fbpx

Tag: Carl Hagelin

BlogsRangersRangers Playoffs

Rangers-Penguins Game 3 Thoughts: No Reason to Worry

The Rangers won Game 3 against the Penguins to take a 2-1 series lead and proved there was nothing for Rangers fans to worry about.

New York Rangers vs. Pittsburgh Penguins

See, I told you everything is fine. So the Rangers’ two-goal lead was cut to one with 6:48 left in the game and Rangers fans were forced to sit through 408 agonizing seconds watching the Penguins try to tie the game. It all worked out.

The Rangers’ relentless pressure in the first period of the first two games carried over to Game 3 where they outshot the Penguins 7-3 and held another lead heading into the locker room at the end of the 20. I’m still amazed at Carl Hagelin’s decision to rip a bomb on his first-period breakaway goal, especially with Marc-Andre Fleury coming out so far to challenge him, but hey, he got the result.

The first three games of this series have gone as expected. The Penguins haven’t been able to keep up with the Rangers’ speed. The Rangers’ power play has been below average. The Penguins haven’t been able to win when Sidney Crosby doesn’t score. Evgeni Malkin hasn’t been able to find his offense against the Rangers’ defense. Henrik Lundqvist has been better than Marc-Andre Fleury. And because of all this, the Rangers are winning the series 2-1. And, oh yeah, Chris Kunitz has been his usual scummy self.

There was a lot of unnecessary worrying going on in New York following the Game 2 loss after the Penguins completed any road team’s goal of splitting on the road. The Rangers answered the Penguins’ split with a road win of their own to reclaim home-ice advantage in the series and put the Penguins on the brink of staring down elimination for the rest of the series. The 2-1 Game 3 road win cancelled out the Game 2 home loss and meant all of the uneasiness on Saturday night was for nothing.

Despite Games 1, 2 and 3 all being decided by one goal, and the Rangers having lost one of those games and Game 3 being a pivotal game in the series, I’m still not worried about the Rangers. Maybe it’s because I know that when the Rangers are at their best the Penguins can’t beat them or because Henrik Lundqvist is in net, but there’s no real sense of worrying about this Rangers team until they’re faced with an elimination game and the season is on the line.

I expect the Rangers to win and that has never really been the case with them in the playoffs before. In the Henrik Lundqvist era, the only two playoff series I expected them to win before this season were the first round against Atlanta in 2006-07 and the first round against Philadelphia in 2013-14. Even when they were the 1-seed in the East in 2011-12, I still didn’t feel confident about their chances against 8-seed Ottawa in the first round because I didn’t think that Rangers team was that great, but rather a team that had put together a long list of improbable come-from-behind and last-second wins. This postseason, I expect the Rangers to win and that’s changed the playoff experience.

Past postseasons, especially last year, were about seeing how far the Rangers could go. This one is about how far they need to go and how far they need to go is the Stanley Cup Final and if they continue to play the way they have in three first periods against the Penguins, they will get there.

Read More

BlogsRangersRangers Playoffs

Why Not the Rangers?

It’s been almost 10 years since I was on the wrong side of a 3-0 comeback. But after the Game 4 win in the Stanley Cup Final, why not the Rangers?

New York Rangers vs. Los Angeles Kings

I can still hear the sound. As Ruben Sierra’s weak grounder on a 1-0 pitch from Alan Embree bounced slowly to Pokey Reese, the sound started. The sound was a compilation of 86 years of failure coming to a climax after coming back down 3-0 in the ALCS to the team that had caused many of those 86 years of failure. And that compilation of misery turned disbelief shook my 11th-floor dorm room in downtown Boston.

I sat in a folding camping chair in my room staring out the window with my friend Scanlon, the only other Yankees fan I knew and knew of in the 19-floor dorm, sitting in a folding camping chair to my left. The room was dark except for the flashing images of the 2004 Red Sox celebrating on the Yankee Stadium mound that illuminated our devastated faces while the hallway outside the room sounded as if the school had announced that tuition would be free for the entire four years of college. And outside the building on the streets of Boston, the sound, which I can only compare to what the end of the world would sound like, filled the entire city.

