PDA

View Full Version : Article: It's Time to Stop Making Excuses for Henrik Lundqvist



Pages : [1] 2

Phil in Absentia
06-10-2014, 12:29 PM
Lundqvist was on the hook for three goals on just 15 shots in New York’s 3-0 loss to the Los Angeles Kings on Monday night. But who could blame him, right? The first might have deflected off the skate of defenseman Dan Girardi about 20 feet out and changed direction slightly. The second was redirected by another well-meaning block attempt by Martin St. Louis. The third was created when the puck bounced off the skate of Ryan McDonagh directly onto the tape of L.A.’s Mike Richards.

In fact, that’s pretty much been the story of the series for Lundqvist. Of the five goals he allowed in Game 2, two were deflections, two were rebounds, and one was heavily screened. In Game 1, L.A.’s comeback was fueled by a jam play at the side of the crease and a costly giveaway in OT that led to a money chance in the low slot.

Tough, tough chances, no doubt. But since when did that let a goalie off the hook? Especially a goalie who was his team’s leading Conn Smythe Trophy contender coming into the final?


“At some point, you are going to need some puck luck and we don’t have any right now.”

Maybe so, but what the Rangers really haven’t had are stops. Big stops. Game-changing stops.

You know, the kind that Jonathan Quick is giving the Kings all night long.

We’re not singing Quick’s praises today because he made the saves he was supposed to make. We’re tipping our cap because he stopped so many that he flat-out shouldn’t have.


As for the Rangers, it’s probably too late for them to work their way back into this series…but it’s not too late to stop making excuses for Lundqvist. In the biggest series of his career, he’s come up short when his team has needed him most.

http://nhl.si.com/2014/06/10/new-york-rangers-henrik-lundqvist-stanley-cup-final/

--

I'm just gonna take the pragmatic approach and let this conversation grow organically, but I will say this — there is a very measurable level of merit to this entire article.

phillyb™
06-10-2014, 12:32 PM
i didn't read everything in the article but i was just thinking the same thing.
some of these goals have been really soft.
and to let up 3 of them on 15 shots is just...
not what we pay hank for.

Pete
06-10-2014, 12:32 PM
I'll go further — It's spot on.

While Quick has gotten better every game, Lundqvist has gotten worse. He isn't giving us a chance to win. He went from making a key save at the right time in a 1-0 win over Montreal in Game 6, to not making any key saves at all.

You can site turnovers, deflections, bounces, whatever — He simply hasn't been good enough. Especially last night.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 12:34 PM
Lundqvist made game-changing stops in the 3rd period of game 3. 20 shots on goal. All saved. His own team mustered 3 shots.

Lundqvist was very solid throughout game 2 and then everything fell apart after the goaltender interference.

Game 3. Yeah.

The difference is that the Kings take those game-changing saves by Quick and actually change the game. The Rangers get huge saves by Lundqvist, and then squander opportunities.

Revolution Rock
06-10-2014, 12:35 PM
While he should have made the stops that they needed last night, it's hard to put this all on him. Even the goals that were let in on Games 1 and 2, a stop or 2 could have made all the difference. But ::Cue the excuse music!::

Chicken or Egg. No Lundqvist, No playoffs. You want playoffs, you need Lundqvist.

Phil in Absentia
06-10-2014, 12:35 PM
i didn't read everything in the article but i was just thinking the same thing.
some of these goals have been really soft.
and to let up 3 of them on 15 shots is just...
not what we pay hank for.

Forget pay. It's not what championships are won with. That's John Graham territory. The 25% rule, basically (except 20% with Lundqvist).

As Torts once said "we need a god damned occasional save (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHamrJkm6k)".

Niko
06-10-2014, 12:38 PM
I don't look at Lundqvist for this series. I'm looking at Richards (who's been awful in every regard) and Nash. The guys you need the most, doing nothing when it counts. Zuccarello was the only one giving it everything out there last night.

Phil in Absentia
06-10-2014, 12:42 PM
I don't look at Lundqvist for this series. I'm looking at Richards (who's been awful in every regard) and Nash. The guys you need the most, doing nothing when it counts. Zuccarello was the only one giving it everything out there last night.

If defense wins championships, then the guy you need most is the biggest defender on the team — your goaltender. If he can't give you that timely save, even with an effective Nash and/or Richards, you won't win.

Thump23
06-10-2014, 12:43 PM
Quick has been better. I don't know what else there is to say. LA's offense has also been a lot more opportunistic than the Rangers. It's not one thing, it's many things.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 12:46 PM
I thought the goaltending was pretty even until last night. Both goalies stopped great chances at opportune times throughout games 1 and 2. Quick just had a godly performance in game 3, Henrik's performance was average, and it didn't cut it. But I really have a hard time blaming him for it.

Phil in Absentia
06-10-2014, 12:49 PM
I thought the goaltending was pretty even until last night. Both goalies stopped great chances at opportune times throughout games 1 and 2. Quick just had a godly performance in game 3, Henrik's performance was average, and it didn't cut it. But I really have a hard time blaming him for it.

This isn't an issue of blame. Not in the sense that you guys are posting about here. No one is pinning this on him. The idea that any game loss can be pinned on a single player is almost always asinine. The idea is that the excuses need to stop. He is part of the team, and shoulders part of the blame. The idea is to stop the pity party for him, as if he doesn't deserve this too. Win as a team, lose as a team.

Pete
06-10-2014, 12:53 PM
Quick has been better. I don't know what else there is to say. LA's offense has also been a lot more opportunistic than the Rangers. It's not one thing, it's many things.

Lundy isn't the reason we're down 3-0. But he certainly hasn't been good, either. That's how I see it.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 12:57 PM
This isn't an issue of blame. Not in the sense that you guys are posting about here. No one is pinning this on him. The idea that any game loss can be pinned on a single player is almost always asinine. The idea is that the excuses need to stop. He is part of the team, and shoulders part of the blame. The idea is to stop the pity party for him, as if he doesn't deserve this too. Win as a team, lose as a team.

I haven't seen a single person say "Poor Hank" this post-season yet, as opposed to the last few years. So I don't really see this whole "pity party" angle. The reason he's not getting magnified is because a lot of the goals against were from correctable mistakes and controversial, so people focused on that, understandably, because many feel that if those didn't happen then things would be different.

In terms of giving the team a chance to win, I think he gave them chances to win games 1 and 2. He made lots of key saves, and the team did have plenty of chances to win those games, especially game 2. But they didn't.

I have seen timely saves out of him. Especially games 1 and 2. Those were games for the taking. I keep harping on it because I really believe he was good in those games - certainly good enough to win.

Game 3. Yeah.

Mike
06-10-2014, 12:57 PM
I thought the goaltending was pretty even until last night. Both goalies stopped great chances at opportune times throughout games 1 and 2. Quick just had a godly performance in game 3, Henrik's performance was average, and it didn't cut it. But I really have a hard time blaming him for it.

I know this is a sensitive subject on here depending on who's involved in the conversation, but what happened in game 1 is dead balls on what I've been trying to tell you for the last 3 years.
1. I want Hank between the pipes more than anyone else in the league. Why? Because I know what he's capable of, while others may need to get hot, and stay hot to succeed.

2. There is no question that Hank made some fantastic saves in game 1, especially in the 3rd period.

3. The first 2 goals were so fuckin weak, that I had to control myself from throwing shit through my television set.

In summary: Fantastic, superhuman saves doesn't absolve you from making ones you SHOULD stop. If you flip the script, where a goalie makes all the normal ones, but doesn't make a stop that Hank or Quick can make at times, you still end up with the same results.

Thump23
06-10-2014, 12:57 PM
Lundy isn't the reason we're down 3-0. But he certainly hasn't been good, either. That's how I see it.

Agree, 100%. But I wonder if the series would be any different if Lundqvist were on the Kings and Quick were on the Rangers.

As far as Lundqvist last night. I think he absolutely has to make the save on the Carter goal. The other two, I think there's more room for debate there. It's really tough to kill a guy for a deflection but damn, sometimes you gotta stop the ones you're not expected to stop.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 01:01 PM
I know this is a sensitive subject on here depending on who's involved in the conversation, but what happened in game 1 is dead balls on what I've been trying to tell you for the last 3 years.
1. I want Hank between the pipes more than anyone else in the league. Why? Because I know what he's capable of, while others may need to get hot, and stay hot to succeed.

2. There is no question that Hank made some fantastic saves in game 1, especially in the 3rd period.

3. The first 2 goals were so fuckin weak, that I had to control myself from throwing shit through my television set.

In summary: Fantastic, superhuman saves doesn't absolve you from making ones you SHOULD stop. If you flip the script, where a goalie makes all the normal ones, but doesn't make a stop that Hank or Quick can make at times, you still end up with the same results.

So it's a 2-2 game in the 3rd period and you make 20 superhuman timely saves to keep your team in it and all your team manages to muster is 3 shots, only one of them being of value (on a breakaway). You can atone for your mistakes. I think he atoned for his mistakes in game 1 with the 3rd period. He gave his team a chance to win. They didn't.

Pete
06-10-2014, 01:03 PM
So it's a 2-2 game in the 3rd period and you make 20 superhuman timely saves to keep your team in it and all your team manages to muster is 3 shots, only one of them being of value (on a breakaway). You can atone for your mistakes. I think he atoned for his mistakes in game 1 with the 3rd period. He gave his team a chance to win. They didn't.

But at some point, atoning isn't good enough. Don't let the friggin goal in in the first place, and maybe the 3rd period goes a little differently (like the 3rd period against MTL).

Mike
06-10-2014, 01:08 PM
Lundy isn't the reason we're down 3-0. But he certainly hasn't been good, either. That's how I see it.
Agree completely.

I haven't seen a single person say "Poor Hank" this post-season yet, as opposed to the last few years. So I don't really see this whole "pity party" angle. The reason he's not getting magnified is because a lot of the goals against were from correctable mistakes and controversial, so people focused on that, understandably, because many feel that if those didn't happen then things would be different.

In terms of giving the team a chance to win, I think he gave them chances to win games 1 and 2. He made lots of key saves, and the team did have plenty of chances to win those games, especially game 2. But they didn't.

I have seen timely saves out of him. Especially games 1 and 2. Those were games for the taking. I keep harping on it because I really believe he was good in those games - certainly good enough to win.

Game 3. Yeah.

Yes, there were. There were also weak ones. Especially the 1st goals scored in both games. Look where Hank ends up on the 1st goal of game 2. I'll give you $100 if you can show me a goal he gave up like that one over the last 9 years. He plays deep because he has little confidence in his lateral movement. I know this for a fact, and that's fine, I have no problem with it. I mean, who can argue with success, right? He's never going to come out of the net, ever. That's not who he is, and that's not something that got him to where he is today in his career. With that said, there are times where I see some panic in him, and then he fails to use what has worked for him since day 1. There's evidence of greatness, and there's evidence of erratic play in game by game situations. I still believe in him, and I believe he can win a cup. This whole run is just going to make him better imo.

So Nashty
06-10-2014, 01:08 PM
Every one knows how much I love hank but I can't even say I disagree with much in the article

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 01:10 PM
But at some point, atoning isn't good enough. Don't let the friggin goal in in the first place, and maybe the 3rd period goes a little differently (like the 3rd period against MTL).

That's not on the goalie, IMO. They didn't lay an egg in the 3rd because Lundqvist let a goal in halfway through the 2nd. All you can ask is that the goalie bounces back to give you a chance to win or climb back and the team bounces back too. The goalie did, the team didn't.

Mike
06-10-2014, 01:14 PM
So it's a 2-2 game in the 3rd period and you make 20 superhuman timely saves to keep your team in it and all your team manages to muster is 3 shots, only one of them being of value (on a breakaway). You can atone for your mistakes. I think he atoned for his mistakes in game 1 with the 3rd period. He gave his team a chance to win. They didn't.

If he played the first 2 goals the way he played in the entire 3rd, this conversation never takes place. We always see/hear "If team XXXXX had Lundqvist, they would have won the cup easily/easier". Can we say that with certainty at the moment, now that we actually have evidence to support those claims?

Pete
06-10-2014, 01:15 PM
That's not on the goalie, IMO. They didn't lay an egg in the 3rd because Lundqvist let a goal in halfway through the 2nd. All you can ask is that the goalie bounces back to give you a chance to win or climb back and the team bounces back too. The goalie did, the team didn't.

There are 2 teams on the rink. It's not always about the Rangers. You let in a soft goal, a team like LA smells blood, and they come harder.

Mike
06-10-2014, 01:18 PM
That's not on the goalie, IMO. They didn't lay an egg in the 3rd because Lundqvist let a goal in halfway through the 2nd. All you can ask is that the goalie bounces back to give you a chance to win or climb back and the team bounces back too. The goalie did, the team didn't.

Yes, and the team gave the goalie a 2 goal lead that he surrendered with 2 weak goals while they were still playing well and had momentum. A bad goal changes momentum, and it also changes the way the team plays in front of you. It happens on a game by game basis no matter who's in the net. The skaters have a feel of the game around the goalie, and what's going past him on that particular night. It works both ways. There are 2 teams on the ice, there's going to be a push. You're not winning many games letting in those 2 goals.

momentum
06-10-2014, 01:22 PM
Lundy is clutch...he has been clutch for us in these very playoffs and is a huge reason why we even went to the finals. Now he is human after all and is not having a great series, it's ofc really bad luck for us that he's off his game in the Stanley cup finals but that's all it is: bad luck,
There is no pattern of being bad when it matters for Hank, in fact..there is a pattern of the opposite if anything. I remember he was praised like jesus lord when he YET AGAIN remained unbeaten in the 7th game against the Flyers....then AGAIN against the Pens.........then it was time for the Habs and we finally got a chance to close them out early...then the talk was...yes...Hank has been great in 7th games...but sometimes he has to step up and finish off a team in the 6th game before it gets to that.....so he did just that and again he was jesus lord and ppl were saying ok...he has nothing to prove..he is clutch....then all it takes is another series with a few bad games where so much have just gone wrong for the Rangers and YET AGAIN he is questioned...he just doesn't come up when it matters the most.....well folks....he has come up when it matters the most....SO MANY TIMES....but this is the Stanley cup finals and we are having ZERO luck...and he's having a subpar series himself....it happens.....but don't come tell me he isn't clutch just because he doesn't win the Stanley cup the first time his team reaching the finals.....it's just not accurate. IN that case no player EVER is clutch..because I don't know of a single player who is AWESOME AND PUT UP HUGE NUMBERS in EVERY SINGLE SERIES.....no....just like everyone else Hank has many good ones...and a few less good ones.
You want to talk about a player who is NOT clutch...look at Rick Nash...he now has a long history of NOT being clutch. Hank doesn't, he's been clutch a bunch of times.
This just happens to be our first final in 20 years and a lot of things are going wrong for us. Has nothing to do with who is clutch or not.
Your big guy can't ALWAYS win it for you, sometimes the other guys have to step up and get it done without him playing at the top of his level. This is just a fact and goes for all players and teams.
If you rely on one player to win you every game and every series you have a bad team. Rangers are better than that.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 01:22 PM
If he played the first 2 goals the way he played in the entire 3rd, this conversation never takes place. We always see/hear "If team XXXXX had Lundqvist, they would have won the cup easily/easier". Can we say that with certainty at the moment, now that we actually have evidence to support those claims?

Come on, man. Goals will go in. It's about how teams react and how goalies bounce back - and I've seen mixed reactions from both parties involved. If the gameplan was "Well, boys, the plan tonight is like this. Hank, you stop every shot you see. If you don't do that, we're fucked." then that's not a very good plan, is it?

It's like asking a scorer to score on every single shot.

If Carl Hagelin scores on his breakaway with less than a minute to go in game 1, this conversation never takes place. If Chris Kreider scores on his breakaway in game 2, this conversation never takes place.

Quick let in some bad ones too and go bailed out by his team. At the end of the day, it's about who is better, and Quick has been better, but I simply can't blame Lundqvist. And don't try to say it isn't about blame, because it is. You're saying that if he doesn't let in those two goals, the game is different. So it is about blame.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 01:23 PM
There are 2 teams on the rink. It's not always about the Rangers. You let in a soft goal, a team like LA smells blood, and they come harder.

We're talking about the Rangers, things the Rangers can control. And the Rangers can control how they step up their game in a tie game of the SCF. The Rangers stepped down their game in period 3 of game 1 and stepped down their game in period 3 of game 2.

Thump23
06-10-2014, 01:24 PM
I think it was pretty evident how much damage that Carter goal caused last night. They looked deflated coming out to start the next period. He makes that save... who knows.

Pete
06-10-2014, 01:25 PM
We're talking about the Rangers, things the Rangers can control. And the Rangers can control how they step up their game in a tie game of the SCF. The Rangers stepped down their game in period 3 of game 1 and stepped down their game in period 3 of game 2.

The Rangers can control "Don't give them something to feel good about."

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 01:25 PM
Yes, and the team gave the goalie a 2 goal lead that he surrendered with 2 weak goals while they were still playing well and had momentum. A bad goal changes momentum, and it also changes the way the team plays in front of you. It happens on a game by game basis no matter who's in the net. The skaters have a feel of the game around the goalie, and what's going past him on that particular night. It works both ways. There are 2 teams on the ice, there's going to be a push. You're not winning many games letting in those 2 goals.

The team got the goals, but he surrendered two weak goals? How about the team surrendered the goals? Because Stepan was far more to blame on that first goal than Lundqvist. If that puck gets out, it isn't in the back of the net.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 01:26 PM
The Rangers can control "Don't give them something to feel good about."

The Rangers can also control "Let's not make stupid passes and completely change our game for the 3rd period". They admitted it themselves, they blew that 3rd period by getting away from their game and trying to get fancy.

momentum
06-10-2014, 01:29 PM
I think it was pretty evident how much damage that Carter goal caused last night. They looked deflated coming out to start the next period. He makes that save... who knows.

Well of course...could have should have would have......its so easy to second guess a goalie like that and blame him for it.....but you might as well say what if Nash would have scored there....or what if that post hit would have gone in....what if the Ref wouldn't have allowed that bad goal? What if Girardi didn't stumble and give up the puck the first game? This whole series has been SO CLOSE (regardless of what fucking idiot milbury or all other "experts" say) that a HANDFUL..only A VERY FEW bounces going differently and Rangers would sit here with a series lead....call it cop out or excuses all you want it's the truth.

Thump23
06-10-2014, 01:29 PM
Lundqvist has not made any series defining saves. Quick has made bucket loads.

Pete
06-10-2014, 01:30 PM
The team got the goals, but he surrendered two weak goals? How about the team surrendered the goals? Because Stepan was far more to blame on that first goal than Lundqvist. If that puck gets out, it isn't in the back of the net.


The Rangers can also control "Let's not make stupid passes and completely change our game for the 3rd period". They admitted it themselves, they blew that 3rd period by getting away from their game and trying to get fancy.

Sometimes this debate sounds like you never think Lundqvist is responsible for anything. I'm just saying that is the message I get when I read these posts.

Look the Clifford goal and Doughty goal in Game 1 simply can't go in. They are bad goals. I don't care what happened before. One was from no angle and the other went through him. That just can't happen.

Thump23
06-10-2014, 01:30 PM
Well of course...could have should have would have......its so easy to second guess a goalie like that and blame him for it.....but you might as well say what if Nash would have scored there....or what if that post hit would have gone in....what if the Ref wouldn't have allowed that bad goal? What if Girardi didn't stumble and give up the puck the first game? This whole series has been SO CLOSE (regardless of what fucking idiot milbury or all other "experts" say) that a HANDFUL..only A FEW bounces going differently and Rangers would sit here with a series lead....call it cop out or excuses all you want it's the truth.

I said repeatedly that this was a team wide failure. Three different Rangers had the game on their sticks in game 2. It's not just Hank. BUT Quick has made some super human saves and they were the difference in games 1 and 2, Lundqvist has not.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 01:32 PM
Lundqvist has not made any series defining saves. Quick has made bucket loads.

Saves are only "series defining" in retrospect. If Lundqvist makes that save in Game 6 of the ECF, but Dominic Moore doesn't go on to score that goal, then we might not be looking at that so favorably.

RangersRule2
06-10-2014, 01:32 PM
I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone or that Bizarro World episode of SEINFELD. Where's Kevin, Gene, and Feldman -- maybe we can use them on the PP ? :D

We are NOT losing this series because of Lundquist. Yeah, he COULD have made those saves on impossible rebounds and deflections. His clearing passes also COULD have been goals.

Come on guys, think rationally. The Rangers continue to make idiotic clearing and puck decisions. They have allowed 6 goals on horrible decisions or unfortunate bounces. Another 2-3 from bad clears (but that's part of the game, so I let it slide).

I cannot believe you guys think Lundquist is our #1...#2....#3...or even Top 10 problem.

momentum
06-10-2014, 01:32 PM
I said repeatedly that this was a team wide failure. Three different Rangers had the game on their sticks in game 2. It's not just Hank. BUT Quick has made some super human saves and they were the difference in games 1 and 2, Lundqvist has not.
Yes Quick has played much better than Hank so far, still BESIDES THAT the series could have been the opposite result right now if not for a few bounces.

Mike
06-10-2014, 01:33 PM
Come on, man. Goals will go in. It's about how teams react and how goalies bounce back - and I've seen mixed reactions from both parties involved. If the gameplan was "Well, boys, the plan tonight is like this. Hank, you stop every shot you see. If you don't do that, we're fucked." then that's not a very good plan, is it?

It's like asking a scorer to score on every single shot.

If Carl Hagelin scores on his breakaway with less than a minute to go in game 1, this conversation never takes place. If Chris Kreider scores on his breakaway in game 2, this conversation never takes place.

Quick let in some bad ones too and go bailed out by his team. At the end of the day, it's about who is better, and Quick has been better, but I simply can't blame Lundqvist. And don't try to say it isn't about blame, because it is. You're saying that if he doesn't let in those two goals, the game is different. So it is about blame.
I blame him for those 2 goals, yes. You don't have to put any weight into this if you don't want, and I understand if you don't, but I live this every single day with a goalie, as a father, and a coach. I'm not comparing the level of hockey, I'm comparing the sense of it. You, or others may think it's ridiculous, but the game is the game, and reactions are reactions, no matter the age, or level. Teams feed off of a great save in the same way the feed off of a bad goal allowed. When you battle to get a 2 goal lead, and then your normally stud goalie gives up a head scratcher, it puts doubt in your mind. Every player on the Ranger roster will stand there and tell you they don't want anyone else in the net, and I believe that 10000%. They'll also tell you he's made so many big stops, and has kept them in soooo many games over the years/season, and I believe that 10000%. Then they'll tell you that they don't think about it when a bad one goes in. Well that's bullshit. Everyone does, no matter who it is. It's the moment you're in, it's not about a game changer he made in November, March, the previous series, or maybe even the previous game or period. Why would they lie? For the same reason we would lie ... we're hockey players, and shoulder the blame on ourselves. I still love you, and Hank.

momentum
06-10-2014, 01:33 PM
Saves are only "series defining" in retrospect. If Lundqvist makes that save in Game 6 of the ECF, but Dominic Moore doesn't go on to score that goal, then we might not be looking at that so favorably.

THIS....this is a team game and you win as a team...start relying on one player to get It done and you're lost.

Pete
06-10-2014, 01:34 PM
I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone or that Bizarro World episode of SEINFELD. Where's Kevin, Gene, and Feldman -- maybe we can use them on the PP ? :D

We are NOT losing this series because of Lundquist. Yeah, he COULD have made those saves on impossible rebounds and deflections. His clearing passes also COULD have been goals.No one said that.


Come on guys, think rationally.We are. Just because you don't agree doesn't make other people irrational.


The Rangers continue to make idiotic clearing and puck decisions. They have allowed 6 goals on horrible decisions or unfortunate bounces. Another 2-3 from bad clears (but that's part of the game, so I let it slide).

I cannot believe you guys think Lundquist is our #1...#2....#3...or even Top 10 problem.No one said that, either.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 01:34 PM
Sometimes this debate sounds like you never think Lundqvist is responsible for anything. I'm just saying that is the message I get when I read these posts.

Look the Clifford goal and Doughty goal in Game 1 simply can't go in. They are bad goals. I don't care what happened before. One was from no angle and the other went through him. That just can't happen.

And sometimes it sounds like you think Lundqvist is solely responsible for all the bad things that happen to this team.

You really sound like you're blaming him for these losses, and you said that wasn't the case.

Thump23
06-10-2014, 01:35 PM
Yes Quick has played much better than Hank so far, still BESIDES THAT the series could have been the opposite result right now if not for a few bounces.

I think it boils down to this, for me anyway. What team has the better goalie in this series?

We all said it, for them to win Hank had to be at his very best. He hasn't and here we are.

Keirik
06-10-2014, 01:35 PM
Were we going to win 0-0 last night?

Thump23
06-10-2014, 01:36 PM
Were we going to win 0-0 last night?

No. But they scored enough goals on the road to win at least one of those games.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 01:37 PM
No. But they scored enough goals on the road to win at least one of those games.

Ah, but they didn't defend well enough to win.

Pete
06-10-2014, 01:37 PM
And sometimes it sounds like you think Lundqvist is solely responsible for all the bad things that happen to this team.

You really sound like you're blaming him for these losses, and you said that wasn't the case.

This is just a canned response that I'm not even addressing. "You're dumb." "NO, YOU'RE DUMB!!"

I said we aren't where we are because of Hank. But that doesn't mean he played well, and I'm talking about 2 goals that shouldn't have ended up in the net, period, in game 1. I don't have a real issue with Game 2, even with the 5 goals.

I'm not even touching last night's game.

Keirik
06-10-2014, 01:38 PM
No. But they scored enough goals on the road to win at least one of those games.

And they had more mental/defensive breakdowns to lose them.

H-Dreamer
06-10-2014, 01:38 PM
I don't know if there really is a need to debate this.
If you lose three games and the other side scores 11 goals, of course he could have played better and the counter-argument is also not debatable, as everyone else could have played better too.
I know that's propably generic talk for some people, but in the end we're not talking about one player having a bad stretch, we're talking about the Rangers losing and you win or lose as a team and in these finals the Rangers are losing as a team.
I see no reason to blame anyone personally, not Henrik, not Nash, not Richards or Girardi.

btw while Quick was the better Goalie yesterday, I don't think he has out played Henrik all series long.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 01:39 PM
This is just a canned response that I'm not even addressing. "You're dumb." "NO, YOU'RE DUMB!!"

I said we aren't where we are because of Hank. But that doesn't mean he played well, and I'm talking about 2 goals that shouldn't have ended up in the net, period, in game 1. I don't have a real issue with Game 2, even with the 5 goals.

I'm not even touching last night's game.

And at least one of those goals shouldn't have even been in the zone.

Pete
06-10-2014, 01:39 PM
I thought the goalie was there for when breakdowns happened? If breakdowns never happened, they're be about 5 shots a game.

Pete
06-10-2014, 01:39 PM
And at least one of those goals shouldn't have even been in the zone.

But it was, so that mean's Hank can let in goals from behind the net? Come on.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 01:39 PM
I don't know if there really is a need to debate this.
If you lose three games and the other side scores 11 goals, of course he could have played better and the counter-argument is also not debatable, as everyone else could have played better too.
I know that's propably generic talk for some people, but in the end we're not talking about one player having a bad stretch, we're talking about the Rangers losing and you win or lose as a team and in these finals the Rangers are losing as a team.
I see no reason to blame anyone personally, not Henrik, not Nash, not Richards or Girardi.

btw while Quick was the better Goalie yesterday, I don't think he has out played Henrik all series long.

This is probably the most reasonable reaction to the article.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 01:42 PM
I thought the goalie was there for when breakdowns happened? If breakdowns never happened, they're be about 5 shots a game.

Breakdowns will happen, but it's about limiting the severity. If you make passes down the middle of the ice in your own zone all game because "Why the fuck not? The goalie is there!" then you'll find yourself on the bench.


But it was, so that mean's Hank can let in goals from behind the net? Come on.

No, it means that it's a play that should have never happened in the first place and there are bigger fish to fry on that play.

Mike
06-10-2014, 01:43 PM
THIS....this is a team game and you win as a team...start relying on one player to get It done and you're lost.

They all rely on each other. Players have made bad plays. Hank has let in some bad goals. It's not all on him, but being the goalie lays with the responsibility of being the last line of defense, and bad goals get magnified a lot more than a bad turnover leading to a good goal.

Mike
06-10-2014, 01:45 PM
And at least one of those goals shouldn't have even been in the zone.

Honestly, if the 3rd goal is disallowed, I don't think Hank gives one up for the rest of the period. The Kings were getting 2 that night, imo.

Keirik
06-10-2014, 01:46 PM
We pay Henrik Lundqvist money to keep them in the game and give the Rangers an opportunity to win. When game 1 goes into OT and game 2 goes into double OT, he's doing exactly that. I don't think anyone is making excuses for Henrik to be honest. We all know there are times EVERY goalie in the history of hockey lets in a goal he'd like back. Quick is just as much proof of that as anyone else. Heck, if the Kings and Rangers swapped goalies prior to the start of the 1st round of the playoffs, the Rangers probably never make it to the finals since Quick hasn't had a great postseason at all.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 01:47 PM
Honestly, if the 3rd goal is disallowed, I don't think Hank gives one up for the rest of the period. The Kings were getting 2 that night, imo.

We talking about Game 2? Yeah, I agree. That was their game to win.

Thump23
06-10-2014, 01:47 PM
And they had more mental/defensive breakdowns to lose them.

He was going to have to steal a game in this series. He hasn't done that. He's been good, not great. He hasn't sent any LA forward back to the bench shaking his head. That's the problem, he's not in their heads. Sadly, Quick is for our forwards.

Pete
06-10-2014, 01:48 PM
Breakdowns will happen, but it's about limiting the severity. If you make passes down the middle of the ice in your own zone all game because "Why the fuck not? The goalie is there!" then you'll find yourself on the bench.
Obviously, which is why I'm not saying anything about the OT goal. The Stepan T/O was ergresious as well, but the fact is, the puck deflected into the corner and the Rangers had 3 men on 2 down low, and a chip shot goes in from the goal line because Hank wasn't flush to the pipe. That's a bad goal.



No, it means that it's a play that should have never happened in the first place and there are bigger fish to fry on that play.

But it did happen, and Hank let in a bad goal.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 01:50 PM
He was going to have to steal a game in this series. He hasn't done that. He's been good, not great. He hasn't sent any LA forward back to the bench shaking his head. That's the problem, he's not in their heads. Sadly, Quick is for our forwards.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6egvt2TU1U

This was a statement save. 1-0 game, late 1st period. This is a timely save we all talk about. That shit was wired top shelf.

Ranger Lothbrok
06-10-2014, 01:51 PM
It sucks. Nobody remembers the greats that don't win it all, and I feel bad for him. I doubt if he gets another serious crack at the Cup with the salary cap and our impending high roster turnover. Whenever his name is thrown in to the debate for great NY-PHI area goaltenders, the knock on him is always that he can't win a Cup. And so far, he's proving that true. He's a HUGE reason, if not THE reason, why we got as far as we did. He's been nothing short of stellar. Absolutely stole two consecutive games to start the Montreal series, and answered a bad Game 5 with a HUGE Game 6.

But...he's coming apart at the seams when it matters most. I thought we would really be in for something special out of him. I thought, with how competitive he is, now that we were this close for the first time in 20 years, there was no way he would let a loss happen. But he's just getting plain out dueled by Quick. Our offense DID show up last night, particularly after we went down 2-0 on the scoreboard. We went buck-wild with the shots, and Quick just kept making save after save. When a goalie plays like that, there's not much you can do other than keep chipping at it and hope your own goalie keeps you in the game. Henrik, unfortunately, did not.

It's not that he gave up a bunch of easy shots. Not at all. It's that he gave up goals that Quick would've (and did) made saves on. I hope he gets a Cup before he retires. That all time wins record, shutouts record, playoff wins record, playoff shutouts record all mean shit if he can't win it all.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 01:52 PM
Obviously, which is why I'm not saying anything about the OT goal. The Stepan T/O was ergresious as well, but the fact is, the puck deflected into the corner and the Rangers had 3 men on 2 down low, and a chip shot goes in from the goal line because Hank wasn't flush to the pipe. That's a bad goal.


Okay, I don't disagree with your assessment on the play. Spot on.

I disagree with how you think it impacted/impacts the game.

Keirik
06-10-2014, 01:52 PM
He was going to have to steal a game in this series. He hasn't done that. He's been good, not great. He hasn't sent any LA forward back to the bench shaking his head. That's the problem, he's not in their heads. Sadly, Quick is for our forwards.

And he was standing on his head in game 1. Especially in the third.

If we want to talk about last night. How about how pathetic it is that the team coming into a must win at home musters 4 shots on goal and Zuccs misses a goal my cat probably could score. Fuck, maybe I'll try to find some skates for her.

Thump23
06-10-2014, 01:53 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6egvt2TU1U

This was a statement save. 1-0 game, late 1st period. This is a timely save we all talk about. That shit was wired top shelf.

I mean, no screen, no traffic in front, top of the circle and he makes a save that an NHL goalie is expected to make.

I don't mean to be down on him, I love the guy, but he's been outplayed.

Thump23
06-10-2014, 01:55 PM
And he was standing on his head in game 1. Especially in the third.

If we want to talk about last night. How about how pathetic it is that the team coming into a must win at home musters 4 shots on goal and Zuccs misses a goal my cat probably could score. Fuck, maybe I'll try to find some skates for her.

Again, no one on the team is without blame. Hank isn't the reason they're down 3-0, but he just hasn't been on Quicks level. 32-15 shots for the game last night. One guy lets in 3, the other 0. LA's had breakdowns, massive breakdowns. Richards alone in the slot, Kreider getting past two defenseman. Their goalie made the saves when they needed it.

josh
06-10-2014, 01:56 PM
Every shot seems to be tipped of deflected. That's always been the way to beat him. The players are making bad plays, not covering, getting in the way, and Henrik isn't making stops. I cant "defend" Henrik, because he's not coming up big, at all. But he's not alone in any defensive blame we are handing out. He is part of this unsuccessful story, with the rest of them.

Mike
06-10-2014, 01:57 PM
We pay Henrik Lundqvist money to keep them in the game and give the Rangers an opportunity to win. When game 1 goes into OT and game 2 goes into double OT, he's doing exactly that. I don't think anyone is making excuses for Henrik to be honest. We all know there are times EVERY goalie in the history of hockey lets in a goal he'd like back. Quick is just as much proof of that as anyone else. Heck, if the Kings and Rangers swapped goalies prior to the start of the 1st round of the playoffs, the Rangers probably never make it to the finals since Quick hasn't had a great postseason at all.
The casual fan makes excuses for Hank, because they don't know what the fuck they're watching. I don't care what they think. They're all idiots, and know nothing about the game. No one here is making excuses, or laying direct blame for all 3 losses. Game 1 bothers me. Game 2 doesn't. Winning game 1 is a series changer, obviously.

Mike
06-10-2014, 01:58 PM
Every shot seems to be tipped of deflected. That's always been the way to beat him. The players are making bad plays, not covering, getting in the way, and Henrik isn't making stops. I cant "defend" Henrik, because he's not coming up big, at all. But he's not alone in any defensive blame we are handing out. He is part of this unsuccessful story, with the rest of them.

True, but my only beef is that people think Lundqvist is the only goalie to face tips, and deflections.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 01:59 PM
True, but my only beef is that people think Lundqvist is the only goalie to face tips, and deflections.

I don't know anyone who thinks that. But I can tell you the Rangers aren't doing it enough to Quick which makes sense considering how aggressive he is, but even on the powerplay, it's been a struggle to screen him or deflect a shot in.

Thump23
06-10-2014, 02:00 PM
True, but my only beef is that people think Lundqvist is the only goalie to face tips, and deflections.

It seems that way this series though. If that Richards goal isn't a microcosm of the way this series has broke for both teams, I don't know what is.

Pete
06-10-2014, 02:01 PM
Okay, I don't disagree with your assessment on the play. Spot on.

I disagree with how you think it impacted/impacts the game.

Gotcha, and fair enough. I can't go into detail about how the next few minutes played out, but the Kings were down 2-0 at the time and it just seems like it was a bad goal giving them something to feel good about. Maybe then the Doughty goal, while going through him, doesn't loom as large, or maybe it never happens. Who knows?

