Toggle sidebar

When L.A. beat Chicago, did anyone else have a sinking feeling?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cobra Jack*
  • Start date Start date
  • 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

Cobra Jack*

Guest
I really felt that if Chicago could have hung on, and won Game 7, we would have beaten them in the finals. When L.A. won their 3rd Game 7 in a row, on the road, you just had that feeling that NOTHING was going to stop them this year.

Aside from that, I felt we also matched up better against Chicago. Plus...Crawford vs. Quick? Darn it, as good as Lundqvist was this series, I felt like Quick matched him or was even better in some games. And that was my fear going in. With Quick in net, our advantage in goal was nullified. And thus, that left the rest of the teams, in which L.A. had more talent and experience.

Sucky break for us that Chicago didn't win. No disrespect to them, but I just feel like if we played Chicago, this series doesn't end in 5. Or maybe it does, but with us as champs.

Oh well, I guess we will never know. But I had a bad feeling about L.A. from the start. Anyone else feel the same way?
Click to read more...
 
I didn't think Quick was amazing. He made some big saves especially in clutch moments, but other than game 3, did he steal any game? And that one he had a 3 goal head start.
 
SnowblindNYR said:
I didn't think Quick was amazing. He made some big saves especially in clutch moments, but other than game 3, did he steal any game? And that one he had a 3 goal head start.
Click to expand...

I guess you're right, but it still sucks we had to face him instead of Crawford. The NBC guys said tonight a lot of the Rangers shots were going wide and missing the net because Quick was in their heads and they were trying to be too perfect with their shots. I don't think Crawford would have that same effect on them. But who knows. We lost, time to move on. But man, I think we would have taken Chicago. It sucks because we got favorable draws all the way...until the finals. :(
 
I think Chicago was a lot more gassed than the Kings. Unfortunately Los Angeles had a ****ing horseshoe rammed up their collective ass.
 
Neither team from the West would have been easy--people seem to forgot that Chicago won the Stanley Cup last year. A big reason for the Rangers downfall was their inability to score on the powerplay.
 
Nope. In fact Chicago might have been tougher in some ways. It was going to be hard anyway. Especially when some of your top people don't show up or contribute.

For what the Rangers were actually able to deliver on the ice they did pretty well. A couple of chances converted, some bounces or calls go the other way and it could have been different.

But you were playing a champion in any case. Champions punish opponents that turn over the puck, get sloppy, fail to execute and blow leads.
 
2Leetch_94 said:
Quick was in the Rangers head? What's their excuse for the 29 other teams they can't score against?
Click to expand...

Yeah. I don't think Quick was any better than Tokarski or Mason. All three of them pushed the Rangers to their limits. Rangers make every goaltender look fantastic.

I didn't have a sinking feeling at all when the Kings won.

I thought the Rangers would need a miracle against LA or Chicago. ****, at the end of the day, I don't think the Rangers get to the Stanley Cup Finals if they are in the Western Conference.

Rangers were clearly the worst team the Kings faced. That's not a slight to the Rangers, but it just shows you how incredibly deep the Western Conference is.

Rangers would have been huge underdogs against the Ducks, Sharks, Kings, Blackhawks, and Blues (maybe not the Blues, just because they always find a way to lose).
 
I felt the team could beat Chi but felt it would be Kings in 6. I love this team and all but I didnt see it happening. They actually impressed me, and I think with this years hopeful refinements to the team(I hope for no Richards) I think they can do it. This years team could do it, but with a few more pieces added they can take the Kings in a best of 7.
 
Yup... I've been saying it all season long, I expect the Rangers to beat any team in the league except for those that play big boy hockey. Teams like STL, LA, SJ, ANA, and BOS in particular.

Speed kills if it gets a chance to flow, those teams just muck it up along the boards and force you to win physical battles. The Rangers didn't have the horses to do that, and when LA turned it on, the Rangers weren't in the same league when it comes to winning battles along the walls.

Those teams don't play nice guy hockey and make you pay a price for every inch, while a team like Chicago likes to dominate the puck through possession and playmaking, LA prefers a street fight, and have a roster with size, toughness and character to impose themselves physically over the smaller Rangers.

If it was Chicago, I think the Rangers would have won since Lundqvist could outperform Crawford every night, with LA you had Quick to worry about as well, and that is one big game goalie.
 
I was going back and forth on who I wanted to play, but right when they won in OT I found myself being disappointed. I think the Rangers would have had a better chance against the Blackhawks. Oh well, hopefully they can have a similar run next year.
 
Yes, I wanted Chicago.

LA looked like a machine all playoffs and Quick was the great equalizer. I didn't care about Chicago's offense, we could've handled them. I cared that now we had to face a stifling defense and great goalie.

We could've gotten some lucky breaks and better chances vs Chicago's D and Crawford.
 
I would have preferred matching up against Chicago, remember sitting at a bar down here in FL and the CHI - LA game was on to my surprise. As it went on I looked over at another mate who seemed to be interested in the game and asked who he wanted to win. He said Chicago because the Rangers matched up better against them. I replied that I echoed his sentiment and then we drank the rest of the night away as LA won :laugh:
 
No sinking feeling in the least. If anything gave me a sinking feeling in the playoffs, it was probably our coach. I understand respecting the opponent, but it's the Final and that should be drilled into players regardless. But I did not like the way AV gave too much respect to LA one bit, or that we played well on our toes, but then went on our heels when we had leads. There's respect, and then there's too much respect and almost giving an unconfident vibe because you keep mentioning LA has no perceived holes and how great they are. Nonsense.

I didn't having a sinking feeling at all going in to play LA, I had a sinking feeling watching our coach not adapt, listening to him talk about LA's godliness, and watching the team playing chicken **** prevent defense instead of attacking, while we prayed our goalie could win despite the ridiculous onslaughts.
 
MessierRangers94 said:
I really felt that if Chicago could have hung on, and won Game 7, we would have beaten them in the finals. When L.A. won their 3rd Game 7 in a row, on the road, you just had that feeling that NOTHING was going to stop them this year.

Aside from that, I felt we also matched up better against Chicago. Plus...Crawford vs. Quick? Darn it, as good as Lundqvist was this series, I felt like Quick matched him or was even better in some games. And that was my fear going in. With Quick in net, our advantage in goal was nullified. And thus, that left the rest of the teams, in which L.A. had more talent and experience.

Sucky break for us that Chicago didn't win. No disrespect to them, but I just feel like if we played Chicago, this series doesn't end in 5. Or maybe it does, but with us as champs.

Oh well, I guess we will never know. But I had a bad feeling about L.A. from the start. Anyone else feel the same way?
Click to expand...

I didn't like the match up. Rangers have trouble with big heavy teams and I think that this series bore that out.

Boston gives us fits and the Kings as well.

I preferred to have played both Pitt, Montreal and Chicago.

Now, we could have lost to either of those teams as well, but I trust our game against the less physical teams than against the bigger and heavier teams like Columbus, Boston and LA.

I did not like our chances in this series.
 
When I saw we were playing Montreal in the ECF :handclap:

When I saw we were playing the Kings in the SCF :eek:
 
Before this series started, I did have a bit of a sinking feeling. Chicago was the better match up for us, like Montreal was last series over Boston.

Oh well, them the breaks I suppose.
 
I would have preferred the Hawks...but I wasn't particularly scared of the Kings. I mean, I knew they'd be a tall mountain to climb...but I felt they were beatable. I chalked Game 1 up to the long (for the Rangers) layoff between games. However, I knew the series was over after Game 2. It was the last Game I watched.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom