Post-Game Talk: Rangers @ Blackhawks
- Thread starter Machinehead
- 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
RiceCooker
"We Got Some Looks"
Only time will tell
Jesus, a game where the Rangers played a pretty even game with the defending champs and we still can't get 100% positive posts. We get a "we snuck out a win" post. The shots were 37-32 and we were pretty even against the best offense in the league and one of the best teams in the league. Ridiculous and ****ing disgusting
thats bc they'll **** the bed the next game. getting pounded by pittsburgh, losing to columbus in a shootout and beating the hawks, barely, doesnt really scream " we're on a roll boys !! ", lol
but hey, keep up the eternal optimism. I like reality......
I never said they're on a roll. You can be happy about 1 ****ing game, jesus. You don't have to be miserable 24/7 and can be happy after one of the most impressive regular season wins in years.
Barely beating the Hawks, when you're 37-32 in shots and are pretty close in play, is a big ****ing deal. Can't even give credit to the team for beating the defending champs and one of the best teams in the league.
Makes me ****ing sick.
Just to clarify for all the Hank bashers saying the Bollig goal was soft…
As I stated in the GDT, his angle was fine, but got beat by the shot because of the velocity. With a shot that hard, you have zero time to track the puck. You have to rely on your positioning, and hope that it hits you. As shown in the picture, his positioning/angle was fine, the shot just had too much on it.
It found a slight hole, short side right under his blocker. The ONLY way he would have had a chance would to have been a little further out of the crease. In that case, the puck would have hit him before the puck got anywhere near the net.
It's obviously a shot you want to save, but you have to give credit to Bollig for that shot.
IT WAS A LASER.
I suggest watching it in real time, notice the time between the shot release and how fast its already out of the net. Within a split second.
As I stated in the GDT, his angle was fine, but got beat by the shot because of the velocity. With a shot that hard, you have zero time to track the puck. You have to rely on your positioning, and hope that it hits you. As shown in the picture, his positioning/angle was fine, the shot just had too much on it.
It found a slight hole, short side right under his blocker. The ONLY way he would have had a chance would to have been a little further out of the crease. In that case, the puck would have hit him before the puck got anywhere near the net.
It's obviously a shot you want to save, but you have to give credit to Bollig for that shot.
IT WAS A LASER.
I suggest watching it in real time, notice the time between the shot release and how fast its already out of the net. Within a split second.
Nash played much better. Which is great to see. Hank looked pretty Hank like. Four players with 11 goals.
The whole team played well. Some very nice passing plays. Especially on the PP. That's the biggest and most gratifying difference this year. Arniel has done a solid job there. The PP looked first rate tonight.
The whole team played well. Some very nice passing plays. Especially on the PP. That's the biggest and most gratifying difference this year. Arniel has done a solid job there. The PP looked first rate tonight.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
Ok someone in the GDT said we would win this game and hank would have a assist... where is that guy? Btw MDZ still blows
Seriously nevisis's standard for a bad goal is one that even this season he gives up maybe once a month, there's no use arguing with him. He thinks that 99.9% of goals that Hank gives up are lasers. It's just ridiculous. nevisis is either Hank's mother or his agent.
NoQuitInNewMexico
it's okay cause it's all just the way it should be
Samuel Culper III
Mr. Woodhull...
Was at my own game so I missed this one. Can't say I expected this outcome.
I have to admit, as much as I like seeing the Rangers play well and win games, I'm almost disappointed when we win games like this one because it just makes me fearful of what our management might extrapolate a game like this to mean and the kind of decisions that will follow. These wins, in a barely .500 season, are exactly the kinds of games that make us idiotic buyers a month from now and result in another cycle on the perpetual mediocrity track. If I'm only commenting on the guys on the ice, I love when they get their games together, put forth actual effort, play a good game and come away with 2 points. When management is added to the picture it makes wins in a year like this one bitter sweet because I fear what they could mean for our "direction" (...right) going forward.
I have to admit, as much as I like seeing the Rangers play well and win games, I'm almost disappointed when we win games like this one because it just makes me fearful of what our management might extrapolate a game like this to mean and the kind of decisions that will follow. These wins, in a barely .500 season, are exactly the kinds of games that make us idiotic buyers a month from now and result in another cycle on the perpetual mediocrity track. If I'm only commenting on the guys on the ice, I love when they get their games together, put forth actual effort, play a good game and come away with 2 points. When management is added to the picture it makes wins in a year like this one bitter sweet because I fear what they could mean for our "direction" (...right) going forward.
Another level with facts, where others spout conjecture due to the fact they have zero knowledge or experience about the position, and or hockey in general.
I call out every soft goal he lets in. Specifically the Ryan Carter backhand goal on November 12th at MSG.
The epitome of what a soft goal actually is.
Inferno
Registered User
Just to clarify for all the Hank bashers saying the Bollig goal was soft…
As I stated in the GDT, his angle was fine, but got beat by the shot because of the velocity. With a shot that hard, you have zero time to track the puck. You have to rely on your positioning, and hope that it hits you. As shown in the picture, his positioning/angle was fine, the shot just had too much on it.
It found a slight hole, short side right under his blocker. The ONLY way he would have had a chance would to have been a little further out of the crease. In that case, the puck would have hit him before the puck got anywhere near the net.
It's obviously a shot you want to save, but you have to give credit to Bollig for that shot.
IT WAS A LASER.
I suggest watching it in real time, notice the time between the shot release and how fast its already out of the net. Within a split second.
for what its worth..i totally agree...when watching the goal all I could do was marvel at the velocity on that shot...that was sick.
say what you want, i thought it was a great shot.
The velocity makes it tougher but it was a terrible angle and short side, it was a bad goal. If nevesis didn't defend every goal that Hank's allowed maybe that opinion would have some credibility.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
Well sometimes the people outside a profession offer the most objective criticism of it. I can't stand when people bring up playing like it gives them carte blanche in a discussion. I mean you say yourself that if Hank was farther out he would have had a better chance..
Whatever, I don't even lol
Whatever, I don't even lol
Another level with facts, where others spout conjecture due to the fact they have zero knowledge or experience about the position, and or hockey in general.
I call out every soft goal he lets in. Specifically the Ryan Carter backhand goal on November 12th at MSG.
The epitome of what a soft goal actually is.
If that's your standard for soft goal then we really ****ed up with the contract for Hank. Goalie is then a completely unimportant position. Even the worst goalie only gives up a handful of those a year.
Did you not see the image I posted showing it wasn't a terrible angle?
Also, do you know what short side means? In case you don't here is the definition…
Tell me more how this factors in to your argument for it being a soft goal.
Did you not see the image I posted showing it wasn't a terrible angle?
Also, do you know what short side means? In case you don't here is the definition…
Tell me more how this factors in to your argument for it being a soft goal.
Um a short side goal is pretty well known to be soft. Literally 2 people think this wasn't a bad goal. Your ridiculous refusal to blame Lundqvist for anything is just that, ridiculous. You blame him for giving up one of the worst goals of his career, congrats on your objectivity. That's like saying "I gave the guy credit on his 50 save shutout, I'm so unbiased".
Petey Pucks
Registered User
you need to seriously get off hanks jock. I know announcers don't get everything right but both said it was a bad goal to give up and I think another 9 out of 10 would say the same. I don't care how fast the shot was because it was still short side .Short side and square to the shooter should be saved...it wasn't....bad goal....and no one cares you play goalie and hockey...it doesn't make your assessments more accurate and relevant than everyone else..stop saying it all the time...it's weak
Last edited:
I'm sure he's the only one that plays goal here...
And if anything that makes him more biased than anything. Wouldn't want to blame the goalie.
