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

[Pizza]

It's tough call but in the end you can't have as many turn overs, odd man rushes, missed opportunities, blown leads and non performers as the Rangers had and expect to win.

Given all of the above the Rangers deserve tremendous credit for going as far as they did.

The Kings just wore the Rangers down when that was what the Rangers did so well to other teams. The Kings had the advantage in speed, size and tenacity. I don't think I've ever seen a team use their sticks so well in both zones.

The Kings main advantage, imo was their ability to move the puck into the Rangers zone and have a big body moving to the net with a shot coming from the point.

There is a lot of disagreement here on the topic of size. I've talked about it like a broken record. Some folks disagree with me very strongly with all kinds of stats and other stuff like "toffness". Plainly the Rangers could use some players that are a bit bigger and are willing ready and able to go to the net. At the same time speed can not be compromised. It's a tough combination to put in place. But to me at least that was the key advantage the Kings had.

I'll say it again. Rick Nash is the most obvious example of how a big guy playing small can hurt a team.

Champions don't make excuses. They find ways to win and celebrate and leave the excuse making to the losers.

 

[indfin]

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.

then the refs really only gave the Kings the one goal in one game (goalie interference, which (as a Devils fan) I thought should have resulted in no goal and no penalty). The other "blown calls" simply gave the Kings PP opportunities ...which they took advantage of).

 

[SnowblindNYR]

That's only because Montreal isn't as good of a 3rd period team as LA is. It was the same strategy, but with more success due to a lesser opponent.

But we weren't playing a passive 3rd period unlike the 3rd periods against the Kings. We looked like the Kings against Montreal.

 

[haveandare]

But we weren't playing a passive 3rd period unlike the 3rd periods against the Kings. We looked like the Kings against Montreal.

Yup. Regardless of how it worked against other teams, that passive of a strategy didn't work against the Kings at all at any point. The coaching staff should have noticed that.

That's the first thing I want the coaching staff to do this offseason in terms of strategy - come up with a plan B to close out games when that strategy obviously isn't working.

I'm not saying it's all their fault by any means, but damn, I would have liked to see that changed after the first or second game.

 

[Grifter3511]

If all things were equal you could blame the refs, but unfortunately we lost to a better team.

I'm proud of our guys. We played hard and well. We gave it our all and we came up short. Refs will make bad calls forever. Champions find ways to overcome them.

Give credit to the LA Kings. But be proud of our Rangers.

 

[NYRCSKA*]

The top 2 reasons we lost the cup this year.
1) Rick Nash
2) Brad Richards

Paid them 16 million between them to not show up for the Stanley Cup Finals. I hope neither ever plays for this team again.

 

[Killem Dafoe]

No excuses. Those games were winnable regardless of the reffing.

 

[hoglund]

the officiating was a little below par, but LA was the better team. In my opinion the best team didn't win the Stanley Cup. It should have been Boston or Chicago, but neither of them even made it to the finals, just proves that the winner of any championship isn't necessarily the best team.

 

[eco's bones]

The argument for me here is not which team played the best in the series. The Kings had the territorial advantage throughout the series. They had to some degree the advantage in shots and chances.

However when someone asks whether the referees had some influence on how the series went?--the answer is they did. The non-call on the King goal in game two completely changed the momentum of that game. It was IMO the wrong decision. True--that the Rangers seemed to wilt--that an angry Lundqvist seemed to lose his focus--and that's on them but it all stemmed from crap officiating. As for game 5--a bad call on Zucc that should have been on Muzzin turns into the tying goal that takes the game to OT and the Kings win. I don't know how to parse it for those who think that these decisions made by the referees had nothing to do with the results of either game. They were both bad decisions and they led to goals against us at critical points in both contests. I don't know--maybe it's too much to expect competent officiating in a championship series. Even if that's so doesn't mean I or anyone else who wants to point it out should shut up about it.

 

[NYRCSKA*]

The argument for me here is not which team played the best in the series. The Kings had the territorial advantage throughout the series. They had to some degree the advantage in shots and chances.

However when someone asks whether the referees had some influence on how the series went?--the answer is they did. The non-call on the King goal in game two completely changed the momentum of that game. It was IMO the wrong decision. True--that the Rangers seemed to wilt--that an angry Lundqvist seemed to lose his focus--and that's on them but it all stemmed from crap officiating. As for game 5--a bad call on Zucc that should have been on Muzzin turns into the tying goal that takes the game to OT and the Kings win. I don't know how to parse it for those who think that these decisions made by the referees had nothing to do with the results of either game. They were both bad decisions and they led to goals against us at critical points in both contests. I don't know--maybe it's too much to expect competent officiating in a championship series. Even if that's so doesn't mean I or anyone else who wants to point it out should shut up about it.

Good write up, but none of this matters if our top 2 paid forwards showed up to play, which they didn't.

 

[chosen]

Refs hurt. Players fell a bit short.

AV provided the dagger by playing scared in third periods.

 

[Miamipuck]

I think part of the problem is that the current crop of referees is relatively young. That's a combination of doubling the number of referees and some of the great ones from the 90s retiring. No more Gregson, Fraser, Van Hellemond, Faucette, etc. Certain refs, like Wes McCauley are far improved from where they used to be. Over time, I think the quality of the officials will improve.

I don't know how old you are, but the posters that are 35-50 were probably spoiled. Looking back, we were accustomed to some of the best reffing possible. Sure they made their fair share of mistakes, but it wasn't so consistent as to put the outcomes of games in jeopardy, literally every single night.

