The Rangers had a number of great opportunities. I didn't even see part of the game, but Callahan and Hagelin both had partial breakaways. Hagelin had a tip in front. Boyle had a slam dunk.
Post-Game Talk: Bruins @ Rangers
- Thread starter Machinehead
- Start date
-
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
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
Glen Sathers Cigar
Sather 4 Ever
While Hank wasn't his usual self, this is a far cry from how he looked earlier in the season.
He was fighting it tonight, didn't get the bounces. He had an off night. It happens. On top of that, the defensive coverage was absolutely awful. He'll be fine whenever his next start it.
He was fighting it tonight, didn't get the bounces. He had an off night. It happens. On top of that, the defensive coverage was absolutely awful. He'll be fine whenever his next start it.
I don't remember which one. We had plenty of great chances. Rask stopped them. And sure breakaways are on the defense (hell Rask gave one up on a breakaway), but it's getting old when the guy is 0 for, for the whole year on breakaways.
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
The gaffes were so bad. So bad that it took everything away from all of the positives that there were. That being said time to batten down the hatches & trade away the dead unsigned weight.
Ok, real talk. Forget about the mediocre season. Forget about anything I wrote (some exaggerated). Is anyone else worried about the Olympics taking too much of Lundqvist again? Remember what happened to him 2006? He was a shell. At the time I just thought it was because he was a rookie, but he gave up 10 goals in 2 games after giving up like 12 in 7 before that since these Olympics.
Snowblind, do me a solid, can you name 1 goaltender better than Lundqvist that we've had in the past 25 years? Do you really think we can do better than a top 5 goalie since the lockout? Rask has been posting pretty stats for less than 4 seasons, meanwhile Lundqvist has been elite longer than Rask has been in the league. Oh yeah, and he would have been out in the first round last year if not for a Bergeron miracle. He. Was letting in Franson snapshots from the blue line in game 7. Need I remind you of back to back shutouts against an arguably better offense in the Caps by Lundqvist when facing elimination?
I believe this thread is to discuss the game played 3/2/2014.
Hanks save percentage was .818 Rask's was .929. Which one played a better game on 3/2/2014? Which one kept their team in the game and gave the rest of the guys a chance to get their act together and win the game? the Rangers could have had a 3-0 lead going into the second period if not for Rask. He stopped what 20 shots in the first period?
If we are talking history, I want 2011/12 Hank back. He stole a lot of games back then. He lost this one. He had help from the D but he did not make the stops he usually makes. How many games did Hank lose in 2011/12 when the team scored 3?
n8
WAAAAAAA!!!
If only we had a co-coaching system where Torts coached home games and handled the D/PK and AV coached away games and handled the PP. We are so bad at home 
Hank let up 10 goals in the last 2. Many of them was due to poor positional play by him.
I don't hate hank, but he's not playing like himself. Start Talbot and play Hank intermittently until he finds his form again. Talbot has been a machine. Statistically, he is 1st in the league and although it's a small 18 game sample size, no one can deny he has been great this season. He has been fantastic at positioning and rebound control. Far better than Lundquist this season.
Looking back at Lundquist's past achievements is not an argument. We all know Lundquist can be a great goalie, but he is not playing that way at present, so why the hell should we start him over the hot goalie who is statistically 1st in the league?
What is with the Talbot hate is the question I want to ask. Some people in this thread are talking about how he will never be as good as Lundquist. What is your basis for that when over the only sample we have of him playing in the NHL, he has been 1st in the league statistically?
I don't hate hank, but he's not playing like himself. Start Talbot and play Hank intermittently until he finds his form again. Talbot has been a machine. Statistically, he is 1st in the league and although it's a small 18 game sample size, no one can deny he has been great this season. He has been fantastic at positioning and rebound control. Far better than Lundquist this season.
Looking back at Lundquist's past achievements is not an argument. We all know Lundquist can be a great goalie, but he is not playing that way at present, so why the hell should we start him over the hot goalie who is statistically 1st in the league?
What is with the Talbot hate is the question I want to ask. Some people in this thread are talking about how he will never be as good as Lundquist. What is your basis for that when over the only sample we have of him playing in the NHL, he has been 1st in the league statistically?
Oh and by the way. Hank isn't the only goaltender ever who to have stolen games. This is the NHL, goaltenders steal games all the time in this league. It is a necessity and to be expected. especially if you're a highly paid elite goalie.
