Toggle sidebar

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter *Bob Richards*
  • Start date Start date
  • 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
chosen said:
Right. Bishop didn't play well. Sure.

Some of you act like the Rangers losing a road game after winning a bunch of them in a row is an indictment of the team. Some of you would feel likewise if they won 20 in a row and had the audacity to lose a game.
Click to expand...

How many tough saves did (insert goalie here) have to make? 2? Maybe 3? My concern is the Rangers continued inability to score, no matter who the goalie is. If they continue to score 1 goal or less more than 40% of the time like they have done so far this season, then they probably won't make the playoffs.
 
Dr. Ogrodnick said:
I for one like a little production from my 7.8 million per season player, but I'm weird that way.
Click to expand...

So if a guy is standing near the net and a puck bounces in off him and he is credited with a goal and he did zero the rest of the game, would your analysis determine that he had a better game than Nash did tonight?

The guy is coming back from a concussion. Did you expect a barrage of goals right away?

I know everyone here loves Kreider, but he hasn't exactly been lighting the lamp this year, but we cut him slack because we understand he is playing well. Nash was far better than Kreider tonight, no matter what set of metrics you want to use, not to mention the naked eye test.

Salary isn't the issue. How one plays is what matters, and no matter how you want to spin it, the Rangers were outplayed in every phase of the game. It happens. A loss doesn't always necessitate the naming of a goat. Sometimes, you just lose a game and get outplayed.

When the Rangers win, they played great. When they lose, they were terrible. Never mind that there was another team on the ice. They are totally irrelevant. It's all about the guys we root for.
 
Dr. Ogrodnick said:
How many tough saves did (insert goalie here) have to make? 2? Maybe 3? My concern is the Rangers continued inability to score, no matter who the goalie is. If they continue to score 1 goal or less more than 40% of the time like they have done so far this season, then they probably won't make the playoffs.
Click to expand...

Lots of tough saves, actually. This includes putting himself in the right position before the shot was on its way. Positioning is more important than looking good when making a save.

If Lundqvist had played Bishop's game, people would be creaming their pants and calling him the king.

When you make 37 saves and give up zero goals you played a heckuva game, and most of the shots were not from a distance or bad angle. There was often chaos in front of his net.
 
chosen said:
So if a guy is standing near the net and a puck bounces in off him and he is credited with a goal and he did zero the rest of the game, would your analysis determine that he had a better game than Nash did tonight?

The guy is coming back from a concussion. Did you expect a barrage of goals right away?

I know everyone here loves Kreider, but he hasn't exactly been lighting the lamp this year, but we cut him slack because we understand he is playing well. Nash was far better than Kreider tonight, no matter what set of metrics you want to use, not to mention the naked eye test.

Salary isn't the issue. How one plays is what matters, and no matter how you want to spin it, the Rangers were outplayed in every phase of the game. It happens. A loss doesn't always necessitate the naming of a goat. Sometimes, you just lose a game and get outplayed.

When the Rangers win, they played great. When they lose, they were terrible. Never mind that there was another team on the ice. They are totally irrelevant. It's all about the guys we root for.
Click to expand...

Nash has 2 goals in his last 22 games played for the Rangers, I believe. That's not very good any way you slice it, even with slack being cut for the recent concussion.

In a salary capped league, salary versus production is always an issue.

The Rangers are terrible at scoring goals. It reared its ugly head again tonight. As long as it remains a problem this team will be mired in .500 mediocrity and will struggle to make the playoffs.
 
Dr. Ogrodnick said:
Nash has 2 goals in his last 22 games played for the Rangers, I believe. That's not very good any way you slice it, even with slack being cut for the recent concussion.

In a salary capped league, salary versus production is always an issue.

The Rangers are terrible at scoring goals. It reared its ugly head again tonight. As long as it remains a problem this team will be mired in .500 mediocrity and will struggle to make the playoffs.
Click to expand...

cherry picking stats is fun.

in his first season as a ranger he was on pace for roughly 40 goals and 40 assists.
 
chosen said:
Lots of tough saves, actually. This includes putting himself in the right position before the shot was on its way. Positioning is more important than looking good when making a save.

If Lundqvist had played Bishop's game, people would be creaming their pants and calling him the king.

When you make 37 saves and give up zero goals you played a heckuva game, and most of the shots were not from a distance or bad angle. There was often chaos in front of his net.
Click to expand...

