Post-Game Talk: BOS @ NYR | Still Alive

[SnowblindNYR]

Why was Hamrlik playing?

 

[Tawnos]

what that angle shows is one of the, if not THE softest goal ever given up in a playoff game.

2:30 in.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

You can't twist facts.

You insinuate I am twisting facts.
1) This means I am assigning all of the blame to Hank and ignoring the role the offense and PP played in our loss.
2)It insinuates that I am assigning full blame to Lundqvist without blaming the F at all and
3)it also insinuates I am not giving Hank the credit he deserves for keeping us in it after the 2 goals. Now in my response I clearly reiterate I am assigning blame to the forwards as well as crediting Lundqvist when I say MY opinion which is bolded below and supported by facts.

Fact he let in 2 goals. Fact: he was in prime position to make those saves. Fact: he let those goals in. Fact: those two goals tied the game. Fact: if he saves one of those the game doesn't go to OT and we win in regulation. These are ALL important facts and yet you ignore them and then say I'm twisting facts?

I on the other hand said Fact: He made great saves in OT and the 3rd to keep us in it.
Opinion the offense utterly no showed and embarrassed themselves but they should have never had to play in OT if it wasn't for Hank giving up two bad goals.

See what I did there. Facts vs opinions.

Now if you actually read I have two main ideas represented in this opinion.
1) The F were garbage and failed miserably
2) Lundqvist failed first and deserves blame as well.
You have never ever said that Hank deserves any blame whatsoever during this convo. What you did instead was blindly use the 2.00 GAA stat to defend your argument and you insinuated that looking at GAA tells the whole story. When I asked you if you truly believe GAA tells the whole story you refused to answer. Now again the first main point of my opinion is that the forwards were an embarrassment. Yet you say

One big fact you missed
Fact PP blows and costs us the game in regulation.

This would insinuate that at no point in my post do I blame the offense. As far as I know PP is part of offense. So when I say the offense was a noshow/embarrassment I would think it's painfully obvious hence my response.

Seriously?

the offense utterly no showed and embarrassed themselves .

See what I did there. Facts vs opinions.

Leaving out the word opinion in my last quote here has no bearing on anything.

 

[Kakko]

Why was Hamrlik playing?

Stralman injured

Aside from the early penalty, he was solid

 

[darko]

Game 4 is complete.

The prophecy is as followed.

Millar/Roberts/Mueller are our Brassard/Stepan/Boyle

Ortiz is our Kreider.

Onto game 5.

I still get nightmares from that.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Stralman injured

Aside from the early penalty, he was solid

Any updated on him? Or should I check the thread on injuries?

 

[TheTakedown]

Something was poisonous in the CBJ culture before. JD is the perfect man to fix it, but some guys definitely needed out.

Scott howson, for one thing... lack of goaltending and very small playoff chances another.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Can't follow your twists and turns.
Fact is the PP blowing late in regulation cost us game 1 not Hank.

Now this is your opinion. You are assigning blame to the PP and the PP and offense deserve blame. But there is reason to assign blame to Lundqvist for the unscreened undeflected goals he let in as well. You are insinuating Lundqvist gets zero blame and that these goals were not savable and were completely the F fault. You know what the reverse of that is? Lundqvist is at fault for our offense being terrible. You literally make no sense at any point and you also seem to not know opinion vs fact

 

[jacko23]

just got home from work. i work at BWW and the bartender put the game on for me. i didnt WANT to watch it, but i figured if it was on, ok. third period, i notice a family of Bruins fans from Boston at the bar. i was talking to the dad who said a Boston kid, Boyle is the reason the game was tied and i came back with "wouldnt it be great if Kreider ended it for us? hes a BC kid." not too long afterwards, im watching Kreider put it in the net and i see the dads head snap right towards me. it was awesome! haha

 

[Tawnos]

Scott howson, for one thing... lack of goaltending and very small playoff chances another.

Scott Howson I buy. The goaltending and playoff chances have very little to do with what I mean by poisonous culture.

 

[darko]

Instead of enjoying this win, some are finding a way to blame Hank for game 1 loss, go figure.

You sound surprised.

 

[ColonialsHockey10]

Any updated on him? Or should I check the thread on injuries?

