Post-Game Talk: Rangers at Lightning 11/25/13

[Dr. Ogrodnick]

It is astounding that Tampa was stupid enough to even use a goalie instead of opting for an extra attacker.

Hyperble is fun but not giving credit when it is due is a mark of believing there is only one team on the ice.

The Rangers had just put up the best road winning streak of the year in the NHL, but because they lost a single game, they suck and Bishop could have slept through his shutout. Wonderful analysis. Sometimes the team we root for loses, no matter how much we stamp our feet and decry fate, refs, and our beloved Rangers.

And sometimes the team we root for just isn't very good, no matter how much we want to deflect responsibility and cause to the other team playing well. Considering that the Rangers get shutout over 20% of the time and have one of the worst goals per game in the league, it seems like the facts back problems with the Rangers, and not Ben Bishop's greatness.

 

[chosen]

because that normally doesn't happen... Dallas, for example...

I am a big Hank fan, but I don't remember ever reading here that Lundqvist could have slept through a shutout. The chatter is about how great he played.

Whenever a goalie shuts the Rangers out, the talk here is how my grandmother could have tossed a shutout that night.

 

[Dr. Ogrodnick]

I am a big Hank fan, but I don't remember ever reading here that Lundqvist could have slept through a shutout. The chatter is about how great he played.

Whenever a goalie shuts the Rangers out, the talk here is how my grandmother could have tossed a shutout that night.

Your grandma probably gives up 1, but still gets the win.

 

[Fataldogg]

I am a big Hank fan, but I don't remember ever reading here that Lundqvist could have slept through a shutout. The chatter is about how great he played.

Whenever a goalie shuts the Rangers out, the talk here is how my grandmother could have tossed a shutout that night.

In contrast, Talbot has been able to get two of the easiest shutouts I've ever seen.

 

[trilobyte]

The Rangers most certainly did not outplay the Lightning last night, it was the opposite. The team did not bring a full effort, and could not push through the resistance, so kind of folded over like a limp noodle. They are capable of more. It was one game, and it does not mean that they cannot come out next game and bring their whole game. When they do not not bring it fully, and do not support each other as a team, they look like they did last night.

 

[Fataldogg]

I will also say this, if any player did us in, I'm glad it was St. Louis. The guy has been a real class act his entire career and has always been one of my favorites. To see him score two beautiful goals in a game for him was nice to see.

That said, we can't let the opposing team's best player get multiple breakaways in a game.

 

[Tawnos]

The Rangers most certainly did not outplay the Lightning last night, it was the opposite. The team did not bring a full effort, and could not push through the resistance, so kind of folded over like a limp noodle. They are capable of more. It was one game, and it does not mean that they cannot come out next game and bring their whole game. When they do not not bring it fully, and do not support each other as a team, they look like they did last night.

Really? The only ES shift I can remember that the Lightning put on any kind of sustained offensive pressure was on the Kucherov goal. Other than that, it seemed to be all Rangers in terms of zone time. The Rangers neutral zone performance wasn't very good, but I wouldn't say the Lightning outplayed them, per say.

 

[stan the caddy]

You know what's funny, people keep claiming that the goals will come, because our shooting percentages are unsustainable. We're getting too many chances to not score more goals, right?

Well, 24 games into the season we have been shutout 5 times and are averaging 2.00G/GM which is good for 29th in the NHL. So, when is it coming? If you said that after five or six games, I'd agree. But we're 24 games in now, and we're still virtually dead last in the league in scoring.

If you look at our goal scoring, it's usually like 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 0, 1, 0, 1, 3.

It's extremely inconsistent. I'd do anything for a team at this point to score 2 or 3 goals every game.

You can only claim the chances will go in for so long when they never are. It's a talent issue, and the talent just isn't there to finish.

Who cares if Kreider, MZA and Stepan generate chances? They rarely put the puck in the net.

AND what is even funnier, is that this is the worst scoring team we've had post lock out, and we had a thread, on our own FORUM (I thought our fans would be smarter) that THIS was the deepest team we've had since the lockout. Deepest in 3rd/4th liners? Yes. Deepest in talent? No.

