Second and third string goalies befuddle Rangers, losing streak hits four

December 13, 2013, by
Dejection. (Photo by Elsa/Getty Images)

Dejection. (Photo by Elsa/Getty Images)

Once again the Rangers played a game to a lesser team (at least on paper) playing their backup goalie(s). Once again the compete level of this team did not match the expectations. Once again bad decisions and failed defensive coverages led to goals and chances. Once again, the Rangers lost. It’s one thing to do the right things and lose, it’s something completely different –and far worse– when you lose while doing everything wrong.

The Blue Jackets chased Henrik Lundqvist (by no fault of his own) before the first period even ended. Hank was victimized by two odd man rushes and a shot that hit one of his defensemen. Meanwhile the Rangers couldn’t get more than two past a backup and a backup to a backup, despite the fact that both were giving away more rebounds than the New York Knicks.

Enough ranting, on to the goals:

CBJ 1, Rangers 0


Brad Richards whiffed on a backhand in the offensive zone, leading to a turnover. On the resulting 3-on-2, Anton Stralman leaned a little too far left, following the puck on Cam Atkinson’s stick instead of the play developing to his right. Atkinson hit Matt Calvert, who blew by the now out of position Stralman. Calvert roofed it over Henrik Lundqvist’s glove for the first goal of the game. If, on this goal, your first reaction was to say that Hank should have stopped it, then you need to re-watch the goal.

CBJ 2, Rangers 0


Dylan McIlrath decided to go for a big hit, taking himself completely out of the play, leading to a 3-on-1 rush. Eventually Artem Anisimov was able to convert for the 2-0 lead. These are the risks you take when you put a rookie in the lineup.

CBJ 3, Rangers 0

The Blue Jackets worked the puck around the boards in the offensive zone. Eventually the puck bounced over Carl Hagelin’s stick, who was tied up with his man at the top of the circle, and right to David Savard at the weak side point. Savard had all day to walk in and shoot. His shot was going wide, but it hit off Michael Del Zotto and into the net. This goal chased Hank from the game. Sorry, but all pictures came out blurry on this one, so there is no picture. But since there was no real breakdown, and it was a bad luck goal, there really isn’t a need for one.

Rangers 1, CBJ 3


Dom Moore worked hard along the boards, eventually springing free with enough time to feed the puck across the ice to Richards for a one-timer. Curtis McElhinney was unable to control the rebound, while Nick Foligno was charged with covering both Moore and Chris Kreider cutting to the net for the rebound. Moore was able to bang it into the empty net.

Rangers 2, CBJ 3


This was a solid breakout led by Dan Girardi, who fed the puck to Mats Zuccarello for the zone entry. Good breakout led by Girardi. Pass to Zucc for zone entry. The Jackets had decent coverage, but Atkinson had his eye on the puck, and didn’t notice Girardi was sneaking in behind him (nor did he take out the passing lane to the weak side). Zuccarello hit Girardi with a perfect pass, and Girardi was able to beat Mike McKenna (who came in for an injured McElhinney) clean.

CBJ 4, Rangers 2

Empty netter. No breakdown needed.

Sorry about that. Full disclosure: I missed the third period because something for work came up. I DVR’d the game, and saw the timing of the Ryan Johansen goal and assumed it was an empty netter. This is what happens when you assume.

Anyway, after watching the replay, the puck appeared to just take a bad bounce over Ryan McDonagh’s stick, and Johansen was able to get by him for a semi-breakaway. Talbot got most of his wrist shot from the top of the circle, but it trickled through him for a goal.

Fenwick Chart:

Courtesy of ExtraSkater

Courtesy of ExtraSkater

One thing should be noted about this chart: It is for all 5v5 situations, and thus is affected by the score. Once Columbus jumped out to their 3-0 lead they sat back, and the Rangers generated more shot opportunities. At the time of the third goal, Columbus had a pretty wide margin for shot attempts.

Another game, another sloppy loss where the Rangers simply couldn’t score. The Rangers have played three straight games against backup or third string goalies: Phillip Grubauer (Washington), Carter Hutton (Nashville) and Curtis McElhinney/Mike McKenna (Columbus). They scored four goals in those games, and lost all three. There is a serious compete issue with this team.

Categories : Game Wrap-ups


  1. Chris F says:

    The 4th goal was not an empty netter. Talbot got beat by Johansen on a semi breakaway. Talbot came far out to challenge, forcing Johansen to take the wrist shot early before the defenders cut him off. Talbot made the partial save, but the puck trickled past him and into the net.

  2. Chris F says:


    I know that you said we should re-watch the first goal if we think Hank should have had it, but I won’t be able to do that at the moment. I did, however, watch it several times last night and as best as I can recall, that was a soft goal. Calvert was coming in from a sharp angle, Stralman’s stick was veering him to the outside, and he just sort of sweeped his stick toward the net and it went in. I know that he somehow managed to roof it over Hank’s glove, but it just looked incredibly soft and effortless. It almost defied logic how the puck went right under the cross-bar given the lackadaisical flick Calvert gave the puck. It almost looked like a slow-motion replay. Can’t understand how Hank didn’t react on that one.

