Post-Game Talk: Rangers v. Bruins - Game 2 PGT

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Some players in the locker room have witnessed the decline of other veterans before (Redden and Drury), so seeing the same thing happen to Richards is probably no big deal to them. This sort of thing is probably becoming a tradition for them.

Didn't you know that the most popular game to bet on during the Rangers Casino Night is which current player suffers the biggest decline by season's end?

 

[HockeyStickHomicide]

yeah hard to believe since he is not performing, but they do, he got Stepan through his trouble play early in the season and several others throughout

So does his play and help of the youngsters qualify for 60 Mill?

He's just been a huge disappointment for me.

 

[HockeyStickHomicide]

Some players in the locker room have witnessed the decline of other veterans before (Redden and Drury), so seeing the same thing happen to Richards is probably no big deal to them. This sort of thing is probably becoming a tradition for them.

Is there a curse?

Not even sure I should joke about that.

 

[Hockey Team]

I'm gunna go make a shiv out of a toothbrush and stab myself in the face with it.

Go stab sullivan in the neck instead.

That way we get a new power play coach.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Anyone else notice Del Zotto willingly allowing Boston players to go unabated to Henrik? He like jumps out of their way too as they pass. "Yes sir, my apologies. Skate straight through right this way to Henrik"

 

[NikC]

Isn't this what we said after GM 1?

well you gave up in the Was series... just saying...

Bruins are different animal though. unless the next 2 games are strong wins... there's no comeback this time...

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

well you gave up in the Was series... just saying...

Bruins are different animal though. unless the next 2 games are strong wins... there's no comeback this time...

Meh. Toronto came back just fine. Bruins are not too much different from the Capitals.

The only different animals that reside in the NHL this year are found in the West Coast.

 

[NikC]

Meh. Toronto came back just fine. Bruins are not too much different from the Capitals.

The only different animals that reside in the NHL this year are found in the West Coast.

difference is, this is round 2. we should be finding ways to win in 5 or 6g, not falling behind 2 games again. I'm not saying they can't do it, but this team isn't that impressive. they've played extremely inconsistent hockey all season long. you can only go to the well so many times. Rangers are beating themselves.

 

[mike14]

Sounds like it was a good game to miss. Nash finally potting one is good I guess....

I'd be more upset, but I had the bruins as the 2nd best team in the east so I didn't really expect us to get past them

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

difference is, this is round 2. we should be finding ways to win in 5 or 6g, not falling behind 2 games again. I'm not saying they can't do it, but this team isn't that impressive. they've played extremely inconsistent hockey all season long. you can only go to the well so many times. Rangers are beating themselves.

No argument here. Just saying the Bruins are not a different animal from the Capitals. It is possible to come back from 0-2 down to beat these guys.

Will we do it? I don't know. Most teams lose after being down 0-2. It's just not a good place to be in. Chances seem to be against us. But is it possible? Yes. Maple Leafs aren't a better team than us. They were equally, if not more, inconsistent than we have been/are.

 

[Callagraves]

Callahan had himself a fantastic game

Stepan beat Rask 5 hole, hit the post.

Rask made a monster save on Hags, 2 on McD, and more than a few others.

Nash looked like a man who remembered how to breath after choking once he got that goal. I'm expecting the floodgates to open.

Hank was bad. Not AWFUL, not "choking". He made some good saves, but the ones that beat him, can't. Yes, most of them are chances that you can blame on Danny G, but he needs to have at least one or 2 that he didn't. I won't expect that to continue.

Del Z and Girardi is just too dumb of a pairing. I like the idea and the effort, but you have to kill it. Girardi's worst game as a Ranger. I don't expect that to continue.

Bad bad bounces, and quite frankly, a very, very good Boston team. I may not like all of their players, but that's a well assembled team that sticks to a concept, plays a similar style, and by and large has been in tact long enough to play far more intuitively than our jumbled mess of a team.

I'm not expecting a comeback. I'm expecting them to make it a series, but frankly, if we DO beat Boston, we'll be stealing a series. This team is too fresh, too many new faces, not enough of a team, against a group of Bruins who won a cup not long ago.

I'm upset at some individual efforts. But given what this team has gone through in a year, I'm happy we're in the second round. If you expected us to get here and dominate, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Callahan had himself a fantastic game

Stepan beat Rask 5 hole, hit the post.

Rask made a monster save on Hags, 2 on McD, and more than a few others.

Nash looked like a man who remembered how to breath after choking once he got that goal. I'm expecting the floodgates to open.

Hank was bad. Not AWFUL, not "choking". He made some good saves, but the ones that beat him, can't. Yes, most of them are chances that you can blame on Danny G, but he needs to have at least one or 2 that he didn't. I won't expect that to continue.

Del Z and Girardi is just too dumb of a pairing. I like the idea and the effort, but you have to kill it. Girardi's worst game as a Ranger. I don't expect that to continue.

Bad bad bounces, and quite frankly, a very, very good Boston team. I may not like all of their players, but that's a well assembled team that sticks to a concept, plays a similar style, and by and large has been in tact long enough to play far more intuitively than our jumbled mess of a team.

I'm not expecting a comeback. I'm expecting them to make it a series, but frankly, if we DO beat Boston, we'll be stealing a series. This team is too fresh, too many new faces, not enough of a team, against a group of Bruins who won a cup not long ago.

I'm upset at some individual efforts. But given what this team has gone through in a year, I'm happy we're in the second round. If you expected us to get here and dominate, I don't know what to tell you.

I disagree. Take Henrik away from this team and we likely have an "average" goalie. An "average" goalie would have let those goals up tonight, if not more.

We've been spoiled by Henrik's play. Calling him bad, especially on a game like today, is quite radical. Del Zotto and Girardi left him out to die in the trenches by himself. How many defensive breakdowns had to happen? How many times did our own players have to screen Hank? How many horrendous decisions to block pucks when we didnt have numbers, leading to juicy chances right in front of Henrik? How many odd man rushes did we have to let up?

What a ridiculous thing to say. At worst he was average tonight. At best his defense was average tonight too. You get what you work for, the Rangers D looked uninspired and disgusting today. Not Henrik's fault.

 

[poeman]

That off the post attempt by Stepan would have swung some momentum towards our way...But you know what we deserve to lose again, we cannot score on the powerplay.

We are ****ing joke.

 

[Bardof425*]

Callahan had himself a fantastic game

Stepan beat Rask 5 hole, hit the post.

Rask made a monster save on Hags, 2 on McD, and more than a few others.

Nash looked like a man who remembered how to breath after choking once he got that goal. I'm expecting the floodgates to open.

Hank was bad. Not AWFUL, not "choking". He made some good saves, but the ones that beat him, can't. Yes, most of them are chances that you can blame on Danny G, but he needs to have at least one or 2 that he didn't. I won't expect that to continue.

Del Z and Girardi is just too dumb of a pairing. I like the idea and the effort, but you have to kill it. Girardi's worst game as a Ranger. I don't expect that to continue.

Bad bad bounces, and quite frankly, a very, very good Boston team. I may not like all of their players, but that's a well assembled team that sticks to a concept, plays a similar style, and by and large has been in tact long enough to play far more intuitively than our jumbled mess of a team.

I'm not expecting a comeback. I'm expecting them to make it a series, but frankly, if we DO beat Boston, we'll be stealing a series. This team is too fresh, too many new faces, not enough of a team, against a group of Bruins who won a cup not long ago.

I'm upset at some individual efforts. But given what this team has gone through in a year, I'm happy we're in the second round. If you expected us to get here and dominate, I don't know what to tell you.

Eminger aside, who is a borderline NHL player, MDZ and Danny G are our too slowest D men. Why anyone would see it as a good idea to play them together boggles the mind. Proof is in the pudding.

