fbpx

Tag: Henrik Lundqvist

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers

Feb 13, 2013

Dreaming of a Rangers-Bruins Postseason Series

The Rangers and Bruins met for the last time during the regular season, so an email exchange with Mike Hurley was needed to look back at the three meetings between the teams.

Thanks to some awesome scheduling from the NHL, the Rangers and Bruins won’t meet again this season unless it’s in the postseason. After 12 games, the Rangers and Bruins have played their entire three-game schedule against each other for 2012-13 and it’s going to take a seven-game series this spring if the growing rivalry is going to get a new chapter this season.

With the season series coming to an end, I decided to fill the email inbox of Mike Hurley from CBS Boston with garbage until he finally responded and agreed to an email exchange. OK, so I really didn’t have to beg him since he had nothing else going on (and usually doesn’t), but he wanted me to make it sound like it was really hard to get him to do this exchange since he’s “really busy.”

Keefe: I wanted to be in Boston last night for Rangers-Bruins and I wanted to be at Halftime Pizza before the game eating the best slices in Boston (there are only one or two others place in the entire city worth eating pizza sober at) and pounding their massive draft beers that for some reason taste better than draft beers from anywhere else. But the NHL went and scheduled the second and last meeting between the two teams on a Tuesday night, so I did watch the Rangers-Bruins game and I did eat pizza and drink draft beers, but I did it over 200 miles from TD Garden.

After blowing a two-goal lead to the Bruins in the third game of the season at Madison Square Garden, the Rangers blew a three-goal lead in the last 11:16 on Tuesday night. And while you have to credit the Bruins’ heart (or their “hearts of lions” as Jack Edwards referred to it) for their miraculous late-game comeback, I’m going to also discredit the Rangers’ shot-blocking strategy, which is actually more of a negative than a positive for the team’s defense and the reason for the Bruins’ third-period effort.

Henrik Lundqvist is the best goalie in the world. The best goalie in the world needs to see the puck and he needs to see the shot. He doesn’t need to be playing from behind screens and trying to anticipate whose stick the puck will end up on when Ryan Callahan and Dan Girardi simultaneously sacrifice their bodies and seasons like Secret Service members trying to protect the President. Yes, the Bruins erased a three-goal deficit in the third period and scored twice with an empty net, but none of it would have been possible without some perfect rebounds courteous of too much traffic created in front of the Rangers’ net by the Rangers themselves.

The Rangers did come away with two points and managed to get four of a possible six points against the Bruins this season, but they let the Bruins pick up points in the final minutes of each of the last two games. And while it was good to see the Rangers win their third straight and win on the road in Boston, I get the feeling that no one in Boston views last night’s loss as a loss and that’s not good for the Rangers or me or anyone. These two teams will hopefully meet again this spring and the last thing the Rangers need is the Bruins believing they can always come back against them and that they are never out of a game, and despite losing twice to the Rangers, the Bruins must feel like they have the Rangers’ number. If the Bruins are practicing today, I’m sure the mood in their locker room is of a team that won on last night and not of one that lost.

I guess whenever anything goes wrong like it did in the third period there is someone to blame and someone to praise, but am I am discrediting the Bruins’ comeback too much and placing too much of the blame on the Rangers? And did you get a goody bag with your TD Garden dinner on Tuesday night that looked like everything you would find at a five-year-old’s birthday party?

Hurley: For the record, because of awful traffic due to the blizzard, I got to the Garden late and had no time for dinner, so I ate an oreo brownie, a fudge roll, a big pretzel with mustard, a cup of popcorn and a plate of M&M’s and gummy worms for dinner in the press box. I am 7 years old and everyone knows it, so it’s OK.

I do think you’re right to discredit the Rangers a bit. On 99 out of 100 nights, Anton Stralman’s weak wrister doesn’t beat Tuukka Rask, and on probably 90 out of 100 nights, Derek Stepan’s shot gets stopped easily with the glove. So on a night when they don’t have a somewhat gift-wrapped 3-goal lead, they might not be so fortunate to leave the building with two points.

That said, the Bruins do deserve some credit. They realized against that mess of bodies and No. 30 in net, the only way they were scoring was going to be on a rebound. Andrew Ference’s point shot was intentionally low, and Nathan Horton banged home the rebound. Dennis Seidenberg intentionally shot at Milan Lucic in the slot, and the redirect on Lundqvist led to an open net for David Krejci. And though Brad Marchand just got a lucky break for his goal, that was a pretty good snipe. So it’s not as if the Rangers blew the lead to the Flames or anything.

But it was a blocked shot that led to that opportunity for Marchand to score the game-tying goal, which allowed the B’s to walk away from the season series with four out of six points in the season series as well. So you’re not crazy for thinking the shot-blocking strategy can work against them. You are crazy for a lot of reasons, but not that one, I suppose.

Keefe: For the record, you told me about four hours before the game that you were going to eat healthy and detox after your brother’s wedding weekend. But really, I don’t think you had any plans other than to eat those things for dinner whether there was traffic or not.

When I see Rick Nash do the things he did to the Bruins defense and then to Tuukka Rask, I can’t help but think how they would have gotten past the Devils last May if they had traded for Nash last February. (Yes, I would still trade Chris Kreider for Nash if it was still an option.) And when I see the things that Marian Gaborik does like Nash, I can’t help, but think about how the Bruins have no one like Nash or Gaborik though Tyler Seguin will one day be Boston’s version of those two. And when I realize that the Bruins don’t have a true superstar (even though Pierre McGuire thinks Patrice Bergeron’s is one of the best players in the league), I wonder how they are so good even without Tim Thomas. But then you watch them play and you realize why they are so good.

The Bruins, for some unknown reason, find a way to score despite true scoring ability and a power play that makes even the Rangers not feel so bad about their man advantage and more importantly they find a way to win and win all types of games. I can’t explain it and I’m not sure if it’s even explainable because a team with that roster shouldn’t be this good without their best player (the Conn Smythe winner turned social media guru).

I know you’re probably going to say depth and defense and you might even talk about Claude Julien (I said “might”), but help me out here: Why are the Bruins so good? And why are they so good even without a single player whose jersey you would want to buy and wear?

Hurley: Well for one, Rask is a great goalie in his own right. He led the league in goals-against and save percentage in 2009-10, so it’s not like he’s some stiff off the street. Then you have Julien’s system, which above all else requires responsibility in your own end. That’s why Seguin barely played as a rookie — he wasn’t going to be put onto the ice until he could learn to play in the defensive system. Something tells me that as a kid, back-checking and getting sticks in passing lanes wasn’t drilled into the head of a kid as talented as Seguin.

So with that system, they’re rarely out of games. The 3-0 deficit against the Rangers was odd in that regard. And while they may not have a Steve Stamkos, they’re not short on talent up front. Nathan Horton is a big-time player. All the guy does is score big goals. The Bruins wouldn’t have made it out of the first round in 2011 if not for Horton, and his absence last spring was the reason the Bruins were wiped away in the first round.

Patrice Bergeron lacks flash, but if you were to assign grades to parts of his game, he’d get A-minuses across the board. He’s also won 63.6 percent of his faceoffs, which quietly goes a long way toward earning victories. Brad Marchand has a bad reputation for just being an agitator, but he’s a talented player who has a knack for scoring and has never been afraid of any moment or situation. David Krejci can be a wizard with the puck on his stick (still not a Marc Savard, but a decent knockoff) and Seguin is always a scoring threat every time he’s on the ice.

