Post-Game Talk: Round 1, Game 7: So endeth the series!

[Miamipuck]

Can't blame Lundqvist for that goal...the initial shot was blocked and came right back to Akeson. Lundqvist was still basically reacting to the first shot, couldn't really see the rebound back to Akeson, so wasn't in position. It was a lucky bounce for the Flyers who got a lot of them in this series.

I don't want to continue this argument and you obviously are taking the time to make a decent counter point, lets just agree to disagree. I thought it was a real weak goal and up to that point of the game ruined an otherwise very strong performance. Hank didn't let it effect him and closed the door the rest of the way, so it really is a moot point. I am not going to argue with his overall performance in game 7, it was excellent over all. I just hated that goal.

 

[haohmaru]

Anyone who doesn't think that goal was terrible is an utter fanboy. See how the works?

Show me analysts/experts who called that a "terrible" goal. You can't.

This isn't "fanboy"ism. It's reality. I think your "analysis" of the NY Rangers net minder is consistently terrible.

Perhaps from now on, instead of flying off the handle when one says a goal is weak, you can just ignore it instead of having a multiple debate. I'll always engage anyone in debate, but then you'll just complain that people are bashing Hank.

"Flying off the handle"? LOL. No, not really. And, no, I won't just ignore stupidity. The better goalie, and team, won the series despite the micro-analysis of the best goalie this franchise has ever had. Which was brought on, seemingly, by his signing a long term contract that exponentially expanded these armchair "weak" goal posts. Game 7, he stopped the puck when he needed to and his team won game 7. Again. That's what you pay him for.

A second chance rebound off a blocked shot from the slot is NOT an easy save to make especially because it was unexpected. If you've really played for ten years, you'd know how fast that really happens on the ice.

Interesting to note, but I don't ever think I've seen a multiple thread where the supposed Hank haters)(including notorious "haters" like Snowblind) have created multi page debates over whether he made a good save. It only occurs when one voices an opinion that he misplayed something.

So I think it's pretty clear why we have these silly debates and they can be avoided incredibly easily.

Yeah, well, good news tends not to stir conversation as much as bad news does. And, no, I won't "avoid" these by being silent as you suggest. I'll call BS when I see BS. Thanks.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Show me analysts/experts who called that a "terrible" goal. You can't.

This isn't "fanboy"ism. It's reality. I think your "analysis" of the NY Rangers net minder is consistently terrible.



"Flying off the handle"? LOL. No, not really. And, no, I won't just ignore stupidity. The better goalie, and team, won the series despite the micro-analysis of the best goalie this franchise has ever had. Which was brought on, seemingly, by his signing a long term contract that exponentially expanded these armchair "weak" goal posts. Game 7, he stopped the puck when he needed to and his team won game 7. Again. That's what you pay him for.

A second chance rebound off a blocked shot from the slot is NOT an easy save to make especially because it was unexpected. If you've really played for ten years, you'd know how fast that really happens on the ice.



Yeah, well, good news tends not to stir conversation as much as bad news does. And, no, I won't "avoid" these by being silent as you suggest. I'll call BS when I see BS. Thanks.

It was a bad goal to give up. You can excuse the goal if you'd like that's your prerogative. "Not easy" is not an excuse that a professional makes or accepts for himself. You aren't seeing BS. You are seeing opinions that differ from yours. You seem to be solely blaming his new contract for the criticism. Are you truly unaware of the fact that this has been his worst season for many legitimate reasons? Are you really this unaware of goaltending? The irony is it seems you are familiar with playing the position but rather than being able to provide insight and fair analysis you have engendered a bias which affects your analysis. It causes you to either defend the position so much that it's wrong or you go about defending the position even when it shouldn't be defended.

For instance this was a bad goal to give up although some degree of toughness is there due to the rebound. But some degree of toughness lies with every shot and goal. That doesn't mean every goal should be excused. You can't even admit that it's a save,( in that situation AND given the other G performance) that one of the best in the world should make. Giving up that goal is bad for a player that is suppossed to be of Lundqvist's caliber. Giving up that goal would be perfectly understandable for a lower quality starter.

It's not my opinion that Lundqvist sucks. Far from it. But he's not a good enough goalie to make that save right now. And if this is how he is going to play for the rest of his career then it is not good enough and will hurt the team. In previous years I fully blamed the garbage team around him this year he has made costly mistakes himself. Last night was an example.

Also if you think all he was doing was calling you a fanboy. That wasn't the point. He was mocking you for using generalizations.

 

[chosen]

It was a bad goal to give up. You can excuse the goal if you'd like that's your prerogative. "Not easy" is not an excuse that a professional makes or accepts for himself. You aren't seeing BS. You are seeing opinions that differ from yours. You seem to be solely blaming his new contract for the criticism. Are you truly unaware of the fact that this has been his worst season? Are you really this unaware of goaltending? The irony is it seems you are familiar with playing the position but rather than being able to provide insight and fair analysis you have engendered a bias which affects your analysis. It causes you to either defend the position so much that it's wrong or you go about defending the position even when it shouldn't be defended.

For instance this was a bad goal to give up although the degree of toughness is there due to the rebound. You can't even admit that despite the toughness of the save it's a save, in that situation, given the other G performance, that one of the best in the world should make. Giving up that goal is bad for a player that is suppossed to be of Lundqvist's caliber. Giving up that goal would be perfectly understandable for a lower quality starter

You miss the concept of what a soft goal is. A goal that happens at a bad time isn't necessarily a soft goal.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Methinks the know-nothing-it-all artist formerly known as Jonathan needs to watch more hockey if he wants to learn what a "terrible goal" really is. There have been plenty to go around this playoff season.

 

[Levitate]

I don't want to continue this argument and you obviously are taking the time to make a decent counter point, lets just agree to disagree. I thought it was a real weak goal and up to that point of the game ruined an otherwise very strong performance. Hank didn't let it effect him and closed the door the rest of the way, so it really is a moot point. I am not going to argue with his overall performance in game 7, it was excellent over all. I just hated that goal.

That's fine, I'm not going to sit there and say "you have no clue about hockey!" I just thought it wasn't exactly soft, just unfortunate. Looked like it was hard to pick up that the first shot was blocked and right back to Akeson and Staal was screening Lundqvist's view of the puck a bit. I wish he'd stopped it, it was stoppable, but I wouldn't call it a clean goal either.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

You miss the concept of what a soft goal is. A goal that happens at a bad time isn't necessarily a soft goal.

Huh? I didn't say soft anywhere nor did I think it was terrible as a goal to give up objectively. But if that goal had been given up in combination with 2 other goals to lose the series than as a package it would have been terrible. Luckily he stayed firm and made up for it and so the goal objectively on its own remains "tough but not THAT tough that it should require excuses be made". In fact I made it a point to use terms like "bad" and "not good enough". I also acknowledged that there was a degree of toughness. But I don't think the degree of toughness is high enough to
A) Absolve him of blame
B) Expect everyone else to also absolve him of blame

 

[True Blue]

Both have been physical.

In my view, they both should be in the line up.

Has anyone seen Nash yet?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Huh? I didn't say soft anywhere nor did I think it was terrible as a goal to give up objectively. But if that goal had been given up in combination with 2 other goals to lose the series than as a package it would have been terrible. Luckily he stayed firm and made up for it and so the goal objectively on its own remains "tough but not THAT tough that it should require excuses be made". In fact I made it a point to use terms like "bad" and "not good enough". I also acknowledged that there was a degree of toughness. But I don't think the degree of toughness is high enough to
A) Absolve him of blame
B) Expect everyone else to also absolve him of blame

Yes, I agree, if something happened that didnt actually happen and the Rangers lost the series, that would have been terrible.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

In my view, they both should be in the line up.

Has anyone seen Nash yet?

Nash was very good last night. I am upgrading him from ghost to snakebit.

