Post-Game Talk: New York Rangers at Los Angeles Kings |Game 1| 6/4/14

[haohmaru]

Umm, no...see above.

People, please, get a grip. I know that it is taboo to say anything that is perceived as anti Hank, but give me a break.

People are talking about his play in the third like it was all world. I saying that they were almost all routine saves.

I am not addressing the poor play by the rest of the team in the third. I think that it is obvious that the team played poorly in the third.

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/nhl...eriod=3&home=08&vis=13&show=missed&player=000

Again. Have a look.

 

[haohmaru]

Yeah, that proves it.

It does. Shake your head all you want. Quick is in a lawn chair on his end of the ice and your goalie stops twenty shots in a period and keeps his team in it and that's the guy you're ragging on?

I'll admit when Henrik is outplayed. He wasn't last night. Even the commentators were saying he was the reason the Rangers were even going to OT.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that you're the only person making this "analysis". Know why? You're dead wrong.

 

[Xref]

Readers' Digest version of my thoughts about game 1: The Kings sucked a little less than the Rangers did.

Onto game 2.

 

[Miamipuck]

He's a grinding 4th liner. What do people expect him to do? He made a few nice cycles down low. Considering how putrid our team's offense was after the first 17 minutes, Dorsett was the least of our problems. Start with Nash, Step, Richards and MSL.....big gap.......more bigger gap.........Dorsett.

Honestly, no sarcasm, you missed a big gap or two.

 

[tbonenc*]

Girardi's gaff was big no doubt, but I can look at 4-5 chances that didn't go in that are equally infuriating. Nash on the 3-on-1, MSL overpassing to Moore. Hagelin breakaway miss, MSL 2-on-1 miss...though those two are not as frustrating, just misses that happen.

Rangers had plenty of chances to put the game away and then when tied win it. They didn't. PP didn't get it done. Stepan, Staal, Stralman all lose battles and that Clifford goal gives a spark of hope after a PP miss.

Team loss. Girardi **** up, sucks that he is getting so much of the brunt.

This really sums it up. If the Rangers put away goal number 3, the entire complexion of the game changes. Instead, the Kings put one in from a bad angle and they are off and running.

It was only one game and the team can certainly play better, but if they don't show up on Saturday, this could be over quickly.

 

[tbonenc*]

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/nhl...eriod=3&home=08&vis=13&show=missed&player=000

Again. Have a look.

Let it go.

A picture doesn't even begin to tell the story.

 

[haohmaru]

The first goal the Kings scored was actually a whiff and the puck elevates in a way that is almost impossible to do on purpose. He missed most of it and it goes end over end over Henrik's shoulder at an angle that no goalie the world would expect from where that forward was.

2nd goal has Doughty from 10' picking a spot and nailing it and Henrik still almost had it.

3rd goal, again, point blank with no coverage and a great shot.

 

[Xref]

Where's the poster who was trying to tell me that Diaz is better than Moore, and will be a Rangers top-4 defenseman next season?

Dude couldn't even get on the ice. Had to rotate 5 dmen and it gassed our guys.

Thank God Moore is coming back for Game 2. Klein plays exceptionally better with Moore as his partner also. I think they have good chemistry.

It wasn't me, however, let's be fair; exactly how many games has Diaz played for the Rangers? Dmen can't easily step in and play lights out hockey in the SCF's. Give the guy a break.

 

[tbonenc*]

It does. Shake your head all you want. Quick is in a lawn chair on his end of the ice and your goalie stops twenty shots in a period and keeps his team in it and that's the guy you're ragging on?

I'll admit when Henrik is outplayed. He wasn't last night. Even the commentators were saying he was the reason the Rangers were even going to OT.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that you're the only person making this "analysis". Know why? You're dead wrong.

Hank is the "story" for the Rangers. Same as Doughty is for the Kings. IMO, DD played poorly last night, but the announcers made a passing mention of his gaffe on the Pouliott goal.

Let me ask you this, which goalie had to make tougher saves last night?

 

[Xref]

Honestly, no sarcasm, you missed a big gap or two.

I was going to add a few more. My bad.

 

[Doctyl]

Even the commentators were saying he was the reason the Rangers were even going to OT.

Actually mad mike said quick kept the kings in the game in the 3rd

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

I'm actually partly with tbonec even though initially I thought he was being dumb but a lot of the shots LA took in the 3rd were barely more than stat inflaters. Quick did get screwed by his own dman and the Poo goal was not his fault so again it's reasonable to say Quick was the better goalie. But then it has to be added that this is not an indictment of Lundqvist as much as an endorsement of Quick playing pretty darn well. I can't argue against the thought that Lundqvist has to come up with the save there on the 1st goal. That play has to be made if he wants to win a cup. The team wins 2-1 even with the awful 3rd period and half of the 2nd if he makes that save.

But the lionshare of the fury should be directed at Staal, girardi, Stepan and half the F group.

 

[AHB*]

Hank is the "story" for the Rangers. Same as Doughty is for the Kings. IMO, DD played poorly last night, but the announcers made a passing mention of his gaffe on the Pouliott goal.

Let me ask you this, which goalie had to make tougher saves last night?

Which goalie had the tougher saves? Hank, easily. He made 40 saves last night. He was the only soldier standing in the 3rd period.

He gave this team a chance to win that they didn't deserve and they failed.

 

[Megustaelhockey]

The personal back and forth has to stop. Agree to disagree, and move on to the next point.

 

[tbonenc*]

Which goalie had the tougher saves? Hank, easily. He made 40 saves last night. He was the only soldier standing in the 3rd period.

He gave this team a chance to win that they didn't deserve and they failed.

Sorry AHB, but you are wrong. Clearly wrong.

 

[tbonenc*]

The personal back and forth has to stop. Agree to disagree, and move on to the next point.

Gladly.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Sorry AHB, but you are wrong. Clearly wrong.

It's arguable that's for sure but not as definitive as either of you want to make it seem

 

[FJB]

I was shocked at how gassed they were in the 3rd.

 

[FOD]

"Silver lining for Rangers fans: When Blueshirts won the Stanley Cup in 1994, they also lost Game 1 in OT, 3-2."

Great. Just what we need, more 1994 comparisons and nostalgia.

I am never shy about criticizing Hank and some of his blind defenders on here, but anyone critical of him tonight is nuts. Guy stopped 20 shots in the third, when this entire time checked out, what more do you want?

Difference being that the Rangers dominated all of game 1 against the Canucks in 1994. Kirk McLean stole one and I believe Leetch hit the post just prior to the Canucks rush that lead to the OT goal.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

It wasn't me, however, let's be fair; exactly how many games has Diaz played for the Rangers? Dmen can't easily step in and play lights out hockey in the SCF's. Give the guy a break.

Meh. There's a reason the guy is a #7 defenseman who was available for a 5th rounder. IMO, people saw the big righthanded shot from the point in his first few games and fell in love, overlooking the obvious deficiencies in many other aspects of his game.

Conversely, I think Moore gets a bum rap because he shows you flashes that he COULD be another McDonagh and so people are disappointed when he doesn't consistently play to that level, despite the fact that he's still pretty good, especially for a 3rd pairing defenseman. (And is young enough to get better.)

 

[Miamipuck]

I'm actually partly with tbonec even though initially I thought he was being dumb but a lot of the shots LA took in the 3rd were barely more than stat inflaters. Quick did get screwed by his own dman and the Poo goal was not his fault so again it's reasonable to say Quick was the better goalie. But then it has to be added that this is not an indictment of Lundqvist as much as an endorsement of Quick playing pretty darn well. I can't argue against the thought that Lundqvist has to come up with the save there on the 1st goal. That play has to be made if he wants to win a cup. The team wins 2-1 even with the awful 3rd period and half of the 2nd if he makes that save.

But the lionshare of the fury should be directed at Staal, girardi, Stepan and half the F group.

Thank you this is perfect. ^^^^

 

[haohmaru]

Hank is the "story" for the Rangers. Same as Doughty is for the Kings. IMO, DD played poorly last night, but the announcers made a passing mention of his gaffe on the Pouliott goal.

Let me ask you this, which goalie had to make tougher saves last night?

Henrik.

Muzzin - point blank 1st period.
Carter - point blank 1st period (two saves).
Lewis - breakway 2nd period
Tiffoli - partial break 3rd period
Kopitar - 3rd period point blank backhand

But, I don't think this game is about the goalies at all. It's about the Rangers missing point blank opportunities by whiffing, missing the net, making terrible decisions (Nash on that 3 on 1), and having no legs in the 3rd.

Laying this at Lundqvist's feet is like blaming your QB who just got you 42 points while your D gave up 49. Hank isn't the reason they lost this game.

 

[Miamipuck]

Actually mad mike said quick kept the kings in the game in the 3rd

He did say that.

 

[Trxjw]

Thoughts: The Rangers once again missed a prime opportunity to put an opponent away early in the game. They blew chance after chance to build the lead and completely lost their game after the Kings fought their way back. The team HAS to bury these scoring chances against a team that is as resilient as LA.

Girardi played one of the worst games I've seen from him in a long while. Diaz showed that people penciling him into the top-4 next season are out of their minds. Stepan needs to at least pretend that he's a shooting threat on the PP and stop constantly deferring to MSL on the far wall. Stralman had a great game physically, but he made several bad pinches that led to two-on-one's. Nash has got to start hitting the net. I still think Richards is more of a hinderance to his line and the PP than he is a benefit.

On to the next game. Hopefully the team can play a full 60 minutes this time around.

 

[klingsor]

Man, based on some of what I've read in this thread I'm surprised the Rangers even made the playoffs with all the bums they have playing for them.

Almost stole one from an excellent team.