive shell strategy was mind numbingly stupid. Do whatever you have to to win, but that strategy wasn't helping them win at all. It led to the kings absolutely dominating them, and Hank trying to stop them all by himself. Mark my words, that strategy will never, ever work against a serious offense in a 7 game series.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I don't get this line of thinking. You don't just score at will at this level! It's the finals for a reason. With that in mind, a pp doesn't negate a GOAL that shoud have been disallowed with a PP awarded to us. As for favorable calls for and against, I'd say the non calls heavily favored LA. The Rangers whole game is predicated upon speed which was largely negated by their mastery of obstruction and interference. So, either way the calls favored the opposition.

Was this you?

You don't understand the reasoning that people perceive that the refs cost us the entire series because the Rangers couldn't capitalize on all the other opportunities?

And in terms of scoring at will, ask Mark Messier about game 6 of the ECF in 1994 the next time you see him.

The Mark Messier reference was in regard to willing a game and overcoming adversity

What does this reply even mean? Your wit and sarcasm is just way out of my league. My point, as elementary as I tried to make it was that opportunities don't = goals. This is the last I'll comment on this, as I'll never change your mind, and you'll definitely not change mine.

For everyone, or just the Rangers?

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

An underdog team can beat a better team in a 7 game series. Pro sports, especially hockey where so much depends on luck and a goalie is not like a math problem. It's not as simple as LA>NYR. I don't think they were gifted the series, I think LA probably takes the series in 7 not 5, if not for incompetent reffing. That said, due to luck and Lundqvist going into superhuman mode at times, no one knows how it would have ended. The Kings should have lost games 2 and 5, but the refs made sure they didn't. So unless the Kings changed their intensity or something in game 4, we'd likely be up 3-2. At that point, while I still think LA would win the series, a Lundqvist masterpiece along with a fluky bounce or two could mean that we're parading the cup despite not being as good as LA. Or are you one of the people that doesn't believe that the better team ever loses? That's simplistic thinking.

This makes more sense.

I have the belief that over an entire season and 4 rounds of the playoffs, the best team wins. In this case the better team has accomplished this twice over a period of three years.

I'm very upset we didn't win the cup, but I will not resort to focusing on a call.

Why watch this sport so intently if it's just the matter of a bounce of over an entire season?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

This makes more sense.

I have the belief that over an entire season and 4 rounds of the playoffs, the best team wins. In this case the better team has accomplished this twice over a period of three years.

I'm very upset we didn't win the cup, but I will not resort to focusing on a call.

Why watch this sport so intently if it's just the matter of a bounce of over an entire season?

I feel like that's one of the reasons people yell from the mountain tops that best team won, it's gut wrenching to use some critical reasoning and ask whether that's the case. Because then it makes your investment of time and energy seem wasted a bit if you watched a season and a series could be won because of some bad luck. But look at the WCF. The Kings won on a fluke goal. Look at the 2nd round. Game 6, Kings win 2-1. One of the goals scored by the Kings was uber soft, what if Gibson stops it. What if on a blocked shot from the point, the puck hits a skate on a point shot at a different angle and goes in? What if a call goes Anaheim's way and they tie it? Lots of luck is involved. Honestly, as I said, I think that we still lose the series, but honestly, even if you forget the calls, we're inches away in two OT games from winning and possibly being up 3-2. The NHL despite having joke officials, has the most talent in the world, with the best coaches, most games come down to bounces. 7 games (at most) is not enough to even it out. Even over 82 games you see fluke teams like the Leafs and Panthers be successful.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Also before my "most games come down to bounces" comment ends up being used against me, bad bounces are different than refs being incompetent. You can't do anything about bounces, the league needs to train their refs better, or hire better people.

 

[RangersFan]

The Kings dominated the play...

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I feel like that's one of the reasons people yell from the mountain tops that best team won, it's gut wrenching to use some critical reasoning and ask whether that's the case. Because then it makes your investment of time and energy seem wasted a bit if you watched a season and a series could be won because of some bad luck. But look at the WCF. The Kings won on a fluke goal. Look at the 2nd round. Game 6, Kings win 2-1. One of the goals scored by the Kings was uber soft, what if Gibson stops it. What if on a blocked shot from the point, the puck hits a skate on a point shot at a different angle and goes in? What if a call goes Anaheim's way and they tie it? Lots of luck is involved. Honestly, as I said, I think that we still lose the series, but honestly, even if you forget the calls, we're inches away in two OT games from winning and possibly being up 3-2. The NHL despite having joke officials, has the most talent in the world, with the best coaches, most games come down to bounces. 7 games (at most) is not enough to even it out. Even over 82 games you see fluke teams like the Leafs and Panthers be successful.

The best team may lose a shift.

The best team may lose a string of games in the regular season

The best team may get behind during a playoff round

but the best team wins, and that is why the Stanley Cup is so great

What burns me is not the bounces. What burns me is that the team was built in such a manner that they needed the goaltender to play as if he weren't human and the unfortunate loss of St. Louis' mother to spark the brotherhood just to almost get swept in the finals.

I can't recall every single non call, post, missed shot, etc. from every team from opening day until the cup is handed to the victor, but from what my neurons do recall over the years is that the sum total of a franchise's success over a decade or more is not a simple crapshoot.