 

[Miamipuck]

That's fine, I'm not going to sit there and say "you have no clue about hockey!" I just thought it wasn't exactly soft, just unfortunate. Looked like it was hard to pick up that the first shot was blocked and right back to Akeson and Staal was screening Lundqvist's view of the puck a bit. I wish he'd stopped it, it was stoppable, but I wouldn't call it a clean goal either.

I think most of that blowback in this thread is directed at Bird Law or so it seems. He can handle himself just fine against that wolfpack. I am usually a big supporter of Hank and do not care if he makes 8 million or a dollar a year.

Anyway, the next series there isn't any room for error, Pitt is a lot better than Philly, well a lot more dangerous offensively. The only worry with the physical component is that jacka** Orpik hurting someone. Hopefully, they can get some goals on Fluery who was borderline awful at times against Columbus.

 

[Miamipuck]

In my view, they both should be in the line up.

Has anyone seen Nash yet?

Yeah due to his cloak of invisibility I guess you missed the fact he was one of the better players last night.

 

[nevesis]

I don't want to continue this argument and you obviously are taking the time to make a decent counter point, lets just agree to disagree. I thought it was a real weak goal and up to that point of the game ruined an otherwise very strong performance. Hank didn't let it effect him and closed the door the rest of the way, so it really is a moot point. I am not going to argue with his overall performance in game 7, it was excellent over all. I just hated that goal.

The only people who understand why that goal wasn't as bad as it looked are people who play goalie.

The ignorant members here just see it as a shot that Lundqvist simply lets in without even reacting, and fail to understand how the play developed all within a matter of a second.

He reacted correctly to the trajectory of the initial shot which was immediately blocked by the defensemen's leg, bounces right back to Akeson, and he takes a second shot off that rebound.

Henrik's positioning was already determined by the initial shot, and no goalie has the ability to recover and re-position themselves for the next shot.

This literally all happens within seconds. In real time, without looking at the slo-mo it appears that he just takes a shot and Henrik lets it through. This is what most ignorant people see at first glance because they fail to take into consideration the events leading up to when the actual puck crosses the goal line.

Once MSG had a chance to look at the play again and show it in slo-mo, Dave Maloney even commented why it wasn't as bad of a goal as it initially looked like, stating the reasons I listed above.

 

[haohmaru]

It was a bad goal to give up. You can excuse the goal if you'd like that's your prerogative. "Not easy" is not an excuse that a professional makes or accepts for himself. You aren't seeing BS. You are seeing opinions that differ from yours. You seem to be solely blaming his new contract for the criticism. Are you truly unaware of the fact that this has been his worst season for many legitimate reasons? Are you really this unaware of goaltending? The irony is it seems you are familiar with playing the position but rather than being able to provide insight and fair analysis you have engendered a bias which affects your analysis. It causes you to either defend the position so much that it's wrong or you go about defending the position even when it shouldn't be defended.

For instance this was a bad goal to give up although some degree of toughness is there due to the rebound. But some degree of toughness lies with every shot and goal. That doesn't mean every goal should be excused. You can't even admit that it's a save,( in that situation AND given the other G performance) that one of the best in the world should make. Giving up that goal is bad for a player that is suppossed to be of Lundqvist's caliber. Giving up that goal would be perfectly understandable for a lower quality starter.

It's not my opinion that Lundqvist sucks. Far from it. But he's not a good enough goalie to make that save right now. And if this is how he is going to play for the rest of his career then it is not good enough and will hurt the team. In previous years I fully blamed the garbage team around him this year he has made costly mistakes himself. Last night was an example.

Also if you think all he was doing was calling you a fanboy. That wasn't the point. He was mocking you for using generalizations.

A "terrible" goal is MAF mishandling the puck and someone scoring via wraparound. A "terrible" goal is a weak sauce 45' wrist shot going in without a screen. Those are terrible goals. This wasn't. Do I wish he would've stopped it? Of course. He got the job done, though, and it's not like I'm on here defending every goal he gives up. He wasn't good Oct-Dec, no doubt. He's been himself since.

