Keefe To The City

Jun 12, 2013

I Won’t Miss John Tortorella

John Tortorella is no longer head coach of the Rangers and if other teams are smart, he won’t be the head coach anywhere.

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.

May 26, 2013

Rangers-Bruins Game 5 Thoughts: The End

The Rangers’ season ended with a Game 5 loss to the Bruins ending any chance at an epic 3-0 series comeback.

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.)

May 24, 2013

Rangers-Bruins Game 4 Thoughts: Extend the Season

The Rangers staved off elimination with a win in Game 4 to send the series back to Boston and extend the season for at least one more game.

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.)

May 22, 2013

Rangers-Bruins Game 3 Thoughts: ‘Why Not Us?’

The Rangers lost Game 3 and will now need to ask themselves something Curt Schilling asked almost nine years ago to extend their season.

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.

May 20, 2013

Rangers-Bruins Game 2 Thoughts: Two-Goal Lead Isn’t Worst Lead in Hockey

The Rangers were embarrassed by the Bruins in Game 2 and face another must-win situation at home on Tuesday night.

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.