Player Discussion Tuukka Rask - Part III - MOD WARNING 671

[EverettMike]

I've taken issue with people criticizing him for missing that islanders game. Beers himself says he has no idea what's going on. He's not going out of his way to trash his character. It's WAY more than questioning what has transpired here over the last week

Beers said it was right to question him for missing the game.

Amazing you keep ignoring that.

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

I've taken issue with people criticizing him for missing that islanders game. Beers himself says he has no idea what's going on. He's not going out of his way to trash his character. It's WAY more than questioning what has transpired here over the last week

Why take issue with people having that fair criticism? I questioned him and was not happy about him. Meanwhile I was one of the lowly 53 posters who voted for him to start against Nashville. http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2207831

You can like the player and still apply criticism.

 

[CDJ]

Beers said it was right to question him for missing the game.

Amazing you keep ignoring that.

And then what did he say right after?


I love the appeal to authority here on one guy's opinion, who himself said he has no idea what's going on


And again it's gone beyond "questioning"

I've already said multiple times I have no problem with Rask criticism. Just base it in reality. He hasn't played well in 2017, fact. He's soft and scared of the big moment and gives up on the team- character attacks on a situation nobody knows anything about

 

[Aeroforce]

I know the line has been drawn in the sand and you either love Rask or hate him, but I am in standing on the line.

Corollary to his recent struggles was a dip in the team's penalty kill. It's been much better the last three, including a massive late double minor kill last night in which Tuukka was barely tested.

Broadcasters love stating that your best penalty killer is your goalie, so I don't know how much blame belongs to the players and how much belongs to Rask when the PK falters.

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

I've taken issue with people criticizing him for missing that islanders game. Beers himself says he has no idea what's going on. He's not going out of his way to trash his character. It's WAY more than questioning what has transpired here over the last week

And then what did he say right after?


I love the appeal to authority here on one guy's opinion, who himself said he has no idea what's going on


And again it's gone beyond "questioning"

I've already said multiple times I have no problem with Rask criticism. Just base it in reality. He hasn't played well in 2017, fact. He's soft and scared of the big moment and gives up on the team- character attacks on a situation nobody knows anything about

I am confused. Which is it?

 

[CDJ]

I am confused. Which is it?

Again this isn't hard to follow- I'm saying people can criticize him but base it in reality. Criticizing his character for the islanders game is not based in reality- nobody knows what happened. It certainly looks like he needed that game though considering he's been great since returning. It validates the decision for him to sit, especially with much harder games coming up


But again, I keep wondering why people wanted the guy who wasn't physically confident who had been playing poorly for a couple months in the net in the first place if it was such a big game


Seems counterintuitive

Like his sv% has been around .880 since 2017 or whatever it is. If that guy thinks he's compromised in net physically then why would somebody want him in? I just don't get it. It just seems like people would have been happier if he had gone out there and had a worse game than what Anton ended up having. I don't want a struggling guy now hampered by a tweak or whatever it was going out there and playing worse as a result. He needed the game, he got it, he's done his job very well since returning

 

[LouJersey]

Again this isn't hard to follow- I'm saying people can criticize him but base it in reality. Criticizing his character for the islanders game is not based in reality- nobody knows what happened. It certainly looks like he needed that game though considering he's been great since returning. It validates the decision for him to sit, especially with much harder games coming up


But again, I keep wondering why people wanted the guy who wasn't physically confident who had been playing poorly for a couple months in the net in the first place if it was such a big game


Seems counterintuitive

Had it just been the Islanders game people would not have said a word. Not many people said anything about the Olympics. Then you had the final game of last year. Add the three and that's where you get the questioning.

Again, until I read elsewhere that the coaches/trainers didn't think he could play vs the Isles I will believe Rask is the one who made the call.

Doesn't sit well with me, what do you want me to say? I'm a fan so no biggie?

Regardless, it's in the past and he is our best chance to succeed this season.. he's been playing phenomenally four of the past five and seems to have found his game again which he has shown can be elite.