Three days prior I watched Kevin Millar work a leadoff walk against Number 42. Dave Roberts pinch ran for Millar, stole second and Bill Mueller singled him in and three innings after that, I watched Joe Torre think it would be a good idea to have Paul Quantrill pitch to David Ortiz. Red Sox fans let me know they weren’t dead, but I knew they were. For as overly confident as the city of Boston had suddenly become, I kept telling myself, “They have to win three more games before we win one.”

The next day I found tickets to Game 5 online for the price of basically my entire first-semester spending money I had saved working that summer. I figured, “I have a chance to watch the Yankees win the pennant in person in Boston” and that was enough for me to call my friend Jim and have him drive to Boston in record time using I-95 North as if it were The Brickyard along the way. I went to the then-Fleet Bank ATM next to the Park Street T stop, withdrew nearly all the money in my bank account and headed to Kenmore to meet some sketchy guy in an old Ford Explorer down a side street a few blocks from Fenway Park. After a Tom Gordon meltdown and five hours and 49 minutes of baseball, the Yankees lost again and I left Fenway wondering how I would buy beer until Christmas break, but when it came to baseball, I reassured myself, “They have to win two more games before we win one.”

The next night, Joe Torre decided he wouldn’t have anyone attempt to bunt against Curt Schilling on one leg and the night after that it all came crashing down. It was Terry Francona, who kept his team loose and got the Yankees on the run after Game 4, but it was Schilling’s question, “Why not us?” that got me thinking back then about the possibility of an historical collapse and got me thinking about it again this past Monday night.

The Rangers could have won Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Final. They could have won Game 2. And if they were able to protect the worst lead in hockey in either game, they would have. They could have returned to New York up 2-0 in the series against the dynasty-in-the-making Kings and even if they dropped both games at MSG, they would have been going back to L.A. with the series tied at two, and a best-of-3 scenario separating them and their first Cup in 20 years. But because of the Rangers’ frustrating play with a lead, disappointing effort in the third period and inability to finish in overtime, that hypothetical perfect picture of what could have been in this year’s Final never was.

With finality for the 2013-14 Rangers’ season looming (for a third time this postseason) after Game 3, the Rangers kept talking about how the bounces weren’t going their way and had one or two gone differently, they wouldn’t be in a 3-0 hole. They were right. Well, partially right. If Dan Girardi and Martin St. Louis didn’t try to play goalie and just let Henrik Lundqvist do his job, the job he is better at doing than anyone else in the entire world, Game 3 doesn’t go the way it did. And if the puck had bounced differently for Mats Zuccarello in Game 3 or if Chris Kreider or Carl Hagelin could successfully finish a breakaway or if NHL referees penalized goalie interference when it’s actually goalie interference and not be so quick to penalize players for it when it actually isn’t, then the Rangers wouldn’t have been looking at a 3-0 hole. In the world of “if,” the Rangers would have had a series lead after Game 3. But in that same world of “if,” I would have been asking Kevin Brown to toss a bottle of champagne to me in the Fenway stands after Game 5 and I wouldn’t have spent what is now almost a decade hating Javier Vazquez.

With the Kings’ commanding 3-0 series lead, we have heard about how well their current regime constructed the 2013-14 roster as well as the roster of the last three years and how they have become the model franchise in the NHL. Jeff Carter has been praised, Justin Williams has become a hero and Drew Doughty has become a household name because of the 3-0 lead. But those conversations and that praise wouldn’t be consuming the hockey world if the Sharks could have just won one of the final four games in the first round or if the Ducks had finished them off at home in Game 7 or if the Blackhawks had done the same. But in the same world of “if,” Alex Rodriguez’s career and entire life would have been different if Fenway Park had a real wall in right field and Tony Clark’s ground-rule double didn’t become “ground-rule” and Ruben Sierra wasn’t held at third base.

In Game 4, the bounces did go the Rangers way. It was the Rangers and Benoit Pouliot scoring on a deflection and it was Jeff Carter instead of Mats Zuccarello failing to push the puck over the goal line and it was Henrik Lundqvist’s crease and Derek Stepan’s glove saving the Rangers from allowing a heartbreaking tying goal in the final minute. The Rangers played their worst game of the Stanley Cup Final in Game 4 and came away with what is their only win of the series. They were outshot 41-19 and thoroughly dominated on even strength by the Kings, who looked like were on a 60-minute power play, controlling the play and puck possession, forcing me to watch the clock tick down slower than Mark Teixeira trying to score from first on a ball in the gap.

