Player Discussion Tuukka Rask - Part III - MOD WARNING 671

[LouJersey]

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

Because whomever the goalie was this season wouldn't be able to duplicate his stellar numbers?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

Really? That suprises me.

Rask has been way too inconsistent over the course of the past few seasons to get that high a ranking, in my opinion.

When he's playing well, sure, he's great. But there are probably 10-15 goalies playing today that can play at that level when they are on their game.

 

[22Brad Park]

Because whomever the goalie was this season wouldn't be able to duplicate his stellar numbers?

Thats right.. Most goalie with that roster in front of them land in minors or released.The man has 7 shutouts with one of the worst defence units I have ever seen for turnovers. Put Dobby in all year see where they would of been.lol

 

[Seidenbergy]

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.

Except, according to EverettMike, he stated the EXACT opposite:

Heeeey, while I was writing this Bob Beers came on the radio and said.......whatever is wrong with Tuukka only he knows it, that no one knows what the injury could actually be.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Thats right.. Most goalie with that roster in front of them land in minors or released.The man has 7 shutouts with one of the worst defence units I have ever seen for turnovers. Put Dobby in all year see where they would of been.lol

Dobby's a backup.

How about naming some starters that couldn't match Rask's numbers with this team?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Except, according to EverettMike, he stated the EXACT opposite:

Well there is what Beers can say on the air and there is what he may actually know.

I find it hard to believe Tuukka has an injury and no one but him (not the trainers or coaches) knows what it is. If that were actually true, then he really is a head case.

 

[Lobster57]

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

that's one of the silliest things i've ever read on this board.

 

[CDJ]

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.

He literally said nobody knows what is going on

 

[CDJ]

Well there is what Beers can say on the air and there is what he may actually know.

I find it hard to believe Tuukka has an injury and no one but him (not the trainers or coaches) knows what it is. If that were actually true, then he really is a head case.

So he comes with what he actually said and then you turn it into "oh that's only what he said on air he might know more".

I'd imagine the trainers and coaches know what's going on. They just don't leak it to media.

This is what frustrates me- the hoops people try and jump through to paint his character poorly. Like you just took that quote where he literally said nobody knows anything and turned it into "Tuukka is a head case"

The only people that know what happened is the team and Tuukka. Everybody else is just speculating. And to use speculation to attack character is pretty weak imo

 

[patty59]

Because whomever the goalie was this season wouldn't be able to duplicate his stellar numbers?

Probably not from the first part of the season.

 

[HumBucker]

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?

Spot on! There is no pattern or trend. To establish a pattern, you also have to look at all other games where he got sick or was injured, and there are way more "meaningless' games where that happened. There's no pattern.

When are games bigger than in the playoffs? Or the SCF? He's played many many playoff games.

People seeing a pattern in 3 games over 3 years are seeing what they want to see. It's putting a microscope to a mole hill while ignoring a mountain of other available facts.

 

[HumBucker]

Why would you assume that?

Because he said so himself?

 

[CDJ]

Spot on! There is no pattern or trend. To establish a pattern, you also have to look at all other games where he got sick or was injured, and there are way more "meaningless' games where that happened. There's no pattern.

When are games bigger than in the playoffs? Or the SCF? He's played many many playoff games.

People seeing a pattern in 3 games over 3 years are seeing what they want to see. It's putting a microscope to a mole hill while ignoring a mountain of other available facts.

Between you and seidenbergy that should basically cover every point I've tried to make.

It's insane to me. He's played well in high pressure environments in the past. He's been the goalie on a run to the cup ffs. To take 3 games over a span of years and say he begs out because he can't handle the heat is willfully ignorant at best, especially when considering his past

 

[Marchy63]

I still don't get the Olympics one. Rask had the flu and still pitched a shutout in the Bronze Medal game (the most important game for Finland). Did he miss the semi final game against Canada? Yes, but they were going to lose that game regardless of who was in net. The Bronze medal game could have gone either way and he played amazing against the US who ended up without a medal again. Pointing to the Olympics ignores the fact that he played in the most important game for his while still feeling the affects of the flu which should completely nullify the argument of Rask not playing in big games and faking sick/injured.

 

[CDJ]

I still don't get the Olympics one. Rask had the flu and still pitched a shutout in the Bronze Medal game (the most important game for Finland). Did he miss the semi final game against Canada? Yes, but they were going to lose that game regardless of who was in net. The Bronze medal game could have gone either way and he played amazing against the US who ended up without a medal again. Pointing to the Olympics ignores the fact that he played in the most important game for his while still feeling the affects of the flu which should completely nullify the argument of Rask not playing in big games and faking sick/injured.

100% agree

Some people are being willfully ignorant. Speculate on character due to injuries and illnesses they know nothing about while also blatantly ignoring his past where he has performed in big games

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

So he comes with what he actually said and then you turn it into "oh that's only what he said on air he might know more".

I'd imagine the trainers and coaches know what's going on. They just don't leak it to media.

This is what frustrates me- the hoops people try and jump through to paint his character poorly. Like you just took that quote where he literally said nobody knows anything and turned it into "Tuukka is a head case"

The only people that know what happened is the team and Tuukka. Everybody else is just speculating. And to use speculation to attack character is pretty weak imo

This is what frustrates me: someone taking my post completely out of context and painting it as an attack on Mr. Rask.

I sincerely think Bob Beers knows a little more than nothing at all about why Tuukka was out. I made no speculation about what that may be. Zero.

Then I responded to this quote: "...whatever is wrong with Tuukka only he knows it, that no one knows what the injury could actually be". That implies no one knows but Tuukka. That would make him a head case, but I also mentioned I don't believe that is the case.

Summed up, Beers says he has no idea. I don't think he is being completely honest. And I actually have no idea why he was out. No judgement on Tuukka's character.

 

[bobbyorr04]

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.

Same here.

I have to admit though, that I have wished for some players and/or coaches (and even owners) to be traded or fired on some of my favorite teams over the years, but have never actually hoped for a player to under-perform!

 

[JOKER 192]

Same here.

I have to admit though, that I have wished for some players and/or coaches (and even owners) to be traded or fired on some of my favorite teams over the years, but have never actually hoped for a player to under-perform!

That I won't deny. I always have quite the list at the ready

 

[CDJ]

This is what frustrates me: someone taking my post completely out of context and painting it as an attack on Mr. Rask.

I sincerely think Bob Beers knows a little more than nothing at all about why Tuukka was out. I made no speculation about what that may be. Zero.

Then I responded to this quote: "...whatever is wrong with Tuukka only he knows it, that no one knows what the injury could actually be". That implies no one knows but Tuukka. That would make him a head case, but I also mentioned I don't believe that is the case.

Summed up, Beers says he has no idea. I don't think he is being completely honest. And I actually have no idea why he was out. No judgement on Tuukka's character.

I must've misinterpreted something then because i basically agree with everything except for Beers knowing more than he lets on. Sorry

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

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.

Yes, I understand that being a fan of the team you don't want him to fail. Given your nearly constant criticism of his game however, I have no doubt you are seeking out whatever confirmation bias you can which tows along the fact that he isn't very good. AS I SAID, this is no different than people who find confirmation bias (like having a great two games) to say that he's great, and there shouldn't be concern, after simply two great games.

I'm sorry to equate you with these posters that you despise, but I honestly see you the same way, just on the other side of the fence. If you were truly a down the middle "I'll admit when he's great, and ***** when he's bad" person, you wouldn't be participating in this haters vs. lovers pissing match even after he wins and plays lights out.

 

[DitClapper]

He showed up big time against a team he absolutely kills. Huge 2 points.

 

[TMac21]

Saved their ass today.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Because whomever the goalie was this season wouldn't be able to duplicate his stellar numbers?

I certainly think there's something to the fact that no goalie, other than Rask, has looked good for any period of time on this team in the last few years. I'm not saying we've brought in great goalies next to Rask to compete for the job, but think about LA making Jonathan Bernier appear like 10x the goalie he actually was. How about when Manny Fernandez (and Tim Thomas) was part of the tandem that won the Jennings Trophy?

The defense has been the biggest concern for me, for years, wit this team and thus the goalies looking horrible doesn't exactly surprise me. They give up grade A chances to other teams pretty regularly. I'm not trying to completely excuse Rask for everything. The fact is he does look pretty lackluster at times, and needs to overall step it up in big games if he wants to truly be considered "great". But, the amount of posters who watch games where the Bruins get completely dominated and give up odd man rushes, breakways, etc. and immediately jump to Rask "not being a big game goalie" afterwards. It just feels ignorant to me at times.

 

[northeastern]

Because whomever the goalie was this season wouldn't be able to duplicate his stellar numbers?

Most of the available goalies on the league would have but been about to. No. Without a doubt.

 

[CDJ]

anotha one


Good game again. That game off maybe just maybe helped? Naw couldn't be