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

[chosen]

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.

True.

Hank has been very good, but not his best, but he still has been one of the best goalies in the playoffs so far.

Reading some here, you would think he might be the worst.

 

[Miamipuck]

True.

Hank has been very good, but not his best, but he still has been one of the best goalies in the playoffs so far.

Reading some here, you would think he might be the worst.

I normally hate ignore, but it is required on some forums. I am not around here enough to sift through the dumb.

The unfortunate thing is, this series should have been over in 5 or 6. In the games the Rangers lost they have 20 minutes where they left their collective brains in the locker room. I hope they go for the throat and don't let up this next round.

 

[Richter Scale]

Let me preface this by saying that I'm thrilled with the win last night, and with just about the entire team's performance. Bring on the Pens.


--

To the people adamantly defending Hank on the goal last night -- You do realize that he even said in post-game interviews that he didn't recover from Staal's block well enough, right? He took the blame on that goal, as he should have. It wasn't a terrible goal - but it could have been played better. It is that simple. Can we stop with the "Hank can do no wrong" shtick? He is just as fallible as any of the other players out there.

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.

To Hank's credit - even with the sole goal last night - he had a stellar 3rd period, and came up huge at the most important time of the series.

And I'll agree with you on the bolded. The goal was not "soft." But save-able. And in the playoffs, you want your goalie to make those stops.

You also want your goalie to have huge games for you and make huge stops when the team ****s up. For the majority of the series, Hank was not tested nearly as much as Mason/Emery were. And Mason came up with huge stops more often than Hank did in the games he played. Just hoping he picks up his game for the next round. Unless MAF implodes, the next one will not be nearly as forgiving of a series.

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).

This is precisely the point though. Of the goalies you point to, how many of their teams are still standing? One - Fleury's. And it is at least in part because he has the luxury of having two of the best players in the world to fall back on. The Rangers don't have that luxury, so Hank can't give up many "soft"/save-able/whatever goals.


--

What I'll be looking for in game 1 Friday night:

Richie needs to make an impact 5on5. MSL needs to pick his game up some in the next round; he wasn't bad, but wasn't making as much of an impact as the series progressed. Don't care how many chances he's getting or how hard he is trying, Nash needs to ****in' score a god damn goal. Pouliot needs to stay away from terrible penalties. Brassard needs to find his game. AV needs to keep Carcillo in the lineup; why he got taken out I'll never understand. G and McD need to not have another game like game 6. And, yes, Hank needs to come up with more big saves. The team pays him to be the best goalie in the league; he needs to play like it.

 

[LORENZO]

Lol at carbombs face on the front pages.

 

[Hire Sather]

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

Why would they do that? One of the most sought after things in the world of TV right now is live event coverage. NBC paid to have NHL Playoff coverage on their networks, why would they allow 2 other networks to broadcast?

 

[Levitate]

What I'll be looking for in game 1 Friday night:

Richie needs to make an impact 5on5. MSL needs to pick his game up some in the next round; he wasn't bad, but wasn't making as much of an impact as the series progressed. Don't care how many chances he's getting or how hard he is trying, Nash needs to ****in' score a god damn goal. Pouliot needs to stay away from terrible penalties. Brassard needs to find his game. AV needs to keep Carcillo in the lineup; why he got taken out I'll never understand. G and McD need to not have another game like game 6. And, yes, Hank needs to come up with more big saves. The team pays him to be the best goalie in the league; he needs to play like it.

Good news is that Zucc's line woke up and was playing quite well last night. If they can get setup in Pittsburgh's zone they might be even more deadly as Pittsburgh tends to be inconsistent defensively, whereas Philly at least stayed in position pretty well for the most part.

I feel like Richards' line isn't playing terrible but yeah really needs to up their game a bit. The 1st line is pretty good but needs to put away their chances.

The team feels a bit like it's on the edge and could fall either way...lines and players are right there on the cusp of doing some great things consistently but not quite there...if they get there, then they're one of the better teams around, but if they don't this is going to be a tough series

 

[broadwayblue]

Why would they do that? One of the most sought after things in the world of TV right now is live event coverage. NBC paid to have NHL Playoff coverage on their networks, why would they allow 2 other networks to broadcast?

Yeah, can't see that happening. They would need multiple studio crews as well. And then they would have to deal with all the advertising plugs to boot.

 

[broadwayblue]

Good news is that Zucc's line woke up and was playing quite well last night. If they can get setup in Pittsburgh's zone they might be even more deadly as Pittsburgh tends to be inconsistent defensively, whereas Philly at least stayed in position pretty well for the most part.

I feel like Richards' line isn't playing terrible but yeah really needs to up their game a bit. The 1st line is pretty good but needs to put away their chances.

The team feels a bit like it's on the edge and could fall either way...lines and players are right there on the cusp of doing some great things consistently but not quite there...if they get there, then they're one of the better teams around, but if they don't this is going to be a tough series

Yeah, I hope they can find the next gear vs. Pitt. There's definitely room for improvement. If we are going to rely primarily on secondary scoring it's going to be a tough road against the penguins. We can't expect to keep both Malkin and Crosby off the board every night.

