Post-Game Talk: Rangers @ Bruins

[Machinehead]

If you wanna know something funny though, I just did the Sharks game and they got 3 goals off Rangers, and ironically none were Girardi.

 

[Machinehead]

Six. Combined with his one actual goal, he's tied for the team lead

Worth noting that Stralman has committed four of his own.

There we three more where he didn't deflect it but was standing literally 3 inches in front of Hank/Talbot providing a perfect screen, so I guess we'll give him assists on those.

Staal, DZ, and Callahan had one each. The Rangers have scored on themselves 13 times.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Six. Combined with his one actual goal, he's tied for the team lead

Worth noting that Stralman has committed four of his own.

There we three more where he didn't deflect it but was standing literally 3 inches in front of Hank/Talbot providing a perfect screen, so I guess we'll give him assists on those.

Staal, DZ, and Callahan had one each. The Rangers have scored on themselves 13 times.

How many times did the other team score on themselves? I can think of the Carolina game and the Devils game. This can't be just bad luck, can it?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Oh, also the first Kings game.

 

[Machinehead]

How many times did the other team score on themselves? I can think of the Carolina game and the Devils game. This can't be just bad luck, can it?

If you take away Girardi's 6 it would probably be a normal rate.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

How did you count the Dallas goal? McDonagh, Girardi, or both?

 

[Machinehead]

I gave that to Girardi, that wasn't even going anywhere near the net until he hit it. But that reminds me, McDonagh had his own too.

 

[Fanned On It]

I'm a huge fan of his but this may have arguably been Marc Staal's worst game as a Ranger. Directly responsible for 2 Bruin goals. Could have been 3 sans a post. The worst part about todays loss was "the core" failed today. Callahan, Staal, Lundqvist all playing with their head in the clouds.

Really? You're going to include Lundqvist in that group?

Someone has to step in here and set things straight so I guess I'll do it: Hank played great tonight. The GWG was not a "soft goal" by any means. Just because a goal isn't screened or deflected doesn't mean it was a weak one. As someone else said, you give a dude with one of the best shots in the game that much TIME and SPACE to pick his spot and a goalie is lucky to save it. I mean seriously are you guys THAT spoiled by Hank? Most of the goals you guys say are "soft" aren't actually soft. Have you seen how some of the other goal-tenders in the league play and the types of goals they give up?

This post in particular just boggles my mind. The other 2 goals Henrik gave up weren't his fault in even the SLIGHTEST bit. A bounce off of Girardi? A man wide open on the back-door? And then a dude with a monster of a shot given more than a second to shoot from the high-slot? This dude and SnowBlindNYR need to take their heads out of their ***** and recognize what a "soft goal" is, or more importantly isn't.

Blame Marc Staal for this loss. It was entirely his fault. If he did a better job the Rangers would have won this game DESPITE the fact that they sucked offensively. He left Marchand WIDE OPEN on the back-door and then proceeded to turn the puck over with a blind pass up the boards straight to a Boston skater who eventually got the puck to Chara for the GWG.

This is Snowblind: "Oh my god Henrik gave up a goal that wasn't screened or deflected?! It must have been SOFT!"

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Really? You're going to include Lundqvist in that group?

Someone has to step in here and set things straight so I guess I'll do it: Hank played great tonight. The GWG was not a "soft goal" by any means. Just because a goal isn't screened or deflected doesn't mean it was a weak one. As someone else said, you give a dude with one of the best shots in the game that much TIME and SPACE to pick his spot and a goalie is lucky to save it. I mean seriously are you guys THAT spoiled by Hank? Most of the goals you guys say are "soft" aren't actually soft. Have you seen how some of the other goal-tenders in the league play and the types of goals they give up?

This post in particular just boggles my mind. The other 2 goals Henrik gave up weren't his fault in even the SLIGHTEST bit. A bounce off of Girardi? A man wide open on the back-door? And then a dude with a monster of a shot given more than a second to shoot from the high-slot? This dude and SnowBlindNYR need to take their heads out of their ***** and recognize what a "soft goal" is, or more importantly isn't.

Blame Marc Staal for this loss. It was entirely his fault. If he did a better job the Rangers would have won this game DESPITE the fact that they sucked offensively. He left Marchand WIDE OPEN on the back-door and then proceeded to turn the puck over with a blind pass up the boards straight to a Boston skater who eventually got the puck to Chara for the GWG.

This is Snowblind: "Oh my god Henrik gave up a goal that wasn't screened or deflected?! It must have been SOFT!"

I don't think any goal that's not screened or deflected is soft. Sometimes guys pick corners. That was from far way and just powered its way through. I don't care who shoots it, it's soft.

 

[chosen]

What's killing me is the team is better than it was last year. Or, it should be.

Zucc from the start.
A better Richards.
A Kreider who's arrived.
Staal
Dom Moore is an effective 4th liner
Cally and Hags don't each have a single shoulder
A far superior back up


There is ZERO excuse for a team to be underperforming so terribly.

You just called out the coach.

 

[SixGoalieSystem]

I don't think any goal that's not screened or deflected is soft. Sometimes guys pick corners. That was from far way and just powered its way through. I don't care who shoots it, it's soft.

Sometimes guys pick corners, and sometimes you're up against the guy with the hardest shot in the world shooting from the high slot, leaving you zero time to react. Those shots have a way of powering their way through.

It was stoppable, but that doesn't make it soft or bad. You blame Lundquist for that goal? How about the guys who let him get the shot off?

 

[The Gloaming]

Sometimes guys pick corners, and sometimes you're up against the guy with the hardest shot in the world shooting from the high slot, leaving you zero time to react. Those shots have a way of powering their way through.

It was stoppable, but that doesn't make it soft or bad. You blame Lundquist for that goal? How about the guys who let him get the shot off?

I gave up with him. Have you seen the embarrassing thread he started on the main boards? There's just no sense in arguing with him anymore.

 

[haohmaru]

Some people are acting like it's the first time Chara blasted a slapshot by a goalie. Fastest shot ever recorded in the history of the league and that's supposed to be a routine save?

Some of you really need to get out there and play and you'll have a much better appreciation for the game and the level of skill you're watching. All the goalie is doing there is making himself as big as possible and hoping the puck hits him somewhere. It's not like you can react to a 120 MPH slapper from, what, 30 feet away?

Let's just put this in perspective - 120 MPH is 176 feet PER SECOND. You figure out the reaction time from 30 feet or 40 or whatever you think it was. at best it's .25 seconds from where it was shot to where it ends up.

"soft goal". LOL.

 

[mulli25]

Sometimes guys pick corners, and sometimes you're up against the guy with the hardest shot in the world shooting from the high slot, leaving you zero time to react. Those shots have a way of powering their way through.

It was stoppable, but that doesn't make it soft or bad. You blame Lundquist for that goal? How about the guys who let him get the shot off?

Yes you blame Hank for that goal.

He's supposed to be the best player on the team, and arguably the best goalie in the world.

He has no excuse for letting up that goal. I don't care if the majority of goalies in the league wouldn't have stopped that shot (even though they probably would have in this case). Hank is supposed to be the best, and needs to play like it.

 

[mulli25]

Some people are acting like it's the first time Chara blasted a slapshot by a goalie. Fastest shot ever recorded in the history of the league and that's supposed to be a routine save?

Some of you really need to get out there and play and you'll have a much better appreciation for the game and the level of skill you're watching. All the goalie is doing there is making himself as big as possible and hoping the puck hits him somewhere. It's not like you can react to a 120 MPH slapper from, what, 30 feet away?

Let's just put this in perspective - 120 MPH is 176 feet PER SECOND. You figure out the reaction time from 30 feet or 40 or whatever you think it was. at best it's .25 seconds from where it was shot to where it ends up.

"soft goal". LOL.

You're out of your face if you think that puck was moving 120 mph

He saw the whole shot, from wind up to follow through from 30ft away with a clear lane.

An nhl goalie, especially the best one, is supposed to stop that every time

 

[haohmaru]

You're out of your face if you think that puck was moving 120 mph

He saw the whole shot, from wind up to follow through from 30ft away with a clear lane.

An nhl goalie, especially the best one, is supposed to stop that every time

Yeah, it was probably more like 90MPH, so it's only 132 feet per second.

At 30 feet away, that's less than a quarter second from start to finish. Like I said, that can't be tracked or reacted to. Any goalie, every goalie, in the world just makes himself as big as possible and hope it hits him. To think otherwise just isn't realistic.

 

[SixGoalieSystem]

Yes you blame Hank for that goal.

He's supposed to be the best player on the team, and arguably the best goalie in the world.

He has no excuse for letting up that goal. I don't care if the majority of goalies in the league wouldn't have stopped that shot (even though they probably would have in this case). Hank is supposed to be the best, and needs to play like it.

Hank is not free from blame in that situation, but he is far from the number one culprit. Come on.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Sometimes guys pick corners, and sometimes you're up against the guy with the hardest shot in the world shooting from the high slot, leaving you zero time to react. Those shots have a way of powering their way through.

It was stoppable, but that doesn't make it soft or bad. You blame Lundquist for that goal? How about the guys who let him get the shot off?