Exactly. This team is mediocre until Hank starts making saves "that are not his fault if they go in" at key times. He is paid and expected to make those kinds of saves. Too many nights of 5 goals on 30 shots. There are other guys on this team who also need to get back to their pre-Olympic levels, like Nash. He seemed to be much hungrier before the break.
slipknottin
Registered User
Game was completely my fault. They have never won a game I didn't watch, and I stopped watching after the Miller goal.
Unpredictable1
Registered User
I think it was too soon after Sochi to start Hank in back to backs.
I'm not worried about Hank. Too concerned on what is going to happen with Cally.
I'm not worried about Hank. Too concerned on what is going to happen with Cally.
Jackson Ranger
Registered User
- Feb 27, 2002
- 2,866
- 232
Ok, so my less emotional analysis of the game last night:
Positives-
1) I don't care that it didn't last and clearly Boston wasn't playing up to their capabilities, but the start we had against that opponent 14-1 shots in 10 minutes was encouraging. We've had a decent amount of starts like that, it's nice to see.
2) Even though it didn't last that's 2 games against the Bruins that we had 40+ shots, they allowed 3 total all season.
3) A lot of those shots were good chances and Rask was just great against us AGAIN.
4) The Bruins came off 2 games where they gave up just 1 less goal than us and that was against IMO teams that are WORSE by A LOT than the 2 teams we played. Buffalo is a joke, Washington IMO is worse than the Flyers (though not by much), and Boston is Boston.
5) The offense putting up a good amount of pressure against this team twice in three games was encouraging. The defense, we know can play a lot better, they have for almost 25 games (about a 3rd a season) and hell after their horrible start.
6) While the Bruins' size was an issue for us, our speed was an issue for them, they just capitalized we didn't.
7) It's only 2 games, we were beating elite teams before that and looking good while doing that.
Negatives-
1) Can't finish, story of most of our season. Wish we had another finisher on this team after Nash. Just too many guys that can create chances but not score.
2) Sorry, but Lundqvist worries me. The olympics and his incredibly erratic play this season. He flat out stole only one game all season.
3) Our lack of size was evident.
4) While we looked amazing defensively in many games, we've had WTF games too often (and that's discounting the terrible start). I think this inconsistency is inherent in a man style which seems to rely more on skill than system, and something like that tends to be less consistent.
Positives-
1) I don't care that it didn't last and clearly Boston wasn't playing up to their capabilities, but the start we had against that opponent 14-1 shots in 10 minutes was encouraging. We've had a decent amount of starts like that, it's nice to see.
2) Even though it didn't last that's 2 games against the Bruins that we had 40+ shots, they allowed 3 total all season.
3) A lot of those shots were good chances and Rask was just great against us AGAIN.
4) The Bruins came off 2 games where they gave up just 1 less goal than us and that was against IMO teams that are WORSE by A LOT than the 2 teams we played. Buffalo is a joke, Washington IMO is worse than the Flyers (though not by much), and Boston is Boston.
5) The offense putting up a good amount of pressure against this team twice in three games was encouraging. The defense, we know can play a lot better, they have for almost 25 games (about a 3rd a season) and hell after their horrible start.
6) While the Bruins' size was an issue for us, our speed was an issue for them, they just capitalized we didn't.
7) It's only 2 games, we were beating elite teams before that and looking good while doing that.
Negatives-
1) Can't finish, story of most of our season. Wish we had another finisher on this team after Nash. Just too many guys that can create chances but not score.
2) Sorry, but Lundqvist worries me. The olympics and his incredibly erratic play this season. He flat out stole only one game all season.
3) Our lack of size was evident.
4) While we looked amazing defensively in many games, we've had WTF games too often (and that's discounting the terrible start). I think this inconsistency is inherent in a man style which seems to rely more on skill than system, and something like that tends to be less consistent.
Fitzy
Very Stable Genius
- Jan 29, 2009
- 36,350
- 24,136
Snowblind was making numerous ridiculous references and inferences to years and months ago performances which prompted the post you responded to. So it really isn't about 3/2/14 not when certain folks hijack half the thread so we can hear them whining about the same thing for the 1000th time. I'd much rather hear a McI, Tarasenko, Fowler debate then a snowblind Lundqvist rant. At least the former is based on some kind of sense. At least he admitted earlier in this page that he exaggerated
Well I exaggerated on some of it, but the bottom line is the same, he's not an elite goalie anymore. Any average goalie can put up numbers with the way the defense was playing until the last 2 games. Elite goalies like Rask save their team's bacon once in a while. I'm sorry it hurts your feelings to see your God criticized.
