* Johan Hedberg owns the Rangers. This is nothing new. He always has. At least in my memory. (Again, again, again, - if Bob Hartley had stuck with Hedberg in game 3 versus the Rangers in the playoffs maybe, maybe, maybe it would have been a series. Not a different result but a series and instead of a sweep). The saves he made in the first period during that sequence. Yikes. Amazing. (And for the record, I am a Hedberg fan. Who doesn't love players nicknamed Moose?!).
* The Rangers now have, I think we can say, a dreadful record at home. With the exception of the game versus Columbus, I can't even remember the last time they won at the Garden. Any much more of this, someone will have to pinch me and tell me it's not 2003-2004.
* The Rangers record last year and the year previous was decidedly better at this stage of the season. Why? In part due to getting games to OT and to the shootout where they'd steal one, and usually 2, points. Not so this year. This was the Rangers third shootout game, their first at home and first without P.A. "I went on waivers today" Parenteau. They didn't get it done. The last two years, these shootouts bulked points and jumped spots in the standings. Now, they are infrequent and apparently not a guarantee.
* Michael Del Zotto makes me smile. At least someone on this team makes me smile. Please, please, please. Let him stay here FOREVER!
* Gaborik's goal in the 3rd was his 10th of the season in that period. That leads the NHL. Once again, big round of applause for Gaby. As much as I "like" this group better than last year, and he's a big part of that, he really, on many nights, leaves you thinking - my gosh, what if he weren't here? Thankfully he is. Thank you Gaborik. Which translates to "thank you Bob Gainey for taking Scott Gomez so we could afford Gaborik." Thank you. Thank you all.
Overall, not a bad game. A good one in fact. Normally (normally the watch word here) putting 48 shots on a goalie would result in more than 2 goals (if you are not the NYRs...). Normally shooting that much would result in a win (if you are not the NYRs). Again, all props in the world to Hedberg and Atlanta. A good win. A smart road win. The Rangers looked closer than they have been and tonight may have not been their fault. It just feels worse, of course, because they've lost so many, and so many at home.
HUGE two games versus the Isles. Huge! Too early to say "must-win." I'm actually not sure it is.
Showing posts with label Atlanta Thrashers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atlanta Thrashers. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Five Things About the Thrashers/Rangers Game. . .
Another game, another loss. 2 in a row for the Blueshirts. =(
* The Rangers giving up the two very, very quick goals to Atlanta (like, oops, blink, they scored again, goals) reminded me of last year. It really did. Never a good thing. Good teams need to know how to focus and stop the bleeding.
* Gaborik's goal was - nice. I wasn't even sure who shot it at first, but given the reaction and the fact that it, umm, went in the net, you had to be 90% sure who it was. Guy has a special talent. Shame the Rangers don't have 4 more of him.
* Props to Cally for sticking up for himself after that hit. I don't know much of Zach Bogosian, probably due to his being injured last year and playing for, umm, Atlanta, but they had a nice little tangle. If no one else is going to do the dirty work, I'm happy Cally did it himself. (A little like Doan, although immediate in reaction). He had a fired up game, Cally did. I thought to myself, he looks better than he has in recent games. I noticed him more. Drury absense = better Cally?
* During a TV time out, Boyle stood with referee Kerry Fraser and talked for quite a bit, getting an explaination of his tripping penalty. Sometimes you catch it and sometimes you don't, but this was a lengthy conversation. At first glace, which is all I really had, it looked relatively harmless, but you are responsible for your skate, no?
* Rangers scored 3, which was a big plus over these one goal showings, but still fell apart at the wrong times. A few bad penalties. A second period nap. And they couldn't rebound. Disappointing, because even though Hedberg often beats the Rangers, this game probably was a should have won game.
Who wants a real blog entry? I do! Special events aside. I want a real blog entry on the Rangers. So, coming this weekend. Something more than "Five Things" - something deeper on the red, white, and blue. Looking forward to it.
I just hope I keep my word. ;)
* The Rangers giving up the two very, very quick goals to Atlanta (like, oops, blink, they scored again, goals) reminded me of last year. It really did. Never a good thing. Good teams need to know how to focus and stop the bleeding.
* Gaborik's goal was - nice. I wasn't even sure who shot it at first, but given the reaction and the fact that it, umm, went in the net, you had to be 90% sure who it was. Guy has a special talent. Shame the Rangers don't have 4 more of him.
* Props to Cally for sticking up for himself after that hit. I don't know much of Zach Bogosian, probably due to his being injured last year and playing for, umm, Atlanta, but they had a nice little tangle. If no one else is going to do the dirty work, I'm happy Cally did it himself. (A little like Doan, although immediate in reaction). He had a fired up game, Cally did. I thought to myself, he looks better than he has in recent games. I noticed him more. Drury absense = better Cally?
* During a TV time out, Boyle stood with referee Kerry Fraser and talked for quite a bit, getting an explaination of his tripping penalty. Sometimes you catch it and sometimes you don't, but this was a lengthy conversation. At first glace, which is all I really had, it looked relatively harmless, but you are responsible for your skate, no?
* Rangers scored 3, which was a big plus over these one goal showings, but still fell apart at the wrong times. A few bad penalties. A second period nap. And they couldn't rebound. Disappointing, because even though Hedberg often beats the Rangers, this game probably was a should have won game.
Who wants a real blog entry? I do! Special events aside. I want a real blog entry on the Rangers. So, coming this weekend. Something more than "Five Things" - something deeper on the red, white, and blue. Looking forward to it.
I just hope I keep my word. ;)
Monday, April 20, 2009
Game 3 Goalie Decisions: 2007 Versus 2009. . .
I will often think back to the Rangers opening round series in the 2007 playoffs versus Atlanta and wonder what, if anything, would have changed if the Thrashers had made a different goalie decision in Game 3 than the one they ended up making. I thought about it a few times leading up to tonight's game 3 at the Garden. Different opponent, somewhat similar circumstances.
If you don't remember, Game 1 in Atlanta was the Sean Avery instigator affair that ended in Ilya Kovalchuk chasing - literally chasing - Sean Avery around the ice and getting ejected. Kari Lehtonen played a less than crisp game in the Atlanta loss.
For Game 2 in Atlanta, Bob Hartley went with veteran Johan Hedberg and it was a very close one goal game, the deciding goal coming off an odd bank play by Avery in fact.
When down 0-2 heading into the Garden, Hartley had a choice to make. He could go back to his regular guy in Lehtonen, or he can stick with his very steady "backup" who played a close, one goal game.
He chose to go back to Lehtonen.
The Rangers won Game 3, 7-0.
They went on to win the series in four.
Jump ahead to 2009. The Rangers and Capitals played a closer game than did the Thrashers and Rangers in 2009. Avery's affects were perhaps more understated. But Jose Theodore was not sharp. He, while not the only one at fault, shouldered much of the blame for yeilding four goals on 21 shots.
Game 2 in Washington saw Bruce Boudreau go to an untested rookie goalie in Simeon Varlamov. (Granted, it was the rookie replacing the "veteran" in this case, but if you continue to follow me...). Varlamov plays very well and lets in only one goal. Another one goal margin. Another solid goalie performance.
When down 0-2 heading into the Garden, Boudreau had a choice to make. He could go back to Jose, his veteran guy whose been in the playoffs before, or he can stick with this young kid that stepped up and played a close, 1-0 game.
He chose to stick with Varlamov.
The Capitals won Game 3, 4-0.
The series - well, the series is still TBD.
Does this goalie decision prove to be THE decision off this playoff series? It is really too early to tell. But it's interesting to me. Interesting because there are so many details that I've forgotten about certain years and certain playoff series. And yet I remember the 2007 opening round like yesterday, thinking how much I really respect and like Bob Hartley, but how I think he got it wrong that day in Game 3. And how I wonder if that one key decision in goal would have made any difference in the outcome.
Other game notes...