Zero time to react? It wasn't a one timer. I wouldn't blame him for a one timer. Chara skated right in and shot it. Hank knew what he was going to do and he saw what he was going to do.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

If that were Biron in net, I bet 99% of the defenders of that play wouldn't defend it. Hank gets defended to no end. The guy can do no wrong.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

You're out of your face if you think that puck was moving 120 mph

He saw the whole shot, from wind up to follow through from 30ft away with a clear lane.

An nhl goalie, especially the best one, is supposed to stop that every time

This is lost on everyone on this board. Instead of having high standards for the guy, this board goes the 100% opposite direction. He gets points for his past performances and gets a pass that another player wouldn't get. Completely irrational yet people say how crazy I am.

 

[Bullseyes]

This is lost on everyone on this board. Instead of having high standards for the guy, this board goes the 100% opposite direction. He gets points for his past performances and gets a pass that another player wouldn't get. Completely irrational yet people say how crazy I am.

He should've stopped that goal.

It is crazy to say after ~1/4 of a season that the best goalie in the league for the seasons now is no longer elite. That's overreacting to a small sample size.

 

[NYR Sting]

This is lost on everyone on this board. Instead of having high standards for the guy, this board goes the 100% opposite direction. He gets points for his past performances and gets a pass that another player wouldn't get. Completely irrational yet people say how crazy I am.

You can't even evaluate the performance properly yet you're accusing people of being completely irrational. Your entire analysis of his performance on the season, much less that one play, is totally inaccurate. What is this obsession with "soft goals?" You think they're demoralizing? Who do you think was demoralized first, the rest of the team when Lundqvist gave up the goal to Chara with 7 minutes to go in the game, or Lundqvist when the Rangers steadily ceded control of the flow and pace of the game to the other team? When for a period and a half, the Rangers couldn't sustain ANY offensive pressure. How disheartening do you think it is to be the best, most consistent player at your position in the world for 8 years and NEVER, EVER get consistent offensive support?

The guy is giving up 2.15 goals per game over his last 18 games. Carey Price is 6th in the league with a GAA of 2.0. Jaroslav Halak has 14 wins in 20 games for the Blues, one of the top teams in the league; his GAA is 2.12 (coincidentally, the same amount of goals that the Rangers score per game).

Yes, Lundqvist's play is down this season. He's down from All-World to well above average. He's not the reason the team is losing games.

 

[mulli25]

Yeah, it was probably more like 90MPH, so it's only 132 feet per second.

At 30 feet away, that's less than a quarter second from start to finish. Like I said, that can't be tracked or reacted to. Any goalie, every goalie, in the world just makes himself as big as possible and hope it hits him. To think otherwise just isn't realistic.

There is a very real conversation going on about whether or not to pay this guy 9mil per season, but he can't be expected to routinely handle 90mph slap shots from 30ft away with no traffic in front?

I guess I was mistaken for holding one of the top goalies in the world up to the standards of an ECHL goaltender.

Hank had more than enough time and information to know roughly where that pick was going, and failed to make a routine stop.

Is that the reason we lost the game? No, but it's the reason that goal was scored.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

You can't even evaluate the performance properly yet you're accusing people of being completely irrational. Your entire analysis of his performance on the season, much less that one play, is totally inaccurate. What is this obsession with "soft goals?" You think they're demoralizing? Who do you think was demoralized first, the rest of the team when Lundqvist gave up the goal to Chara with 7 minutes to go in the game, or Lundqvist when the Rangers steadily ceded control of the flow and pace of the game to the other team? When for a period and a half, the Rangers couldn't sustain ANY offensive pressure. How disheartening do you think it is to be the best, most consistent player at your position in the world for 8 years and NEVER, EVER get consistent offensive support?

The guy is giving up 2.15 goals per game over his last 18 games. Carey Price is 6th in the league with a GAA of 2.0. Jaroslav Halak has 14 wins in 20 games for the Blues, one of the top teams in the league; his GAA is 2.12 (coincidentally, the same amount of goals that the Rangers score per game).

Yes, Lundqvist's play is down this season. He's down from All-World to well above average. He's not the reason the team is losing games.

A soft goal means the goalie isn't doing his job. To me a soft goal is no worse than a defenseman turning the puck over and it resulting in a goal. If the same defenseman did it every game, they'd get tarred and feathered here. 2.15 goals per game in 18 games? That's great, but he has had 2 seasons of better than that in far more than 18 games. It's not like 2.15 GAA in 18 games is something ridiculous in this day and age in the NHL.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

My fault, a soft goal is NO BETTER than a defenseman turning the puck over and it resulting in a goal.