If Lundqvist got to play the Rangers tonight, he would have played Bishop's game. That's the problem, it doesn't matter who the opposing goalie is, the Rangers make him look better than he is. The Rangers have the lowest shooting percentage in the league and are tied for the second lowest goals per game. They are simply too terrible at goal scoring to be the barometer for any goalie's hotness. Bishop could have left the ice to get a cheeseburger and the chances were greater that the Rangers would have found a way to hit him in the chest as he applied ketchup out in the concourse than they were that they would score on the empty net.
 
chosen said:
So if a guy is standing near the net and a puck bounces in off him and he is credited with a goal and he did zero the rest of the game, would your analysis determine that he had a better game than Nash did tonight?

The guy is coming back from a concussion. Did you expect a barrage of goals right away?

I know everyone here loves Kreider, but he hasn't exactly been lighting the lamp this year, but we cut him slack because we understand he is playing well. Nash was far better than Kreider tonight, no matter what set of metrics you want to use, not to mention the naked eye test.

Salary isn't the issue. How one plays is what matters, and no matter how you want to spin it, the Rangers were outplayed in every phase of the game. It happens. A loss doesn't always necessitate the naming of a goat. Sometimes, you just lose a game and get outplayed.

When the Rangers win, they played great. When they lose, they were terrible. Never mind that there was another team on the ice. They are totally irrelevant. It's all about the guys we root for.
Click to expand...
I thought both nash and kreider were two of the few who played pretty well. The problem is that stepan callahn and richards have all been in a funk the last 5-6 games
 
Dr. Ogrodnick said:
If Lundqvist got to play the Rangers tonight, he would have played Bishop's game. That's the problem, it doesn't matter who the opposing goalie is, the Rangers make him look better than he is. The Rangers have the lowest shooting percentage in the league and are tied for the second lowest goals per game. They are simply too terrible at goal scoring to be the barometer for any goalie's hotness. Bishop could have left the ice to get a cheeseburger and the chances were greater that the Rangers would have found a way to hit him in the chest as he applied ketchup out in the concourse than they were that they would score on the empty net.
Click to expand...

That's hilarious considering the first goal he gave up. We had plenty of chances tougher than that that Bishop stopped.
 
Just got back from the game. The effort was surely there, but Lundqvist didn't play his best game. Obviously a difference maker, plus Bishop made a few tough saves and came up big when he had to. The team has a problem getting in high scoring areas.

What it comes down to is that the Lightning were flat out the better team.

We lost. Move on to the next one.
 
Florida Ranger said:
Just got back from the game. The effort was surely there, but Lundqvist didn't play his best game. Obviously a difference maker, plus Bishop made a few tough saves and came up big when he had to. The team has a problem getting in high scoring areas.

What it comes down to is that the Lightning were flat out the better team.

We lost. Move on to the next one.
Click to expand...

Seems to be the case when the Rangers play a team that's better than them. They can't beat the good teams in the league consistently. Mediocre. Gross.
 
Dr. Ogrodnick said:
2-3 hardly counts as plenty, and the Rangers certainly don't score on that chance on any goalie.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. We had a bunch of great chances. We just didn't bury them like all season. Even more ridiculous to say that we don't score on a bad angle one timer that squeezes through the goalie. Did this kid who scored have some skill that the Rangers don't possess? What a ridiculous thing to say. Any NHL player that can fire a one timer into the body of a goalie can score when a goalie gives up a bad goal. He did nothing that Brian Boyle for example can't do, much less Nash or Stepan. In fact Boyle's goal this season was somewhat similar, except it was a wrist shot and from a good angle.
 
Florida Ranger said:
Just got back from the game. The effort was surely there, but Lundqvist didn't play his best game. Obviously a difference maker, plus Bishop made a few tough saves and came up big when he had to. The team has a problem getting in high scoring areas.

What it comes down to is that the Lightning were flat out the better team.

We lost. Move on to the next one.
Click to expand...

They were better. But they were a 1 or 2 goal win better, not a 5 goal win better. In other words I didn't feel like we got outclassed at all. Not that the Lightning are some world beaters without Stamkos.
 
SnowblindNYR said:
That's ridiculous. We had a bunch of great chances. We just didn't bury them like all season. Even more ridiculous to say that we don't score on a bad angle one timer that squeezes through the goalie. Did this kid who scored have some skill that the Rangers don't possess? What a ridiculous thing to say. Any NHL player that can fire a one timer into the body of a goalie can score when a goalie gives up a bad goal. He did nothing that Brian Boyle for example can't do, much less Nash or Stepan. In fact Boyle's goal this season was somewhat similar, except it was a wrist shot and from a good angle.
Click to expand...

The Rangers are tied for the second worst goals per game in the league, so therefore its not ridiculous at all to say that they don't score on chances that other teams do. I don't know what to tell you, after buzzing a little in the 1st, the Rangers hardly tested Bishop for most of the rest of the game. What's more likely, in a cruel twist of scheduling fate, the Rangers are always running into the hot goalie, or that they simply aren't very good at scoring?
 
Dr. Ogrodnick said:
The Rangers are tied for the second worst goals per game in the league, so therefore its not ridiculous at all to say that they don't score on chances that other teams do. I don't know what to tell you, after buzzing a little in the 1st, the Rangers hardly tested Bishop for most of the rest of the game. What's more likely, in a cruel twist of scheduling fate, the Rangers are always running into the hot goalie, or that they simply aren't very good at scoring?
Click to expand...


choice a: hot goalie
choice b: not good at scoring

choice b
 
Dr. Ogrodnick said:
The Rangers are tied for the second worst goals per game in the league, so therefore its not ridiculous at all to say that they don't score on chances that other teams do. I don't know what to tell you, after buzzing a little in the 1st, the Rangers hardly tested Bishop for most of the rest of the game. What's more likely, in a cruel twist of scheduling fate, the Rangers are always running into the hot goalie, or that they simply aren't very good at scoring?
Click to expand...

They aren't good at scoring, but you make it seem like they're not getting chances. You also absurdly said that they couldn't score the goal that the Russian kid scored tonight. Unless you think that no one on this team can connect on one timer that the goalie would screw up on and let in a goal through him, from a bad angle mind you, then that's ********. If we switched goalies this is probably a 2-2 game or so. Maybe a 3-2 loss for us, maybe a 3-3 tied. Something in that vicinity. Not because the Rangers are good at scoring, but because Lundqvist didn't come up big once (I think he made one or two nice saves) and let in a weak goal.
 
In a different context, it might pay to learn from Canucks fans who would look at this game and think: oh, we recognize this. It was one of those games. They happen under AV.

Unfortunately, our context is that we haven't been scoring and we're still not completely recovered, record-wise, from our abysmal start. We can't really afford to have one of those games.

So, that sucked.
 
I was there tonight. The Rangers looked like the better team for most of the game but the difference was in the severity of the mistakes the two clubs made. When the Rangers made mistakes they were huge blunders that lead to goals. The Lightning were constantly on the defensive but were able to prevent anything catastrophic. The game was lost on mental errors by the Rangers as they seemed to control the game physically. Didn't help that the Rangers were missing the net on some of their better looks while the Lightning netted every great chance.

Rangers looked extremely prone on the counter, which is a weakness that should be addressed. There are certain good teams that don't really push the puck on the counter and we've played them well. But a team like Tampa forces a turnover and pushes hard to try to score quickly. That killed us tonight. Our D-Men need to do a better job recognizing where the other team is, even as we're on offense. We're still learning the new system and Vigneault is probably trying to get our defenders to feel more comfortable taking chances but tonight was a good wake up call in how some teams play.

Also, I've never been as hard on Del Zotto as some posters but he straight up looked scared as he played tonight. He was indecisive and looked scared to force plays. He's a mess right now. John Moore was a little sloppy, too, but it might help to acquire a veteran RHD that Moore can play next to and learn at the NHL level comfortably.
 
We were due a shout out any game now anyways..

What do you mean we had several games already where we didn't score..

That's downright scary..
 
n8 said:
wasn't Callahan playing fine when he was with Hagelin and Richards before Nash returned?
Click to expand...

The Nash-Richards-Callahan line did not look good but Nash-Richards-Hagelin looked good in limited time tonight and so did Pouliot-Brassard-Callahan. I would expect to see that next game. Hagelin stretches the defense better than Cally so he fits better with Nash/Richards. Likewise, Callahan and Pouliot can grind behind the net and be fed chances by Brassard, if things pan out like I hope.

What I really want to see is the Rangers acquiring a pass-first center so we can move Richards to the wing. He's played his best hockey there this season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom