Thread: Post-Game Talk: Rangers @ Bruins
View Single Post
Old
11-30-2013, 02:20 AM
  #409
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 23,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanned On It View Post
Really? You're going to include Lundqvist in that group?

Someone has to step in here and set things straight so I guess I'll do it: Hank played great tonight. The GWG was not a "soft goal" by any means. Just because a goal isn't screened or deflected doesn't mean it was a weak one. As someone else said, you give a dude with one of the best shots in the game that much TIME and SPACE to pick his spot and a goalie is lucky to save it. I mean seriously are you guys THAT spoiled by Hank? Most of the goals you guys say are "soft" aren't actually soft. Have you seen how some of the other goal-tenders in the league play and the types of goals they give up?

This post in particular just boggles my mind. The other 2 goals Henrik gave up weren't his fault in even the SLIGHTEST bit. A bounce off of Girardi? A man wide open on the back-door? And then a dude with a monster of a shot given more than a second to shoot from the high-slot? This dude and SnowBlindNYR need to take their heads out of their ***** and recognize what a "soft goal" is, or more importantly isn't.

Blame Marc Staal for this loss. It was entirely his fault. If he did a better job the Rangers would have won this game DESPITE the fact that they sucked offensively. He left Marchand WIDE OPEN on the back-door and then proceeded to turn the puck over with a blind pass up the boards straight to a Boston skater who eventually got the puck to Chara for the GWG.

This is Snowblind: "Oh my god Henrik gave up a goal that wasn't screened or deflected?! It must have been SOFT!"
I don't think any goal that's not screened or deflected is soft. Sometimes guys pick corners. That was from far way and just powered its way through. I don't care who shoots it, it's soft.

SnowblindNYR is online now   Reply With Quote