Post-Game Talk: Round 3, Game 2: Can the Rangers break the streak?????
- Thread starter Machinehead
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Imagine how much they would have dominated if they had a transition game! Biggest homers on earth.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
That 3rd period though...yeah, Price would distribute the puck, and the skaters would keep trying to force it over our blue line to no avail. k.
Price would deke out the entire Rangers team and pull a Malik on Lundqvist 3 times for the hat trick. Final score Habs 4- Rangers -5. Because he's capable of preventing goals not scored. Habs would thus win by 9 goals.
Clown Fiesta
Registered User
"Imagine if we had a prime Lafleur, Roy, Richard, Robinson, Chelios, etc, etc... We woulda dominated!"
Just accept the fact you lost, you may have deserved the win but Hank stole it from you, game 1 you literally **** the bed. Stop making excuses.
I am convinced that's what the Canadiens team does as well though, which would be great for us.
Just accept the fact you lost, you may have deserved the win but Hank stole it from you, game 1 you literally **** the bed. Stop making excuses.
I am convinced that's what the Canadiens team does as well though, which would be great for us.
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 80,067
- 17,708
Bruins fans hate the Canadiens so much, it's hilarious.
**** the Canadiens. Here are the Canadiens in a nutshell: whine whine whine.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
silverfish
got perma'd
Yep I just read that we got "UTTERLY dominated" the whole game. Not just dominated. UTTERLY dominated. Dominated until the first goal they scored maybe, outplayed in the first. 2nd period we were easily better. Third period, they got the quietest 19 shots on goal in the history of hockey.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
It's cause anytime they got the puck in our zone it immediately became the PK Subban shooting gallery. Most of their shots were above the hashmarks. They kept trying to force absolutely everything that period. Desperation setting in, don't wanna give up the puck, so they keep trying to carry through the neutral zone and over the blue line. They'd get the puck back, try again, and if they succeeded, they'd just force feed Subban the puck. It's the the goal was just as much to make Subban the hero as it was to score.
The Caps obviously do this with Ovechkin as well; When it doesn't work, they're usually screwed, and look like clowns in the process. The whole game plan is set ______ up for the one timer.
The Caps obviously do this with Ovechkin as well; When it doesn't work, they're usually screwed, and look like clowns in the process. The whole game plan is set ______ up for the one timer.
So Montreal is like a whinier version of Pittsburgh minus Crosby. I have to say at least I respect Bylsma as a coach. I've never heard a coach whine about not getting breaks and calls in a press conference like Therrien.
Montreal's forwards and defenseman were clearly better. This is pretty indisputable. The proof is if the goalies switched teams, the Rangers would have been beaten as soundly as they spanked Montreal in Game 1.
That's such ********, but ok. They were clearly better in the first period. After that it was even at best. Montreal barely had an attack in the 2nd and 3rd period. It's "pretty disputable" considering it's mostly subjective also. Montreal was outplayed in the 2nd. And in the 3rd they had 19 unscreened point shots.
The Rangers could have given up 3 or 4 in the first though when Montreal was much better. The 2nd and 3rd period, they barely had any chances, lots of shots though.
Raspewtin
Stay at home defenseman hater
- May 30, 2013
- 44,300
- 21,901
And if we had PK Subban, our PP wouldn't have gone 0-34. What's your point?
Lundqvist is part of the team, and the Canadiens failed to match the intensity they had the first 15 minutes the rest of the game. That's it. That's why they lost.
NikC
Registered User
- Oct 7, 2008
- 5,202
- 1,156
haha i said the same thing to myself when i saw the reply.
I love how MSL drops to one knee, when he rips it.
he has really found himself as NYR. I'm sad we're losing the first round picks, but this trade is paying off... when at first it looked like a bust...
Not to mention that was a huge exaggeration. Lundqvist was amazing in the first 15 minutes and consistent after that. It's easy to get carried away when you see 41 shots and such a terrible start. But honestly the first 15 minutes or so the Rangers played a very sound game. They outplayed Montreal in the 2nd and the shots were like 22-20 Montreal at that point. Then the 3rd skewed the stats even though anyone watching that was unbiased saw that Montreal could play 5 more periods like that and not score a goal.
The Lunatic Fridge
why is my name here?
The fact that MTL is doing nothing but whining and making empty threats just shows they aren't keeping things under control and we got them exactly where we want them. In panic mode.
I don't know about you guys but if we made the finals. Especially sweeping the series 4-0 and at home to get there, I don't know what i'd do with myself.
First thing would probably be slap myself a couple of times to make sure i'm not in some sort of prolonged dream/coma.
I don't know about you guys but if we made the finals. Especially sweeping the series 4-0 and at home to get there, I don't know what i'd do with myself.
First thing would probably be slap myself a couple of times to make sure i'm not in some sort of prolonged dream/coma.
THE BIG WHISTLE
Heave-Ho
He is saying that because he shut the game off after the 1st period, c'mon didn't you know that?
I guess your true beliefs had to surface again despite your attempts to reverse your statements as to the quality of the Rangers goaltending.
Everyone almost unanimously agrees that Hank was the difference in Game 2. Now it has evolved back into Hank had 19 easy saves in the 3rd and a cakewalk after the first five minutes of the game.
So, make up your mind. Was Hank the clear difference between winning and losing the game or not? Your statements are now firmly established on both sides of this question.
Apparently the Rangers have a "weak offense" according to the main board, from a Habs fan whose team gave up 7 goals to ours in the first period (which was put somewhere in the middle of a positive post). They don't have many superstars on it, but they're one of the deepest teams in the league.
Vinny DeAngelo
Jimmy Easy to defend
We had Giroux then Crosby and now all of Montreal. Their testing our fans to see how much whining we can take
My point could not have been much clearer. I agree that Hank is part of the team. I merely pointed out that if you switched goalies, it is a dominating victory for Montreal. Do you disagree?
One goalie played great and the other didn't.
A goalie can be great in a game without having to make 40 miraculous saves. I guess YOUR true beliefs are surfacing. I guess in order to rise up Lundqvist you have to exaggerate how the ****** the team was. The Rangers sucked in the first and could have given up 3 or 4 goals in the first, but after that they gave up a lot of shots and Lundqvist was consistent and solid, but not spectacular. Lundqvist being great and the team being solid in the last two periods are not mutually exclusive. But I guess I want to exaggerate Lundqvist's performance into mythical status and feel the need to put the team down. It's an epidemic on this board.
- Status