Pierre Maguire was on the radio today - either on HTM or Team990; I honestly do not remember - and he spoke about how the Capitals were playing like a bunch of talented individuals and the Rangers were playing like a team. I usually either completely agree with Maguire or completely disagree with him; there is often no in between. Today, I agreed with him.
That struck me if only for the fact that the Rangers, most of this season, were not anything resembling a team, and if they went in the same direction, it was mostly the direction of non-cohesive disillusionment, with a few, well-detailed exceptions.
So, I asked myself, were the Rangers really playing so much more as a team?
Well they were.
Until tonight, that is.
The Capitals and their undisputed leader - Alex Ovechkin - finally seemed to get their heads around the team game. Ovechkin took 13 shots in game one alone and half that in game two, and still couldn't score.
In game three, he realized he didn't need to.
It was enough if he just set up his teammates to score. And he did, to his credit and his team's benefit.
The Capitals looked very much the team tonight. The Rangers did not. Simple as that.
The Rangers were very undisciplined, taking penalty after penalty. And, what's more, they failed to capitalize on the ones the Capitals took. How many of Avery's were deserved, I'd like to take a second look. The punch to the face warranted a rough, and high-sticks are usually high-sticks. I'd like to take another look at the goalie interference - the unofficial Sean Avery penalty - and the hooking before I judge those. Regardless, too much time in the box means that the Rangers lost whatever rhythm they held, for the game's first five minutes.
Game 3 was a very different story, indeed.
As for the goalie decision of 2009, it paid off. Varlamov was not tested a whole lot to start, but he did what he had to do and made 33 saves in earning his first career shutout.
And as for Sean Avery trying to yap at him? Apparently it phased him not at all.
Goalie Decision Game 3, 2009 - score one for Bruce Boudreau.
Looking Ahead:
Hopefully the Rangers loss will let them learn what worked for them, what didn't, and let them move forward with the next goal of winning game four. True, the Capitals will now be even more hungry, and that is a risk you take in letting a team get halfway back in a series. Of course, the best thing would be for them to have won today and really put a reeling Washington on their heals. That didn't happen.
However, one more solid effort at the Garden Wednesday, and they would have the chance to wrap up the series in Washington on Friday.
How they come out and maintain on Wednesday will show us, and them, whether they can compete in this series to win, or whether they will let Washington get in their heads.
I hope, prediction gladly placed aside, it's the former.
If you don't remember, Game 1 in Atlanta was the Sean Avery instigator affair that ended in Ilya Kovalchuk chasing - literally chasing - Sean Avery around the ice and getting ejected. Kari Lehtonen played a less than crisp game in the Atlanta loss.
For Game 2 in Atlanta, Bob Hartley went with veteran Johan Hedberg and it was a very close one goal game, the deciding goal coming off an odd bank play by Avery in fact.
When down 0-2 heading into the Garden, Hartley had a choice to make. He could go back to his regular guy in Lehtonen, or he can stick with his very steady "backup" who played a close, one goal game.
He chose to go back to Lehtonen.
The Rangers won Game 3, 7-0.
They went on to win the series in four.
Jump ahead to 2009. The Rangers and Capitals played a closer game than did the Thrashers and Rangers in 2009. Avery's affects were perhaps more understated. But Jose Theodore was not sharp. He, while not the only one at fault, shouldered much of the blame for yeilding four goals on 21 shots.
Game 2 in Washington saw Bruce Boudreau go to an untested rookie goalie in Simeon Varlamov. (Granted, it was the rookie replacing the "veteran" in this case, but if you continue to follow me...). Varlamov plays very well and lets in only one goal. Another one goal margin. Another solid goalie performance.
When down 0-2 heading into the Garden, Boudreau had a choice to make. He could go back to Jose, his veteran guy whose been in the playoffs before, or he can stick with this young kid that stepped up and played a close, 1-0 game.
He chose to stick with Varlamov.
The Capitals won Game 3, 4-0.
The series - well, the series is still TBD.
Does this goalie decision prove to be THE decision off this playoff series? It is really too early to tell. But it's interesting to me. Interesting because there are so many details that I've forgotten about certain years and certain playoff series. And yet I remember the 2007 opening round like yesterday, thinking how much I really respect and like Bob Hartley, but how I think he got it wrong that day in Game 3. And how I wonder if that one key decision in goal would have made any difference in the outcome.
Other game notes...
Pierre Maguire was on the radio today - either on HTM or Team990; I honestly do not remember - and he spoke about how the Capitals were playing like a bunch of talented individuals and the Rangers were playing like a team. I usually either completely agree with Maguire or completely disagree with him; there is often no in between. Today, I agreed with him.
That struck me if only for the fact that the Rangers, most of this season, were not anything resembling a team, and if they went in the same direction, it was mostly the direction of non-cohesive disillusionment, with a few, well-detailed exceptions.
So, I asked myself, were the Rangers really playing so much more as a team?
Well they were.
Until tonight, that is.
The Capitals and their undisputed leader - Alex Ovechkin - finally seemed to get their heads around the team game. Ovechkin took 13 shots in game one alone and half that in game two, and still couldn't score.
In game three, he realized he didn't need to.
It was enough if he just set up his teammates to score. And he did, to his credit and his team's benefit.
The Capitals looked very much the team tonight. The Rangers did not. Simple as that.
The Rangers were very undisciplined, taking penalty after penalty. And, what's more, they failed to capitalize on the ones the Capitals took. How many of Avery's were deserved, I'd like to take a second look. The punch to the face warranted a rough, and high-sticks are usually high-sticks. I'd like to take another look at the goalie interference - the unofficial Sean Avery penalty - and the hooking before I judge those. Regardless, too much time in the box means that the Rangers lost whatever rhythm they held, for the game's first five minutes.
Game 3 was a very different story, indeed.
As for the goalie decision of 2009, it paid off. Varlamov was not tested a whole lot to start, but he did what he had to do and made 33 saves in earning his first career shutout.
And as for Sean Avery trying to yap at him? Apparently it phased him not at all.
Goalie Decision Game 3, 2009 - score one for Bruce Boudreau.
Looking Ahead:
Hopefully the Rangers loss will let them learn what worked for them, what didn't, and let them move forward with the next goal of winning game four. True, the Capitals will now be even more hungry, and that is a risk you take in letting a team get halfway back in a series. Of course, the best thing would be for them to have won today and really put a reeling Washington on their heals. That didn't happen.
However, one more solid effort at the Garden Wednesday, and they would have the chance to wrap up the series in Washington on Friday.
How they come out and maintain on Wednesday will show us, and them, whether they can compete in this series to win, or whether they will let Washington get in their heads.
I hope, prediction gladly placed aside, it's the former.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
One Side To The Other. . .
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. . .
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. . .
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Cause For Concern. . .! [Slightly UPDATED]
Breaking News!
Seriously, this just in. Rangers coach Tom Renney's thoughts on the game two days ago:
"I thought we were dominant against Atlanta."
?
?
?
Great. So not only is the coach lying, pulling at straws, hypocritical in his words and actions, damaging to youth, and apparently unyieldingly biased against Europeans. . .
He's now outright DELUSIONAL!
Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse on Broadway, you read something like this. I mean I know Renney has a big vocabulary but I now get the idea that he has no idea what the words he uses mean.
Playmaker. Sustainability. Dominant.
You know what. I might just begin my boycott of this team with tomorrow night's game from Dallas. Where Voros - yes that Voros, who led the Wild in penalty minutes last year I'm sure you'd be shocked to know - will be on the first line with Naslund and Gomez.
Seriously, is there medication I can take for this?
Author's edit - 9:44pm. As of tomorrow I am going to have a two and a half day computer hiatus. And unlike last time I said it, this time I literally mean it; no computers in sight! Whether I listen to the Rangers game tomorrow on the radio is up for debate, but I am going to try to catch the Caps game on Saturday from a bar. We'll see. Everyone have a good weekend!
Seriously, this just in. Rangers coach Tom Renney's thoughts on the game two days ago:
"I thought we were dominant against Atlanta."
?
?
?
Great. So not only is the coach lying, pulling at straws, hypocritical in his words and actions, damaging to youth, and apparently unyieldingly biased against Europeans. . .
He's now outright DELUSIONAL!
Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse on Broadway, you read something like this. I mean I know Renney has a big vocabulary but I now get the idea that he has no idea what the words he uses mean.
Playmaker. Sustainability. Dominant.
You know what. I might just begin my boycott of this team with tomorrow night's game from Dallas. Where Voros - yes that Voros, who led the Wild in penalty minutes last year I'm sure you'd be shocked to know - will be on the first line with Naslund and Gomez.
Seriously, is there medication I can take for this?
Author's edit - 9:44pm. As of tomorrow I am going to have a two and a half day computer hiatus. And unlike last time I said it, this time I literally mean it; no computers in sight! Whether I listen to the Rangers game tomorrow on the radio is up for debate, but I am going to try to catch the Caps game on Saturday from a bar. We'll see. Everyone have a good weekend!
Friday, December 12, 2008
Two Days Late. . .
Okay, there was a two day delay between the time the Rangers won the game, in overtime, versus Atlanta, but I didn't really know what to say yesterday.
I guess I still don't, exactly, but I'm going to give it a try.
I didn't want the Rangers to lose, necessarily, because surely I love the team and I would have hated to see Valiquette lose especially in an embarrassing way. (People must wonder why I have this adoration for backup-goalies, but it's really just a sense of wanting them to be successful when they really get so few chances to shine. They put in hard work people, and Vali is a standup guy. I mean imagine training your whole life to be a goalie and when they make it, they only get to play 5% or so of the time. It's what it is and they play a very important role, but I guess I just have some extra sympathy for that in life).
But admittedly, on some level, I wanted the Rangers to get burnt by Atlanta. I know. Travesty for a fan, especially one as committed as I am. (And I am). But I really only wanted them to lose so as to raise a few red flags that something is very wrong. And even if not very wrong, wrong enough that I am not the only one that feels this way. And I'm not.
The team might not be much better than they are playing, that can be argued. Maybe this is a good as they can get and as fans, we should be overjoyed that they started so well and still have such a nice record and might make the playoffs despite playing way better than they are.
But that isn't enough. And not because I'm accustomed to them winning or following winning teams. Repeat with me - New York Rangers. Not the most winningest of franchises. That's a fact.
I know that and I'm fine with it.
It's not enough because they actually, on most occasions, appear lazy. Whether mentally or in action. And that is unacceptable. I just don't see how all these players (who I do respect, surely) and their coach (a person I like but whose ability to control and motivate his team I am starting to question) can keep giving these answers that they think they are seeing improvement (to which I ask, um, where) and that they have worked very hard in all their games.
So that is what working hard looks like?
They are boring. I don't know how hard work translates to the most boring hockey I've seen in a long time. The 03-04 team that won 14 games all year at home was more exciting than these guys.
They don't hit as much as they could. They don't skate as fast as I know they can (because come on, we all saw them play in Europe). They don't play disciplined (which isn't a new story at all). And they don't make crisp passes to or seem at all connected to their other teammates on the ice.
These are all causes for concern!
Their lack of goal scoring (unless their wooo-hooo three goal output on Wednesday pushed them up a spot) is 29th in the league. Close to dead last. For guys being paid that much money to help scoring, that's unacceptable. I mean I can't say I'm surprised because while many discounted the pre-season, this is a team that did not score more than 2 goals once, unless you count the Swiss escapades against SC Bern in the mix. It was bad in September, it is bad now.
The Rangers should have lit up Johan Hedberg (another good guy I respect but they should have). They should have won, like Pittsburgh won over the Islanders last night, 9-2. They should have had one of those random 7-0 games, where Callahan pots two, Drury gets one, Naslund and Zherdev each a pair. That should have been their game.
Instead, they got a smart goal from Colton Orr, another one from Ryan Callahan, and gave Atlanta a point because they could not wrap them up in regulation.
