Toggle sidebar

Fluke Goals

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pastafazul*
  • Start date 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

Pastafazul*

Guest
what a pleasure to see us get one, haven't seen one since the jagr days when the puck bounced of the board behind net, came back hit goalie and dropped in!.... boys, we get fluke goals its a whole new ball game..

great game last nite, great forecheckin took them right out of their game, very competitive! :handclap:
Click to read more...
 
Theres nothing the team did to "make luck" on last night's Quick blunder.

You could say they deserved the goal because of the way they carried play for most of the game, but the goal itself wasn't a result of hard work, or a smart hockey play.. just a fluke occurance
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway said:
There's no such thing as fluke goals. You play hard and outplay the other team and most times you'll get the breaks and bounces.
Click to expand...

I agree with that except for the dump in goal. That is just pure luck. And, frankly, it's nice to see. The Richards goal that was deflected was the definition of hard work, though, by him and Nash.
 
Jonathan. said:
I agree with that except for the dump in goal. That is just pure luck. And, frankly, it's nice to see. The Richards goal that was deflected was the definition of hard work, though, by him and Nash.
Click to expand...

My point is when you work hard good things happen. Quick made some big in the first two periods and the Rangers conceivably could have had four or five goals. They continued to work hard and got a bounce. Direct reward for hard work? No. But the bounces and breaks always seem to go to the team that works the hardest.
 
The harder Quick has to work, the more likely he [or any player] is to make a mistake. People who "have good luck" don't actually have good luck, they just put themselves in the position to have good things happen.
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway said:
My point is when you work hard good things happen. Quick made some big in the first two periods and the Rangers conceivably could have had four or five goals. They continued to work hard and got a bounce. Direct reward for hard work? No. But the bounces and breaks always seem to go to the team that works the hardest.
Click to expand...

Eh, we could have been playing terrible and scored that weird goal, man. I agree that that's why Richards scored his second goal, but the 3rd goal doesn't have much to do with outworking an opponent.
 
If the Rangers can consistently outplay teams the way they did last night, I agree they are much more likely to pot a few and get some bounces.

For my money the 2nd and 3rd goal were both "flukey". Replay those two scenarios again and things could easily have went differently. At the end of the day, they went the Rangers' way. The team carrying the play is often more likely to catch a break.

But for the Rangers to be a legitimate threat for the division, conference, and beyond they need to put themselves in scenarios where they aren't relying on those bounces. By finishing their chances. They can do it. But I am not counting chickens yet nor would I project (with certainty) the kind of bounces they got last night moving forward regardless of how they carry the play.
 
The Rangers played really well last night and deserved to win. That said--not just the goal but the timing of the goal took a lot of steam out of the Kings. The whole arena went utterly silent. It's very hard but not impossible to come back and win a game being down a goal going into the 3rd. The psychological effect of that goal really set the Kings back. The game was more or less ours after we killed the rest of the penalty off.
 
Jonathan. said:
Eh, we could have been playing terrible and scored that weird goal, man. I agree that that's why Richards scored his second goal, but the 3rd goal doesn't have much to do with outworking an opponent.
Click to expand...

If the Rangers would have played terrible, I'm assuming the score wouldn't have been in their favor, and Quick might not have tried to play the puck because they wouldn't have needed a PP goal that badly.
 
The 2nd goal is a perfect example of creating your own luck. Team worked hard and had a little puck luck.

The 3rd one was about as flukey as it gets.
 
Pastafazul said:
what a pleasure to see us get one, haven't seen one since the jagr days when the puck bounced of the board behind net, came back hit goalie and dropped in!.... boys, we get fluke goals its a whole new ball game..

great game last nite, great forecheckin took them right out of their game, very competitive! :handclap:
Click to expand...

Richie had one last year as well. I wanna say it was the game against Carolina that Cally scored in OT to clinch the playoff spot. Shot hit the back boards, hit the goalie's (Ellis?) skate and went in. Yay!
 
Kane One said:
If the Rangers would have played terrible, I'm assuming the score wouldn't have been in their favor, and Quick might not have tried to play the puck because they wouldn't have needed a PP goal that badly.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It's a PP. Goalies always come out of the net to try and play the puck like that. We see that numerous times every game no matter the score.
 
How many people out there thought of Kris King after McDonagh's goal last night?

I sure as **** did. Against the same team in the same city, no less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom