I think this game was a little deceptive. We had a decent amount of puck possession in their zone and shots, but not many quality scoring chances. I don't think King Henrik was the issue tonight. He wasn't challenged all that much. Our problem tonight was getting the puck to open guys in high percentage areas, getting the puck on net, and being in the right position to pick up rebounds. The few times we did get a quality chance, Hank was there of course. We're just not creative enough to get those quality chances.
Give credit to NY though, they were great at clogging the zone when we did get sustained pressure. Seemed like they were outmuscling us all game.
In actuality, was hoping for an extension on our streak, but I'll take 5 wins. My dad loves the Rangers so he'll probably be ecstatic to hear that they won.
We had decent chances , but they were so scattered and isolated that it was hard to build any momentum. For most of the game it felt like we were skating in quicksand. There was very little sustained offensive pressure or forecheck. We were erased in the neutral zone all night.
Props to the Rangers--they played a near perfect game of Predators hockey, and we largely had no answer for it.
It seems that what Trotz thought might happen tonight happened...he said the Rangers would be pissed coming off a loss to the Canadiens, and didn't sound too confident about us winning this one. Factor in the loss of Suter and it makes things a lot harder. Still, I think it was good to lock up the slam-dunk 2 points with Peks against the Isles and let Lindy play against the Rangers. Even though it looked like the second goal was stoppable, the first one was just a fluky bounce...and we scored exactly zero goals, so even a shutout may not have gotten us a win. I'd rather have Peks fresh for the games coming up against Columbus and Chicago.
I got to go to MSG for the game and it was great! Night and day from Nassau Coliseum...they've managed to keep it updated even though the building itself is old. It is weird though that MSG is really a skyscraper office building that happens to have a hockey rink inside...I felt like I could walk out onto the concourse, through a door and into a dang boardroom or something. The fans were great too; I thought we might get some heckling what with our gold jerseys (and my Tootoo whistle), especially when we started losing, but everyone around us was very well-behaved. It was actually a little disappointing how there was almost zero playful ribbing going on! I chalk it up to the fact that us and the Rangers rarely play each other, so we don't care about each other that much...no bad blood.
Random question though...we talked to Trotz after the game, and I asked if the third goal was automatically awarded because it would've been a penalty shot on an empty net (upon further investigation that is a rule), but Trotz said that any time a player is hauled down in the last two minutes of the game it's an automatic goal. WTF?! That cannot be right. It makes no sense. I was going to argue him on it a little bit but it was a quick convo and I didn't have time, so I'm trying to Google it now and of course every result I find is Wikipedia which is blacked out for 24 hours. I tried looking through the NHL rulebook a bit and couldn't find anything...the only thing I could find was an IIHF rule that says it's an automatic goal if a player intentionally dislodges the net in the last 2 minutes of regulation. However in the little Wikipedia blurbs I can actually see on my Google results page, there are a few references to "the last two minutes of regulation and anytime in the overtime period". Do you rule experts out there know anything about this?!
Another random discovery while rule-researching...who knew that if you pull your goalie during overtime and proceed to lose the game because of an empty-netter, you forfeit the point you earned for getting to OT in the first place? Weird!
It seems that what Trotz thought might happen tonight happened...he said the Rangers would be pissed coming off a loss to the Canadiens, and didn't sound too confident about us winning this one. Factor in the loss of Suter and it makes things a lot harder. Still, I think it was good to lock up the slam-dunk 2 points with Peks against the Isles and let Lindy play against the Rangers. Even though it looked like the second goal was stoppable, the first one was just a fluky bounce...and we scored exactly zero goals, so even a shutout may not have gotten us a win. I'd rather have Peks fresh for the games coming up against Columbus and Chicago.
I got to go to MSG for the game and it was great! Night and day from Nassau Coliseum...they've managed to keep it updated even though the building itself is old. It is weird though that MSG is really a skyscraper office building that happens to have a hockey rink inside...I felt like I could walk out onto the concourse, through a door and into a dang boardroom or something. The fans were great too; I thought we might get some heckling what with our gold jerseys (and my Tootoo whistle), especially when we started losing, but everyone around us was very well-behaved. It was actually a little disappointing how there was almost zero playful ribbing going on! I chalk it up to the fact that us and the Rangers rarely play each other, so we don't care about each other that much...no bad blood.
Random question though...we talked to Trotz after the game, and I asked if the third goal was automatically awarded because it would've been a penalty shot on an empty net (upon further investigation that is a rule), but Trotz said that any time a player is hauled down in the last two minutes of the game it's an automatic goal. WTF?! That cannot be right. It makes no sense. I was going to argue him on it a little bit but it was a quick convo and I didn't have time, so I'm trying to Google it now and of course every result I find is Wikipedia which is blacked out for 24 hours. I tried looking through the rulebook a bit and couldn't find anything...the only thing I could find was an IIHF rule that says it's an automatic goal if a player intentionally dislodges the net in the last 2 minutes of regulation. However in the little Wikipedia blurbs I can actually see on my Google results page, there are a few references to "the last two minutes of regulation and anytime in the overtime period". Do you rule experts out there know anything about this?!
Another random discovery while rule-researching...who knew that if you pull your goalie during overtime and proceed to lose the game because of an empty-netter, you forfeit the point you earned for getting to OT in the first place? Weird!
The ruling is that if a player is hauled down or a penalty is committed while a players is on a breakaway towards an empty net, an automatic goal is awarded.
I thought the Rangers did a great job at blocking our shots and clogging up the zone. Could hardly get any open looks. Even then, we still had a chance. First goal was not Anders fault, Hillen just ****ed up. The 2nd goal was all on Lindback though. That was a softie that he would want back for sure. Oh well, time to get on another winning streak.
Lindback was supposed to start yesterday but had a touch of illness or something, but is OK today and Trotz wants him to get one of these two.
Lindback was going to get scouted but the scout couldnt be there yesterday or the interested team wanted to see how he does against a top team not the Isles.
This is misdirection by Trotz and at gametime Pekka gets the start(cant imagine why it would matter but maybe he was hoping NYR wouldnt start Lundqvist if we announce Lindback)
Trotz decided with the Isles starting their backup yesterday he would play Peks and get a guaranteed two points and take his chances today rather than risking getting zero if Anders played poorly yesterday
truth is... its trotz... who the heck knows???
Trotz told my dad and I that he started Pekka against the Islanders to ensure a win against the easier team. It sounded like he felt that the Rangers would be a difficult team to beat even with Pekka in net, especially since their previous game was a loss to the Canadiens. And remember he was also already aware of the injury to Suter and doubted he'd be able to make it through the Islanders game (hence why he started 7 D), so he already knew before the Isles game that Suter may not be available at all against the Rangers. So he decided to lock up the two points vs. the Islanders and let the chips fall where they may vs. the Rangers.
The ruling is that if a player is hauled down or a penalty is committed while a players is on a breakaway towards an empty net, an automatic goal is awarded.
So there is no rule regarding automatic goals for anything that happens in the last two minutes of regulation (unless of course the above scenario happens in the last two minutes or at any time in the game for that matter)? Was Trotz just smoking crack? I was so confused!
Another random discovery while rule-researching...who knew that if you pull your goalie during overtime and proceed to lose the game because of an empty-netter, you forfeit the point you earned for getting to OT in the first place? Weird!
I did know about that one. Really stupid rule, imho. Why penalize a team that decides to risk all and go for it with an empty net during the overtime rather than playing for the shootout? Toward the end of the season, how exciting would that be for the team that desperately needs the 2 points to pull their goalie and risk 5-on-4 with the empty net?
I did know about that one. Really stupid rule, imho. Why penalize a team that decides to risk all and go for it with an empty net during the overtime rather than playing for the shootout? Toward the end of the season, how exciting would that be for the team that desperately needs the 2 points to pull their goalie and risk 5-on-4 with the empty net?
Any ideas why there would be such a dumb rule?
No clue. Although my dad and I did come up with some scenarios why you would pull your goalie in OT in the first place...
1. For purposes of tie-breaking in the standings, the first tiebreaker is wins...excluding shootout wins. So if it's the last game of the season and a shootout win won't get you in, you have to go balls to the wall for the win in OT.
2. If a penalty is called in OT then it might make even more sense to pull your goalie and have a 5-on-3 situation.
How bout this though...I've also read somewhere that if two penalties are called on the same team in OT, a fifth skater can be added for the other team since there has to be at least three players per team on the ice at all times. So could you pull your goalie in that scenario and have a 6-on-3 situation? Not sure if that's allowed, having six skaters on the ice during OT. I don't see why not, since you can have five plus the goalie, but who knows.
But I have no idea why you should have to forfeit your point earned.
I'm a Rangers fan and I really like your team and how they play and if I had to pick a Western team it would easily be the Preds.
During the 1st period, I thought to myself, "man, these guys are like Rangers West." Lo and behold, I find out Torts basically said the same thing in an interview.
Fun game to watch, best of luck the rest of the season.
5 Suterless periods. zero goals scored. 4 goals allowed. Webs a non-factor. Goals deflected into our own net by a defenseman replacing Suter = 1.
Not enough periods to draw conclusions but for the record, we were 3-1 when Webs was out but Suter was in.
We went to the game last night and had a short conversation with Trotz. Asked him how much longer on Suts. He said " 1 game, maybe 2, maybe ..... 5", then grinned. Consulted my handy Trotz-speak-to-English translation book and came up with ...... I'm worried.
Thursday is a huge game. Can deal with away loss on the backend of back-to-backs against the elite East team in their barn without Suter and with Lindy (although he played well). If we stumble against the BJs, then come home to face the Hawks, we're starting to face a losing streak. Any sort of losing streak will drag us back to the fighting-for-8th pack.
Win Thursday and it makes this loss an acceptable trip-up.
MSG is a great environment. Loud fans. Unlike some big city markets were sellouts involve many corporate no-shows, the NY peeps were shoehorned in that place last night. Their smashville-like low ceiling makes for good noise. Fans are rowdy. Sight lines suck but they are in process of a make-over. Hope to come back for the NHL Finals, Preds-Rangers.
I did know about that one. Really stupid rule, imho. Why penalize a team that decides to risk all and go for it with an empty net during the overtime rather than playing for the shootout? Toward the end of the season, how exciting would that be for the team that desperately needs the 2 points to pull their goalie and risk 5-on-4 with the empty net?
Any ideas why there would be such a dumb rule?
because it would make OT unfair. you might even see both teams pull their goalies. its just not an appropriate situation to have a goalie pulled and so you discourage that by making teams lose the guaranteed point if you do it
so is a sports hernia an upper body or lower body injury. Was thinking of things that reaggravate-that and a shoulder injury seem to be what you hear about.
so is a sports hernia an upper body or lower body injury. Was thinking of things that reaggravate-that and a shoulder injury seem to be what you hear about.
MSG is a great environment. Loud fans. Unlike some big city markets were sellouts involve many corporate no-shows, the NY peeps were shoehorned in that place last night. Their smashville-like low ceiling makes for good noise. Fans are rowdy. Sight lines suck but they are in process of a make-over. Hope to come back for the NHL Finals, Preds-Rangers.
I'm kinda surprised, people usually rag on MSG for having so many corporate seats and selling out to the "suits", and a weekday game against a western opponent the Rangers hardly ever see? Guess a good season will do that (bring out the fans)
Quote:
Originally Posted by token grinder
so is a sports hernia an upper body or lower body injury. Was thinking of things that reaggravate-that and a shoulder injury seem to be what you hear about.
lower body, it's similar to a normal hernia, just without the actual hernia forming. Or put into clearer terms, it's a weakening in the abdominal wall. When that weakening turns into a "pouch", it's called a hernia.
When it's just a weakened abdominal wall without the actual hernia, then it's called a "sports hernia"
Love Trotz's choice to play McCrappan (4 shifts, 2:07) on second half of B2B games. Coach clearly realizes tired teams have a better chance of winning going with a short bench.
Preds still on pace for playing about 51 games this season down one forward.
Love Trotz's choice to play McCrappan (4 shifts, 2:07) on second half of B2B games. Coach clearly realizes tired teams have a better chance of winning going with a short bench.
Preds still on pace for playing about 51 games this season down one forward.
Did McGrattan run over your dog or something??
its not like Mueller would have made the difference in this game...
Love Trotz's choice to play McCrappan (4 shifts, 2:07) on second half of B2B games. Coach clearly realizes tired teams have a better chance of winning going with a short bench.
Preds still on pace for playing about 51 games this season down one forward.
Every team in the league has a guy on their roster that gets very limited minutes in games that they play. Not sure why you think this is an issue. Very common practice.
Besides, Nashville uses a balanced scoring approach. Trotz likes to run 3 lines pretty evenly so he can limit his 4th. Whereas other teams run their top 2 lines heavily, so the 3rd and 4th lines end up getting extra playing time.
