View Single Post
05-18-2013, 03:48 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,904
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
I know you want to pretend like we played worse to absolve Lundvist but PLEASE. Their 3rd goal was a very nice one. However the first was an uncovered slap shot from the point and another one was a slapshot from pretty the point along the boards. If that's not "opportunistic" I don't know what is. At least our second goal was created by us and not some soft goal/fluke. Their first 2 goals were more opportunistic than our 2.
Both goals Rask gave up were soft.

If both goalies performed to their standards, it would have been 0-0 heading into OT. That's the reality of it. Rangers fans like yourself just want to pretend that the goals Rask gave up weren't soft, to validate Lundqvist for the loss. The bottom line, if Rask is on, we don't have a goal.

If Lundqvist was beaten five hole from as far out as Stepan was, he would have been ripped apart. If Lundqvist gave up a shot with medium velocity over the shoulder from the point, ala McDonagh, he would have been ripped apart.

Rask gave up those goals. Lundqvist gave up two soft goals. Then it came down to OT and we were outshot 18-4. It has nothing to do with Lundqvist.

And again, you said Lundqvist faced 43 cupcake shots right? So you wanted him to have a 3rd straight shutout basically? Is that what you honestly expected? Because you're certainly implying he should have had both goals, thus he should have let up no goals, thus resulting in 180 minutes of no goals against. If you expected that

Star criticizing that bum Rick Nash. I get that Lundqvist isn't above criticism, but he's the last player on the team that deserves it. NASH SHOULD BE THE OBJECT OF EVERYONE'S CRITICISM AT THIS POINT.

Fataldogg is offline   Reply With Quote