 

[Gordon Bombay]

Today's game is a perfect example of why you can't be a complacent team. We were playing from behind from basically 3 minutes in. Somehow, someway this team needs to find a way to set a tone early and be consistent with it. Then again I've waiting for this all year so good chance it's not happening.

 

[Bardof425*]

I disagree. Take Henrik away from this team and we likely have an "average" goalie. An "average" goalie would have let those goals up tonight, if not more.

We've been spoiled by Henrik's play. Calling him bad, especially on a game like today, is quite radical. Del Zotto and Girardi left him out to die in the trenches by himself. How many defensive breakdowns had to happen? How many times did our own players have to screen Hank? How many horrendous decisions to block pucks when we didnt have numbers, leading to juicy chances right in front of Henrik? How many odd man rushes did we have to let up?

What a ridiculous thing to say. At worst he was average tonight. At best his defense was average tonight too. You get what you work for, the Rangers D looked uninspired and disgusting today. Not Henrik's fault.

If Hank was average then Rask was superhuman. And Rask wasn't superhuman. Therefore, Hank was below average and not playing up to his paycheck which limits the kinds of bottom six forwards we can sign. Not good enough in a salary cap world.

 

[NikC]

we lost this game primarily because of defensive gaffes, slow start in the first, inconsistent forecheck, nonexistent PP...

Lundqvist however was not good today. sorry. don't cry. Rask outplayed him in the second when we could have ripped the game wide open.

why we quit in the 3rd i don't know. not good.

 

[Dangleberry]

I'm not even mad. I didn't expect this team to make it this far, let alone into the playoffs period. This is all gravy.

 

[Callagraves]

I disagree. Take Henrik away from this team and we likely have an "average" goalie. An "average" goalie would have let those goals up tonight, if not more.

We've been spoiled by Henrik's play. Calling him bad, especially on a game like today, is quite radical. Del Zotto and Girardi left him out to die in the trenches by himself. How many defensive breakdowns had to happen? How many times did our own players have to screen Hank? How many horrendous decisions to block pucks when we didnt have numbers, leading to juicy chances right in front of Henrik? How many odd man rushes did we have to let up?

What a ridiculous thing to say. At worst he was average tonight. At best his defense was average tonight too. You get what you work for, the Rangers D looked uninspired and disgusting today. Not Henrik's fault.

I don't mean to say Hank is a bad goaltender, and I didn't. But, for Henrik Lundqvist, and i'll bet the world, TO Henrik Lundqvist, that was a bad game.

Was it all his fault? GOD no. But even with the D being terrible, we're going to need him to be better.

I'm not one of these idiots calling him a choker, or trying to tell you that Hank doesn't do well in the playoffs. It's asinine superstition. Hank is the best in the world, and that was a below average game for Henrik Lundqvist.

 

[NikC]

I don't mean to say Hank is a bad goaltender, and I didn't. But, for Henrik Lundqvist, and i'll bet the world, TO Henrik Lundqvist, that was a bad game.

Was it all his fault? GOD no. But even with the D being terrible, we're going to need him to be better.

I'm not one of these idiots calling him a choker, or trying to tell you that Hank doesn't do well in the playoffs. It's asinine superstition. Hank is the best in the world, and that was a below average game for Henrik Lundqvist.

the third goal should not happen. I realized Pejorative Sluri is screening him as usual, but the opposition should not score goals that easily on this team. it happens all too often.

Goal 4 was bad. In a tight game We needed Hank to stop that.
Rask stepped up in the 2nd, when we should have had 2. Hank didn't step up in this game. My main grip with him is, are exactly for games like this. he gets down on himself and just fades.

 

[cd211]

i dont think we played bad at all.. score doesnt speak how the game actually was played.. lundy had some softies yes! but we need pp goals, no excuses.. thats the reason and our problem all year.. even if we completed 20% we wouldve beat caps in 5-6games and should be at min tied here.. its unacceptable.. and please dont get me started on richards.. id rather have JT up here playing then richards right now...