Mike
06-10-2014, 02:01 PM
Okay, I don't disagree with your assessment on the play. Spot on.

I disagree with how you think it impacted/impacts the game.

But it absolutely has an impact on the game. It's as simple as 2-0 > 2-1. Then there's other factors beyond the score. See my post to you on page 2

Pete
06-10-2014, 02:03 PM
I don't know anyone who thinks that. But I can tell you the Rangers aren't doing it enough to Quick which makes sense considering how aggressive he is, but even on the powerplay, it's been a struggle to screen him or deflect a shot in.

I have a feeling that this is just going to be a bad matchup, because you need bodies in front of Quick (he had been terrible tracking pucks so far), and the Rangers play off the rush.

Mike
06-10-2014, 02:03 PM
I don't know anyone who thinks that. But I can tell you the Rangers aren't doing it enough to Quick which makes sense considering how aggressive he is, but even on the powerplay, it's been a struggle to screen him or deflect a shot in.

He plays to high to give up the same deflections that Hank does. His lateral movement is better than anyone's in the league. Get him butterfly sliding, and go upstairs.

Mike
06-10-2014, 02:04 PM
I have a feeling that this is just going to be a bad matchup, because you need bodies in front of Quick (he had been terrible tracking pucks so far), and the Rangers play off the rush.

You need bodies in front of any goalie. If a NHL goalie sees a puck from 75' he's stopping it.

Pete
06-10-2014, 02:06 PM
You need bodies in front of any goalie. If a NHL goalie sees a puck from 75' he's stopping it.

Well not all shots come from 75'. Rangers aren't good at scoring off the cycle. They need to go hard to the net off the rush, and they aren't playing well off the rush right now.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 02:06 PM
But it absolutely has an impact on the game. It's as simple as 2-0 > 2-1. Then there's other factors beyond the score. See my post to you on page 2

Yes, I recognize that. I still think there has to be an onus on the team to a) prevent the goal (which they didn't) b) respond (which they didn't).

Then there is an onus on Hank to a) prevent the goal (which he didn't) b) respond (which he did in the 3rd).

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 02:08 PM
I have a feeling that this is just going to be a bad matchup, because you need bodies in front of Quick (he had been terrible tracking pucks so far), and the Rangers play off the rush.

I thought he wasn't really anything special until last night. If that goalie shows up again, forget it. Doesn't matter.

Thump23
06-10-2014, 02:08 PM
Yes, I recognize that. I still think there has to be an onus on the team to a) prevent the goal (which they didn't) b) respond (which they didn't).

Then there is an onus on Hank to a) prevent the goal (which he didn't) b) respond (which he did in the 3rd).

They went up by 2 goals in game 1, and went up by two goals twice in game 2. At some point, he's gotta slam the door shut.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 02:13 PM
They went up by 2 goals in game 1, and went up by two goals twice in game 2. At some point, he's gotta slam the door shut.

Again, the team should help with that some by providing defense. They can score all the goals they want, but they need to be smart defensively which they certainly were not.

lefty9
06-10-2014, 02:13 PM
It sucks. Nobody remembers the greats that don't win it all, and I feel bad for him. I doubt if he gets another serious crack at the Cup with the salary cap and our impending high roster turnover. Whenever his name is thrown in to the debate for great NY-PHI area goaltenders, the knock on him is always that he can't win a Cup. And so far, he's proving that true. He's a HUGE reason, if not THE reason, why we got as far as we did. He's been nothing short of stellar. Absolutely stole two consecutive games to start the Montreal series, and answered a bad Game 5 with a HUGE Game 6.

But...he's coming apart at the seams when it matters most. I thought we would really be in for something special out of him. I thought, with how competitive he is, now that we were this close for the first time in 20 years, there was no way he would let a loss happen. But he's just getting plain out dueled by Quick. Our offense DID show up last night, particularly after we went down 2-0 on the scoreboard. We went buck-wild with the shots, and Quick just kept making save after save. When a goalie plays like that, there's not much you can do other than keep chipping at it and hope your own goalie keeps you in the game. Henrik, unfortunately, did not.

It's not that he gave up a bunch of easy shots. Not at all. It's that he gave up goals that Quick would've (and did) made saves on. I hope he gets a Cup before he retires. That all time wins record, shutouts record, playoff wins record, playoff shutouts record all mean shit if he can't win it all.what do you think of Eddie Giacoman

Mike
06-10-2014, 02:15 PM
Well not all shots come from 75'. Rangers aren't good at scoring off the cycle. They need to go hard to the net off the rush, and they aren't playing well off the rush right now.

I was talking about the bombs from the point with men in front. It's a lot easier to set up in front in that circumstance, than it is to do it on the rush.

Pete
06-10-2014, 02:17 PM
Again, the team should help with that some by providing defense. They can score all the goals they want, but they need to be smart defensively which they certainly were not.Well we don't need an $8.5 million goalie if he's only going to make routine saves. Let's get a $3 million goalie and buy some more goals, if this is the direction we're going.

There will always be breakdowns. Always. The goalie doesn't get absolved because the defense breaks down. That's why he's there.

Ba Ba Bluey
06-10-2014, 02:19 PM
Every shot seems to be tipped of deflected. That's always been the way to beat him. The players are making bad plays, not covering, getting in the way, and Henrik isn't making stops. I cant "defend" Henrik, because he's not coming up big, at all. But he's not alone in any defensive blame we are handing out. He is part of this unsuccessful story, with the rest of them.

This.

It's a collective failure, part of the reason but not the first name that should be mentioned.

Pete
06-10-2014, 02:19 PM
I was talking about the bombs from the point with men in front. It's a lot easier to set up in front in that circumstance, than it is to do it on the rush.

Yea. But it's not like Quick has to worry about it when Pouliot is getting called and the puck isn't close, but King is crashing right into Hank while shots are fired. It's kinda bullshit.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 02:22 PM
Well we don't need an $8.5 million goalie if he's only going to make routine saves. Let's get a $3 million goalie and buy some more goals, if this is the direction we're going.

There will always be breakdowns. Always. The goalie doesn't get absolved because the defense breaks down. That's why he's there.

No comment on the first part of that argument.

And I'm not absolving him of anything. I just don't feel the blame for these goals to fall squarely on his shoulders, as it seems they are.

Mike
06-10-2014, 02:22 PM
Yes, I recognize that. I still think there has to be an onus on the team to a) prevent the goal (which they didn't) b) respond (which they didn't).

Then there is an onus on Hank to a) prevent the goal (which he didn't) b) respond (which he did in the 3rd).

But they did. Even after the Stepan turnover, the puck was shot from a place where it should never go in. No, Stepan shouldn't have turned it over, but there are a million turnovers during a game. They played it exactly the way the way they should have after the turnover. If he's in the right place, he traps it in his chest, and there's a whistle. Reset. If you let one in clean from outside the dots, or on the goal line, it's your fault. What would you rather face? 60 shots from where Clifford score, or 5 shots from where William's scored?

Mike
06-10-2014, 02:23 PM
Yea. But it's not like Quick has to worry about it when Pouliot is getting called and the puck isn't close, but King is crashing right into Hank while shots are fired. It's kinda bullshit.

Well, yeah.

Pete
06-10-2014, 02:24 PM
No comment on the first part of that argument.

And I'm not absolving him of anything. I just don't feel the blame for these goals to fall squarely on his shoulders, as it seems they are.

I don't even think we need to go goal by goal. It doesn't matter. Really, as PhillyB said, the numbers speak for themselves. He has to play better. He can play better. He sets the bar high, so when he doesn't meet that bar, there's going to be a certain amount of blame.

Vodka Drunkenski
06-10-2014, 02:25 PM
No comment on the first part of that argument. And I'm not absolving him of anything. I just don't feel the blame for these goals to fall squarely on his shoulders, as it seems they are.

Being the highest paid goalie, it comes with the territory.

H-Dreamer
06-10-2014, 02:27 PM
I hope he gets a Cup before he retires. That all time wins record, shutouts record, playoff wins record, playoff shutouts record all mean shit if he can't win it all.

Which is a stupid way of seeing it in a team sport. I know it will happen, outside of Rangers-fandom that is, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Thump23
06-10-2014, 02:28 PM
Again, the team should help with that some by providing defense. They can score all the goals they want, but they need to be smart defensively which they certainly were not.

I've blamed the team. I've blamed Kreider, Zuk and Richards who all had prime scoring chances that could have evened the series in LA. Everyone takes the blame. This isn't a Hank or the team scenario, all of them have come up short in some capacity.

Hank's job was to out duel Quick, and he simply hasn't.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 02:28 PM
But they did. Even after the Stepan turnover, the puck was shot from a place where it should never go in. No, Stepan shouldn't have turned it over, but there are a million turnovers during a game. They played it exactly the way the way they should have after the turnover. If he's in the right place, he traps it in his chest, and there's a whistle. Reset. If you let one in clean from outside the dots, or on the goal line, it's your fault. What would you rather face? 60 shots from where Clifford score, or 5 shots from where William's scored?
Alright, alright. Jesus. LOL

Keirik
06-10-2014, 02:30 PM
The casual fan makes excuses for Hank, because they don't know what the fuck they're watching. I don't care what they think. They're all idiots, and know nothing about the game. No one here is making excuses, or laying direct blame for all 3 losses. Game 1 bothers me. Game 2 doesn't. Winning game 1 is a series changer, obviously.
I can agree with that. Game 1 really bothers me too, but I blame that on a guy named Stepan with his nonsense up the middle giveaway that ripped our momentum.

Mike
06-10-2014, 02:37 PM
I can agree with that. Game 1 really bothers me too, but I blame that on a guy named Stepan with his nonsense up the middle giveaway that ripped our momentum.

See my post above yours, Keith. They got the puck out of harms way. I'm not patting Stepan on the back, but it was a bad, game changing goal.

momentum
06-10-2014, 02:46 PM
I have a feeling that this is just going to be a bad matchup, because you need bodies in front of Quick (he had been terrible tracking pucks so far), and the Rangers play off the rush.

THIS IS A GREAT POINT....I keep cursing to get bodies in front of the net but it's just not how the Rangers do things most of the time and it's obviously what is needed to score on this guy. Mean while the KINGS have TWO Guys constantly in front of hank.

fletch
06-10-2014, 02:47 PM
I've been a big critic of Lundqvist. He's really changed my mind this playoff year - he's been a rock, and helped backstop this run to the Finals. I think he is capable of backstopping the NYR to a Cup.

In a hypothetical game in OT, if a goalie flubs the puck behind the net, or allows a puck from center ice to bounce in, it's a game-ender. There is no defense for a bad goal. You can't point to the 100 other saves the goalie made in the game, a bad goal is a bad goal.

Even if a defenseman has a goal and a assist, if he tries a cross-ice pass in his own zone that get intercepted and leads to a goal, it's still a bad play. Maybe the goalie bails him out and makes the save.

Goalie is the only position that often has no teammate to bail you out after a bad play. I think that's what makes it the toughest position in sport - because of the mental toughness and discipline required (in addition to the freakish athletic skills).

Not all goals are created equal. Goals scored or conceded in the first minute of a period give a shot of adrenaline, and in the final minute of a period hurt more as you have to sit during intermission. Similarly bad goals challenge the will of a team. Hockey is a game of momentum, but each shift has the ability to swing the momentum. There's no doubt the Interference goal in Game 2 created a momentum shift. But I can't blame the loss on that goal. The Rangers still had a one goal lead, and even when tied they had opportunities to win in extra time.

Lundqvist has played well enough for the Rangers to be up 2-1 in the series. But they're not, they're down 3-0. And in OT losses, it's easy to point to the losing goalie as being outdueled by the winning goalie, because the losing goalie didn't make the last save. It's the easy narrative, but often doesn't tell the whole story.

Bad goals happen. But the Rangers were still up 2 goals in both the first and second game, with the Game 2 loss more egregious to me because it was a 2 goal lead entering the third. Credit to the Kings for being better than the Rangers, but for the Rangers I know losing a 2 goal lead in the third period is a 1 in a 100 event. And everyone on the team is responsible for the 3-0 hole that they are in - which is frustrating because I'm so proud of how this team has played, particularly in the first two games. The Kings have just been better this series, so far.

But I gave this team up for dead after game 4 of the Penguins series. I'm not going to give up on this team. A win in game 4, and the momentum can shift in this series. I've waited 20 years to watch the Rangers have another chance at the Cup. And I don't think this season is going to end on Wednesday.

RangersRule2
06-10-2014, 03:02 PM
No one said that.

We are. Just because you don't agree doesn't make other people irrational.

No one said that, either.

Pete, this entire thread is about Lundquist not coming up big.

He is NOT in the Top 5 of our problems.

Did anybody hear Kreiders name last night ? Poiloot ?

Has any of our D scored except Ryan ?

How many bad goals have we allowed on turnovers ? Did you guys see the HORRIBLE chip-in last night by Nash with 10 seconds left in the 1st period ?

Am I the only one who saw Mike Keenan's rant last night ? Man was spot-on....and he said NOTHING about Lundquist.

Mike
06-10-2014, 03:02 PM
I don't even think we need to go goal by goal. It doesn't matter. Really, as PhillyB said, the numbers speak for themselves. He has to play better. He can play better. He sets the bar high, so when he doesn't meet that bar, there's going to be a certain amount of blame.

I think it should always be broken down goal by goal, or play by play. Numbers never tell the whole story. He hasn't been spectacular, but he hasn't been as bad as the numbers suggest. What's fair is fair. This goes for any player, team, sport, etc ... We're both proponents of "eyeballs". I like to see what I'm discussing other than using numbers as a base for my opinion on the subject. Don't get me wrong, I love certain stats, but they never tell the whole story.

RangersRule2
06-10-2014, 03:03 PM
I've been a big critic of Lundqvist. He's really changed my mind this playoff year - he's been a rock, and helped backstop this run to the Finals. I think he is capable of backstopping the NYR to a Cup. In a hypothetical game in OT, if a goalie flubs the puck behind the net, or allows a puck from center ice to bounce in, it's a game-ender. There is no defense for a bad goal. You can't point to the 100 other saves the goalie made in the game, a bad goal is a bad goal. Even if a defenseman has a goal and a assist, if he tries a cross-ice pass in his own zone that get intercepted and leads to a goal, it's still a bad play. Maybe the goalie bails him out and makes the save.Goalie is the only position that often has no teammate to bail you out after a bad play. I think that's what makes it the toughest position in sport - because of the mental toughness and discipline required (in addition to the freakish athletic skills).Not all goals are created equal. Goals scored or conceded in the first minute of a period give a shot of adrenaline, and in the final minute of a period hurt more as you have to sit during intermission. Similarly bad goals challenge the will of a team. Hockey is a game of momentum, but each shift has the ability to swing the momentum. There's no doubt the Interference goal in Game 2 created a momentum shift. But I can't blame the loss on that goal. The Rangers still had a one goal lead, and even when tied they had opportunities to win in extra time.Lundqvist has played well enough for the Rangers to be up 2-1 in the series. But they're not, they're down 3-0. And in OT losses, it's easy to point to the losing goalie as being outdueled by the winning goalie, because the losing goalie didn't make the last save. It's the easy narrative, but often doesn't tell the whole story.Bad goals happen. But the Rangers were still up 2 goals in both the first and second game, with the Game 2 loss more egregious to me because it was a 2 goal lead entering the third. Credit to the Kings for being better than the Rangers, but for the Rangers I know losing a 2 goal lead in the third period is a 1 in a 100 event. And everyone on the team is responsible for the 3-0 hole that they are in - which is frustrating because I'm so proud of how this team has played, particularly in the first two games. The Kings have just been better this series, so far. But I gave this team up for dead after game 4 of the Penguins series. I'm not going to give up on this team. A win in game 4, and the momentum can shift in this series. I've waited 20 years to watch the Rangers have another chance at the Cup. And I don't think this season is going to end on Wednesday.

Finally, A Voice Of Reason !!

Outstanding post.

Pete
06-10-2014, 03:04 PM
I think it should always be broken down goal by goal, or play by play. Numbers never tell the whole story. He hasn't been spectacular, but he hasn't been as bad as the numbers suggest. What's fair is fair. This goes for any player, team, sport, etc ... We're both proponents of "eyeballs". I like to see what I'm discussing other than using numbers as a base for my opinion on the subject. Don't get me wrong, I love certain stats, but they never tell the whole story.For the purpose of this discussion, they do.

RangersRule2
06-10-2014, 03:06 PM
Well we don't need an $8.5 million goalie if he's only going to make routine saves. Let's get a $3 million goalie and buy some more goals, if this is the direction we're going. There will always be breakdowns. Always. The goalie doesn't get absolved because the defense breaks down. That's why he's there.

A break-down that he has time to react is one thing.

A giveaway or deflection is virtually unstoppable because you have NO TIME to react.

Lundquist gave up 3 goals last night. 2 of them were deflections/turnover goals.

I just don't get the Lundquist-bashing here. And no, I think the contract we gave him was excessive but that's another thread.

Mike
06-10-2014, 03:07 PM
what do you think of Eddie Giacoman

I think he's not talked about as much as Richter. I think Patrick Ewing isn't talked about as much as Willis Reed, and Clyde Frazier. I think Mattingly isn't talked about as much as players before, and after him that won titles.

Pete
06-10-2014, 03:10 PM
Pete, this entire thread is about Lundquist not coming up big.He hasn't, enough.


He is NOT in the Top 5 of our problems.That's not the issue, and no one said he was.


Did anybody hear Kreiders name last night ? Poiloot ?

Has any of our D scored except Ryan ?

How many bad goals have we allowed on turnovers ? Did you guys see the HORRIBLE chip-in last night by Nash with 10 seconds left in the 1st period ?

Am I the only one who saw Mike Keenan's rant last night ? Man was spot-on....and he said NOTHING about Lundqvist.That's all fine, but this thread is about an article written about Lundqvist. Did you read the OP, or the article?

Pete
06-10-2014, 03:14 PM
A break-down that he has time to react is one thing.

A giveaway or deflection is virtually unstoppable because you have NO TIME to react.

Lundquist gave up 3 goals last night. 2 of them were deflections/turnover goals.

I just don't get the Lundquist-bashing here. And no, I think the contract we gave him was excessive but that's another thread.

So? Do other goalies not make those saves? Did Quick not make point blank saves of Zuke and Richards, at times?

AmericanJesus
06-10-2014, 03:14 PM
I get that we're in the Stanley Cup Finals now so in a way, what came before this falls by the wayside.

I just want to touch on Hank's round 1-3 play. Outstanding. We don't come back against Pittsburgh in round 2 if he doesn't shut the door. Against Montreal, we all know he had that absolute stinker, but he also had 2 or 3 lights out games in that series and was steady in the rest. He certainly highly contributed to the Rangers getting to the Stanley Cup Finals in a year where we really wouldn't have been shocked to not make the playoffs at all. It wouldn't have been surprising to get a slight upset and lose in the first round. Obviously, very little chance to beat Pittsburgh in the second round. And then again, against Montreal with home ice and in the house of Rangers Horrors for up to 4 of the 7 that was the Bell Center, not a chance would the Rangers move on to play in the Stanley Cup Finals.

But here we are, and through rounds 1-3 Hank was no doubt our Conn Smythe Candidate.

In game 1 against LA, the first goal was bad. It was from a bad angle and beat him on the short side. The Doughty goal was world class. He got hung out to dry on the OT goal, obviously.

In game 2, bad give away middle of the point, shot floats in and gets deflected right before it gets to Hank, who fights it off, but the rebound is picked up and there's a cluster fuck of scramble. Goal 2 was a PP shot from the point through a mess of traffic. We all know what happened on the third goal (fucking ref). Fourth goal, McD tries to be way too cute, then Kreider knocks the puck across to Gaborik. Double OT was a great deflection.

In game 3, needs to stop that Carter goal. It was deflected, but he got a piece. 2nd goal was a PP goal point shot deflected off MSL mid circle and with Carter all alone in front screening. Goal 3 was a 2 on 1 where the pass across gets knocked back the other way and right on Richards' stick on the forehand mid circle at full speed.

So really, I only see two bad goals. First one in game 1 and first one in game 3. And the first 1 in game 3 was still a 2 on 1 that was deflected.

So could Hank be even better? Sure. But not by much. And to say Quick has outplayed him is false. Quick outplayed him last night, but not through the series unless you just want to look at number of goals against and disregard context.

Mike
06-10-2014, 03:15 PM
For the purpose of this discussion, they do.

Why? I don't think Hank has played as bad as the numbers suggest.

Pete
06-10-2014, 03:16 PM
I get that we're in the Stanley Cup Finals now so in a way, what came before this falls by the wayside.

I just want to touch on Hank's round 1-3 play. Outstanding. We don't come back against Pittsburgh in round 2 if he doesn't shut the door. Against Montreal, we all know he had that absolute stinker, but he also had 2 or 3 lights out games in that series and was steady in the rest. He certainly highly contributed to the Rangers getting to the Stanley Cup Finals in a year where we really wouldn't have been shocked to not make the playoffs at all. It wouldn't have been surprising to get a slight upset and lose in the first round. Obviously, very little chance to beat Pittsburgh in the second round. And then again, against Montreal with home ice and in the house of Rangers Horrors for up to 4 of the 7 that was the Bell Center, not a chance would the Rangers move on to play in the Stanley Cup Finals.

But here we are, and through rounds 1-3 Hank was no doubt our Conn Smythe Candidate.

In game 1 against LA, the first goal was bad. It was from a bad angle and beat him on the short side. The Doughty goal was world class. He got hung out to dry on the OT goal, obviously.

In game 2, bad give away middle of the point, shot floats in and gets deflected right before it gets to Hank, who fights it off, but the rebound is picked up and there's a cluster fuck of scramble. Goal 2 was a PP shot from the point through a mess of traffic. We all know what happened on the third goal (fucking ref). Fourth goal, McD tries to be way too cute, then Kreider knocks the puck across to Gaborik. Double OT was a great deflection.

In game 3, needs to stop that Carter goal. It was deflected, but he got a piece. 2nd goal was a PP goal point shot deflected of MSL mid circle and with Carter all alone in front screening. Goal 3 was a 2 on 1 where the pass across gets knocked back the other way and right on Richards' stick on the forehand mid circle at full speed.

So really, I only see two bad goals. First one in game 1 and first one in game 3. And the first 1 in game 3 was still a 2 on 1 that was deflected.

So could Hank be even better? Sure. But not by much. And to say Quick has outplayed him is false. Quick outplayed him last night, but not through the series unless you just want to look at number of goals against and disregard context.
The Doughty goal wasn't world class. The move was, but the puck went through Hank. Should have been stopped.

AmericanJesus
06-10-2014, 03:22 PM
The Doughty goal wasn't world class. The move was, but the puck went through Hank. Should have been stopped.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrM0IyGW3D0

Bottom of the circle. If you want to complain that Hank should have challenged more, then OK, but that's just not the way he plays goals. His style helps on some plays, hurts on others, but ultimately, end of the day, it helps him put up consistently top of the league numbers. Doughty is a world class player. He made a world class move to be all alone at the bottom of the circle and I'll venture to guess he can look up, pick a spot to shoot where he sees a hole, and execute. Hank got a piece, but obviously not enough. In no place in the world is that a bad goal. It is a stoppable goal, as are most, but not bad.

Pete
06-10-2014, 03:25 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrM0IyGW3D0

Bottom of the circle. If you want to complain that Hank should have challenged more, then OK, but that's just not the way he plays goals. His style helps on some plays, hurts on others, but ultimately, end of the day, it helps him put up consistently top of the league numbers. Doughty is a world class player. He made a world class move to be all alone at the bottom of the circle and I'll venture to guess he can look up, pick a spot to shoot where he sees a hole, and execute. Hank got a piece, but obviously not enough. In no place in the world is that a bad goal. It is a stoppable goal, as are most, but not bad.

I know how the goal happened, Dave. I watched the game. Under the arm, short side, is a bad goal.

AmericanJesus
06-10-2014, 03:27 PM
I know how the goal happened, Dave. I watched the game. Under the arm, short side, is a bad goal.

If he tightened everything up and Doughty made a quick little back hand play into the open net would that have been a bad goal? Sometimes I think you give the best shooters in the world too little credit.

H-Dreamer
06-10-2014, 03:27 PM
He hasn't, enough.

That's not the issue, and no one said he was.

That's all fine, but this thread is about an article written about Lundqvist. Did you read the OP, or the article?

Do we really need a discussion for every article that's written though?
I get that this is board is meant for debates and people to have them, but this particular debate has been done more than once, this season alone.
Why not post this article in one of the old Henrik threads, so people know immediately it's the same debate again?

Again, I know there is a love for this debate, but in my opinion it's a horse that has been beaten to death and will get hit again come October.

Not making any excuses and I doubt anyone does, as I said before. The team has to play better as a whole and that starts with Henrik, but doesn't end with him.

RangersRule2
06-10-2014, 03:28 PM
That's all fine, but this thread is about an article written about Lundqvist. Did you read the OP, or the article?

Both...and the article is very sketchy and doesn't go into details. I'm not even sure the guy is a regular hockey writer (is he ?) because he doesn't seem to have a very good in-depth knowledge of hockey or goaltending.

This is eerily similar to the "What's wrong with John Davidson" stuff we heard back in the 1979 Finals against Montreal.

momentum
06-10-2014, 03:28 PM
I've been a big critic of Lundqvist. He's really changed my mind this playoff year - he's been a rock, and helped backstop this run to the Finals. I think he is capable of backstopping the NYR to a Cup.

In a hypothetical game in OT, if a goalie flubs the puck behind the net, or allows a puck from center ice to bounce in, it's a game-ender. There is no defense for a bad goal. You can't point to the 100 other saves the goalie made in the game, a bad goal is a bad goal.

Even if a defenseman has a goal and a assist, if he tries a cross-ice pass in his own zone that get intercepted and leads to a goal, it's still a bad play. Maybe the goalie bails him out and makes the save.

Goalie is the only position that often has no teammate to bail you out after a bad play. I think that's what makes it the toughest position in sport - because of the mental toughness and discipline required (in addition to the freakish athletic skills).

Not all goals are created equal. Goals scored or conceded in the first minute of a period give a shot of adrenaline, and in the final minute of a period hurt more as you have to sit during intermission. Similarly bad goals challenge the will of a team. Hockey is a game of momentum, but each shift has the ability to swing the momentum. There's no doubt the Interference goal in Game 2 created a momentum shift. But I can't blame the loss on that goal. The Rangers still had a one goal lead, and even when tied they had opportunities to win in extra time.

Lundqvist has played well enough for the Rangers to be up 2-1 in the series. But they're not, they're down 3-0. And in OT losses, it's easy to point to the losing goalie as being outdueled by the winning goalie, because the losing goalie didn't make the last save. It's the easy narrative, but often doesn't tell the whole story.

Bad goals happen. But the Rangers were still up 2 goals in both the first and second game, with the Game 2 loss more egregious to me because it was a 2 goal lead entering the third. Credit to the Kings for being better than the Rangers, but for the Rangers I know losing a 2 goal lead in the third period is a 1 in a 100 event. And everyone on the team is responsible for the 3-0 hole that they are in - which is frustrating because I'm so proud of how this team has played, particularly in the first two games. The Kings have just been better this series, so far.

But I gave this team up for dead after game 4 of the Penguins series. I'm not going to give up on this team. A win in game 4, and the momentum can shift in this series. I've waited 20 years to watch the Rangers have another chance at the Cup. And I don't think this season is going to end on Wednesday.

:repped:

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 03:30 PM
I forget who said it, but I read that players now are shooting for that spot between the arm nowadays. I think it was Jeff Marek. It's the new 7 hole.

Then again, Justin Bourne saw it as a chance shot: http://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/514830

Mike
06-10-2014, 03:31 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrM0IyGW3D0

Bottom of the circle. If you want to complain that Hank should have challenged more, then OK, but that's just not the way he plays goals. His style helps on some plays, hurts on others, but ultimately, end of the day, it helps him put up consistently top of the league numbers. Doughty is a world class player. He made a world class move to be all alone at the bottom of the circle and I'll venture to guess he can look up, pick a spot to shoot where he sees a hole, and execute. Hank got a piece, but obviously not enough. In no place in the world is that a bad goal. It is a stoppable goal, as are most, but not bad.
Dave, it's a bad goal. So was the 1st one in game 2. Very unHanklike.

Pete
06-10-2014, 03:31 PM
Both...and the article is very sketchy and doesn't go into details. I'm not even sure the guy is a regular hockey writer (is he ?) because he doesn't seem to have a very good in-depth knowledge of hockey or goaltending.

This is eerily similar to the "What's wrong with John Davidson" stuff we heard back in the 1979 Finals against Montreal.

I think you need to realize it's not 1979 anymore.

The article was written by a staff SI Hockey writer who's been covering hockey for quite some time.

Just because you don't agree with him doesn't make his opinion wrong, or make him misinformed, or nuts, or anything else.

Pete
06-10-2014, 03:32 PM
Do we really need a discussion for every article that's written though?
I get that this is board is meant for debates and people to have them, but this particular debate has been done more than once, this season alone.
Why not post this article in one of the old Henrik threads, so people know immediately it's the same debate again?

Again, I know there is a love for this debate, but in my opinion it's a horse that has been beaten to death and will get hit again come October.

Not making any excuses and I doubt anyone does, as I said before. The team has to play better as a whole and that starts with Henrik, but doesn't end with him.

No one forces anyone else to click the link.

RangersRule2
06-10-2014, 03:34 PM
I think you need to realize it's not 1979 anymore.

My statement was referencing the same stuff I heard back then about a goalie suddenly getting blame.


The article was written by a staff SI Hockey writer who's been covering hockey for quite some time.

Well, the article wasn't giving specifics. I found it lacking.


Just because you don't agree with him doesn't make his opinion wrong, or make him misinformed, or nuts, or anything else.

I agree....but his thesis -- that people are making excuses for Lundquist -- is not true. People are pointing out facts regarding most of the goals coming from deflections or turnovers. Does that mean that Lundquist could NOT make the saves ? Of course not....but saying I don't think Hank is the biggest problem or #2 or #3 or #4 doesn't mean I am making excuses.

I'm not.

He's played good enough for us to be up 2-1, or at worst, down 2-1.

AmericanJesus
06-10-2014, 03:36 PM
Dave, it's a bad goal. So was the 1st one in game 2. Very unHanklike.

It's only a bad goal if you think that a goal is either unstoppable or it's bad. To me, there are different degrees of quality chances and it all stems from where the shooter is on the ice, whether he's defended, where other players are and who the shooter is. So the first goal short side by a plug who hadn't scored in months? Bad goal. Doughty scores from the bottom of the circle where he doesn't have a player on him? Not bad.

The first goal in game 2? Point shot deflected right in front by Williams left all alone. Hank fights it off, but it goes right to Williams in front. Hank scrambles because the puck can come back on net at any time, pass to Stoll who fires it on net and Hank still got a piece, just not enough. How's that bad?

RangersRule2
06-10-2014, 03:42 PM
Dave, it's a bad goal. So was the 1st one in game 2. Very unHanklike.

Did you see the Richards turnover before this ? The shot NEVER should have happened !!!

Mike
06-10-2014, 03:44 PM
I forget who said it, but I read that players now are shooting for that spot between the arm nowadays. I think it was Jeff Marek. It's the new 7 hole.

Then again, Justin Bourne saw it as a chance shot: http://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/514830

Depending on the goalie's stance, locking up is harder for some than others. Quick is low, he's basically locked up already. Hank plays bigger, and it could take a second longer to lock up. Also, from that picture in the article you posted, it looks like he was fooled, and didn't lock up correctly. It's tough for me to tell because I need to see Hank's stick, but Doughty is blocking the view. Good shot, stoppable though.

Vodka Drunkenski
06-10-2014, 03:45 PM
Did you see the Richards turnover before this ? The shot NEVER should have happened !!!

That doesn't absolve Hank. He's paid to stop pucks and is paid nicely.

fletch
06-10-2014, 03:46 PM
On the slim chance the Kings are able to close out the Rangers.... the easy narrative for the general hockey writer would be to describe Quick as the current best big-game goalie, because he would have 2 Stanley Cup wins. As others have pointed out, Quick has been ordinary for stretches of the Kings' playoff run, and I would say that he has been better in other years. A goalie may be like the closer in baseball - gets too much credit for the wins, and too much blame for the blown saves and losses.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 03:48 PM
Depending on the goalie's stance, locking up is harder for some than others. Quick is low, he's basically locked up already. Hank plays bigger, and it could take a second longer to lock up. Also, from that picture in the article you posted, it looks like he was fooled, and didn't lock up correctly. It's tough for me to tell because I need to see Hank's stick, but Doughty is blocking the view. Good shot, stoppable though.

Of course it was stoppable. It hit him.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 03:48 PM
On the slim chance the Kings are able to close out the Rangers.... the easy narrative for the general hockey writer would be to describe Quick as the current best big-game goalie, because he would have 2 Stanley Cup wins. As others have pointed out, Quick has been ordinary for stretches of the Kings' playoff run, and I would say that he has been better in other years. A goalie may be like the closer in baseball - gets too much credit for the wins, and too much blame for the blown saves and losses.
Except a goalie plays the whole game.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 03:49 PM
That doesn't absolve Hank. He's paid to stop pucks and is paid nicely.

It doesn't preclude him from letting goals in.

Mike
06-10-2014, 03:49 PM
It's only a bad goal if you think that a goal is either unstoppable or it's bad. To me, there are different degrees of quality chances and it all stems from where the shooter is on the ice, whether he's defended, where other players are and who the shooter is. So the first goal short side by a plug who hadn't scored in months? Bad goal. Doughty scores from the bottom of the circle where he doesn't have a player on him? Not bad.

The first goal in game 2? Point shot deflected right in front by Williams left all alone. Hank fights it off, but it goes right to Williams in front. Hank scrambles because the puck can come back on net at any time, pass to Stoll who fires it on net and Hank still got a piece, just not enough. How's that bad?
It's not as bad as the first one, but it went through him with no deflections, unlike the Brown OT goal.

Can you post that one again, please? I may have seen it differently.

fletch
06-10-2014, 03:51 PM
Except a goalie plays the whole game.

You're right, it's not a perfect analogy. But when a closer blows a save, no one talks about the strikeouts, or the devastating curveball. They talk about the fastball that got left over the heart of the plate that got hit for the game-winning home run.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 03:53 PM
It's not as bad as the first one, but it went through him with no deflections, unlike the Brown OT goal.

Can you post that one again, please? I may have seen it differently.

Play starts at 1:12. Couldn't find a better quality version of all the angles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMAU6xp6_4s

Mike
06-10-2014, 03:57 PM
Did you see the Richards turnover before this ? The shot NEVER should have happened !!!

Did you see the tie Sutter was wearing that night?

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 03:57 PM
You're right, it's not a perfect analogy. But when a closer blows a save, no one talks about the strikeouts, or the devastating curveball. They talk about the fastball that got left over the heart of the plate that got hit for the game-winning home run.

I get what you're saying, but I really don't think it translates. They're two completely different games, situations, and positions.

Mike
06-10-2014, 04:02 PM
Play starts at 1:12. Couldn't find a better quality version of all the angles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMAU6xp6_4s

lol, I don't know what to make of that, honestly. Fish out of water on the rebound. What's with the ass slide using his stick as an oar? Why didn't he get up? More bad luck, bounces, games in hand, whatever .. it wasn't pretty on all accounts.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 04:06 PM
lol, I don't know what to make of that, honestly. Fish out of water on the rebound. What's with the ass slide using his stick as an oar? Why didn't he get up? More bad luck, bounces, games in hand, whatever .. it wasn't pretty on all accounts.

It looks like Hank scrambled because it seemed as if Williams was going to bat down the puck and/or shoot backhand. Instead, it skipped over his stick, and he curled around for a pass to Stoll.

Mike
06-10-2014, 04:09 PM
It looks like Hank scrambled because it seemed as if Williams was going to bat down the puck and/or shoot backhand. Instead, it skipped over his stick, and he curled around for a pass to Stoll.

In 9 years I don't think I've ever seen Lundqvist end up in the face off circle after a goal.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 04:12 PM
In 9 years I don't think I've ever seen Lundqvist end up in the face off circle after a goal.

I mean, you can see it the way you want... I don't think it was all that bad. Sloppy play, deflected puck leads to uncontrolled rebound, leads to scrambling Hank.

jrc64
06-10-2014, 04:16 PM
Can't say I disagree. Hank has been average to below average in this series. People will point to his 20 stop 3rd period in game #1 as being a huge game, but forgive me if I'm wrong, but I really dont remember any real show-stopper saves on those 20 shots. Pretty ordinary shots for the most part from what I recall. So, I really can't say he's has played well at all in the finals. Quite frankley, that is probably the difference right now. In game #2, I will say 3 of the 5 goals were not his fault. However, that means 2 were! Stop one of those 2, and perhaps we have a different series going on. Granted, last night we did not score. However, you can't let that goal in with .8 seconds to go! You can't! That shot deflected off a defender at least 15 feet in front of him. There is time to adjust. It's not like a deflection 2 feet in fornt of him that leaves little reaction time. 15 feet out should be ample time to make an adjustment to the puck. That needed to be stopped. Quick stopped the ones that needed to be stopped all series, Hank has not. Honestly, is it just possible he's overwhelmed by the stage of being in the stanley cup finals and he's cracking under the pressure a little bit? I for one, think it's quite possible and probable. He will learn from this as will all of the young guys.

jrc64
06-10-2014, 04:26 PM
Play started with crappy defensive give away, and went downhill from there. This is in response to the video clip above.

RangersRule2
06-10-2014, 04:39 PM
Play started with crappy defensive give away, and went downhill from there. This is in response to the video clip above.

No.....play started with an INEXCUSABLE HORRENDOUS giveaway which never got past the Blue Line.

Horrible....

Thump23
06-10-2014, 04:42 PM
I mean, you can see it the way you want... I don't think it was all that bad. Sloppy play, deflected puck leads to uncontrolled rebound, leads to scrambling Hank.

Which Klein swats out of the net, if Lundqvist doesn't deflect it. He's getting beat of his own deflections. Crazy.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 04:45 PM
Which Klein swats out of the net, if Lundqvist doesn't deflect it. He's getting beat of his own deflections. Crazy.

"Whatsa mattah Klein. Never stopped a deflected puck befaw?!"

Mike
06-10-2014, 04:52 PM
Can't say I disagree. Hank has been average to below average in this series. People will point to his 20 stop 3rd period in game #1 as being a huge game, but forgive me if I'm wrong, but I really dont remember any real show-stopper saves on those 20 shots. Pretty ordinary shots for the most part from what I recall. So, I really can't say he's has played well at all in the finals. Quite frankley, that is probably the difference right now. In game #2, I will say 3 of the 5 goals were not his fault. However, that means 2 were! Stop one of those 2, and perhaps we have a different series going on. Granted, last night we did not score. However, you can't let that goal in with .8 seconds to go! You can't! That shot deflected off a defender at least 15 feet in front of him. There is time to adjust. It's not like a deflection 2 feet in fornt of him that leaves little reaction time. 15 feet out should be ample time to make an adjustment to the puck. That needed to be stopped. Quick stopped the ones that needed to be stopped all series, Hank has not. Honestly, is it just possible he's overwhelmed by the stage of being in the stanley cup finals and he's cracking under the pressure a little bit? I for one, think it's quite possible and probable. He will learn from this as will all of the young guys.

He made quite a few big saves in the 3rd period of game 1.

Valriera
06-10-2014, 05:06 PM
I've been saying this since the Canadiens series, and it's more true now. Lundqvist is the Rangers' best player. He's the second best goalie in this series, now by far due to Quick's magnificence last night, and we have no chance of winning if that's the case. I'm not saying he's been bad: he hasn't been bad. In fact, I think he's stopped every goal he should have stopped. But this is the biggest stage, at the prime of his career, in the furthest he's ever gone in his career, and he's second best by a country mile. I love Henrik Lundqvist, and this wouldn't be an issue if he wasn't the team's best player. But he is, and the team can't win unless he's the best goalie in the series. The difference between Lundqvist and the rest of the players we scrutinize? Lundqvist is the team's franchise player, and he's not going anywhere.

Mike
06-10-2014, 05:09 PM
I've been saying this since the Canadiens series, and it's more true now. Lundqvist is the Rangers' best player. He's the second best goalie in this series, now by far due to Quick's magnificence last night, and we have no chance of winning if that's the case. I'm not saying he's been bad: he hasn't been bad. In fact, I think he's stopped every goal he should have stopped. But this is the biggest stage, at the prime of his career, in the furthest he's ever gone in his career, and he's second best by a country mile. I love Henrik Lundqvist, and this wouldn't be an issue if he wasn't the team's best player. But he is, and the team can't win unless he's the best goalie in the series. The difference between Lundqvist and the rest of the players we scrutinize? Lundqvist is the team's franchise player, and he's not going anywhere.

I'm either reading this wrong, or I'm really fucked up.

The best goalie usually wins every series. That's not always true, but most of the time that's the case.

Valriera
06-10-2014, 05:44 PM
I'm either reading this wrong, or I'm really fucked up.

The best goalie usually wins every series. That's not always true, but most of the time that's the case.

Sorry pronoun stuff: by him I meant Lundqvist, not Quick.

Mike
06-10-2014, 05:55 PM
Sorry pronoun stuff: by him I meant Lundqvist, not Quick.

No, I knew who you meant, I don't understand what you meant.

Valriera
06-10-2014, 06:05 PM
No, I knew who you meant, I don't understand what you meant.

Oh, sorry. I mean I think he hasn't let in a bad goal yet this series, and that still isn't good enough to be better than Quick.

momentum
06-10-2014, 06:11 PM
Goaltending is not an issue with this team, we have among the best goaltending in the league. I don't understand why people just because we're losing wants to fabricate problems with the team out of thin air and make it seems there is problems when there isn't. Maybe it makes them feel better about the team losing to have a scapegoat, a high paid player then can throw under the bus and blame? Must be something like that.
Our team has gone further than 99 % of us ever imagined, they have come through time and time again when the odds were against them and people though all was lost. They have proven the naysayers wrong over and over again.
Now they went all the way to the final and despite leading the 2 first game of the series and not being outplayed BY ANY STANDARDS they happen to lose 2 games in overtime and it takes a huge toll mentally on the team which is to expect. They get down on themselves and they lose the 3rd game as well.
Now because of this we have to shit and point out how much our players suck? How bad Hank is who was a conn smythe candidate coming into this series 3 games ago. Seriously people I just done understand it sometimes.
Shit happens is what you can say about these games....Rangers haven't been outplayed...this isn't like our team going up against the Bruins in the playoffs under torts and just meeting a wall where we had no chance....this isn't a case of us just not being good enough...no this about small little bounces and bad luck that has determined this series so far...under no stretch have the Kings really dominated us besides the 3rd period in game 1. I don't care what the results are of the game, if you have WATCHED the games and you're honest with yourself you will know that this series could have been lead by the Rangers right now, if anything we have dominated them MORE than they have dominated us.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE luck to win the cup...there is no ifs and buts about it.....call it excuses whatever you want...This rangers team is CLEARLY not outmatched by the Kings...
I don't see the point in sitting and badmouth our own players just because they had bad luck and is down in the biggest series of their life. Yeah it fucking blows and sucks and im pissed but im also grounded in reality and I see what I see with my own eyes and that is a team that has been very even matched with this Kings team but had a lot of bad breaks that has lead to them being down in the series.
So now Hank sucks...and Girardi sucks and Nash suck (he does) and Richards sucks and everyone almost sucks....it's just he same old over and over again. Then they are awesome if they win a few games....god...where are people's common sense and ability to see further than their own noses and ability to remember more than one game back.
So hank is having a series he's not standing on his head....so what....does it make him bad? No...it makes him human...he has been awesome A LOT of series as well....just like Quick another elite goalie he's awesome at times and less awesome at times...just like Quick sometimes he lets in 4 goals several games in a row...doesn't make Hank bad and it doesn't make Quick bad....they are both awesome goalies so why sit and try to fabricate shit up that one of them isn't so good or has some kind of pattern of being bad when it's just not true. I bet all players have down games...I bet there are times when even Doughty has an off game or even 3 games in a row with mediocre play...well guess what...it doesn't make him a sucky dman either......ppl needs to get a grip tbh.
No player is AWESOME FANTSTIC ALL THE TIME. Great players are overall great, just like Hank is most of the time a great goalie.

Morphinity
06-10-2014, 06:14 PM
Glen Healy had a good quote on MvsW today:

"At some point, you've gotta not be Eddie Giacomin. You gotta be Mike Richter... and you gotta finish the deal."

I like it. I subscribe to that. But, let's not forget, Mike Richter let in bad goals too. Heartbreakers.

Pete
06-10-2014, 06:18 PM
Goaltending is not an issue with this team, we have among the best goaltending in the league. I don't understand why people just because we're losing wants to fabricate problems with the team out of thin air and make it seems there is problems when there isn't. Maybe it makes them feel better about the team losing to have a scapegoat, a high paid player then can throw under the bus and blame? Must be something like that.
Our team has gone further than 99 % of us ever imagined, they have come through time and time again when the odds were against them and people though all was lost. They have proven the naysayers wrong over and over again.
Now they went all the way to the final and despite leading the 2 first game of the series and not being outplayed BY ANY STANDARDS they happen to lose 2 games in overtime and it takes a huge toll mentally on the team which is to expect. They get down on themselves and they lose the 3rd game as well.
Now because of this we have to shit and point out how much our players suck? How bad Hank is who was a conn smythe candidate coming into this series 3 games ago. Seriously people I just done understand it sometimes.
Shit happens is what you can say about these games....Rangers haven't been outplayed...this isn't like our team going up against the Bruins in the playoffs under torts and just meeting a wall where we had no chance....this isn't a case of us just not being good enough...no this about small little bounces and bad luck that has determined this series so far...under no stretch have the Kings really dominated us besides the 3rd period in game 1. I don't care what the results are of the game, if you have WATCHED the games and you're honest with yourself you will know that this series could have been lead by the Rangers right now, if anything we have dominated them MORE than they have dominated us.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE luck to win the cup...there is no ifs and buts about it.....call it excuses whatever you want...This rangers team is CLEARLY not outmatched by the Kings...
I don't see the point in sitting and badmouth our own players just because they had bad luck and is down in the biggest series of their life. Yeah it fucking blows and sucks and im pissed but im also grounded in reality and I see what I see with my own eyes and that is a team that has been very even matched with this Kings team but had a lot of bad breaks that has lead to them being down in the series.
So now Hank sucks...and Girardi sucks and Nash suck (he does) and Richards sucks and everyone almost sucks....it's just he same old over and over again. Then they are awesome if they win a few games....god...where are people's common sense and ability to see further than their own noses and ability to remember more than one game back.
So hank is having a series he's not standing on his head....so what....does it make him bad? No...it makes him human...he has been awesome A LOT of series as well....just like Quick another elite goalie he's awesome at times and less awesome at times...just like Quick sometimes he lets in 4 goals several games in a row...doesn't make Hank bad and it doesn't make Quick bad....they are both awesome goalies so why sit and try to fabricate shit up that one of them isn't so good or has some kind of pattern of being bad when it's just not true. I bet all players have down games...I bet there are times when even Doughty has an off game or even 3 games in a row with mediocre play...well guess what...it doesn't make him a sucky dman either......ppl needs to get a grip tbh.
No player is AWESOME FANTSTIC ALL THE TIME. Great players are overall great, just like Hank is most of the time a great goalie.

Or maybe the guy who wrote the article thinks Hank can play better, and maybe he has a point?

Goaltending was our biggest edge coming in, besides speed. We haven't had the edge there so far.

momentum
06-10-2014, 06:18 PM
Glen Healy had a good quote on MvsW today:

"At some point, you've gotta not be Eddie Giacomin. You gotta be Mike Richter... and you gotta finish the deal."

I like it. I subscribe to that. But, let's not forget, Mike Richter let in bad goals too. Heartbreakers.

That is such a lame quote considering its a team sport....I bet Giacomin or Hank would have won the cup just as Richter did, he had a fantastic stacked team in front of him. and they had bounces going their way. Good for him and good for that team. But to sit and say that Giacomin or Hank is lesser just because they don't get bounces or don't have as strong team in front of them is a joke. Funny coming from Glenn Healy a fucking fail back up goalie....hope he enjoys that cup ring he has...guess he's a better goalie than Giacomin or Richter since he has it.....asshole....Ray Borque sucked all those years in Boston too...what a crappy defender...until he miraculously got on a cup contender and won the cup.....only that year was he a good clutch dman I guess.....the other 20 years he sucked.

momentum
06-10-2014, 06:19 PM
Or maybe the guy who wrote the article thinks Hank can play better, and maybe he has a point?

Sure he can and so can the team....but guess what...shit happens...the bounced doesn't go your way or it just isn't meant to be.....doesn't mean the players in question are sucky or has some kind of thing wrong with them or a limitation of some kind. Only one team can win the cup...If we come back and win this series does it mean that Quick sucks and the players on the Kings aren't good? No...I would just be fucking bad luck for them...

Goaltending is not a problem with our team

If anything Hank and players like Hags and Poliout and Brassard and Zucc and Boyle and Moore etc should get so much fucking praise for taking this team this far....Our topline is basically invisible with Nash our topscorer invisible and Stepan with a broken jaw...Kreider is hit and miss invisible one game and noticeable the next....Richards our big money center is a 3rd lien checker at this point.

Hank, the Zucc line and our 4th line has taken this team this far....that's the truth. If anyone should get questioned it's Nash, Richards, Stepan even....our supposed top players all suck, thank god for that Boyle line and Zucc and hags and Hank...without them we'd be finished long time ago. Wonder how many teams could have gone this far with their top 3-4 skaters all blowing chunks. its a fucking miracle tbh.

Pete
06-10-2014, 06:23 PM
Sure he can and so can the team....but guess what...shit happens...the bounced doesn't go your way or it just isn't meant to be.....doesn't mean the players in question are sucky or has some kind of thing wrong with them or a limitation of some kind. Only one team can win the cup...

Well the article didn't suggest anyone sucks, and it's about Hank, I don't understand why bringing up the team matters. It doesn't, IMO. The article is about Hank not having the excuse of not having goal support and having to bail out the team. That's not the case this playoff. He needs to get it done.

RangersRule2
06-10-2014, 06:26 PM
That is such a lame quote considering its a team sport....I bet Giacomin or Hank would have won the cup just as Richter did, he had a fantastic stacked team in front of him. and they had bounces going their way. Good for him and good for that team. But to sit and say that Giacomin or Hank is lesser just because they don't get bounces or don't have as strong team in front of them is a joke. Funny coming from Glenn Healy a fucking fail back up goalie....hope he enjoys that cup ring he has...guess he's a better goalie than Giacomin or Richter since he has it.....asshole....Ray Borque sucked all those years in Boston too...what a crappy defender...until he miraculously got on a cup contender and won the cup.....only that year was he a good clutch dman I guess.....the other 20 years he sucked.

Giacomin would have won in '72 if Ratelle didn't break his ankle. That team would have beaten the Bruins in 5.

momentum
06-10-2014, 06:30 PM
Well the article didn't suggest anyone sucks, and it's about Hank, I don't understand why bringing up the team matters. It doesn't, IMO. The article is about Hank not having the excuse of not having goal support and having to bail out the team. That's not the case this playoff. He needs to get it done.

lol...still.....some ppl just doesn't comprehend its a team game....they all win together and lose together...its not one players fault. All you can do is try to build the strongest team possible by getting the best possible player at each position. Hank is one of the best goalies in the world...check.....fourth line...check....depth scoring zuck line...check.....topscoring unit?? where....what?...yeah..doesn't exist...there is your problem right there...fix that with a REAL topline center and a REAL topline sniper and maybe hank would have "gotten it done"

momentum
06-10-2014, 06:31 PM
Giacomin would have won in '72 if Ratelle didn't break his ankle. That team would have beaten the Bruins in 5.

Yeah..tell that to Glenn asshole Healy who can sit and suck on his ring and badmouth goalies like Giacomin and Hank who are ten times better than he ever was.

Pete
06-10-2014, 06:32 PM
lol...still.....some ppl just doesn't comprehend its a team game....they all win together and lose together...its not one players fault. All you can do is try to build the strongest team possible by getting the best possible player at each position. Hank is one of the best goalies in the world...check.....fourth line...check....depth scoring zuck line...check.....topscoring unit?? where....what?...yeah..doesn't exist...there is your problem right there...fix that with a REAL topline center and a REAL topline sniper and maybe hank would have "gotten it done"

I've asked you repeatedly to cut out the "lol" crap. It's dismissive and disrespectful. Debate like a mature adult, or not at all.

Thank you.

It's a team game, but players are also judged individually. I don't know why that's hard to comprehend for you. The "it's a team game" it's an excuse people use when trying to protect certain players. This isn't football where you're saying the QB beat this team or the other QB...when there's a whole other team paying defense that the QB never even sees.

Vodka Drunkenski
06-10-2014, 06:52 PM
Quick has outplayed Hank in this series. That's not saying Hank been bad but he's been outplayed. With that said, what the team does infront of him doesn't absolve a soft goal he may let in. He's paid to be a world class goalie, that's what is expected, especially this time of year. Just like Nash is paid to score goals. Yes, he's doing all the other little things but score a goal, that's the main reason you were brought here.

Rangers
06-10-2014, 08:22 PM
The issues is not just with Hank, the issue is with the whole team.
When Hank is on his game, our D makes crucial mistakes, when our D and Hank is on their game, our offense is not there, no one to score a timly goal, when our offense is on, Hank lets in a bad one.

This is a team sport, need to play it as a team! Every one should be on the same page! Offense needs to score, D has their own job, so does the goalie. That how you win cups!

Thump23
06-10-2014, 08:49 PM
The goaltending problem is that Lindqvist (as great as he's been) has yet to outplay Quick. And that's a big problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cousin
06-10-2014, 09:13 PM
Henrik has not been good but he's been good enough to win. So many blown chances to score.

Valriera
06-10-2014, 10:50 PM
The goaltending problem is that Lundqvist (as great as he's been) has yet to outplay Quick. And that's a big problem.


This is it right here. This is all there is. Lundqvist has been great. He hasn't been better than Quick.

Respecttheblue
06-10-2014, 11:27 PM
Lundqvist made game-changing stops in the 3rd period of game 3. 20 shots on goal. All saved. His own team mustered 3 shots.

Lundqvist was very solid throughout game 2 and then everything fell apart after the goaltender interference.

Game 3. Yeah.

The difference is that the Kings take those game-changing saves by Quick and actually change the game. The Rangers get huge saves by Lundqvist, and then squander opportunities.

Repped.

And I ditto the above. I was not for the resigning of Henrik at the price and length Sather paid, especially with talbot in hand, but I don't think it's fair to take out frustrations caused by the team's collective scoring goose eggs (that's blanks, 000s to those who don't know what goose eggs are) and the very specific goal-scoring underperforming of Nash, Richards and St. MSL here, and Zucc's bad luck that the goalie he was facing would have made Dominic Hasek blush thinking he was looking at goalie porn.

Quick was fucking ridiculous last night. The rest of the time him and Hank have been A1 and A2 — the best in the world and the very close second best in the world. Hank just made some ridiculous saves but not on the stuff only quick might have stopped. "Coming up short" is a harsh judgment depending on how you interpret it — in this case, given the context of laying blame and brushing aside "excuses", it's a slap in the face. There are excuses for bad work, and there's "shit happened." In this case I think it's more of a case of shit happened than shoddy workmanship.

We've known Hank is not immortal for a long time. But he's been so damn good and we know he gives us a chance to win games, quarter finals and conference finals. Not his freaking fault if the rest of the team can't even put up one miserable goal. But I won't even kill them for last night. Because last night was the Jonathan Quicksand show, and it swallowed up every puck like a kid with a giant net chasing butterflies high on nectar. For Quick the puck was as big as a hanging softball to Edwin Encarnacion.

IMO. The vast majority of the goals against were unsavable. As an ex (soccer) goalie I'm calling BS on this Muir wanker when it comes to saving last-second deflections.

I'll concede one goal: maybe the middle goal of last night's three might have been savable by a younger, Quicker goalie on a career-best night.

The rest of the time he's matched this newer, younger, better, quicker goalie god in L.A. goal for goal, except overtime. And both those OT goals were none of Hanks doing.

Hank has sailed right into the goaltending perfect storm, ridiculous team, ridiculous goalie having a ridiculous night last night. where Hank's teammates had no answer and no magic.

But at least Hank had some magic saves in him, or it might have been a downright embarrassing 5-0 defeat. Instead, he let in only those goals no other goalies — except Quicklast night — might be expected to stop, giving his team a chance to score, a chance to win ... if they could find a way to stuff a puck through a wall with no holes in the mortar between the bricks.

No one saves the Doughty goal, no one saves the Clifford goal, the Dwight King interference goal, the Brown OT goal, the Williams OT goal was sick, the list goes on ... just like Quick —*or anyone — doesn't stop the Pouliot goal.


This is not about someone being deficient; this is about another goaltender being ungodly, all-world, peak/peak, just that Hasek-bit better right now. Let's see if Quick is this good when he's 31 — because we have a 31 yr old goalie whose peak/peak might just not be quite as high as Quick's present peak peak.

I have no problem saying Quick has been an ungodly goalie this series and better than Hank by a mere sliver, a mere nanosecond.(and there's a great article in the NY Times on that (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/sports/hockey/rangers-create-bounces-la-kings-jonathan-quick-swats-them-away.html?_r=0) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/sports/hockey/rangers-create-bounces-la-kings-jonathan-quick-swats-them-away.html?_r=0) But I have every problem in the world in hanging the first three losses on Lundqvist

Henrik raised his game down the stretch and with each level of playoffs. He played some shote games during the season and was called on it. This is altogether different. Everything is at several whole other levels now, and that includes Hank, and unfortunately, it also includes Quick and the LA Kings. It includes everything except the finishing of Henrik's teammates last night, who had every opportunity to win and have not gotten the job done in far more discernible ways than the margin of a lucky deflection. But I'll give them this, they are up against the best goalie in the world right now who is at the peak of his powers. If Quick was like Bud Lightyear — "infinity and beyond" — Hank was just a hair behind, at infinity. It's not about Hank being deficient, it's not about putting a goalie "on the hook" for a crime he did not commit. it's about Quick being ZOMG! last night! It's deflating as all hell, that was like a nail in a tire. Can we fix-a-flat and drive at 90 mph the rest of the way? How it plays out from here is anyone's guess, but for these three games I am not putting the blame at Hank's feet as Mr. Muir would have us do, instead of where it rightly belongs, Jonathan Quick being a bizarre freak of nature, and the Rangers for not being freakish enough last night in scoring.

Valriera
06-11-2014, 08:45 AM
Repped.

And I ditto the above. I was not for the resigning of Henrik at the price and length Sather paid, especially with talbot in hand, but I don't think it's fair to take out frustrations caused by the team's collective scoring goose eggs (that's blanks, 000s to those who don't know what goose eggs are) and the very specific goal-scoring underperforming of Nash, Richards and St. MSL here, and Zucc's bad luck that the goalie he was facing would have made Dominic Hasek blush thinking he was looking at goalie porn.

Quick was fucking ridiculous last night. The rest of the time him and Hank have been A1 and A2 — the best in the world and the very close second best in the world. Hank just made some ridiculous saves but not on the stuff only quick might have stopped. "Coming up short" is a harsh judgment depending on how you interpret it — in this case, given the context of laying blame and brushing aside "excuses", it's a slap in the face. There are excuses for bad work, and there's "shit happened." In this case I think it's more of a case of shit happened than shoddy workmanship.

We've known Hank is not immortal for a long time. But he's been so damn good and we know he gives us a chance to win games, quarter finals and conference finals. Not his freaking fault if the rest of the team can't even put up one miserable goal. But I won't even kill them for last night. Because last night was the Jonathan Quicksand show, and it swallowed up every puck like a kid with a giant net chasing butterflies high on nectar. For Quick the puck was as big as a hanging softball to Edwin Encarnacion.

IMO. The vast majority of the goals against were unsavable. As an ex (soccer) goalie I'm calling BS on this Muir wanker when it comes to saving last-second deflections.

I'll concede one goal: maybe the middle goal of last night's three might have been savable by a younger, Quicker goalie on a career-best night.

The rest of the time he's matched this newer, younger, better, quicker goalie god in L.A. goal for goal, except overtime. And both those OT goals were none of Hanks doing.

Hank has sailed right into the goaltending perfect storm, ridiculous team, ridiculous goalie having a ridiculous night last night. where Hank's teammates had no answer and no magic.

But at least Hank had some magic saves in him, or it might have been a downright embarrassing 5-0 defeat. Instead, he let in only those goals no other goalies — except Quicklast night — might be expected to stop, giving his team a chance to score, a chance to win ... if they could find a way to stuff a puck through a wall with no holes in the mortar between the bricks.

No one saves the Doughty goal, no one saves the Clifford goal, the Dwight King interference goal, the Brown OT goal, the Williams OT goal was sick, the list goes on ... just like Quick —*or anyone — doesn't stop the Pouliot goal.


This is not about someone being deficient; this is about another goaltender being ungodly, all-world, peak/peak, just that Hasek-bit better right now. Let's see if Quick is this good when he's 31 — because we have a 31 yr old goalie whose peak/peak might just not be quite as high as Quick's present peak peak.

I have no problem saying Quick has been an ungodly goalie this series and better than Hank by a mere sliver, a mere nanosecond.(and there's a great article in the NY Times on that (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/sports/hockey/rangers-create-bounces-la-kings-jonathan-quick-swats-them-away.html?_r=0) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/sports/hockey/rangers-create-bounces-la-kings-jonathan-quick-swats-them-away.html?_r=0) But I have every problem in the world in hanging the first three losses on Lundqvist

Henrik raised his game down the stretch and with each level of playoffs. He played some shote games during the season and was called on it. This is altogether different. Everything is at several whole other levels now, and that includes Hank, and unfortunately, it also includes Quick and the LA Kings. It includes everything except the finishing of Henrik's teammates last night, who had every opportunity to win and have not gotten the job done in far more discernible ways than the margin of a lucky deflection. But I'll give them this, they are up against the best goalie in the world right now who is at the peak of his powers. If Quick was like Bud Lightyear — "infinity and beyond" — Hank was just a hair behind, at infinity. It's not about Hank being deficient, it's not about putting a goalie "on the hook" for a crime he did not commit. it's about Quick being ZOMG! last night! It's deflating as all hell, that was like a nail in a tire. Can we fix-a-flat and drive at 90 mph the rest of the way? How it plays out from here is anyone's guess, but for these three games I am not putting the blame at Hank's feet as Mr. Muir would have us do, instead of where it rightly belongs, Jonathan Quick being a bizarre freak of nature, and the Rangers for not being freakish enough last night in scoring.

Well said, even though I disagree. For me it just comes down to A2 not being good enough for this team to win the Stanley Cup against the Kings. If Quick was that A2 guy, then the Kings probably still win, but for this Rangers team, this year, this starts and ends with Lundqvist. Hopefully we make start with the right decisions next year and put someone not named Brad Richards in front of him. Still, I can't disagree with your sentiment about Quick in G3, and have to pause my own apprehension about Lundqvist's game to appreciate the fact that Quick was ungodly in G3.

lefty9
06-11-2014, 09:25 AM
I think he's not talked about as much as Richter. I think Patrick Ewing isn't talked about as much as Willis Reed, and Clyde Frazier. I think Mattingly isn't talked about as much as players before, and after him that won titles.but all of those you mentioned that didn't win it all are still are regarded as very special players, specially Eddie Giocomin, he is loved by every fan , you g and old, specially the ones that saw him play

Pete
06-11-2014, 09:28 AM
but all of those you mentioned that didn't win it all are still are regarded as very special players, specially Eddie Giocomin, he is loved by every fan , you g and old, specially the ones that saw him play

And I'm sure every now and then, when watching him play, some the fans at some point may have said "He need to play better."

Mike
06-11-2014, 09:30 AM
but all of those you mentioned that didn't win it all are still are regarded as very special players, specially Eddie Giocomin, he is loved by every fan , you g and old, specially the ones that saw him play

Yeah, that was my point.

jrc64
06-11-2014, 09:34 AM
He made quite a few big saves in the 3rd period of game 1.

Just saying...I will give him props when I see it. Just don't recall anything all that specatacular in that 3rd period. Guess thats just an opinion.

lefty9
06-11-2014, 09:35 AM
And I'm sure every now and then, when watching him play, some the fans at some point may have said "He need to play better."
I am sure of that Pete, nobody is perfect or always right. ;) :D

Pete
06-11-2014, 09:40 AM
I am sure of that Pete, nobody is perfect or always right. ;) :D

Right. So then why can't we discuss Lundqvist.

jrc64
06-11-2014, 09:40 AM
The issues is not just with Hank, the issue is with the whole team.
When Hank is on his game, our D makes crucial mistakes, when our D and Hank is on their game, our offense is not there, no one to score a timly goal, when our offense is on, Hank lets in a bad one.

This is a team sport, need to play it as a team! Every one should be on the same page! Offense needs to score, D has their own job, so does the goalie. That how you win cups!

That sums it up perfectly.

lefty9
06-11-2014, 09:47 AM
Right. So then why can't we discuss Lundqvist.
You could, I was making a point that even if you don't win it all , if you are good people will always remember you.

Pete
06-11-2014, 09:50 AM
You could, I was making a point that even if you don't win it all , if you are good people will always remember you.

Oh, yea I totally agree. I think too many people here forget that. If you say Lundqvist could play better, there are people who immediately say "I don't get the hate..."...It's not hate. It's criticism. No one is immune from it.

lefty9
06-11-2014, 09:57 AM
I think hank has played very well, but we seen him play better ,so I could see why people are saying so. But it's though to play at that level all the time, plus it sucks when half of the goals that were scored on you was deflections by your own teamates

Mike
06-11-2014, 09:59 AM
I think I could speak for everyone who criticizes Hank at times, that we don't hate him, nor do we want any other goalie in net for the Rangers. We all know what he's capable of, and how good he is. And I for one fully believe that he can get it done, now, and in the near future.

Mike
06-11-2014, 10:05 AM
I think hank has played very well, but we seen him play better ,so I could see why people are saying so. But it's though to play at that level all the time, plus it sucks when half of the goals that were scored on you was deflections by your own teamates

Every goalie in the world faces deflections every single night. They can't all be stopped, but that doesn't mean 3 have to go in during one game, and it happens more than once. How many times has Hank let up 3 plus goals during his career where you said, "Fuck, 3 of them went off a skate, stick, etc .."? Deflections happen. Some aren't as difficult to stop as others. Brown's OT goal, perfect. Carter's 1st period goal ... meh. Clifford's goal to make it 2-1 in the first period of game 1, absolutely killed our momentum. We were owning them in their own building up until that point. That puck can't go in, and it cost them the game. Blame Stepan all you want, the puck can't go in from the side of the net. Ever.

momentum
06-11-2014, 10:07 AM
I've asked you repeatedly to cut out the "lol" crap. It's dismissive and disrespectful. Debate like a mature adult, or not at all.

Thank you.

It's a team game, but players are also judged individually. I don't know why that's hard to comprehend for you. The "it's a team game" it's an excuse people use when trying to protect certain players. This isn't football where you're saying the QB beat this team or the other QB...when there's a whole other team paying defense that the QB never even sees.

Yes Hank could have played even better but he is NOT a problem for us, in fact goaltending is one of our strengths so I just don't get the point in when you have lost several games or a series to sit down and try to pick the goaltending apart trying to make it out to be some kind of problem. After a series of losses I would try to look at what the real problems the team have and goaltending isn't one of them. Hank is great, as good as any other goalie, he will have his up and downs but mostly he will be good, I will scratch that off the list to focus on to not waste time and try to focus on the real issues.
We have a team that has gone this far with very limited production from our "top players" Richards and Nash are our 2 top money players...they have both been very limitied in their success and it's now 2 years in a row so it's a pattern, Stepan and Kreider ALSO have been kind of hit and miss very inconsistent where they are noticeable one night but invisible another... this team has been carried by Hank and a depth scoring line like the Zucc line and the 4th checking line and by depth players such as Hagelin......it's amazing that they have come this far but instead of questioning Hanks' ability to step up every new series after he has just won those other series i will ponder what the team would be like if they had a REAL topline center...lets say....Getzlaf or Toews instead of Richards.....and what about a real topline winger instead of Nash who has proven himself a smalltime player....lets say instead we had Kane there......imagine if we had a topline clicking like our zucc line is clicking with top players performing the way they should...yeah..i bet Hank would have "gotten the job done" more often then without being any better.
Lets make it simple: Nash and Richards taking up around 15 million dollar of our cap and providing numbers like 3rd 4th line checking players is the problem with our team...not goaltending, so why sit and argue if Hank could have been better or not a given game, he's NOT the problem, he's good enough to win it all period. Goaltending: check. Move on to other parts to focus on.

Thump23
06-11-2014, 10:10 AM
Every goalie in the world faces deflections every single night. They can't all be stopped, but that doesn't mean 3 have to go in during one game, and it happens more than once. How many times has Hank let up 3 plus goals during his career where you said, "Fuck, 3 of them went off a skate, stick, etc .."? Deflections happen. Some aren't as difficult to stop as others. Brown's OT goal, perfect. Carter's 1st period goal ... meh. Clifford's goal to make it 2-1 in the first period of game 1, absolutely killed our momentum. We were owning them in their own building up until that point. That puck can't go in, and it cost them the game. Blame Stepan all you want, the puck can't go in from the side of the net. Ever.

I think this.

No question LA has been lucky, very lucky, but goddam Hank you make one of those saves and we're probably looking at a much different series.

Mike
06-11-2014, 10:13 AM
Yes Hank could have played even better but he is NOT a problem for us, in fact goaltending is one of our strengths so I just don't get the point in when you have lost several games or a series to sit down and try to pick the goaltending apart trying to make it out to be some kind of problem. After a series of losses I would try to look at what the real problems the team have and goaltending isn't one of them. Hank is great, as good as any other goalie, he will have his up and downs but mostly he will be good, I will scratch that off the list to focus on to not waste time and try to focus on the real issues.
We have a team that has gone this far with very limited production from our "top players" Richards and Nash are our 2 top money players...they have both been very limitied in their success and it's now 2 years in a row so it's a pattern, Stepan and Kreider ALSO have been kind of hit and miss very inconsistent where they are noticeable one night but invisible another... this team has been carried by Hank and a depth scoring line like the Zucc line and the 4th checking line and by depth players such as Hagelin......it's amazing that they have come this far but instead of questioning Hanks' ability to step up every new series after he has just won those other series i will ponder wonder what the team would be like if they had a REAL topline center...lets say....Getzlaf or Toews instead of Richards.....and what about a real topline winger instead of Nash who has proven himself a smalltime player....lets say instead we had Kane there......imagine if we had a topline clicking like our zucc line is clicking with top players performing the way they should...yeah..i bet Hank would have "gotten the job done" more often then without being any better.
Lets make it simple: Nash and Richards taking up around 15 million dollar of our cap and providing numbers like 3rd 4th line checking players is the problem with our team...not goaltending.
You're correct. In the big picture, goaltending isn't a problem. In the little window of opportunity, blame can be placed wherever necessary. You can believe whatever you want, but the 1st goal in game 1 cost the Rangers all the momentum they built up to that point. Rangers owned them in the opening period of the SCF in their building. That goal put life in LA, and their fans, and it took a lot out of us. It was a game changing moment, and possibly a series changing moment. If you ask Lundqvist if he should have stopped that puck, his answer would be yes 1,000,000 out of 1,000,000 times. He's so much better than that, and THAT'S the frustrating part. As far as Kane goes, the Blackhawks probably wish they had Lundqvist.

momentum
06-11-2014, 10:13 AM
I think this.

