Post-Game Talk: Rangers / Sabres - Haley is a Second Liner

[Heyoooo*]

Bunch of people who think they can run a professional hockey team better than the guy paid a hefty fee to do so, with the pedigree and record.

I hope youre not in politics.

We're 100% entitled as fans and ones who pay his salary (in case you forgot) to questioning and critiquing the coach.

 

[jBuds]

Laughed at the poll options.

What is Tortorella's deal, guys? I thought Ruff was the über line shuffler - Torts makes Ruff's line deployment look stagnant.

Stepan and Hagelin are legit. Neither had a phenomenal game, but you can see that there's something pretty special between those two. I wasn't overly impressed with Miller.

 

[Callagraves]

I hope youre not in politics.

We're 100% entitled as fans and ones who pay his salary (in case you forgot) to questioning and critiquing the coach.

He's not above critique or questioning, but it's just plain silly to sit here and pretend he's got a Price is right wheel of line combos and decisions. The man is a professional, and while maybe he's not the best, I think it's a fair wager he knows more about hockey, coaching, and especially this Rangers team than anyone on the boards.

I'm not as big on the entitled fan approach. We're not his boss, we're the consumer. It's their prerogative to run the team the way they see fit. They want to win much, much worse than we do. I just watch the games.

 

[Heyoooo*]

And I think a legion of thousands of fans who have seen the best and worst of the Rangers over the years also know what works and what doesnt, and something wrong when they see it.

The line juggling needs to stop.

 

[PromNite]

I don't disagree that 22 goals was an aberration for Boyle - but, I don't think it's out of the question for him hit 10-15 goals consistently over the course of an 82 game season.

I think that is out of the question. Boyle hasn't looked anything like the threat he was that season.

 

[mike14]

I hope youre not in politics.

We're 100% entitled as fans and ones who pay his salary (in case you forgot) to questioning and critiquing the coach.

I'm all for questioning and critiquing (it's what makes these boards interesting), but some of the hyperbole that gets dished up, especially when we lose doesn't do either of those things. It's just ranting, whinging and name-calling (which makes these boards almost impossible to read).

By all means criticize Torts, point out his inability to adapt in-game and the way he shuffles lines at the drop of a hat, discuss possible other ways the team could be constructed and employed, but leave the grade 3 insults and tantrums out of it (last part not direted at you)

 

[Callagraves]

And I think a legion of thousands of fans who have seen the best and worst of the Rangers over the years also know what works and what doesnt, and something wrong when they see it.

The line juggling needs to stop.

See, I really disagree on that point.

Most people are foolish, impulsive, reactionary, and over emotional. This is the same crowd that near unanimously yells "SHOOT" on the powerplay, despite their being literally no shooting lane or screen. Like we're going to beat a goaltender cleanly from the blueline with no screen.

Most people don't know dick about hockey. Even the ones who watch religiously don't know nearly as much as the guys on this level. We know who we like, and what we've seen work in games. Torts lives with these guys.

You want too see what happens when a fan runs the team? Look at buffalo the past 3 years.

 

[slovakfan*]

game result. pathetic

 

[Dangleberry]

Don't worry guize,

We're only 25 games into the season with a week long training camp and new players. They're probably just shaking the rust off.

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

And I think a legion of thousands of fans who have seen the best and worst of the Rangers over the years also know what works and what doesnt, and something wrong when they see it.

The line juggling needs to stop.

So are the legions of thousands of fans right when they're screaming SHOOOOT anytime a Ranger has the puck in the offensive zone?

Come on. For every knowledgeable fan there are 100 who don't know **** about hockey aside from basics.

 

[Loff]

Way to go boys.

 

[Chimpradamus]

See, I really disagree on that point.

Most people are foolish, impulsive, reactionary, and over emotional. This is the same crowd that near unanimously yells "SHOOT" on the powerplay, despite their being literally no shooting lane or screen. Like we're going to beat a goaltender cleanly from the blueline with no screen.

Most people don't know dick about hockey. Even the one's who watch religiously don't know nearly as much as the guys on this level. We know who we like, and what we've seen work in games. Tort's lives with these guys.

You want too see what happens when a fan runs the team? Look at buffalo the past 3 years.

Yup, yet again I agree with you. That the collective of armchair generals would have more of a clue is simply not true, especially the loud ones, especially after losses. They just go emotionally berserk and leave the logic behind.

This game really stunk. This would've been a blowout if it wasn't for Hank. Apparently to some people, he sucked, so I wonder what grade they have left in their book if he would've allowed 6 or 7 goals tonight. This is an excellent example of how a goalie can only perform as well as the team in front allows him to, they hung him out to dry the entire night. That some brainiacs have come to the conclusion that Hank has bad rebound control is the same guys who yelled at him for Lucic's goal at the first game @ Boston, or the third goal against Ottawa the other night. They have no clue what they're talking about, because they don't know goaltending.

We made Enroth's game easy. We allowed him to see every shot, we didn't force him to move laterally, we always let him be set in position. Compare that with how Buffalo didn't allow Hank to be set, forced him to move and to work with heavy traffic. Night and day, we could fire 60 shots tonight and we probably still wouldn't score with that unimpressive offensive display. Buffalo fired 22 shots and could've a couple more than they did.

McD and Girardi were so bad they both probably should've been benched, especially McD. McD allowed the same guy to score uncontested in our crease twice, he just stood there as a spectator and did absolutely nothing. While the puck was bouncing and I give him some slack for that one, he almost cost us another goal if not for that miracle save. They're getting overworked.

 

[jBuds]

Yup, yet again I agree with you. That the collective of armchair generals would have more of a clue is simply not true, especially the loud ones, especially after losses. They just go emotionally berserk and leave the logic behind.

This game really stunk. This would've been a blowout if it wasn't for Hank. Apparently to some people, he sucked, so I wonder what grade they have left in their book if he would've allowed 6 or 7 goals tonight. This is an excellent example of how a goalie can only perform as well as the team in front allows him to, they hung him out to dry the entire night.

That some brainiacs have come to the conclusion that Hank has bad rebound control is the same guys who yelled at him for Lucic's goal at the first game @ Boston, or the third goal against Ottawa the other night. They have no clue what they're talking about, because they don't know goaltending.

I didn't think we (Buffalo) had too many solid scoring chances, though. He had those two saves in that flurry that ended with the side pad save on Vanek, but aside from that, he wasn't facing any sort of onslaught or barrage.

The guy is, however, so far from a problem or a concern that seeing complaints about him make me laugh. It's one thing to say he had an off game, and its a totally ridiculously different thing to say he has anything close to "issues"... He's one of thee best at his job.

 

[Callagraves]

Yup, yet again I agree with you. That the collective of armchair generals would have more of a clue is simply not true, especially the loud ones, especially after losses. They just go emotionally berserk and leave the logic behind.

This game really stunk. This would've been a blowout if it wasn't for Hank. Apparently to some people, he sucked, so I wonder what grade they have left in their book if he would've allowed 6 or 7 goals tonight. This is an excellent example of how a goalie can only perform as well as the team in front allows him to, they hung him out to dry the entire night. That some brainiacs have come to the conclusion that Hank has bad rebound control is the same guys who yelled at him for Lucic's goal at the first game @ Boston, or the third goal against Ottawa the other night. They have no clue what they're talking about, because they don't know goaltending.

We made Enroth's game easy. We allowed him to see every shot, we didn't force him to move laterally, we always let him be set in position. Compare that with how Buffalo didn't allow Hank to be set, forced him to move and to work with heavy traffic. Night and day, we could fire 60 shots tonight and we probably still wouldn't score with that unimpressive offensive display. Buffalo fired 22 shots and could've a couple more than they did.

McD and Girardi were so bad they both probably should've been benched, especially McD. McD allowed the same guy to score uncontested in our crease twice, he just stood there as a spectator and did absolutely nothing. While the puck was bouncing and I give him some slack for that one, he almost cost us another goal if not for that miracle save. They're getting overworked.

To be honest, I think they're both playing with one injury or another. I've seen some eh decision making in the past, but I've never seen Girardi outworked, or Mac give up on a play.

