What the HELL is going on with Henrik Lundqvist?

[CharlieCharleschuk]

Again, I understand that Lundqvist was part of the team, but if he doesn't play some of the best hockey of his career, the Rangers lose in the first round.

You give short-shrift to the team-defense scheme the Rangers played. Lundqvist is easy to see - he's a player - he does things. But you don't get that the entire team is out on the ice blocking shots and chipping the puck out and protecting the net as well. You give the glory to Lundqvist. I say the Rangers earned it.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

If that Rangers team was a contender, they were the under dog of contenders.\

Holy Christ. The #1 seed in the East is not a ****ing underdog.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I can't even believe this is a discussion. That some people actually believe the 2011-2012 team wasn't a contender is just so effing facepalm worthy.

 

[Fataldogg]

Holy Christ. The #1 seed in the East is not a ****ing underdog.

Okay, again, you haven't answered it once, were the Rangers at the level of ANY of those teams.

Let me know, genuinely, if you think the Rangers were at that level instead of just going back to their conference seeding.

Do you not acknowledge that they over achieved, to any degree? Or do you think the Rangers were a dynamo machine that season plowing past each team.

Let's view this objectively instead of just saying "#1 seed" over and over.

How would they have looked if they faced a legitimate team in the post season? They could barely handle #8 and #7 and lost to #6.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Okay, again, you haven't answered it once, were the Rangers at the level of ANY of those teams.

Let me know, genuinely, if you think the Rangers were at that level instead of just going back to their conference seeding.

Do you not acknowledge that they over achieved, to any degree? Or do you think the Rangers were a dynamo machine that season plowing past each team.

Let's view this objectively instead of just saying "#1 seed" over and over.

How would they have looked if they faced a legitimate team in the post season? They could barely handle #8 and #7 and lost to #6.

At the level of what teams? If we finished above them in the standings then yes. We were at the level of those teams that year. Is this really all that difficult?

 

[Fataldogg]

At the level of what teams? If we finished above them in the standings then yes. We were at the level of those teams that year. Is this really all that difficult?

The teams that went deep. I don't know why I even wrote that lengthy response before.

A team like Chicago LAST season. A team like Boston in either of their two Stanley Cup runs. A team like Pittsburgh in either of their runs. A team like the 06-07 Ducks or Senators.

We played to win every game 1-0 or 2-1. True contenders, like the 06-07 Ducks, did EVERYTHING right. They didn't rely on their goaltender and defense to win every game.

I'm looking past the fact they were the #1 seed. And I knew that we weren't going to go all the way with the lack of top end offensive talent, or lack of offensive depth, to go all the way.

We were a team that finished #1 when we probably should have finished #4 or #5. They were a good team. GOOD.

Are we going to pretend that we thought the Rangers were going to go all the way when the puck was first dropped at MSG game one against the Senators because we were the #1 seed? I didn't. And I didn't agree with the journalists when they were predicting the Rangers vs Blues before the playoffs started.

That team had admirable character, incredible work ethic, bought into the system, and a good goaltender. They were a good team. I can't say that I thought they were genuinely going to go all the way. At any point in time. I thought they over achieved in the post season as they did in the regular season.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

The teams that went deep. I don't know why I even wrote that lengthy response before.

This is an easy answer. Yes. Why wouldn't we be?

You're looking at this with the gift of hindsight and comparing the team the next year to the 2011-2012 team. Something that is incredibly naive. It's plain to see that that is what you're doing, too. Because the team sucked the next year it had to have sucked the Cup run year, too.

But you know what? You're just simply wrong. We wont he East. We were two games away from reaching the Cup finals. If you honestly think the 2011-2012 team didn't stack up (AS A TEAM -- from the net out) to the rest of the top teams, you obviously have some trouble understanding the fact that we won our conference.

Teams that win their conferences do not suck. Teams that win their conferences are contenders. You continue to miss the fact that we were a defensive based team that won close games all year. Surprise surprise -- we did the same in the playoffs. WHAT A SHOCKER. Just because the team wasn't blowing other teams out every night does not diminish their contender-ness. What an utter crock of crap.

I don't know why you wasted your time writing that incorrect, lengthy response before, either.

 

[haohmaru]

2011-12 were a contender. But, the way they had to win games (shot blocking, low scoring, grinding) wasn't conducive to winning a Cup. No way could they play that way and rely on their goalie all the way to the Finals. They were completely worn out by round 3.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

2011-12 were a contender. But, the way they had to win games (shot blocking, low scoring, grinding) wasn't conducive to winning a Cup. No way could they play that way and rely on their goalie all the way to the Finals. They were completely worn out by round 3.

And that's where the error of Torts's coaching comes in. I think we relied on playing certain players too many minutes. The same thing came back to hurt us even worse the year after. If he had balanced the lines a bit better, the team could have done more damage. Hindsight is 20/20, but as you wrote, the team was absolutely a contender. Anyone who is saying otherwise is just flat out laughably ignorant.

 

[Fataldogg]

This is an easy answer. Yes. Why wouldn't we be?

You're looking at this with the gift of hindsight and comparing the team the next year to the 2011-2012 team. Something that is incredibly naive. It's plain to see that that is what you're doing, too. Because the team sucked the next year it had to have sucked the Cup run year, too.

But you know what? You're just simply wrong. We wont he East. We were two games away from reaching the Cup finals. If you honestly think the 2011-2012 team didn't stack up (AS A TEAM -- from the net out) to the rest of the top teams, you obviously have some trouble understanding the fact that we won our conference.

Teams that win their conferences do not suck. Teams that win their conferences are contenders. You continue to miss the fact that we were a defensive based team that won close games all year. Surprise surprise -- we did the same in the playoffs. WHAT A SHOCKER. Just because the team wasn't blowing other teams out every night does not diminish their contender-ness. What an utter crock of crap.

I don't know why you wasted your time writing that incorrect, lengthy response before, either.

Agree to disagree than. I respect your opinion. And no, I'm not laughably ignorant. Teams that win the Stanley Cup can excel in every facet of the game, and we had a glaring weakness in putting the puck in the net.

Perhaps the above poster is right, that they were a "contender" but their style of play simply wasn't conducive to going all the way.

And I never said they sucked. I said they were a good team with great work ethic, character, solid defense and goaltending.

I just didn't think they had all of the tools to go the distance. And that's not in hindsight. I thought that as soon as the playoffs started.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Agree to disagree than. I respect your opinion. Teams that win the Stanley Cup can excel in every facet of the game, and we had a glaring weakness in putting the puck in the net.

Perhaps the above poster is right, that they were a "contender" but their style of play simply wasn't conducive to going all the way.

And I never said they sucked. I said they were a good team with great work ethic, character, solid defense and goaltending.

I just didn't think they had all of the tools to go the distance. And that's not in hindsight. I thought that as soon as the playoffs started.

It's not an opinion, though. It's a fact. The team was a contender. #1 in it's conference and two games away from the Cup. We aren't talking about a team bounced in the first round, here.

You can debate the ins and outs of the team and why the team didn't win the Cup all you want. That's all open for discussion. What isn't, however, is whether or not the team was a contender because they plainly were.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Find me one Rangers fan or any NHL fan who didn't consider the Rangers a legit Stanley Cup contender when they were up 2-1 in the CF.

 

[SKjEi o2]

Find me one Rangers fan or any NHL fan who didn't consider the Rangers a legit Stanley Cup contender when they were up 2-1 in the CF.

After going to game 7 against the 7th and 8th seeds? They wouldn't have made it out of the 1st round had Kreider not come in and blown away expectations.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

After going to game 7 against the 7th and 8th seeds? They wouldn't have made it out of the 1st round had Kreider not come in and blown away expectations.

Who cares what it took them to get there?

They were there. Who the hell cares they werent the 1985 Oilers?

Were the Devils Stanley Cup contenders? And if so, when? After Game 6?


Woulda coulda shoulda.

They were two wins away from the Stanley Cup finals. So according to you and some others, we need to specify that to be an official contender, you have to either get to the SCF or simply blow out teams in the first two rounds of the CF.

 

[Radek27]

And that's where the error of Torts's coaching comes in. I think we relied on playing certain players too many minutes. The same thing came back to hurt us even worse the year after. If he had balanced the lines a bit better, the team could have done more damage. Hindsight is 20/20, but as you wrote, the team was absolutely a contender. Anyone who is saying otherwise is just flat out laughably ignorant.

Why do you have to be so over the top with your replies? Why can't anyone ever have a different opinion than you without being ignorant?

 

[aufheben]

lol '11-12 had 51 ****ing wins. Do people not realize how much that is? Contender isn't a past-tense term, it applies to teams before the playoffs start. You don't say a team wasn't a contender 2+ years after the fact. They were a contender then. It doesn't matter what happened in the playoffs. Good teams get upset every year.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Why do you have to be so over the top with your replies? Why can't anyone ever have a different opinion than you without being ignorant?

This isn't a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.

 

[Cake or Death]

The 30 wins really doesn't impress me. Especially since he played 70 games in some of those seasons and unlike guys like Roy, Hasek, Belfour, Richter, CuJo, etc, he had the benefit of the shootout to pad those win totals. Secondly, the way he is playing now, he may never get to that 450-win total you are talking about.

Dude lol nothing any NHL player does needs to impress you. You are on the sidelines watching the games from a fkn couch: Lundqvist is actually in the NHL. Hate Hank all you want. But I've physically seen every NYR goalie since Giacomin. Lundqvist is the best NYR goalie I've ever seen.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

11-12 was without question a contender, and will sadly very possibly be the best NYR team we see this decade.

 

[chosen]

Dude lol nothing any NHL player does needs to impress you. You are on the sidelines watching the games from a fkn couch: Lundqvist is actually in the NHL. Hate Hank all you want. But I've physically seen every NYR goalie since Giacomin. Lundqvist is the best NYR goalie I've ever seen.

I have seen all of the same goalies and a few before Giacomin.

Hank is in my opinion by far the best of the group. The no Cups argument is stupid. Until Hasek went to Detroit he could not win one and he is the greatest I have ever seen.

 

[CharlieCharleschuk]

I liked Richter more. His athleticism I think was of a higher order. I mean, he could do the six-goalie system all by himself (hyperbole, but close) by doing those upright pipe-to-pipe splits. He really was comparatively alone on the ice, when you consider the defensive help he got. His glove hand was great... and seeing him, an American Olympian, and lifelong Ranger, lifting the Cup - let's say it gave a lot of pride.

What do people see in Lundqvist's actual game, as he plays on the ice, that makes them think he's the "best"? To me he's very, very good, mostly in a positional sense. His glove has always been a sore spot. It seemed to me the low shot blocking always helped him stay upright to assist with the high shots.

 

[haohmaru]

I have seen all of the same goalies and a few before Giacomin.

Hank is in my opinion by far the best of the group. The no Cups argument is stupid. Until Hasek went to Detroit he could not win one and he is the greatest I have ever seen.

Agree. Lundqvist is the Rangers best goalie of all time.

Agree on Hasek, too.

And you can add hundreds of names of great players, in any sport, that were fantastic at their position but didn't have strong enough group around them to win a championship. Marino. Gartner. Marcel Dionne. Park. Ratelle. Lafontaine. Griffey Jr. Ernie Banks. Killebrew. Ty Cobb. And, my personal favorite, Ted Williams.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Right. The #1 team in the East that went to the ECF was not a "true contender."

Bizzaro world. This board is just ridiculous sometimes.

Is Hank not part of the ****ing team or something? Who gives a **** if our best player is a goalie? Do you really think that negates an entire regular season and a playoff run all the way to the ECF? Somehow the team is less of a contender because we had a good goalie?

What a bunch of garbage.

In that season they were contenders undoubtedly. I feel there is convincing evidence that they were possessed of some very large holes and consequently many feel they were weak or weaker contenders. They have valid reasons to feel that way. Simply saying "they were a 1 seed" to debate this point is weak but I think you are doing it out of frustration and disrespect for those who have the absurd opinion that they weren't even contenders at all. I've seen you steadfastly deny that seeding has a significant role with teams like the Giants so I find it odd you are now argueing in a manner that implies seeding is practically/almost the sole determinant in how good a team is. I have to think your lack of analysis and refusal to acknowledge any of the valid parts of his arguement is just a sign of contempt towards the opinion you clearly hate

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

This is an easy answer. Yes. Why wouldn't we be?

You're looking at this with the gift of hindsight and comparing the team the next year to the 2011-2012 team. Something that is incredibly naive. It's plain to see that that is what you're doing, too. Because the team sucked the next year it had to have sucked the Cup run year, too.

But you know what? You're just simply wrong. We wont he East. We were two games away from reaching the Cup finals. If you honestly think the 2011-2012 team didn't stack up (AS A TEAM -- from the net out) to the rest of the top teams, you obviously have some trouble understanding the fact that we won our conference.

Teams that win their conferences do not suck. Teams that win their conferences are contenders. You continue to miss the fact that we were a defensive based team that won close games all year. Surprise surprise -- we did the same in the playoffs. WHAT A SHOCKER. Just because the team wasn't blowing other teams out every night does not diminish their contender-ness. What an utter crock of crap.

I don't know why you wasted your time writing that incorrect, lengthy response before, either.

Compared to many of these other teams the Rangers from that season don't measure up well. Again, in that particular season the rangers were one of the contenders but objectively looking at that team compared to other teams and contenders one falls a bit short.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

This isn't a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.

One contender is weaker than other contenders. That's an opinion not a fact.

Honestly whether or not a team is a contender is also a matter of opinion. Although in this case I feel the opinion that they weren't even contenders at all is wrong.

So many different things could have happened in the Devs series that would have allowed them to get to the SCF. Based on what facts and evidence we do have the opinion that they were weaker contenders seems to be a correct opinion too