Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion Henrik Lundqvist: Part II

  • 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
Status
Not open for further replies.
NYSPORTS said:
Eli Manning syndrome is no different than Hank syndrome. The player is done and riding the legacy of yesterday with the same fans defending play they would rip another goalie for.

No matter how bad he looks the excuses continue. Why? Oh, b/c he was once good . So the puck was knucking isn’t his fault but give him credit for the multiple pucks he stopped yet looked behind him b/c he lost the puck? Wasn’t luck? Nope, it must have been, yet again, taking some time to work on both his mental and physical game while away. Please, pass the Kool Aid as the first goal of each of the past playoff starts must have been flukes too.

Eli/Hank syndrome is nothing more than not acknowledging the player is old and done.
Click to expand...

As usual the truth is somewhere in the middle. Lundqvist isn't as good as his defenders make him out to be while at the same time not nearly being as bad as his detractors want to make you believe. Lundqvist isn't the reason we lost, but he's no longer giving us a chance to either. I opened a poll last night to see who people think the best player was in the first 2 games and a lot of them said "Lundqvist". Now, again... He was not bad by any means, actually he was quite good in game one and far from a liability in game 2, but to claim he was the best Ranger in this play in round so far is a bit much for me to get behind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: haveandare, Chalfdiggity3 and NYSPORTS
NYSPORTS said:
Tell Valiquette who played goalie and disgarees with you while you obviously never a goalie either (or a bad one who bought into the excuses)
Click to expand...

Actually I have. The two positions aren't remotely similar. Maybe Valiquette is trying to dumb things down to make a point, but I'll stand by what I said: it's a terrible comparison. I don't love the goal, but it's nothing like a 3rd baseman missing a line drive: skates, pads, equipment weight, ice, butterfly inclination to defend a distance shot by going down, blocker vs. glove, stick held in blocker hand, etc... I don't see it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: romba and haveandare
Amazing Kreiderman said:
As usual the truth is somewhere in the middle. Lundqvist isn't as good as his defenders make him out to be while at the same time not nearly being as bad as his detractors want to make you believe. Lundqvist isn't the reason we lost, but he's no longer giving us a chance to either. I opened a poll last night to see who people think the best player was in the first 2 games and a lot of them said "Lundqvist". Now, again... He was not bad by any means, actually he was quite good in game one and far from a liability in game 2, but to claim he was the best Ranger in this play in round so far is a bit much for me to get behind.
Click to expand...

In fairness, it's hard to pick a "best player" when there isn't one. I'd go Kakko, FWIW.

Lundqvist clearly isn't stealing any games but 1 and 2 goals will rarely get it done. The larger problem is that Carolina has been the better team for six periods.
 
haohmaru said:
Actually I have. The two positions aren't remotely similar. Maybe Valiquette is trying to dumb things down to make a point, but I'll stand by what I said: it's a terrible comparison. I don't love the goal, but it's nothing like a 3rd baseman missing a line drive: skates, pads, equipment weight, ice, butterfly inclination to defend a distance shot by going down, blocker vs. glove, stick held in blocker hand, etc... I don't see it.
Click to expand...

Valiquette sees what we all see. A shot from outside the top of the circle with no screen or deflection. Maybe you’re trying to be to clever rather than Valiquette “dumb things down to make a point”
 
  • Like
Reactions: romba
nyr2k2 said:
:laugh:

I don't understand how one person can have so many consistently awful takes.
Click to expand...

(My shadow) i don’t understand why you can see my posts since you were on ignore. Was alerted of your activity so checked in. You’re still following me? Seek help
 
NYSPORTS said:
Valiquette sees what we all see. A shot from outside the top of the circle with no screen or deflection. Maybe you’re trying to be to clever rather than Valiquette “dumb things down to make a point”
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with a 3rd baseman or similarity between positions. Nice try though.
 
Kupo said:
I feel like I work for NASA and some Walmart cashier is trying to lecture me on Galactic research right now. Seriously.

Like... SERIOUSLY. That’s how cringeworthy your post is.

As a goalie, knucklepucks don’t necessarily follow the rules a normal puck should adhere to. Sometimes it dips, ducks, dives, and reacts the way it shouldn’t.

You would understand this if you ever played goalie — but you clearly haven’t. You’re just an outsider trying to make pretend he knows anything about the inside.

That shot had so much power and velocity, that HL literally has a blink of an eye to make a decision.