It was funny to see the "I'm just glad I'm watching a good offensive team" posts when they were averaging slightly more than 2 goals per game.

They'll pick it up, 2 gpg is not sustainable, I don't care how bad the team is.

 

[trilobyte]

Really? The only ES shift I can remember that the Lightning put on any kind of sustained offensive pressure was on the Kucherov goal. Other than that, it seemed to be all Rangers in terms of zone time. The Rangers neutral zone performance wasn't very good, but I wouldn't say the Lightning outplayed them, per say.

I just didn't see the resolve to go the "last mile", so to speak. Not getting to rebounds, when a Lightning player moved in front of Bishop to protect the crease and low slot, the Rangers players usually lost that battle. Started out okay, but I never saw a full effort after the first period.
And of course, there was another team out there, and I recognize the Lightning's effort, just thought the Rangers sagged and pretty much just played it out.

 

[chosen]

And sometimes the team we root for just isn't very good, no matter how much we want to deflect responsibility and cause to the other team playing well. Considering that the Rangers get shutout over 20% of the time and have one of the worst goals per game in the league, it seems like the facts back problems with the Rangers, and not Ben Bishop's greatness.

The Rangers are not a good offensive team. AV is learning what Torts learned.

That said, Bishop played very well yesterday.

 

[Fataldogg]

The Rangers are not a good offensive team. AV is learning what Torts learned.

That said, Bishop played very well yesterday.

Bishop did play well. But a lot of goalies play well against us. At some point, you have to stop giving credit to the opposition goalies. The team needs to finish. Being shut out 5 out of 24 games is embarrassing (just did the math, we're officially on pace to be shutout 17 times). Bishop is just one of the many goaltenders we have faced who "stood on his head" and "stole one" for the opposition. Are the goaltenders really that good, every night we play, or is it that the team lacks the raw talent to compete with teams that have elite offensive talent?

 

[chosen]

Bishop did play well. But a lot of goalies play well against us. At some point, you have to stop giving credit to the opposition goalies. The team needs to finish. Being shut out 5 out of 24 games is embarrassing (just did the math, we're officially on pace to be shutout 17 times). Bishop is just one of the many goaltenders we have faced who "stood on his head" and "stole one" for the opposition. Are the goaltenders really that good, every night we play, or is it that the team lacks the raw talent to compete with teams that have elite offensive talent?

Yes, the Rangers can make a goalie look good, but in this case the opposing goaltender played very well. This place almost never gives credit to anyone not on the Rangers when they are playing the Rangers.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

In contrast, Talbot has been able to get two of the easiest shutouts I've ever seen.

Maybe Hank would have more of those if he stopped giving up soft goals. At least Talbot has been doing that.

 

[The Gloaming]

I am talking about 1 game and if you don't think Bishop played well.....

By the way, when Lundqvist tosses a shutout, everyone here says he was great. Never hear about how crappy the other team played and how Hank could have slept through the game. Why is that?

Lundqvist isn't 6-7.

I'll admit that Talbot could have slept through his last shutout. In 11-12, Hank could have probably slept through some, but not many.

Maybe when this team isn't in the bottom of the barrel in terms of offense, I'll give opposing goalies more credit. Until then, I'll keep blaming us being shut out on our crappy offense.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

It was funny to see the "I'm just glad I'm watching a good offensive team" posts when they were averaging slightly more than 2 goals per game.

They'll pick it up, 2 gpg is not sustainable, I don't care how bad the team is.

Being delusional is only the first step -- seeing things that just aren't there. "I am really enjoying the offense and the chances this team is creating!" is a pretty absurd thing to say when this team has scored 48 goals in 24 games.

Step 2 is anger -- expect to see that around the all-star break.

Step 3 is scapegoating -- the target will be on Vigneault's back by the end of the season.

Not once do these folks stop, think, and accept the reality that this is a team full of players that just aren't good at scoring goals.

