HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

GDT: 01/14 - New York Rangers @ Pittsburgh Penguins - 7PM - VS

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-15-2008, 07:14 AM
  #701
Shadowtron
Registered User
 
Shadowtron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,534
vCash: 500
The part of Henrik Lundqvist will be played by Ty Conklin!

What a show Ty put on last night. He had his team playing with confidence and had the crowd roaring with some very good goaltending. I don't think Hank had a particualrly bad game, but once again I thought he played a bit on his heels. Couple of good saves, but not there with the big ones. Two months ago I was disappointed if he gave up more than 2...now I just pray he plays well enough to keep us under 4. Something has to be done about this. Personally, I think he needs a vacation. A good 3-5 games off to get his head back into it. I'm hoping that his exclusion form the All-Star game will be exactly what the doctor ordered.

Shadowtron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 07:59 AM
  #702
segmentation fault
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Jersey City
Country: United States
Posts: 2,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jediprakNYR View Post
Ty Conklin was sick today.Give me a break 43 saves. That's unreal. He has been their go to guy. It was a good effort by the Rangers nonetheless. But since we can't score, we can't give up goals. Defenseman are trying to save our butts by trying to become offensemen, and that ultimately results in a couple of good giveaways.
This, I believe, is our biggest problem.

Lets go back to winning 2-1 and having our defense play, well, defense.

segmentation fault is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 07:59 AM
  #703
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Terrien sends Laraque to fight Orr on first shift... That was the move that let Penguins to took over from get go. With Orr in the box for first 5 min Betts line was not not palying. By the time HBO line came back on ice we were down 2 goals. Renney miscalculated that aspect. He should have Strudwick dressed for all the scraps to keep Orr in place. Lundqvist play makes me sad... On the other hand I doubt Conklin will keep such a high level of play till April. He is now the goalie we had in Henke back in Nov. This is long season. We didn't play that bad. If Pitt had Huet in goal a la Sat we would have won. But we cannot do anything about ANY hot goaltender all season long. We are not the only ones.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 08:07 AM
  #704
Chunklee*
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
Terrien sends Laraque to fight Orr on first shift... That was the move that let Penguins to took over from get go. With Orr in the box for first 5 min Betts line was not not palying. By the time HBO line came back on ice we were down 2 goals. Renney miscalculated that aspect. He should have Strudwick dressed for all the scraps to keep Orr in place. Lundqvist play makes me sad... On the other hand I doubt Conklin will keep such a high level of play till April. He is now the goalie we had in Henke back in Nov. This is long season. We didn't play that bad. If Pitt had Huet in goal a la Sat we would have won. But we cannot do anything about ANY hot goaltender all season long. We are not the only ones.
yeah the rangers lost because orr was in the box for 5 minutes

Chunklee* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 08:34 AM
  #705
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,276
vCash: 500
I only saw the highlights, but I will say that the first goal was a combo of a misplay by Lundqvist and bad defense (how can they let Malkin just walk in like that). Second goal was really bad defense as well, they let the guy pretty much split the D and take a shot then left Malkin unchecked. There's no way a player should be able to split the Defense like that in the NHL. Third goal there was nothing Lundqvist could do, 5 on 3, blast from the point. So I only fault Lundqvist on the 1st goal. Defense on the 1st two and lack of discipline on the first and especially the third.


BTW, how did the 3rd line play? I know they didn't score, but were they at least decent?

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 09:00 AM
  #706
Larry Melnyk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Gloomsville, USA
Posts: 4,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
Terrien sends Laraque to fight Orr on first shift... That was the move that let Penguins to took over from get go. With Orr in the box for first 5 min Betts line was not not palying. By the time HBO line came back on ice we were down 2 goals. Renney miscalculated that aspect. He should have Strudwick dressed for all the scraps to keep Orr in place. .
Man, I would love to see the look on your face when you make posts like this..Now that's 2 mins for attempt to instigate..And I like the job HBO has done..

But seriosuly, I guess Orr couldn't decline, but fighting Laraque to start the game was a no-win situation for the Rangers and no-lose for the Penns. It really helped thyem as a team

Larry Melnyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 09:09 AM
  #707
Dagoon44
Registered User
 
Dagoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,143
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Dagoon44 Send a message via Yahoo to Dagoon44
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountVancouver'94 View Post
Anyone notice Talbot spear Dubi between the legs on that very last puck drop.

Dubi must have felt real alone out there on his final three shifts wirh 25 seconds left. This rookie takin on a whole Pitts line, trying to show some spark while his captain skates off wit h his head down. Dubi got five guys on him first...then on the next faceoff, Jaarko (who needs to get banned at some point) goes right after him after the faceoff and blindsides him. Then Renney leaves him out there for 1.2 seconds-left-puck-drop, only to get speared in the nads.
Renney did hang the kid out to dry. The New NHL rules do state that if a player starts a fight in the last 5 minutes him and the coach get suspened. Maybe Renney was scared to put Orr and Hollweg out but the kid didn't derserve Prucha and Dawes lol

Dagoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 09:39 AM
  #708
Chimp
Registered User
 
Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my food garden.
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,684
vCash: 500
Can you please explain why you fault Henke for the 1st goal? He covered the post and waited for the shot, but Malkin held on to it, glided further in and made a perfect wristshot. Poke check? Please... if he misses the poke check or if Malkin shoots just when Lundqvist reaches out with his stick, Malkin has an open net. Then you would have really hacked on him for attempting a foolish poke check instead of trying to save the shot.

I would also give Conklin more credit if not his defense played great in front of his crease and the slot. We got about two rebounds during the entire game and almost never screened him (if ever). And he faced what, 3-4 quality scoring chances during the whole game (and all were finished poorly, whacked right into the pads on a butterfly goaltender)? Saving 35 unscreened, soft wristshots that hits your logo, from bad to awful angles, isn't the performance of the century, like some make it sound like.

Yes, we shot 43 shots on net, yet we barely tested Conklin's abilities, at all. And never mind that the goal Jagr scored was kind of cheap and created out of nothing, if Conklin wouldn't have lost his balance and been sitting on his arse (covering practically nothing of the lower part of the net), he would probably have saved Jagr's weak wrister on the rebound and had the shutout, which would have been a quite easy one.

Don't misunderstand me. Conklin was good, but he wasn't brilliant, because he never had to be.


Last edited by Chimp: 01-15-2008 at 09:58 AM.
Chimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 09:52 AM
  #709
DontStepanMe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Queens, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimp View Post
Can you please explain why you fault Henke for the 1st goal? He covered the post and waited for the shot, but Malkin held on to it, glided further in and made a perfect wristshot. Poke check? Please... if he misses the poke check or if Malkin shoots just when Lundqvist reaches out with his stick, Malkin has an open net. Then you would have really hacked on him for attempting a foolish poke check instead of trying to save the shot.
Lundqvist sits too far back in net. If he came out a little there would have been less twine to shoot at and I think he would have made the save. He has to come out and challeng shooters more. Goalies of Brodeur's caliber understand this and come out from the net a little bit more so there is less area to shoot at. Lundy just isn't challenging any shooters lately, but relying on his reflexes.

DontStepanMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 10:02 AM
  #710
Chimp
Registered User
 
Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my food garden.
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rags225 View Post
Lundqvist sits too far back in net. If he came out a little there would have been less twine to shoot at and I think he would have made the save. He has to come out and challeng shooters more. Goalies of Brodeur's caliber understand this and come out from the net a little bit more so there is less area to shoot at. Lundy just isn't challenging any shooters lately, but relying on his reflexes.
Lately? That's how he's been playing his entire NHL career, because he doesn't rely on his defense to cut the passing lanes and taking care of the other players (and since he plays with Rangers, he shouldn't). Cutting the angle for Malkin a little bit more doesn't help anything when Malkin finishes that shot like he did, it was right in the X-bar. Sure, he could have taken a bigger risk and challenged Malkin more aggressively, that's what him and Allaire are working on. But blaming Lundqvist for the goal? Give me a break. You can't blame the goalie when he's hung out to dry - on a penalty kill - and the shooter makes a perfect shot.

That goal is all on the defense, because there's no way a player should have the opportunity to skate all the way from the boards, directly into the area around the slot and shoot a close range shot, without a single Blueshirt to bother him. That's not even brutal or awful defense, that's non-existant defense, because they (Malik) didn't even show up to look bad.


Last edited by Chimp: 01-15-2008 at 10:10 AM.
Chimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 10:13 AM
  #711
DontStepanMe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Queens, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimp View Post
Lately? That's how he's been playing his entire NHL career, because he doesn't rely on his defense to cut the passing lanes and taking care of the other players (and since he plays with Rangers, he shouldn't). Cutting the angle for Malkin a little bit more doesn't help anything when Malkin finishes that shot like he did, it was right in the X-bar. Sure, he could have taken a bigger risk and challenged Malkin more aggressively, that's what him and Allaire are working on. But blaming Lundqvist for the goal? Give me a break. You can't blame the goalie when he's hung out to dry - on a penalty kill - and the shooter makes a perfect shot.

That goal is all on the defense, because there's no way a player should have the opportunity to skate all the way from the boards, directly into the area around the slot and shoot, without a single Blueshirt to bother him. That's non-existant defense.
Coming out and challenging Malkin would have made him rush the shot more and there probably not be as accurate. Also if he came out enough there would have been no way that the puck would have even been able to hit the top corner. You're right that he was hung out to dry by his defense but he hasnt been helping his own situation much at all lately. He is too content in sitting back. He has got to help himself some as well. No defense will do everything for you, sometimes you have to do things on your own and be aggressive in goal. Players have learned his tendencies and that is why he is getting beat so often lately. He hasn't learned to adjust enough, as the great goalies do.

DontStepanMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 10:20 AM
  #712
Shadowtron
Registered User
 
Shadowtron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimp View Post
Lately? That's how he's been playing his entire NHL career, because he doesn't rely on his defense to cut the passing lanes and taking care of the other players (and since he plays with Rangers, he shouldn't). Cutting the angle for Malkin a little bit more doesn't help anything when Malkin finishes that shot like he did, it was right in the X-bar. Sure, he could have taken a bigger risk and challenged Malkin more aggressively, that's what him and Allaire are working on. But blaming Lundqvist for the goal? Give me a break. You can't blame the goalie when he's hung out to dry - on a penalty kill - and the shooter makes a perfect shot.

That goal is all on the defense, because there's no way a player should have the opportunity to skate all the way from the boards, directly into the area around the slot and shoot a close range shot, without a single Blueshirt to bother him. That's not even brutal or awful defense, that's non-existant defense, because they (Malik) didn't even show up to look bad.
Chimp, I think you’re making a mountain out of a mole hill here. Personally, I blame two people for the 1st goal: Hank and Malik. Malik elected to attack the point man who then dished the puck to a wide open Malkin. It leaves Rosival in a tricky situation because if he pursues Malkin, he leaves his man open for the easy tap in, but if he stays, then Malkin walks right it (which he did). I also have to blame Hank a bit as well, because he wasn’t nearly aggressive enough in reading the play. If he comes out and/or attempts a poke check, perhaps he forces Malkin to adjust giving Malik enough time to get back and cover him or perhaps allows Rosival a better opportunity to defend both men. However, he stayed low and deep in the net giving Malkin the top corner. And with players like Malkin, you can’t give them anything because they shoot with laser accuracy.

Shadowtron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 10:32 AM
  #713
Chimp
Registered User
 
Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my food garden.
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rags225 View Post
Coming out and challenging Malkin would have made him rush the shot more and there probably not be as accurate. Also if he came out enough there would have been no way that the puck would have even been able to hit the top corner. You're right that he was hung out to dry by his defense but he hasnt been helping his own situation much at all lately. He is too content in sitting back. He has got to help himself some as well. No defense will do everything for you, sometimes you have to do things on your own and be aggressive in goal. Players have learned his tendencies and that is why he is getting beat so often lately. He hasn't learned to adjust enough, as the great goalies do.
You make it sound like rushing out on Malkin would have solved the situation completely. A goalie is very vulnerable when he attempts a poke check. In the world of If's (as we're already discussing the world of If Lundqvist would have rushed Malkin)... What if Malkin just stickhandles away from the poke check and then scores in a humiliatingly open net? What if Lundqvist rushes Malkin, doesn't poke check and Malkin continues, with the speed he had, and just glides sideways past Lundqvist (since there was no Blueshirt close anyway), and yet again has an easy shot? And besides, rushing out from your net on a shooter when you're shorthanded doesn't sound that appealing, at least to me.

There was no "check-mate" maneuver Lundqvist could have done to solve the situation, because Malkin had the upper hand: speed, alone with Lundqvist, a man advantage and enough space to set up a party tent. Malkin made a great shot and there's not much else to say.

And what do you mean learned his tendencies? Yes, of course they know his tendencies, he's a butterfly goalie and acts just like most other butterfly goalies. Shoot it under the crossbar and you score on basically any goalie in the league, regardless of what they do or what style they play.

If you want Lundqvist to change style and challenge shooters more, you have to be prepared for alot of easy goals in open nets, because this team sucks at covering passing lanes right now (or any other defensive task for that matter).


Last edited by Chimp: 01-15-2008 at 10:39 AM.
Chimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 10:35 AM
  #714
HAPPY HOUR
Registered User
 
HAPPY HOUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,253
vCash: 500
I can just see the meeting this morning with Sather, Renney and Schoenfeld sitting at a table going over last nights debacle. Renney leads off by saying that he realizes that his "trapping" system was never really a system, it was putting Henrik in net and hoping this guy stands on his head for about oh.....60-65 games.

Schoney retorts with...#@%^$ that #$%@! these c#$k%$#@ers suck! Time to blow er up!!

Slats licks his ice cream cone and giggles as it runs down his chin and onto his tie.

HAPPY HOUR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 10:44 AM
  #715
DontStepanMe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Queens, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimp View Post
You make it sound like rushing out on Malkin would have solved the situation completely. A goalie is very vulnerable when he attempts a poke check. What if Malkin just stickhandles away from the poke check and then scores in a humiliatingly open net? What if Lundqvist rushes Malkin, doesn't poke check and Malkin continues, with the speed he had, and just glides sideways past Lundqvist (since there was no Blueshirt close anyway), and yet again has an easy shot? And besides, rushing out from your net on a shooter when you're shorthanded doesn't sound that appealing, at least to me.

There was no "check-mate" maneuver Lundqvist could have done to solve the situation, because Malkin had the upper hand: speed, alone with Lundqvist, a man advantage and enough space to set up a party tent. Malkin made a great shot and there's not much else to say.

And what do you mean learned his tendencies? Yes, of course they know his tendencies, he's a butterfly goalie and acts just like most other butterfly goalies. Shoot it under the crossbar and you score on basically any goalie in the league, regardless of what they do or what style they play.

If you want Lundqvist to change style and challenge shooters more, you have to be prepared for alot of easy goals in open nets, because this team sucks at covering passing lanes right now.

First off I never said anything about going for a poke check. I just said go out of the net a little more and cut down the angles. Big Difference. Second Malkin couldn't just go around Hank b/c Rosy was in front of the crease and there wasn't the room to go all away around him. Third I never said there was a definate solution to the problem all I said was that Lundqvist could have made a better choice to get a better chance of making a save. IMO him doing absolutley nothing in that situation was the worst move he could have made.

Cutting down the angle and coming out of the net could have gained him an extra half second so Malik might have been able to stick check away the puck or rosy could have tried to play that man instead. This would have let the man in front of the net be open but I would rather than and hope that rosy could have blocked the pass or lundy make the save on a shot that wouldn't have been nearly as easy. You don't just let a player of Malkins caliber to waltz in and not challenge him. He will score almost everytime.

These small differences are why Hank is not yet on par w/ the Brodeurs, Luongo's, and Kippers of the game. They will all challenge shooters and try to make the shooter beat them, not let the shooter shoot and try to make the save. Proactive is always better than reactive.

DontStepanMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 11:03 AM
  #716
Chimp
Registered User
 
Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my food garden.
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowtron View Post
Chimp, I think you’re making a mountain out of a mole hill here...
As do I think about you people. I think you should look at the goal in replay again (as I just did). Look at the distance between Malkin and Lundqvist. I now say blaming Lundqvist for not attempting to poke check Malkin is totally ridiculous.

Malkin comes in from the extended goalline (making Lundqvist hugging the post, like he should every day in the week). Malkin then proceedes in diagonally, touching the outer faceoff circle with his left skate. Notice the big distance between him and Lundqvist. He then changes direction and moves in towards the open slot and releases a wristshot that hits the spot next to the X-bar. All this in about 2 seconds. How are you as a goalie supposed to poke check a puck carrier that far out that is moving diagonally, which makes his intentions unsure and then in the last second moves sideways into the slot? Lundqvist should have been about half a second faster to move out to the top of his crease, that's about it, but it wouldn't have made much of a difference when Malkin shot the puck like he did.

I still can't see how you can put blame on a goalie for letting in a goal like that. And what do you mean "Henrik giving Malkin the top corner"? The top corner is always there for a shooter in a spot like that. Just because our players are totally inept at finding that top corner in similar situations, it doesn't mean it's not always there.

What's next? Asking Lundqvist to rush and attempt to poke check PP pointmen at the blueline?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rags225 View Post
... These small differences are why Hank is not yet on par w/ the Brodeurs, Luongo's, and Kippers of the game. They will all challenge shooters and try to make the shooter beat them, not let the shooter shoot and try to make the save. Proactive is always better than reactive.
Sorry about that, I kind of put all you "poke checkers" into the same category.But... You just seem to ignore one little detail: the quality of Malkin's shot. You can put whoever you want in net to try to make the save on that shot. What goalie will save a laser wrister under the X-bar, where the shooter forces you out of position? Say Brodeur, Luongo or whoever goes out to the top of the crease to cover more of the net. Now they have even less time to react to the shot that very most probably beats them up under the X-bar. Sure, covering net is the right thing to do, but when a goalie is beat, he's beat, whatever his name is.
Quote:
...You don't just let a player of Malkins caliber to waltz in and not challenge him. He will score almost everytime...
What are we paying defensemen for doing again? Drinking Gatorade? It sure as hell can't be for challenging opponents and not letting them waltz into our slot, that's the goalie's task. Perhaps Kaspar can come back and teach Lundqvist how to hip check.

I'm done discussing this. If you want to blame Lundqvist for not stopping that shot, fine, be my guest.


Last edited by Chimp: 01-15-2008 at 11:14 AM.
Chimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 11:11 AM
  #717
Shadowtron
Registered User
 
Shadowtron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimp View Post
As do I think about you people. I think you should look at the goal in replay again (as I just did). Look at the distance between Malkin and Lundqvist. I now say blaming Lundqvist for not attempting to poke check Malkin is totally ridiculous.
Oh relax, I'm working off memory here. So I thought he was closer than he was, big deal. Then poke checking is the wrong move....bravo, you won a cigar. You people would poke holes in a shadow if you could. I feel he could have played it differently, you don't. Oh well. We lost, regardless. This isn't an American tragedy we're discussing here. This back and forth is what is totally ridiculous. There was nothing he could have differently? He played exactly the way it should have been played. Okay. for you. Better?

Shadowtron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 11:23 AM
  #718
Chimp
Registered User
 
Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my food garden.
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowtron View Post
Oh relax, I'm working off memory here. So I thought he was closer than he was, big deal. Then poke checking is the wrong move....bravo, you won a cigar. You people would poke holes in a shadow if you could. I feel he could have played it differently, you don't. Oh well. We lost, regardless. This isn't an American tragedy we're discussing here. This back and forth is what is totally ridiculous. There was nothing he could have differently? He played exactly the way it should have been played. Okay. for you. Better?
Of course I think he could have played it differently (going quicker to the top of his crease), but I don't blame him for not saving that shot, that's the difference. And yes, it is a tragedy we're discussing here, it's watching our favourite team trying to play hockey. That a big damn tragedy if you ask me. I'm also a Lundqvist homeboy, why do you think I defend him so often? But I also happen to defend most goalies when I think they're bashed unrightfully and tone them down when I think they receive too much credit (which Lundqvist for example has received, among many others).

If you think I rant away with a too harsh style, well I'm sorry, perhaps I should be more reserved sometimes. Finding people who would poke holes in shadows when their team is as useless as a flat tyre and has been so for frigging months now isn't that hard. I'm so sick of this mess.


Last edited by Chimp: 01-15-2008 at 11:28 AM.
Chimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 11:24 AM
  #719
DontStepanMe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Queens, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimp View Post
Sorry about that, I kind of put all you "poke checkers" into the same category.But... You just seem to ignore one little detail: the quality of Malkin's shot. You can put whoever you want in net to try to make the save on that shot. What goalie will save a laser wrister under the X-bar, where the shooter forces you out of position? Say Brodeur, Luongo or whoever goes out to the top of the crease to cover more of the net. Now they have even less time to react to the shot that very most probably beats them up under the X-bar. Sure, covering net is the right thing to do, but when a goalie is beat, he's beat, whatever his name is.

What are we paying defensemen for doing again? Drinking Gatorade? It sure as hell can't be for challenging opponents and not letting them waltz into our slot, that's the goalie's task. Perhaps Kaspar can come back and teach Lundqvist how to hip check.

All I was saying is that if Lundy came out of the net more than Malkin might have to rush his shot more leading to less accuracy. Or it could have bought an extra half second or so b/c Malkin probably would have tried a deke to get a little more of an opening. That's it. Malkin has a great deadly shot. You have to try to leave as little an opening as possible which is the exact opposite of what Lundy did. Playing in the net gives the most opening possible. Coming out a little would have gave less of an opening.

Also I did say that the d-let him out to dry. It but Lundy made a bad situation worse w/ his decision and positioning. That's it.

DontStepanMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 11:34 AM
  #720
Shadowtron
Registered User
 
Shadowtron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimp View Post
Of course I think he could have played it differently (going quicker to the top of his crease),
Then there's no use for further discussion as we're in agreement. He could have played it differently. My conclusion is that because he sat back and didn't challenge, he should be partly responsible. Whatever our opinions, it's a goal, it's an L, it's over.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimp View Post
If you think I rant away with a too harsh style, well I'm sorry, perhaps I should be more reserved sometimes.
Nothing to do with harshness. It's the persistence of some here to argue the most minuscule points. You're acting as if I blamed Hank for all 4 goals and then tried to convince you that the best course of action would be to trade him to Calgary for Cujo.

Shadowtron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 12:05 PM
  #721
cityhockeyfever
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New York City area
Country: United States
Posts: 612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by robruckus View Post
My wording wasn't the best. I shouldn't say he raised me that way. If he did I wouldn't support New York teams obviously. But he has lived here his whole life, and so have I. So don't start saying I'm an out of towner. New York in general, being in the northeast is a rude, disrespectful place. There's really no arguing that. Obviously this varies on an individual basis but as a whole there's no doubt about this. Go anywhere else in the country and compare it to here and people here are jerks. I don't care about that, I'm a jerk too. But it's the truth.

As far as legitimate reasons...New York fans always seem to equate poor play with not caring and lack of effort. If a player is struggling he doesn't care or isn't trying. And people get all over him. I will never argue with anyone over boo-ing a player that blatantly doesn't hustle or work hard. But the majority of the time, these players just aren't playing well. It has nothing to do with effort. And I will never boo a player unless they aren't trying. I'm not holding anyone else to that standard but that's me personally. I get frustrated and curse them out and all that. But if I'm at the game I'm not going to boo anyone for playing bad. They're human beings. They all want to win.

New Yorkers are also the most impatient fans on the planet. Blame it on the lifestyle that we all live but this again is the truth. When it comes to baseball it's hold onto the kids we always trade away youth, then the trade deadline comes and it's we need to trade these kids so we can win now. A team loses a few games and it's fire the coach. Fire the GM. Get a new owner. Everyone is so drastic and dramatic around these parts. What if the Rangers had fired Renney at the all star break last year? They wouldn't have went on that great run to end the season. Patience is more important than most in this area think. And most will still never understand that.

As for your boo-ing primadonna players who only care about themselves and underperform...that's all subjective. You can't prove any of that accept for the underperforming part. You can't prove he doesn't care about anyone else. You can't prove he's only playing for the money. You can think what you want but you can't prove that. And to me, it's not fair to make that assumption about another human being just because their job happens to be something I watch for entertainment. You CHOOSE to pay the money. You CHOOSE to spend your time watching. So don't act like you're being forced into something. No one's making you spend your hard earned bills. So if you don't like what you see, dont' pay money for it.


Once again, I said nothing against the knowledge and passion of New York fans. I even stated, like you, that it's probably the best out there. But don't go giving me this crap about New Yorkers always supporting their teams even when they're bad. Go look at the attendance for the New York Yankees in the late 60's and early 70's when they were atrocious. They averged less than 15,000 fans for YEARS. So don't give me that crap.

Here's a link for you. Look at all the games they couldn't even break 10 thousand. IN NEW YORK CITY. The greatest baseball city in the world.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/te...72_sched.shtml
robruckus, relax. I wasn't attacking you and wasn't assuming your father or yourself was an out-of-towner. I was making reference to out-of-town fans as a whole.

Yes, there are plenty of people that are rude and disrespectful around here. Yeah, it can come with the territory because we don't tolerate any crap. But there are a lot more that are real people who actually care about others. We just have to know where to spot them. However, every major city and town in North America has their share of nasty, rude and horrible people.