No question LA has been lucky, very lucky, but goddam Hank you make one of those saves and we're probably looking at a much different series.

goddam "insert player of choice of Nash, Richards, Kreider, Stepan" if you just potted one of those chances we're probably looking at a much different series: they all could have been a little better but what are the REAL problem areas? Goaltending? Or our top paid forwards who put up numbers like 3rd/4th liners.?? Hmmmm

momentum
06-11-2014, 10:17 AM
You're correct. In the big picture, goaltending isn't a problem. In the little window of opportunity, blame can be placed wherever necessary. You can believe whatever you want, but the 1st goal in game 1 cost the Rangers all the momentum they built up to that point. Rangers owned them in the opening period of the SCF in their building. That goal put life in LA, and their fans, and it took a lot out of us. It was a game changing moment, and possibly a series changing moment. If you ask Lundqvist if he should have stopped that puck, his answer would be yes 1,000,000 out of 1,000,000 times. He's so much better than that, and THAT'S the frustrating part.

Right ofc but this kind of shit happens in hockey, and you have to count on it to happen and roll with it. But when you sit down afterwards you should try to focus on the REAL problems to fix instead of grumbling over what might have been if Hank had made this or that save. He has a pattern of being great, look at the players we have a big investment in who have a pattern of sucking it up such as Nash and Richards and you will get closer to the real problem. What if they had scored say...6 goals between them by now in this series on top of your current scoring.....hmm..might have looked a bit different then perhaps.
You could go further in the team and just say damn Girardi...if you just hadn't stumbled there and given up the puck...or ....McD....man..you have to stay there and support the puck carrier man....what if......what if Hags score on the breakaway.....game won...series changed....there are moments like this in every game and every series...but to really fix something that is a PROBLEM with the team you have to look at patterns and look where the real problems are.
It's easy to just blame the goalie because he's the last one the puck gets by for us to be scored on and in OT it's compounded by the fact that he's the last one the puck goes by for us to lose the game. You have to realize that the puck has to get to that point in the first place though, it's a chain of events. Everything has to be looked at ofc but where are the real problems? It's not with goaltending on this team.

Thump23
06-11-2014, 10:18 AM
goddam "insert player of choice of Nash, Richards, Kreider, Stepan" if you just potted one of those chances we're probably looking at a much different series: they all could have been a little better but what are the REAL problem areas? Goaltending? Or our top paid forwards who put up numbers like 3rd/4th liners.?? Hmmmm

Everyone said the same thing at the start of this series, if they're to win, Lundqvist has to be their best player. Right or wrong, that's just the reality. Could the forwards have done more? Yes. Could the defense have done more? Yes. Could Hank have done more? Yes. It's the Finals, there's no margin for error. He's made incredible saves and he's given up a few questionable ones. When your team is down 3-0, no one wants to talk about the incredible saves, they just want to talk about the ones that should have been stopped.

I'd take Lundqvist on my team any day of the week, there's probably no other goalie on this planet that I rather have as the Rangers goalie than Hank. But he, like the rest of the team, could have been better. Maybe he's taking a bit too much flak, but he's the face of the franchise. The cornerstone, the "man." It's a blessing and a curse.

Mike
06-11-2014, 10:22 AM
goddam "insert player of choice of Nash, Richards, Kreider, Stepan" if you just potted one of those chances we're probably looking at a much different series: they all could have been a little better but what are the REAL problem areas? Goaltending? Or our top paid forwards who put up numbers like 3rd/4th liners.?? Hmmmm

I'm not being a dick here, but I just want you to see the flip side to your point ....

Nash, Kreider, Richards, and Stepan can't/couldn't score because Quick was better. Is there truth to that? Maybe, maybe not.

momentum
06-11-2014, 10:23 AM
Everyone said the same thing at the start of this series, if they're to win, Lundqvist has to be their best player. Right or wrong, that's just the reality. Could the forwards have done more? Yes. Could the defense have done more? Yes. Could Hank have done more? Yes. It's the Finals, there's no margin for error. He's made incredible saves and he's given up a few questionable ones. When your team is down 3-0, no one wants to talk about the incredible saves, they just want to talk about the ones that should have been stopped.

I'd take Lundqvist on my team any day of the week, there's probably no other goalie on this planet that I rather have as the Rangers goalie than Hank. But he, like the rest of the team, could have been better. Maybe he's taking a bit too much flak, but he's the face of the franchise. The cornerstone, the "man." It's a blessing and a curse.Right...that's my point...its a team game and everything is a chain event...then there is bad luck and bounces involved as well...hank could have been better...everyone could have been better perhaps...but when ppl start sounding like we're down because of Hanks goaltending I just don't agree, IMO the truth is bad bounces and lack of production from our top paid forwards.

Thump23
06-11-2014, 10:25 AM
Right...that's my point...its a team game and everything is a chain event...then there is bad luck and bounces involved as well...hank could have been better...everyone could have been better perhaps...but when ppl start sounding like we're down because of Hanks goaltending I just don't agree, IMO the truth is bad bounces and lack of production from our top paid forwards.

The reality is, we're down because Quick has been better than Hank. At least in my opinion. There's a lot of scenarios where the Rangers could have found ways to win games with the exception of that one.

momentum
06-11-2014, 10:29 AM
The reality is, we're down because Quick has been better than Hank. At least in my opinion. There's a lot of scenarios where the Rangers could have found ways to win games with the exception of that one.

IMO we lost the 2 first games due to bad luck and the third one was tainted by the mental hit that took on the Rangers players so even the third game was indirectly affected by those bad bounces. time to shake it off now and go out and battle for their lives.

lefty9
06-11-2014, 10:29 AM
I'm not being a dick here, but I just want you to see the flip side to your point ....

Nash, Kreider, Richards, and Stepan can't/couldn't score because Quick was better. Is there truth to that? Maybe, maybe not.thats a good point, I do think the kings have better snipers

momentum
06-11-2014, 10:30 AM
thats a good point, I do think the kings have better snipers

NO they don't, Kings haven't been better so far period, they have been luckier.

Mike
06-11-2014, 10:31 AM
Right ofc but this kind of shit happens in hockey, and you have to count on it to happen and roll with it. But when you sit down afterwards you should try to focus on the REAL problems to fix instead of grumbling over what might have been if Hank had made this or that save. He has a pattern of being great, look at the players we have a big investment in who have a pattern of sucking it up such as Nash and Richards and you will get closer to the real problem. What if they had scored say...6 goals between them by now in this series on top of your current scoring.....hmm..might have looked a bit different then perhaps.
You could go further in the team and just say damn Girardi...if you just hadn't stumbled there and given up the puck...or ....McD....man..you have to stay there and support the puck carrier man....what if......what if Hags score on the breakaway.....game won...series changed....there are moments like this in every game and every series...but to really fix something that is a PROBLEM with the team you have to look at patterns and look where the real problems are.
It's easy to just blame the goalie because he's the last one the puck gets by for us to be scored on and in OT it's compounded by the fact that he's the last one the puck goes by for us to lose the game. You have to realize that the puck has to get to that point in the first place though, it's a chain of events. Everything has to be looked at ofc but where are the real problems? It's not with goaltending on this team.
You're too fast to defend him without understanding what we're saying.
Game 1: They never should have gotten to the point where G fell, fumbled, and turned it over. Hank had a great 3rd, and OT. The OT goal is not on him. Point blank in the slot is 50/50. The first goal should have been stopped. The first goal came, well, first. That's what changed things at the moment.

Game 2: If they call interference, the Rangers win. Hank was settled in, and focused up until that point. I wasn't a fan of the 1st goal, but it was a comedy of errors, and bounces, and scrambling, so I'll let it go without a fight.

Game 3: Carter goal, no good. 2nd goal, fine. 3rd goal? bad luck for sure, but imo Jonathan Quick makes that save, and I'll tell you why. Hank saw, and read the play, he couldn't get over fast enough to make the save, but he almost had it. He knows his lateral speed isn't as good as a lot of goalies in the league, and that's a big reason why he plays so deep. And that's fine. I don't expect every goalie to have it all. He's one of the best in the world at his position, and he should stick with what got him there. However, Quick is the fastest lateral goalie in the league. So imo, it was bad luck for the Hank, and the Rangers, because I don't expect him to make that save knowing his capability in that instance.

Thump23
06-11-2014, 10:36 AM
IMO we lost the 2 first games due to bad luck and the third one was tainted by the mental hit that took on the Rangers players so even the third game was indirectly affected by those bad bounces. time to shake it off now and go out and battle for their lives.

At some point, he was going to have to do something super human. Shake off the bad breaks and unfortunate bounces and do something insane, like Quick did against Zuk.

Mike
06-11-2014, 10:36 AM
Right...that's my point...its a team game and everything is a chain event...then there is bad luck and bounces involved as well...hank could have been better...everyone could have been better perhaps...but when ppl start sounding like we're down because of Hanks goaltending I just don't agree, IMO the truth is bad bounces and lack of production from our top paid forwards.

I understand how our side of the discussion comes off that way. I'm saying if he stops Clifford's goal in game 1, we probably win. That doesn't mean we win game 2, or 3. Everything changes. And that's my point. It's game changing, and series changing stuff. Is the rest of it his fault? No, of course not. But things could have been different at this point. Give LA games 2 and 3, we should still have a victory at this point.

Morphinity
06-11-2014, 10:36 AM
Henrik has to be the best player on this team. Has to. Why? Because this team can't score at a Stanley Cup winning caliber. This team averages 2.61 goals per game.

The average goals per game of the past eight Cup Champions has been 3.08. The Rangers are the third lowest scoring team to even be in the Final for the past nine years - that's 16th on a list of 18 teams.

Let's also factor in that the Kings are averaging 3.5 goals per game, which is the second highest in the past nine years. They score goals at an insane rate.

This team doesn't score enough goals to make up for any defensive or goaltending shortcomings that could occur during games and the issue is that the defense/goaltending needs to be flawless to stop the offensive juggernaut that is the Kings.

Pete
06-11-2014, 10:39 AM
Henrik has to be the best player on this team. Has to. Why? Because this team can't score at a Stanley Cup winning caliber. This team averages 2.61 goals per game.

The average goals per game of the past eight Cup Champions has been 3.08. The Rangers are the third lowest scoring team to even be in the Final for the past nine years - that's 16th on a list of 18 teams.

Let's also factor in that the Kings are averaging 3.5 goals per game, which is the second highest in the past nine years. They score goals at an insane rate.

This team doesn't score enough goals to make up for any defensive or goaltending shortcomings that could occur during games and the issue is that the defense/goaltending needs to be flawless to stop the offensive juggernaut that is the Kings.

We scored 4 goals in Game 2, dude.

lefty9
06-11-2014, 10:39 AM
NO they don't, Kings haven't been better so far period, they have been luckier.The kings have been lucky,i think the rangers could of won the first two games , but that doesn't change that the kings have better snipers

Morphinity
06-11-2014, 10:41 AM
We scored 4 goals in Game 2, dude.

I just posted that to highlight the importance of why Henrik needs to be the best player on the team in the series. He hasn't been. And here we are.

Thump23
06-11-2014, 10:41 AM
I understand how our side of the discussion comes off that way. I'm saying if he stops Clifford's goal in game 1, we probably win. That doesn't mean we win game 2, or 3. Everything changes. And that's my point. It's game changing, and series changing stuff. Is the rest of it his fault? No, of course not. But things could have been different at this point. Give LA games 2 and 3, we should still have a victory at this point.

But we both know, everything probably does change. Quick made stops no one would have killed him for not making. But he did. His team won those games. That's what winning a championship comes down to. It's not about making plays you're expected to, it's about doing something out of the ordinary and putting a dagger through your opponents heart.

Mike
06-11-2014, 10:45 AM
Henrik has to be the best player on this team. Has to. Why? Because this team can't score at a Stanley Cup winning caliber. This team averages 2.61 goals per game.

The average goals per game of the past eight Cup Champions has been 3.08. The Rangers are the third lowest scoring team to even be in the Final for the past nine years - that's 16th on a list of 18 teams.

Let's also factor in that the Kings are averaging 3.5 goals per game, which is the second highest in the past nine years. They score goals at an insane rate.

This team doesn't score enough goals to make up for any defensive or goaltending shortcomings that could occur during games and the issue is that the defense/goaltending needs to be flawless to stop the offensive juggernaut that is the Kings.
Ray, I know you're smarter than this. No previous stats, numbers, corsis, horsies, or whatever have anything to do with Clifford's goal that changed game 1, and possibly the series. If I told you the Rangers were going to score 4 goals in game 2, how much would you have bet that they win the game? And fwiw, we scored 2 in game 1, and it bothers me that we lost. We scored 4 in game 2, but fell victim to poor officiating. If interference was called, the Rangers win that game.

Pete
06-11-2014, 10:46 AM
We knew coming in Hank would have to be at his best if we wanted to win. Goaltending was our edge, along with our speed.

Can any of you really sit back after 3 games and say that this is the best you've seen him play? He's in the Stanley Cup Finals, and there are a lot of people who used to say "I feel bad for Hank, because...." blah blah whatever reason, team sucks, he'll never win, he should ask for a trade, whatever. Well stop feeling bad for him. He's here, and this team doesn't suck, and no one should feel bad for him because he's not playing his best hockey.

He has a whole other level of game that he isn't bringing. I know this, because I've seen it. You can all sit back and watch replays of the goals from 32 angles and nitpick them all, but really, can any of you say this is the best you've ever seen from him? I don't think you can. And he needs to play the best hockey he's ever played. And he's not. And that's what this is about. Not how Richards is failing. Not how Nash is failing. Not how Kreider missed a breakaway, not how G turned a puck over. This article, this thread, this discussion, is about Lundqvist.

You want to call Doughty's goal all world? Great. Hank is an all world goalie. Make that stop. You want to talk about Stepan turning a puck over? Great, Hank is an all world goalie and the team made the right play after the turnover, and Hank let in a no angle shot that simply cannot go in. It seems like people are happy with the bare minimum from our top-paid, star players. It's OK that Nash isn't scoring, at least he's not hurting the team and is playing great D! Uh, no, it's NOT ok he isn't scoring. Oh, those 3 goals got deflected, they were hard saves. OK, you're the highest paid goalie in the NHL, make a tough save. Or better yet, just play as well as I've seen you play before. The rest takes care of itself.

But I maintain none of this is relevant, these nitpicking of every second of every game. Anyone who's watching the games can't honestly say to themselves that Hank is playing at his top level. And that's what this is about. Everything else is just smoke.

Morphinity
06-11-2014, 10:48 AM
Ray, I know you're smarter than this. No previous stats, numbers, corsis, horsies, or whatever have anything to do with Clifford's goal that changed game 1, and possibly the series. If I told you the Rangers were going to score 4 goals in game 2, how much would you have bet that they win the game? And fwiw, we scored 2 in game 1, and it bothers me that we lost. We scored 4 in game 2, but fell victim to poor officiating. If interference was called, the Rangers win that game.

Mikey, this has nothing to do with Clifford's goal. It has to do with the idea that Lundqvist needs to be the best in the series because our offense can't score more than 2 goals per game, on average.

I'm done arguing about Clifford's goal. We'll never agree on that.

Mike
06-11-2014, 10:50 AM
I just posted that to highlight the importance of why Henrik needs to be the best player on the team in the series. He hasn't been. And here we are.

How many playoff series in recent years have you seen the better goalie lose? Every team needs the better goalie. Even when the Rangers struggled to score in recent playoff series, has Hank really been better than the other guy standing 200' away? It's debatable. He wasn't better than Rask last year. He wasn't better than Brodeur the year before ... I just got dizzy typing that btw. He's definitely had some ungodly fantastic games in series that we've lost, but overall he wasn't hands down better.

Mike
06-11-2014, 10:54 AM
Mikey, this has nothing to do with Clifford's goal. It has to do with the idea that Lundqvist needs to be the best in the series because our offense can't score more than 2 goals per game, on average.

I'm done arguing about Clifford's goal. We'll never agree on that.

I'm not arguing. lol. You're taking an overall view on it when none of that matters. Averages do not matter on a game by game, play by play, shift by shift basis. We scored 2 in a game we should have won. We scored 4 in a game we should have won if we didn't get fucked.

Morphinity
06-11-2014, 11:04 AM
I'm not arguing. lol. You're taking an overall view on it when none of that matters. Averages do not matter on a game by game, play by play, shift by shift basis. We scored 2 in a game we should have won. We scored 4 in a game we should have won if we didn't get fucked.

Of course they matter. Games aren't won or lost based on averages, but they indicate the power of a team's offensive/defensive ability over time. It helps manage expectations and not to expect miracles. It helps you understand the limits of the team's performance. Game 2 was an anomaly for both teams.

Mike
06-11-2014, 11:10 AM
Of course they matter. Games aren't won or lost based on averages, but they indicate the power of a team's offensive/defensive ability over time. It helps manage expectations and not to expect miracles. It helps you understand the limits of the team's performance. Game 2 was an anomaly for both teams.

That's all I'm saying. When you get to this point, it all goes out the window. In spite of the numbers, the Rangers should have ripped at least one game from the Kings in LA, if not both. If it's a 2-1 series right now, we're not talking about Hank, or the numbers. And they're have been more miraculous occurrences in sports than if the Rangers beat the Kings.

Myusername
06-11-2014, 01:14 PM
Hank hasn't been as good as in the last 3 series', but the main reason we're losing is because we have 14 million dollars of futility out there on the ice in Richards and Nash. You can look at the goalie all you want, but the Kings top players showed up and ours have been ghosts so far.

Blaming Hank here is missing the gorilla(s) in the room. I do wish he was a little bit better so far, but he's the main reason we're even here to begin with. I'm sorry, but at some point your "captain" and your top forward have to step the hell up. Yes, Hank is on the list, but he's far down in my opinion.

Phil in Absentia
06-11-2014, 01:17 PM
Hank hasn't been as good as in the last 3 series', but the main reason we're losing is because we have 14 million dollars of futility out there on the ice in Richards and Nash. You can look at the goalie all you want, but the Kings top players showed up and ours have been ghosts so far.

Blaming Hank here is missing the gorilla(s) in the room. I do wish he was a little bit better so far, but he's the main reason we're even here to begin with. I'm sorry, but at some point your "captain" and your top forward have to step the hell up. Yes, Hank is on the list, but he's far down in my opinion.

And that's all perfectly fair. I doubt you'd have many people disagreeing with you. Those who do would simply disagree with the idea that he's not to shoulder any of the blame.

Rarely is one player the sole reason for a teams success or failures. You win as a team and you lose as one too.

Pete
06-11-2014, 01:21 PM
Yea, I don't know if it's people just commenting without actually reading the discussion first, but no one is blaming Hank. In fact, it was said verbatim, multiple times, that it's not his fault we're in this hole.