    As for the second goal, again without access to a replay at the moment, but that struck me as extremely misplayed by Hank. I think it was Comeau who walked in with the puck to Hank’s right, he slid it across the front to Anisimov who was to Hank’s left on the glove side. Now, rather than play the man, Hank seemed to leap forward I guess to try to intercept the pass from Comeau to Anisimov. The only problem: he dove forward way too late, as Anisimov already had the puck. What’s worse, Hank then twisted himself back toward Comeau on his right and shot back his stick arm in what looked to be a last second attempt to block the shot. Only Comeau wasn’t the guy with the puck anymore and Anisimov ripped it from Hank’s left while he’s reaching back right. It looked like he was completely confused on that. Just a strange looking sequence.

    Hank didn’t play well last night. After that, the bad-luck bounce off MDZ was enough; Hank had to go.

    • Dave says:

      The puck went in top corner on the first goal. It’s a tough task asking any goalie to make a point blank save on a shot that hits a top corner

      Second goal: It was a 3 on 1. You never blame a goalie for that unless he makes a save, drops the puck, and shoots it into his own net.

      • Erixon20 says:

        Taller goalie makes the save on the 1st goal without doing anything differently. Every young goalie seems to be 6’3″ these days. Just sayin’.

        • Dave says:

          Taller goalies certainly have the advantage, but I’ll take Hank over any of these taller goalies.

          • Chris F says:


            I wouldn’t say that the 2nd goal was Hank’s fault, as it was a 3-on-1. However, he made a terribly thought out diving attempt to intercept the pass, and then tried to make the save on the wrong guy. Not his finest moment.

  3. Walt says:

    Giving up a goal in the first half minute of a game takes the wind out of any team. With the current play of the Rangers, that is huge, and Hank let in a weak goal again!

    Afte falling behind 3-0, Hank gets yanked out of the game, and it’s an up hill battle the rest of the way. Sorry folks, $8 million contract, for seven years, is this what we can expect. That, and we always face all world goalies when we play, like last night, how can we win????

  4. prole30 says:

    David Savard

  5. flatbush says:

    Just read Pat Leonard’s article in the Daily News. Finally, puts a finger on whats going on in the room. Management changed coaches. A combination of player complaints and “upstairs” wanting to believe the team should be more successful with its offensive personnel. General Torts built on what he had & developed an identity and concept. The organization on a whole was marching the same way except for maybe”upstairs”. We didn’t have the so called offensive power then but we did have grit and defense and potential in the offensive category on the farm. Gabby not a Torts type so we swapped some guys and really that was neither a big loss or big gain that would changed the immediate landscape. However we were building a plan to add the offensive pieces. Reading the article I think it gives some insight as to why AV was picked. It was Slats wanted to hear from the new coach. It may have satisfied Slats but it is totally opposite from what was built. Moreover we have nothing to make us more offensive and we took away our grit / Def identity. So what now. Think I said this before, ” This will be ugly while we rebuild a new concept

    • Walt says:

      The team has been playing with no heart at all. I can go along with the team if they play their hearts out, but it appears that this team is just going through the motions.

      Really, it’s time for a gut check, we have to demand a better effert from the entire team!! I’m tired of hearing that we talked about the problems, just correct them, play hard, and if you loose, we still will support your, but show us you care!!

    • Dave says:

      People may not have liked Torts, but the team had an identity with him.

      It’s only been 40% of the season for AV, so there needs to be some kind of pass there. But as of now, this team has no identity.

      • Grananimal says:

        Well I loved Torts and thought he should’ve had 5 yrs. to build and compete (coaches like him wear thin after 4 to 5 yrs.). But since Slats fired him, wrong move in my opinion, I then wanted Ruff. I heard people say he was just like Torts. Well similar but not as abrasive. I thought he would of meshed well with what we had at the time. Now we are going to have to wait for this guy to get the team his way, another 2 years and then we can try again. What really should’ve happened is Slats needs to go and NOW!

    • branted says:

      how many chances does a GM get to blow up and rebuild.

  6. SalMerc says:

    I feel a shot from a bad angle to the glove side needs to be stopped (1st goal). That being said, Blue Jackets had much more jump than we did, and the first 10 minutes pushed us back on our heels and we scratched back the rest of the game, but not enough.

    Dom Moore must have thought he was playing the Rangers, as he finally scored.

    I can’t think of 2 players that we move and get that would make us a much better team (feasible trades only). Alas, I must prepare myself for a quiet April, as Santa will not bring us playoff tickets this year.

    • Dave says:

      Lots of hockey left, and the Canes are not that good. They will drop. This team will probably nab that #3 seed, since no other team is as good.

      Of course the Rangers need to, you know, show up.

      • Gary says:

        But we have the highest paid goalie in the world, who’s 31. So we get the #3 seed. No matter how good the Rangers do from here on (#3, #2) they are going to get steam rolled by the Penguins, Bruins, Blues, Kings, Blackhawks, Sharks, Ducks…

        What is the point of maintaining the current roster just to make the PO’s? It needs to be built to win it all and that window is slamming shut.

