Maybe, yes, and Hank has saved the Rangers countless times. And yes, he hasn't been playing very well recently, I agree. But to say that we cannot win without Hank is probably wrong too.
how literal are you talking?
Can we win without Henrik. Sure.
Would we be in first place w/o Henrik. No, absolutely not.
Would we be a playoff team without Henrik? I'm honestly not sure...maybe...maybe not.
Would we be in first place w/o Henrik. No, absolutely not.
Would we be a playoff team without Henrik? I'm honestly not sure...maybe...maybe not.
It depends on who you're replacing Hank with, in this scenario. A slightly above average 'tender like Niemi, and we're still a playoff team. If Hank breaks a leg and we have to play Biron a full season, no. We're boned in that case.
The game against CBJ was the PERFECT chance to play Biron.
Stupid....absolutely STUPID to play him tonight.
I agree to an extent. Then again, he was a beast against the Bruins and faces two games worth of shots, so he was tired. I'd even say he looked more tired in his postgame than usual. But, play him against the better team, and if you can't win against Columbus with a lawnmower in net, you have a problem.
I agree to an extent. Then again, he was a beast against the Bruins and faces two games worth of shots, so he was tired. I'd even say he looked more tired in his postgame than usual. But, play him against the better team, and if you can't win against Columbus with a lawnmower in net, you have a problem.
It's arguable. I suppose if Henrik told Torts he was tired, then I can understand the move. I find it hard to believe though. The guy loves playing and competing, particularly at the Garden.
regardless, to me it makes way more sense to play your backup against the weak teams, and your primary goalie agianst the stronger teams. CHicago is a playoff team, 1 year removed from being the champs. They are a damn good team. You put your best foot forward. Columbus blows. They cant score goals. You rest your primary goalie then.
It's arguable. I suppose if Henrik told Torts he was tired, then I can understand the move. I find it hard to believe though. The guy loves playing and competing, particularly at the Garden.
regardless, to me it makes way more sense to play your backup against the weak teams, and your primary goalie agianst the stronger teams. CHicago is a playoff team, 1 year removed from being the champs. They are a damn good team. You put your best foot forward. Columbus blows. They cant score goals. You rest your primary goalie then.
blech.
Yeah, wouldn't really make sense then. Torts always talks about how Hank wants to play in every game. Even called him a pain in the ass on Tuesday. (Jokingly)
Now who plays against the Jackets? Because Hank is a lock for Pitt on Tuesday, but I can't imagine him not playing for a week, especially with how hot he has been.
Maybe so. But I also think Hank's numbers would have gotten hit with the piss-poor defensive effort in the first period alone.
1 penalty shot and 2 breakaways? Give me a break.
I doubt Chicago would have tried the **** they did against Biron knowing they can expose the 5 hole, but on a bad day Lundqvist stops 2 of those and on a below average day he stops all 3. Not this year, for whatever reason but Lundqvist has routinely gone 3 for 3 in shootouts on much better attempts than that.
The game against CBJ was the PERFECT chance to play Biron.
Stupid....absolutely STUPID to play him tonight.
This so much. Why not just wait until Sunday? You really could see this coming...there are certain games you want the best team out there, the team with the "swagger", that is what we have when Hank is in net. Certain nights you have to have that.
The last 50 minutes were solid, but that usually doesn't matter when you spot your opponent four goals. That said, you can't win them all and the team showed some heart and commitment by not mailing it in.
How often does a team come back from a 4-0 defecit? A couple of times this season? Bottom line with Hank, PP or no PP would have probably gotten at least a point.
The best teams in the league have a little better than 22-24% PP conversion rate...they had 7 chances...
do the math.
All I'm trying to point out is that after the 1st was over, we played the way we have been playing all year, but teams that are good (or great) in every way, find ways to win. Winning & playing well includes scoring on the PP. You CANNOT win games like today without you PP.
This goes double for those games in the Playoffs. If you start a game terribly in the Finals, and a team gives you 7 chances to come back, you need to be able to come back...
It wont be "just one game" come spring time...
Last edited by Trident61494: 02-16-2012 at 11:32 PM.
Rangers have a 10-3-1 record with Biron in net. 21 of 28 points or 75%.
Rangers have a 27-11-4 record with Lundqvist in net. 58 of 84 points or 69%.
I'm not saying that Biron is better than Lundqvist. Far from it. However, let's not freak out about a bad game. Biron has been solid as a backup all season.
Also, I'm not sure where this Rangers suck without Lundqvist in net comes from. They have won 75% of their games without him in net this season. I don't care who they were playing, they won. There are no facts to prove that the Rangers can't win when Lundqvist isn't playing for a night. If Lundqvist was out long term, sure the Rangers are screwed, but who wouldn't be if they lost the best goalie in the world?
felt like a combination of poor team defense in the first period in addition to Biron having a bad game.
We've seen him play better than this before, so I'd just write this off as one of those bad games everyone has. Not to mention, we all know Chicago has a lot of firepower despite what their record shows atm.