 

[Thirty One]

Lundqvist isn't 6-7.

I'm hoping for a growth spurt, though.

 

[Dr. Ogrodnick]

Being delusional is only the first step -- seeing things that just aren't there. "I am really enjoying the offense and the chances this team is creating!" is a pretty absurd thing to say when this team has scored 48 goals in 24 games.

Step 2 is anger -- expect to see that around the all-star break.

Step 3 is scapegoating -- the target will be on Vigneault's back by the end of the season.

Not once do these folks stop, think, and accept the reality that this is a team full of players that just aren't good at scoring goals.

And that's why I mostly blame Sather.

 

[Fataldogg]

Maybe Hank would have more of those if he stopped giving up soft goals. At least Talbot has been doing that.

You can't even compare the two right now.

When Talbot plays he gets sheltered beyond belief. And I'm not sure if it's because they play more conservative because he is a back up or their efforts defensively are really that inconsistent. But I can't recall the team upping their defensive game that much for goaltenders like Biron, Weekes, Valliquette, etc.

If he did not get a shut out against either MTL or NSH he would have had a bad game.

Lundqvist had a bad game last night, yet he still faced two breakaways from Martin St. Louis, two chances that were better than any chance Talbot has genuinely faced in the last seven periods he has played. Last night, when Talbot played, the team only allowed three shots, and the one decent shot he faced, he let in.

You have to call it objectively. One game Lundqvist faces 23 shots against in one period, littered with Grade A chances, and than Talbot faces 17 perimeter shots and gets a shutout (note, Talbot wasn't even a star of the game, it was that easy for him).

Talbot comes in, plays MTL, and faces 22 shots, facing limited chances (even in that game he was the 2nd star, and they were being generous in that regard because Price was the only goaltender who stood on his head in that game). Lundqvist comes in against LA, get's peppered with over 30 shots, faces plenty of scoring chances, and lets up a goal.

Right now their are two different teams showing up in front of the goaltenders. When Talbot actually comes in and faces a legitimate playoff team with offensive prowess, and faces more than five or six scoring chances, I'll be impressed.

Until then, his numbers are bloated from facing limited, weak scoring chances, limited shots, and weak opposition.

Again, I don't know if it's because they tighten up their game for a less experienced net minder OR if the team is really that inconsistent (which I'm to believe its the latter). BTW, Talbot, despite his numbers, has let up several soft goals despite a team playing lights out defense in front of him. It also helps that the team has scored a few goals in front of Talbot. Hasn't Lundqvist started for every shutout against?

And I get it, you don't like Lundqvist, you're highly critical of him because he is "the best in the world," you don't like how fans put him on a pedestal, how he is above criticism, etc. But the bottom line is Lundqvist isn't going to be the best goaltender in the NHL every season. He's got one Vezina for a reason. Because he has been the "best" one time. He's consistently one of the best.

But honestly, I can't picture many goaltenders I would take over him. Quick? No thanks, we won't make the playoffs with his routine sub .910SV% seasons. Could we win a Cup with him? If he could actually get us there on this bubble team. Price? He's inconsistent too. Miller? He hasn't been able to carry a sub par team to the post season in a while now. Rask? Great goaltender on a great team.

Lundqvist isn't Hasek, or Patrick Roy, or even Martin Brodeur in his prime. He's routinely a top-5 goaltender in the league, and is a consistent starting goaltender. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you can stop bashing him every chance you get. He gets paid big money for consistency, in a position that is often volatile and inconsistent.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

And that's why I mostly blame Sather.

Its been 13+ years of fielding inconsistent teams. How can you not at this point?

The folks Im describing above, like Snowblind, seem to think that happiness is just one short day away. They'll scapegoat the coach, scapegoat the great goalie, but they never seem to get around to applying blame to the man who continually constructs poor rosters. Either that, or they do realize thats a major problem and have just become apathetic to it.

Thats the worst thinking of all, because it forces you to search for and argue about non-core issues.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

You can't even compare the two right now.