Something is very wrong

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

Yup, yet again I agree with you. That the collective of armchair generals would have more of a clue is simply not true, especially the loud ones, especially after losses. They just go emotionally berserk and leave the logic behind.

This game really stunk. This would've been a blowout if it wasn't for Hank. Apparently to some people, he sucked, so I wonder what grade they have left in their book if he would've allowed 6 or 7 goals tonight. This is an excellent example of how a goalie can only perform as well as the team in front allows him to, they hung him out to dry the entire night. That some brainiacs have come to the conclusion that Hank has bad rebound control is the same guys who yelled at him for Lucic's goal at the first game @ Boston, or the third goal against Ottawa the other night. They have no clue what they're talking about, because they don't know goaltending.

We made Enroth's game easy. We allowed him to see every shot, we didn't force him to move laterally, we always let him be set in position. Compare that with how Buffalo didn't allow Hank to be set, forced him to move and to work with heavy traffic. Night and day, we could fire 60 shots tonight and we probably still wouldn't score with that unimpressive offensive display. Buffalo fired 22 shots and could've a couple more than they did.

McD and Girardi were so bad they both probably should've been benched, especially McD. McD allowed the same guy to score uncontested in our crease twice, he just stood there as a spectator and did absolutely nothing. While the puck was bouncing and I give him some slack for that one, he almost cost us another goal if not for that miracle save. They're getting overworked.

While I do think that the people who say that Hank has bad rebound control, as in all the time, are wrong. However, the example of the third goal versus Ottawa was actually very poor rebound control. A shot from the point to the chest should be eaten up, not slammed down directly in front of him in the crease. And yes, I do know goaltending, played juniors and just graduated after playing all 4 years in college. I think Hank's rebound control is good 99% of the time. A goalie isn't as good as him without having good rebound control. However, I'm not a fan of him jumping into a clapper to his chest, and slamming it down instead of eating it up. Oh well, he's an amazing goalie and the only reason the Rangers ever have a fighting chance.

I think people blaming Hank are just the example of reactionary fans. As a goalie, I know all too well that when a game is lost most people immediately look at the goals against, how they could've been prevented and usually point a finger at the goalie. For what Hank gives this team, blaming him is just insane.

 

[Chimpradamus]

I didn't think we (Buffalo) had too many solid scoring chances, though. He had those two saves in that flurry that ended with the side pad save on Vanek, but aside from that, he wasn't facing any sort of onslaught or barrage.

The guy is, however, so far from a problem or a concern that seeing complaints about him make me laugh. It's one thing to say he had an off game, and its a totally ridiculously different thing to say he has anything close to "issues"... He's one of thee best at his job.

That's the thing, you didn't fire many shots, but a majority of them were dangerous. And if it wasn't dangerous, our own defensemen managed to make it dangerous. Buffalo was excellent at crashing the crease, you often had two guys there and our so called All-Star D-men were about as involved in this game as the sleeping child in the upper bowl.

I don't see this brutal or weak game from Hank in this one. Why, because he battled pucks? Of course you'll battle pucks if you can't see them. I actually think he was pretty sharp, the Rangers should be happy they only allowed 3 goals last night.

On the other side of the rink, Enroth was allowed to stay in his comfort zone and see the puck the entire night. He's a good goalie, what did they expect he would do, roll over? The number of total shots is irrelevant.

Scratch the "a goalie can only perform as well as his team allows him to be." A better quote would be "a goalie can only perform as well as the Rangers allows him to be." So naturally Enroth has been named Hasek and Lundqvist gets hacked to pieces (by some, because we lost and it's apparently always the goalie's fault if your team loses).

While I do think that the people who say that Hank has bad rebound control, as in all the time, are wrong. However, the example of the third goal versus Ottawa was actually very poor rebound control. A shot from the point to the chest should be eaten up, not slammed down directly in front of him in the crease. And yes, I do know goaltending, played juniors and just graduated after playing all 4 years in college. I think Hank's rebound control is good 99% of the time. A goalie isn't as good as him without having good rebound control. However, I'm not a fan of him jumping into a clapper to his chest, and slamming it down instead of eating it up. Oh well, he's an amazing goalie and the only reason the Rangers ever have a fighting chance.

