Toggle sidebar

Post-Game Talk: Rangers @ Bruins

  • 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
Time to break up the Stepan line. It was good but that was a stretch against definitively bad teams. Those three hasn't dominated as a line in the last bit of play. Those three together isn't what's making things happen on that line, anyway. Put Stepan back with Nash and go from there.
 
ImIdaho said:
Doesn't come into play if:

1.) Boston gets called for too many men;

2.) Staal doesn't do that boneheaded pass.
Click to expand...

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas.

I don't give a flying **** what events transpired before. Hank's family could have been abducted by the CIA with black bags in front of his own eyes before that shot was launched and it still would have been a bad goal. The shot was in the center of the net and bounced off his damn chest and into the goal.
 
Grind Jam Grind said:
Our division was a lot better last year. Our division being terrible is the only reason we are even close to a playoff spot right now. This is not a good team.
Click to expand...

The only other team I could see being argued as better is the 11-12 team. Not like we were all that special with Torts the years prior to 11-12. We missed the playoffs in 09-10 so I'd say that would be the worst team. Maybe see how the rest of the season plays out before declaring it the worst team in years.
 
Blaming Hank for this loss is irrational. He let in one bad goal that decided the game but he made a ton of great saves early on. We were just pushed around by a bigger, stronger team. The finesse was not there, either. Too many bad decisions with the puck.
 
It's not a bad team. But it is a really frigging stupid team. Some of the stuff they do in the offensive zone just leaves scratching my head.
 
KasparsHipCheck said:
I'm not trying to say Lundqvist is looking bad. He's just not lucky. It seems like every time he's in net there's a goal deflecting off of one of his D man--today it was G, another game it was Stralman.
The team seems to play a tighter more put together game with Talbot in net. I don't get it, but this is the way it seems to me. The D sucks playing in front of Hank.
Click to expand...

They bank too much on Hank bailing them out. The players get too comfortable with Hank in net. The team tries harder when Cam is in net.. It's subconscious I'd assume.

Just look at the fans: We're slamming Hank, calling him mediocre when he's posting up a 92% save percentage despite a miserable start, we're calling it his worst season etc. That says everything really. We're so spoilt with him so that we, and his fellow teammates, are shocked when he doesn't bail us out every night.
 
KasparsHipCheck said:
I'm not trying to say Lundqvist is looking bad. He's just not lucky. It seems like every time he's in net there's a goal deflecting off of one of his D man--today it was G, another game it was Stralman.
The team seems to play a tighter more put together game with Talbot in net. I don't get it, but this is the way it seems to me. The D sucks playing in front of Hank.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. Team is always shaky in front of Lundqvist. When Talbot plays, it's a different team out there.

No doubt in my mind Talbot starts tomorrow, and we out shoot Vancouver 35-20, and win the game 2-1 while giving up limited chances.

The team needs a more consistent effort. I don't think it's because they try to play a more sound defensive game in front of Talbot, because it wouldn't make sense not to give it 100% every game, I just think the team actually is that wildly inconsistent.
 
HatTrick Swayze said:
At the end of the day they just aren't talented enough to play the type of game they are trying to play, consistently.
Click to expand...

I disagree. What I saw was a team that didn't put in 50% of the effort to play some semblance of decent hockey. That last PP, their offense with the extra man, just putrid and horrid.
 
We had 4 SOG in the 3rd. Bruins had more than double that, and simply just had the puck way more. I don't understand how people are blaming Hank when the team in front of him did absolutely NOTHING offensively for the final 40 minutes of the game. Hank is not the reason we lost.
 
Shadowtron said:
It's not a bad team. But it is a really frigging stupid team. Some of the stuff they do in the offensive zone just leaves scratching my head.
Click to expand...

This. So, so, so much ****ing this. This team is borderline Pejorative Slured.

Add another goalscorer in and it solves a lot of problems. They'd still be Pejorative Slured, but they'd put pucks in the net.

Callahan Auto said:
Blaming Hank for this loss is irrational. He let in one bad goal that decided the game but he made a ton of great saves early on. We were just pushed around by a bigger, stronger team. The finesse was not there, either. Too many bad decisions with the puck.
Click to expand...

Who is blaming him for the loss?
 
Jonathan. said:
If you really think this team "sucks," then it's obvious you weren't watching it in the dark ages.

It's a mediocre squad that is a playoff team but needs a second goalscorer on the squad like cancer needs a cure.
Click to expand...



Dont tell me what i did, thanks.

What goal scorer?
 
mediocre = bad. I'd rather be horrendous then mediocre. At least theres a reward at the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom