It's something more extreme than fickle. I don't know. It's just bizarre, and unsettling.
-
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
It's something more extreme than fickle. I don't know. It's just bizarre, and unsettling.
bmoak
Registered User
- Apr 4, 2004
- 3,184
- 363
Ok. Are you disputing that tonight was a good game, or that he's been among the most consistently terrific players at his position for close to a decade?
I agree. Lundqvist has been amazing. Until this year, he was the best in the NHL. There's no doubt in my mind he'll return to his old self.
It's just at this time, we can't afford to lose games like this. If we didn't have a hot goalie behind him, I'd continue to ride Lundqvist until he breaks it. But we do. Talbot has been great. Ride him until he fails.
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,596
- 5,131
Fourth loss in the last month in which they scored three goals -- Lundqvist in the nets for all of them.
I didnt see anything massively wrong on any of the regulation goals. The first goal was a double deflection that could of been stopped if he challenegd more, but thats not his game so I wont beat a dead horse.
The second goal he looked a little unsure. He's never been a cowboy like Hasek to dive at a guy, but he seemed to go down early and it opened up the pads.
The third goal was wired but got beat blocker side from inside the right dot at the hash marks which means he was too deep again.
Look, it is what it is. Lundqvist has always played deep in the nets. The Rangers are going to have to adjust the way they defend if he is getting beat left and right by high shots.
I didnt see anything massively wrong on any of the regulation goals. The first goal was a double deflection that could of been stopped if he challenegd more, but thats not his game so I wont beat a dead horse.
The second goal he looked a little unsure. He's never been a cowboy like Hasek to dive at a guy, but he seemed to go down early and it opened up the pads.
The third goal was wired but got beat blocker side from inside the right dot at the hash marks which means he was too deep again.
Look, it is what it is. Lundqvist has always played deep in the nets. The Rangers are going to have to adjust the way they defend if he is getting beat left and right by high shots.
Inferno
Registered User
He absolutely has been EASILY a top 1-3 goalie the past decade in the world, no questions asked. But this year from day one, he has not consistently looked like that goalie like he did the last decade, thats all im saying.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
What? Washington has begun writing off RGIII. They wrote off Ovechkin after his down year only to pretend that it never happened, now.
I have said this a thousand times and will say it again..
Hank is good and not great. He is a handsome star in the biggest sports city in the world during a era that lacked stars.. His play is solid at times and yet very weak at others..The MSG P.R. machine that got behind this guy is insane not one announcer ever faults him for a bad goal ever. The term Lundqvist would want that one back has been uttered a few times but not much.. A typical call of a save is OH MY what a save by Lundqvist, it is like every save is a triple overtime game saving save. I admit I don't like the guy but he is good and we are lucky to have him but he is not himself and not playing well..The excuses need to stop he needs to look in a mirror and find his game or we are ****ed royally
Hank is good and not great. He is a handsome star in the biggest sports city in the world during a era that lacked stars.. His play is solid at times and yet very weak at others..The MSG P.R. machine that got behind this guy is insane not one announcer ever faults him for a bad goal ever. The term Lundqvist would want that one back has been uttered a few times but not much.. A typical call of a save is OH MY what a save by Lundqvist, it is like every save is a triple overtime game saving save. I admit I don't like the guy but he is good and we are lucky to have him but he is not himself and not playing well..The excuses need to stop he needs to look in a mirror and find his game or we are ****ed royally
Last edited by a moderator:
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
Maybe you should work on your argument instead of going the childish "you didn't watch" (I did), "you don't play" (I do), "Lundqvist is TERRIBLE" (he's not) routes.
He's been the most consistent goalie in the league for 8 years running, has been the Rangers franchise player for the same period, has won a Vezina and been in the top 3 more than anyone else for the last 7 years, and has bled Ranger blue for too long to be raked over the coals by an ignoramus like you for a bumpy stretch during a season of huge adjustments.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
No offense, but I couldn't care less about the past for someone performing terribly in the present over nearly half a season. So that argument is just as silly as the rest of them.
The first paragraph is my emphasis.
Watching Mike Babcock on 24/7 he said the Red Wings aren't built to give up 3 goals and expect to win much. We're the same way. When we score 3 goals, we need to be winning the majority of those games.
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
He hasn't been terrible. The defensive breakdowns in front of him have been horrific. But, you knew that. Has this been his worst season so far? Absolutely. He's earned better than this from this fan base, though. I can't believe how quickly people are jumping ship on this guy considering all that he's done for us and he's relatively young. He would've gotten more as a UFA.
There are a few people writing off RGIII, but it's nothing substantial. Every fan base has the reactionaries that say crazy things.
Ovechkin? This board was the only place where I ever saw anyone write off Ovechkin. 99% of fans in the area never wavered in their belief that he was the greatest thing they'd ever seen.
I've lived here for 15 years now. I used to mock the fans here. Every year, the Skins win a game, and we're talking Super Bowl. The Caps win a few games, score some pretty goals, this is our year! It always struck me as silly, and I always felt "better" than the fans here. Smarter, anyway. Like they don't get the reality of their various teams' mediocrity. They were just dumb yokels.
You know what though? I've accepted that fans are imperfect. This board certainly proves that. Fans are homers, theyre irrational. They blindly love and they blindly hate. Spending so much time here...I'm kind of envious of all the "yokels" around me. This place, HFNYR, is just a big ****ing downer. Whatever joy I get from watching the Rangers is sapped immediately by everyone crapping on guys like Lundqvist and Callahan, the guys that have been the heart of the franchise forever.
Whatever, I'm going off topic now. Tl;dr is that this place sucks and I should probably stop posting here.
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,596
- 5,131
What Lundqvist did from 2005-2013 has everything to do with his contract, but nothing to do with this season.
Results-based industry. This is news? Phil Simms was a franchise QB who was injured and had to watch some retread QB his team through the postseason.
Results-based industry. This is news? Phil Simms was a franchise QB who was injured and had to watch some retread QB his team through the postseason.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
It's quite a few, man. The Skins just don't get the same coverage that the NY teams do or it would seem more equal.
It's gone downhill with a younger crowd. I don't disagree at all.
That's just more excuses for him. Lundqvist has had a terrible year. Stop white knighting the guy. I'm not one of the ones that thinks he won't recover or will suck forever, but the dude has sucked this year. Keep pretending otherwise, I guess. Must be like that scene in the Matrix where the guy gets to eat that pretend steak.
And if this horrible play continued to the end of the season, I doubt he would have gotten more as a UFA.
Fitzy
Very Stable Genius
- Jan 29, 2009
- 36,353
- 24,150
At the end of the day, even if Henrik was playing in top form we still wouldn't be, as a team where we should be. We're on pace for our lowest single season goal output since the lockout, and that includes the season where Drury-Gomez-Naslund was our top line.
Maybe everyone, including Hank turns it around in time for the playoffs. It would be nice.
Maybe everyone, including Hank turns it around in time for the playoffs. It would be nice.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
For sure. But we'd probably have at least another 10 points. I think that's really underestimating it, too. He's given up so many early goals that I actually blame him for some of the lack of scoring since he has been a true momentum killer much of the year.
But that goes to the poor mental make-up of our players, too. So it's a double-edged sword.
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,596
- 5,131
I thought Zherdev-Dubinsky-Voros was our top line....well for at least a week.
The Kings were an 8th seed. The Oilers were an 8th seed. You never know.
Fitzy
Very Stable Genius
- Jan 29, 2009
- 36,353
- 24,150
Even when Hank was in Vezina finalist form (Most of the time) he was letting in occasional goals from behind the goal line.
Some of its Hank. He has made less spectacular saves, let in more five hole goals, has looked shakier in the shootout.
But, we have also allowed more scoring chances per game then we did under Tortorella. Say what you like about his system, but we got so good at blocking shots and collapsing that half the goals were on flipped wristers from the point that were deflected or hit off one of our players *****.
It was a system that was fatally flawed against Boston, but I think it helped Lundqvist's numbers.
Some of its Hank. He has made less spectacular saves, let in more five hole goals, has looked shakier in the shootout.
But, we have also allowed more scoring chances per game then we did under Tortorella. Say what you like about his system, but we got so good at blocking shots and collapsing that half the goals were on flipped wristers from the point that were deflected or hit off one of our players *****.
It was a system that was fatally flawed against Boston, but I think it helped Lundqvist's numbers.
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,596
- 5,131
When healthy and a normal Lundqvist, i still think this is a deep team who can roll four lines (legitimately) and can challenge.
I just hope Sather doesnt think the same thing.
I just hope Sather doesnt think the same thing.
I Am Chariot
One shift at a time
- Mar 19, 2006
- 14,602
- 0
New Coach, New Systems, New Rules, New Players.
Lundqvist will be fine. LOL at the people saying he's washed up or "good" but not great!
He's a world class talent. It's a long season, hopefully the TEAM hits a stride come playoffs when it counts the most.
Lundqvist will be fine. LOL at the people saying he's washed up or "good" but not great!
He's a world class talent. It's a long season, hopefully the TEAM hits a stride come playoffs when it counts the most.
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
This is where I disagree. Not "white knighting" the guy, whatever that means, but words like "horrible" and "terrible" simply aren't accurate or fair. You can say don't deify the guy and I can say that there are plenty of "name" goaltenders that have had far worse "off" years and we can meet somewhere in the middle. Lundqvist hasn't been what we the (spoiled) fans are used to. That doesn't equate to "terrible". Not even close.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
Horrible is accurate. The only reason he has a SV% above .900 is his play against a few bad teams and that one streak of good play that lasted four or so games. He had THREE games in December above .900. Three. In the whole month.
There isn't any meeting in the middle unless you want to meet me at terrible or horrible. Anything above that is silly.
- Status