I think people blaming Hank are just the example of reactionary fans. As a goalie, I know all too well that when a game is lost most people immediately look at the goals against, how they could've been prevented and usually point a finger at the goalie. For what Hank gives this team, blaming him is just insane.

That's the thing, I genuinely ask, how are you supposed to handle high risers towards the chest plate when they are those kind of howitzers? Getting it into the stomach and swallow it is one thing, but high up on the chest? He has been saving them that kind of way basically his entire career. If it was such a flaw, why hasn't he and Allaire corrected it? There might be something more to it, because it seems he deliberately does that. He never moves in his arms on those high risers, he always keeps them in position. If the natural response would be to make yourself small and envelop the shot if, is that why he and Allaire doesn't like that approach, in fear of deflections and/ or wanting to keep his arms active? Or is it not deliberate and that's how he moves instinctively when he doesn't have time to act? If so, I stand corrected. If not, there's more to it.

 

[jBuds]

That's the thing, you didn't fire many shots, but a majority of them were dangerous. And if it wasn't dangerous, our own defensemen managed to make it dangerous. Buffalo was excellent at crashing the crease, you often had two guys there and our so called All-Star D-men were about as involved in this game as the sleeping child in the upper bowl.

I don't see this brutal or weak game from Hank in this one. Why, because he battled pucks? Of course you'll battle pucks if you can't see them. I actually think he was pretty sharp, the Rangers should be happy they only allowed 3 goals last night.

On the other side of the rink, Enroth was allowed to stay in his comfort zone and see the puck the entire night. He's a good goalie, what did they expect he would do, roll over? The number of total shots is irrelevant.

Scratch the "a goalie can only perform as well as his team allows him to be." A better quote would be "a goalie can only perform as well as the Rangers allows him to be." So naturally Enroth has been named Hasek and Lundqvist gets hacked to pieces (by some, because we lost and it's apparently always the goalie's fault if your team loses).

Pretty good post.

Regarding Enroth, the reason why (IMO) he looked as good as he did tonight was the fact that a good portion of your SOG were high, so he was able to either direct the puck away from the net or eat it and stop play. His issues arise when you put it at his pads, as he ends up kicking out rebounds juicier than your best NY Strip at Ruth's Chris. Enroth played well, but he wasn't tested in the tricky fashion that had him troubled in his prior 20 gp

 

[Ola]

I am troubled and concerned by Brad Richards weak performance defensively... Extremely annoying if he goes into a Redden-like shell.

I am definietly not one that throws out excuses for Torts/Sullivan -- I think they have neglacted certain areas of the game completely since coming here -- but I am mean sometimes its like being short handed when Richards is out there on the ice. Doug Weight was better than this his last three years for the Islanders. WTF in plain French.

And Gabby is also as valuble as Pyatt or someone when not scoring. 7m worth?

What do you do about it?

To start with I still think our first priority must be to target a right handed offensive minded D. He could help to cover for these guys defecits. It is extremely important for Gabby to play with D who can move the puck. Richards would benefit from playing with a D that could help him get past the netural zone.

 

[Ola]

Richards makes 9.5m and he skates on the lether.

 

[Vickers8]

Good- Cally, Steps
Bad- Rare off night for McD, Girardi
Ugly- Emminger (terrible), Gabby, officiating 5-1 PP's, one of the worst games of the year

 

[Vickers8]

yuck. the bright spots: cally and stepan.


thats literally it.

Poor Cally and Steps they had to play with Gabby

 

[Thunderhead]

We better beat the Winnipeg Jeks tomorrow b/c we are not beating the Pens and/or the Canes.

 

[The Gloaming]

His system really does look like it belongs in PreLockout NHL sometimes. Great motivator, but a way below-average hockey mind.

Also, I just want the 6th seed.

 

[Thunderhead]

Tort's post game comments were spot on. He's frustrated with a team that sucked and should have won. Period. He was right, our top line was out matched by their 3rd line and the top guys need to come through here.

Only thing I didn't like was him being mean to Sam.

I bet Sam ans Torts are friends. They'll kiss and make up.

 

[Thunderhead]

I just watched Torts post game on the Rangers site and imo, he was not mean to Sam. But, he was 1000% right about the team.