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

[stan the caddy]

Rangers score two goals and win: "The Rangers played aggressive, opened it up, played amazing"

Rangers score two goals and lose: "The Rangers were terrible, played a passive game, Torts has to go"

 

[rangers1314]

No one should be blaming Lundqvist. He stopped 45 shots. 45. Rask stopped what, 33? That's pathetic. I think the issue for the Lundqvist critics (though they shouldn't be talking much) is that they are so used to him being spectacular and quite honestly the two goals he let up were soft goals. No screens. He had clear looks. The OT goal was Brassard and McDonagh's fault.

They lost again because of a poor PP. Just absolutely poor. Boston's PP isn't much better, but that doesn't make things ok. In fact it makes it worse because this is an area the Rangers can capitalize on if they are better. Boston's defense is beat up. They have young inexperienced guys on the blueline. They will take more penalties in this series. The Rangers play a very physical game, they will draw the PP's. They need to convert. Kreider should get more time. Richards and Nash should get less. Nash has been awful. He tries to do too much. Just shoot the puck. I think having Kreider and Nash on the ice at the same time for the PP could be very effective. Definitely not ES seeing as they are both horror shows defensively.

It was Game 1. It was a feeling out game. Boston is a very different team than the Capitals. They are not as quick as the Capitals. The game seemed slower. They have good defenseman but they do not have a Mike Green that pushes the play quickly up the ice to offense. The Rangers can win this series. No one thought they were going to sweep the B's. They will win Game 2.

I agree with what you're saying. However at this point, and I said it on some previous posts, I'm starting to think that Newbury would give us more than Richards at this point. At least Newbury will get in on the forecheck on that 4th line and lay some hits on this young boston D. Richards is just a complete and total nonfactor in every sense of the word right now

 

[Richter Scale]

Oh yeah and let's do it without watching the game.

I can only assume this is a dig at me since I said I wasn't around to watch the game... If it wasn't, then nevermind. If it is, then all I can say is that you need to practice your reading comprehension:

On another note, here we are again though in a losing GDT where Henrik had a less than stellar game and people are putting it all on him.

Does he deserve all of the blame? I didn't see the game, but my guess is probably not. Knowing this team, and seeing Nash and Richie continue to be kept off the scoreboard, they are certainly responsible too.

...

That's why you give him a pass.

I don't think anyone deserves a pass. You can point out a failure/mistake/lay blame without saying the player is worthless. He has played out of his mind in several playoff games so far - you're damn right. And without him, this team wouldn't be here. No one denies that. But he has also failed to make several saves he needs to make. Pointing this out is not the equivalent of exonerating the rest of the team.

I'm sorry - but in playoffs, your goalie being a rock is just what is needed to have even a shot at a cup. It is the nature of the playoffs, and of the position, that its importance is elevated all the more at this time of the year. I would venture a guess that this is why people look to Hank first (though with this team, typically not exclusively) when he gives up a bad goal. Not to mention that we all know he is better than those two goals he gave up -- when you are better, you will have higher expectations.

No reasonable person is suggesting he be traded, or that he be replaced with Biron. Not even saying all the blame is on him; it is a team sport. But when you are playing teams that are (or should be) relatively evenly matched, you just can't give up more than a couple lousy goals in the playoffs unless you plan on being on the golf course sooner than you'd like. One game often ends up being the difference between winning and losing a series. Much better teams than this years Rangers have been bounced from the playoffs because of one or two games in which their all-star goalie gave up some bad goals.

You know he will bounce back and be better.

I would agree. I expect he'll come back and be better. Doesn't mean you can't look at those two goals last night and shake your head.

I can't wait to see what some of these people say when Henrik retires. Should be a real gas.

It will be a sad, sad day.

 

[haveandare]

The team lost game 1 on the road in OT. Really not that big of a deal. They got smacked around by the Caps in game 1 and look how that turned out.

 

[JD123]

The team lost game 1 on the road in OT. Really not that big of a deal. They got smacked around by the Caps in game 1 and look how that turned out.

Totally agree. Just feeling the pressure now for game 2 cause would be hard to go down 2-0 again then try to win the last 4 out 5 games.

 

[Richter Scale]

The team lost game 1 on the road in OT. Really not that big of a deal. They got smacked around by the Caps in game 1 and look how that turned out.

Outside of the first 10-15 min of that game, I don't think that's true...

But, agreed with your main point. Not really worried about it. Come back strong in game 2 and get one on the road. Absolutely doable.

 

[keLtic9]

Thank you Nevesis.

I couldn't believe my eyes that some of these people even remotely blamed Lundqvist for the loss.

If it wasn't for him, we would have been down 2-0 in the first 10 minutes and/or would have lost in the first two minutes of OT.

Watch the game. Get some knowledge. Stop being ignorant people.

Good day and Rangers will win game two.

 

[haveandare]

Outside of the first 10-15 min of that game, I don't think that's true...

But, agreed with your main point. Not really worried about it. Come back strong in game 2 and get one on the road. Absolutely doable.

Alright, fair enough. They got smacked around for the start of game 1 though for sure. They looked more outmatched than they did at any point last night IMO. That was just a shooting gallery.

And yeah, I just don't think its that huge of a deal. I never expected a sweep. In all honesty, I was never sure that this team would make the playoffs with all of the problems they faced this season. Now they're in the second round, and they're playing a team that they match up fairly well against. They just barely lost. Not time for a meltdown yet.

 

[*Bob Richards*]

To be honest, I felt like I sold my soul to beat the Capitals, so there's that.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Thank you Nevesis.

I couldn't believe my eyes that some of these people even remotely blamed Lundqvist for the loss.

If it wasn't for him, we would have been down 2-0 in the first 10 minutes and/or would have lost in the first two minutes of OT.

Watch the game. Get some knowledge. Stop being ignorant people.

Good day and Rangers will win game two.

He made a nice save early in the game. He made a couple of more nice saves. We weren't getting dominated in regulation. If it wasn't for him we wouldn't have to play OT for him to lose in the first two minutes. He plays an average Lundqvist game and we win this game 2-0, MAYBE 2-1.

 

[chosen]

BTW, other than the 2 goals, Hanks let ANOTHER shot go through his 5 hole, but managed to cover it before Lucic got there. There were 3 posts. He was REALLY shaky yesterday. If 2 historic consecutive shutouts won't prevent him from being shaky what will? He should have had more confidence than anyone on the ice. Yet he looked super nervous or something.

In real life goalies don't play like in video games. Having 2 amazing games in a row guarantees nothing about the next game.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The OT last night looked like the first 10-15 minutes in game 1 against the Caps. It was strange because the game was even up to that point.

 

[*Bob Richards*]

Someone said it earlier in this thread, it wasn't Hanks best game, but he still played well enough to get a win. Other names certainly didn't contribute.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

In real life goalies don't play like in video games. Having 2 amazing games in a row guarantees nothing about the next game.

I mean, I see what you're saying and you're right nothing is guaranteed. However, you don't think players gain confidence from playing well? Look at Stepan this season. He was pretty bad early on in the regular season and then started getting confidence and was playing great (of course you have to factor in improvements in his game since he's 22). Players are people who are influenced by psychology. If they have confidence in theory they should perform better than if they didn't.

 

[haveandare]

He made a nice save early in the game. He made a couple of more nice saves. We weren't getting dominated in regulation. If it wasn't for him we wouldn't have to play OT for him to lose in the first two minutes. He plays an average Lundqvist game and we win this game 2-0, MAYBE 2-1.

Maybe.

If Nash played an average Nash game at any point in the playoffs so far...
If Richards played an average Richards game...
If Callahan consistently played average Callahan games...


Hank is the reason this team is still playing. There is absolutely 0 question about that. Like any other athlete, he's not perfect every night, but of the guys that this team counts on to win, he's perfect way, way more often than anybody else.

 

[Thirty One]

Someone said it earlier in this thread, it wasn't Hanks best game, but he still played well enough to get a win. Other names certainly didn't contribute.

The first two goals were ass, but he did stop 45 other shots.

 

[Jabroni]

Someone said it earlier in this thread, it wasn't Hanks best game, but he still played well enough to get a win. Other names certainly didn't contribute.

Yes. It wasn't a typical Hank game. Average game, but enough for a W.

 

[*Bob Richards*]

The first two goals were ass, but he did stop 45 other shots.

Which blew my mind when they showed the stat graph during the game. Saw they had taken 40 shots at that point and was like, wut.

 

[Jabroni]

Which blew my mind when they showed the stat graph during the game. Saw they had taken 40 shots at that point and was like, wut.

Definitely didn't feel like 48 shots.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Maybe.

If Nash played an average Nash game at any point in the playoffs so far...
If Richards played an average Richards game...
If Callahan consistently played average Callahan games...


Hank is the reason this team is still playing. There is absolutely 0 question about that. Like any other athlete, he's not perfect every night, but of the guys that this team counts on to win, he's perfect way, way more often than anybody else.

Nash is a guy that needs a lot of scrutiny, I agree. His status is pretty high in this league. His talent is even higher. However Richards is on the decline. Callahan is a very good player, but let's face it he's no superstar. Bottom line Hank is a guy that could be in the HOF when all is said and done, he deserves more scrutiny than any player on the team. He gets praised when he does well by everybody, wouldn't it only be fair to criticize him when he doesn't?

 

[Thirty One]

Definitely didn't feel like 48 shots.

Boston stat keepers may be a little aggressive. In the second period the Bruins were outhitting the Rangers 80-72.

 

[*Bob Richards*]

Definitely didn't feel like 48 shots.

The Bruins took 16 in OT which will probably put you in the L column every single time.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Definitely didn't feel like 48 shots.

Because the vast majority of the shots were bad angle cupcakes. Even in OT. The Bruins were shooting from everywhere but the chances were nothing special. Their best chances hit the post. That's why I laugh at this 48 shots garbage. I'd feel a lot worse for him if we allowed 21 shots and 3 odd man rushes like he did against Carolina in the playoff clinching game. The D was good enough to allow a bunch of low percentage shots and even then Hank let them down.

 

[Jabroni]

Nash is a guy that needs a lot of scrutiny, I agree. His status is pretty high in this league. His talent is even higher. However Richards is on the decline. Callahan is a very good player, but let's face it he's no superstar. Bottom line Hank is a guy that could be in the HOF when all is said and done, he deserves more scrutiny than any player on the team. He gets praised when he does well by everybody, wouldn't it only be fair to criticize him when he doesn't?

There's nothing wrong with criticizing him, but you take it to another extreme. He lets in some bad goals and you rant about him for multiple posts.

 

[aufheben]

He made a nice save early in the game. He made a couple of more nice saves. We weren't getting dominated in regulation. If it wasn't for him we wouldn't have to play OT for him to lose in the first two minutes. He plays an average Lundqvist game and we win this game 2-0, MAYBE 2-1.

.938SV% isn't average? The better team won. That doesn't remove Hank from criticism, but there's 18 other guys on the ice in blue. I'm sure Bruins fans aren't feeling on top of the world, after we played like that and still took them to OT. Do people really expect Henrik to get 3 shutouts in a row? Spoiled.