Post-Game Talk: Los Angeles Kings @ New York Rangers |Game 3| 6/9/14

[17futurecap]

Just got in from the game, that sucked. Crowd was definitely down with the Kings first goal, but everyone was still positive going into the second. Taking back to back high sticks felt like the back breaker.

The pp failing time after time was tough to take. Oh well, hope they can send it back to LA. LGR!

 

[Fataldogg]

This is in response to you saying the Rangers overachieved. It's hard to say that when in fact, in the previous two games, the Rangers dominated the Kings outside of 1 period. Are they really that head and shoulders above the Rangers? I disagree.

I don't agree with that sentiment at all. We did not dominate them. Especially game one. Game one was a very competitive game. Game two was a very competitive game. Bad luck and officiating aside, the Kings played well enough to win both games (and did). I don't agree with this notion that we took them to school in the first two games.

Both teams had their surges and had large stretches where they dominated in each game, and each game was a battle. Rangers did not "dominate" them.

As someone else said, they're a team that has Mike Richards playing as a forth liner over stretches. That's as deep as it gets.

They beat the Sharks, Ducks and Blackhawks in that order (all teams we would have been a significant underdog against).

We overachieved in that no one thought the Rangers were making the Stanley Cup Finals this season. Our path to the SCF didn't hurt either. Outside of Pittsburgh, we had a lot of fortune. We faced the Flyers without Mason half of the series (who looked fantastic against us and forced a Game 7, who knows if he starts) and a Montreal team without Price.

Pittsburgh was one team where we certainly overcame the odds. They were a better team, and we won a series we shouldn't have. Outside of that, I would have been pretty disappointed losing to Emery or Tokarski (even if Tokarski played great, and I still think he was the best goaltender we faced, he made the saves Quick was making tonight look routine against us).

 

[Richter Scale]

Small sample size I'd say, and Quick was better tonight and the Kings are a better team. Look at the goals Lundqvist is giving up, St Louis hand and then a 2 on 1 where Kings get the bounce and an easy goal. You can't blame Lundqvist for those. Both goalies had a .908 SV% coming in I believe. If the Rangers win game 4, Lundqvist could wind up having better numbers than Quick. Also Rangers always struggle to finish regardless of who is in net, Look at Tokarski against us.

For what we know Hank can bring... is a .908 sv % good enough in the SCF? Really? We're ok with that? Almost none of the goals have been terrible. But we can't expect our all star goalie to come up big for the team on the biggest stage?

 

[trilobyte]

I second that notion. Team overachieved.

Anyone thinking this wasn't arguably the easiest path to the SCF possible, or thinking we stood a legitimate chance against the Kings, was overly optimistic. We're not on their level. We don't have the talent or depth the Kings have. They're simply a more COMPLETE TEAM. I say TEAM because I know everyone loves to blame Lundqvist for every loss this TEAM suffers.

The main point is that the games have to be played. The Rangers were basically denied a win in Game 2 due to an incredibly illegal ruling (he ignored the NHL rules) by a referee. We all know that pointing it out is not whining; what we point out is grevious. inexcusable.
The Kings are a very good team. We know that.

 

[Fataldogg]

For what we know Hank can bring... is a .908 sv % good enough in the SCF? Really? We're ok with that? Almost none of the goals have been terrible. But we can't expect our all star goalie to come up big for the team on the biggest stage?

A .906SV% was good enough for Quick to make the Stanley Cup Finals with the Kings. Just food for thought. Teams play the games. Quick was averaging nearly 3 goals against and a .906SV% and still made it to the dance, despite some really underwhelming numbers in "BIG" games.

Teams go all the way. Teams lose together.

You're not grasping that concept.

Quick is a world class goaltender who did pretty mediocre, by all accounts, and it didn't matter because when it's all said and done, his team found a way to score 4 goals a night and win most of the games.

If Nash and Richards have 10 goals in the post season right now, and have this series tied up, Lundqvist isn't even a discussion. Quick was fortunate enough to have Carter, Gaborik, Kopitar, Doughty and Williams all play out of their minds.

 

[nyrleetch]

This is the only way to look at it. Thanks for being one of the few who don't give up hope.

I was really down after game 4 against the Pens. I was really mad at our efforts but despite that leaving the garden that day, I turned to my brother and said all we need to do is steal game 5 on the road. Like you and others have said, take it one game at a time, 4 games seems tough to do now but it can be done.

Something needs to be done with the powerplay, It sucks the momentum of us each game. Would you sit Richards? Put Carcillo or Miller in?

 

[nyrleetch]

For what we know Hank can bring... is a .908 sv % good enough in the SCF? Really? We're ok with that? Almost none of the goals have been terrible. But we can't expect our all star goalie to come up big for the team on the biggest stage?

