What the HELL is going on with Henrik Lundqvist?

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Yeah, but remember what we heard before the coaching change? I was being a bit sarcastic before because I think you and I both know that we heard that Torts system was killing Hank.

Everyone and their mother KNEW Hank would do better without guys blocking shots in front of him and obscuring his vision. Now he is getting beaten on clean, wide open shots.

I thought the injury was a reason earlier. It's way past that, now, though. And if he IS injured? He is doing his team a huge disservice by trying to play through it.

Im quite clearly on record as stating that any argument that the greater good of the team would be achieved through a coaching change was idiotic, that one included.

As for a potential injury, I think theres something there still bothering him. With Talbot's emergence, maybe it would be worthwhile to take a long rest, but try telling that to a competitor.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Im quite clearly on record as stating that any argument that the greater good of the team would be achieved through a coaching change was idiotic, that one included.

As for a potential injury, I think theres something there still bothering him. With Talbot's emergence, maybe it would be worthwhile to take a long rest, but try telling that to a competitor.

At some point they need to be harsh with Hank. Either improve, or you start splitting time. Or you can take a break. Hank doesn't run the show. I sure hope our coach/GM would have the balls to have that talk with him if they had to.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

At some point they need to be harsh with Hank. Either improve, or you start splitting time. Or you can take a break. Hank doesn't run the show. I sure hope our coach/GM would have the balls to have that talk with him if they had to.

Well, our GM handed him 60 million dollars at the first signs of struggles, so I think hes out as an option.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Well, our GM handed him 60 million dollars at the first signs of struggles, so I think hes out as an option.

Hah, yeah, I sort of posted that in jest.

 

[CharlieCharleschuk]

So what you're saying is he is having trouble since he can see the puck now.

That's pretty close to what I'm thinking, actually, just that you've added snark.

And, really, it's pretty impossible to explain an idea to you if you categorically reject ideas you can't or don't want to understand.

He has to pick up the pace. When (if) he gets his fundamentals back his confidence should return.

At some point they need to be harsh with Hank. Either improve, or you start splitting time. Or you can take a break. Hank doesn't run the show. I sure hope our coach/GM would have the balls to have that talk with him if they had to.

Yeah but they gave him a massive contract instead. Some harsh love, eh?

 

[Hunter Gathers]

That's pretty close to what I'm thinking, actually, just that you've added snark.

And, really, it's pretty impossible to explain an idea to you if you categorically reject ideas you can't or don't want to understand.

He has to pick up the pace. When (if) he gets his fundamentals back his confidence should return.



Yeah but they gave him a massive contract instead. Some harsh love, eh?

But the thing is, if he is bad at stopping a puck that he can see, he is not a good goalie. So that would be a terrible problem to have.

This isn't anything about me rejecting something. It was about you making a vague and ambiguous argument that had no ideas in it.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Wade Boggs was the best pure hitter in baseball for a period in the 1980s. Better than Gwynn and better than Mattingly.

In 1992 he just lost it. Lost it all. The guy was a guaranteed .350 hitter and every ball he hit that season went at somebody. He was an extremely superstitious man and nothing he did worked.

Boggs skipped exhibition games to take batting practice. How silly is that? He was batting under .200 in Spring Training and he decided the best way to work out his issues was to skip games and take extra BP.

Boggs recovered from 1992 and went on to hit .300 the next four seasons, including .342 one year.

Star players are allowed a mulligan, maybe two. If Lundqvist is this bad next season, then we're in trouble.

 

[ManofSteel55]

Not a Ranger fan, but I've been wondering what's going on as well. Has he been playing poorly enough (and Talbot good enough) that the Rangers could cut ties with Lundqvist this summer? Or is this just going to be seen as an off year? Are there any rumors out there at all about that sort of situation, or is it completely ridiculous?

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

Not a Ranger fan, but I've been wondering what's going on as well. Has he been playing poorly enough (and Talbot good enough) that the Rangers could cut ties with Lundqvist this summer? Or is this just going to be seen as an off year? Are there any rumors out there at all about that sort of situation, or is it completely ridiculous?

Cut ties with the franchise goalie they just signed to a 7 year extension? Yeah that sounds completely ridiculous.

He's having an off year. Hopefully e turns it completely around in time to get us into the playoffs and go on a tear.