 

[CDJ]

Had it just been the Islanders game people would not have said a word. Not many people said anything about the Olympics. Then you had the final game of last year. Add the three and that's where you get the questioning.

Again, until I read elsewhere that the coaches/trainers didn't think he could play vs the Isles I will believe Rask is the one who made the call.

Doesn't sit well with me, what do you want me to say? I'm a fan so no biggie?

Regardless, it's in the past and he is our best chance to succeed this season.. he's been playing phenomenally four of the past five and seems to have found his game again which he has shown can be elite.

I just don't see how a struggling, banged up Rask who is not physifically confident he could get the job done to an acceptable level gave us the best chance in that game, that's part of my issue here.

It just seems like his play since getting that game off to recover has kind of justified the decision. We don't know what happened this year. There are harder games coming up anyway that we need him for. Bruce went to bat for him when he said he was overused at the beginning of the year. That alone tells me he doesn't hold it against him if he's making excuses for him.

I thought everybody was over last year by now. From the first hand accounts he looked awful and he had a bug, there's not much you can do when you have a bug and have to throw pounds of equipment on and make reflex saves. All this at a position where losing 10 lbs when healthy is not all that uncommon. It sucks he had to miss it but it is what it is, he probably didn't give us the best chance that game either

 

[bobbyorr04]

This board is for Bruins fans. I know that's hard to grasp, considering only about half of the posters here are actual fans, and the rest are just posting out of some sick habit.

It must be nice to know who is and who isn't a real Bruin's fan.

...and I'm sorry to hear about your sick habit.

 

[Orrfourever]

Tuuks is just GOOD!!!

 

[Boston Bruno]

This board is for Bruins fans. I know that's hard to grasp, considering only about half of the posters here are actual fans, and the rest are just posting out of some sick habit.

Gadzooks! I have been discovered.

Now what am I going to do?

Back to Q-bert!

 

[Tampbear]

I don't know what is going on with Rask, I will say playing with an undisclosed injury means you are going to get criticized. Perhaps afterwords when the injury comes out you will get apologies but the truth is hockey can be ruthless and people are judged on results not on effort. He very well could have been getting overplayed playing through an injury because the backups were a guaranteed loss for most of the season. We have nothing to prove this, only that his play went off a cliff for several months and so it is fair to question and speculate.

 

[HumBucker]

And then what did he say right after?


I love the appeal to authority here on one guy's opinion, who himself said he has no idea what's going on


And again it's gone beyond "questioning"

I've already said multiple times I have no problem with Rask criticism. Just base it in reality. He hasn't played well in 2017, fact. He's soft and scared of the big moment and gives up on the team- character attacks on a situation nobody knows anything about

Exactly. Bob Beers is just one more opinion from someone who knows nothing about the reasons behind Rask not playing the Islanders game.

Opinions based on no knowledge - based on nothing - are worth exactly that. Nothing.

You can line up 1 million uninformed opinions and they still add up to... nothing.

I'm also baffled as to why people don't see the difference between:

1) criticizing a player based on his play - something observable and even quantifiable (stats) and fodder for knowledge-based debate and

2) criticizing a player's character and psychological state based on superficial observation with no real factual knowledge to support it, just baseless speculation.

The first is fair game. The second is out of bounds.

 

[CDJ]

Exactly. Bob Beers is just one more opinion from someone who knows nothing about the reasons behind Rask not playing the Islanders game.

Opinions based on no knowledge - based on nothing - are worth exactly that. Nothing.

You can line up 1 million uninformed opinions and they still add up to... nothing.

I'm also baffled as to why people don't see the difference between:

1) criticizing a player based on his play - something observable and even quantifiable (stats) and fodder for knowledge-based debate and

2) criticizing a player's character and psychological state based on superficial observation with no real factual knowledge to support it, just baseless speculation.

The first is fair game. The second is out of bounds.

you put it better than I have been putting it. I'm glad somebody gets what I'm saying.

We're not saying he's immune to criticism. His play in the 2nd half has been bad. We're just not willing to jump to conclusions about a situation we literally could not know less about (other than that he's been great since getting the recovery day, which again seems to validate the decision to sit)

 

[LouJersey]

you put it better than I have been putting it. I'm glad somebody gets what I'm saying.

We're not saying he's immune to criticism. His play in the 2nd half has been bad. We're just not willing to jump to conclusions about a situation we literally could not know less about (other than that he's been great since getting the recovery day, which again seems to validate the decision to sit)

The only facts we know about the situations are he missed a crucial Olympic game sick, a huge "playoff" game sick, and a big playoff positioning game during a four game losing streak with lower body discomfort. All in the past three seasons. He seems to have some tough luck I guess. I hope it doesn't repeat again because he's on a roll.

 

[JOKER 192]

I find it rather cowardly and foolish that you come on to a thread to antagonize those who support a player after he puts together two great games. As if you're still out here to prove he sucks, no matter the circumstance. You're no different than someone who turns a blind eye to Rask's faults and praises him unconditionally.

"Too funny"

Sorry, not sorry if I find some of you amusing. Like his having two good games against rather weak teams suddenly erases all the ****** games he's had. Being paid top 5 in NHL for goalies sets the bar high for me.

While being paid top 5 his save% and his GAA is no where near top 5 .Two good games doesn't erase that.

It doesn't erase the question marks surrounding him either.

And for the record I am not a hater, admittedly I am not his biggest fan but I don't hate Tuukka. I recognize the talent he possesses, I just don't have the tendency to over state it as many of his super fans do.

When he plays well , I'll say so and when he doesn't I'll say so as well, and if it amuses me how some of you are so quick to praise him when he does , I'll say that too. To say he played well the last two games is a fact IMO. To pretend that, that erases all questions some of have on his play/attitude, etc, that it magically inspires a new confidence, sorry it doesn't.. It doesn't erase anything for me and I find it funny how some of you come on here after two good games and come with the I told you so attitude when he beats two pretenders.

How some of you are convinced that we actually want Tuukka to fail is the funniest of them all. What kind of idiot would you have to be to root for a team and hope that the goalie of that team fails. That has to be the stupidest thing I have read on these boards and I have read some pretty crazy ****.

Too Funny.

 

[bobbyorr04]

How some of you are convinced that we actually want Tuukka to fail is the funniest of them all. What kind of idiot would you have to be to root for a team and hope that the goalie of that team fails. That has to be the stupidest thing I have read on these boards and I have read some pretty crazy ****.

I agree. It is funny, and doesn't make any sense at all.

But of course there are some holier-than-thou Rask supporters on here who might think (or even KNOW) that you are not an actual Bruin's fan.

I personally, haven't received my Real "Bruin's fan club card" in the mail yet, so maybe I'm not an actual, real Bruin's fan either.

Cheering on the Bruins for 51 years may not be enough to qualify me as an actual Bruin's fan if some poster says I'm not.

That to me, is also very funny!

 

[finchster]

"We'll never go all the way with Tim Thomas in net."

I think that's a good thing Rask is being questioned and called out. Not because I think he's a poor goaltender, but because how he responses to criticism from media and fans will tell you what you need to know about Rask.

If you were to look at both Thomas and Rask outwardly, you would have no doubt that Rask's mental makeup is far superior to Thomas'. Thomas also had all the same questions about his mental toughness and abilities; however, that criticism drove him to be better.

Let the critics speak, let the player play. Eventually, one will be right and the other wrong.

 

[JOKER 192]

I agree. It is funny, and doesn't make any sense at all.

But of course there are some holier-than-thou Rask supporters on here who might think (or even KNOW) that you are not an actual Bruin's fan.

I personally, haven't received my Real "Bruin's fan club card" in the mail yet, so maybe I'm not an actual, real Bruin's fan either.

Cheering on the Bruins for 51 years may not be enough to qualify me as an actual Bruin's fan if some poster says I'm not.

That to me, is also very funny!

I forgot this one, isn't it another beauty?

I have been following the Bruins for 48 years myself and I have never once hoped any player would underperform.

 

[Oates2Neely]

It can't be disputed that Rask has a knack for getting "sick/ hurt" for big games. Team Finland, last seasons do or die game vs Ottawa, & this year vs Isles, a crucial game, after being openly criticized by his coach.

I happen to think Rask is a top-5 goalie in this league. The past 2 seasons his numbers have slipped but so has the blue line talent. Hamilton gone, Boychuk gone, Chara not the same player, Seidenberg got injured and fell off a cliff. Sweeney hasn't really brought in talent to replace those guys.

However, Rask is showing he's got an issue here. 3rd time.

 

[ODAAT]

It can't be disputed that Rask has a knack for getting "sick/ hurt" for big games. Team Finland, last seasons do or die game vs Ottawa, & this year vs Isles, a crucial game, after being openly criticized by his coach.

I happen to think Rask is a top-5 goalie in this league. The past 2 seasons his numbers have slipped but so has the blue line talent. Hamilton gone, Boychuk gone, Chara not the same player, Seidenberg got injured and fell off a cliff. Sweeney hasn't really brought in talent to replace those guys.

However, Rask is showing he's got an issue here. 3rd time.

I think Rask is a top 5 goalie but that doesn`t recuse him of being held accountable when he plays otherwise which is what Cassidy did.

I don`t think Tuukka had an issue with it, and in the games since returning, he`s played very well.

 

[Seidenbergy]

It can't be disputed that Rask has a knack for getting "sick/ hurt" for big games.

It most certainly CAN be disputed.......unless you are somehow arguing that Rask has only been faced with a handful of big games in his career (which would of course be laughable, given that he played in almost 50 postseason games alone).

We're talking about THREE freaking games in his career, which spans about 500 games between the NHL and Olympics. There is no "knack", no trend. The harping on those three games is ridiculous and idiotic. How could a guy start every game in a Stanley Cup finals and perform quite well, but somehow panics and can't handle the pressure of a regular season game vs an average at best Islanders team or what was on paper Finland's easiest Olympic game?

 

[Sharp Shooting Neely]

Rask has worked a total of 167 hours in three years.

I'm sorry but I will expect him to give and be his best in every one of them.

I'm not seeing anyone say Rask is a bum. Rask sucks. I'm seeing people question his ability to play hurt/sick in big spots. That's merely questioning his willingness to compete at times. That's it. Most people gave him a pass last year. I have zero issue with people scratching their head this time.

Also it's undeniable his on ice performance has decreased the past two seasons. For whatever reason he's just not as good as he was.

That being said I'm pretty sure 99% of people here could see Tuukka Rask lifting the Cup. He's certainly capable. We just haven't seen on a consistent basis in a while.

Cliaiming he has only worked 167 hours in three years is either disingenuous or naive. Add in the other hours involved with the job such as of off ice training, morning skates, practice time, Bruins promo work, charity work, travel, etc. Professional athletes in this day and age work on their game year round versus what is was years ago. They also are obligated to represent their team in various Bruin marketing ventures and community initiatives. It all takes time and energy. You put all the work ito be ready when you take center stage while doing your part to have fans on side in supporting the team.

He is as capable as any elite GT'er in the league. Doesn't mean he won't have off nights or has to battle through injury. Have to keep in mind that a drop off play the past couple season as you suggest is part and parcel of the teams drop off in play. One is definetly related to the other.

 

[22Brad Park]

Rask is a wicked good goalie and this team would not be getting a sniff of the playoffs without him.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Exactly. Bob Beers is just one more opinion from someone who knows nothing about the reasons behind Rask not playing the Islanders game.

Opinions based on no knowledge - based on nothing - are worth exactly that. Nothing.

You can line up 1 million uninformed opinions and they still add up to... nothing.

I'm also baffled as to why people don't see the difference between:

1) criticizing a player based on his play - something observable and even quantifiable (stats) and fodder for knowledge-based debate and

2) criticizing a player's character and psychological state based on superficial observation with no real factual knowledge to support it, just baseless speculation.

The first is fair game. The second is out of bounds.

Why would you assume that?

Could be he knows exactly what the reason was. He is a bit closer to the actual situation than all of us.