 

[Levitate]

Anyway, the next series there isn't any room for error, Pitt is a lot better than Philly, well a lot more dangerous offensively. The only worry with the physical component is that jacka** Orpik hurting someone. Hopefully, they can get some goals on Fluery who was borderline awful at times against Columbus.

Eh, I think Pittsburgh has better top players for sure but I think Philly had better depth than Pittsburgh. So there will be a bigger emphasis on stopping Crosby, Malkin, Neal, Kunitz, etc. But...can't slack against the Pens depth players either. Basically jsut gonna be a tough series and have to up their level of play.

In my view, they both should be in the line up.

Has anyone seen Nash yet?

Nash hasn't been playing bad IMO at all but he can't buy a goal. He's getting good looks and shots but nothing is going in. Frustrating for everyone involved...for the most part he's not just sucking and being invisible but he needs to put some of those chances away

 

[haohmaru]

The only people who understand why that goal wasn't as bad as it looked are people who play goalie.

The ignorant members here just see it as a shot that Lundqvist simply lets in without even reacting, and fail to understand how the play developed all within a matter of a second.

He reacted correctly to the trajectory of the initial shot which was immediately blocked by the defensemen's leg, bounces right back to Akeson, and he takes a second shot off that rebound.

Henrik's positioning was already determined by the initial shot, and no goalie has the ability to recover and re-position themselves for the next shot.

This literally all happens within seconds. In real time, without looking at the slo-mo it appears that he just takes a shot and Henrik lets it through. This is what most ignorant people see at first glance because they fail to take into consideration the events leading up to when the actual puck crosses the goal line.

Once MSG had a chance to look at the play again and show it in slo-mo, Dave Maloney even commented why it wasn't as bad of a goal as it initially looked like, stating the reasons I listed above.

Someone gets it.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

A "terrible" goal is MAF mishandling the puck and someone scoring via wraparound. A "terrible" goal is a weak sauce 45' wrist shot going in without a screen. Those are terrible goals. This wasn't. Do I wish he would've stopped it? Of course. He got the job done, though, and it's not like I'm on here defending every goal he gives up. He wasn't good Oct-Dec, no doubt. He's been himself since.

I wonder whats going to happen if/when Lundqvist gives up an actual terrible goal. The board might implode.

Quite a display of nitpicking after a game 7 victory. I didn't think the usual suspects had it in them to hijack the commentary like this, but they have a special ability to lose sight of whats important.

 

[nevesis]

Everyone check out this video of the locker room after last nights game!

http://nyrangersblog.com/2014-articles/video-rangers-celebrate-gm-7-victory.html

 

[eBoge88]

Regarding the goal against Lundqvist. For anyone who has played, you'll understand what a difficult play that was. The goaltender sets himself up for the initial shot. He positions his body to block the initial attempted shot and then caters his reactionary movement to it.

When the shot was blocked, Lundqvist was already anticipating puck to get through so he slid to position himself for save. Unfortunately, the puck never arrived for him to gobble up or deflect to corner. Being that he was already en route to make save, his positioning was then off. Akeson got a great bounce right back to his blade and could place the "second" shot where he wanted to. Being that Lundqvist was on move reacting to initial shot attempt, there was extra net to shoot at.

Lundqvist did what he was supposed to do, he saw Akeson line up for a shot and reacted. Just unlucky that the shot was blocked and went right back to Akeson's tape. Lundqvist is elite, but also human, he doesn't have super human speed to react in manner he would have to to stop that second shot.

The dude was clutch as can be in an elimination playoff game and people are getting on him for a goal that is extremely difficult for a goalie to judge and react to?

What team do you guys really root for? Spoiled, spoiled, spoiled, spoiled, spoiled. Get real people. I'd love to see you guys watch the Rangers from the '97-'98 season straight through the first lock out. If you went through that, you'd have a lot more calluses and a better grip of reality.