As someone who has hated HL’s natural reaction to drop to his knees early, that wasn’t the case here.

As far as the puck having to drop down two whole freaking feet before beating HL, I think it might be time to visit your local ophthalmologist. You’re blinder than Helen Keller if you think this is two feet:

View attachment 357647 View attachment 357648 View attachment 357649

DOES THAT HONESTLY LOOK LIKE 2 FEET TO YOU?

That’s probably around 2 inches.

I’ll say it again. Cringeworthy post. Like, embarrassingly bad...

2 feet he says..... :facepalm:
Click to expand...

I said for him to find it necessary to even go down it would have had to drop 2 feet. It was a high shot, what is he going down for? I find it hard to believe you're a goalie let alone working for NASA, though I do think you are out there in space somewhere.
 
Kupo said:
This sums it up.

As a team, we’re being completely outplayed by a better and deeper team.

1 goal tonight. On a 5-3. Yeah, it would have been nice if Shesty, or prime Lundqvist played tonight. But we still lose with either of those guys in net.

After 3+ decades of cheering for this team, Hank is my all time favorite. He’s surpassed the love and appreciation I have for two other Rangers — Leetch, and Richter.

I have no problem admitting the obvious with Hank now. It hurts, but it’s the truth.

Despite this, I can’t sit here and read people blaming him for things that are ultimately 99% out of his control.

I’d love to see him retire. It would really help the team, and as big a HL fan I am, nothing is more important than the team going forward. But let’s relax with this false narrative that Lundqvist is responsible for the hole we’re currently in.
Click to expand...

The team can be crap and the goalie crap at the same time, I've been calling out our stars as well but Hank hasn't kept us in either game, we were behind before the first tv time out both games, both first goals were questionable, the 2nd on which was a death blow wasnt good either, no screen, no tip, high shot and he is dropping. I love everything he has done for this franchise he literally carried us to credibility and it's not his fault Shesterkin couldnt play but he isn't getting the magic back no matter how much anyone wills it. If we wanna win hockey games with this team, someone else has to be in net.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chalfdiggity3, NYSPORTS and bl02
NYSPORTS said:
Tell Valiquette who played goalie and disgarees with you while you obviously never a goalie either (or a bad one who bought into the excuses)
Click to expand...

I’ve played goalie all my life. That second goal is about as bad as it gets. If you want to talk about a change up sure maybe if you wave at it and miss because it knuckled on you. It would still be bad. That is not what happened here. He went down very early exposing the top part of the net and he didn’t get his arm up to cover he froze and it ate him up. I’ve been there many times and it’s always a terrible goal at any level that sure any goalie will tell you was tough but they also tell you it is on them 100%. Pro goalies don’t get beat from there clean that’s an embarrassment
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: romba and Shesterkybomb
I also wanna say this.
Hendrik was an absolute steal of a draft pick, he is absolutely the only reason we had a decent team since 2005, he carried this team on his back all his career. Its emotional as hell to see him in the net now knowing he isn't going to get his cup that he so very much deserves. He is a first ballot hall of Famer, and if Richter didnt win the cup in 94 he would probably be the clear favorite for rangers best goalie ever. He has been my favorite most consistant ranger since he came in. But unfortunately, just like Fatso in New Jersey, time catches all and for a goalie that plays deep in his net his reaction time isn't near fast enough to be an elite goalie anymore. Add to that that this is a pretty incomplete team and it's painfully obvious if we are going to win games he can't be our saviour anymore. I don't like it people says I'm a Hank hater because that is totally not true, but like even Hank himself, I've had to face the facts that the magic isnt coming back and if we are to win games we need a younger goalie in that net. In all honesty I think Hank knows Shesterkin is better, I don't get the feeling he is upset he isnt the number one now. Having said all that, since Shesterkin is unfit, I don't see what option they had but to start him, he was good against carolina all year so it made sense, and outside of the first goal in game 1 he stopped the puck well so go with him for game 2. I'm on the fence if I just let him play today and put a bow on his career or put Georgiev in, either scenario I'm good with.
 
Kovalev27 said:
I’ve played goalie all my life. That second goal is about as bad as it gets. If you want to talk about a change up sure maybe if you wave at it and miss because it knuckled on you. It would still be bad. That is not what happened here. He went down very early exposing the top part of the net and he didn’t get his arm up to cover he froze and it ate him up. I’ve been there many times and it’s always a terrible goal at any level that sure any goalie will tell you was tough but they also tell you it is on them 100%. Pro goalies don’t get beat from there clean that’s an embarrassment
Click to expand...