No, but it was two games and one of those goals was aided by a Kings player not letting him get a chance to save it. He should've had that first goal tonight after Moore made a bad defensive read, but the second and third goal tonight I can't fault him.

 

[nyrleetch]

A .906SV% was good enough for Quick to make the Stanley Cup Finals with the Kings. Just food for thought. Teams play the games. Quick was averaging nearly 3 goals against and a .906SV% and still made it to the dance, despite some really underwhelming numbers in "BIG" games.

Teams go all the way. Teams lose together.

You're not grasping that concept.

Quick is a world class goaltender who did pretty mediocre, by all accounts, and it didn't matter because when it's all said and done, his team found a way to score 4 goals a night and win most of the games.

Look at Quick's first 3 games of this playoffs. Had Lundqvist played that horrendous there is no chance the team rallies to win in 7. The Kings are a really good team. Quick was really good tonight, but the first two games he didn't really impress me all that much.

 

[ImIdaho]

I don't agree with that sentiment at all. We did not dominate them. Especially game one. Game one was a very competitive game. Game two was a very competitive game. Bad luck and officiating aside, the Kings played well enough to win both games (and did). I don't agree with this notion that we took them to school in the first two games.

Both teams had their surges and had large stretches where they dominated in each game, and each game was a battle. Rangers did not "dominate" them.

As someone else said, they're a team that has Mike Richards playing as a forth liner over stretches. That's as deep as it gets.

They beat the Sharks, Ducks and Blackhawks in that order (all teams we would have been a significant underdog against).

We overachieved in that no one thought the Rangers were making the Stanley Cup Finals this season. Our path to the SCF didn't hurt either. Outside of Pittsburgh, we had a lot of fortune. We faced the Flyers without Mason half of the series (who looked fantastic against us and forced a Game 7, who knows if he starts) and a Montreal team without Price.

Pittsburgh was one team where we certainly overcame the odds. They were a better team, and we won a series we shouldn't have. Outside of that, I would have been pretty disappointed losing to Emery or Tokarski.

Look at the goals scored by the Kings the first two games. Dumb plays by the Rangers and dumb officiating. The last 3 goals you can certainly blame the refs for (No goalie interference, icing even though Poo beat two Kings, no delay of game penalty). Take those away and it's the Rangers hustling and bustling except for the 3rd period in Game 1.

If anything, it's a team that has a coach that will change his line-ups on the fly to change momentum of the game compared to a coach that doesn't see a liability and still tries to utilize said liability (Richards).

So you're going to throw that injury card against the Rangers but you're not going to do the same against the Kings? I do recall the Ducks' starter succumbing to an injury. Even then, it's a moot point. Injuries are a part of the game. We didn't have Kreider until the Penguins series and look what he was able to provide.

 

[nevesis]

I was really down after game 4 against the Pens. I was really mad at our efforts but despite that leaving the garden that day, I turned to my brother and said all we need to do is steal game 5 on the road. Like you and others have said, take it one game at a time, 4 games seems tough to do now but it can be done.

This is exactly what I said after Game 4 of the Pittsburgh series. However, this time its about just winning one game at home, and later that night you're on a flight to L.A. for Game 5.

Anything can happen in that game, and a few bounces go our way, and we're on a flight back to NY for a Game 6. MSG would be going insane, and the team would have all the momentum at that point. It would be a different team at that point.

Getting to a Game 7 would be an extreme achievement in and of itself. What better way to celebrate that achievement with the ultimate prize at the end?

It's a bold dream, but the Kings JUST did it after being as low as a team can be down 3-0 against a GREAT team in San Jose.

This team might have overachieved all year, and in these playoffs, but they've proven to me with each series played, a ton of resiliency and have surprised me with every series win.

Just need to do it one more time, for all the marbles. A miracle run that would be something historic.

It starts Wednesday night.

 

[hi]

The Rangers had 11:58 of powerplay time in Game 3.

Brad Richards was on the ice for 8:47 of that 11:58

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Take 1 at a time. That's the name of the game, isn't it?

Don't even worry or mention about game 5 and beyond. Every game is game 7 now. Not impossible, just improbable. Leave it all out on the ice in game 4.

 

[Richter Scale]

A .906SV% was good enough for Quick to make the Stanley Cup Finals with the Kings. Just food for thought. Teams play the games. Quick was averaging nearly 3 goals against and a .906SV% and still made it to the dance, despite some really underwhelming numbers in "BIG" games.

Teams go all the way. Teams lose together.

You're not grasping that concept.

Quick is a world class goaltender who did pretty mediocre, by all accounts, and it didn't matter because when it's all said and done, his team found a way to score 4 goals a night and win most of the games.

Ok, fair points. But to try to get at what I'm trying to get at... let's put this another way:

- If I were to tell you going into this series that Hank would have a .908 sv % through the first 2 games, would you have thought that the Rangers would have had a chance in hell of winning them? I sure as hell wouldn't have.

- If Hank just played even with any goalie he played against in the playoffs, would you feel that this team would have a reasonable shot to win?

- Because the Kings will be paying their goalie nearly $3 mil less than NYR are paying Lundqvist over the next several seasons, they have a lot more to work with to fill out the rest of their lineup. If Hank is making $3 mil more than his competition, is it not ok to expect him to play like it? (Yes, I know the two contracts were signed in slightly different situations - but not $3 mil different in my mind) (And, of course, all this saying nothing of this team's other high paid "stars")

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

Look at Quick's first 3 games of this playoffs. Had Lundqvist played that horrendous there is no chance the team rallies to win in 7. The Kings are a really good team. Quick was really good tonight, but the first two games he didn't really impress me all that much.

Quick isn't that good, but unfortunately people (as you can see here tonight) will base their observations on small sample sizes.

When Quick has another sub .920 sv% regular season, people will still say that he "gets it done" and is "clutch." .

 

[ThisYearsModel]

When your best line is the 4th line, you cannot win a championship. When your highest paid forward scores 3 goals in 40 lifetime playoff games, you cannot win the cup. When the "de-facto captain" gives the puck away more than he passes to his teammates and kills the power plays, you cannot win the cup. When your shut down defense and goalie cannot protect multiple 2 goal leads, you cannot win the cup. When your best player, your goalie, is outplayed by the opposing goalie, you cannot win the cup. It really is no more complicated than that.

On the biggest stage, the Rangers highest paid and top-line players came up small. They shrunk. That's the bottom line. LA has guys that come through in the clutch. The Rangers do not.

 

[aufheben]

The Rangers had 11:58 of powerplay time in Game 3.

Brad Richards was on the ice for 8:47 of that 11:58

What the hell AV..

Quick isn't that good, but unfortunately people (as you can see here tonight) will base their observations on small sample sizes.

When Quick has another sub .920 sv% regular season, people will still say that he "gets it done" and is "clutch." .

But...he does?

 

[Fataldogg]

Look at the goals scored by the Kings the first two games. Dumb plays by the Rangers and dumb officiating. The last 3 goals you can certainly blame the refs for (No goalie interference, icing even though Poo beat two Kings, no delay of game penalty). Take those away and it's the Rangers hustling and bustling except for the 3rd period in Game 1.

If anything, it's a team that has a coach that will change his line-ups on the fly to change momentum of the game compared to a coach that doesn't see a liability and still tries to utilize said liability (Richards).

So you're going to throw that injury card against the Rangers but you're not going to do the same against the Kings? I do recall the Ducks' starter succumbing to an injury. Even then, it's a moot point. Injuries are a part of the game. We didn't have Kreider until the Penguins series and look what he was able to provide.

I totally agree that injuries are part of the game. Losing a starting goaltender is a recipe for disaster though (see Tampa Bay). Rangers faced two teams without their starting goaltenders. Even if injuries are part of the game, you don't think that's pretty fortunate? Put it in perspective, are we in the Stanley Cup Finals if Lundqvist gets injured against the Flyers and we force that responsibility onto Talbot? (there are probably plenty of fans out there that actually think this, but I digress).

Losing a quality depth player (Kreider) and a starting goaltender (Lightning, Wild, Flyers, Canadiens, etc.) is a BIG difference (even if Tokarski played great).

Again, I totally agree with you that the Rangers played good games in games one and two. I just don't think we dominated them. I think with even what you said, the Kings catching the lucky breaks they had, they still played well enough to win.

 

[dynamoovechkin]

Game one, Hags has a breakaway with 30 seconds left. Game two Krieder has a breakaway. Game three- 3 bad bounces and lucky goals for LA. I just thought tonight was a poor effort by a desperate team.

This is pretty typical for a team that 1- struggles to score and 2- can't get it done on home ice. I thought the 4th line was non-existent tonight and Johnny Moore just flat out sucks- sorry. Dan Girardi with a nightmare finals. F-ing brutal.

 

[richardsequalscup*]

Rangers once again were incompetent finishing. Same story every year.

 

[HabsAddict]

I don't agree with that sentiment at all. We did not dominate them. Especially game one. Game one was a very competitive game. Game two was a very competitive game. Bad luck and officiating aside, the Kings played well enough to win both games (and did). I don't agree with this notion that we took them to school in the first two games.

Both teams had their surges and had large stretches where they dominated in each game, and each game was a battle. Rangers did not "dominate" them.

As someone else said, they're a team that has Mike Richards playing as a forth liner over stretches. That's as deep as it gets.

They beat the Sharks, Ducks and Blackhawks in that order (all teams we would have been a significant underdog against).

We overachieved in that no one thought the Rangers were making the Stanley Cup Finals this season. Our path to the SCF didn't hurt either. Outside of Pittsburgh, we had a lot of fortune. We faced the Flyers without Mason half of the series (who looked fantastic against us and forced a Game 7, who knows if he starts) and a Montreal team without Price.

Pittsburgh was one team where we certainly overcame the odds. They were a better team, and we won a series we shouldn't have. Outside of that, I would have been pretty disappointed losing to Emery or Tokarski (even if Tokarski played great, and I still think he was the best goaltender we faced, he made the saves Quick was making tonight look routine against us).

An honest assessment.

Tokarski is not Price. First stop aside, rebound control and puck handling are not in the same league.

 

[nyrleetch]

This is exactly what I said after Game 4 of the Pittsburgh series. However, this time its about just winning one game at home, and later that night you're on a flight to L.A. for Game 5.

Anything can happen in that game, and a few bounces go our way, and we're on a flight back to NY for a Game 6. MSG would be going insane, and the team would have all the momentum at that point. It would be a different team at that point.

Getting to a Game 7 would be an extreme achievement in and of itself. What better way to celebrate that achievement with the ultimate prize at the end?

It's a bold dream, but the Kings JUST did it after being as low as a team can be down 3-0 against a GREAT team in San Jose.

This team might have overachieved all year, and in these playoffs, but they've proven to me with each series played, a ton of resiliency and have surprised me with every series win.

Just need to do it one more time, for all the marbles. A miracle run that would be something historic.

It starts Wednesday night.

Such great points, I'm with you. Just take Game 4. All the pressure is on the Kings. We've played the best with our backs to the walls.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I don't blame Hank for any loss in this series. I just think it's disappointing knowing that he has that extra level that he hasn't shown us during the last 3 games.

Sometimes, you can just tell when he's completely and utterly into the game. Just hasn't been the case yet in this series.

Maybe the elimination game trend will continue for him. We need that guy back.

 

[nyrleetch]

Quick isn't that good, but unfortunately people (as you can see here tonight) will base their observations on small sample sizes.

When Quick has another sub .920 sv% regular season, people will still say that he "gets it done" and is "clutch." .

Yeah I agree. I try not to sound bitter because the guy is one game away from his second Stanley Cup, but his team is just perfectly built. Doughty, Kopitar just such good players. Quick gave up 13 goals over the final 3 games of that last series, including 4 in a game 7 win.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

What the hell AV..



But...he does?

Sure...you know who else gets it done? Henrik Lundqvist and every other player on every other good team.

This idea of an average goaltender being better than the best in the world over the last 8 years is absolutely ludicrous, and it's all predicated on one good season. Quick hasn't even been ****ing good in these playoffs, and he had one good game this series. He hasn't gotten **** done- his team bailed him out every game before this and he finally had a good game tonight. Good for him.

 

[Fataldogg]

Ok, fair points. But to try to get at what I'm trying to get at... let's put this another way:

- If I were to tell you going into this series that Hank would have a .908 sv % through the first 2 games, would you have thought that the Rangers would have had a chance in hell of winning them? I sure as hell wouldn't have.

- If Hank just played even with any goalie he played against in the playoffs, would you feel that this team would have a reasonable shot to win?

- Because the Kings will be paying their goalie nearly $3 mil less than NYR are paying Lundqvist over the next several seasons, they have a lot more to work with to fill out the rest of their lineup. If Hank is making $3 mil more than his competition, is it not ok to expect him to play like it? (Yes, I know the two contracts were signed in slightly different situations - but not $3 mil different in my mind) (And, of course, all this saying nothing of this team's other high paid "stars")

Point one: NO. I don't think they'd have a chance against the Kings, ON THE RANGERS. If the roles were reversed, and he was on LA? Yes, I think he'd have a chance at winning. On this team? The answer is NO.

Point two: Again, on the Rangers? NO. He is the key piece to the team.

Point three: His salary is a non-issue in my opinion. He is a top paid goaltender, and this post season, for all intensive purposes, he played like a top paid goaltender. He did get his team to the Stanley Cup Finals while being their best player in that stretch after all.

Bigger issue with salary? Allocating funds to players not performing. $14.4M between Richards and Nash is brutal and unacceptable for a team to compete with a team as deep as LA, Chicago, Boston, etc. At the end of the day, Lundqvist's performance is further magnified because he is the star player on our team we expect results from. If Richards and Nash live up to expectations, we aren't even having this discussion. Unfortunately, we have no expectations from our other star players like Nash and Richards. Because if that $14.4M lived up to expectations, we probably aren't down 3-0 right now. I have no problem allocating big money to Lundqvist given his performance with the team. We have $14.4M of dead weight. Put it in perspective, Richards and Nash are making more than Kane and Toews. It's all about allocating funds to players who will benefit your team.