I liked the game better when it had more personality, that's why I am a proponent of putting the names on their back, even though we don't go to games to watch them. There was a certain measure of accountability then. I may be in the minority with this, I don't care.

LA was the better team, I can admit that, it's really not arguable. However, the refs did screw up the games significantly and I have a difficult time understanding how anyone can deny that. There was little margin of error for the Rangers and that margin was made infinitely smaller by the refs constant **** ups.

Also **** them for missing the Stepan hit. That ref should be demoted/fired on the spot. I am actually more livid about missing that hit than the crappy calls/non calls in the finals. They let a player be put in danger with no repercussions.

 

[Fletch]

I can remember always complaining about the way games were called. I think it was back in '95 when Mess publicly called out the refs. After that point, it didn't appear as though the Rangers got the fair end of the way in which the game was called. Also, it seemed as though the "clutch and grab" era brought about challenges to refereeing a game. Then all the rule changes, what's interference, the move to diving, protecting the goalies, protecting the players, head shots, elbows, intentional and not intentional, etc. I think today's game is a more complex game to ref than back 20-30 years ago and there is much more subjectivity and that causes inconsistencies. Heck, it's similar with football. Seems as though the refs are doing a worse job every year because on each play, a penalty can be called. Same with hockey.

 

[eco's bones]

I don't know how old you are, but the posters that are 35-50 were probably spoiled. Looking back, we were accustomed to some of the best reffing possible. Sure they made their fair share of mistakes, but it wasn't so consistent as to put the outcomes of games in jeopardy, literally every single night.

I liked the game better when it had more personality, that's why I am a proponent of putting the names on their back, even though we don't go to games to watch them. There was a certain measure of accountability then. I may be in the minority with this, I don't care.

LA was the better team, I can admit that, it's really not arguable. However, the refs did screw up the games significantly and I have a difficult time understanding how anyone can deny that. There was little margin of error for the Rangers and that margin was made infinitely smaller by the refs constant **** ups.

Also **** them for missing the Stepan hit. That ref should be demoted/fired on the spot. I am actually more livid about missing that hit than the crappy calls/non calls in the finals. They let a player be put in danger with no repercussions.

Kevin Pollock didn't miss the Prust hit on Stepan. He said he saw it and thought it was a good one. It may have been that that officiating crew was just circling the wagons to protect each other. There was the inexplicable manhandling of Carcillo by Scott Driscoll as Prust and Dorsett were throwing punches at each other.

Anyway Pollock's remarks absolutely astonished me. A late and very high hit and Stepan dropping like he'd been shot in the head. A broken jaw and all you get is a lame explanation. John Moore's hit was the same on Weise except it was barely late if late at all.

 

[toastbag]

What I don't understand is how this team played so scared in the 3rd period in this series yet they seemed to let loose in OT. I think if they played the same way in the 3rd period as they did in OT this series would have at least made it to game 6 and who knows what would have happened then.

 

[Fletch]

What I don't understand is how this team played so scared in the 3rd period in this series yet they seemed to let loose in OT. I think if they played the same way in the 3rd period as they did in OT this series would have at least made it to game 6 and who knows what would have happened then.

in third periods they tried to hold leads, as opposed to build on the lead. In the OT, they didn't have a choice since they couldn't win without scoring.

 

[mandiblesofdoom]

Kevin Pollock didn't miss the Prust hit on Stepan. He said he saw it and thought it was a good one.

In a sense that's "missing" the hit. He obviously missed the fact that it was late (clear interference call). Also, he missed the excessive violence and head impact (clear major penalty).

I think he's making excuses for not seeing it clearly when it happened. If he did and still didn't make even a two-minute interference call he's clueless.

 

[mandiblesofdoom]

What I don't understand is how this team played so scared in the 3rd period in this series yet they seemed to let loose in OT. I think if they played the same way in the 3rd period as they did in OT this series would have at least made it to game 6 and who knows what would have happened then.

In the third periods where they played "scared" they had a lead. In OT of course it was a tie game. Apparently their approach is different tie v. protecting a lead.

 

[True Blue]

AV provided the dagger by playing scared in third periods.

There is that.

Again, the refs are not the reason that there is no parade on the Canyon of Heroes. The Kings are the reason that the Stanley Cup is on parade in LA.

 

[Miamipuck]

Kevin Pollock didn't miss the Prust hit on Stepan. He said he saw it and thought it was a good one. It may have been that that officiating crew was just circling the wagons to protect each other. There was the inexplicable manhandling of Carcillo by Scott Driscoll as Prust and Dorsett were throwing punches at each other.

Anyway Pollock's remarks absolutely astonished me. A late and very high hit and Stepan dropping like he'd been shot in the head. A broken jaw and all you get is a lame explanation. John Moore's hit was the same on Weise except it was barely late if late at all.

Any way you want to phrase it is fine by me. He totally blew the call and that's ****ing inexcusable. He should not be a ref if that's the case. That or the NHL should have mandatory eye tests because that dude is ****ing blind.

 

[toastbag]

In the third periods where they played "scared" they had a lead. In OT of course it was a tie game. Apparently their approach is different tie v. protecting a lead.

Yeah I get that, but at some point you would think they'd have figured out that holding a lead against this team is not so easy and maybe change up their approach.

At the same time as much as I hate blaming the refs, the 3rd goal in game 2 changed that game big time and I'm also still pissed that the Kings scored the tying goal in game 5 on a power play that should have never been.