Post-Game Talk: ECSF #1 - 5/16/13 | New York Rangers @ Boston Bruins - Damnit!

[SnowblindNYR]

In a game where Callahan shot wide on an open net, where we couldn't even set up the power play, barely mustered a forecheck for a lot of the game and ran around a bit in our own zone failing to clear the puck and taking stupid penalties I really have a hard time blaming Hank who stepped up his game after the two goals.

The first goal was flukey and I think he should have stopped the 2nd goal but anyone blaming him for the loss is crazy. We should be able to give up two goals and still win a game with who we have right now. I know the games against the Bruins are usually low scoring so I shouldn't expect them to score 3 but tonight was a sloppy game from both sides and we really should have taken advantage of their D. Our forecheck wasn't that great tonight. These are problems that can be fixed easily and I expect them to be. We knew exactly what to expect playing against the Caps in the playoffs. Tonight both teams were getting a feel for each other. Unfortunately, the Bruins found their game first. But that's why they play a best of 7 series and not single game elimination!

This is even more so true about the reverse we should be able to score only 2 goals and win with who we have now. We have more offensive talent probably since the lockout, but our D is still easily better. Our goaltender is a potential HOFer. If we should be able to win by giving up 2, we should be able to win by scoring 2 even more. People are pretending like we lost 1-0.

 

[JohnC]

I'm proud of this board. We lost a game and the Coaching/Management thread didn't get blown up

 

[Blueshirt Believer]

I'm proud of this board. We lost a game and the Coaching/Management thread didn't get blown up

Don't tempt me.

 

[Kershaw]

It seems that he does need to be perfect to generate some wins for this team, but that first goal he let in was a REAL softy.

Not blaming him for the loss as the problems ran deeper and several factors contributed, but watching him flub those sucked.

I don't think 1st goal was soft, that knucklepuck is so unpredictable. The 2nd goalie, perhaps it was a bit soft. No chance on OT winner though. He was still by far the team's best player as usual.

When a goalie stops 94% of shots, give him the goal support please.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I don't see you dissecting anybody else's mistakes.

Why should I? You seem to be giving Hank a pass, I'll give everyone else a pass since that seems fine.

Oh and I didn't dissect anyone else's mistake because everyone else played well enough to win through 3 periods. It was an even game. 2 goals in a game, played well defensively should be enough. Oh and Hank is our best player he NEEDS to be dissected. Comes with the territory of being the best player. People seem to think it's the other way around. If your dumb son screws up are you dissecting his behavior as much as if your brilliant son screws up, are you more loss upset? Hank has a different standard than anyone on this team and almost anyone in this league.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I don't think 1st goal was soft, that knucklepuck is so unpredictable. The 2nd goalie, perhaps it was a bit soft. No chance on OT winner though. He was still by far the team's best player as usual.

When a goalie stops 94% of shots, give him the goal support please.

2 goals should be enough with the D and G we have and the fact that Boston is no offensive juggernaut.

 

[*Bob Richards*]

I don't think 1st goal was soft, that knucklepuck is so unpredictable. The 2nd goalie, perhaps it was a bit soft. No chance on OT winner though. He was still by far the team's best player as usual.

When a goalie stops 94% of shots, give him the goal support please.

1st goal was definitely soft. He stopped it too and then lost it amongst his gear and pushed it in with the knob of his stick. If it had bounced about and went in, I would understand, but Hank actually stopped the initial shot and then put it in under his own devices.

Once again, not putting this loss on him but I certainly will put his blunders amongst the reasons as to why we lost. There were quite a few up and down the lineup.

 

[Machinehead]

Now don't get me wrong, what the Rangers have done here is great. They're in the 2nd round again, they've been competitive, and I believe they have a legit chance to squeak past Boston. That would be back to back conference finals appearances. That's a great accomplishment and one I would cherish. But the fact of the matter is, this team has a shelf life. This team has a glass ceiling. As far as they get doing what they do, there's still a broad chasm between a conference finals team and a legit Cup contender. If the Rangers want to take that next step and become a legit Cup contender, the entire culture needs to change.

They need to learn how to score on the powerplay. They need to learn how to close out games they have a lead in consistently. They need to learn how to win in overtime. They need to be able to play a possession game. They need to -God forbid- beat a team in 5 games already. They need to win more games by more than one goal.

3-11 in overtime has to go. Hank having to be spectacular to win a game, let alone a series, has to go. The blown leads have to go. 7 games has to go. 2-1 has to go. 2 for 30 on the PP has to go. Depending on one guy to be the entire offense and then losing because he decides to take a month off has to go. In general, this team sucking in the playoffs has to go, and the same old **** has to go.

They might scratch and claw to the third round, but they won't be true contenders unless these changes happen, and we're talking about BIG changes. They cannot, WILL not, win the Stanley Cup as constructed.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Oh and getting mad at our PP? I think it makes way more sense to get mad at the guy proven to be MUCH MUCH better than his performance. The PP didn't prove that.

 

[Kwayry]

But they never score on PP's so simplicity isn't an issue.

Hank stopping that first goal is way more simple and yet neither result occurred.

First goal wasn't soft.
Second goal was. But it was in the first 3 minutes of the 3rd and it only tied the game.
They had enough time to win it.
Like i said, hank is the least of this team's problems.

 

[Holocene]

This is even more so true about the reverse we should be able to score only 2 goals and win with who we have now. We have more offensive talent probably since the lockout, but our D is still easily better. Our goaltender is a potential HOFer. If we should be able to win by giving up 2, we should be able to win by scoring 2 even more. People are pretending like we lost 1-0.

I agree with you but I'm saying that we should have been able to take advantage of their depleted defense and lack of experience. The Bruins played just as sloppy as us.

 

[Kershaw]

2 goals should be enough with the D and G we have and the fact that Boston is no offensive juggernaut.

Are you serious? 2 goals is hardly paltry to beat even the worst of teams in the NHL. The Bruins are averaging over 3 goals a game in the playoffs.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Are you serious? 2 goals is hardly paltry to beat even the worst of teams in the NHL. The Bruins are averaging over 3 goals a game in the playoffs.

Against Toronto... Lundqvist for the last 2 seasons and playoffs has allowed fewer than 2 goals a game in well over 100 games. Boston did very little offensively in this game until OT.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

First goal wasn't soft.
Second goal was. But it was in the first 3 minutes of the 3rd and it only tied the game.
They had enough time to win it.
Like i said, hank is the least of this team's problems.

Unscreened slapshot going through him isn't soft?

 

[Kershaw]

Against Toronto... Lundqvist for the last 2 seasons and playoffs has allowed fewer than 2 goals a game in well over 100 games. Boston did very little offensively in this game.

The NHL median in GF/G is 2.62.

The worst goal scoring team had 2.27.

2 goals very rarely guarantee victories in today's league.

 

[*Bob Richards*]

First goal wasn't soft.
Second goal was. But it was in the first 3 minutes of the 3rd and it only tied the game.
They had enough time to win it.
Like i said, hank is the least of this team's problems.

He was un screened and he actually stopped the puck and then put it in himself. Sorry, but that was not anyone's fault but his own.

 

[Kwayry]

Why should I? You seem to be giving Hank a pass, I'll give everyone else a pass since that seems fine.

Oh and I didn't dissect anyone else's mistake because everyone else played well enough to win through 3 periods. It was an even game. 2 goals in a game, played well defensively should be enough. Oh and Hank is our best player he NEEDS to be dissected. Comes with the territory of being the best player. People seem to think it's the other way around. If your dumb son screws up are you dissecting his behavior as much as if your brilliant son screws up, are you more loss upset? Hank has a different standard than anyone on this team and almost anyone in this league.

Thanks for making my point.
You are giving the offense a pass.

 

[Kershaw]

I also noticed the corpse of Chris Drury has been reincarnated.

Chris Callahan is Ryan Drury. Carbon copies of each other.

 

[Kwayry]

He was un screened and he actually stopped the puck and then put it in himself. Sorry, but that was not anyone's fault but his own.

Unscreened slapshot going through him isn't soft?

It was a knuckler that dropped few inches.

 

[*Bob Richards*]

It was a knuckler that dropped few inches.

I understand that but my point was that he stopped it. He stopped the shot. It didn't directly go in. He pushed it in himself.

 

[*Bob Richards*]

And to be honest, if anyone can be blamed for nearly single handedly ending this game, its Richards for that mindless pass he threw to the slot to the Bruins. He's ever so lucky that hit the post.

 

[Holocene]

I understand that but my point was that he stopped it. He stopped the shot. It didn't directly go in. He pushed it in himself.

It was pushed in by the butt of his stick and this all happened very quickly. I'm sorry but that one was a little flukey. Soft, but flukey nonetheless. I thought the second goal was way worse.

And to be honest, if anyone can be blamed for nearly single handedly ending this game, its Richards for that mindless pass he threw to the slot to the Bruins. He's ever so lucky that hit the post.

I think we've all given up on Richards at this point and the consensus is he blows right now and there's no point in discussing it anymore lol.

 

[Kwayry]

Bruins had 3 rookie Dmen. Krug is 5'9, they should have been pounded everytime they touched the puck and exposed. The Rangers made them look like Norris Trophy winners.

 

[Kershaw]

It was pushed in by the butt of his stick and this all happened very quickly. I'm sorry but that one was a little flukey. Soft, but flukey nonetheless. I thought the second goal was way worse.

Agreed. **** happens

 

[Machinehead]

I think it's being overstated how well the rookies played for the Bruins.

Fact of the matter is, if Chara didn't average 70 minutes a game, they'd be in big trouble. He was eating alot of their minutes tonight.