But there's no problem is there?
I wasn't even glad when Gomez won it. I mean maybe a little because, again, Valiquette. But I was not joyous. I said, well that's different (any game that the Rangers aren't fully embarrassed or win in a shootout is something different, let's face it) and I went upstairs.
I don't think there was a highlight of the night, but the lowlight for me, was Drury's interview in the intermission. I am not saying he's a bad guy. He has to be a heck of a nice guy. But he is also one of the most boring human beings I've ever heard speak. Ever.
And that is their captain. Their captain!
I started to wonder earlier this week if one Mr. Renney, who made it clear he hand picked the captain himself, chose Drury because he has the most boring, bland personality of anyone on the entire team, and therefore, would not question anything or go against anything Renney was saying. This guy could have his foot stomped off by a giant and there he'd be, in the lowest voice imaginable, saying, ooo, I'm so sorry.
Pathetic.
He makes $7 million to be captain, to not really be a captain, and $7 to score, but to not really score, $7 to win faceoffs, but to not really win faceoffs. They only thing the guy does, is penalty kill and bore reporters and media to death.
I'm sorry, but it is true.
What makes it worse. The Rangers got rid of guys that apparently, can score. And I don't just mean Jagr and Straka and Nedved and well, anyway. What about last night's Pitt/Isles game. Granted a 9-2 game is the every day. But Petr Sykora, a last minute Rangers edition 3 years ago, scored his first career hat-trick (congratulations to him by the way), but he had 38 (39?) two goal games in his career. Another good player the Rangers didn't want to have stick around.
For the record, Pascal Dupuis, who was a Ranger for less than 2 weeks, scored a hat trick for Pitt in the same game as well.
But the Rangers do not have problems scoring. Nope. Not at all. 29th in the league. An average of just over 2 goals a game. And a very good chance they lose if Hank doesn't stand on his head.
Don't think that's a problem?
Hank is too good a goalie and too prideful a man to not wear himself out trying to make up for this team. Trying to have them win and be successful. No, he's not perfect. He looks lousy on one on 0-s that are not part of the shootout, he sometimes appears massively out of position, and there are times he should be teethered to his net.
But he is the best thing to happen to this team in a long time. If the Rangers continue riding him like they are, he won't make it to 30. So much for the team's future.
And that's not cause for concern?
Please.
**Note: Rangers will play the Devils in NJ tonight. I am expecting one of two things. The Rangers to win because that's what they've done against the Devils the last two years. Or the Rangers to look sloppy and have a Devils team, without Brodeur, embarrass them. I am not sure which is winning in the polls.
I guess I still don't, exactly, but I'm going to give it a try.
I didn't want the Rangers to lose, necessarily, because surely I love the team and I would have hated to see Valiquette lose especially in an embarrassing way. (People must wonder why I have this adoration for backup-goalies, but it's really just a sense of wanting them to be successful when they really get so few chances to shine. They put in hard work people, and Vali is a standup guy. I mean imagine training your whole life to be a goalie and when they make it, they only get to play 5% or so of the time. It's what it is and they play a very important role, but I guess I just have some extra sympathy for that in life).
But admittedly, on some level, I wanted the Rangers to get burnt by Atlanta. I know. Travesty for a fan, especially one as committed as I am. (And I am). But I really only wanted them to lose so as to raise a few red flags that something is very wrong. And even if not very wrong, wrong enough that I am not the only one that feels this way. And I'm not.
The team might not be much better than they are playing, that can be argued. Maybe this is a good as they can get and as fans, we should be overjoyed that they started so well and still have such a nice record and might make the playoffs despite playing way better than they are.
But that isn't enough. And not because I'm accustomed to them winning or following winning teams. Repeat with me - New York Rangers. Not the most winningest of franchises. That's a fact.
I know that and I'm fine with it.
