Post-Game Talk: Rangers @ Bruins
- Thread starter JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
- Start date
AV
Seems pretty angry. Apologies if i'm not allowed to post links or anything.
http://nypost.com/2013/11/29/rangers-cough-it-up-in-third-period-in-3-2-loss-to-bruins/
Seems pretty angry. Apologies if i'm not allowed to post links or anything.
http://nypost.com/2013/11/29/rangers-cough-it-up-in-third-period-in-3-2-loss-to-bruins/
I believe I have conceded that this is mediocre team. I said I'd trade Girardi and Callahan, in addition to Lundqvist. I also said provided a list of players I'd keep. Meaning there are a bunch of players I'd get rid of. On the trade thread I said this team is not THAT far off, but they're missing huge pieces like the #1 center. That said, they've been in position a number of times this season where the D was good enough to win even with a bad offense that Lundqvist gave up a softy. I appreciate Lundqvist for what he is, a guy that's been the best goalie in the since the lockout till this season that was prone to prolonged periods of bad play but still had great regular seasons. Come playoffs he's Jackyl and Hyde, either amazing or horrible. This season he's been average at best. The defense since game 6 has been IMO no worse than the defense in 11-12. In fact as I posted in 21 games in March and April when Lundqvist slumped the team allowed almost a goal per game more than the Rangers have since their poor start, in fact they allowed more goals per game if you include the first 5 games. We're good enough defensively now to at least not be .500. Would we have 10 more points? No. However, it's disheartening watch the Rangers spot a goal before they drop the puck every game. Sure the offense is disheartening too, but the best player on offense is Rick Nash, who is no superstar and is a winger. I hold Lundqvist up to standards a superstar needs to be held under, while everyone on the Rangers board does the opposite and absolves him of everything because he was good once.
Unpredictable1
Registered User
I defend Lundqvist and most other goalies on certain goals against, I'm a goalie by trade so it's in my blood.
But Henrik has to stop that Chara shot. You have to go all or nothing on that situation - he should have charged out to cut a bit more the angle down (I know that's not his nature) but when you're staring down the hardest shot in the league and he has a clear lane to shoot... it's up to you to become humongous big.
But Henrik has to stop that Chara shot. You have to go all or nothing on that situation - he should have charged out to cut a bit more the angle down (I know that's not his nature) but when you're staring down the hardest shot in the league and he has a clear lane to shoot... it's up to you to become humongous big.
Crease
Chief Justice of the HFNYR Court
- Jul 12, 2004
- 24,507
- 26,882
Unless the guy goes pipe and in, I kick myself in the ass when if I give up an unobstructed shot from the point. It doesn't matter how fast it comes in; if you're out where you're supposed to be, there's just no net to shoot at. In fact, the bigger the cannon, the more reason to come out and take away the guesswork.
Unpredictable1
Registered User
Totally agree.
While I don't call it a soft goal - it's a shot that has to be stopped. I've let them in before and been infuriated with myself, while on the bench my teammates are mad they let someone have an uncontested shot and try to deflect me blaming myself.
Henrik knows he should of had that. That shot was his.
Unpredictable1
Registered User
While I say he should of stopped it, I don't think it was a soft goal.
Panthers' second goal the other night was soft. Charmin soft.
Crease
Chief Justice of the HFNYR Court
- Jul 12, 2004
- 24,507
- 26,882
Agree. When I review my own performances, I think everyone could have been stopped. But objectively there are three categories of goals in my book:
1. Ones you just tip your cap to the other team for.
2. Scoring chances you feel you should have gotten a piece of.
3. Softies/brain lapses.
Steve Kournianos
@thedraftanalyst
Trades are fun and deflect criticism for a short time. Like a President going to war to suffocate a sex scandal.
Make trades. We need new scapegoats. Boyle is a 4th liner now and we need new blood to criticize.
Thats why I miss 90s. zillions of trades.
Make trades. We need new scapegoats. Boyle is a 4th liner now and we need new blood to criticize.
Thats why I miss 90s. zillions of trades.
the rangers are good because we are the most knowledgeable, insightful, loyal fans on the face of the earth and eventually the front office we'll hear us and get what we need!
a nasty dman with a shot
a rugged forward who will have some ability and pummel the guy who ****s with nash
a nasty dman with a shot
a rugged forward who will have some ability and pummel the guy who ****s with nash
Last edited by a moderator:
That goal was worse, but this one was bad. If it hit post and in, I wouldn't be as hard on it, it just outmuscled him. I know it wasn't Dan Girardi shooting at him, but no matter who it is you have to stop a point shot that's unscreened. It wasn't the worst goal of the season that has to be the one against the Devils (or Panthers). Still soft.
when we beat dallas we were crucifying the forwards for getting run off the ice and praising lundqvist deservedly so. I had posted a retort to Championships inane harping on that stat but maybe I got carried away and it was removed. It could be I forgot to post it too. But just in case it was a case of going too far I guess all I can say is screw it. I agree with those saying the 3rd goal was a bad goal to give up. But after watching the forwards for 2 periods I could care less if Henrik had given up 3 of those in the 3rd. I want to see a good hockey team.
Last edited:
Idlerlee
Registered User
- Apr 19, 2013
- 4,227
- 806
Zil
Shrug
- Feb 9, 2006
- 5,559
- 43
The more I watch this team, the more I wonder if they wouldn't benefit from some controlled roster demolition. Outside of McDonagh, Stepan, and possibly Kreider, this core just doesn't have enough talent. Put Girardi and Callahan on the market at the deadline and see if anyone is willing to blow them away with an offer. Would anyone give us something for Brassard? How about D. Moore? Let junk like Pyatt and Pouliot walk. Re-sign Hank and Stralman and go from there.
Unpredictable1
Registered User
Wow your hate really runs deep then. You're coming across that pretty much the vast majority of the goals scored on Henrik are soft if you consider that a soft goal - which really is washing away your opinion for most on here and why you get so much flak.
Should Henrik had that blast? Yes, but Chara has scored plenty of those in his career. Is it something to get your panties in a knot over? No.
If you read the majority of the posts, your view is in the minority and not mine. I'm sure plenty of great players score goals that the goalie should have. It was easily a soft goal. It just wasn't the softest one he's given up. It was soft however and at a bad time.
Unpredictable1
Registered User
I don't think the majority of people are saying that was a soft goal.
But whatever floats your boat, cheers.
Read the reaction after it was scored. Even the announcers said it. To me "soft" and "should have had it" is pretty much the same thing. Most people said it was a soft goal specifically after Chara scored. You can't score from the blueline unscreened, I'm sorry.
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 79,463
- 16,898
It wasn't "from the blueline". It was point blank from essentially the slot, coming off the stick of the player who possesses the hardest shot ever recorded.
I took a look at it again and it wasn't from the blueline. It was about halfway from the slot to the blueline, still far away and still a bad goal.
BTW, is it just me or did the Bruins have 6 player? WTF? That should have been a penalty, unreal, what screw job.
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
I'm actually watching every goal against this year to find out how many Girardi scored. Will be back in about 15 minutes with the number.