 

[chosen]

Huh? I didn't say soft anywhere nor did I think it was terrible as a goal to give up objectively. But if that goal had been given up in combination with 2 other goals to lose the series than as a package it would have been terrible. Luckily he stayed firm and made up for it and so the goal objectively on its own remains "tough but not THAT tough that it should require excuses be made". In fact I made it a point to use terms like "bad" and "not good enough". I also acknowledged that there was a degree of toughness. But I don't think the degree of toughness is high enough to
A) Absolve him of blame
B) Expect everyone else to also absolve him of blame

We disagree.

To say it is stoppable has no meaning to me. Every single goal is stoppable, without exception.

The reason a few of us have become disgusted is the unbelievable criticism Hank has faced here, lately. Not you, but some have made statements that are plain ignorant in their evaluations.

It gets tiresome to hear the same people say every single goal against is soft, yet when the Rangers score, it is rare to see it called a soft goal. It gets called a great play when it's our guys scoring.

When one poster wrote that Varlamov is better than Hank, I shuddered at the total lack of hockey sense being exhibited.

 

[FultonReed]

Everyone check out this video of the locker room after last nights game!

http://nyrangersblog.com/2014-articles/video-rangers-celebrate-gm-7-victory.html

i wanna see that picture of Klein pretending to pinch Benny's nipple

 

[Unpredictable1]

I think most of that blowback in this thread is directed at Bird Law or so it seems. He can handle himself just fine against that wolfpack. I am usually a big supporter of Hank and do not care if he makes 8 million or a dollar a year.

Anyway, the next series there isn't any room for error, Pitt is a lot better than Philly, well a lot more dangerous offensively. The only worry with the physical component is that jacka** Orpik hurting someone. Hopefully, they can get some goals on Fluery who was borderline awful at times against Columbus.

Now that Orpik's glass jaw was completely exposed, I'm not sure how more people don't play him harder. Heck, even Boyle should run him down.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

I certainly would not say the goal last night was soft. That's a bad bounce.

I also certainly would not say Lundqvist was bad in this series.

But I will say that he absolutely has another level. He will need to find it for the Rangers to have a shot vs the Pens. That's just a harsh reality. Not his fault, not bad, but they need him.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I certainly would not say the goal last night was soft. That's a bad bounce.

I also certainly would not say Lundqvist was bad in this series.

But I will say that he absolutely has another level. He will need to find it for the Rangers to have a shot vs the Pens. That's just a harsh reality. Not his fault, not bad, but they need him.

Agreed.

On the bright side, our goalie played good, not great, and our leading goal scorer had 0 goals and they are STILL onto the 2nd round.

That should be the takeaway today, not some misguided crap about a soft goal.

 

[tbonenc*]

Regarding the goal against Lundqvist. For anyone who has played, you'll understand what a difficult play that was. The goaltender sets himself up for the initial shot. He positions his body to block the initial attempted shot and then caters his reactionary movement to it.

When the shot was blocked, Lundqvist was already anticipating puck to get through so he slid to position himself for save. Unfortunately, the puck never arrived for him to gobble up or deflect to corner. Being that he was already en route to make save, his positioning was then off. Akeson got a great bounce right back to his blade and could place the "second" shot where he wanted to. Being that Lundqvist was on move reacting to initial shot attempt, there was extra net to shoot at.

Lundqvist did what he was supposed to do, he saw Akeson line up for a shot and reacted. Just unlucky that the shot was blocked and went right back to Akeson's tape. Lundqvist is elite, but also human, he doesn't have super human speed to react in manner he would have to to stop that second shot.

The dude was clutch as can be in an elimination playoff game and people are getting on him for a goal that is extremely difficult for a goalie to judge and react to?

What team do you guys really root for? Spoiled, spoiled, spoiled, spoiled, spoiled. Get real people. I'd love to see you guys watch the Rangers from the '97-'98 season straight through the first lock out. If you went through that, you'd have a lot more calluses and a better grip of reality.

I'm fine with being critical of Hank, but that goal was not on him.

It was a very fortunate bounce back to Akeson, who made a nice finish.

Seemed like the Flyers got quite a few fortunate bounces this series, while the Rangers whiffed on a ton of rebound chances. Let's hope the hockey gods even it up in the Penguin series.