Lundqvist - Two Weak Games, Bounce Back Buddy

[NikC]

I'm just going by his play. Maybe they still lose all of the series that they lost over the years. What I do know is that he hasn't helped matters that much by his inconsistency. I went down the line with every year, every series, even didn't mention his latest bipolar gem last series. I'm not making this up.

I really can't stand people comparing Lundqvist to other players on the team. The only two that I can see getting even REMOTELY close to the slack are Nash and Richards. Richards looks done, I just don't think he's good anymore. You're right about Nash. Still Nash is not even in the same league as the player that Lundqvist is. Plus, Nash plays a position that does not have anywhere near the impact on the game that Lundqvist does. It may not be fair, but Nash is far less likely to cost us a game.

Finally, I know that the "woe is Lundqvist" attitude is a mainstream for Rangers fans, but it's pretty sickening how you just have to degrade the entire team to make your point. McDonagh and Girardi held Ovechkin pointless at even strength. Nope, they did nothing. Oh I forgot all the breakaways that they allowed to him that Lundqvist stopped. Especially in the 2 games he was held to 1 shot. What a shot it was! Did you expect them to give you Mike Green production on offense too? You can make your point without completely disregarding the great play of McDonagh and Girardi last series. It's like there is an edict that Lundqvist is the one player that Rangers fans praise and everyone else gets **** on, and when there's nothing to **** on him for you make it up!

I've read your posts throughout the years and agree with your assessments. Sure he's had his work cut out for him with this "offense" or lack thereof, but when he struggles to make standard saves, there is always excuses. He's played bad so far in this series.
i don't understand why that is so hard to accept.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Thanks for the objective input.
Some Rangers fans have their own agendas against specific Ranger players, they are looking for any excuse to trash them. The list is long, Hank, Callahan, Girardi, DZ, Stepan, Boyle, kreider, Zuke, Staal.

Ah, in all honesty, we all do it. Every fanbase, every team, every league. Sometimes we just hold players up to an impossible standard. Of course, the media and hype machine of these league adds to the illusion these guys are supermen. It doesn't help when a guy has an 8-9 figure contract, either.

I don't think Hank has been bad, but we haven't seen the godlike saves he often makes. I looks to me like he's half a second behind the paly sometimes. In his interviews he looks exhausted, both physically and mentally.

I was worried before the playoffs the Lundqvist was getting too many starts and Biron was rusting away on the bench...perhaps the Rangers made a mistake in the last few games by playing him a lil too much.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I've read your posts throughout the years and agree with your assessments. Sure he's had his work cut out for him with this "offense" or lack thereof, but when he struggles to make standard saves, there is always excuses. He's played bad so far in this series.
i don't understand why that is so hard to accept.

Exactly, I don't understand what do Richards or Nash have to do with the softies he's giving up.

 

[NikC]

Exactly, I don't understand what do Richards or Nash have to do with the softies he's giving up.

the most illogical attempt to defer blame. Hank stood on his head in game 6. great. i'm glad. he needs to do that. we gave him 5 goals in game 7.

lets a 90ft slapper trickle through in game 1 of this series, along with the 3rd, and 4th goal back breakers. I hope he plays lights out tomorrow and thursday.

I'm aware he plays on high levels at times, its the times he loses focus on pedestrian plays that are crippling us.

 

[Kwayry]

Exactly, I don't understand what do Richards or Nash have to do with the softies he's giving up.

Or what Hank has anything to do with Nash and Richard's play. Depends on how you look at it.

From what i have seen, you are giving everybody else a pass except Lundqvist.
The team loses 2-1, you blame Hank for allowing the second goal. Not the offense for going 0 for 5 on the PP.

Bottom line is the Rangers wouldn't have been close enough last year or this year without his play.
There is a reason he won the Vezina last season and he has been finalist for like ****ing forever, including this season.
Most of the people on this board and the GM's voting for the Vezina must be deluded. Or, the easiest answer is you are.

Not sure what he did to you, but this is getting to be unhealthy and annoying.
This is the last time i am going to respond to you about Lundqvist, because you are not making sense anymore.

Good luck.

I can't believe people deluded themselves into thinking that Lundqvist was consistent in the first round because he had 2 shutouts to end it. Giving up 3 goals in a playoff game puts all but the elite tanking teams behind the 8 ball. He did it 3 times. He basically gave us a pretty small chance to win 3 times in a ****ing 7 game series. Even then the team bailed him out by scoring 4 goals twice. Yet, woe is Lundqvist he never gets any support.

This one is the winner.

Until suck long enough to build a core like the Pens (maybe the Hawks), we're not winning a ****ing thing with Lundqvist in net. He'll win us a game or 2 where we play like **** and he allows 0 or 1 goal, unfortunately his MADLY inconsistent play won't get us 4 wins in 4 series ever. We won't win with him in net and it'll be largely because of him. The team right now is good enough to win if he plays like his normal self.

 

[JohnC]

I'm beyond skeptical of the Rangers being able to beat LA last year with how they played against Ottawa, Washington, and Jersey

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Or what Hank has anything to do with Nash and Richard's play. Depends on how you look at it.

From what i have seen, you are giving everybody else a pass except Lundqvist.
The team loses 2-1, you blame Hank for allowing the second goal. Not the offense for going 0 for 5 on the PP.

Bottom line is the Rangers wouldn't have been close enough last year or this year without his play.
There is a reason he won the Vezina last season and he has been finalist for like ****ing forever, including this season.
Most of the people on this board and the GM's voting for the Vezina must be deluded. Or, the easiest answer is you are.

Not sure what he did to you, but this is getting to be unhealthy and annoying.
This is the last time i am going to respond to you about Lundqvist, because you are not making sense anymore.

Good luck.



This one is the winner.

The fact that you don't understand the best player on your team and probably the best at his position, THE MOST IMPORTANT POSITION IN HOCKEY, should get more scrutiny and then have the nerve to say I'm deluded is amazing.

Also, what the **** are you bringing up his Vezina nomination for when I complaining about his playoff performances?

 

[Chimpradamus]

Some of you need a serious wakeup call. If you believe Lundqvist is going to single handedly hand the Rangers a Cup, think again. You need a solid team for that with few flaws. This team has several serious flaws, the abomination of a PP being one of them, that no other star player than Lundqvist ever shows up in the playoffs is another.

That Torts style of hockey is so extremely ineffective and extremely boring I've basically quit watching at this point is another. After I watched the World Championships tournament, I just got depressed watching the BOS vs NYR series and had to turn it off.

When watching hockey feels like a duty more than that you're entertained, something is seriously wrong. What a joke and this league is becoming a mess.

Someone above me said it correctly, everyone on this team gets a pass, but Lundqvist. Is it because you assume that everybody will underperform, but Lundqvist? What delusions do you have left about our cup chances? This team isn't good enough even for a miracle to happen.

If the Caps wouldn't trash us (which they would have if Lundqvist didn't save us), the Bruins will. If the Bruins won't, Pittsburgh absolutely will. If Pittsburgh absolutely won't, the western team we face will make us look silly, but fortunately we won't get so far that we'll embarrass ourselves.

And yes, people like SnowBlindNYR who tries to blame all the flaws this team has on Hank is hilarious. He's apparently supposed to bring a Cup all by himself, without Nash, without Richards, without Callahan, without Staal and without Clowe.

Most Cup teams need a legit discussion between 3 players who should win the Conn Smythe. Until that happens here, we're not going anywhere and we're not even close.

 

[Crease]

I guess the argument has shifted direction since yesterday.

Lundqvist should not be expected to carry the team to a championship by himself. Nor should he field all of the blame when the team loses 2-1 and 1-0 games. However, he is less frequently himself (or better) in the playoffs than in the regular season and that cannot entirely be explained away by things like goal support, bad luck, and tough competition. I think its a fair criticism, given all the talk about his HHOF track and potential greatness.

 

[Fataldogg]

I'm just going by his play. Maybe they still lose all of the series that they lost over the years. What I do know is that he hasn't helped matters that much by his inconsistency. I went down the line with every year, every series, even didn't mention his latest bipolar gem last series. I'm not making this up.

I really can't stand people comparing Lundqvist to other players on the team. The only two that I can see getting even REMOTELY close to the slack are Nash and Richards. Richards looks done, I just don't think he's good anymore. You're right about Nash. Still Nash is not even in the same league as the player that Lundqvist is. Plus, Nash plays a position that does not have anywhere near the impact on the game that Lundqvist does. It may not be fair, but Nash is far less likely to cost us a game.

Finally, I know that the "woe is Lundqvist" attitude is a mainstream for Rangers fans, but it's pretty sickening how you just have to degrade the entire team to make your point. McDonagh and Girardi held Ovechkin pointless at even strength. Nope, they did nothing. Oh I forgot all the breakaways that they allowed to him that Lundqvist stopped. Especially in the 2 games he was held to 1 shot. What a shot it was! Did you expect them to give you Mike Green production on offense too? You can make your point without completely disregarding the great play of McDonagh and Girardi last series. It's like there is an edict that Lundqvist is the one player that Rangers fans praise and everyone else gets **** on, and when there's nothing to **** on him for you make it up!

First of all, you do realize we restructured our offensive core around Nash, right? You do realize he has the highest cap hit on the team? You do realize that he is regarded as one of the best power forwards / danglers in the world, right? Why isn't he held accountable for the team's woes? For you to think he doesn't have the same responsibility as Lundqvist, given how we restructured our entire offensive core around him, is amazing.

McDonagh and Girardi were solid in the first round. They weren't exactly playoff heroes, which is what I was trying to get at. Ovechkin still registered plenty of shots in the series, and if it wasn't for Lundqvist in net, probably could have had a couple of goals. Did you watch the Ovechkin post games? You probably didn't. They asked him if the Rangers did a good job shutting him down and or if it was frustrating playing against the pairing of Girardi/McDonagh? Guess what he said, "It was Lundqvist." He didn't say McDonagh and Girardi were frustrating to play against.

Secondly, since Crosby is the best player in the world, period, in an extremely important position, I guess he should be blamed for the Penguins elimination last season, right? Tim Thomas should be blamed for the Bruins first round elimination in 11-12? Since Toews is likely considered the best two way forward in the world, is the heart of Chicago, he should be blamed for their first round elimination last year? And for Nashville and Vancouver both sporting two of the best goaltenders in the NHL in Rinne and Luongo, I guess they should both be blamed for their team lossses to?

When does it end? Blaming one elite player for a teams loss. It's a team game. Nashville didn't go all the way with Rinne because, guess what, they weren't good enough. The same applies to the other players and Lundqvist. That's what you're not getting through your head.

 

[NikC]

Some of you need a serious wakeup call. If you believe Lundqvist is going to single handedly hand the Rangers a Cup, think again. You need a solid team for that with few flaws. This team has several serious flaws, the abomination of a PP being one of them, that no other star player than Lundqvist ever shows up in the playoffs is another.

That Torts style of hockey is so extremely ineffective and extremely boring I've basically quit watching at this point is another. After I watched the World Championships tournament, I just got depressed watching the BOS vs NYR series and had to turn it off.

When watching hockey feels like a duty more than that you're entertained, something is seriously wrong. What a joke and this league is becoming a mess.

Someone above me said it correctly, everyone on this team gets a pass, but Lundqvist. Is it because you assume that everybody will underperform, but Lundqvist? What delusions do you have left about our cup chances? This team isn't good enough even for a miracle to happen.

If the Caps wouldn't trash us (which they would have if Lundqvist didn't save us), the Bruins will. If the Bruins won't, Pittsburgh absolutely will. If Pittsburgh absolutely won't, the western team we face will make us look silly, but fortunately we won't get so far that we'll embarrass ourselves.

And yes, people like SnowBlindNYR who tries to blame all the flaws this team has on Hank is hilarious. He's apparently supposed to bring a Cup all by himself, without Nash, without Richards, without Callahan, without Staal and without Clowe.

Most Cup teams need a legit discussion between 3 players who should win the Conn Smythe. Until that happens here, we're not going anywhere and we're not even close.

Lundqvist saved the rangers against Caps? Really?
He let in soft goals in game 1, then we lost in OT. We won back to back 4-3 games. He kept a 1g lead intact to steal game 6. We game him 5g to close out the series...

In my eyes that is far from saving us. I don't see how you can look at the series any differently, except maybe we win game 1w/o the soft goal and we close them out in 5 or 6.

Much like this series. Playoff hockey is low scoring across the board. You can't give up trickling softies. We're in a 0-2 hole because of Hank and Girardi as much as the PP....

 

[*Bob Richards*]

Ah, in all honesty, we all do it. Every fanbase, every team, every league. Sometimes we just hold players up to an impossible standard. Of course, the media and hype machine of these league adds to the illusion these guys are supermen. It doesn't help when a guy has an 8-9 figure contract, either.

I don't think Hank has been bad, but we haven't seen the godlike saves he often makes. I looks to me like he's half a second behind the paly sometimes. In his interviews he looks exhausted, both physically and mentally.

I was worried before the playoffs the Lundqvist was getting too many starts and Biron was rusting away on the bench...perhaps the Rangers made a mistake in the last few games by playing him a lil too much.

I think this is a balanced and level headed post. Specifically the bolded speaks to me. It's like some people have come to the conclusion that Hasek, Roy and Brodeur have never, ever had a poor game or strung together consecutive weak starts in either the regular season or post season.

It's interesting how we ride Hank into the ground during the regular season (otherwise we'd miss the playoffs just about every ****ing year) and then act shocked when he can't maintain his heroic play for another 20 games (because honestly, this team can't win a 5 game series). Is it that the man just comes up small in the clutch? Or is his body unable to keep up with his will because the team's ship is always sinking and they hand him a friggin' bucket. I'd like to believe in the latter.

I also think we see runs like the Kings made last year and feel the need to hold Hank to that standard as well. Truth be told, the 16-4 domination that team went with is something we probably won't see again for awhile. This isn't the 80's where teams get routinely steamrolled. They will bite back and Boston is no exception. I also love the inconsistency of this place. After Game 7, he gets named the MVP of Round 1 as per NHL.com and all that jazz and he's the greatest goalie ever and then he plays a ****** Game 2 in Boston and all of a sudden he is a mental midget who is incapable of carrying anything. Something's got to give.

For all the pouting we like display against Washington and Pittsburgh for drafting this generational talent in Crosby and Ovechkin, we more or less have done the same at goalie. He just came in the 7th. Goalies are also a different breed. In his beast mode, Crosby can run an entire game. Win it single-handedly. Goalies, can not. Lundqvist at his absolute most unstoppable and world killing best can ONLY hold the opposition to 0. That's it. Eventually, someone will have to put the puck in the net and four goals over the past two games isn't exactly the most reassuring thing ever.

Sorry for the novel, but we are incredibly lucky to be able to witness this man play for our team and I just think its unfair that we hold him to this comically high standard that he can win us a Cup on his own.

 

[Crease]

Is it that the man just comes up small in the clutch? Or is his body unable to keep up with his will because the team's ship is always sinking and they hand him a friggin' bucket.

You make a good point regarding his regular season workload and how that might be affecting his postseason performance.

 

[NikC]

I think this is a balanced and level headed post. Specifically the bolded speaks to me. It's like some people have come to the conclusion that Hasek, Roy and Brodeur have never, ever had a poor game or strung together consecutive weak starts in either the regular season or post season.

It's interesting how we ride Hank into the ground during the regular season (otherwise we'd miss the playoffs just about every ****ing year) and then act shocked when he can't maintain his heroic play for another 20 games (because honestly, this team can't win a 5 game series). Is it that the man just comes up small in the clutch? Or is his body unable to keep up with his will because the team's ship is always sinking and they hand him a friggin' bucket. I'd like to believe in the latter.

I also think we see runs like the Kings made last year and feel the need to hold Hank to that standard as well. Truth be told, the 16-4 domination that team went with is something we probably won't see again for awhile. This isn't the 80's where teams get routinely steamrolled. They will bite back and Boston is no exception. I also love the inconsistency of this place. After Game 7, he gets named the MVP of Round 1 as per NHL.com and all that jazz and he's the greatest goalie ever and then he plays a ****** Game 2 in Boston and all of a sudden he is a mental midget who is incapable of carrying anything. Something's got to give.

For all the pouting we like display against Washington and Pittsburgh for drafting this generational talent in Crosby and Ovechkin, we more or less have done the same at goalie. He just came in the 7th. Goalies are also a different breed. In his beast mode, Crosby can run an entire game. Win it single-handedly. Goalies, can not. Lundqvist at his absolute most unstoppable and world killing best can ONLY hold the opposition to 0. That's it. Eventually, someone will have to put the puck in the net and four goals over the past two games isn't exactly the most reassuring thing ever.

Sorry for the novel, but we are incredibly lucky to be able to witness this man play for our team and I just think its unfair that we hold him to this comically high standard that he can win us a Cup on his own.

Seems like you miss the point in your sermon as well. I won't discount how important Lundqvist is to this team but ill still be critical of him when he deserves it. It seems that he is allowed to give up soft goals and blow games because of a spectacular performance the night before?

He can't be criticized because our PP is bad? Sorry that's BS.

 

[NikC]

You make a good point regarding his regular season workload and how that might be affecting his postseason performance.

Shortened season. ...

 

[*Bob Richards*]

You make a good point regarding his regular season workload and how that might be affecting his postseason performance.

He came in 2nd amongst goalies in games played at 43. Amongst remaining playoff goalies, Niemi is tied with him and Jimmy Howard played 42. In such a shortened season with such a condensed schedule, even 4-5 more days off could help down the road.

I think he also played something like our last 20 games consecutively. And he has to know that he is the sentinel between playoff contention and the abyss. That has to be extremely taxing mentally and physically.

Am I disappointed with him last game? Absolutely, but I also can put it into context. On team that employs guys like Brad ****ing Richards, I believe we should all take a collective breath and feel confidence in our Vezina caliber net minder to find his game again.

 

[*Bob Richards*]

Seems like you miss the point in your sermon as well. I won't discount how important Lundqvist is to this team but ill still be critical of him when he deserves it. It seems that he is allowed to give up soft goals and blow games because of a spectacular performance the night before?

He can't be criticized because our PP is bad? Sorry that's BS.

I'm not excusing him from criticism. His faults are exactly that. His.

What I am attempting to excuse him from is the impossibly demanding standard the fan base expects of him.

 

[Crease]

I'm not excusing him from criticism. His faults are exactly that. His.

What I am attempting to excuse him from is the impossibly demanding standard the fan base expects of him.

I keep seeing this being thrown around. Has anyone here really said anything beyond the fact that he has a penchant for playing as many below average games as above average games in the playoffs?

 

[NikC]

I'm not excusing him from criticism. His faults are exactly that. His.

What I am attempting to excuse him from is the impossibly demanding standard the fan base expects of him.

Like most issues discussed here there is always gross exaggeration, intentional or not which muddies the original point

 

[*Bob Richards*]

I keep seeing this being thrown around. Has anyone here really said anything beyond the fact that he has a penchant for playing as many below average games as above average games in the playoffs?

I seriously believe that all of us, myself included, subconsciously demand perfection from him. Not because we expect it from him per se, but if he doesn't play his best game night in and out, we will probably lose.

 

[Crease]

I seriously believe that all of us, myself included, subconsciously demand perfection from him. Not because we expect it from him per se, but if he doesn't play his best game night in and out, we will probably lose.

Yes, but the debate at hand boils down to three schools of thought:

1. Lundqvist plays sufficiently in the playoffs.
2. Lundqvist does not play sufficiently in the playoffs, and it's partly his fault.
3. Lundqvist does not play sufficiently in the playoffs, but it's not his fault.

I fall into category 2 and haven't heard a convincing argument for 1 and 3 yet.

 

[*Bob Richards*]

Yes, but the debate at hand boils down to three schools of thought:

1. Lundqvist plays sufficiently in the playoffs.
2. Lundqvist does not play sufficiently in the playoffs, and it's partly his fault.
3. Lundqvist does not play sufficiently in the playoffs, but it's not his fault.

And I believe he plays sufficiently in the playoffs. Has some brilliant games, some absolute bombs but overall, he can meet an adequate standard more often than not to put us in a position to win.

 

[Fataldogg]

Yes, but the debate at hand boils down to three schools of thought:

1. Lundqvist plays sufficiently in the playoffs.
2. Lundqvist does not play sufficiently in the playoffs, and it's partly his fault.
3. Lundqvist does not play sufficiently in the playoffs, but it's not his fault.

I think the issue is, fan's view the Rangers issues as mostly his fault.

It's a team game. You can't win with just one piece working.

And I think, because of his performance in the regular season, people accept the complacency of his teammates who underachieve, and continue to have heavy expectations from Lundqvist.

I genuinely speak to everyone here, you're in for a rude awakening when Lundqvist leaves. This team isn't a team built for a Stanley Cup OR a lot of times, even the playoffs. One man, who is our MVP every season, usually plays a BIG role in making that happen. But when we move on from Lundqvist, and acquire a merely average starting goaltender, you're going to see where this organization would be without him. On the outside of the playoffs looking in for most seasons.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Yes, but the debate at hand boils down to three schools of thought:

1. Lundqvist plays sufficiently in the playoffs.
2. Lundqvist does not play sufficiently in the playoffs, and it's partly his fault.
3. Lundqvist does not play sufficiently in the playoffs, but it's not his fault.

I fall into category 2 and haven't heard a convincing argument for 1 and 3 yet.

Considering people love him in the regular season, and his regular season stats mirror his postseason stats, I dont see much room for legitimate debate.

I also think the interpretation of a soft goal needs to be examined. Personally, I think he has let in one legitimately soft goal (Chimera in game 1 vs. the Caps), and a couple of other questionable ones. I guess the guy is supposed to stop all breakaways and deflections now too.

Anyway, Crease, you've brought a level headed, respectable voice to the discussion. Unfortunately, the guy driving the discussion has made Henrik Lundqvist the focal point of the Rangers' playoff failures, which is absurd.

 

[Crease]

Considering people love him in the regular season, and his regular season stats mirror his postseason stats, I dont see much room for legitimate debate.

I also think the interpretation of a soft goal needs to be examined. Personally, I think he has let in one legitimately soft goal (Chimera in game 1 vs. the Caps), and a couple of other questionable ones. I guess the guy is supposed to stop all breakaways and deflections now too.

Anyway, Crease, you've brought a level headed, respectable voice to the discussion. Unfortunately, the guy driving the discussion has made Henrik Lundqvist the focal point of the Rangers' playoff failures, which is absurd.

I do agree with that.

Anyway, when us goalies reflect on a performance, we want pretty much every goal back. Screens, maybe I should have done more to look around the defenseman before the shot got off. Two-on-ones, maybe I should not have cheated too much towards the potential pass. Breakaways, I should have let him make the first move. Deflections, I just wasn't quick enough to adjust on that one.

At the end of the day, its about making the saves that need to be stopped. Clutchness measured. No one remembers the softies that Richter gave up. They remember him slamming the door shut on Vancouver's best player on the road in Game 4 of the finals, securing a 3-1 series lead. I cannot tell you how differently Richter's legacy would be if Bure scores on that penalty shot and Vancouver goes on to win the game and series. It's interesting how things work out.