Add in third-liner Rich Peverley, who’d likely be a top-six forward in a lot of cities, and a fourth line that contributes while rarely making mistakes, and you just have a solid hockey team.

(I said hockey in case you were confused if I was talking about a football team or something.)

Oh, I should’ve mentioned, they’re also big on saying things like “compete level.” Julien hasn’t done an interview in the past five years without assessing his team’s compete level, and it’s spread to Peter Chiarelli and Cam Neely and now everyone who talks about the team.

It means “trying hard.” Yes, the millionaire hockey players need to be rated on whether they’re trying hard or not.

Regardless of its apparent stupidity, it really seems to work. It’s very rare you see the Bruins just lay a complete stinker, and teams know when they’re playing the Bruins that they’re in for a long battle. A lot of teams can’t handle it.

Keefe: Is Andy Brickley saying “compete level” yet or is he too busy talking about “points being at a premium” the way Edzo drops “active sticks” on everyone?

Everyone is talking about the Rangers and Bruins meeting again in the postseason for the first time since the 70s, you are one of these people, but a lot of these people are saying it’s going to happen. A lot of people said this last year too, but they forgot that eight teams make the playoffs in the Eastern Conference and just because people want a series to take place doesn’t it mean it will. And if it doesn’t take place in the quarterfinals then a lot has to go right for it to happen at all.

It’s been so long since these two teams have met in the playoffs and the New York-Boston rivalry has taken so many twists in the last 10 years that I don’t know what to expect if this series ever takes place and I don’t know if I even want it to. When the Yankees play the Red Sox, the Yankees are supposed to win. When the Knicks play the Celtics, the Celtics are supposed to win. When the Giants play the Patriots, the Giants always win. But what happens if these two teams meet again this year in the postseason? Who would have the upper hand? I can’t imagine this series would be good for my blood pressure especially coming in the beginning of baseball season. Maybe I will just pull for Rangers-Devils again.

Hurley: I’d like to see it happen because unofficially, without looking it up, I can state with complete confidence that every single Bruins-Rangers game in the past four years has been on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon and has been a one-goal game, almost always 1-0 one way or the other. That’s all factual. Don’t look it up though.

What happens if they meet? That’s why we want them to meet — it’s impossible to predict. The Rangers have the edge in offensive firepower, but so did the Canucks in 2011. It would be captivating hockey, and honestly whichever team emerged from that series would probably be too beaten, bruised and exhausted to go on a Cup run. But I wouldn’t mind watching it. Maybe even while enjoying some Halftime.

Keefe: OK, I looked it up. Here are the last 15 Rangers-Bruins games going back to 2009-10, which are the four years you told me to not look up.

NYR 4, BOS 3 (SO)
NYR 4, BOS 3 (OT)
BOS 3, NYR 1
BOS 2, NYR 1
NYR 4, BOS 3
NYR 3, BOS 0
NYR 3, BOS 2 (OT)
NYR 5, BOS 3
NYR 1, BOS 0
BOS 3, NYR 2
NYR 3, BOS 2
BOS 2. NYR 1
NYR 3, BOS 1
NYR 3, BOS 2
NYR 1, BOS 0

That’s 11 of 15 games that were decided by one goal. You were close.

It does feel like all of their games have been on Saturday or Sunday afternoons and they were all started by Tuukka Rask, which is weird considering over that time period Tim Thomas was the best goalie in the NHL. (Well, he was according to voters, but anyone who watched Henrik Lundqvist play behind awful teams know that it was King Henrik who has been the best goalie in the league for several years now.)

Only three of those games weren’t decided after three periods and one of them was on Tuesday night. While shootouts are fun when your teams wins, they are usually a letdown unless Rick Nash gives you a YouTube-worthy goal or unless Pavel Datsyuk is participating in the shootout. You have been a strong advocate of getting rid of the shootout and I’m on board with the idea. But what’s the solution? Is it 10 minutes of 4-on-4? Is it five minutes of 4-on-4 and then five minutes of 3-on-3? How can we make it so that the action that we saw in the five minutes of overtime on Tuesday night doesn’t end abruptly to have a breakaways decide a great game?

Hurley: 1. Rask started most of those games because Timmy T couldn’t handle the lighting at MSG! Remember? The lights were different for Tim!

2. You’re such an awful person for throwing my 10-minute, 4-on-4 period in there like you thought of it. Let the record show that’s my solution.

Actually, for years I (mostly jokingly) argued that the NHL should have five minutes of 4-on-4, and if it’s still tied, then five minutes of 3-on-3, and if it’s still tied then 2-on-2, and if it’s still tied then GOALIE DEATHMATCH AT CENTER ICE.

Because that’s a little extreme, and because we’d run out of goalies pretty quickly, I propose a simple 10-minute period of 4-on-4 hockey. I freaking love 4-on-4 hockey. I’ve been to three games at the TD Garden this season that have featured full five-minute periods of overtime, and they’ve all been thrilling. It’s like taking the best players on the planet and throwing them into an arcade game for five minutes. D-men get forced out of their comfort zones to be a part of odd-man rushes, then they get stuck out of position and lead to another odd-man advantage going the other way. Goalies are forced into hyper-mode, and the game is an all-out frenzy for 300 seconds.

Then they stop it abruptly and start a breakaway contest.

It makes no sense.

If you were showing an alien around earth and wanted to introduce it to the sport of hockey, you could show it five minutes of 4-on-4 overtime and the little freak would be in love with hockey forever. Five more minutes of that, and how many ties would we really end up with? You’d have to think that with 10 minutes of all that open ice, one team is going to be able to bury one goal.

And why do we hate ties so much to begin with? Is it really because fans don’t like the feeling of going home after a tie? For one, since when does the NHL give a crap about how fans feel? But even more so, when has that ever been a consideration in a league deciding the rules which govern its standings?? That’s insane. And thirdly (I could go until 12thly but I’ll stop), don’t fans feel worse when they leave a game which their team lost in a shootout than they would if their team had just tied? This isn’t rocket science here. Why are we having shootouts?

Oh, and if you take away the automatic point of making it to overtime, with a tie resulting in one point apiece and an OT win giving two points to the victor and bupkis to the loser. That would only make that 10 minutes of 4-on-4 overtime even better.

And I’m not even someone who out and out hates the shootout. I just prefer watching hockey.

Keefe: You told me today you were going to give short, concise answers because no one wants to really hear what you have to say. So much for that like your diet.

I don’t really miss ties because I had seen my fair share of ties in real life as a child, but you’re right the NHL doesn’t care about the fan at all, so why start by eliminating ties and changing the record books and point system and goalie’s records? It doesn’t make sense. If Gary Bettman is going to be the worst commissioner to ever run a major sports league in North America, he might as well go all the way with it.

Bring back ties! Bring back the red line! Add “obstruction” to penalties again since penalties aren’t already the result of “obstructing” something! Have North America vs. the World for the All-Star Game and bring back the Goalie Goals competition to the Skills Competition! Sign a deal with FOX! Let them make the puck glow again!

The NHL.com video player is currently the worst piece of technology available and it works like something from 1999, so why not just change everything in the league back to a time when Jaromir Jagr led the league in scoring with the Penguins, Ron Tugnutt posted a 1.79 GAA and Byron Dafoe was playing goal for the Bruins? There’s a good question: What happened to Byron Dafoe? That might be an entire email exchange itself. “Bruins Goalies Between Andy Moog and Tim Thomas.” I think I know what our next email exchange will be about. And if it isn’t about that I’m sure we’ll talk again between now and Opening Day in the Bronx.