It's not enough because they actually, on most occasions, appear lazy. Whether mentally or in action. And that is unacceptable. I just don't see how all these players (who I do respect, surely) and their coach (a person I like but whose ability to control and motivate his team I am starting to question) can keep giving these answers that they think they are seeing improvement (to which I ask, um, where) and that they have worked very hard in all their games.
So that is what working hard looks like?
They are boring. I don't know how hard work translates to the most boring hockey I've seen in a long time. The 03-04 team that won 14 games all year at home was more exciting than these guys.
They don't hit as much as they could. They don't skate as fast as I know they can (because come on, we all saw them play in Europe). They don't play disciplined (which isn't a new story at all). And they don't make crisp passes to or seem at all connected to their other teammates on the ice.
These are all causes for concern!
Their lack of goal scoring (unless their wooo-hooo three goal output on Wednesday pushed them up a spot) is 29th in the league. Close to dead last. For guys being paid that much money to help scoring, that's unacceptable. I mean I can't say I'm surprised because while many discounted the pre-season, this is a team that did not score more than 2 goals once, unless you count the Swiss escapades against SC Bern in the mix. It was bad in September, it is bad now.
The Rangers should have lit up Johan Hedberg (another good guy I respect but they should have). They should have won, like Pittsburgh won over the Islanders last night, 9-2. They should have had one of those random 7-0 games, where Callahan pots two, Drury gets one, Naslund and Zherdev each a pair. That should have been their game.
Instead, they got a smart goal from Colton Orr, another one from Ryan Callahan, and gave Atlanta a point because they could not wrap them up in regulation.
But there's no problem is there?
I wasn't even glad when Gomez won it. I mean maybe a little because, again, Valiquette. But I was not joyous. I said, well that's different (any game that the Rangers aren't fully embarrassed or win in a shootout is something different, let's face it) and I went upstairs.
I don't think there was a highlight of the night, but the lowlight for me, was Drury's interview in the intermission. I am not saying he's a bad guy. He has to be a heck of a nice guy. But he is also one of the most boring human beings I've ever heard speak. Ever.
And that is their captain. Their captain!
I started to wonder earlier this week if one Mr. Renney, who made it clear he hand picked the captain himself, chose Drury because he has the most boring, bland personality of anyone on the entire team, and therefore, would not question anything or go against anything Renney was saying. This guy could have his foot stomped off by a giant and there he'd be, in the lowest voice imaginable, saying, ooo, I'm so sorry.
Pathetic.
He makes $7 million to be captain, to not really be a captain, and $7 to score, but to not really score, $7 to win faceoffs, but to not really win faceoffs. They only thing the guy does, is penalty kill and bore reporters and media to death.
I'm sorry, but it is true.
What makes it worse. The Rangers got rid of guys that apparently, can score. And I don't just mean Jagr and Straka and Nedved and well, anyway. What about last night's Pitt/Isles game. Granted a 9-2 game is the every day. But Petr Sykora, a last minute Rangers edition 3 years ago, scored his first career hat-trick (congratulations to him by the way), but he had 38 (39?) two goal games in his career. Another good player the Rangers didn't want to have stick around.
For the record, Pascal Dupuis, who was a Ranger for less than 2 weeks, scored a hat trick for Pitt in the same game as well.
But the Rangers do not have problems scoring. Nope. Not at all. 29th in the league. An average of just over 2 goals a game. And a very good chance they lose if Hank doesn't stand on his head.
Don't think that's a problem?
Hank is too good a goalie and too prideful a man to not wear himself out trying to make up for this team. Trying to have them win and be successful. No, he's not perfect. He looks lousy on one on 0-s that are not part of the shootout, he sometimes appears massively out of position, and there are times he should be teethered to his net.
But he is the best thing to happen to this team in a long time. If the Rangers continue riding him like they are, he won't make it to 30. So much for the team's future.
And that's not cause for concern?
Please.
**Note: Rangers will play the Devils in NJ tonight. I am expecting one of two things. The Rangers to win because that's what they've done against the Devils the last two years. Or the Rangers to look sloppy and have a Devils team, without Brodeur, embarrass them. I am not sure which is winning in the polls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