However, and I say this all the time, if your only defense for a player is to point to the deficiencies of other players, that's not saying much.

Myusername
06-11-2014, 01:23 PM
And that's all perfectly fair. I doubt you'd have many people disagreeing with you. Those who do would simply disagree with the idea that he's not to shoulder any of the blame.

Rarely is one player the sole reason for a teams success or failures. You win as a team and you lose as one too.

I think he should shoulder blame, just not as much as Richards or Nash. Listen, he hasn't been at his best, but he HAS shown up (mostly in games 1 and 2). Richards and Nash have done ZERO. Diddly squat. In fact, they have hurt this team more than they have helped.

Myusername
06-11-2014, 01:27 PM
Yea, I don't know if it's people just commenting without actually reading the discussion first, but no one is blaming Hank. In fact, it was said verbatim, multiple times, that it's not his fault we're in this hole.

However, and I say this all the time, if your only defense for a player is to point to the deficiencies of other players, that's not saying much.

I'm actually not really defending Hank... I don't really give a crap about his perceived reputation or all that nonsense. It's just that we're in the Stanley Cup finals for the first time in 20 years and our top two forwards are on siesta. Sadly AV has more confidence in them then they do themselves

Mike
06-11-2014, 01:28 PM
When the Rangers went up 2-0 in game 1, I said "Fuck yeah, this shit is ours tonight". Why? Because I had all the faith in the world in our goaltender. He's been at his best this post season, and I just felt it was his time. When the Rangers went into the 3rd period up 4-2 in game 2, I said "Fuck, this game isn't over yet." Why? Because there wasn't a settling feeling to the game, and Hank wasn't in his "locked in" form imo. It wasn't even the goals he let up in game 2, you can get a sense of an unsettling feeling from watching other things. It's hard to explain, but that's what I saw. Again, I believe shit unraveled after the non-call. I believe Hank was slamming it shut the rest of the way if that was waved off.

BlueJay
06-11-2014, 01:29 PM
Hank hasn't been as good as in the last 3 series', but the main reason we're losing is because we have 14 million dollars of futility out there on the ice in Richards and Nash. You can look at the goalie all you want, but the Kings top players showed up and ours have been ghosts so far.

Blaming Hank here is missing the gorilla(s) in the room. I do wish he was a little bit better so far, but he's the main reason we're even here to begin with. I'm sorry, but at some point your "captain" and your top forward have to step the hell up. Yes, Hank is on the list, but he's far down in my opinion.

+1

In the end though, he's given up 11 goals in 3 games.

Pete
06-11-2014, 01:30 PM
I'm actually not really defending Hank... I don't really give a crap about his perceived reputation or all that nonsense. It's just that we're in the Stanley Cup finals for the first time in 20 years and our top two forwards are on siesta. Sadly AV has more confidence in them then they do themselves

I get that, and I don't disagree, but this is a Hank thread. There are other threads about the rest of the team.

Mike
06-11-2014, 01:35 PM
I'm actually not really defending Hank... I don't really give a crap about his perceived reputation or all that nonsense. It's just that we're in the Stanley Cup finals for the first time in 20 years and our top two forwards are on siesta. Sadly AV has more confidence in them then they do themselves

Understood, but this article, and thread is about Hank. If I went into the Nash thread and blamed Lundqvist for letting in a soft goal, that would look ridiculous. This isn't directed at you, but it seems that every time we discuss Hank, people blame the rest of the team for not scoring goals. Yes, their job is to score goals. Hank's job is to stop the ones that should be stopped 100% of the time, with some other magic sprinkled in.

Morphinity
06-12-2014, 10:05 AM
Thoughts on last night?

CreaseCrusader91
06-12-2014, 10:10 AM
Thoughts on last night?

Played well and made a lot of tough saves. He made some big saves at times that made you go oh shit, and had Kings shaking their heads.

The Kings got to start feeling some doubt considering the way he played and how those pucks didn't slide through the slush. Hank continued to be clutch in elimination games and another victory will really make the Kings nervous.

Brown goal was what it was, but other than that he really locked it down from that point on. I thought his aggressiveness at times also helped manage the feel of the game. We were scrambling and he would come out and glove a puck that would usually go wide just so we could get a change.

Also picked spots well with playing the puck and it was good to see he wasn't a liability.

All things considered, an inspiring performance from the King that gets the comeback started.

Myusername
06-12-2014, 10:20 AM
Understood, but this article, and thread is about Hank. If I went into the Nash thread and blamed Lundqvist for letting in a soft goal, that would look ridiculous. This isn't directed at you, but it seems that every time we discuss Hank, people blame the rest of the team for not scoring goals. Yes, their job is to score goals. Hank's job is to stop the ones that should be stopped 100% of the time, with some other magic sprinkled in.

I think it's a little unrealistic to stop every stoppable shot. Goalies are not robots and sometimes they lose focus for a split second and the pucks ends up in the back of the net. It happens.

And I don't really understand the clamor about deflections beating him. He plays deep and deflections are going to beat him more often than other goalies. He's playing the percentages... I think he'd take the chance of a perfect deflection beating him over leaving the net open all the time like Quick. And if his lateral movement is only average as some say, then it's a no brainer to play deep then, no?

Pete
06-12-2014, 10:26 AM
Thoughts on last night?

Obviously played a great game, especially in the 3rd.

That said, he had to make the save on Brown, at the time. In hindsight, it didn't burn us, but that was a big point in the game, could have been a turning point. At the time, the team needed that stop. As the game played out, it worked out.

Thump23
06-12-2014, 10:32 AM
Obviously played a great game, especially in the 3rd.

That said, he had to make the save on Brown, at the time. In hindsight, it didn't burn us, but that was a big point in the game, could have been a turning point. At the time, the team needed that stop. As the game played out, it worked out.

If the only goal he lets up is a break away, I'm okay with that. He made some big saves and did exactly what he needed to do, shut the door in the 3rd. He won a game when the team in front of him was not at their best.

Pete
06-12-2014, 10:39 AM
If the only goal he lets up is a break away, I'm okay with that. He made some big saves and did exactly what he needed to do, shut the door in the 3rd. He won a game when the team in front of him was not at their best.

For me, personally, I don't care if it was a breakaway. He can stop them. He's done it before (well, not recently). At that moment of the game, the team needed a big save and they didn't get it. Yes, it worked out in the end, but that's hindsight.

Blue Heaven
06-12-2014, 10:43 AM
I think Dustin Brown is still deking Henrik Lundqvist. The dude made like 19000 moves to beat Lundqvist.

Thump23
06-12-2014, 10:46 AM
For me, personally, I don't care if it was a breakaway. He can stop them. He's done it before (well, not recently). At that moment of the game, the team needed a big save and they didn't get it. Yes, it worked out in the end, but that's hindsight.

I get what you're saying, but he was pretty sharp all night. He made some big saves before that and made some bigger saves after that. I thought last night was his best game of the series.

Pete
06-12-2014, 10:48 AM
I get what you're saying, but he was pretty sharp all night. He made some big saves before that and made some bigger saves after that. I thought last night was his best game of the series.

Yea, he was fantastic last night. In the GDT, Cash or Czech and I were commenting how you'd want your "big game goalie" to make that save. But, as we said, it all worked out.

Thump23
06-12-2014, 10:54 AM
Yea, he was fantastic last night. In the GDT, Cash or Czech and I were commenting how you'd want your "big game goalie" to make that save. But, as we said, it all worked out.

True, they got the win. You think he brings the same effort on Friday? I'm nervous.

Pete
06-12-2014, 10:58 AM
True, they got the win. You think he brings the same effort on Friday? I'm nervous.

Effort? Yes, he always brings the effort. Sometimes his overall game is just off, and he can be better.

I think he's going to be locked in the rest of the playoffs.

Thump23
06-12-2014, 11:02 AM
Effort? Yes, he always brings the effort. Sometimes his overall game is just off, and he can be better.

I think he's going to be locked in the rest of the playoffs.

That's what I meant. Not effort but actual performance.

Really, really, really, really, really, really, really hope you're right.

Ranger Lothbrok
06-12-2014, 11:59 AM
Last night was big for Hank in a number of ways:
1) He gave up the breakaway goal to Dustin Brown, but then stopped Jeff Carter on a similar move designed to get him sliding laterally
2) He out-dueled Jonathan Quick for the first time this series
3) He became the first Rangers goaltender to win a Stanley Cup final game in 20 years. Finally has one under his belt.
4) He learned that we CAN beat them, but he'll need to keep shutting the door like he did

I think it's huge for his confidence that he did it at home, and had to play REALLY well to get it done. It wasn't like Game 6 vs. Montreal where he made one godly save but otherwise wasn't really tested. The Kings threw everything they had at him, and it almost worked. Two goal-line stops is as much blind luck as it is great effort and timing. Giving up 1 goal to these guys? Who lead the playoffs in GPG? And who scored a combined 10 goals on him in the first 3 games?

I think we could see in Game 3 that his confidence was shot. Quick was making every save, and every odd-man/great opportunity the Kings got went right in. He got beat both by the Kings skaters and their goaltender. But he showed he can be every bit as dominant as Quick. And he opened the door, even if it's only a little, to get in to their heads and climb back in to this series.

We're going to need a lot more of what we saw last night if we have any prayer of pulling off this miracle. And his team has to show up for him too. But he knows it CAN be done. That, IMO, is tremendously important. This could be a game-changer for him in this series.

jrc64
06-12-2014, 12:22 PM
Thoughts on last night?


I thought he played well, but not spectacular. Yes, the Kings we knocking on the door quite a bit, but a lot of those shots went right into Hank. I didn't see any of that lateral movement to make a huge save (perhaps I left the room for a minute to take out the dog). Also, the puck that went through his pads and stopped on the goal line!!! Yikes.......that can't go through your pads at this stage. But hey....we won.

Mike
06-12-2014, 03:38 PM
I think it's a little unrealistic to stop every stoppable shot. Goalies are not robots and sometimes they lose focus for a split second and the pucks ends up in the back of the net. It happens.

And I don't really understand the clamor about deflections beating him. He plays deep and deflections are going to beat him more often than other goalies. He's playing the percentages... I think he'd take the chance of a perfect deflection beating him over leaving the net open all the time like Quick. And if his lateral movement is only average as some say, then it's a no brainer to play deep then, no?

And when it does, it will cost you games. Can't have that going on in June.

If you read my previous posts in this thread, you'll see that I explained that I understand, agree, and acknowledge why he plays where he plays. I really don't have a problem with it. You really can't argue with success, right?

Mike
06-12-2014, 03:45 PM
Thoughts on last night?

Great game. He saved their ass at big moments. I'm not looking to down play what he did last night, but I'm sure you're well aware of a few things that didn't make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. You even said yourself during the Pens series (I think it was that series), that you totally understood where Pete, and I were coming from about Hank, and you even seemed a little annoyed about some things you saw. Ironically, I for one, completely changed my view on him during this year's playoffs. I've always said that there's no one else I'd rather have in goal, because I know what he's capable of, and that we needed to see it more consistently during a series. Why? Because 1 bad goal, or 1 bad game can change the entire complexion of a game, and then the series. We need to see the game 7 Pens Hank, or the game 6 Habs Hank the rest of the way.

Mike
06-14-2014, 01:38 PM
Hank was out of his mind. These last 2 games were exactly the games that I've been talking about over the last few years. This was his best playoff performance in 9 years, and it removes doubt that he can't get it done. We all knew it was there, it was obvious, but now we've seen it. He'll be hungrier next season. Ironically enough, I believe the Kings, and the Rangers are the only 2 teams to win at least 1 playoff round in the last 3 seasons. It's our turn to turn the corner next season. We got this shit.

Morphinity
06-14-2014, 07:14 PM
Hank was out of his mind. These last 2 games were exactly the games that I've been talking about over the last few years. This was his best playoff performance in 9 years, and it removes doubt that he can't get it done. We all knew it was there, it was obvious, but now we've seen it. He'll be hungrier next season. Ironically enough, I believe the Kings, and the Rangers are the only 2 teams to win at least 1 playoff round in the last 3 seasons. It's our turn to turn the corner next season. We got this shit.

Something like that. I do know the Kings, Rangers, and Blackhawks are the only three teams in the league that have been in the Conference Final two out of the last three years (think about that, that's pretty impressive).

Anyway, Hank was amazing. There was a thread earlier this year whether or not we can win a Cup with Hank... and I think we just saw that we absolutely can.

momentum
06-14-2014, 07:34 PM
Something like that. I do know the Kings, Rangers, and Blackhawks are the only three teams in the league that have been in the Conference Final two out of the last three years (think about that, that's pretty impressive).

Anyway, Hank was amazing. There was a thread earlier this year whether or not we can win a Cup with Hank... and I think we just saw that we absolutely can.

Yeah I really hope this can finally remove all the doubt some ppl have had if Hank really has what it takes to step it up when it matters the most. He clearly does.
But I guess for some (like glenn healy) the doubt won't be removed unless he wins the cup.

ThirtyONE
06-14-2014, 07:39 PM
Get Hank some help and he'll win a cup. Damn hard to win cups being outshot by double.

RangersRule2
06-14-2014, 10:25 PM
Hank was out of his mind. These last 2 games were exactly the games that I've been talking about over the last few years. This was his best playoff performance in 9 years, and it removes doubt that he can't get it done. We all knew it was there, it was obvious, but now we've seen it. He'll be hungrier next season. Ironically enough, I believe the Kings, and the Rangers are the only 2 teams to win at least 1 playoff round in the last 3 seasons. It's our turn to turn the corner next season. We got this shit.

He's 6-15 in OT in the playoffs which clearly indicates that the team he plays for is defensive-oriented and cannot score goals at the rate their opponents do.

Lundquist is probably the better goalie in most of those matches (maybe all of them) which means based on law of averages you'd figure he should be 10-11 or 11-10. Instead, we're 4 or 5 games below that. Add 4 or 5 wins to some of our playoff series (this one?) and you see how much it could mean.

And that's just based on an average win-loss rate in OT. When you factor in his performances in Game 7's and Do-or-Die games, it's clear that with a lead or with time to recover, he does very well.

The problem is in OT, you have NO margin for error. And the Rangers have not been a good OT team since the Renney years.

RangersRule2
06-14-2014, 10:25 PM
Hank was out of his mind. These last 2 games were exactly the games that I've been talking about over the last few years. This was his best playoff performance in 9 years, and it removes doubt that he can't get it done. We all knew it was there, it was obvious, but now we've seen it. He'll be hungrier next season. Ironically enough, I believe the Kings, and the Rangers are the only 2 teams to win at least 1 playoff round in the last 3 seasons. It's our turn to turn the corner next season. We got this shit.

I agree and hope you're right.

fletch
10-15-2014, 01:31 PM
I know it's early in the season and Lundqvist will bounce back, but seriously WTF!?! Especially getting shelled by the Islanders. I'm a frustrated fan.

RichieNextel305
10-15-2014, 01:37 PM
He's always been the kind of guy who gets better as the season progresses. I'm not worried.

!br-avery!
10-15-2014, 01:49 PM
Always stars pretty slow,a lot of goals were on him some are just bad luck and bad bounces happening right in front

So Nashty
10-15-2014, 01:52 PM
Hank hasn't stood on his head like he usually does but in all fairness most of these goals were not his fault. I always find it hard to blame a goalie for goals allowed on bad defensive plays. Defense needs to stop giving pucks away like a candy machine.

Slobberknocker
10-15-2014, 01:56 PM
woah. talk about some thread necromancy.

wonders when guys like hank and eli (giants) get some benefit of the doubt from the fanbase?

Cash or Czech?
10-15-2014, 06:54 PM
3rd goal, Kostka gave it away in the slot. 4th goal bounced off of Klein's stick (who made the right play, IMO). Two goals that Lundqvist had no chance on. There were some others that he could've had, that we needed him to have, but it wasn't all on him. Bounces aren't going our way just yet. Plus the PK sucks.

CCCP
10-15-2014, 09:31 PM
Yeah, PK worries me more than lundqvist

lefty9
10-16-2014, 07:28 AM
This whole team worries me more than Henrik,he is the least of the problem on this team, without him the rangers wouldn't never had reached the finals

Mike
10-16-2014, 08:38 AM
This whole team worries me more than Henrik,he is the least of the problem on this team, without him the rangers wouldn't never had reached the finals

Last June has nothing to do with this October. With that said, all goalies tend to have a handful of bad games early in the season. A few pre season periods isn't enough to settle back into game speed. Skaters adjust easier than goalies do earlier in the year. They can work out, and practice at a higher speed than goalies can.

Pete
10-16-2014, 08:40 AM
This whole team worries me more than Henrik,he is the least of the problem on this team, without him the rangers wouldn't never had reached the finals

What's that have to do with anything?

Most teams don't reach the finals without top end goal tending so that's an arbitrary statement.

They don't make the finals without McD either. They don't make the finals without MSL either. Or Kreider. It's a team game.

Vodka Drunkenski
10-16-2014, 08:53 AM
I'm a huge Lundqvist supporter but he's been bad. Yes, without him we don't sniff the finals but like Pete said, same could be said for a few guys. It's a team game but we need our paid superstars playing just like that.

Myusername
10-16-2014, 10:56 AM
Not surprising really. The last few seasons he's gotten off to slow starts

Future
10-16-2014, 10:59 AM
What's that have to do with anything?

Most teams don't reach the finals without top end goal tending so that's an arbitrary statement.

They don't make the finals without McD either. They don't make the finals without MSL either. Or Kreider. It's a team game.
In the playoffs last year, of goalies that lasted more than one series, Henrik was second to only Rask in Save % (.928 vs .927) and GAA (1.99 vs 2.14). Quick was at .911 and 2.58.

I don't know what else counts as top-end goaltending.

Guess that's not really directed towards you Pete...I'm just sayin lol

Morphinity
10-16-2014, 11:11 AM
Yeah, but it doesn't matter right now. No one is condemning Henrik's career because of his past 2 games. They're just saying he needs to play better. And he does.

Vodka Drunkenski
10-16-2014, 11:53 AM
He will be the first to tell you he needs to play better

Morphinity
10-16-2014, 11:57 AM
Right. And he will play better. No doubt in my mind.