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

[Miamipuck]

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.

I have played against current NHL goalies so you can shove the ignorant up your....

Hank was awesome on that shot, my god he played it perfect.

Edit: I didn't realize the poster I replied to has old jocks of Hank's that he sniff's to get him through the day. I am done with this.

 

[clmetsfan]

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.

Always nice to see a Rookie User take seasoned know-it-alls to task. Spot-on, brother.

 

[Levitate]

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

 

[AHB*]

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.

Great post. That being said, at this point I think people are arguing more with Nevesis because of his incessant "Hank can do no wrong" posts, more so then the actual play lol.

 

[Miamipuck]

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.

The Rangers aren't a team that exacts revenge, especially in the playoffs. 1 ill timed hit of his and who knows who he is going to injure. It shouldn't paralyze anyone with fear, it's just something to think about.

Has anyone heard about Sutter's availability? He is a big loss for them he allows a ton more flexibility with how they use Malkin and Crosby.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Crosby-NYC?

Doc Emerick and Fat Eddie O all series.

He needs to retire. I'm so sick of him being the national voice. It's criminal that local broadcasters can't call their teams after round 1.

THIS!

I understand NBC has the rights, but maybe they can just have seperate audio channels. In this day and age of digital television, it's easy to do.

Audio channel 1: Doc Emrick Eddie O
Audio channel 2: Home team announcers
Audio channel 3: Away team announcers

Is it really that difficult to do? Come on! Give the fans what they want for once

 

[Miamipuck]

THIS!

I understand NBC has the rights, but maybe they can just have seperate audio channels. In this day and age of digital television, it's easy to do.

Audio channel 1: Doc Emrick Eddie O
Audio channel 2: Home team announcers
Audio channel 3: Away team announcers

Is it really that difficult to do? Come on! Give the fans what they want for once

There are no alternatives down here. I find myself muting the tv and then having to turn on the volume because the crowd noise gets you pumped to watch the game.

 

[Placid]

How far did the penguins went in last year's PO? Who did they beat, and which one beat them up? Sorry for bad grammar

They went to the conference finals (got knocked out by Boston).

On the way there, they beat the NY Islanders and the Ottawa Senators.

And your grammar is fine, no worries

 

[Ail]

The Rangers aren't a team that exacts revenge, especially in the playoffs. 1 ill timed hit of his and who knows who he is going to injure. It shouldn't paralyze anyone with fear, it's just something to think about.

Has anyone heard about Sutter's availability? He is a big loss for them he allows a ton more flexibility with how they use Malkin and Crosby.

Said Sutter should be ready tomorrow somewhere.

 

[Miamipuck]

Said Sutter should be ready tomorrow somewhere.

Thank you

FYI, Other than Cooke and Torres I don't wish injury on anyone but I am hoping he's no way near 100%.

Is that too hypocritical? lol it may be.

 

[KingP]

Watching the encore now without stress

 

[McRanger]

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.

Except that isn't really what happened.

He is square to the shooter on the first shot and adjusts to his left to square to the second shot. With a righty coming down the right wing at that angle he hugged the post cleanly. He doesn't drop his right side down until the second shot. You can see his head moving with the puck.

The problem is he squeezed his body together as if the shot was going to his body or the near post and left the far post open. Which makes sense. Most righty shots on that side at that angle are going to the near post; there isn't much space on the other side for a righty to hit.

But if you are going to do that, you need to react to the shot and make the save. Its possible that Coburn cutting through made Hank lose sight of the puck. Or perhaps he thought the shot was going to be a pass and Coburn was going to get the puck. There is no way of knowing. But it's not unfair give him the benefit of the doubt and say he likely did.




Other goalies would have cut that shot off to zero angle and made the save or forced the shot wide. Those other goalies might have found themselves out of position after the initial shot and the opposition would have had an empty net. That's the trade off for playing so deep in the net. Hank has an extremely effective style but its not without its quirks. Sometimes he gets burned on low percentage plays.

The funny thing about the "Hank didn't react to the 2nd shot" theory is that if he didn't react he would have made the save. He had the far post completely covered from his initial angle. It was only after he moved for the second shot that the small hole opened up. Right before the initial shot Hank actually leans to his right as if anticipating a centering pass. Maybe that upset his balance and caused him to move too much to his left.

Was it a soft goal? I guess that depends on your definition of soft. I believe its a circumstance where Hank makes the save way more often than not.

I also believe he made enough big stops to compensate.

In Hank we trust.

-signed
former goalie

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

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.

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

Not sure why you addressed me about terrible goals.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

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.

Some of what you said here is incorrect and ignorant of other things that could have and should have been done to stop that goal from going in. You get some of "it" but you and haoh are clearly very biased and this drives you both to form opinions that are defensive regardless of objectivity. There are ALWAYS excuses for why it's terrible and ALWAYS excuses for why it wasn't his fault. You lack the objectivity required to find the balance between those two ideas

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Except that isn't really what happened.

He is square to the shooter on the first shot and adjusts to his left to square to the second shot. With a righty coming down the right wing at that angle he hugged the post cleanly. He doesn't drop his right side down until the second shot. You can see his head moving with the puck.

The problem is he squeezed his body together as if the shot was going to his body or the near post and left the far post open. Which makes sense. Most righty shots on that side at that angle are going to the near post; there isn't much space on the other side for a righty to hit.

But if you are going to do that, you need to react to the shot and make the save. Its possible that Coburn cutting through made Hank lose sight of the puck. Or perhaps he thought the shot was going to be a pass and Coburn was going to get the puck. There is no way of knowing. But it's not unfair give him the benefit of the doubt and say he likely did.

View attachment 73355
View attachment 73357

Other goalies would have cut that shot off to zero angle and made the save or forced the shot wide. Those other goalies might have found themselves out of position after the initial shot and the opposition would have had an empty net. That's the trade off for playing so deep in the net. Hank has an extremely effective style but its not without its quirks. Sometimes he gets burned on low percentage plays.

The funny thing about the "Hank didn't react to the 2nd shot" theory is that if he didn't react he would have made the save. He had the far post completely covered from his initial angle. It was only after he moved for the second shot that the small hole opened up. Right before the initial shot Hank actually leans to his right as if anticipating a centering pass. Maybe that upset his balance and caused him to move too much to his left.

Was it a soft goal? I guess that depends on your definition of soft. I believe its a circumstance where Hank makes the save way more often than not.

I also believe he made enough big stops to compensate.

In Hank we trust.

-signed
former goalie

Good post. Brings some truth to the situation.

Lundqvist benefits in some areas from playing deep in the crease, but it hurt him last night simply because it takes a bit longer to get your angle right when deeper in the crease. Strange goal but, in my mind, not a soft one.

In fact, I dont think there were any soft goals in this series. You can check out the rest of the NHL to see some really soft ones (Fleury, Miller, and Varlamov come to mind immediately).

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

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.

Stoppable enough to where it shouldn't be so vehemently argued that it was "too hard". Just as , yes MANY folks here go way overboard in criticism so too are some people going way overboard in defense. It's to the point where certain posters appear to be parodies of themselves.

 

[haveandare]

The Rangers win a vital game 7 at home. Hank once again lets in 1 goal or less in a do or die game.

People are picking that one goal apart and arguing that it is or isn't good or bad.

Oi.

Great win. Great series. A lot of people, myself included, thought the series would be easier, but it is what it is. The Flyers never really seemed to click, but they put up a good fight regardless.

 

[FOD]

Good post. Brings some truth to the situation.

Lundqvist benefits in some areas from playing deep in the crease, but it hurt him last night simply because it takes a bit longer to get your angle right when deeper in the crease. Strange goal but, in my mind, not a soft one.

In fact, I dont think there were any soft goals in this series. You can check out the rest of the NHL to see some really soft ones (Fleury, Miller, and Varlamov come to mind immediately).

Yes, that softy on Miller by Toews was a joke. Fleury is good for 1, 2 maybe 3 SOFT goals a series. The goal on Lundqvist last night was not a softy, but if they had lost 2-1 it is a shot that you hope one of the best goalies in the world will stop. But it did all happen in a fraction of a second. The only goal in the series you could call soft was the goal by Matt Read that bounced off the backboards and then when in off of Lundqvist's glove. There were a couple other goals that he gave up that while not soft, if they had lost the series you would say maybe he should have stopped them. Either way you cannot argue with Lundqvists game 7 dominance. His stats in game 7s are crazy!

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Great post. That being said, at this point I think people are arguing more with Nevesis because of his incessant "Hank can do no wrong" posts, more so then the actual play lol.

I think its quite easy to see that the nitpickers who don't seem to remember any good saves outnumber the posters that think Lundqvist is infallible.

 

[FOD]

Staal was easily series MVP in my book. Guy played fantastic hockey from top to bottom. What a luxury it is to have him on our 2nd pairing.

I thought Stepan quietly had a great series. Set Nash/MSL for many great chances. Played great on the PK. Always sound defensively. Though he really brought it all series long.

Agree with everything here. I thought in game 6, Vigneault was relying too much on Girardi and McDonagh considering how bad they were that game. Stepan is a beast even when he doesn't score. Same with playoff Boyle.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

The difference in the game last night was how quick the Rangers were on the puck. They'll never be a team that gets in and bangs on the forecheck, but they were right in the Flyers' back pocket the second they got the puck, and it led to several turnovers. They did the same in the first period of Game 6 before the wheels fell off.

 

[Miamipuck]

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.

I didn't see this post till now. I know the importance of Hank and that he is a homegrown generational player for the Rangers as much if not more so than Leetch/Richter. More so because without him, maybe up to half of these last 9 years the Rangers are closer to a lottery team.

That said, being critical of him for a perceived (by some including me), lousy goal shouldn't be cause for alarm. I get that he is getting even more crap because of his contract. I think 99% of the people aren't doing that in this case, so someone's patently stupid comment in regards to Hank shouldn't matter.

Hank was interviewed and he even specifically mentioned it was a bad goal. I guess it was the fact the Rangers had the game in hand and were just absolutely outplaying the Flyers and it all reversed made it worse, I don't know. I haven't had any problem with him at all so far these playoffs, the numerous defensive lapses in games 2-4-6 were not his fault.

One thing I hope you will agree, is that Hank has the ability to ramp up his play another notch or two. He will need to against the Pens if McDonaugh is still injured.

 

[Miamipuck]

The difference in the game last night was how quick the Rangers were on the puck. They'll never be a team that gets in and bangs on the forecheck, but they were right in the Flyers' back pocket the second they got the puck, and it led to several turnovers. They did the same in the first period of Game 6 before the wheels fell off.

Game 6 first period is what being robbed at gun point would probably feel like. Mason won that game right there. The Flyers were brutal that period and the Rangers were very good.

I hope to hell the Rangers penalty killing improves in the next round. The Flyers power play kept the series from being over in 5 and Pitt has even better power play.

 

[Unpredictable1]

The Rangers aren't a team that exacts revenge, especially in the playoffs. 1 ill timed hit of his and who knows who he is going to injure. It shouldn't paralyze anyone with fear, it's just something to think about.

Has anyone heard about Sutter's availability? He is a big loss for them he allows a ton more flexibility with how they use Malkin and Crosby.

I'm not talking about revenge, I'm talking about getting on him and playing him really hard when it goes in his corner or anything after the whistle in front of the net. Just give it to him.

 

[Miamipuck]

I'm not talking about revenge, I'm talking about getting on him and playing him really hard when it goes in his corner or anything after the whistle in front of the net. Just give it to him.

I didn't mean you said to Matt Cooke him. I meant exactly what you siad. In general the Rangers don't even give a guy anything extra, they just go about their business. I think that's one basic component they lack but that's a different argument altogether.