This series was as close as it was for one reason. Henrik Lundqvist played out of his frigging mind. Granted, thats the benefit of having a goalie like him back there, but still, Tom Renney said it earlier in the playoffs....something along the lines of, if your goalie has to bail you out of every game, youre not going to last very long. Thats exactly what happened. W/ any other goalie not named Luongo, Nabakov, or Kipper, this series is over in 4, with each game being a 4 or 5 goal route.
This series was as close as it was for one reason. Henrik Lundqvist played out of his frigging mind. Granted, thats the benefit of having a goalie like him back there, but still, Tom Renney said it earlier in the playoffs....something along the lines of, if your goalie has to bail you out of every game, youre not going to last very long. Thats exactly what happened. W/ any other goalie not named Luongo, Nabakov, or Kipper, this series is over in 4, with each game being a 4 or 5 goal route.
Thats how badly they outplayed us.
In every game but game 4 and 5. Yes, I agree with this.
This came to me when watching NHL network, and them praising the Penguins.
Then they go on to show the series stats, and it just proved what i thought, and contradicted what they were saying.
The series was closer, and not DOMINATED like the analysts say.
A few bounces in our favor and we are still playing.
I agree the series wasn't dominated by the Penguins. The Penguins beat the Rangers because the Rangers beat themselves. Neither team played well in game 1 or 3. The Rangers played poorly in game 2. The Penguins played poorly in game 4. Both teams played well in game 5. The Pens managed to persevere in the games where both teams played poorly and that's why they won.
This came to me when watching NHL network, and them praising the Penguins.
Then they go on to show the series stats, and it just proved what i thought, and contradicted what they were saying.
The series was closer, and not DOMINATED like the analysts say.
A few bounces in our favor and we are still playing.
it was close, because the scores were all close. but the way their skaters played, they should have scored 7-8 goals a game. They were flat out dominating, but were equalized by a ridicu-freaking-less display of goaltending by Henrik. He gave up 5 goals in game 1, and i swear, it could have been twice that. The only game he wasnt spectacular was in game 3, where he was ordinary.
i think the series was much closer than the 5 games that it ended up being IMO. Yes, lundy played spectacular, yes they got the better chances, yes they were the BETTER team. But i truly do not believe that we would have/should have gotten swept if not for henrick. Fleury was no slouch at the other end of the ice either. If our powerplay was reasonably respectable and we gained momentum from it rather than losing it it would have been a closer series. If ryan hollweg wasn't a buzzkill in game 3 it would have been an even closer series.
I feel like the pre-trade deadline Pens and Rangers were two very even teams. We had a slight edge in goaltending, and they had a slight edge in offesnive power. The factor in this series that shifted the power was Marian Hossa. If he went to Montreal instead of Pittsburgh, I think we could have easily won this series. Yes, the penguins were a better team, but like others said, iffy officiating and bad bounces were a common theme for the Rangers which led to thier fall. Full marks to the Pens, but hats off to the Rangers as well. Any hockey fan knows that this was a very very close series, and should have gone at least 6 or 7 games.
__________________ "Matteau! Matteau! Matteau!"~H. Rose
It was close if we didn't give up a three goal lead in game one.
It's not close when you have a three goal lead and give it away, it's also not close when you're down 3-1 climb back to 3-3 and lose anyway. That's the better team showing resiliancy when it matters most. Throw in the powerplay differance (which was no surprise) and this series was no where near close. We couldn't expose Fleury (I think it will be interesting to see how PIT handles the Flyers PP). Henrik was the only reason we even won a game in this series. Even with him stealing a game he gave away another one in game 3 to even it up.
We didn't out hit the Penguins and we didn't perform as well on the powerplay. The Pens were much more consistent in their play over the course of the series and took advantage of the breaks when they got them. A PP goal scored on a weak call always seems to be remembered for the weak call instead of the of a well executed power play. We had our chances and never took advantage of them. We performed horribly at the most crucial times.
I thought we killed the Devils in round one and it wasn't really ever that close and I thought the Pens killed us. Saying it was close is a slap in the face to a team that set the tone in game 1 by climbing out of a three goal hole. Outside of Hank and Jagr the Ranger's scoring was all but invisible.
It was close if we didn't give up a three goal lead in game one.
It's not close when you have a three goal lead and give it away, it's also not close when you're down 3-1 climb back to 3-3 and lose anyway. That's the better team showing resiliancy when it matters most. Throw in the powerplay differance (which was no surprise) and this series was no where near close. We couldn't expose Fleury (I think it will be interesting to see how PIT handles the Flyers PP). Henrik was the only reason we even won a game in this series. Even with him stealing a game he gave away another one in game 3 to even it up.
We didn't out hit the Penguins and we didn't perform as well on the powerplay. The Pens were much more consistent in their play over the course of the series and took advantage of the breaks when they got them. A PP goal scored on a weak call always seems to be remembered for the weak call instead of the of a well executed power play. We had our chances and never took advantage of them. We performed horribly at the most crucial times.
I thought we killed the Devils in round one and it wasn't really ever that close and I thought the Pens killed us. Saying it was close is a slap in the face to a team that set the tone in game 1 by climbing out of a three goal hole. Outside of Hank and Jagr the Ranger's scoring was all but invisible.
It was close if we didn't give up a three goal lead in game one.
It's not close when you have a three goal lead and give it away, it's also not close when you're down 3-1 climb back to 3-3 and lose anyway. That's the better team showing resiliancy when it matters most. Throw in the powerplay differance (which was no surprise) and this series was no where near close. We couldn't expose Fleury (I think it will be interesting to see how PIT handles the Flyers PP). Henrik was the only reason we even won a game in this series. Even with him stealing a game he gave away another one in game 3 to even it up.
We didn't out hit the Penguins and we didn't perform as well on the powerplay. The Pens were much more consistent in their play over the course of the series and took advantage of the breaks when they got them. A PP goal scored on a weak call always seems to be remembered for the weak call instead of the of a well executed power play. We had our chances and never took advantage of them. We performed horribly at the most crucial times.
I thought we killed the Devils in round one and it wasn't really ever that close and I thought the Pens killed us. Saying it was close is a slap in the face to a team that set the tone in game 1 by climbing out of a three goal hole. Outside of Hank and Jagr the Ranger's scoring was all but invisible.
Very much in agreement here.
Each individual game may have been close, but the series as a whole was not. Great teams figure out ways to win those close games, and the Penguins figured out how to do that and did it in decisive fashion.