You're better off asking the CIA if aliens exist

 

[Kwayry]

You insinuate I am twisting facts.
1) This means I am assigning all of the blame to Hank and ignoring the role the offense and PP played in our loss.
2)It insinuates that I am assigning full blame to Lundqvist without blaming the F at all and
3)it also insinuates I am not giving Hank the credit he deserves for keeping us in it after the 2 goals. Now in my response I clearly reiterate I am assigning blame to the forwards as well as crediting Lundqvist when I say MY opinion which is bolded below and supported by facts.


Now if you actually read I have two main ideas represented in this opinion.
1) The F were garbage and failed miserably
2) Lundqvist failed first and deserves blame as well.
You have never ever said that Hank deserves any blame whatsoever during this convo. What you did instead was blindly use the 2.00 GAA stat to defend your argument and you insinuated that looking at GAA tells the whole story. When I asked you if you truly believe GAA tells the whole story you refused to answer. Now again the first main point of my opinion is that the forwards were an embarrassment. Yet you say



This would insinuate that at no point in my post do I blame the offense. As far as I know PP is part of offense. So when I say the offense was a noshow/embarrassment I would think it's painfully obvious hence my response.




Leaving out the word opinion in my last quote here has no bearing on anything.

You blamed Hank for costing us the game in regulation, i disagreed, it was the pp failing late in regulation is what cost us the game.
Simple question: In your opinion, what cost us the game in regulation, Hank or the PP?

 

[Kwayry]

You sound surprised.

I was, but you are right, i shouldn't be.

 

[darko]

Now, let the Brad Richards game 5 speculation begin...

They better sit him again.

 

[RothmanHockey]

NEW YORK – The hardest part about coming back from a three-games-to-none series deficit is taking it one game at a time.

It’s not about having to win four games in a row – the mountain seems too tall to climb. It’s about winning a game four straight times.

http://insidehockey.com/rangers-stave-off-elimination-in-game-4

Tortorella's defense of Richards -- which is a must-listen -- starts around 2:30 into his press conference.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

You blamed Hank for costing us the game in regulation, i disagreed, it was the pp failing late in regulation is what cost us the game.
Simple question: In your opinion, what cost us the game in regulation, Hank or the PP?

My opinion is that Hank AND the offense are to blame. Was that REALLY not clear? What planet are you on dude? I CLARIFIED why Hank gets blame but clarifying why I think Hank gets SOME BLAME does not exonerate the forwards. The fact that I have quoted and bolded myself criticizing the forwards is also kinda important...Also the fact that I have said this about 5 times now makes me think you are a troll or many other choice insults which would get me infracted. It's an elementary school point: both groups earned blame.

You are free to disagree but it seems you are insinuating that only one thing could ever be blamed for a whole team losing a 60 minute game. There are multiple players in multiple roles with multiple jobs that they will succeed and fail at multiple times throughout the course of the game.

During this convo you have not been able to infer obvious meaning correctly from statements and you also do not understand the difference between opinion and fact. It is almost impossible to discuss anything with you if you can't do these things.

Why o you keep accusing me of blaming Hank alone and why are you not acknowledging my clarifications? Do you really not understand these very simply things?

Someone punches me in the face and I drop a vase and it breaks.

Simple question is it my fault or gravity's? Asking a terrible question is insulting and an ineffective way to debate

 

[Baby Punisher]

Why was Hamrlik playing?

What a night at the Garden! Nothing gave me more pleaseure than telling the 4 elaphant size boston Bruin fans sitting next to me particually the whale of a women that was so slopply fat she was spilling in to my seat all night to GET THE EFF OUT OF NY!

The actual quote was, hope you enjoyed NYC, now GET THE ****** OUT OF NY!

Anyway, I thought Hamrlik was solid tonight. The guy hasn't played in well over a month he comes in get's an assist. Than comes in during OT after not seeing much action in the 2nd or 3rd & uses his veteran pressence to clam everything down when we were getting out of sorts.

I gotta give mad props to Emminger to. Him& Hamerlik were caught out on the ice for what seemed like forever, I think it was almost 2 1/2 minutes & they never gave up. Instead of iceing the puck Emminger get's it out of the zone & get's an off side.

We got the change & the following shift Krieder scores.

Were still alive & heading to back to Bean town.

One game, one period, one shift at a time.

 

[Kwayry]

My opinion is that Hank AND the offense are to blame. Was that REALLY not clear? What planet are you on dude? I CLARIFIED why Hank gets blame but clarifying why I think Hank gets SOME BLAME does not exonerate the forwards. The fact that I have quoted and bolded myself criticizing the forwards is also kinda important...Also the fact that I have said this about 5 times now makes me think you are a troll or many other choice insults which would get me infracted. It's an elementary school point: both groups earned blame.

You are free to disagree but it seems you are insinuating that only one thing could ever be blamed for a whole team losing a 60 minute game. There are multiple players in multiple roles with multiple jobs that they will succeed and fail at multiple times throughout the course of the game.

During this convo you have not been able to infer obvious meaning correctly from statements and you also do not understand the difference between opinion and fact. It is almost impossible to discuss anything with you if you can't do these things.

Why o you keep accusing me of blaming Hank alone and why are you not acknowledging my clarifications? Do you really not understand these very simply things?

Not it was not clear. You blamed Hank exclusively. Apparently we have made some progress sine this post.

Jonathan is right both of the goals in that game were bad. he makes one of those and he doesn't have to make 15 godlike saves in OT. The best have to make 1 of those two saves in that game. The OT performance by the forwards was so atrocious that it takes the focus away from it. But two unscreened point shots beat him. one he kicks in himself. He had a poor game in that game which forced us into OT and cost us a win.

I am going to go a drink a cold one and enjoy this win.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Not it was not clear. You blamed Hank exclusively. Apparently we have made some progress sine this post.



I am going to go a drink a cold one and enjoy this win.

You are bafflingly incapable of understanding anything.
"Godlike saves in OT"
"The OT performance by the forwards was atrocious."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL I am getting trolled or you are a very very poor reader.

Also I later clarified. "Henrik cost us a win" means in regulation. I also did not say that he ALONE cost us a win. And in the 18 or so posts SINCE this first one I clearly clarified I was blaming the forwards as well. But I do feel hank deserves more blame in regulation for his bad goals. But yea even in what you quoted I am not blaming Henrik alone. You have impressed me with your troll skills/inability to comprehend information. Or maybe you've ALREADY been drinking I dunno but there's not much else that could explain your inability to fairly discuss things and understand clarifications or opinions

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Hank let up a bad goal in game 1 to send the game into OT. However, the game isn't his fault. Had the offense put away their chances they would have given him a cushion to work with.

Stop harping on what could be if something had happened in the past. It didn't. You can't change that. Enough of the negativity for one ****ing night.

Hank is the only way we win this series. Stop getting on him, support him.

*and yes this is a general message, not directed at one specific person, but whoever is ragging on him for no reason*

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Hank let up a bad goal in game 1 to send the game into OT. However, the game isn't his fault. Had the offense put away their chances they would have given him a cushion to work with.

Stop harping on what could be if something had happened in the past. It didn't. You can't change that. Enough of the negativity for one ****ing night.

Hank is the only way we win this series. Stop getting on him, support him.

*and yes this is a general message, not directed at one specific person, but whoever is ragging on him for no reason*

Jonathan said something along the lines of "We don't go to OT in game 1 except Hank let in 2 bad goals." Kwayry said that Hank shouldn't get any blame whatsoever. I said he does get blame but the forwards get blame as well.

Kwayry then accused me multiple times of blaming Hank and Hank alone so I kept trying to clarify that I was blaming both for game 1. He also kept saying I was excusing the offense in game 1 so I kept clarifying that I was indeed blaming the offense as well. He kept putting words in my mouth and kept accussing me of things I did not say and I kept clarifying. He also said Hank deserves no blame whatsoever for his goals because in the end he only let in 2. I explained why I felt you can assign some blame to a goalie even if it is a 2.00 GAA game and that stats are not everything. I had no intention of having this convo go so long but when someone cannot read basic things and constantly puts words in your mouth you have to clarify.

In the end even after clarifying MULTIPLE times he STILL ended the convo by quoting the very first thing I said, ignored all of the clarifying that I did, incorrectly paraphrased me and ran away. I want to give him one of those anime punches where the character either gets humorously launched in the distance or beaned across the back of the noggin lol

Also we are big boys you can call me out by name and I will respond, defend my position or clarify myself as necessary which I hope I did here

 

[trilobyte]

The only reason we didn't win any of those games is because of Rask, who has been pretty damn good in this series before tonight. He's been coming up with huge saves at the right moments all series so far.

Scratch - replied to wrong post, sorry.

 

[ajdj10]

Hopefully we sit Hank next game.
Not only is he the worst goalie in the NHL, he's the worst in the world.
Not going anywhere with him in net.

 

[Jarkko Immonen]

The key is that Henrik wear's his Ingmar Bergman/Seventh Seal mask for the rest of the series.