I have waited to write this column for a long time. I have dreamed about what I would write. I have rehearsed what I would write. And then when Tortorella was actually fired I didn’t want to write anything. I felt like my personal mission to have him fired had been completed (which is the way I felt when A.J. Burnett was traded) and after picking him apart for four-plus seasons in New York, including in postgame press conferences following losses this season, I didn’t have anything left to write or say about the man who helped steal four-plus seasons of Henrik Lundqvist’s prime. But when I heard a rumor that the Dallas Stars were looking at Tortorella as a possible replacement for the recently-fired Glen Gulutzan, I just couldn’t keep quiet anymore.

***

The year after college (2009) I was still living in Boston and listening to Mike Francesa when Tom Renney was fired. The Rangers were 31-23-7 with 21 games remaining in the season when they made their change and Glen Sather gave the following reason for firing Renney, who had brought the Rangers back to the postseason for the first time since 1996-97 and the first time during Sather’s Rangers tenure.

“We had lost our zip at some point. We were a fast, puck-possessive hockey club that was determined and worked very hard and moved the puck well. We’ve gotten away from that and that’s why we made the change.”

(Side note: Does that seem familiar?)

When the speculation started that John Tortorella could be Renney’s replacement, people glowingly talked about Tortorella for the job in a way that Scotty Bowman must have been thinking, “How the eff will they talk about me if I want to get back into coaching?” You would have thought that Tortorella brought the Lightning to Tampa Bay before creating an Oilers/Islanders-esque dynasty and winning four Cups in five years. But Tortorella’s time in Tampa Bay actually wasn’t as successful as many people seemingly misremembered it to be, the way an artist or actor is praised posthumously for a spectacular career despite only making one huge song or album or movie. Here’s how Tortorella’s Tampa Bay tenure actually went.

2000-01: Took over team halfway through year and missed playoffs
2001-02: Missed playoffs
2002-03: Lost in second round
2003-04: Won Stanley Cup
2005-05: Lost in first round
2006-07: Lost in first round
2007-08: Missed playoffs

Tortorella came to New York with a Cup, a second-round exit, two first-round exits and three missed playoffs on his resume and acted in a manner that he thought he had won the Conn Smythe during the 2003-04 playoffs rather than Brad Richards. He felt entitled from the minute he was named Rangers head coach and in his mind I think he felt the following thought process was justified: “I won the Stanley Cup with Tampa Bay in 2003-04. The Rangers haven’t won the Stanley Cup since 1993-94. I’m more successful than the New York Rangers.” Without ever being able to go inside his head or without giving him truth serum or a polygraph test, I know that’s what he was thinking.

Tortorella has the type of cockiness about him, which exuded the idea that he couldn’t believe he was fired by the Lightning following the 2007-08 season, even though his team went 31-42-9, finished in last place in the Southeast and missed the playoffs. “I’m John Tortorella! I won this franchise a Cup five years ago! How could they fire ME? But they did and unfortunately Sather and the Rangers were there to get Tortorella back behind a bench, and back behind the Rangers bench for the second time after his four-game stint coaching the team to an 0-3-1 record in 1999-00.

The Rangers finished the season 12-7-2 after firing Renney and hiring Tortorella, earned the eighth spot in the Eastern Conference, held a 3-1 series lead over the top-seeded Capitals in the first round and blew it. That’s how the John Tortorella era began.

The following year, the Rangers missed the playoffs despite having a chance to clinch the 8-seed if they could beat the Flyers in a shootout in Game 82, but they couldn’t and the Flyers clinched the 8-seed. How did the Rangers lose? The way the John Tortorella Rangers always lost: scored the first goal and couldn’t make it stand despite 46 saves from Henrik Lundqvist before losing 2-1 in a shootout.

The year after that, the season came down to Game 82 and playing for the 8-seed again with the Rangers needing to beat the Devils on the final day of the season and have the nothing-to-play-for Lightning beat the Hurricanes, who were also playing for the 8-seed. The Rangers did their part and the Lightning helped them out to complete the two-team parlay and get the Rangers into the playoffs at the 8-seed to face the 1-seed Capitals for the second time in three years. Five games later the Rangers’ season was over.

So after three seasons, two first-round exits and one missed postseason, John Tortorella would coach the Rangers again in 2011-12. And then came the problematic 2011-12 season. And the 2011-12 season was problematic because the Rangers weren’t nearly as good as their 51-24-7 record and 1-seed in the Eastern Conference would have you think they were, but because it was the most success the organization had experienced in 15 years, Tortorella appeared to be a coaching hero.

The 2011-12 Rangers were an offensively-challenged and defensively-flawed team that relied on the best goalie in the world to win the East by one point over the Penguins, who were without Sidney Crosby for 60 games. If the season was 83 games, the Rangers would have lost the conference and the division to the Penguins and been the 4-seed in the East. But the season is only 82 games and therefore John Tortorella looked like the man who had gotten the Rangers to the Eastern Conference finals through system development and progress. But really John Tortorella’s wasn’t about progress, the 2011-12 season just happened to be an aberration. John Tortorella’s Rangers tenure wasn’t following natural progression the way that Claude Julien’s had in Boston. Instead, John Tortorella’s Rangers tenure mirrored Daisuke Matsuzaka’s Major League career. How? Here are Matsuzaka’s record and ERA for his six seasons in the majors.

2007: 15-12, 4.40
2008: 18-3, 2.90
2009: 4-6, 5.76
2010: 9-6, 4.69
2011: 3-3, 5.30
2012: 1-7, 8.28

In 2008, everyone thought Matsuzaka had adjusted to the majors after a so-so rookie season. But in the four years to follow, everyone realized this wasn’t the case. Matsuzaka had won 18 of his 29 starts in 2008 despite averaging under six innings per start. This was made possible by the Red Sox offense, which scored five or more runs in 19 of the 29 starts. Matsuzaka had a 2.90 ERA despite having a 1.324 WHIP and leading the league in walks (94) and hits per nine innings (6.9). This was made possible by his ability to somehow get out of a bases-loaded jam seemingly every inning.

The 2011-12 Rangers and their 51-24-7 record defied logic, math, science, the law of odds and the laws of everything. This was made possible by Henrik Lundqvist’s Vezina-winning 39-18-5, 1.97 GAA, .929 SV% season. The 2011-12 Rangers played in 33 one-goal games and won 21 of them (64 percent). They went a combined 12-7 in overtime and shootouts came from behind in seemingly ever game and tied and won games in the actual final seconds (or in the actual final second as was the case in Phoenix). In the playoffs, they needed seven games to survive the 8-seed Senators and seven more games to survive the 7-seed Capitals and won both Game 7s 2-1. Their luck finally ran out in the Eastern Conference finals against the Devils, losing in six games. The only two games they won? Two shutouts from Henrik Lundqvist.

The 2008-09 through present day Rangers have been built on getting a lead and sitting on it. They aren’t built like the Blackhawks or the Bruins or the Penguins. They can’t sustain Lundqvist giving up two or three goals in a game because they have no way of scoring two or three goals in a game. (The 2011-12 Rangers gave up three or more goals 33 times. They lost 24 of those games.)

If you believe in progression, which Tortorella made clear doesn’t exist from year to year in the NHL in several interviews this season with Mike Francesa, then the 2012-13 season was supposed to be about building off the Eastern Conference finals loss to something bigger. And when Sather fleeced Scott Howson and the Blue Jackets in the overdue trade for Rick Nash, progression made sense.

The Rangers caught a break with the lockout after playing 102 games the year before and having their season last until May 25. Gaborik would need surgery to repair a torn labrum and would be out until after the New Year anyway, so no hockey until the middle of January and a condensed 48-game schedule made sense for a team with scoring troubles.

But the 2012-13 didn’t have anything to do with “progress.” The Rangers started out slow, got hot, got cold, got ice cold, nearly missed the playoffs (again), clinched a playoff berth in the final days of the season and got lucky to get the 6-seed when things broke right. The team that come within two wins of a Stanley Cup Final appearance the season before was now relying on outside help to reach the postseason the way they had two years ago and it all finally fell apart for John Tortorella. It wasn’t just the team’s record, their 6-seed or their second-round embarrassing exit. It was the three majors things that caused those things that led to John Tortorella being currently unemployed.