When Talbot plays he gets sheltered beyond belief. And I'm not sure if it's because they play more conservative because he is a back up or their efforts defensively are really that inconsistent. But I can't recall the team upping their defensive game that much for goaltenders like Biron, Weekes, Valliquette, etc.

If he did not get a shut out against either MTL or NSH he would have had a bad game.

Lundqvist had a bad game last night, yet he still faced two breakaways from Martin St. Louis, two chances that were better than any chance Talbot has genuinely faced in the last seven periods he has played. Last night, when Talbot played, the team only allowed three shots, and the one decent shot he faced, he let in.

You have to call it objectively. One game Lundqvist faces 23 shots against in one period, littered with Grade A chances, and than Talbot faces 17 perimeter shots and gets a shutout (note, Talbot wasn't even a star of the game, it was that easy for him).

Talbot comes in, plays MTL, and faces 22 shots, facing limited chances (even in that game he was the 2nd star, and they were being generous in that regard because Price was the only goaltender who stood on his head in that game). Lundqvist comes in against LA, get's peppered with over 30 shots, faces plenty of scoring chances, and lets up a goal.

Right now their are two different teams showing up in front of the goaltenders. When Talbot actually comes in and faces a legitimate playoff team with offensive prowess, and faces more than five or six scoring chances, I'll be impressed.

Until then, his numbers are bloated from facing limited, weak scoring chances, limited shots, and weak opposition.

Again, I don't know if it's because they tighten up their game for a less experienced net minder OR if the team is really that inconsistent (which I'm to believe its the latter). BTW, Talbot, despite his numbers, has let up several soft goals despite a team playing lights out defense in front of him. It also helps that the team has scored a few goals in front of Talbot. Hasn't Lundqvist started for every shutout against?

He let in a few soft goals in the beginning, but nothing like what Lundqvist let in last night or against New Jersey. I wouldn't give Lundqvist as much of a beak as Talbot for those soft goals because well he's a rookie. That said, you can't tell me with a straight face about the easy shutouts Talbot gets when Lundqvist isn't even stopping the shots he has to stop. Does Talbot get easier games? Of course, but Lundqvist is letting up goals even that are the quality of shots that Talbot faces.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

AND what is even funnier, is that this is the worst scoring team we've had post lock out, and we had a thread, on our own FORUM (I thought our fans would be smarter) that THIS was the deepest team we've had since the lockout. Deepest in 3rd/4th liners? Yes. Deepest in talent? No.

That was me and on paper I still stick by that. That 11-12 team that everyone loved had 2 4th lines and Stepan playing before he became the player he was last year. Their #1 center was MIA for like 2-3 months and he was their second best forward. If guys were playing to their abilities it would be arguably the deepest team we've had. Other than Pouliot we have a bunch of good, not great players on offense and defense. If Brassard played like he did last year he'd be an excellent #2 and Richards would be a good #3, Stepan playing like he did last year would a solid #1. Lots of guys are underachieving.

 

[Fataldogg]

He let in a few soft goals in the beginning, but nothing like what Lundqvist let in last night or against New Jersey. I wouldn't give Lundqvist as much of a beak as Talbot for those soft goals because well he's a rookie. That said, you can't tell me with a straight face about the easy shutouts Talbot gets when Lundqvist isn't even stopping the shots he has to stop. Does Talbot get easier games? Of course, but Lundqvist is letting up goals even that are the quality of shots that Talbot faces.

Just from samples, goalies will let up more soft goals because they're (a) facing more shots and (b) starting more games.

You're going to see Lundqvist let up more soft goals because, well, he plays a lot more. If Talbot started 17/18 games by now, you'd see him let up more soft goals, because he has played more. Statistically, it's going to happen the more shots you face.

Last night, the only goal that was very stoppable was the first shot. It was a bad goal. But honestly, if you watch more hockey (and I'm sure you do) you see a goal like that happen almost EVERY game, whether it's Fleury, Price, Reimer, Holtby, etc. A goal like that happens almost every game. Last Capitals game I saw Holtby let up two terrible goals against the Penguins. It's not just Lundqvist. Starting goalies give up soft goals.

And if you go back to "Well, he is supposed to be the best" read the bottom of my last post because I edited it to address your huge expectations of him.

 

[Idlerlee]

Do any of you people actually like this team ? :p

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

when you give up a goal like Lundqvist gave up to Kucherov and your team has trouble scoring, that knocks the wind out of their sails.

I was completely disgusted at how the team after looking pretty damn good, stopped playing after they gave up in the 2nd period after that 3rd goal with half a game to play. It looked like they thought "well we're not good enough offensively and Bishop is playing really well so we might as well mail it in".

Unfortunately fair, balanced and sensible comments like these are far and few between. Most of your comments are more like "This is 100% our garbage goalies fault. He's awful" So when you write something like the following:

I know will ruffle feathers by writing something negative about Lundqvist, but I won't censor myself and prevent a discussion on a discussion board. Whatever, that's the last I'll say on this. If I can't post my opinion on a player on the team then there's no point for a board that's supposed to be about discussion. Anyway, that's the last on that and the last on Lundqvist, I'm not going to post about him in every post, but I won't censor myself because some people disagree with me, this isn't communist ****ing Russia.

It comes off as either ignorant or disingenuous. Ignorant of the EXTREME hyperbole and exaggeration you engage in or it's disingenuous because you know damn well how much you are exaggerating and being irrational but you proceed to launch into these mind numbing tirades anyway. Way too many comments that you have made bring nothing to the discussion that you ironically are asking to engage in and that's why you get called out and dismissed by people. Way too many of your comments do nothing more then advance an irrationally anti lundqvist narrative.

He stunk vs TB. Period. Assuming he wants an 8 for 8 contract than he stinks this season (compared to how an 8 for 8 contract goalie should be playing) and doesn't deserve one. Too many of the games he's played this year have been below the standard that he wants to get paid at. Too many of the saves he has failed to make indicate a possibility that his career is winding down (we're talking a slow wind down over the next 5 or 6 seasons but a wind down nonetheless) He likely won't make it to 38 years old and continue to play as a top 3 in the world goalie so this is not surprising. But he is not a garbage goalie nor is he THE reason the team lost today and if you continue to insult everyone's intelligence by pushing that narrative onto us constantly then you will find yourself getting told off all the time.

 

[Fataldogg]

That was me and on paper I still stick by that. That 11-12 team that everyone loved had 2 4th lines and Stepan playing before he became the player he was last year. Their #1 center was MIA for like 2-3 months and he was their second best forward. If guys were playing to their abilities it would be arguably the deepest team we've had. Other than Pouliot we have a bunch of good, not great players on offense and defense. If Brassard played like he did last year he'd be an excellent #2 and Richards would be a good #3, Stepan playing like he did last year would a solid #1. Lots of guys are underachieving.

You'd be assuming Stepan can consistently play like he did last year. He hasn't proven he is a #1 center. He had a good 48 game season. Outside of that, he's had two seasons where he has looked like a borderline 2nd line center. This season would be his third.

Brassard isn't underachieving, he is what he is. Again, last season and his post season performance is the rarity, not the norm. He's a 3rd line forward who has a 2nd line skill set, rendering him mostly useless.

Richards is a 2nd line center who looks like a 1st line center in spurts. And at other times looks like a 3rd line center. We still haven't gotten one season out of him that was as consistent as the one season Gomez provided us.

We can't really call Hagelin a legitimate top-6 forward yet when he had 38 points in 64 games as a rookie and 24 points in 48 games as a sophomore. We still need a larger sample to determine him as a top-6 forward.

Right now we have one first line forward (Nash), who is also wildly inconsistent and hasn't proven anything in the post season. In terms of actual talent and ability, he is our ONLY first line talent.

When you only have one first line player, and it's the worst scoring team since the lockout, it's hard to say it's the deepest team.

And I wasn't singling you out on that either, you weren't the only one who thought they were the deepest.