As for New York sports fans, I tend to blame the media for conditioning the fans here that the home teams need that bandaid fix or win now approach, especially because they feel unlike anywhere else as they claim, we've got the money. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't fall into that category of fans. I WANT the re-building through the draft and signing the right free agents, not simply outpaying other teams for has been superstars (like Jaromir Jagr). And another thing, not once here have I ever said I wanted Tom Renney fired. I have not called for Glen Sather's head since the Rangers have gotten themselves back some respect from around the league (post-lockout). I do have a serious problem with James Dolan though, but that's a whole other story altogether. I have wanted him gone for years regardless of how the Rangers are doing.

As for the booing, I have not booed some Rangers fans' favorite target Marek Malik. I haven't booed Marcel Hossa either, a player I don't think has a future with this team. At times, neither has played well at all. The one time if I had the opportunity to boo Malik was right after that bad blunder in last spring's playoff series in Buffalo. Every Rangers fan can visualize the highlight tattooed in his or her brain. And I boo anybody that doesn't try, not necessary just underperforms. Oh, and about that primadonna thing. If Terrell Owens was playing for the Jets or Giants, would any fan of either team put up with his garbage? I sure wouldn't, I don't care how good he is. He's a self-centered, "desperately seeking constant spotlight" A-hole. It's all about him. That Oscar-winning performance after his so-called "America's Team" lost is a complete joke. I'm still waiting for him to piss off his Dallas Cowboys teammates so he'll make it three for three in teams were he wore out his welcome. I'd rather have a team player, not some primadonna that craves the spotlight and put himself ahead of the team. If anybody's followed the NFL even just casually, people know how he's conducted himself, especially in camera view. If he's the opposite of a primadonna, then he's a complete idiot for being a wannabe.

Yeah, I know professional sports is entertainment and choose to pay for tickets or my Cablevision service to watch or NHL Center Ice for out-of-town games. Yeah, I choose to be a fan of a particular team, not forced. Same with going to games. But if I'm a loyal fan through good times and bad, I still expect players to play for the team (such as the logo on the front of the jersey) win or lose, not for themselves (like the name on the back) and the money. That's all New Yorkers could ask for at the very least from the extremely priviledged to get paid to play a game.

Attendance isn't the sole indicator that fans are supporting their team, but it's the most visual. When numbers are down, yeah it can be questioned in asking where are the fans. I know about the Yankees' terrible years. Same with the Mets' bad ones. During those times, they just stay home, not because they don't exist. But yes, we aren't immune to less than stellar attendance. Hell, just before the lockout when the Rangers were bad, the Garden was a third empty on some nights. I cannot deny that. This is for a team that has had a reputation for the very high majority of the time selling the place out year after year. The Knicks have had a real disconnect with their fans since the Patrick Ewing era ended. With that jackass Dolan running the show, a delusional and clueless coach and with the exception of a select few a bunch of players that don't give a crap in playing even for pride, why should anybody support that embarassment of a team? Attendance is down for Knicks games for more than just losing, not solely because they're not winning.

Look, your points are well taken, don't get me wrong. But I just expressed my honest view even if it's just an opinion and not necessarily complete fact. I don't let a hometown bias get in the way of rational thinking on my part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robruckus View Post
Hey cityhockeyfever...

Another of our loyal, diehard, non-fairweather fan base huh?
I'm not going to rip theMessiah1194, but that statement doesn't exactly make him or her look very good. Last night, I needed a serious timeout for watching the Rangers after they fell behind 3-0. That's how frustrated I've been.

cityhockeyfever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 12:12 PM
  #722
mergnemi*
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bloomfield, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 397
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to mergnemi*
this game reminded me of the dallas game where we just looked like crap but had a huge shot advantage. and we also weren't trailing 3-0 to dallas but it had that seem feel like the team was sleep walking and had a high shot total but none were big scoring chances

mergnemi* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 12:25 PM
  #723
cityhockeyfever
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New York City area
Country: United States
Posts: 612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mergnemi View Post
this game reminded me of the dallas game where we just looked like crap but had a huge shot advantage. and we also weren't trailing 3-0 to dallas but it had that seem feel like the team was sleep walking and had a high shot total but none were big scoring chances
Good point. That was I was thinking... misleading high shot total and still ended up with a loss.
The one thing in common between Dallas and Pittsburgh, they're actually good teams.

cityhockeyfever is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:15 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.