 

[Richter Scale]

Good news is that Zucc's line woke up and was playing quite well last night. If they can get setup in Pittsburgh's zone they might be even more deadly as Pittsburgh tends to be inconsistent defensively, whereas Philly at least stayed in position pretty well for the most part.

I actually think Zucc and Pouliot (outside of the idiotic penalties) were fine and fairly consistent this series. It just showed on the scoreboard last night. Brassard, on the other hand, was / is dragging them down. He wasn't terrible - but it felt like he was just a passenger on that line most of the series. He's in a bit of a slump and needs to snap out of it.

And agreed on the rest of what you wrote that I didn't quote.

One other comment -- Pitt is also not nearly as physical of a team as Philly; and are pretty banged up from the CBJ series. I don't want the Rangers to abandon their game, but they need to capitalize on that and inflict some pain on them and set the tone early. They are capable of doing that while playing their game -- they did it plenty last night.

 

[chosen]

Richter scale - You do realize that a player will almost always assign blame to themselves, right?

 

[fredrikstad]

Staal, Zucc and Richards are my MVP for the series but less not forget Boyle and his awesome play from day 1.

Do you or anybody think Sather will actually bye him out after his clutch play lately?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Let me preface this by saying that I'm thrilled with the win last night, and with just about the entire team's performance. Bring on the Pens.


--

To the people adamantly defending Hank on the goal last night -- You do realize that he even said in post-game interviews that he didn't recover from Staal's block well enough, right? He took the blame on that goal, as he should have. It wasn't a terrible goal - but it could have been played better. It is that simple. Can we stop with the "Hank can do no wrong" shtick? He is just as fallible as any of the other players out there.




To Hank's credit - even with the sole goal last night - he had a stellar 3rd period, and came up huge at the most important time of the series.

And I'll agree with you on the bolded. The goal was not "soft." But save-able. And in the playoffs, you want your goalie to make those stops.

You also want your goalie to have huge games for you and make huge stops when the team ****s up. For the majority of the series, Hank was not tested nearly as much as Mason/Emery were. And Mason came up with huge stops more often than Hank did in the games he played. Just hoping he picks up his game for the next round. Unless MAF implodes, the next one will not be nearly as forgiving of a series.




This is precisely the point though. Of the goalies you point to, how many of their teams are still standing? One - Fleury's. And it is at least in part because he has the luxury of having two of the best players in the world to fall back on. The Rangers don't have that luxury, so Hank can't give up many "soft"/save-able/whatever goals.


--

What I'll be looking for in game 1 Friday night:

Richie needs to make an impact 5on5. MSL needs to pick his game up some in the next round; he wasn't bad, but wasn't making as much of an impact as the series progressed. Don't care how many chances he's getting or how hard he is trying, Nash needs to ****in' score a god damn goal. Pouliot needs to stay away from terrible penalties. Brassard needs to find his game. AV needs to keep Carcillo in the lineup; why he got taken out I'll never understand. G and McD need to not have another game like game 6. And, yes, Hank needs to come up with more big saves. The team pays him to be the best goalie in the league; he needs to play like it.

I dont necessarily disagree with anything you've said.

But this board is headed down a slippery slope to the point where any loss is going to be pinned on the goaltender no matter how the team plays.

 

[Richter Scale]

Richter scale - You do realize that a player will almost always assign blame to themselves, right?

I am well aware. And goalies will do this more often than other players; they are the last line of defense after all.

But I also am capable of reading between the lines on Hank's post-game interviews. When he is asked about a goal and doesn't feel it was his fault, he speaks in generalities about the game and the play -- and has even occasionally thrown (nudged?) his teammates under the bus a bit if someone ****ed up (though rarely if ever by name). He doesn't get as specific as he did last night about how he should have played a goal better when he doesn't actually think he should have played the goal better...

I dont necessarily disagree with anything you've said.

But this board is headed down a slippery slope to the point where any loss is going to be pinned on the goaltender no matter how the team plays.

Yea, and wasn't meaning to single you out -- was mostly just using the quotes to make a couple points. Agreed about these boards; it is why I usually try to stay away from the GDT's. I long ago realized they weren't something I wanted to take part in.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Richter scale - You do realize that a player will almost always assign blame to themselves, right?

May as well just completely disregard every valid point that goes against your view at that point.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

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.

So you're incapable of just agreeing to disagree?

Good to know.

Please do us all a favor, then, and never complain again about people blaming Hank and causing drama since you're just as much to blame. I say we may as well agree to disagree to avoid this mess and you want to continue it. Just make sure you know that that's on you. I already made the olive branch offering. You chose to ignore it.

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.

Did I say it was the softest goal ever? Did I say it was the worst goal in the playoffs?

Just because I say a goal is soft does not mean I'm saying it's the worst goal ever given up. Just because "there have been plenty to go around" does not suddenly mean that Hank's soft goal isn't bad. Not only was it soft but it was a complete momentum changer. A true double whammy. If you think a goal where Hank had solid positioning and flat out just missed the puck isn't a bad goal, than we'll agree to disagree (and I'll do it without being an ass to you and enjoy the ride on that high horse).

With that said, as I said earlier, I thought he had a solid game other than looking a bit shook after the goal for a bit. He recovered around the same time the team recovered (after the second TV timeout after the goal). Was nice to see both Hank and the team recover instead of the typical crumbling.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

So you're incapable of just agreeing to disagree?

Good to know.

Please do us all a favor, then, and never complain again about people blaming Hank and causing drama since you're just as much to blame. I say we may as well agree to disagree to avoid this mess and you want to continue it.

Just make sure you know that that's on you.

Its pretty tough to "agree to disagree" with you when your definition of a terrible goal is so far out of whack with the general population.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Its pretty tough to "agree to disagree" with you when your definition of a terrible goal is so far out of whack with the general population.

So both Hank and NBC said it was a bad goal to give up. A number of people in this thread said that. What is your definition of "the general population," then? I think you mean, "since it is so far out of whack with my personal view that may or may not represent the general population."

See the above post where I responded to your earlier post.

 

[KingP]

I think Nash explodes next series. He's doing a lot of other good things that go unnoticed but its time to put some in the back of the net

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

So both Hank and NBC said it was a bad goal to give up. A number of people in this thread said that. What is your definition of "the general population," then? I think you mean, "since it is so far out of whack with my personal view that may or may not represent the general population."

See the above post where I responded to your earlier post.

I get a good laugh when you, of all people, start lecturing people on the cons of subjective reasoning.

I'd use "questionable" to describe that goal - not soft or terrible, which seems to be the only adjectives you are capable of using when it comes to a goal against the Rangers.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I think Nash explodes next series. He's doing a lot of other good things that go unnoticed but its time to put some in the back of the net

Agreed. He had a couple of meh games in the middle of the series but he had a nice start to it and a really nice end. I thought he was the very definition of snakebitten last night. I loved the chances he had last night.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I get a good laugh when you, of all people, start lecturing people on the cons of subjective reasoning.

I'd use "questionable" to describe that goal - not soft or terrible, which seems to be the only adjectives you are capable of using when it comes to a goal against the Rangers.

I'll ignore your first sentence since I don't feel like giving you the pleasure of responding to it.

Your second sentence is just laughable and completely disregards the thousands of times I've said a goal was not soft or Hank didn't have a chance. But please, continue to outright ignore reality to push whatever you believe (I'd go as far as to just call you a liar, really). I was waiting for someone to try and claim that. I honestly didn't expect you to go that far and to that ridiculous level, though. Perhaps I should re-evaluate my views, then.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I'll ignore your first sentence since I don't feel like giving you the pleasure of responding to it.

Your second sentence is just laughable and completely disregards the thousands of times I've said a goal was not soft or Hank didn't have a chance. But please, continue to outright ignore reality to push whatever you believe (I'd go as far as to just call you a liar, really). I was waiting for someone to try and claim that. I honestly didn't expect you to go that far and to that ridiculous level, though. Perhaps I should re-evaluate my views, then.

If your views on me match your current views on goaltending, then yes, I hope you re-evaluate.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

If your views on me match your current views on goaltending, then yes, I hope you re-evaluate.

(ignores the rest of the post because he realizes he lacks evidence to respond otherwise)

About all I needed to see.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

(ignores the rest of the post because he realizes he lacks evidence to respond otherwise)

About all I needed to see.

If you've ever commended Lundqvist or admitted a goal wasn't his fault. Good on you - I haven't seen it.

What I do see - a lot - is you complaining about goals that Lundqvist gives up during wins. You seem to have the market cornered on that

 

[Hunter Gathers]

If you've ever commended Lundqvist or admitted a goal wasn't his fault. Good on you - I haven't seen it.

What I do see - a lot - is you complaining about goals that Lundqvist gives up during wins. You seem to have the market cornered on that

You do understand that negative emotions tend to get discussed more than positives, correct? This line of thought is true in everything from politics to sports. The negatives are pointed out more and discussed than positives. It's just how the world works. Personally, I try and balance the two out since I think it's good to address positives as well.

Part of the problem with your analysis re: "market cornered" quip is that most of that comes from people disagreeing. While I question your knowledge about my posting due to obvious reasons, I assume you understand that I will respond if posted to and am hardheaded regarding that. So when someone *****es that I called something "soft," I'll absolutely respond. And then it spirals. Now, personally, I don't have a problem responding and never have.

With that said, I think you're either willfully blind or you don't actually read what I write. If you did, you'd understand just how hysterically wrong you are. It also could be just a case of selective reading as well, but that's more of a subset of the former. Could also be straight up agenda based, which wouldn't surprise me at this point. I'm probably the most non-biased person when it comes to any given player's play at any time (I love McD yet I've shat on him lately, see discussions re: John Moore, etc., as well). The whole issue is the conversations tend to break down and spiral out of control.