 

[Zappy]

I don't mean to say Hank is a bad goaltender, and I didn't. But, for Henrik Lundqvist, and i'll bet the world, TO Henrik Lundqvist, that was a bad game.

Was it all his fault? GOD no. But even with the D being terrible, we're going to need him to be better.

I'm not one of these idiots calling him a choker, or trying to tell you that Hank doesn't do well in the playoffs. It's asinine superstition. Hank is the best in the world, and that was a below average game for Henrik Lundqvist.

I agree.

I wasn't reading the GDT so I am sure this was beaten to death, but Girardi was an abomination.

Goal 1 - Off his skate - HOW DO YOU DIVE IN FRONT OF THE NET?! We have a goalie! An amazing goalie! Why would you put your legs, which have hard padding and skates, in front of the line of the puck? Even if Torts is preaching that the team dives in front of the puck, Danny, use common sense. Let Hank stop the puck.

Goal 2 - He kicks his skate out and pretty much passes the puck to the opposition. ....What?

Goal 3 - I never played hockey but I am pretty sure the #1 rule for a D-man is to play the player and not the puck. So, he literally did the one thing that he shouldn't be doing by watching the puck.


I don't think Hank had a good game at all. Even with Girardi possibly single-handedly costing us a game (yes, I am going that far), he didn't play well.

I saw some positives in terms of long stretches of dominating the puck and actually seeing SOME sort of cohesiveness on the PP. I don't expect Hank and Danny G to have as bad of a game in Game 3, so if we can keep up the puck dominance and see some consistency from Cally and Nash, I'm not as worried. Really not trying to be one of those people that doesn't give the other team the credit but honestly, I still don't think the B's look that good.

Nothing to do now by win game 3. That's all...

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I don't mean to say Hank is a bad goaltender, and I didn't. But, for Henrik Lundqvist, and i'll bet the world, TO Henrik Lundqvist, that was a bad game.

Was it all his fault? GOD no. But even with the D being terrible, we're going to need him to be better.

I'm not one of these idiots calling him a choker, or trying to tell you that Hank doesn't do well in the playoffs. It's asinine superstition. Hank is the best in the world, and that was a below average game for Henrik Lundqvist.

Below average game for Henrik Lundqvuist and below average game for an NHL goaltender are two completely different things.

If Henrik's average was for example 1 goal a game (hypothetically) and then he let up 2 goals in a game, that'd be a game where he played below average. But if every other goalie allowed, on average, 2 goals per game, then he would be playing below average for himself but average in terms of the other goal tenders in the league.

I'm saying he played average when compared to the other goalies in the league. Did he stand on his head today? At times, but not often. Is he capable of more? Absolutely. For him, ofcourse its not up to par. Below average for him? Sure. But did he play a bad game or even a below average game (in relativity to how other goalies play), I would have to disagree. I'd have argued to switch him out after we went down 4-2. This game wasn't his fault, it was the team's lack of focus... and in that sense, I would argue Henrik himself didn't have as much focus as he needed to have for such a game.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

If Hank was average then Rask was superhuman. And Rask wasn't superhuman. Therefore, Hank was below average and not playing up to his paycheck which limits the kinds of bottom six forwards we can sign. Not good enough in a salary cap world.

Rask made some unreal saves and got some luck from the posts. His defense didn't leave him out to dry as often as our defenders did to Henrik. I recall 2 odd man rushes that his defenders gave up, both in the 2nd period, both to Rick Nash. They didn't get pinned in their own zone, they didn't make boneheaded blocks, they didn't lose assignments in their own zone, they protected the crease, etc. Their defense was better than ours, their goalie came up bigger than ours did at times.

 

[Panfork]

Love how our big forwards step up (Callahan and Nash) yet literally everyone else falls apart.

Especially the D.

**** the D.

This.

**** the D.

**** the Dan Girardi.