Oh my argument isn’t that it’s not a weak goal. It is. It’s nothing like a third baseman though.
 
NYSPORTS said:
(My shadow) i don’t understand why you can see my posts since you were on ignore. Was alerted of your activity so checked in. You’re still following me? Seek help
Click to expand...
I have magic postings powers.

Actually, it's pretty easy to understand, you putting me on ignore doesn't mean I have you on ignore. :laugh:

I don't "follow" a single poster on here. I just see your bad takes popping up all over, and while most people seem to ignore them at this point, I still like to call out the craziness.

I liked one of your posts about the Mets the other day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JCProdigy and Thirty One
I mean there must be a reason Igor and Henrik have the same number of wins, but one played 12 games and the other 30. The team must play different in front of them
 
This playoffs seem a lot like the 2006 playoffs when we went in with a raw and inexperienced team and got waxed by the Devils. Teams learn from adversity and for the very young players it's a learning/growing moment. Bad as it might seem it's a valuable experience for the kids.

As far as Henrik---he was very good in the first game and not so good in the second. Personally I would have gone with Alex in both if Igor weren't available mainly for two reasons--1) I think Alex today is a better goalie than Henrik today and 2) I don't see any future really left here for Henrik beyond the one more year. Henrik's a HOF goalie and still capable as an NHL goalie but these games would actually benefit Alex more who does actually have a future.

I would not start Henrik tonight no matter what and no I don't think the second Svechnikov was a good one and it and the Martinook goal that soon followed took the wind right out of our sails. Even if we don't win the series winning a game would be something good for the Kakko's, Chytil's, Fox's, Lindgren's and DeAngelo's so hopefully we can find a way tonight.
 
KreiderBomb said:
The team can be crap and the goalie crap at the same time, I've been calling out our stars as well but Hank hasn't kept us in either game, we were behind before the first tv time out both games, both first goals were questionable, the 2nd on which was a death blow wasnt good either, no screen, no tip, high shot and he is dropping. I love everything he has done for this franchise he literally carried us to credibility and it's not his fault Shesterkin couldnt play but he isn't getting the magic back no matter how much anyone wills it. If we wanna win hockey games with this team, someone else has to be in net.
Click to expand...

They're not going to steal a series playing like this. They could have prime Hank. They have been awful.

Every single aspect of this series has been a Carolina advantage. Coaching, depth, forwards, defense, special teams, etc.

I'd love to have seen Igor in these 2 games. But it's delusional to think we win this series with him at this rate.
 
East Coast Bias said:
They're not going to steal a series playing like this. They could have prime Hank. They have been awful.

Every single aspect of this series has been a Carolina advantage. Coaching, depth, forwards, defense, special teams, etc.

I'd love to have seen Igor in these 2 games. But it's delusional to think we win this series with him at this rate.
Click to expand...
yeah but thats the Rangers.

they flip a switch and start playing swarming god hockey.... then they hit a swtich again and look like a drunk circus

Giving up REALLY BAD goals is deflating.
Giving up REALLY BAD goals early in a period is catastrophic.
 
The King's deterioration as he has aged is to be expected and quite noticeable. He is not even as good as Georgi at this point. The stats paint an objective unmistakable truth. Time spares noone.:


Season
GP
GS
W
L
T
OT
SA
GA
GAA
S
SV%

2011-2012
62
62
39
18
--
5
1,753
123
1.97
1,630
.930

2012-2013
43
43
24
16
--
3
1,190
88
2.05
1,102
.926

2013-2014
63
62
33
24
--
5
1,810
144
2.36
1,666
.920

2014-2015
46
46
30
13
--
3
1,329
103
2.25
1,226
.922

2015-2016
65
64
35
21
--
7
1,944
156
2.48
1,788
.920

2016-2017
57
55
31
20
--
4
1,650
148
2.74
1,502
.910

2017-2018
63
61
26
26
0
7
2,036
174
2.98
1,862
.915

2018-2019
52
52
18
23
0
10
1,699
158
3.07
1,541
.907

2019-2020
30
26
10
12
0
3
883
84
3.16
799
.905
[THEAD] [/THEAD]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom