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

[McRanger]

What bothers me most is that this game was winnable.

I thought we were outplayed. And I thought the better team won. But even so they gave us a legit chance to get game one on the road and we whiffed.

And that hurts.

 

[aufheben]

What bothers me most is that this game was winnable.

I thought we were outplayed. And I thought the better team won. But even so they gave us a legit chance to get game one on the road and we whiffed.

And that hurts.

For me it says, we were outplayed and could have won, so if we play better, I like our chances in this series.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Eh, I thought that through 3 periods it was almost dead even. The Bruins maybe had a few more super good chances (most hit the post anyway). Then in OT, it looked like some other team possessed the Rangers' bodies. Like players from the Panthers or something. It was really an embarrassing performance in overtime. It's like the Bruins put us on their lap and took a paddle to our *****.

 

[Zappy]

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.

Or, if it wasn't for our complete lack of presence in front of Rask or our abyssal PP or taking stupid penalties, we win the game. Plenty of factors here.

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.

And why did it look like the first 10-15 minutes of the Caps game? Possibly because the B's were all over us and we had absolutely no offense? How do you make a comment like this and then still blame Hank a trillion times?

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.

Agreed. Seriously, give it a rest. It is embarrassing at this point.

 

[Ryan McDonut]

Rangers scored 2 goals last night. Hank could've stopped both of your goals. Am I gonna harp on him for it, no. But to say we couldn't have kept that 2-1 lead and won the game 2-1, is foolish IMO. Hank had a 3rd period lead and let up a soft one.

Once the buzzer went off at the end of the 3rd period, the game was already decided

you mean the team had a 3rd period lead. seriously people putting the blame on hank is crazy. imagine if we had marc andre fleury in net...

 

[*Bob Richards*]

imagine if we had marc andre fleury in net...

"And with the first pick of the 2013 NHL Entry Draft, the Columbus Blue Jackets select...."

 

[McRanger]

For me it says, we were outplayed and could have won, so if we play better, I like our chances in this series.

Assuming they don't ratchet up their performance as well. I wasn't wildly impressed with their play.

This was our opportunity to split the road trip without really deserving it. They all but gave it to us. If we want game 2 we are going to have to TAKE it.

That missed opportunity kills me.

 

[Zappy]

I mean, really, the Pens are a perfect example. They win games with a headcase in net - there is legit a whole video reel of the embarrassing goals that Fleury gives up.

Now, of course the Pens have a superior offense. They can score 5 goals in a game, therefore having an awful goalie is almost irrelevant in most games.

So, sure, Hank gives up softies sometimes and is held to a higher standard because of how amazing he generally is. But, the real issue is the offense in front of him, which is a whole personnel issue. This goes WAY beyond the mistakes Hank makes. You only notice them more because we rely on him to be perfect.

Like someone else said, when he retires, it will truly be hilarious here.

 

[*Bob Richards*]

Hank retiring would be the worst day ever.

I know we all like to grumble on how we don't get guys like Stamkos or Crosby in the draft, when in a sense, we kinda have. He just prevents goals and doesn't score them.

Even on the pedestal, I still think his importance is understated.

 

[blue425]

Like someone else said, when he retires, it will truly be hilarious here.

Many people have either forgotten what it was like with guys like Mike Dunham guarding the Rangers goal, or they weren't around at the time.

We are incalculably fortunate to have Lundqvist.

 

[Ail]

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:





...




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.




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.



It will be a sad, sad day.

Nope was at Jonathan mostly. I have no problem with someone saying, "Henrik could have been better." or "Wasn't Henrik's best game." So long as they also recognize the faults of the rest of the team. He comes in the PGT after every loss crying about Henrik yet defends the offense and players like Boyle relentlessly. Now without even watching the game. Boyle gets a lot of **** for no reason, but how are you going to defend a bottom 6 grinder and **** on the only reason your team isn't drafting top10 every year.

Dude is ridiculous.

 

[cd211]

We played a solid game.. Lack of scoring for NYR? No way we just didnt get the breaks.. Softies on hank? Yes, but we had a 3rd period lead we gave right back bc of a pp.. All in all we didn't get out played and I like how we're actually playing.. We can get better which is awesome bc we can take this series an I like our chances.. I wish we had staal and clowe bc that changes the entire dynamic of the team.. I think it's time Nash starts sniping and Richards, all I have to say is wow... If this isn't a statement idk what is.. His days are numbered forsure!!

 

[Zappy]

Many people have either forgotten what it was like with guys like Mike Dunham guarding the Rangers goal, or they weren't around at the time.

We are incalculably fortunate to have Lundqvist.

Yeah, too bad Blackburn didn't pan out...

 

[nyranger61494]

Many people have either forgotten what it was like with guys like Mike Dunham guarding the Rangers goal, or they weren't around at the time.

We are incalculably fortunate to have Lundqvist.

Dare I say it but 2003 Mike Dunham was actually really good. However, 2004 Mike Dunham, not so much...

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Or, if it wasn't for our complete lack of presence in front of Rask or our abyssal PP or taking stupid penalties, we win the game. Plenty of factors here.



And why did it look like the first 10-15 minutes of the Caps game? Possibly because the B's were all over us and we had absolutely no offense? How do you make a comment like this and then still blame Hank a trillion times?



Agreed. Seriously, give it a rest. It is embarrassing at this point.

Because

1) We are playing one of the best defensive teams in the league even with their injuries with one of the best goalies in the league.

2) The Bruins can score but they're not an offensive powerhouse or anything. So we SHOULD be able to win while scoring 2 goals with the quality of our defense and goalie.

3) We won't score 3 or more goals that often in this series because of factor #1. We HAVE to be able to score 2 goals and win. Look at the league, 80% of the teams averaged FEWER than 3 goals per game in the regular season. Considering that it's easier to inflate goal scoring stats than deflate them (only 2, 1, and 0 deflate the average for teams scoring 3 or more, anywhere from 4 to infinity can inflate it), teams score 3 or more goals not that frequently (probably most do it less than half the time, even the teams scoring around 3 a game). Plus you get teams with much worse defenses than Boston that you can inflate those stats with. Basically, trashing the team for only scoring 2 in regulation is irrational.

4) In THIS game, we played well enough defensively to win with an average Lundqvist performance. We didn't need him to stand on his head.

5) The OT is irrelevant, it never should have gotten there.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I mean, really, the Pens are a perfect example. They win games with a headcase in net - there is legit a whole video reel of the embarrassing goals that Fleury gives up.

Now, of course the Pens have a superior offense. They can score 5 goals in a game, therefore having an awful goalie is almost irrelevant in most games.

So, sure, Hank gives up softies sometimes and is held to a higher standard because of how amazing he generally is. But, the real issue is the offense in front of him, which is a whole personnel issue. This goes WAY beyond the mistakes Hank makes. You only notice them more because we rely on him to be perfect.

Like someone else said, when he retires, it will truly be hilarious here.

Thinking that he needs to play more consistently in the playoffs and not wanting him to retire is not mutually exclusive.

 

[Thirty One]

Dare I say it but 2003 Mike Dunham was actually really good. However, 2004 Mike Dunham, not so much...

2003 Mike Dunham held the Rangers single-season save percentage record up until last season.

 

[blue425]

Yeah, too bad Blackburn didn't pan out...

They rode that kid too hard at too young an age.

Course had he panned out maybe they don't draft Lundqvist.

 

[Zappy]

Because

1) We are playing one of the best defensive teams in the league even with their injuries with one of the best goalies in the league.

2) The Bruins can score but they're not an offensive powerhouse or anything. So we SHOULD be able to win while scoring 2 goals with the quality of our defense and goalie.

3) We won't score 3 or more goals that often in this series because of factor #1. We HAVE to be able to score 2 goals and win. Look at the league, 80% of the teams averaged FEWER than 3 goals per game in the regular season. Considering that it's easier to inflate goal scoring stats than deflate them (only 2, 1, and 0 deflate the average for teams scoring 3 or more, anywhere from 4 to infinity can inflate it), teams score 3 or more goals not that frequently (probably most do it less than half the time, even the teams scoring around 3 a game). Plus you get teams with much worse defenses than Boston that you can inflate those stats with. Basically, trashing the team for only scoring 2 in regulation is irrational.

4) In THIS game, we played well enough defensively to win with an average Lundqvist performance. We didn't need him to stand on his head.

5) The OT is irrelevant, it never should have gotten there.

We didn't challenge their D nearly enough. I'm not looking for 5 goals in a game. But they had three rookies out there and we were taking shots mostly from the outside or those incredibly infuriating wristers from the point which don't end up even getting through. We weren't nearly physical enough on the boards.

I refuse to put the blame on one person. Hank let in softies? Ok. Well, our offense didn't capitalize, either. Cally had a completely open net and missed.

Also, OT does matter. They still had to play it. If the team has a mentality of "well, we shouldn't even be in this OT" then they don't deserve to win. Not irrelevant at all.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Dare I say it but 2003 Mike Dunham was actually really good. However, 2004 Mike Dunham, not so much...

Yeah, he had a Hank like stretch at one point with a MUCH worse team. He had a bunch of shutouts. It was actually surprising.

 

[blue425]

2003 Mike Dunham held the Rangers single-season save percentage record up until last season.

Mind blown.

I was blinded by hate during that period. That guy could never do right in my book.

 

[Callagraves]

That was a bad game that the Rangers had a chance to steal.

We couldn't steal it.

The right team won last night. Our two goals were opportunistic, feeding off of defensive lapses in the Bruins. Their goals came through their style of play, and working for 'em.

Torts was right: there was no identity to that game. Both teams were just "playing". The penalties taken by Emminger gave the game a personality, and it gave it to the Bruins. Stupid penalty, and as usual, that's the one that killed us.

I'll admit, I have always, and will always, HATE Emminger. I can deal with stupid forwards, but not D-men. I can't wait for Staal to come back, and I was rooting for Torts to nail Emmy's idiot ass to the bench. He plays hard, and he hits, but my god is his decision making idiotic. I hate when he's on the ice, I hate when he takes himself out of position for a hit, and I hate when our #7 defenseman takes a penalty that results in a PP goal and giving up the lead in the playoffs.

Come back Staal. #44 is a detriment to any team.

 

[Thirty One]

Primetime Emmy was money in Game 7 though.

 

[nyranger61494]

2003 Mike Dunham held the Rangers single-season save percentage record up until last season.

Yeah, he had a Hank like stretch at one point with a MUCH worse team. He had a bunch of shutouts. It was actually surprising.

Bingo. Two impressive runs even that season.

12/31/2002-1/23/2003 7-2-1 SV%: .945 GAA: 1.58

2/27/2003-3/19/2003 5-3-1 SV%: .955 GAA: 1.43

Courtesy of The Rodent.

http://hockeyrodent.com/R1791.HTM

The Rangers certainly suffered and were lost in the goaltending wilderness between Richter and Lundqvist. Dunham was really bad in 2004 and remember he had an awful game vs Minnesota on night of Richter's jersey retirement and Brooks wrote something to the effect that he had soiled Richter's crease.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

Should have expected the overreaction, just not on this level.

Neither team played great I think Boston played closer to their potential than the Rangers.

Was a pretty blah game from both teams, expect more from the Rangers next game, still think we take the series.