1. Mistreatment of Media
I don’t care how John Tortorella treated the media or the beat writers since I’m loosely part of the first and I’m not the second. Stupid questions deserve stupid answers in every aspect in life, including NHL press conferences, so I don’t feel bad for media members belittled by unnecessary and poor lines of questioning. But not every question is stupid and not every question deserves a stupid answer or in Tortorella’s case an a-hole answer, which is how MSG Rangers play-by-play man Sam Rosen was treated for no reason. But even though I don’t care if Tortorella wanted beat writers to go home feeling humiliated, it clearly played a part in his firing. It’s one thing to act like that if you’re winning since someone like Bill Belichick isn’t exactly media-friendly, but how many times has Belichick’s job status been in question? Zero.

No one in New York cared about what Tortorella did in Tampa Bay and he never figured this out. New Yorkers want the Rangers to win and don’t care when the Lighting won. They don’t care about championships, accomplishments and accolades achieved in another city with another franchise. Tortorella spoke down to everyone to he was forced to speak to and acted in a manner in which no coach in the major sports should act, but if someone is going to, it should be someone with a much more impressive resume than Tortorella’s, which finished in New York like this:

2008-09: Lost in first round
2009-10: Missed playoffs
2010-11: Lost in first round
2011-12: Lost in conference finals
2012-13: Lost in second round

2. Misuse of Stars
Somewhere, I’m not sure where, Marian Gaborik was smiling when it was announced that John Tortorella had been fired. Well, maybe Gaborik wasn’t exactly smiling since he will spend at least one more season in Columbus with the Blue Jackets, but he had to be happy knowing that the man responsible for him being sent to Columbus would now be viewed as a loser and not a savior in New York.

If there hadn’t been a lockout this season, Gaborik would have missed close to the half the season recovering from the torn labrum he suffered during the 2011-12 season when he scored 41 goals and played through the playoffs with the injury. A lot of people seem to forget this and these people certainly forgot it when they booed Gaborik at the Garden and called for him to be traded, which he eventually was.

No one wanted to talk about how he was unfairly treated in comparison to players of lesser talent on the team or that he was moved from the position he has played his entire life or that he was asked to change his game away from being one of the league’s elite and pure goal scorers to someone willing to bang bodies and muck it up in the corner and block shots. All anyone knew was that Gaborik wasn’t scoring at the rate he used to and that he was being benched and having his playing time reduced by Tortorella. Everyone gave the benefit of the doubt to the coach who had won nothing in New York and not to the two-time 40-plus goal scorer for the Rangers who, along with Lundqvist, was the sole reason for the team’s marginal success since 2009. So Gaborik was shipped to Columbus to create depth (but not depth with people who could score goals) and the team who couldn’t score goals lost their second-biggest scoring threat.

The Rangers started the season with Rick Nash, Marian Gaborik and Brad Richards. Entering their final game of the year (Game 5 in Boston), only Rick Nash was in the lineup. Gaborik was gone and Richards had become a healthy scratch in consecutive games, nine years after he won the Conn Smythe, giving Tortorella his lone Cup and the one thing on his resume keeping him employed behind a bench in 2013.

What happened to Richards? He certainly didn’t forget how to play hockey or “lose it” overnight. Maybe the 48-game shortened season had something to do with the 33-year-old center not looking like himself? It’s more likely that Richards was out of shape, which would absolutely be his fault, in January prior to the start of the season and never caught up over the five months that the Rangers season lasted.

Even for as bad as Richards looked at times and how lost he was running the power play, he still finished with 34 points in 46 regular-season games. If he deserved to be benched or scratched, he deserved to benched or scratched long before the final two games of the season with the Rangers’ backs against the wall, trailing 3-0 in the conference semifinals. Tortorella tried to back Richards when he told everyone to “Kiss his ass,” but by then it was too late. Richards started his own potential amnesty process with his play and Tortorella put the potential finishing touches on it with his lineup.

3. No Accountability
John Tortorella always made sure to ask the media if they had asked his players the same questions following losses when he would get testy usually right before or after he would take out his frustration of not being a good coach on Sam Rosen. Tortorella wanted to make sure his players were owning up for their sloppy play or poor effort, but he never once took the blame for a loss. For someone who felt so entitled for his one truly successful season in the NHL, he never once thought he could be the reason for a loss. It was always someone else’s fault in Tortorella’s mind and it most likely was his players’ since he rarely would credit the opponent for their performance either.

Tortorella’s players turned on him following the Game 5 loss to the Bruins and after looking immune to being fired before the 2013-14 season, he was gone the day after reports came out that Henrik Lundqvist wasn’t sold on signing a long-term deal with the Rangers. Lundqvist’s play had been responsible for Tortorella keeping his job as long as he did and Lundqvist’s play had been responsible for any of the team’s post-lockout success, so it was fitting that it was Lundqvist who ended up being the one to end Tortorella’s time as Rangers head coach.

I’m not sure why the Dallas Stars or any other team looking for a head coach would want Tortorella behind their bench. But I get it. Like a campaign manager with at least one election win on their resume, Tortorella has the 2003-04 Cup on his and he will always be mentioned in potential jobs until he has another one.

As for the Rangers, I’m not sure who will coach the team next season, but it won’t be John Tortorella. And that’s all that matters.

When the Rangers took a 1-0 lead 10:39 into the game with a power-play goal I started to think ahead about winning Game 5, taking Game 6 at MSG and being back in Boston for Game 7 and a chance to avenge the Yankees’ 2004 ALCS loss. But the Bruins scored 3:48 into the second period and then again 9:53 later and I knew it was over. The Rangers had gotten incredibly lucky scoring once and they weren’t going to score again. So I left.

I left the house in Nantucket I was staying in for Figawi and Memorial Day weekend and I walked the seven-tenths of a mile to The Chicken Box, the bar on the island you need to get in line by 7:30 p.m. on the Saturday of the weekend to have any chance of getting in at all. The temperature had dropped into the 40s and it was pouring rain. Given that it was May 25 and should have been at least 30 degrees warmer without rain, it felt like it was freezing. I walked to The Box in the “freezing” rain and stood in line for at least 30 minutes in the same rain in shorts and a T-shirt knowing that inside hundreds of Bruins fans were watching their team enjoy the finality of the Rangers season.

I didn’t see how the Rangers season ended. I missed most of the third period walking to the bar and standing in line to get into the bar. I didn’t see the Bruins’ third goal (an empty-net goal) with 51 seconds left in the season. I didn’t see the last minute or the last second of the 2012-13 Rangers and I’m happy I didn’t. I want to forget about the 2012-13 Rangers because there isn’t much good to remember about them. It shouldn’t be hard since they are a forgettable team.

(More to come to look back at the season.)

I had already gotten over the 2012-13 season after leaving MSG following Game 3, so I was prepared for whatever happened in Game 4. If the Rangers lost it wasn’t going to be a surprise and if they won, it would mean I would get to watch at least one game over the weekend in Nantucket for Figawi.

I watched Game 4 the way I would watch an exhibition with no real emotional investment knowing that it would take an actual miracle for the Rangers’ season to continue past this series and it would take an epic collapse from the Bruins not seen since the 2009-10 Bruins.

When the Rangers trailed recorded four shots in the first period, I didn’t have a good feeling. When the Rangers went down 1-0 at 4:39 of the second period, I thought it was over. When the Rangers went down 2-0 at 7:41 of the second period, I knew it was over. But 58 seconds later, Tuukka Rask let in the strangest goal I have ever seen in my life and the “Two-Goal Lead” theory that I said doesn’t pertain to the Rangers was suddenly in play.

The Rangers tied the game at 2 and I felt like I have so many times before with the New York Football Giants pulling me back into a game or a season only to eventually pull out the rug from underneath me. I thought Tyler Seguin’s goal with 11:54 left in the game was that rug, but “Ladies and gentlemen, Brian Boyle!” saved the game and the season 1:54 later and Chris “I Should Have Been Traded for Rick Nash” Kreider scored in overtime on a pass from Rick Nash to give me at least one more hockey game this season.

Game 4 felt as weird as Game 4 of the ALCS felt. Winning means most likely prolonging the inevitable and losing means the end of the season. The difference is the Rangers won Game 4 and the Yankees didn’t. And for at least one game, “Why not us?” has some meaning.

(These Thoughts have clearly grown shorter as the season has started to take a turn for the worse.)

Thanks to my girlfriend I was in attendance for Game 3, sitting 16 rows behind Tuukka Rask’s net (or his net for two periods). Between the second and third periods with the Rangers holding a 1-0 lead, I walked to the bottom of my section, where the refs come out, and met my former boss, “Z”, who is the producer for Bruins hockey on NESN (I interned for him during senior year of college and the 2007-08 Bruins season). He was glowing about the Bruins’ 2-0 series lead and told me, “This team hasn’t played this well in a long time.” He wasn’t nervous about the Bruins trailing 1-0 and Henrik Lundqvist standing on his head through 40 minutes. The Rangers went 3-0 against the Capitals at MSG in the first round and they were riding an epic performance from Lundqvist here in Game 3. How could he be confident about the Bruins in the third period? I thought he was nuts. He wasn’t. The Bruins scored 3:10 into the third to tie the game took the lead for good with 3:31 left with a goal from their fourth line.

Looking back on the game it seems like a blur. Maybe because the seats were great (and the Coors Lights were too) or because the game was so significant, but it seemed to go like a CC Sabathia-Felix Hernandez 1-0 game would go. It felt like the whole thing happened in 30 minutes. I feel like I don’t even remember much of what happened, which might be due to the physical, emotional and mental fatigue of worrying about the Rangers clearing the puck out of the zone for an entire game the way I had done for Game 6 of the quarterfinals at the Garden.

The only thing left to do now is take a page out of Curt Schilling’s book and ask, “Why not us?” the way I did after Game 3 of the 2012 ALCS. Maybe this time a New York team will give the correct answer to that question.

My whole life I have been told “the two-goal lead is the worst lead in hockey” and all my life I have believed this theory because I have seen it erased what seems like the majority of the time. But the time has to come for me to alter the phrase to “the two-goal lead is the worst lead in hockey unless that two-goal lead is against the Rangers.”

When the Bruins went up 4-2 just 26 seconds into the third period, I thought that maybe the Rangers would catch the Bruins taking their foot off the gas, pop in a third goal and cut the lead to one and then use the momentum change to tie the game. Maybe it was the Coors Light bringing out the optimist in me, but for me to think that scenario was even remotely possible even for a second, I’m surprised I don’t still leave milk and cookies out for Santa on Christmas Eve.

Who the eff was I kidding? The Rangers weren’t going to score a third goal, let alone a third and fourth goal and then a fifth goal, which would have been needed to win the game at the time when little did we know it was going to take six goals to beat the Bruins in Game 2. The 2012-13 Rangers have scored six goals three times in 57 games this season and they weren’t about to make it a fourth in a playoff game, on the road, against the Bruins.

The Bruins got five goals from five different players and when you’re getting goals from Torey Krug (four previous career NHL games) and Johnny Boychuk (22 previous goals in 299 regular season and playoff games combined) and Greg Campbell (one previous goal in 40 playoff games), maybe you’re not going to be beaten this spring or summer and maybe the overused and overplayed “saying” will hold true in this series.

That saying is “it’s not a series until the home team loses.” It’s a saying I have never understood, but it’s been used since the Bruins won Game 2 on Sunday and it’s a saying we will hear until the start of Game 3. And if the Rangers win Game 3, it’s a saying we will hear until Game 4 and we will keep hearing until the home team does in fact lose a game in this series. But even if the Rangers were to win Games 3 and 4 at home, according to the saying they are only going to lose Game 5 before winning Game 6 and then losing Game 7. So if the Rangers are going to lose this series next Wednesday in Game 7 in Boston, why am I even watching? I’m watching because right now the chances are slim this thing lasts until Game 7. There’s a chance this thing might not even get back to Boston for Game 5.

The Rangers were embarrassed on Sunday afternoon in Boston in a way they haven’t been embarrassed since losing to Florida 3-1 at home on March 21 in what was the worst hockey game I have ever attended. So let’s start the Thoughts off with the man responsible for the embarrassing play on the ice.

- I gave John Tortorella credit for his preparation and game plan for Game 7 against Washington, but now it’s time to take that credit back. I’m not sure how the Rangers weren’t up for Game 2 from their first shift, but they were absolutely dominated in the opening minutes and it led to a Bruins goal at just 5:28 of the game. I don’t expect the Rangers to come out that flat-footed in Game 3 at home in a must-win game, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they did. Nothing should surprise anyone with this team whether it’s positive or negative because “surprise” is the one word I would use to describe Tortorella’s tenure as Rangers coach. (Did I just accidentally give him the name of his book about his Rangers years once he is eventually fired? Surprise: John Tortorella’s Unexpected Reign as Rangers Coach.)

- The Rangers tied the game at 1 when Ryan Callahan beat Dougie Hamilton (just typing his name makes me think of Pierre McGuire blushing and trying to hide his pants tent between the benches) to a loose puck that led to a breakaway. The sequence that led to Callahan skating free almost looked like Hamilton’s skates were breaking down like Forrest Gump’s leg braces. First the blades, then the TUUKs, then the rivets then the boots then the laces. The only difference is Hamilton didn’t become faster. I didn’t think there was any way any 19-year-old defenseman in the NHL could be that slow, but apparently there is. Can we get a Hamilton vs. Brian Boyle goal line-to-goal line race during warmups before Game 3?

- Rick Nash came out from wherever he had been hiding for the first eight playoff games and tied the game at 2 by going top tit. Aside from a hot goalie, the scariest thing to face in the playoffs is a confident goal scorer, which is why I didn’t feel good about the Washington series with Alexander Ovechkin entering the playoffs on such a streak and scoring in Game 1 before he started to hang and play the role of four-line bruiser rather than world-class sniper. And if Nash has his confidence back after ending his goal-less postseason then maybe we won’t watch the Rangers season end at the Garden this week.

- Henrik Lundqvist wasn’t Henrik Lundqvist on Sunday. Hell, he wasn’t even Mike Dunham. But I’m not going to get on Lundqvist because that’s just not something I’m going to do. He knows he played poorly and I know he will bounce back in Game 3 because that’s what Henrik Lundqvist does. Lundqvist never gave up five goals in 43 games during the regular season, but he gave up four goals four times and in the four games following a game in which he gave up four goals, he went 4-0 with a 1.71 GAA and .934 save percentage. So no, I’m not worried about Lundqvist.

- “I have tried to be your friend, but you will not listen to me, so you have invited this monster…” That’s what Stevie Janowski tells Kenny Powers’ gym class when they’re not supposed to watch him pitch. And that’s what I’m telling John Tortorella (power-play specialist according to Pierre McGuire) and the Rangers power play.

How can a power play go 2-for-36? That’s not a rhetorical question. That’s a real question. I want an answer. How can the power play go 2-for-36? Maybe if the writers and reporters who attend Tortorella postgame press conferences would stop having thumb parties and ask a real question rather than the nonsensical questions they actually do ask we could get an answer to this because it deserves an answer. But according to Tortorella, the power play actually wasn’t bad despite going 0-for-5 in Game 2 since he said, “Our power play was better. Our power play was better today. We didn’t score, but it was better.” I guess we’re judging special teams on how they look rather than results now. I also guess most Rangers fans judge coaching that way too.

- The Rangers could have really used Dan Girardi in the lineup on Sunday. I hope he’s able to play on Tuesday because the guy who filled in for him in Game 2, who finished the game with a minus-4 rating, can’t possibly play in Game 3.

- Michael Del Zotto isn’t an offensive defenseman. Michael Del Zotto isn’t a defensive defenseman. Michael Del Zotto is just some guy that makes terrible decisions, shoots pucks into shin pads, misses the net and is a liability in his own zone. I don’t think there’s a position for that.

- No one should be surprised when the Rangers’ fourth line gives up a goal. The line consists of an overpaid, underachieving 33-year-old former star in Brad Richards, an overrated, should-have-been-traded-last-year 22-year-old first-round pick in Chris Kreider and an actual 35-year-old fourth-line checking forward and fighter in Arron Asham. That combination certainly makes me think Textbook Playoff Fourth Line!

- Torey Krug wouldn’t be playing in this series if Dennis Seidenberg or Andrew Ference or Wade Redden were healthy. It took three defenseman to be injured at the same time for him to get into the Bruins lineup and he has two goals and an assist in two games. It’s Claude Julien getting as lucky as he did in the 2010-11 playoffs when he had to insert Tyler Seguin into the lineup against Tampa Bay and the rookie single-handedly beat the Lightning. That Claude is one great coach!

- It was nice to see Derek Dorsett show some heart and fight Shawn Thornton in the third period, but why fight when trailing 5-2 with 6:51 left? Why not start something at the beginning of the period when it’s 4-2 with 19:36 left and the game is still within reach? Rangers hockey!

It’s been eight days since the Rangers played their last game at Madison Square Garden. All three of their games at home this postseason have been must-win games and they’re 3-0 in those games. If they’re not 4-0 when I write the Game 3 Thoughts there won’t be a point to writing the Game 4 Thoughts.

Game 1 could have gone on for two more minutes or two more overtimes or it could still be going on and the Bruins were still going to win. If Patrice Bergeron and Brad Marchand didn’t beat Anton Stralman and Ryan McDonagh and then Henrik Lundqvist, someone else on the Bruins would have eventually ended the game.

The Bruins were clearly the better team in Game 1 and it was obvious everywhere except for the scoreboard with the game tied at 2 at the end of the third. But don’t let the game going to overtime make you think the two teams were actually even after regulation like John Tortorella thinks they were. (He said, “I thought it was pretty even going into overtime.”) The Rangers were completely dominated throughout the first game of what I still believe will be a series that needs seven games to be decided. And the only reason the game wasn’t over as early as the Rangers-Capitals Game 7 was is because of the man, the myth, the legend: Henrik Lundqvist. So once again let’s get the Thoughts started with the reason the Rangers weren’t run out of the TD Garden, run off Causeway Street, run down Canal Street and run into The Grand Canal, the worst bar in Boston.

- One day when Henrik Lundqvist pulls his number 30 to the Madison Square Garden rafters, there’s nothing the Rangers can give him on “Henrik Lundqvist Night” that will be enough to reward and repay him for being solely responsible for ending the Rangers’ playoff-less streak in 2005-06, which would still be going on without him.

In Game 1, Lundqvist faced 48 shots, the second-most he’s faced this season (he stopped 48-of-49 shots in Carolina on April 6), and stopped 45 of them. It was the most shots he had seen in the playoffs since the Rangers’ 4-3 double-overtime loss to the Capitals in the 2010-11 quarterfinals (also known as the “Boudreau Chants” game or the “Rangers Blew a 3-0 Third-Period Lead with a Chance to Tie the Series” game). In return, the Rangers recorded only 35 shots on Tuukka Rask, most of which came from low-percentage areas, including both of their goals, which were outside shots.

- They say “the post is the goalie’s best friend.” I’m not sure that’s true since I always thought “good defense should be the goalie’s best friend.” (In that case, Henrik Lundqvist is best friend-less and if he’s taking applications, where should I send mine to?) Unless you like your best friend to constantly scare the crap out of you before saying, “It was just a goof, man” like a worried Harry Dunne apologizing to a dying Joe Mentalino in Dumb and Dumber, then I’m not sure how the post is anyone’s best friend. I had several heart palpitations thanks to Johnny Boychuk and Jaromir Jagr and Tyler Seguin hitting the posts and crossbar Thursday night, so it’s going to be a while until the post and I are back on good terms.

- Ryan McDonagh’s untimely and ill-advised decision to jump up on the play in overtime cost the Rangers an odd-man rush against and cost them the game. Not even Henrik Lundqvist or a diving Mats Zuccarello, who fit neatly into the corner of the net like an empty puck bag, could stop Patrice Bergeron’s pass or Brad Marchand’s perfect puck placement. But to me, it was Ryan Callahan who had the worst game of all the Rangers. Callahan missed several chances to clear the zone on the penalty kill, twice unsuccessfully tried to chip the puck around the D, resulting in a turnover, and missed the net with shots on several attempts. I know Ryan Callahan didn’t cost the Rangers the game and I know no one in the Tri-state area likes hearing anyone badmouth the captain, but I have to be fair (unless being fair means saying something negative about Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Eli Manning or Henrik Lundqvist).

- Rick Nash: Come out, come out, wherever you are.

- The Rangers put together another Andruw Jones night, going 0-for-3 on the power play. The power play is now 2-for-31 in the playoffs, which actually might be harder to do than being 22-for-31 on the power play, kind of like going 0-for-12 in picking winners in a 12-team parlay.

Pierre McGuire complained about the Rangers’ “lack of slot presence” on the power play, but I’m not sure how you can have “slot presence” when you can’t successfully break out or get through the neutral zone without turning it over or set it up inside the Bruins’ zone without trying to get cute just inside the blue with it on the man advantage. Maybe Pierre will inform us of how this is possible in Game 2 unless he’s too busy rattling off Torey Krug’s entire hockey career and stats starting with his first year of youth hockey as a kid growing up in Livonia, Mich.

I would like to think something is going to change or click with the power play, but I would also like to think that the fistfight Adam Oates is calling for with John Tortorella will take place and unfortunately I know neither of these things will happen. The Rangers power play is what it is now after 56 games this season: a disaster. Luckily, the Bruins power play has been as bad this season (and also in the past like the Rangers’), but even the lowly Bruins power play found a way to convert once in Game 1. If the Bruins power play is going to produce in this series and the Rangers’ isn’t then we might as well pack up the sticks and pucks now and call it a season because I was banking on this series being won during even strength. We can’t have the Bruins suddenly figuring out how to score with a man advantage.

- Aside from Pierre McGuire telling us Torey Krug’s life story, he was also kind enough to remind us that Jaromir Jagr is “a 15-20 second shift guy” in the third period and overtime whenever number 68 was on the ice. We learned again that Rangers trainer Jim Ramsey is the Team Canada trainer and I’m pretty sure those were orgasmic noises Pierre was making anytime he said the name “Dougie Hamilton,” who he has had a clear man crush on since the beginning of the season. There’s no chance NBC Sports will have Pierre attend only the other three series in the semifinals and set us free of the Human HockeyDB.com, but maybe it’s for the better because these Thoughts wouldn’t be so long without him. In honor of Pierre, I’m going to “Pierre” the rest of the Thoughts.

- What was the former first-round pick of the Columbus Blue Jackets John Moore thinking when he decided to take that interference penalty on the power play? I’m serious. What was going through his head when he decided to just shove Rich Peverley down from behind away from the play? The Winnetka, Ill. native has to be much smarter than that if he’s going to move down low on the power play. (There’s a 150-percent chance Marian Gaborik would have been benched by Tortorella for the same penalty. He was benched for a lot less.)

And while we’re talking about penalties, Derek Dorsett made the right decision when he took his interference penalty on Peverley (effing Peverley again) in overtime the way he would have during his days in the WHL playing for the Medicine Hat Tigers. If Dorsett doesn’t take that penalty, it’s at least a 2-on-1 going the other way and the game is over. Granted the game would eventually end on a 2-on-1 anyway, but hey, at least we got like 12 more minutes of hockey after the Kindersley, Sask. product took a smart and necessary penalty.

The Rangers can still get the job done in Boston with a Game 2 win otherwise they will be in the same spot they were two weeks ago against the Capitals. And these Bruins aren’t the Capitals.

For the first time since 1973 the Rangers and Bruins will meet in the playoffs. It’s the latest chapter in the illustrious history of New York vs. Boston postseason meetings and the only logical to way to handle this situation was with an email exchange with Mike Hurley from CBS Boston.

Keefe: It’s been a while. It’s actually been 92 days since our last one of these. But after what happened on Monday night and what’s going to happen between now and Memorial Day, I figured why not bother Mike Hurley. Or Michael Francis Hurley as those in Boston know you by.

The Rangers’ Game 7 win was boring and that’s the way I liked it. After the excitement of the Game 6 win at Madison Square Garden on Sunday afternoon and the 29 beers that followed, I wanted a blowout. I didn’t want to have to worry about the Capitals getting a 1-0 lead and then watching the Rangers struggle to generate offense until the clock ran out on the season. I got my wish thanks to Henrik Lundqvist and the Rangers have at least four more games left in the season.

But during the third period of the Rangers’ Game 7 blowout, I was flipping back and forth to the Bruins-Maple Leafs game and I told my girlfriend when they trailed 4-1 that I had seen this Bruins team come back from similar deficits before. Of course none of those comebacks happened in a Game 7 with their season on the line, but still, the Bruins are never out of a game and they probed that even in their losses in Games 5 and 6 to Toronto.

Sure enough, within the hour you were documenting euphoria at TD Garden on Twitter and the Bruins were alive and well and awaiting the Rangers on Thursday night.

I want to know what went through your mind from the Maple Leafs’ fourth goal until the point when Patrice Bergeron was jumping around center ice. (I only wish he rolled around like Theo Fleury.)

Hurley: Hi Neil. Thanks for emailing me. I always love it so much when you email me. It always brightens my day to see “Keefe, Neil” pop up in the inbox, so thank you.

Being in the building for Game 7 was without a doubt the most unreal sporting event I’ve ever attended in my life. I’ve been to just about every home Bruins game this year, and the volume level even in the opening minutes was far beyond any noise the home crowd had made all season. Of course, when Nazem Kadri buried the Leafs’ fourth goal, it was almost silent. You could actually hear the Leafs fans in the building cheering, and there couldn’t have been more than 500 of them in the whole place.

It’s funny, I was watching a game earlier this series from my living room when the Bruins were in Toronto, and as I tend to do when I watch sports, I was shouting, oohing and ahhing, screaming “WOOF!” and “WOW!” every three seconds. My wife looked at me and said, “How do you watch games in the press box and stay silent?” I had no answer. But whenever I am covering games, I am silent, probably because I’m work and I have something to dedicate my focus on. But man, when Bergeron released that snap shot from the blue line, once it made it past the first white jersey, I knew it was going in, and I just let out an audible, “Holy shit.”

I really don’t have the same emotional investment in the team that I did growing up. It’s only natural to have a different feeling for the team when you’re covering them for your job for several years, so it’s not like I was torn up about them losing. In fact, I didn’t really care — I was starting to make plans with all the free time that opened up on my calendar.

But when that goal hit the net, I’ve never heard a crowd get that loud. Ever. My arms actually got chills and went numb. You know me pretty well, and you know that I may be in my mid-20s and appear to be a somewhat lively person, but on the inside I am a grumpy, 80-year-old man. So for that to happen, it was just incredible. Indescribable really, but I’m just happy I got to be there to experience it first-hand.

No, nobody hacked my email to send this rainbows and sunshine message. This is really me.

Keefe: I really don’t have the same emotional investment in the team that I did growing up. It’s only natural to have a different feeling for the team when you’re covering them for your job for several years, so it’s not like I was torn up about them losing. In fact, I didn’t really care — I was starting to make plans with all the free time that opened up on my calendar.

That was the saddest, most-effed up paragraph I have ever read from you and that means a lot considering you write a lot of effed-up paragraphs, especially during football season. But I think watching your fandom dwindle and be destroyed as a member of the mainstream media and essentially a beat writer is a conversation for another day. If you finish any of your future columns with “Time will tell” or “Maybe it will happen” or “We’ll see” then I think you will finally get your wish and our “friendship” will be over. If the Giants’ second Super Bowl win over the Patriots didn’t end the “friendship” then I don’t think a Rangers’ series win over the Bruins will. So only your mindset fully transforming into that of a beat writer/reporter can end this thing.

Last year we both talked endlessly about the Rangers and Bruins meeting in the Eastern Conference finals, but the Bruins didn’t live up to their end of the bargain. This year we hoped it could happen, but the Rangers would have to make the playoffs to make it possible. We didn’t get the conference finals, but we’re getting the conference semifinals, which is still good enough for me.

It’s actually insane that these two teams haven’t met in the playoffs since 1973 when you consider the NHL postseason format and the fact that the Rangers have seen the Capitals in four of the last five playoff (or the last four playoffs the Rangers have been a part of) and the Bruins have seen the Canadiens in three of the last six postseasons. What’s that thing you say? “Sports!”

So we finally get our wish with the Rangers coming off a dominant Game 7 performance and winning four of the last five games against the Capitals and the Bruins coming off an improbable Game 7 win after nearly blowing away a 3-1 series lead. While I said during Game 7 that I fully believed in a Bruins’ third-period comeback, I also started to think about what a Game 7 loss at home and blown 3-1 lead would mean for Claude Julien. Here’s what Julien has done as head coach in the four seasons prior to this one.

2011-12: Lost Game 7 of quarterfinals to Washington at home in overtime

2010-11: Won three Game 7s in one postseason, overcame 2-0 series deficit twice and won the Cup in Vancouver

2009-10: Blew 3-0 series lead to Philadelphia in semifinals and blew 3-0 lead in Game 7 at home

2008-09: Lost Game 7 of quarterfinals to Carolina at home in overtime

Since I talk to you and other Boston sports fans frequently, there seems to be a large anti-Julien movement and it’s pretty ridiculous. The pro-John Tortorella base in New York is far greater than the anti-John Tortorella base and this is what Tortorella has done in New York.

2011-12: Lost to New Jersey in 6 in conference finals

2010-11: Made playoffs on last day of season thanks to help and lost to Washington in 5 in quarterfinals

2009-10: Missed playoffs

2008-09: Blew 3-1 series lead to Washington in quarterfinals

Based on the two resumes (and I didn’t even include Julien leading the overachieving Bruins to the 8-seed in the 2007-08 playoffs and forcing a Game 7 against Montreal), I’m not exactly sure how the perception of the two is what it is. Sure, Julien does some weird things like play Jaromir Jagr alongside two players that aren’t worthy of sitting next to him in the locker room let alone playing on the same line with him, but Julien did something in Boston that 16 head coaches before him since 1972 couldn’t do. John Tortorella acts like he’s done something in New York when he hasn’t done anything since he won in Tampa Bay nine years ago, and according to you that shouldn’t have even happened.

So why is Julien hated in Boston (for the most part) and Tortorella loved in New York (for the most part)? Or do those two perceptions only exist in the world of sports radio?

Hurley: Can a friendship end if it never really existed to begin with? I guess we’ll find out in the coming days.

As for the anti-Julien movement, it is definitely real and I definitely don’t agree with it. I understand that Claude is not the perfect coach. He’s a defensive-minded guy, and he seems averse to letting guys like Tyler Seguin run free and try to score goals. Defense is boring, and fans often get frustrated when the team goes through long scoring droughts. It’s only natural for the coach to get blamed, that’s just how it goes. Sports!

But you laid it out nicely. The guy gets his team to playoffs every single year. They don’t always make it to the conference finals, but who does? The Penguins, I think, are unanimously the best team in the NHL over the past five years, and I think most hockey fans love Dan Bylsma as a head coach. The Penguins in the four years leading up to this season have won the Cup, lost in the second round and twice lost in the first round. Injuries play a role, sure, but that’s not a whole heck of a lot better than the Bruins’ finishes the past four years.

Probably the biggest reason that Claude’s Cup win in 2011 isn’t earning him much slack these days is that things looked pretty bad for him back in the first round that year. In fact, fans were calling for his firing in December of that season, before the Bruins went on a 14-5-3 run. In Game 7, if Jeff Halpern doesn’t deflect Nathan Horton’s slap shot in overtime of Game 7 against Montreal, the Canadiens could have won that game. Julien would have been fired. Peter Chiarelli too, probably. Extensions for David Krejci, Milan Lucic … who knows? One bounce of a puck that goes the other way, and Julien would have been gone.

So the Cup win obviously secured his job for the time being, and it helped excuse the first-round exit last year. I think if they had lost to Toronto, he would have kept his job for next year, but it would have been very tenuous. He’d be a candidate for a midseason axing, and fans would largely be happy. Most of those anti-Claude fans don’t have a viable replacement in mind, they just want him gone. Maybe the Bruins could bring back Dave Lewis. Fans would be crying for Claude back after five games.

As for Tortorella, I’ll just say that had he lost his job after losing to Washington this year, I wouldn’t have been too broken up. If the Calgary Flames had been credited with the game-winning goal they scored, then maybe TORTS! wouldn’t spend his days with that poo-eating grin and I-know-everything-and-you-suck attitude. Alas, we are here, and sure enough, I don’t think either coach is in danger of losing his job, no matter what happens in this series.

Keefe: Along the lines with the “I don’t understand why fans are the way they are” perception is the idea that Tuukka Rask isn’t Tim Thomas for Bruins fans. But who is? I don’t see any other NHL goalies writing on their Facebook page about gay marriage or how Barack Obama is ruining the country. And I don’t see Tuukka Rask taking a year off of hockey in hopes of returning the following year and starting for his Olympic team.

In New York, there is a very small percent of fans who think Henrik Lundqvist is overrated (this very small group of people are unintelligent) and are quick to cite his under-.500 postseason record as a reason for being overrated. (And if being the reigning Vezina winner makes you overrated then does that mean there aren’t any good goalies in the NHL the way that BABIP suggests that there aren’t any good hitters in MLB, just lucky ones?) But if Henrik wasn’t as good as he is, he wouldn’t even have a postseason record because the Rangers offense since 2005-06 certainly wasn’t going to get him there. So Lundqvist is the beneficiary of an offensively-challenged team once again and starts games knowing that one goal could mean a loss. Put him on Pittsburgh and no one would be talking about how exciting the Islanders were for six games because the Islanders would have been run out of the first round in four games.

Henrik Lundqvist is the best goalie in the world. That’s a fact. But Tuukka Rask isn’t far behind and is certainly in the top tier of goalies in the league and I was surprised to him get snubbed from being a Vezina finalist. And for years now it seems like it’s been Lundqvist vs. Rask in any afternoon Rangers-Bruins game and now we’ll finally get to see them square off in a seven-game series.

Tuukka Rask isn’t Tim Thomas, but I’m still scared of his ability to shut down the Rangers, who have a hard enough time scoring against mediocre goaltending. I think with Lundqvist and Rask we’re headed for seven games and maybe seven total goals in the series. Would you agree?

Hurley: Definitely. I think you said it best when you said Lundqvist is the best, but Rask isn’t far behind. It’s been pretty ridiculous this season, in the few instances Rask let up a soft goal or lost a game or two, hearing people call the radio or comment online that Rask is no Thomas, as if Thomas was this perfect goaltender who never failed. Make no mistake, Thomas in the 2011 postseason was unreal, but the guy was hardly a model of consistency. Nobody let in more bad, back-breaking goals than Thomas, but because he rode off into the Facebook sunset, he’s only remembered for that glorious run to the Cup.

So it was good that the Bruins didn’t lose that first-round series, because Rask would have wrongly been blamed, and people would keep calling about how bad he is, how he can’t win in the postseason, blah, blah, blah.

But yeah, I think back to one of these talks we had, where I made an off-the-cuff comment about every single Bruins-Rangers game ending 1-0 one way or the other. Then, for the first time in your life, you did actual research, and you discovered that 11 out of the previous 15 meetings had been decided by just one goal. This year, one game was won 3-1, another one in OT and the other won in a shootout. I don’t see any reason why things will suddenly change in the postseason, when Tortorella’s and Julien’s teams bear down even more defensively.

Some people say it’s “boring” because it won’t be wide open, high-scoring hockey. But I haven’t watched a Rangers-Bruins game in years that wasn’t thrilling, so I’m looking forward to it.

Keefe: I love when people put out “Keys for the Rangers in Game 3″ or “What the Bruins Must Do to Win Game 6″ because really it’s all meaningless and just a waste of time for talking heads to fill space on pregame shows or for lazy writers and bloggers to meet story quotas or word counts. Because I don’t remember anyone saying, “The Rangers will beat the Capitals if Rick Nash doesn’t score a goal” or “The Bruins will eliminate the Maple Leafs if Tyler Seguin scores zero goals.” But the two best pure scorers in the upcoming series combined for 14 games played, no goals and three assists (two for Nash and one for Seguin) in the quarterfinals combined. How is it possible that the former London Knight and the former Plymouth Whaler (just went Pierre McGuire on you to see how it feels) scored zero goals combined in 14 games? The only answer I can think of is: it’s not.

This is why I’m nervous about our mutually agreed prediction of seven 1-0 games in this series. Both of these players are going to go off in this series because the law of odds and science and “being due” and everything in life says they are. They have to. And if they do, maybe this series will turn into the 2011-12 quarterfinals between the Penguins and Flyers and there will be 15 goals a game and brawls and sloppy goaltending and then NBC Sports and CBC and NHL Network and every media outlet can scrap the word “expert.”

But in real life, it’s scary to know the depth of the Rangers and Bruins if they were both able to win seven-game series with their two actual superstars contributing noting and it’s scary to think how good both of these teams can be if Nash and Seguin are Nash and Seguin starting on Thursday. I guess there’s a reason why the East was supposed to be decided between the Rangers, Bruins and Penguins and all three are part of the final four now.

Hurley: You obviously didn’t read my Bruins-Leafs Game 7 preview, in which I wrote the Bruins’ key will be to lose Dennis Seidenberg on his first shift, get Matt Bartkowski going offensively, fall behind 4-1 and then turn it on in the final 10 minutes to pull off the comeback. Stories like that show why I’m an expert and why I get paid so much money.

The difference between Nash and Seguin is that Nash is a perennial all-star who’s topped 30 goals seven times in his career. Seguin is a 21-year-old, and while he looked like Wayne Gretzky over in Switzerland during the lockout while wearing his flame jersey for being the team’s leading scorer, I don’t think we really know what he is yet. At least, we don’t know what he is beyond his potential.

His goal drought hasn’t been for lack of chances. He’s just somehow, somewhere lost his finishing ability. He’s become known around here as “high glass,” as he and Rich Peverley in particular tend to miss the net by about 10 feet on most of their shots. I suppose it can be chalked up to growing pains, which are to be expected, and also the realization that though Seguin is a very good player, he’s not Steven Stamkos, who turned 22 in the middle of last season … when he scored 60 goals. This year, Seguin turned 21 and scored 16 goals in 48 games. In a full season, that’s a 27-goal pace. That’s pretty good, but not great, and I don’t think he’s the pure scorer you fear he might be. I think the Bruins are going to be a lot more worried about Nash than the Rangers are about Seguin.

But boy oh boy, the young kid from Brampton, Ontario who grew up idolizing Stevie Y sure can skate, Edzo.

Keefe: I have always been high on Seguin and I think Claude Julien’s decision to not play him at the beginning of the 2010-11 playoffs only made me higher on him. It took injuries for Seguin to get into the lineup before he single-handedly saved the Bruins’ season against Tampa Bay and saved Julien’s job. Is it too late for me to get a ticket for the “Fire Claude Julien” bandwagon? I will pay more than face value on StubHub if I need to.

I haven’t been this excited about a playoff hockey series since … well … I guess last year’s Eastern Conference finals against the Devils. (It just seems like it’s been longer.) But this series is different because it’s the first time it’s happened in our lifetime and the first time we have been able to go head-to-head with New York vs. Boston since Super Bowl XLVI.

I know at one point this series you will write a column with screen shots breaking down a head shot from a Ranger on a Bruin or you will tweet about the Rangers diving or whining about calls since that’s what you Boston writers do. And I know you will also make an excuse for a dangerous Milan Lucic play that goes uncalled because that’s also what you guys do. But I’m glad to be a part of it because it’s more fun to have those I read and follow in Boston talking about the Rangers rather than the Canadiens or Maple Leafs or Canucks and their fans.

After three regular-season meetings this year (even though they were all within the first couple weeks of the season) I believe the Rangers match up well against the Bruins (and the Rangers have Henrik Lundqvist, which is a good enough reason to pick them against anyone). I don’t know if the Rangers can win in five and I don’t want to be the guy who picks the series to end in six because that’s the easy way out, so I’m going to go with Rangers in seven. I’ll see you in New York for Game 3 and you’ll see me in Boston for Game 7.

Hurley: First thing’s first: I don’t whine or complain. I lay down the law. I can state with 300 percent confidence that based on my judgment, I should be in Brendan Shanahan’s position. It’s kind of nuts, really, that the NHL hasn’t reached out to me to take that unenviable job for them. I mean, I didn’t ask to have this power and perspective, but we’re all dealt hands in life, and mine is to determine punishment on illegal hockey hits.

And this comes from you, the same person who cried for a suspension on Eric Fehr when he elbowed Derick Brassard in the chest and then followed through by scraping the guy’s chin. Just really shameful work by you, but I can’t say I’m surprised. Typical Neil Keefe stuff there, and I can’t wait for more of it over the next two weeks. And by “can’t wait” I mean I’ll probably block you and report you for spam on Twitter by the middle of Game 2.

I’m not much into predictions because they are stupid. People get them wrong 99 percent of the time, and they luck into getting them right once in a blue moon, and then they brag about it, even though the circumstances of what actually happened would have been completely impossible to predict before the games took place.

But because you picked the Rangers in 7, and because you’re always wrong about everything ever, and because it drives you crazy when people make predictions for series to end in six games, I’ll go with the Bruins in six. You can still come up to Boston for the day that Game 7 is scheduled, and I can give you some more Wiffle Ball lessons.

Freshman year of college in Boston my roommate watched me watch the collapse of the 2004 Yankees in the ALCS. The Yankees and Red Sox haven’t met in the postseason since then, but the Giants have beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl twice, which has been sweet revenge and a decent attempt at closure to October 2004. Now we have the Rangers and Bruins meeting in the playoffs and another chance for a New York sports team to end a Boston sports team’s season. I decided to email my freshman roommate Mike Miccoli, who covers the Bruins for The Hockey Writers, to find out what his mood is entering the series and his memories of nine years ago this fall.

Keefe: I lived with you during the darkest period of my life as a sports fan: 2004-05. The NHL was locked out for the entire season despite us living 0.6 miles away from the then-FleetCenter, the New York Football Giants picked some kid named Eli Manning first overall and gave him the starting job halfway through the season on the way to a 6-10 season and then there were those four nights in October during the ALCS that will never be erased from my memory no matter how much therapy I have or how many times I google “How to forget things forever.” I just have to find a way to deal with it.

Since the 2004 ALCS as sports fans we have only had two Super Bowls as a reason to go head-to-head for a series since neither of us are living and dying by NBA results. But now we have Rangers-Bruins for the first time in our lifetimes and the first time since 1973.

I know you said that the Bruins’ Cup run in 2011-12 would buy a decades-long grace period for you and the B’s, but would a loss in this series to the Rangers, the city of New York and me put an end to the grace period?

Miccoli:Can I just put this out there? You can try to forget, but I won’t, because my favorite memory of you was when you walked out of our dorm room without saying a word after the Red Sox won Game 7 of the 2004 ALCS. I don’t think I saw you for days after that. It was actually pretty nice.

But ANYWAY, grace periods are tough. In 2011, I think my attitude around the team’s success was a little different. You could have probably gotten me to agree to permanently live on a diet of nothing but kale and beet juice (both of these things are disgusting to me) in exchange for a Bruins win. Seriously. There wasn’t much I wouldn’t agree to. With that said, a loss to the Rangers wouldn’t be the end of the world for the Bruins because really, it’s not too far out of the ordinary.

Remember when the playoffs started in what seems like years ago for both of us? I felt okay about the Bruins’ chances against any first round opponent team with the exception of the Rangers. Don’t get me wrong, I loved watching the Rangers/Bruins games over the past two years but the matchups just don’t favor the Bruins. While it helps that Marian Gaborik, another Bruin haunt, is long gone, Boston’s defense is limping into the series. Dougie Hamilton, Matt Bartkowski and Torey Krug have played a total of five career playoff games between them. Five. Five! Nobody knows what’s wrong with Dennis Seidenberg and both Andrew Ference and Wade Redden (hey! remember him?) seem to be out for Game 1. If the Rangers jump on the Bruins quick and actually feel like scoring like they did in Game 7, the first game of this series could be a long one.

Keefe:Correct me if I’m wrong, but you just mentioned Wade Redden possibly being unavailable for Game 1 as a bad thing. Yes, that just happened. The same guy the Rangers were paying top dollar to play for their AHL affiliate in Hartford. Maybe this series will be easier for the Rangers to win that I thought it would be.

You had the opportunity that only only around 18,000 people had in seeing Game 7 of the Bruins-Maple Leafs series in person. (Well, I guess it’s really less than that since you have to figure the people who left early and are going to regret it for the rest of their lives.) During the third period of that game (and I watched a lot of it since the Rangers were blowing out the Capitals), I told my girlfriend when the Bruins went down three goals that there was still a lot of time left and I had seen this team come back from similar deficits before (just not in as big of a spot). When you look at the way the Bruins played in the final minutes of all the games they lost in the series, if they had only played with that same urgency for entire games, Game 7 would have never come down to an epic comeback because there wouldn’t have been an epic comeback.

So take us through your night leading up to Game 7 and through it in person and after it since I know you weren’t confident leading into the game. And why do the Bruins wait until time has almost run out on them to play with urgency?

Miccoli:Wade Redden has been nothing but solid in a Bruins uniform. This pleases me.

Game 7 was like nothing I have ever covered or even witnessed in my life. I woke up the next morning after three hours of sleep thinking that there was no way it was real because it probably shouldn’t have been. The Bruins had no business being in that game after flat-out giving up midway through the 2nd period. It’s weird to see everyone in Boston go crazy over Game 7 aside from the last few minutes. They stopped trying for a good portion of it and only came to life in the last 12 minutes or so. I distinctly remember going up to other media members in the press box telling them to have a nice summer in between the 2nd and 3rd periods. I doubted that they’d be able to recover from two straight losses and rebound in the third. Then, the Maple Leafs remembered they were the Maple Leafs, so now here we are.

You could probably argue that the Bruins had every opportunity to wrap up the series in Games 5, 6, and in the first two periods of 7, but why not put everyone through hell with a win like that? It’s because the Bruins are inconsistent; wildly inconsistent. They were dominant in Games 1 and 3 though, and you watched what happened when they had their backs to the wall in Game 7. When they need to, they have the ability to show this incredible passion and power through. Remember the last time the Bruins and Rangers played each other? They almost did it then. Down three goals late in the third period, the Bruins came back to force overtime before eventually losing in a shootout. I guess these third period heroics are nothing new for Boston. Better that than to have the lead going into the third. They blew enough of those games this year. Checks and balances, just like the Rangers, right?

Keefe:Last year you were certain that the Rangers would play for the Cup, if not win the Cup, and your level of certainty was rejuvenated in July when they finally traded for Rick Nash. Then starting at the beginning of this season and throughout the 48-game schedule, you have reiterated your fear of the Rangers on several occasions to me.

The problem is here in New York I don’t think anyone in the city is as confident in you in the Rangers or has ever been dating back to last season because of the team strategy of “Score One Goal and Hope it Stands!” You have been overly optimistic about a team that maybe overachieved last season and underachieved this regular season. But now we will find out just how good this Rangers team is with a test against the Bruins.

Why have you been so adamant about the Rangers going on a run and fearful of them standing in the Bruins’ way? It can’t just be Henrik Lundqvist.

Miccoli:My roommate, also a Rangers fan ironically, called me the most pessimistic Bruins’ guy he’s ever met. While that might have something to do with it, I just really don’t like the matchups for the Bruins against the Rangers.

The Bruins and Rangers are incredibly similar, which makes the games so much fun to watch. They both suck on the power play, rely way too heavily on their goaltending, and play a physical game. But when it comes down to it, I think the Rangers are a notch above the Bruins. The Bruins have better depth, but the Rangers’ secondary scoring this postseason has been crucial. Aside from the Bruins’ top line of Lucic-Krejci-Horton and Patrice Bergeron, the offensive production hasn’t been there. There have been way too many passengers and not enough players who have stepped up. If the Bruins got all four lines clicking at the same time, then yes, I’d give the edge to Boston. I just haven’t seen that yet.

Plus, Lundqvist scares the hell out of me. He’s 21-7-2 all-time vs Boston with a 1.69 G.A.A. and .943 save percentage. He’s white hot right now and gets to face a Bruins team that he’s completely owned in the past. It certainly helps that any blueshirt will get in front of a puck to block the shot. Watch Boston closely here. One of their biggest weakness in the first round against Toronto was that when they shot the puck, it was right at James Reimer. There was no deviation or creativity what so ever.

I don’t know. Maybe I’m not giving the Bruins enough credit, but I just don’t like them against the Rangers. The series will go seven and every game will be close, but ultimately I think the Rangers pull it out.

Keefe: It’s going to be a long series, which has the potential to go all the way until May 29. I will be in Nantucket for Memorial Day weekend and Games 5 and 6 (if necessary, of course) and I’m sure the rivalry will be alive and well there.

This series obviously doesn’t have anywhere near the same implications and possible consequences that the ALCS did almost nine years ago. I have always said that I don’t enjoy the Yankees playing the Red Sox because the Yankees are supposed to win and there is no glory when you have everything to lose by losing and nothing to gain by winning. But with these two teams meeting for the first time since number 4 was still playing, I couldn’t be more ecstatic of what this series presents and what it will entail.

It’s not the same as if a trip to the Cup was on the line, but a trip to Pittsburgh is still good enough to me. We haven’t agreed on something since you made the pact that if the Bruins won a championship in 2010-11 you would be OK with the Red Sox being absolutely terrible for the next 10 years while the Yankees won five World Series. The Yankees have yet to win one of those five in the 10-year window, but the Red Sox had the worst regular-season collapse in baseball history and followed it up with arguably their worst season in franchise history. I’m glad we agree on something again: Rangers in seven.

Miccoli: You’re right, the series will be long. I’m planning on keeping a tally of your “Ladies and gentlemen…!” tweets directed at Brian Boyle and John Tortorella. (Have I mentioned how terrified I am of Tortorella yet? I am.) This could also be the lowest-scoring series in the history of the NHL. Would a total of 10 goals surprise you? I know it wouldn’t for me. It seems like there’s always at least one 1-0 game between these two teams. We’re due for one here.

I started to think about the Rangers’ offense a little bit more since our last email. Gaborik is gone, Nash is invisible and Richards is still overrated. Maybe this won’t be so bad for the Bruins. I mean, if they find their scoring touch and Seguin remembers how much potential he has and all of a sudden, this could be a series. These teams really are similar and I look forward to biting my nails and flinching whenever something exciting happens.

Do me a favor though: please remember to take your cell phone with you when you inevitably walk out of whatever bar you’re watching Game 7 in. You know … just in case the Bruins win and you decide to disappear for a couple of days. It’s happened before. It could happen again.

Game 7 presents the scariest word in sports: finality. The finality of a team’s season is the worst imaginable situation in sports unless that team’s season ends with a championship. When finality comes at the end of the regular season and you know your team won’t being playing in a postseason which (in the case of the NHL) is about to go on for two-months plus, it’s devastating. And when your team is presented with finality in the first round of a postseason that will still have three rounds after it whether or not your team is in it, it’s devastating.

When finality becomes a possibility you start to think about the season and its games and the ups and downs and the disappointment knowing there will be an offseason and then training camp and then 82 games before the next postseason, and that between now and the next postseason the actual seasons will change and change again and change again and change again. Game 7 can be exhilarating to watch from an outside perspective like it was for any Rangers fan who watched the Anaheim-Detroit Game 7 on Sunday night. But when it’s your team and your season and your time that had been committed over the season (even if it was a shortened season), it’s not exhilarating. It’s petrifying.

At 8 p.m. on Monday the Rangers started a game in which finality was in the building for both teams just 28 hours after starting a game in which finality was present only for the Rangers in Madison Square Garden. Someone’s season was going to end on Monday night and I knew if the Rangers’ season was going to end in Washington, it was going to be because of their inability to score and not because of Henrik Lundqvist. But the Rangers found a way to score (and scored five times) and Henrik Lundqvist posted his second consecutive shutout. And for that, King Henrik starts things off in the Game 7 Thoughts.

- When the Rangers took a 2-0 lead, my girlfriend said, “The Rangers need to build a fort in front of the net.” And they did … when they used the 205^th overall pick in the seventh round of the 2000 NHL Draft on Henrik Lundqvist.

Monday was Lundqvist’s fourth career Game 7. He’s now 3-1 in those games and has allowed four total goals in the games. The one loss came in a 2-1 loss against the Capitals in the 2008-09 quarterfinals. But hey, he’s overrated and has never won the Cup, so let’s forget that he’s the best goalie on the planet! Only winning a championship matters when talking about talent and accomplishments. So yes, Chris Osgood was better than Henrik Lundqvist could ever be.

- How has Eric Fehr still not been suspended for his elbow on Derick Brassard in Game 6? Did Brendan Shanahan retire? Stupid question. Of course he didn’t. Who would retire from a job in which they don’t have perform well at and still get paid a ridiculous salary? (No, this thought doesn’t matter anymore since the series and Capitals season is over, but I just wanted to know how a blatant head shot away from the play goes unpunished.)

- It’s hard to know when Alexander Ovechkin is playing dirty and cheap and when he’s playing like the all-world, all-around magnificent player that he is. In Game 7, he played like the latter and proved his worth as the captain of the Capitals. (Even if he would later say the NHL had planned a conspiracy to force the series to a seventh game and have the Rangers win.)

- For as much as I get on John Tortorella, and I would say I get on him more than anyone in the Tri-state area, the Game 7 win was his best single-game coaching job as Rangers head coach. The win was the first on the road in franchise history and after losing Games 1, 2 and 5 in Washington and scoring just two goals in the three games, which included two overtimes, the adjustments made on Monday were perfect. The 5-0 win was as dominant of a performance the Rangers have had in a long, long time, especially in the postseason and I’m willing to give Tortorella credit for the win. You’re welcome, John. (And fine, you can stay for the 2013-14 season for now.)

- Here’s who scored in Game 7 for the Rangers: Arron Asham, Taylor Pyatt, Michael Del Zotto, Ryan Callahan and Mats Zuccarello. The only true offensive players in that list are Callahan and Zuccarello and Zuccarello is a playmaker before a scorer. What does this mean? Team effort. What else does this mean? Well…

- Rick Nash had zero goals in the Washington series. Zero. I mean for eff’s sake, he had just two assists. Henrik Lundqvist is the first reason why the Rangers can win any series in the postseason. The Rangers surviving a seven-game series with Nash scoring no goals is the second not only because it shows their depth, but it also means that if you believe in “being due” then Nash is more due than anyone in the postseason.

Tyler Seguin is also going through the same struggles as Nash after tallying just one assist in the Bruins’ seven-game series with Maple Leafs. That means that Nash and Seguin combined for 14 games played, no goals and three assists in the first round. Scoring has been a problem for both teams for stretches this season, including the postseason, but when you know that both teams were able to win series without their best scorers putting even one puck in the net, it’s remarkable.

- In the first game of the series, Brad Richards played 22:14. In Game 2 he played 20:41. In Games 6 and 7, he played 20:46 combined. Game 6 (9:34) was his least amount of ice time this season and most likely ever in his entire life and Game 7 (11:12) was his second-lowest amount of ice time this season (and most likely also his second-lowest amount of ice time ever in his entire life). This is the Rangers’ second-highest paid skater and the 2003-04 Conn Smythe winner responsible for John Tortorella’s Stanley Cup playing 20:46 in two combined elimination games.

Richards has been the focal point of “amnesty” conversation this season with a massive contract that runs through the 2020-21 season and he’s fortunate the Rangers made it through the first round. Richards now has at least another round to turn around his season and prove his worth to the team and to end the conversation that want him out of New York. I’m not sure that he will be able to fix the damage his game and reputation have taken this postseason, but displaying even a glimpse of the 2003-04 Brad Richards (eff, I’ll even take a glimpse of the 2011-12 Brad Richards) will go a long way in his return to the team next year.

The Rangers have eluded finality twice and now they have at least four more games left in their season. The next time finality is in the building for the Rangers, I can only hope Philip Pritchard is carrying it.

Editor’s note: These Thoughts are short because of my attendance at Game 6.

Two days later, tickets for Game 6 somehow fell to $65 just over two hours before the game. I would guess a combination of Mother’s Day and the idea of impending doom surrounding the Rangers would lead to the fall in tickets that were listed as $125 face value.

I went into Game 6 knowing that the first goal was likely going to win the game and if the Capitals scored first it was going to be painful watching the clock wind down on the 2012-13 Rangers.

One goal ended up being the difference in the game and Henrik Lundqvist had the best game of his career to date with a 27-save shutout. And that one goal happened because of Rick Nash’s strength on the puck and his inability to go down or dive like so many other stars in the league would have eagerly done in the same spot. Nash’s was able to fend off two hooks down the right boards and into the Washington zone, which started the forecheck on what would eventually turn into Derick Brassard’s goal.

So it was Lundqvist and Nash, the two players responsible for the Rangers being in the postseason, that kept their season alive for at least on more game. I said after Game 2 that I didn’t think it would be possible for this Rangers team to go at least 4-1 for the rest of the series and avoid elimination, but they’re now 3-1 and one win from starting over.