The 'experts' on MSG were quick to point out that Lundqvist gave up a soft goal by Jason Chimera and Joe even claimed that Lundqvistt gave up two soft goals. The lame stream media chimed in this morning on Lundqvists 'spotty goal'. I don't buy it. At least I don't buy the criticism of Lundqvist.
The 'spotty goal' gave the Caps a 3-1 lead. He makes the save, we lose 2-1. The Rangers can't score goals. Forget that 14 goal outburst against Florida and Buffalo. That was an accident. The Rangers came out as spectators as the Caps piled up a 12-1 shot advantage. Sure the Rangers turned it around and finished with a 36-30 edge but Holtby made few acrobatic saves.
After Ovechkin tied in on a PP it was all Caps. Girardi and McDonagh were so obsessed with watching the Big O that they let Marcus Johansson slip behind them for a game clinching breakaway goal, which Joe blamed on Lundqvist. But the Rangers can't score. They were 0-4 on the PP including a 5-3 segment for 45 seconds with the score tied. The PP has been a disaster under two coaches, Clueless and disagreeable.
Carl Hageline played well for the Rangers After scoring the opening goal off of Cap D-man John Erskine he could have been the hero by beating Holtby on a breakaway but was stopped and later hit the post. So that there could have been a Hagelin hat trick and star of the game. But to no avail.
So the bottom line is that the Caps held serve on their home ice. This is still going to be a tough seven game series. Unless the Rangers get their act together on offense it's going to be a torturous series. Many ups and downs and in the end we have the great equalizer, and then some, in Henrik Lundqvist, regardless of what Joe and the lame stream media say.
ICINGS: I can't figure out for the life of me why John Moore didn't score a goal. Goalie Braden Holtby had part of his back in the net, behind the goal line, and Moore's shot went off of Holtby's back and seemed to stay there. If the back is behind the goal line and the puck is laying on his back, why no goal? Replays showed no puck. No puck, no goal. Better puck next time.
Friday, May 03, 2013
Caps Hold Serve
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Rangers may have had more shots, but they were of low quality. As you say Holtby did not have to go 'acrobatic' because the Rangers were forced to take poor quality shots. No one in the slot, like Nash, who should live there. No one in front of the goal, except maybe the smallest guy on the team. Rangers go back to the tried and true of throwing the puck in the general direction of the net and hope that they get lucky. This weak stuff will not cut it against the Caps or any playoff team. Tortorella proves that he is offensively challenged, so his next logical move will be to re-shuffle all the lines. Yes, they are stale.
Disappointment but not surprised. The players focused on a "bad 10 minutes" in the second as the time frame the Caps took over the game but that wasn't the case. That was the time frame the Caps scored in but they took over the game from the drop of the puck. Coach Adam Oates (one of my all time favorite players and a classy guy to boot) said that he felt his team played a solid 60 minutes. Solid was the perfect analogy since the Caps were not overwhelming the Rangers but had steady control over the game. That implies room for improvement. On the Rangers side I can't even use the word solid. They always do the same things. They come out and allow the other team to control the play while they "weather the storm." Hags scores a goal on a wrap around that banks in off of a skate. I am seeing more of this kind of play. The Rangers have no real confidence in their offense. They have been putting up impressive numbers against weak non-playoff teams by sweeping pucks at the net, wrap around attempts and getting puck luck as a result. As JB said "this weak stuff will not cut it against playoff teams." Its been a concern. I actually thought that the Rangers looked halfway decent on the PP last night and felt that the goal was a result of some energy they generated on the PP but it could be I'm just so used to the poor PP that any sign of life seems delightful lol. Of course many Ranger fans are blaming the referees for calling such a poor game. Honestly, I thought it was called just a crappy on both sides. We had one more penalty than they did and that extra one I put on Torts as the Rangers were down just 30 seconds into the game for TOO MANY MEN! Remember how it scared me that the Rangers had too many men on the ice twice in the last game of the season versus the Devils? Well Rooney, the ref in that game, ignored it twice because he was more interested in the ax he had to grind with the Devils but he didn't "miss it" last night did he? I digress. The Rangers had plenty of time on the PP to score including 55 seconds of 5 on 3 time and they didn't convert. The same people who have been arguing that teams don't need an effective PP since Boston won a cup without one are the people who are crying that the refs stole game 1. Hypocrites. Besides, the best part of our game was our PK even though the Caps did manage to score one. To me that is what got the Rangers going. That is when they play most aggressive, so in some twisted way the refs being incompetent sort of lifted our game. It's not really the refs fault that the Rangers PP sucks and speaking of PP's- The hottest player on the ice for the Rangers was Hagelin who as someone on twitter pointed out was not on the ice for the entire 5 on 3. I'm so used to his stupidity that this one got by me. The brilliance just never ends. Also a big topic of conversation on twitter last night was the kid seated behind Torts who was apparently picking his nose and stuffing his face with gum but I didn't notice because I try not to look at the coach when he's on TV. They can laugh at that kid all they want but I would be willing to bet he could out coach the disagreeable one.
I'm with you pundit, can't understand the criticism of Henrik. He made some outstanding saves last night that would have put the game way out of reach for us much earlier in the night but he kept us in as usual waiting for his teammates to score some goals. But alas we are not playing against buffalo this time, we are playing a speedy team with some lethal guns. Speedy teams seem to give us trouble since they throw a monkey wrench into our 'wait for opportunities' strategy. Poor Henrik was once again forced to be an acrobat as we allowed the Caps to control the start of the game with their barrage of shots. All of the Caps goals were a result of them not giving up and staying aggressive. The Rangers are too content to just stay with their same ol, same ol game plan. We change nothing, we play at the same level every night and we don't ever think we have to adjust anything. When they are asked what needs to change they just reply, we have to continue what we're doing and stay with it and we will have success... Ok. Torts was asked what do the Rangers have to do different on the pp and he says "score" Ahhhhhhhhhhh thank you oh wise one.
Someone -but they're not telling us who because you know its a big secret- is coming back tomorrow. Sounds like it could be Clowe. Torts says that regardless of conditioning this mystery player or players will play "because if we don't win we're done." - Ah the master of confidence. I am assuming he is talking about game 2 so I guess they better win tomorrow or its all over. I'm sure some Torts defenders would contend that he is talking about the series and not game 2 but that's a pretty obvious statement. Its a dumb comment either way and like I said, this guy has no clue how to inspire confidence. Ever.
I also agree BTW with the stupid criticism of Lundqvist. Without his first period that game is easily 5-1 and then there would be no use in everyone talking about the no-goal from last night. Even our moron coach is talking about it today. Apparently he is wondering if there are overhead cameras in Washington. What happened to "no excuses" coach? Semms like you're full of them all the time and that's not all your full of. What a fraud.
As soon as they took too many men a minute in I looked at my dad and said "well, we lose." Dad didn't buy it, then we score and he is all happy. I said just wait pops, just wait. Bam! 1 goal 2 goal 3 goal game over!
Pathetic. Out-coached. Out-played. Same old story.
Win game 2 or we're done in my opinion. I am blacked out here in CA from MSG because the games are on NBC, so i didn't hear all the Lundqvist stuff from Sam and Joe. But i think i'm glad i didn't! Doc emerick is so annoying it's unreal. How did he become the main guy?
I want Gary Thorne back! Well, here's to hoping for a better game 2
OK Jeanine just predicted the mystery players who will play today are Dorsett and Boyle.
Not sure what to expect today but I will be surprised if we get anything other than a win. We need a win. Lets Go Rangers!
Andy- Can't agree about Doc Emrick. I have always liked him. He is a wealth of information, a true professional and a really nice guy. Jeanine and I met him so many times and I even have a picture of the three of us in a frame from a while ago. Its amazing how much he knows and remembers about the games he's called. I remember when he used to call Flyers games when I was a kid and I liked him then. ESPN used to pick up the Flyers feed when they used to televise NHL games. Ah, the old days. Well at least for me, sorry Mike lol!
Have to agree with Andy about Doc Emerick. It's like he's being paid by the word. He talks non-stop and mostly nonsense. He's great at calling the play-by-play, but when he deviates to his "observations" about players or whatever, I just cringe. He does seem like a really great guy, but I wish he would stop trying to be a stand-up comic (or whatever he's aiming for).
Wasn't saying he's a bad guy was just saying I find his announcing to be poor. He makes a blocked shot sound like a goal with all that screaming. To each their own
averyrules-You officially have the coolest name on the board. WE STILL WANT AVERY