After the game, Henrik Lundqvist said, “We didn’t want to see the Cup coming out on our home ice,” as if the Rangers used that idea as their motivation to win. And maybe they did use it, but it was an odd thing to say considering how bad the Rangers played and the fact that aside from Lundqvist’s own effort and the help of the Hockey Gods stopping the puck on the goal line twice in the game, the Rangers did everything possible to make sure the Cup was presented to the Kings at Madison Square Garden after Game 4.

It’s been almost 10 years since I was in Boston for the 2004 ALCS and a 3-0 comeback that changed history. As I write this, I’m in Los Angeles, where I watched Game 4, surrounded by black and silver and fans wanting to see the Cup return to the beach for the second time in three years. And after Game 4 as the Rangers saluted the MSG crowd and the bar I was in at Hermosa Beach began to empty with long faces and dejected Kings fans wanting a reason to party on a Wednesday night and call out of work on a Thursday, I thought that maybe the Sports Gods decided, “We owe Neil a 3-0 series makeup call.” (Let’s hope they forgot they gave me Super Bowl XLII, which I watched in Boston.)

A few hours before Game 4, I was at a deli in Los Angeles where two Kings fans decked out in “Bow Down to the Crown” apparel spotted me wearing a Rangers shirt and said, “Sorry, man. Maybe next year,” in some what of a compassionate yet, sarcastic tone and I could hear my 18-year-old self back in 2004 in their tone. I knew they were thinking even if the Rangers won Game 4, they had to win four games before the Kings won once. And all I could think was, “They still have to win one more game.”

I can still hear the sound. I want to hear it on Wednesday night.

Read More

PodcastsRangersRangers Playoffs

Podcast: Brian Monzo

Brian Monzo of WFAN joins me to talk about how distraught he was after the Rangers’ Game 1 loss in the Stanley Cup Final and how his anger has turned to optimism for the series.

2014 NHL Stanley Cup Final - Game One

The Rangers haven’t looked as good as they did in the opening minutes of Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Final possibly all season. And after they took a 2-0 lead in the first 15:03 of the series, it looked like they might run away with the game at Staples Center. But then an awful Derek Stepan turnover, some bad Marc Staal defense and the worst decision of Dan Girardi’s life changed the game and the series.

WFAN Mike’s On: Francesa on the FAN producer Brian Monzo joined me to talk about how distraught he was after the Rangers’ loss, the turnovers that decided Game 1 and how his anger has turned to optimism for the series. And then Monzo broke down the Belmont Stakes at the end of the podcast.

Read More

PodcastsRangersRangers Playoffs

Podcast: 610 Barstool Sports New York

610 of Barstool Sports New York joins me to talk about how bad Dan Girardi was in Game 1 and why Rick Nash needs to return to the power play right now.

2014 NHL Stanley Cup Final - Game One

The Rangers we saw in the opening minutes of Game 1 and the Rangers we saw in the third period and overtime of Game 1 were two different teams. The first team looked like a team ready and prepared not only for the Stanley Cup Final, but to win the series. The other team looked like a team whose season might only last three more games now. And after blowing an opportunity to at worst split the two games in Los Angeles, the Rangers now have to win Game 2.

610 of Barstool Sports New York joined me to talk about how bad Dan Girardi was in Game 1, why Rick Nash needs to return to the power play and what happened with the discounted Rangers jerseys from the NHL store.

Read More

BlogsRangersRangers Playoff ThoughtsRangers Playoffs

Rangers-Flyers Game 2 Thoughts: Best-of-5

The Rangers lost a two-goal lead, Game 2, a chance to take command of the series and home-ice advantage against the Flyers and now it’s a best-of-5 series.

New York Rangers vs. Philadelphia Flyers

Did I think Game 2 was over? Of course I did. When Benoit Pouliot scored 4:18 after Martin St. Louis completed the rare perfect 3-on-2, not only did I think Game 2 was over, I thought the series was over.

The Rangers were coming off a 4-1 Game 1 win and had the Flyers in an early two-goal deficit with Ray Emery proving why Flyers fans were hoping Steve Mason would play Game 2, even an injured Steve Mason. And then everything changed. The Rangers gave away a two-goal lead, Game 2 and home-ice advantage in the series, and now they head to Philadelphia in what has become a best-of-5 series with the Flyers having home-ice, as if those two additional regular-season wins and regulation wins never happened.

– Game 2 changed when Ryan McDonagh and Dan Girardi decided that playing defense wasn’t something that interested them in a Stanley Cup Playoff game. I’m willing to give McDonagh a pass for how he played (or didn’t really care to play) Jakub Voracek on his goal because without McDonagh, the Rangers aren’t even in the playoffs. But I’m not willing to give Dan Girardi a free pass, especially after how he single-handedly handed the Bruins the series a year ago. I will let this picture do all the work in showing Girardi’s “effort” to complement McDonagh’s gliding half-assed poke check.

nyr

What was Dan Girardi doing here? Maybe for a moment he thought he was at the Keefe household drinking wine and eating lasagna and porchetta and watching Rangers playoff hockey. He didn’t have the wine or lasagna or porchetta, but he did watch the play and goal develop just like I did from a couch, he just happened to have a better seat.

This goal not only cut the two-goal lead in half before going on to prove, but it showed the Flyers after a 15-shot effort in Game 1 that the Rangers’ defense could be beat and that Henrik Lundqvist could be beat without needing a deflection or lucky bounce. The goal shifted the momentum and feel of the game and the Rangers became another statistic in the “worst lead in hockey” theory, proving that if they weren’t going to score the third goal to take a 3-0 lead, they were were better off only having one.

– Before the series I talked with Sam Carchidi of The Philadelphia Inquirer about the Flyers’ strategy coming into the series and if they would look to draw the Rangers into a physical game and get them off their finesse game. He thought that could be the case and that the Flyers would want to play physical, but be smart about it.

In Game 1, the Flyers were dumb about being physical, especially as the game got out of hand. And in Game 2, they opened the game the same way, getting two penalties within the first 6:55 of the game, one of which the Rangers scored a power-play goal on. But once Carl Hagelin got called for holding at 9:56 of the first period, the Rangers became the undisciplined team. The Flyers got what they came into the series wanting and just in time before Game 2 and the series got out of hand.

– Two diving calls against one team in the same game in the playoffs? Yes, this is real life.

– At times, Rick Nash can be one of the best pure goal scorers in the world. These times happen when he is riding one of his patented hot steaks that I talked about here. This postseason, Nash has two assists in two playoff games and has played well. But with the Rangers in now two postseasons, Nash has one playoff goal in 14 games. That’s not going to cut it.

I have refrained from saying anything negative about Nash because I have always been a fan of his since his 2002-03 rookie season and because I campaigned so hard for the Rangers to trade for him at the 2011-12 Trade Deadline, blamed the Eastern Conference finals loss on the lack of trading for him and then campaigned hard again fora trade for him in the summer before it eventually happened. I always said it would take a lot for me to start “Ladies and gentlemen”-ing Rick Nash, but we are nearing that point if he doesn’t start producing the way he can and has for long stretches of time.

Here is what I said about Henrik Lundqvist after Game 1:

It was as if the Rangers stole a win without having to use their ace and when you figure that Lundqvist will steal AT LEAST one game in this series, getting by without needing to rely on him in one game, especially Game 1, could be the difference in the series.

Well, now we have played two games in which Lundqvist hasn’t stolen a game for the Rangers or even really looked like the Henrik Lundqvist we saw during the regular season. I guess he could have looked as good as possible in Game 1, but he was never really tested, so it’s hard to say other than that he had allowed one goal and had a .933 save percentage. It’s time for Lundqvist to steal that game or games now.

– What the eff happened when Henrik Lundqvist was supposed to be pulled for an extra attacker? I blame Lundqvist for what happened because he came nearly all the way to the blue and then stopped either after not getting a signal to come to the bench or being unsure if he was given the signal to go to the bench. But when Lundqvist started skating toward the bench, Brad Richards, who was going to go for Lundqvist, must have seen Lundqvist headed toward the bench and hopped the bench in order to time Lundqvist’s arrival to give him the most amount of time to join the play. So when Lundqvist decided to stop, Richards had likely assumed he was arriving as he was joining the forecheck. Chances are the Rangers lose the game 3-2 or even 4-2, like they did, had they not been called for too many men. But they never even gave themselves a chance for a last-minute, empty-net miracle. It was the perfect ending for a perfect Game 2 collapse.

Read More