I'm holding out hope for this scenario: Hank has worst regular season of career. Turns it around with not much time left and gets hot and we make playoffs. He then goes on to have the best playoffs if his career and lead us to the finals.


I have to say it would be quite ironic. The guy has been far and away the best regular season goalie for the past 8 years but has gotten maligned for his playoff performances. It would be great if after a regular season of people claiming he's been exposed and he's lost it and he sucks, then he gets hot and wins a conne smythe and leads us to the cup.

Fingers crossed!

 

[Giacomin]

I'm holding out hope for this scenario: Hank has worst regular season of career. Turns it around with not much time left and gets hot and we make playoffs. He then goes on to have the best playoffs if his career and lead us to the finals.



That would be nice!

 

[Blueshirt Special]

For the record, I never said Hank had a strong glove hand. I was merely pointing out that it was a recognized weakness that he improved upon. his glove hand is no longer WEAK. Thats why shooters stopped going there all the time in shootouts.

My main point is that he works on things to get better, and I believe he will continue that dedication.

 

[Chaels Arms]

Every goalie has weak spots. Lundqvist, when he's right, takes away the entire bottom half of the net. Opposing teams know this and shoot high on him when they get the chance. I don't really care where the puck goes in, just how often it happens.

 

[Fataldogg]

For the record, I never said Hank had a strong glove hand. I was merely pointing out that it was a recognized weakness that he improved upon. his glove hand is no longer WEAK. Thats why shooters stopped going there all the time in shootouts.

My main point is that he works on things to get better, and I believe he will continue that dedication.

Agreed. He was terrible glove side early on in his career. These last couple seasons, he has improved upon that area of his game vastly. He identified a weakness and rectified it. Now you don't see teams continually try to beat him glove side. He also reduced the number of goals he let up short side high over the last couple of seasons.

This year, I'm sure there are a handful of weak areas he is trying to identify in practice and work the kinks out.

 

[BobMarleyNYR]

Hey, just out of curiosity, is anyone prepared to admit that Lundqvist has single-handedly lost some games for us this year? I and others were saying it before game 5, but I know some people are still just mesmorized by his shiny blue eyes.

gRANTED, lUNDQVIST is THE TEAM, AND SHOULD/WILL BE GIVEN A BREAK. bUT HE IS ONE OF THE TWO BIGGEST REASONS WE'VE HAD A POOR SEASON.

sorry for the caps, not fixing it now.

 

[Fataldogg]

Hey, just out of curiosity, is anyone prepared to admit that Lundqvist has single-handedly lost some games for us this year? I and others were saying it before game 5, but I know some people are still just mesmorized by his shiny blue eyes.

gRANTED, lUNDQVIST is THE TEAM, AND SHOULD/WILL BE GIVEN A BREAK. bUT HE IS ONE OF THE TWO BIGGEST REASONS WE'VE HAD A POOR SEASON.

sorry for the caps, not fixing it now.

Yeah, he has. But Talbot has too. Talbot blew the game in Washington by letting up an incredibly soft goal with five minutes left in the game, in a game where we outplayed the Capitals. Not only that, but the game tying goal was pretty questionable in that game too. And he didn't give the Rangers much of a chance against the Jet's when he let up two very soft goals in the 3rd period.

Lundqvist might have lost the team more games, but right off the top of my head I was able to think of two games where Talbot directly cost the team points in the standings.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Yeah, he has. But Talbot has too. Talbot blew the game in Washington by letting up an incredibly soft goal with five minutes left in the game, in a game where we outplayed the Capitals. Not only that, but the game tying goal was pretty questionable in that game too. And he didn't give the Rangers much of a chance against the Jet's when he let up two very soft goals in the 3rd period.

Lundqvist might have lost the team more games, but right off the top of my head I was able to think of two games where Talbot directly cost the team points in the standings.

If Talbot was a .500 goalie, the Rangers would be seven points out of a playoff spot instead of one.

If Lundqvist was a .500 goalie, the Rangers would be in 2nd place in the division with a three point lead.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Yeah, he has. But Talbot has too. Talbot blew the game in Washington by letting up an incredibly soft goal with five minutes left in the game, in a game where we outplayed the Capitals. Not only that, but the game tying goal was pretty questionable in that game too. And he didn't give the Rangers much of a chance against the Jet's when he let up two very soft goals in the 3rd period.

Lundqvist might have lost the team more games, but right off the top of my head I was able to think of two games where Talbot directly cost the team points in the standings.

If Lundqvist had cost the Rangers ONLY 2 games, they would be in the running for the President's Trophy.

 

[Fataldogg]

If Lundqvist had cost the Rangers ONLY 2 games, they would be in the running for the President's Trophy.

Well, you asked if Lundvist cost the team points, I simply pointed out that Talbot has too. Just because Lundqvist has been bad, doesn't mean that Talbot hasn't lost the team points in the standings. It's okay to be objective about Talbot. People act like Talbot is standing on his head and stealing games the Rangers had no chance at winning.

People are too busy tearing down Lundqvist, and pumping up Talbot's tires. Lundqvist has been bad, but not as bad as people have made him out to be, given the team's performance in front of him. Talbot's been good, but not as good as people have made him out to be, given the team's performance in front of him. If you go by stats only, fans on here would conclude that Talbot is the best goaltender playing in the NHL, by a fair margin. And I know most people on here aren't naive enough to believe that (well, I could be wrong given out deluded our fan base is).

Talbot also hasn't had to steal a game for the team. He has played well, generally, when the team plays well. As good as he was against Toronto, when your team scores 7 goals, you're not stealing a game. Unless you can think of a game the Rangers had no chance of winning without Talbot? I can't think of any, because the team normally does pretty well with him. That said, I was able to point out two games where his performance cost the team.

That said, Lundqvist has probably cost the team points in five or six games.

But you can't always blame goaltenders either for losing games. There is a team that plays too. And for every point Lundqvist/Talbot has cost the Rangers by letting in untimely goals, Nash, Richards, Callahan, Girardi, Del Zotto, etc, have all cost the team plenty of points in the standings.

It's easy to point to a goalie for losing the team points because they're the one who lets up a soft go ahead goal. But a lot of times, the team had no business winning in the first place.

 

[Kwayry]

What I don't get is how can Hank be blamed for last night. He stole a point for the Rangers.
As to the rest of the year, Hank is struggling, he says so himself. Newsflash, players go through ruts ... sometimes a bad season. Hank is going through one. It has nothing to do with aging, declining, just a rough patch, he is already looking a little better than he was earlier. He will recover.
Also the Defense played in front of him doesn't help. It doesn't explain the struggle, but it doesn't help.

 

[BobMarleyNYR]

Well, you asked if Lundvist cost the team points, I simply pointed out that Talbot has too. Just because Lundqvist has been bad, doesn't mean that Talbot hasn't lost the team points in the standings. It's okay to be objective about Talbot. People act like Talbot is standing on his head and stealing games the Rangers had no chance at winning.

People are too busy tearing down Lundqvist, and pumping up Talbot's tires. Lundqvist has been bad, but not as bad as people have made him out to be, given the team's performance in front of him. Talbot's been good, but not as good as people have made him out to be, given the team's performance in front of him. If you go by stats only, fans on here would conclude that Talbot is the best goaltender playing in the NHL, by a fair margin. And I know most people on here aren't naive enough to believe that (well, I could be wrong given out deluded our fan base is).

Talbot also hasn't had to steal a game for the team. He has played well, generally, when the team plays well. As good as he was against Toronto, when your team scores 7 goals, you're not stealing a game. Unless you can think of a game the Rangers had no chance of winning without Talbot? I can't think of any, because the team normally does pretty well with him. That said, I was able to point out two games where his performance cost the team.

That said, Lundqvist has probably cost the team points in five or six games.

But you can't always blame goaltenders either for losing games. There is a team that plays too. And for every point Lundqvist/Talbot has cost the Rangers by letting in untimely goals, Nash, Richards, Callahan, Girardi, Del Zotto, etc, have all cost the team plenty of points in the standings.

It's easy to point to a goalie for losing the team points because they're the one who lets up a soft go ahead goal. But a lot of times, the team had no business winning in the first place.

It's the scope we're talking about... It's like saying, well Nash hasn't been great, but neither has Kreider...

Talbot has lost 4 of 12? he's won more than twice the games he's lost. For whatever reason, the team has fared better in front of Talbot at a pretty substantial sampling by now. Lundqvist continues to let in hilarious goals.My only intention is to get people agreeing the Lundqvist should be the full-time back-up until Talbot screws it up bad (not that fan consensus matters, especially in NY, and I don't even know if it should matter that much).

Now, will that really impact our team's play?

Oddly enough, for whatever reason, yes, as we've seen.

 

[Fataldogg]

It's the scope we're talking about... It's like saying, well Nash hasn't been great, but neither has Kreider...

Talbot has lost 4 of 12? he's won more than twice the games he's lost. For whatever reason, the team has fared better in front of Talbot at a pretty substantial sampling by now. Lundqvist continues to let in hilarious goals.My only intention is to get people agreeing the Lundqvist should be the full-time back-up until Talbot screws it up bad (not that fan consensus matters, especially in NY, and I don't even know if it should matter that much).

Now, will that really impact our team's play?

Oddly enough, for whatever reason, yes, as we've seen.

You're not going to get many people agreeing with you that Lundqvist should be the temporary back up on the team.

I get what you're saying. It is what it is though. The bottom line is, IMO, if the Rangers are going to make a good playoff run, they need Lundqvist in top form.

He's played solid in three of his last four starts, and there wasn't much he can do in Pittsburgh.

Lundqvist in top form has stolen dozens of games the Rangers had no business even being in. Both regular season and post season. He has stolen playoff series, that the Rangers should have been eliminated from. I haven't seen that level of play from Talbot or anything from Talbot to indicate he can reach that level. I don't care what the stats say. He hasn't had to steal a game yet at this point in his early career.

I firmly stand by what I said before, Talbot has not had to steal a single one of his wins. In the games we win w/ Talbot in net, we usually win because we played a great game.

I have not seen Talbot play at an elite level capable of stealing a playoff series against a superior team. I've seen him play well against mostly low end playoff teams and teams outside of the playoffs.

This team breaths and dies with Lundqvist. I don't think anyone here, including yourself, think Talbot is the answer for a deep playoff run. Unless you think Talbot will be able to stand tall when the Rangers get dominated in the playoffs by superior teams.

We need Lundqvist at his top form to do that. And he won't be in his top form riding back up to Talbot.

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

I'm holding out hope for this scenario: Hank has worst regular season of career. Turns it around with not much time left and gets hot and we make playoffs. He then goes on to have the best playoffs if his career and lead us to the finals.



That would be nice!

I literally posted the exact same thing at the same time!

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Wade Boggs was the best pure hitter in baseball for a period in the 1980s. Better than Gwynn and better than Mattingly.

In 1992 he just lost it. Lost it all. The guy was a guaranteed .350 hitter and every ball he hit that season went at somebody. He was an extremely superstitious man and nothing he did worked.

Boggs skipped exhibition games to take batting practice. How silly is that? He was batting under .200 in Spring Training and he decided the best way to work out his issues was to skip games and take extra BP.

Boggs recovered from 1992 and went on to hit .300 the next four seasons, including .342 one year.

Star players are allowed a mulligan, maybe two. If Lundqvist is this bad next season, then we're in trouble.

Bingo. This is exactly my thought. This is going to be a rough year with Hank. If he turns it around in a month or so, excellent. But I'm thinking this may be for the year, unfortunately. But who knows?

I still think he turns it around next year. I have faith.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Bingo. This is exactly my thought. This is going to be a rough year with Hank. If he turns it around in a month or so, excellent. But I'm thinking this may be for the year, unfortunately. But who knows?

I still think he turns it around next year. I have faith.

I'm just having a tough time accepting that he's finally having a bad season. I genuinely thought we wouldn't see something like this, except maybe when he was in his late 30s. If we call Ovechkin's 65 point season a "down year", then really only Crosby and Lundqvist have never had a down year since the 05 lockout (amongst guys who have played more than five or six of those seasons).

Hate to say it...but it makes you appreciate a guy like Brodeur (as well as Roy, Hasek, etc.) all the more.

 

[Cassano]

I'm just having a tough time accepting that he's finally having a bad season. I genuinely thought we wouldn't see something like this, except maybe when he was in his late 30s.

Hate to say it...but it makes you appreciate a guy like Brodeur (as well as Roy, Hasek, etc.) all the more.

I think people expecting Hank to be on those level of goalies were set to be disappointed. It's too bad he wasted his elite seasons on those crappy Ranger teams, but he only has himself to blame for signing those 2 long-term contracts to stay with this garbage management team. I was in the mindset that Henrik deserved better than the Rangers, but he has to maintain his elite level of play that he's displayed now that he's committed long term to this franchise.

I think by the end of Lundqvist's career, he'll be thinking what could've been.