Short and sweet (or not so) tonight folks.
I listened to about five minutes of the first period on the radio and heard, as 1050 cut in and out on my drive, the plethora of penalties being taken by the Thrashers and the Rangers. After another "too many men" penalty, Dave Maloney went on his rant of how the Rangers weren't executing and if they didn't excute something Tortorella was going to execute one of them between the first and second periods.
It's on nights like this I am especially glad there is college basketball.
I'll be honest, in saying that after the play went silent in the lengthy goal or no goal review, I turned off the radio. I watched college basketball for most of the rest of the night when I got home, and checked the Rangers/Atlanta score from time to time.
The basketball game ended in time for me to "half" watch the last eight or so minutes of the game, on and off, and then, consequently, the overtime and the shootout.
I didn't really see any of the goals first hand, so I am not going to comment. I am in no place to.
But I will comment on the post-game interviews. I saw Valiquette's and Drury's.
Valiquette has been and continues to give the most thoughtful introspective to his own performance and the games he plays in. Thoughtful really is the word, and not in the 'oh you're so nice' kind of way, but in the 'I really understand the game' kind of way. And he pointed out the incredibly obvious fact that the one point the Rangers gained could be huge, either in a positive way or a disappointing way.
A concept that so few of the other members of this team would dare to admit.
Remember Drury after the pre-Christmas Alex Ovechkin-fest game? The one point they gained that night might prove to be the one point that pushed the team to home ice advantage in the playoffs.
Why is it that only the backup goalie seems to understand that it could also go the other way - the WORST way - in being the one point that keeps them OUT of the playoffs entirely.
Drury gave another barely audible post game interview where he - yet again - said they needed to let the game go.
Interesting to note, when John Giannone asked him why the team was so slow to start the period, Drury, said, "the third?"
Giannone said, "no, the first."
Comforting to know that both periods were played so badly that he could not even distinguish which slow start the interviewer meant.
I mean, there are only three periods in most hockey games.
Even more comforting. Drury later said it was a really good question and he didn't know the answer.
Personally I think the Rangers are running out of time - if they haven't already - for answering those questions.
The same questions that have been lingering all season long. . .