Hurley: I’m not sure what happened, but I’m nearly positive your brain just completely stopped working for a few paragraphs there. I’m not sure how it all came out in English. I don’t even know what to say. I don’t know when we’ll talk again, but how about this — don’t email me. I’ll email you.

Read More

Blogs • Rangers

Feb 1, 2013

Rangers Look Lost in Latest Loss

The Rangers haven’t looked like a team capable of winning the Stanley Cup this season. There’s still 41 games left to play, but at the same time, there’s only 41 games left to play.

The New York Rangers are going the same place the two Russians were at the beginning of Boondock Saints, according to Detective Greenly. That place? “Nowhere!” OK, that’s not completely true since there are 41 games left and the entire conference is separated by eight points, but for anyone who watched Thursday night’s 3-0 loss to the Penguins, you can’t help but think the Rangers are the NHL’s version of two dead guys on top of trash bags in a South Boston alley.

Thursday night was bad. It started off bad, got worse and then became unwatchable, so I headed for the exit with over two minutes left and left the booing of the Blueshirts to those fans who either called out of work on Friday or who struggled through the workday on Friday despite an abundance of Gatorade, greasy food and Advil.

My girlfriend surprised me with tickets to the game an hour before the puck dropped and it was the first time I would be seeing the Penguins in person since they lost to the Bruins 3-0 on Nov. 10, 2009 in Boston. Evgeni Malkin didn’t play in that game, James Neal was in Dallas and Bill Guerin was still in the league and on the Penguins. (Eric Godard even dressed for the Penguins!) So as a hockey fan, I was excited to see Sidney Crosby with Malkin and Neal, but as a Rangers fan, I was worried about what they could do the Rangers’ search for consistency. It only took 1:24 for Malkin to justify my worrying.

Before I could tell my girlfriend about his one-timing abilities from the right side, Henrik Lundqvist was late to his left and it was 1-0 Pittsburgh. Had I known the Rangers would Sunday Skate their way to their fourth loss of the year over the next 58:36, I would have gladly walked over to The Flying Puck and watched a game or a team worth watching.

The box score says the Rangers were outshot 29-28. Either the official scorer at MSG is a relative of Tomas Vokoun or part of the new CBA is that the league is recording shots the way points are given out on Around the Horn because there’s no way the Rangers had 28 shots or one shot less than the Penguins. And even if the Rangers did have 28 shots, which I don’t think they did, how many of those shots were high-quality scoring chances? I think I remember two and I had one beer at the game, so I can’t blame my memory of the Rangers’ scoring chances on that. At most there were three, possibly four. (Apparently Derek Stepan had six shots last night! Six! He still wears number 21 right? Maybe I did have more than one beer?) But I’ll stick with two because I remember those and one of them came from the guy who is here to score big goals against teams like the Penguins and to be the focal point of the offense. So let’s start with him in an attempt to turn the Rangers’ season around before this season turns into a countdown to baseball’s Opening Day the way the Giants’ season turned into a plea to end the lockout and then a countdown to start the hockey season.

Rick Nash
Rick, Rick, Rick. Am I really writing something negative about you after just seven games? No, of course not. It’s not all that positive, but there isn’t much positivity to go around with this team. And I’m not here to wish Brandon Dubinsky and Artem Anisimov were still on the team rather than Nash because even if he finishes the rest of this season with the same exact numbers he has through seven games, I won’t say that.

The number 1 criticism of Nash prior to becoming a Ranger (well, aside from nonsensical postseason career arguments and cap-hit BS) was that he didn’t pass the puck. Now only unintelligent people would use that as a criticism for an elite goal scorer who actually had no one to pass to on his team (and even if he did, he’s a goal scorer, not a playmaker), but in nine years in Columbus, Nash finished with more goals than assists five times, which is semi-unheard of for one of the best scorers in the world.

We are seven game into the season. Rick Nash has one goal. It’s not like he isn’t getting the scoring chances because he is getting several every game, he’s just not finishing when he does. But for all the one-on-one moves and the amazing highlights of him creating space and using hesitation for a shot in the slot, it’s time for Rick Nash to carry the team for a few games in a way that only he, Marian Gaborik and Henrik Lundqvist can.

Henrik Lundqvist
Remember, Lundqvist is in the selective Jeter/Rivera/Eli class of complete immunity to criticism (unless it’s done sarcastically). So this isn’t me questioning Lundqvist’s play over the first seven games. This is me asking Hank to kindly play like the Vezina winner he was last year.

Lundqvist has started all seven games this year and has allowed 18 goals. Last season, Lundqvist allowed his 18th goal in the eighth game of the year, so he hasn’t been that off when it comes to the start of the season. It just feels differently because that season started in October and this one started in January and that season was 82 games and this one is 48 games. Do you see what I’m getting at? There isn’t an October, November and December and 34 other games to balance things out. Lundqvist is going to play as much as he did at the end of the 2010-11 season when the Rangers didn’t have a backup and there isn’t time for Henrik Lundqvist to not be Henrik Lundqvist. Unless he plans on sprinkling 11 shutouts in at some point.

John Tortorella
The Rangers have a depth problem. (I’m aware that Ryan Callahan and Chris Kreider are out. Thanks for clarifying that.) Is that Tortorella’s fault? No. That’s the guy upstairs who could do pretty much anything at this point to destroy James Dolan’s life and still hold his job. But complaining about Glen Sather’s track record in New York would be like complaining about the Noroton Heights, Rowayton, Green’s Farms and Southport stops on the Metro North. They’re always going to be there and there’s nothing you can do about it, so just deal with it. (But really does Norwalk need a South Norwalk and East Norwalk stop? Two stops? This is worse than BU having three stops on the B train in Boston.)

But what is Tortorella’s fault is the way he chooses to use the players that Sather has given him. Is there anyone who still loves that Tortorella loves Brian Boyle? Is there anyone in the Kings organization who thinks, “Man, I really wish we didn’t trade Boyle to the Rangers in exchange for that third-round pick” when they see Boyle playing? Of course not. But Boyle is going to continue to play in important spots because of his “defense,” which is almost as ironic as James Shields being called “Big Game James” or Matt Ryan being called “Matty Ice.” Unfortunately, Boyle isn’t the only issue.

Do we really need to see the fourth line following the Penguins taking a 2-0 lead? There’s 19:32 left in the game. You’re trailing by two goals to the Penguins. So let’s put out the fourth line for an energy shift to bang some bodies and likely provide nothing offensively since the clock is not a factor!

Did Michael Del Zotto getting sent down for part of the 2010-11 season get him off the hook for the rest of his Rangers career when it comes to playing defense? Or does his career .45 points per game allow him to only worry about offense?

I don’t want to get on John Tortorella too much here because it’s only seven games and he did lead the team past the first two rounds of the playoffs last year and he did win the Stanley Cup with Tampa Bay nine years ago, so it’s hard to criticize the man given his incredible amount of success in New York. But if Tortorella wants to tilt his head and look at media members asking him questions in his press conferences like a dog who ate something dogs aren’t supposed to eat from the trash and then recycled it on to the living room floor, he might want to get his team over .500. Acting the way John Tortorella does is fine when you’re winning more than every other game. Right now the Rangers aren’t even doing that.

Read More

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers

Jan 23, 2013

Rangers Better Be Ready for Rematch with Bruins

The Rangers haven’t won a game and the Bruins haven’t lost a game, so obviously it was time for an email exchange with Mike Miccoli.

The bad news is the Rangers are winless. The good news it’s only been two games. However, the troublesome news is that the season is only 48 games long and there really isn’t any time for a losing streak.

Mike Miccoli, who covers the Bruins for The Hockey Writers, contributes to this site and also happened to be my roommate for freshman year of college, joined me to talk about what happened between the Rangers and Bruins on Opening Night in Boston and what to expect this season, including their rematch on Wednesday night at Madison Square Garden.

Keefe: The first thing I thought of when I heard the lockout was over was that I wouldn’t be able to read your sarcastic tweets about not being able to watch hockey anymore. Actually I take that back. The first thing I thought was “Woooooooooooooooo!” and then I thought about your tweets. After two games I’m not so sure I want hockey back.

The Rangers are 0-2 and for someone who takes regular season losses like season-ending losses (see: my take on the Yankees), this start sucks. The Rangers lost in Boston on Saturday and then were embarrassed at home on Sunday. Henrik Lundqvist was pulled in Game 2 of the year after not being pulled once in 2011-12. He has given up seven goals in two games. I think he gave up seven goals all of last year.

But I’m sure you don’t want to hear me complain. The Patriots were just destroyed at home by the Ravens with a Super Bowl trip on the line and Tom Brady’s legacy took another hit. But hey, at least your hockey team is 2-0 and will be when I walk in the MSG doors for the first time this year on Wednesday night.

Miccoli: Tom Brady is a legend even though he can’t throw the ball and catch it at the same time. You should have learned that last year. But seriously, how are things in New York? Is Torts on the hot seat? Lundqvist demand a trade yet? Think about this for a second: by Thursday morning, the New York Rangers could be 0-3. That’s six percent of the 2013 season completely wasted for a team that so, so many predicted to come out of the East.

Now I know what you’re thinking: it’s early. Of course it is, but when will the Rangers gain traction? For me, the biggest issue is all of the passengers. Guys like Marian Gaborik, Chris Kreider and Carl Hagelin have been invisible so far. When three of your supposed, All-Star top-six forwards are just watching, that’s a major problem.

The Bruins, on the other hand, have been firing on all cylinders. Did you watch the Winnipeg game? Ondrej Pavelec owes his two posts a steak dinner and a six-pack each for bailing him out so many times. Realistically speaking, the Bruins should have won that game 8-1, maybe even 9-1 if it wasn’t for so many dings. In net, Tuukka Rask is making Bruins’ fans forget about Tim Thomas quicker than they forgot about the lockout once they charged hundreds of dollars to their credit cards for crappy balcony seats.

I just hope the renovations at MSG are complete enough so that Rask doesn’t have to use that excuse on Wednesday.

Keefe: It’s too bad about the Patriots. I was really hoping they would win the AFC Championship and head to their sixth Super Bowl in 12 years. It’s really too bad.

Please don’t bring up the MSG renovations. It was one of the last remaining buildings that had that old-school feel to it and now it looks like every other modern arena on the inside. Sure, the amenities are awesome and the new seats are better than the cheap Metro North-like plastic seats (or the T commuter rail seats for you and I know you’re used to those), but I will miss the look and feel of the old interior. It might as well be the cement block with no character on Causeway Street in Boston. Actually, I take that back. Nothing can be that bad.

You’re right about Gaborik and Kreider and Hagelin. Too many times have they been out there for Sunday Skate watching the play rather than being in the play or trying to make something happen. But you know who hasn’t stood around and watched the play happen? Rick Nash.

When it comes to Nash, I haven’t been this excited for a player’s arrival in New York since Alex Rodriguez in 2004. And that’s either a good thing when you think about the two AL MVPs and arguably the best postseason for anyone ever in 2009. Or it’s a bad thing when you think about the 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011 and 2012 postseasons, the admission to using performance-enhancing drugs or any of the 9,817 headlines he made for non-baseball related events.

We’ll get to your Bruins, but after two games of seeing Rick Nash as a Ranger, he has been the player I thought he would be and the player I was willing to trade the whole system for last February. He scored his first goal as a Ranger on Sunday against the Penguins and had several other high-quality scoring chances in the game as well as on Saturday against the Bruins. If his play continues at this level and the rest of the team realizes that the season has started and Derek Stepan and Michael Del Zotto are taking off the first unit on the power play, Nash will have quite the season.

Miccoli: I’m actually elated that Rick Nash ended up in New York since I was getting sick and tired of hearing about how he’d look good in a Bruins uniform for the past year. Little did I know that Glen Sather would be able to frisk Scott Howson in the deal, making it one of the more lopsided trades in recent memory.

Here’s the thing with Nash: I think he’s one of the most overrated players in the NHL. I get that he never had any help in Columbus and the best center he played with was a past-his-prime Sergei Federov but for his $7.8 million cap hit, he’s going to end up as more of a burden than a savior for a Rangers team that’s already pretty well stacked. Sure, he’s a physical player who will help get the momentum going eventually and score a decent number of goals but I think he could crack under the pressure in New York. I mean, he was playing in Columbus and only scored 40-plus goals twice in nine seasons, eclipsing 70-plus points once. ONCE! Want to know who has a similar trend in point totals in fewer seasons? David Krejci. And he’s not even the Bruins’ No. 1 center.

If Nash couldn’t pad his stats in Columbus where he was the entire show, I don’t know how he could in New York when there are plenty of other scorers who could pose a threat to opposing teams. I should probably mention his postseason experience of a whopping four games since 2002-03, but I’d rather you not go Andy Bernard on me and punch a wall this early in the season.

But I guess when you can acquire an All-Star player who is consistent for spare parts that you were looking to get rid of anyway, it’s not a terrible thing.

Keefe: “Newsflash. It’s not funny. In fact, it’s pretty freakin’ unfunny!”

Woah, woah, woah. I didn’t think the conversation was going to go this way. Overrated? Overrated? Overrated? I feel like Derek Zoolander screaming, “One look?! One look?! One look?!” “Rick Nash” and “overrated” should never be used in the same sentence. This falls in line with my unnecessary Dennis Seidenberg bashing last week

As a 19-year old, Nash led the NHL in goals with 41 goals for Columbus. That team finished the year with 62 points, which was good enough for 27th place in the league and 29 points out of the eighth seed in the West. Their top assist man was David Vyborny. Da-vid Vy-born-y. He had 31 assists! 31!

As a 24-year old, Nash scored 40 goals again for a Columbus team that finished seventh in the West and was swept in the first round in their only playoff series ever, though Nash had three points in that series.

The man has scored at least 30 goals in seven of his nine NHL seasons and one of the two years he didn’t was when he was an 18-year-old rookie (he scored 17). Sure, you could make the case that he always has more goals than assists (290-259 career), but who was he supposed to pass to all those years in Columbus? Kristian Huselius? R.J. Umberger? A washed-up Sergei Fedorov? The answer is no one. So he didn’t pass. He just dangled through entire teams by himself and produced goals like this.

I think he did a fine job trying to pad his stats in Columbus, but he couldn’t because there was literally no help on the team … at all … for nine years! Nine years! It was a one-man show and he did the best he could, which was an average of 32 goals a year on the worst team in the league for the last decade. I think he will do a much better job putting up even better and more even and balanced numbers with other stars surrounding him and guys who can actually feed him the puck and do some of the work for him. He will make what is usually an embarrassing power play dangerous and will be the difference maker for this team in the postseason (if they can win a game first).

There’s a reason I was willing to give up everything for him a year ago and why I believe he would have been the difference between playing the Kings for the Cup and losing to the Devils in six games. There’s a reason he was part of the first line for Team Canada in the 2010 Olympics and on their first power play unit. There’s a reason why his cap hit is $7.8 million. And there’s a reason why I’m not worried about it. Rick Nash is the real deal.

Miccoli: I look forward to your demeanor six months from now if the New York Rangers aren’t crowned Stanley Cup Champions. Don’t get me wrong, the Rangers are a good team, a really good team, but that’s exactly it: they’re a team. Rick Nash can produce as much as possible but if they’re not getting contributions from other stars like Gaborik and Richards, production from their depth players and secondary scorers and a strong effort on the blue line, the season could take a turn.

And what about Lundqvist? Seven goals in two games seems like a billion for a guy known for being stingy in net. (Hey, that’s almost four times as many goals that Rask has allowed!) For a goalie that has carried a team on his back for years, wouldn’t it be ironic for him to suddenly falter?

Now don’t get me wrong, I still think King Henrik is still one of the best netminders in the world, even if he makes glove saves after the puck has crossed the goal line. He made some tremendous saves in Boston, allowing only three goals on 34 shots, which seems like a lot for a team synonymous with throwing their bodies in front of pucks as if they were crash test dummies. Can’t say I’d do the same if I was out there, so there’s that, but the Rangers shot blocking was one of the main reasons why they were so successful last year.

Now the power play…yeah, I feel your pain. At least you don’t have to endure the “Bruins are 0-for-(insert number of past Bruin here) on the power play” tweets like I have to. Easily the worst trend to come out of the Bruins’ Cup run … and there were some doozies.

Keefe: Henrik Lundqvist entered the Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera and Eli Manning level of respect from me in that I won’t say something bad about him … ever. (However, there are some “Ladies and gentlemen, Eli Manning” tweets floating around there from the final weeks of this season.) The only difference is that Lundqvist hasn’t won a championship. Actually, there’s another difference: Lundqvist has never really had much help in seven years. That’s why this year is supposed to be different.

Last year I pleaded with anyone who would listen about why the Rangers had to trade Rick Nash. My reasoning was simple: You can’t keep wasting years of Henrik Lundqvist’s prime. The Rangers didn’t add a scorer in Nash and they couldn’t score consistently in the playoffs and they lost in the Eastern Conference Finals. I don’t know for sure that Nash would have had produced a Rangers-Kings series, but I like to believe that I know for sure that he would. Instead the Rangers relied on lucky bounces and garbage goals, which they relied on for a lot of their regular season wins that got them the No. 1 seed, but when those bounces stopped finding them, they lost. They needed seven games to knock off the No. 8 Senators and the No. 7 Capitals and then they couldn’t solve a 40-year-old Martin Brodeur, who looked 80 at times, and an offense that had very similar problems. But it probably didn’t matter because I don’t think any team was beating the Kings last spring and summer. Though I’d like to think a team with Henrik Lundqvist in net would have had a better chance.

Up until last year, the Rangers’ game plan was score the first goal and then hope for a shutout. It’s why their postseasons only lasted one round for a few years. Last year things looked like they would start to be different and there was some secondary scoring added around Marian Gaborik. Now the team has Gaborik and Nash and Brad Richards and Ryan Callahan and Carl Hagelin and Chris Kreider and Derek Stepan. There’s no reason the 2010-11 game plan of playing for one goal and if you’re really, really lucky, two goals should still be the plan.

Like I said, I won’t fault Lundqvist for any of the team’s problems through two games (I have to remind myself it’s only been two games) and even though seven goals in two games is a problem, the Rangers have allowed 73 shots in 60 minutes. I’m not sure that’s a recipe for success and I’m not sure going 1-for-9 on the power play is one either.

As for the shot blocking, that’s what everyone always wants to talk about with the Rangers. And while it shows a blue-collar mentality and a lunch pail and hard hat image for New York City, it can do just as much bad for the team as it can good. It seems like most goals Lundqvist allowed last year were a product of blocked shots off Rangers that screened him or deflected. That hasn’t necessarily been the case this year, but letting the Penguins play “Rebound” in front of him isn’t exactly a good idea.

On Saturday, the Rangers lost to a better “team.” I’m not sure the Bruins will be the better team after Game 48 (I just wanted to write that to see how weird it sounded and read coming off the fingers onto the screen), but right now the Bruins are the better “team” with less new faces and more chemistry than the Rangers. The same goes for the Penguins. I’m not sure 96 hours is enough time for the Rangers to get it together since seeing the Bruins, but I would like to think they took the time on Monday and Tuesday to try some line combinations that will last more than one shift.

But I said it: The Bruins are a better team … right now. And that’s without crazy man Tim Thomas in net.

Miccoli: The Bruins are one of a few teams that could actually benefit from a 48-game season. Aside from the obvious Tim Thomas departure (which still bugs me, but I’ll get to that), only Benoit Pouliot, Joe Corvo, Greg Zanon and Brian Rolston have left the team. Five years from now, this will be more forgettable than that time the Bruins had Yan Stastny, Petr Tenkrat and Stanislav Chistov on the roster. The additions to the lineup Chris Bourque, Dougie Hamilton and even a healthy Nathan Horton, give the Bruins an instant upgrade from when we saw them last, leaving the ice after Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Quarterfinals. I can preach about the importance of chemistry (which the Bruins have), the benefits of a positive locker room (this, too) and even the crucial depth needed to win the Stanley Cup (hey, the Bruins have this too!), but I think that’s best saved for their play on the ice.

The Bruins have the opportunity to be a Stanley Cup contender for a long time. They have incredible depth playing in Boston right now and a boatload of prospects who should be NHL-ready as soon as next season. Factor in the development of players like Tyler Seguin, Brad Marchand and Tuukka Rask and you have a wide-open championship window for Boston. That’s exciting, since no other Boston sports team is in a situation quite like the Bruins. Everyone hates the Red Sox, the Celtics are old and too many people are whining about the Patriots. Never in a million years did I think that the Bruins would be the toast of the town. But now they are and they know it, too.

Bruins coach Claude Julien said on Monday that he was aware of the team’s obligation to the city. Andrew Ference is tweeting about how much he loves the city and how the team loves playing in front of the fans every night. Patrice Bergeron even talked about how much of an honor it was to wear the Bruins jersey and play at the TD Garden every night. Call it clichéd, but this team genuinely gets how important hockey is to the city. David Krejci said that the whole team is having a lot of fun out there and it sure looks it, since they’re firing on all cylinders. All of the vibes surrounding this team right now are overwhelmingly positive.

Which brings me to Tim Thomas. I don’t know why Thomas decided to pack up his bags and move to Colorado. I don’t know why Thomas thinks he’s an automatic lock for the U.S. Olympic team in 2014 after, you know, just not playing for a year. I don’t know why Thomas’ sudden affinity for social media fascinates everyone, either (I’m curious if everyone was like this when their parents joined Facebook? I know I was.). What I do know is that without Tim Thomas, the Boston Bruins do not win the Stanley Cup and are not in the same position that they’re in today. Sure, Thomas was a distraction last season with all of the off-the-ice crap and his statistics dipped too. To me, the two share zero correlation. Thomas’ was never going to replicate his 2010-11 season again and while under every single spotlight in Boston, every move he made was criticized. It got sickening fast and I think Thomas started to play it up a little because really, there was nothing else for him to do.

I remember Tim Thomas as being the guy who won a Stanley Cup for the Boston. That’s how I choose to think about it. With that, I’m more than ready for the Tuukka Rask era to begin.

Keefe: Ah, Petr Tenkrat. There’s a name I forgot about for a reason and never expected to hear again. There’s a blast from the past and a name I forgot and didn’t expect to hear ever again. As for Tim Thomas, I hope my friend in Boston, who got a tattoo on his arm of Thomas holding the Cup is thinking about Thomas the same way as you. Otherwise he has a guy with a well-known Facebook page in a Bruins jersey holding the Cup tattooed on his body for life.

I’m happy to see your dream come true of the Bruins being the focal point of Boston once again like it’s the 70s or late 80s or early 90s there. I only wish this had been the case when I was still living in Boston, so there would have been excitement in the city for hockey. Or maybe it would have been nice if Gary Bettman didn’t cancel the season in the year that we lived together just blocks from the then-FleetCenter. Gary Bettman! What a guy!

All of this positive talk about the Bruins makes me wish I could talk the same way about the Rangers. I can feel the excitement and jubilation from you through the computer screen. Instead the Rangers are winless with the Bruins coming to the Garden and looking at Philadelphia twice, Toronto and Pittsburgh for the rest of January. Things need to turn around and they need to turn around starting against your team.

Miccoli: All is not lost … at least not yet. It’s still early and luckily for you, they only hand out the Stanley Cup after the first few games of the season in Toronto. As far as the Bruins and Rangers go, it’s sad to see their season series concluding in just two weeks when the Blueshirts visit the Garden on Feb. 12. But the end for these two teams? Not a chance. I think this is finally the year that the Rangers and Bruins meet in the Eastern Conference playoffs. And if that happens, I can’t possibly think of a better way to expedite years off of my life.

Here’s my quick confession: the New York Rangers are the team to beat in the East, even if they look like a PeeWee youth hockey team playing in their first game after tryouts right now. They just have all of the pieces and once they click, they’ll be a well-oiled machine capable of crushing teams that stand in their way. I don’t think it will be the Pittsburgh Penguins in the hunt alongside the Rangers, but rather the Boston Bruins. Both teams just stand out for me. While I’m sure this would make for an incredible playoff series, I won’t look forward to the Boston vs. New York narrative that both markets will eat up at every possible opportunity, but at least that will mask the four-hour Red Sox-Yankees series that everyone will forget about. But the hockey games, oh, the games will be fun. Late spring, playoff hockey between two of the best teams in the East. Doesn’t get much better, does it? Ahh, hockey!

I guess the Rangers have to win a game first, though, which is good news considering they have the Flyers Thursday night. Ilya Bryzgalov is always good for a pick-me-up.

Read More

Blogs • Rangers

Jan 18, 2013

Ready for Rick Nash and the Rangers

The NHL is finally back this weekend after feeling like it may never come back.

The last time Gary Bettman took hockey away from me I was a freshman in college. I would sit at the Capitol Coffee House at the top of Bowdoin Street, crushing the best bacon, egg and cheese in Boston and stare at the top of the ShawmutFleetCenterTDBanknorthGardenTDGarden and wonder how Bettman could do this to me now that I was living just a half of a mile from where NHL hockey normally took place.

For the first three-plus months of this season, Bettman tried to take hockey away from me again, and nearly succeeded by getting to the doorstep of canceling another full season. And because Bettman enjoys a good lockout the way I enjoy actually watching hockey, I knew entering the holidays that I would need the New York Football Giants to carry me through January to leave only the 28 days of February as the gap between sports I’m passionate about because there was a good chance the 2012-13 NHL season was gone. But the Giants didn’t cooperate and embarrassed themselves in the process, reverting back to their 2009 and 2010 ways and setting the franchise back following a Super Bowl season in a way only the Giants could. The Giants left me searching for a way to get through the cold winter months before spring training (or the period I refer to as the 59 Days Before Baseball) and March Madness and it was either finally start watching Mad Men or Parks and Recreation religiously or hope that something would come from one of the NHL/NHLPA marathon meetings. I chose the latter and put my faith in Bettman, Bill Daly (his sidekick who cares equally as little about the fans) and Donald Fehr (who at times thought he was only in the meetings to later tell the media how much Bettman sucks).

I began doubting the NHL would ever come back and even if it did, would I ever care about it the same way again? After the way it destroyed me in 2004-05, I wasn’t sure if I would be able to go through that pain again knowing that in just a few more years I would likely be in the same spot again as long as Bettman remains commissioner.

I woke up on Jan. 6 to find out the lockout had ended while I was busy sleeping and dreaming of goals like this and moments like this. Looking back I wish I had gone into a celebration combination of Theo Fleury and Teemu Selanne. I thought I would act like either of those two if the lockout ever ended, but I didn’t have much room to roll around or a stick handy to shoot down a glove that I also didn’t have. Instead I just accepted the news like I had known it was going to happen the way John Carpenter did when Regis Philbin told him he won $1 million.

We’re one day away from hockey being back and the Rangers being back for the first time since Memorial Day Weekend. We’re one day away from John Tortorella treating the media like spitters and from Stan Fischler’s postgame questioning deserving of being treated like a spitter. We’re one day away from Brian Boyle getting too much playing time and Marian Gaborik getting unnecessarily benched with the Rangers trailing. We’re one day away from Michael Del Zotto trying to be Bobby Orr on the power play and from Dan Girardi missing the net from the point. We’re one day away from Sam Rosen giving Henrik Lundqvist credit for a save on a shot he didn’t touch and from Joe Micheletti talking about the “quick release” of every player on the ice. We’re one day away from having Hank back in our lives and Rick Nash officially in our lives. We’re one day away from hockey and two weeks ago I didn’t think we would be here.

To set the scene for Saturday’s NHL Opening Day, I thought I would dissect John Tortorella’s interview on Wednesday with Mike Francesa on WFAN. Tortorella and Francesa talked over 20 minutes and usually it takes 20 seconds of talking for Tortorella to say something worthy of analyzing, so there was plenty to go around after 20 minutes.

On the shape the players are in.

“There are some guys you can see that are in really good shape and other guys are trying to find their way and other guys there’s quite a bit of work to do.”

I think by the end of the first period on Saturday we will know which players fit into Tortorella’s three categories. But if not by the end of the first period then certainly during the third period when the fatigue of 60 minutes of hockey will begin to set in and Gaborik’s legs will start to fall to a gear not seen since Mark Recchi left the league two years ago. It won’t take long to find out which players that weren’t playing overseas or in the AHL were still getting their work in and which ones were treating the lockout like Figawi.

On the usage of Henrik Lundqvist in the shortened season.

“I think once of the biggest things we’ve found with Hank is when he starts getting sloppy and we can see when he starts getting sloppy and he’s not practicing the proper way because he’s playing so many games and he’s so tired during the practice days, his game tends to slip.”

Two years ago the Rangers didn’t have a backup goalie for nearly the entire second half of the season so Henrik Lundqvist had to play every game or they wouldn’t have made the playoffs. They made the playoffs on the final day of the season and then were out of the playoffs after five games against the Capitals. It wasn’t because of Lundqvist, it was because they couldn’t score. Lundqvist was still sharp in the series against Washington despite playing in 68 games that year.

Since his rookie season, Lundqvist has played in 53, 70, 72, 70, 73, 68 and 62 games. He has been outstanding for all seven seasons, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that he posted his best numbers in 2011-12 (39-18-5, 1.97, .929) in the season he played the least amount of games. I also don’t think it’s a coincidence that he won the Vezina in the same season he played the least amount of games or that the Rangers went to the conference finals in the season he played the least amount of games.

The problem is with only 48 games, it’s going to be hard to get Lundqvist rest. Andy Brickley likes to talk about how “points are a premium” at the end of the year (though someone should tell Brick that all the games are worth the same amount of points) and that’s in a normal year. This year is anything, but normal and that’s why Lundqvist has to play just about every single game. Thanks, Hank. I owe you one.

On getting off to a fast start.

“I think we need to win all 48 games … I want to win every game right away.”

Joe Girardi might think John Tortorella is nuts for trying to win every game, but I think it’s a good plan. The Rangers will play their 48 games in 99 days and in their seven January games they will see face Boston twice, Pittsburgh twice, Philadelphia twice and Toronto once. Those seven games will happen in 12 days, including two sets of back-to-backs. Again, that’s seven games in the first 12 days of the year! This is going to be fun, but it’s also going to be a mess, which leads us to…

On how the game will be impacted by the layoff.

“In the two end zones I think there’s going to be more penalties. I think that’s where the level of conditioning is not there right now.”

Tortorella used the word “sloppy” a few times during the interview to go along with this quote, which to me screams, “Turnovers!” And when you think of sloppy play and turnovers and penalties you think of goals. And when you think of goals you think of overs! I have never bet an over in an NHL game in my life, but that might change as early as Saturday. (Unless Vegas wants to start throwing some 6.5 over/unders out there.)

If Tortorella is right about the excessive penalties then that means power plays. The Rangers’ power play has been their downfall for as long as I can remember. At times it’s comical that any company would want to sponsor a Rangers power play and have their brand and name associated with such a disaster, but I think it’s going to be different this season. Why? Because of this guy…

On the Rangers’ outlook after getting Rick Nash.

“I think a big step for our team this year is to handle the expectations. We make the Nash deal and a lot of people think we take the next step as an organization and rightfully so.”

I’m still excited for Rangers fans not as familiar with Rick Nash to see him play the way I envy anyone about to watch Friday Night Lights or Game of Thrones for the first time. There’s a reason Nash played on the first line for Team Canada at the 2010 Olympics and why I was willing to give up the farm and then some for him last February and why I pleaded with WFAN’s Steve Somers to come around and see things from my perspective. Rick Nash is that good and starting Saturday he will finally have something to play for in a city worth playing for.

On the Rangers’ expectations this season.

“We’re going to play our style. Our team will be ready to play, but a lot of things have to happen right and a number of things happened right last year and it always doesn’t during a year.”

Tortorella just keeps setting me up. My biggest thing with wanting Rick Nash so, so, so, so, so, so badly was that the Rangers are built to win right now. Sure, they are also set up nicely for the future with a young core and defense, but they are really built to win right now. And I mean right now as in last year and now this year and next year. Prior to last season the Rangers hadn’t been out of the first round of the playoffs since 2007-08 and they hadn’t been to the conference finals since 1996-97. Chances like last year don’t come around all the time (unless you’re the Red Wings) and Henrik Lundqvist isn’t going to be in his prime forever. How many years are the Rangers willing to sacrifice of Lundqvist’s prime before going all in? Thankfully, the answer is now zero because of the deal for Nash.

Tortorella’s most telling line in the whole interview was that “it always doesn’t during a year” when it comes to things happening right. The Rangers won a lot of one-goal games and had a lot of bounces go their way in the regular season (I mean a lot of bounces) and things only got even better for them in the postseason, winning two Game 7s and overcoming multiple-goal deficits and completing last-second comebacks. Those breaks aren’t always going to go your way, so let’s just hope the Nash move didn’t come one season to late.

On the media picking the Rangers as a contender.

“I don’t care what people are picking. I’m not one of those guys to get involved in that. We’re going to go about it one day at a time and we’ll see where we land as we go through this.”

Ah, there’s the John Tortorella we know. Now if only Larry Brooks had asked him this question maybe I would have had the opportunity to write “(expletive)” when transcribing.

On if the Rangers can win the Stanley Cup.

“Before you can win, you need to believe that you are going to win.”

Two years ago when the Rangers were hoping to beat the Capitals in the quarterfinals without scoring a goal you could just sense that the team knew that if Lundqvist didn’t post a shutout then they were most likely not going to win. And if Lundqvist gave up one goal then they definitely weren’t going to win. But last postseason you saw a team that took the ice believing it could win and believing it could win even without scoring the first goal of the game.

A lot has changed for the Rangers since the Capitals silenced the Bruce Boudreau chants at MSG and embarrassed a fan base. After that series it felt like Henrik Lundqvist would one day raise his number 30 to the Garden rafters without a Cup to his name like Don Mattingly putting his number 23 in Monument Park without a World Series. It doesn’t feel like that anymore.

Read More

Blogs • Columns Archive • Giants

Dec 19, 2012

This Is What a Second-Half Collapse Looks Like

The Giants are looking at the possibility of another second-half collapse. Eli Manning doesn’t seem too worried about it.

Last year the Giants were 6-2 and to open the second half of their schedule they lost to the 49ers in Week 9 even though it had been determined before the game that the Giants would lose to the 49ers. It had been determined because that’s what New York Giants football had been and has been in the second half of the regular season during the Tom Coughlin era.

I remember being scared on Nov. 13, 2011 after that loss to the 49ers because of the 5-0 start in 2009 that ended with an 8-8 season and the 7-4 start in 2010 that DeSean Jackson destroyed. So when the Giants lost to the 49ers and opened the second half of the 2011 season with a loss, it made me think, “Oh eff, this isn’t happening again, isn’t it?”

The media thought it could be happening again too. So they asked Coughlin about the Giants’ recent second-half collapses over and over the way Walter Sobchak (John Goodman) asks Larry if the paper in his the Ziploc bag is his homework in The Big Lebowski. But instead of “Is this your homework, Larry? Is this your homework, Larry? Is this your homework, Larry?” it was “Is this the start of another second-half collapse, Tom? Is this the start of another second-half collapse, Tom? Is this the start of another second-half collapse, Tom?”

Coughlin sat there like Larry just giving the media a confused and disgusted look while I chimed in from the side like The Dude with “We know it’s the start of another second-half collapse, Tom!” But unlike The Dude, I never told him that there were people threatening to cut off his manhood.

Eventually Coughlin responded to the media’s questions about the possibility of another second-half collapse.

“I can’t imagine why this question keeps coming up in terms of you have to take each year one at a time.”

That’s right. He really said that. Tom Coughlin couldn’t imagine why the media kept asking him about second-half collapses as if they had made up the idea that the Giants had been awful during his time as head coach in the second half of the regular season. How bad had the Giants been in the second half under Coughlin prior to that question being asked? Let’s take a look.

2004: The Giants start the year 5-2 with Kurt Warner starting and showing Eli the ropes. They lose back-to-back games to fall to 5-4 and start planning for the future by letting Eli start, which causes unrest and division in the locker room. Eli goes 1-6 in his first seven starts in the league, but wins the final game of the year against the Cowboys. The Giants finish the year at 6-10 and don’t make the playoffs.

2005: It’s Eli’s first full year. The Giants go 6-2 in the first half of the season then go 5-3 in the second half of the season. They make the playoffs for the first time since blowing a 24-point lead against the 49ers in the 2002 playoffs. The Giants lose 23-0 at home in the first round of the playoffs, as Eli goes 10-for-18 for 113 yards with no touchdowns and three interceptions. The Giants finish with just 132 total yards in the game. Bad finish.

2006: The Giants start the year 6-2, but are now 7-7, and entering Week 16, for them to clinch a playoff berth, they need one of two scenarios to happen.

1. Win + Minnesota loss or tie + Atlanta loss + Philadelphia win or tie + Seattle win or tie.

OR

2. Win + Minnesota loss or tie + Atlanta loss + Philadelphia win or tie + San Francisco loss or tie.

The Giants lose 30-7 to the Saints, but the Vikings, Falcons, Seahawks and 49ers all lose too, and the Giants basically hit the biggest parlay ever. Only the Eagles win, so the Giants just need to win in Week 17 against the Redskins and they make the playoffs at 8-8.

The Giants beat the Redskins to get into the playoffs at 8-8 thanks to a Giants single-game rushing record of 234 yards (on just 23 carries) from Tiki Barber. The Giants are just the ninth team in history to reach the postseason without a winning record. After starting the year 6-2, they finish the year 2-6. Then they lose 23-20 to the Eagles in the first round of the playoffs on a David Akers 38-yard field goal with no time remaining.

2007: They start the year 0-2, but win six in a row after that. After their bye in Week 9, they finish the year 4-4, and with a 10-6 record, they are the No. 5 seed in the playoffs. They run the table on the road in the NFC playoffs, beating the Buccaneers, Cowboys and Packers and then beat the 18-0 Patriots in the Super Bowl.

2008: They’re 11-1, but are now without Plaxico Burress for the rest of the year. The Giants finish the regular season 1-3 (they would have finished 0-4 if John Kasay didn’t miss a field goal for the Panthers in Week 16), but still get the No. 1 seed in the NFC playoffs. They lose in the divisional round at home to the Eagles 23-11.

2009: They start the year 5-0, and then lose four games in a row. They come off their bye week to beat the Falcons in Week 11, but lose four of their last six games in embarrassing fashion to finish the year at 8-8, and miss the playoffs.

2010: They’re 6-2 after Week 9, but then they lose to Jon Kitna and the 2-6 Cowboys at home, and then they lose in Philadelphia the following week thanks to five turnovers and an Eli dive that turns into a fumble with the Giants down by seven and 2:51 left in the game. At 6-4, the Giants win three in a row, and have a chance to lock up the NFC East in Week 15 at home against the Eagles. They blow a 21-point lead with 7:18 left and lose. They have a chance to rebound the following week and still make the playoffs, but they lose 45-17 in Green Bay. In Week 17, they need a win against the Redskins and a Bears win over the Packers. They beat the Redskins 17-14 on the road, but the Bears lose to the Packers.

And then there’s 2011, which was a Tony Romo to Miles Austin completion away from being maybe the worst collapse of them all. After losing to the 49ers, the Giants lost the next three games to start the second half of their season 0-4, dropping them to 6-6. We all know what happened in the final five minutes and 41 seconds in Dallas in Week 14 and after that, but no one knew all of that would happen. No one could fathom that all of that would happen and happen essentially the same way it did four years before.

It’s been 13 months and a Super Bowl since Coughlin gave that puzzling answer to a legitimate question about what the eff goes on with his teams once the ninth game of the year rolls around the way I wonder what the eff happens to Mark Teixeira when the calendar turns to October. And I understand that Coughlin was doing what any coach would do by protecting his players and trying to stifle questions about the team’s horrifying collapses the way Willie Randolph didn’t want to talk about October 2006 or September 2007 in the spring of 2008. I can understand why Coughlin was irritated by the questioning, but I can’t understand how he couldn’t “imagine” the questions being asked.

But a year later, the weird answers haven’t stopped coming out of the Giants locker room. And this time it’s Eli Manning who’s making me think this Sunday against the Ravens or next Sunday against the Eagles might force me into a nine-month depression until Week 1 of the 2013 season. If you didn’t watch Sunday’s debacle in Atlanta and only listened to Eli answer questions after the game, you never would have guessed which team lost 34-0 and which team is now playing postseason games from here on out for the rest of the 2012 season. Here is Eli after the loss to the Falcons.

On summing up the loss to the Falcons.

“I think you’ve got to look at the good things and look at the bad and we had some opportunities. We got down in scoring range four times and got no points.”

Eli Manning has earned the Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera treatment from me. Well, he has almost earned it. Because I did slip twice early on Sunday and “Ladies and gentlemen” Eli after his first pick and then after his second pick. But for the most part, it’s those three and Henrik Lundqvist in the New York sports scene that I will never, ever, ever (OK, rarely ever) criticize.

But by being in that elite class, there comes responsibility. And if you’re going to open things by telling people to look at the “good” and the “bad” of a 34-0 loss then I can’t help you. What good could have come from being run out of the Georgia Dome? And if you’re going to give an example of something “good” that happened and it’s that you got deep into Falcons’ territory four times and scored zero points then maybe I should find something else to do on the next two Sundays.

On whether or not he is confused about which team is going to show up every Sunday.

“No. We could have executed better. I think it’s just a matter of certain plays.”

You’re not confused? Oh, OK. Because I haven’t been this confused since Nick Swisher bunted against Jon Lester with a runner on second and one out in 2011.

And “a matter of certain plays?” You lost 34-0. Thirty-four to nothing. That means you lost by five possessions. That’s a little more than a matter of “certain plays.” That’s a whole game of sucking. That’s 60 minutes of bad football.

On the team’s confidence.

“The confidence is great. Your confidence is high because of the coaches that we have, the character of the players we have, the talent of the players we have and our preparation will be good. We’re going to have a chance to go out there and perform well.”

I’m not sure how the team could have any confidence after that game, let alone “great” confidence heading to Baltimore. But, OK. I will take your word for it since I don’t really have any other choice.

And preparation? Let me just say that after the 34-0 loss several Giants said the team looked great in practice all week. You know who doesn’t reference how great the team looked in practice all week? Teams that win.

On how the team will react.

“I think we’re going to react great. If you say at the beginning of the season that you have two games left and you’ve got to win both of them to be in the playoffs, I think you’d take it. This is an opportunity you ask for. These are circumstances you want to be in. Could there be better circumstances? Yeah, of course. There can always be better, but there could be much worse.”

You want a last chance opportunity because you already blew every other opportunity? OK? But what if I said after Week 12, “You’re 7-4 with a chance to end the division race with a win over the Redskins in Week 13? Would you take that?” Because you had that opportunity and you let it get away.

“We like our chances. We know what we need to do and it’s right in front of us and we’ve got to go out there and win this game this week.”

And if you don’t? Actually, don’t answer that.

On the team reacting well to being in a must-win situation at the end of the year.

“I think just because we trust each other and our preparation is good and I think we just have good character guys and guys who understand the importance of this and understand that they treat their football careers very seriously and understand that this is a big game for us.”

If these “guys who understand the importance of this and understand that they treat their football careers very seriously” then wouldn’t those “guys” have not blown the Steelers game or been embarrassed by the Bengals or lost to the Redskins or done whatever you want to call what happened on Sunday?

On having the players on the team question Sunday’s performance.

“For the most part, I think we’ve been in every game that we’ve played in this season, had a chance to win every one except this one, which got out of hand. But for the most part we’ve been tight in every game and not every game is going to be perfect.”

34-0. Yes, I would say “out of hand” is a good way to describe it. At least we’re being honest now.

On playing well in must-win games in previous years.

“These are the circumstances you want to be in. You want to be fighting to make it in the playoffs and that’s just football and you understand it’s tough to make the playoffs. You’ve got to work. You’ve got to win games. You’ve got to win important games and this is a chance. This is as important a game as you can have, this upcoming game, and our mindset is the playoffs have started. This is it. This game right here is huge. It’s the most important game and it’s a must-win game for us.”

You’re right, this is a must-win game for the Giants. But all of the games for the Giants are must-win games from now until however long their 2012 season goes. And I should have known that would be the case before the season even started. It always is.

Read More