        Feel free to take the negativity as a contrary indicator. I actually hope it is.

  7. Gary says:

    It starts in goal and goes right out through the lineup. Face it, Hank is 31 and not getting any better. Even if he was at the top of his game there would be at least 6 western conference teams and 3 Eastern teams that would be way out of our league.

    Blow. It. Up… the starting goalie is 31 and the supposed depth we acquired to match that of teams like the Bruins is non existent. Not when you get a couple injuries and Pyatt and Asham in the lineup.

    Sorry, but they could go on a 6 game winning streak right now and it would not change the fact that they are a middle of the pack team that is unsuited for the current coach’s style.

    The winning window closed with the admission that Torts was not going to get it done.

    It kills me to see Dubi and Artie last night and Prust gaming it up against the Bruins last week. Tortorella talked about identity and we traded ours. Sather IMO needs to finish the job of finding a new ID under the new coaching regime. Unfortunately, that means blowing it up and blowing some peoples’ minds.

    Otherwise, we may get that middle ground dreck we had post-1995 when Neil Smith refused to retool.

    Maybe this is an emotional comment, but it is difficult to look at this disheveled mess. Only untouchables: McDonagh, Kreider… that’s it.

    • Walt says:

      Your right!!!

    • Joe says:

      Kreider, Hags, McD, J Moore, Zucc (the most consistent offensive player), Stepan, Dorsett and Hank.

      Everyone else goes.

      Play Kristo, Lindberg, Hrvak, Miller…build an identity with the kids.

    • Hatrick Swayze says:

      Gary, I can’t disagree with you about how unsettling the Ranger’s uninspired play has been, but I think your going a little off the deep end when you talk about reshaping the roster. We have so many expiring contracts that we won’t have to trade off everybody to have new personnel next year. If we want to replace faces, it will be much easier than normal given the salary we will have to work with. Right now we have $31,365833 committed to 5 forwards next year(including Richards). Assuming he gets bought out we will have $24,699,166 committed to 4 forwards (Nash, Stepan, Hagelin, Dorsett). Assuming the cap goes to the projected $71,100,000, we will have $46,400,834 to ice a roster. We can assume that 1 or two kids (maybe Miller and Kristo) might come up from the farm at minimal cap hits.

      We can still very much be a playoff team this year, but I agree that we are not contenders. No matter how anyone looks at it, we cannot compete with the league’s elite. My point about all this is that regardless of what happens this year, playoffs or not, next year we will be very retooled and we will not have to move Nash or Lundqvist to do so. A number of players that no one cares about will be coming off of the roster. We will resign a few guys, who Glenn decides to keep, but other than that, half of our roster will be turned over.

      If I were to guess we will resign Krieder, Callahan, Girardi (depending on raise).

      We might resign Stralman, Boyle, Brassard, Zucarello, Del Zotto, Falk, Moore (not sure which of the 4 D here, Glenn reups on)

      We will wave goodbye to Richards (buy out), Pyatt, Pouliot, Moore, Asham, Powe

  8. BobM says:

    24th in the league Points
    29th in the league Goals
    16th in the league Goals against
    24th in the league Goal differential
    28th in the league Home wins
    8th in the league Road wins
    16th in the league Power play
    6th in the league Penalty kill
    15th in the league Penalties per minute played
    11th in the league Shots on goal per game
    11th in the league Shots against per game
    8th in the league Winning % after scoring first
    30th in the league Winning % after trailing first
    14th in the league Winning % – Leading After Period 1
    18th in the league Winning % – Leading After Period 2
    18th in the league Winning % – Outshooting
    19th in the league Winning % – Outshot
    17th in the league Faceoff Win Percentage

    Your Fenwick chart may may just as well be a Chadwick chart for those of you young enough to remember who Bill Chadwick was.

    Mark Messier must be laughing his ass off. Can you imagine what would be going on here if he was named coach of this “team”? Marty Biron made the right choice too.

    The only way to light a fire under this team is to light an actual fire, and you can start by burning those contracts just signed.

    • SalMerc says:

      Numbers don’t lie

    • Dave says:

      I don’t get what you’re saying here. I specifically said the Fenwick chart is misleading because CBJ jumped out to a 3-0 lead and then sat back. They dominated until they had the lead, then played defense while the Rangers generated more shot attempts.

      It’s score effects. It agrees with what you said here.

      So please, let me know what the point of your comment was.

  9. SalMerc says:

    Look for an unexpected move to happen that will really shake things up. Just guessing that Dolan won’t deal with putting $1B into the Garden to have neither team make the playoffs.

  10. Bloomer says:

    The Rangers have been allowing odd man rushes all season. With Marc Staal missing from the lineup and Lundquist no longer making those incredible saves, those odd man rushes are resulting in goals against.

    The Ranger players are making poor decisions with the puck and with their positioning. For a team that suppose to be a puck possession team, their puck support is absolutely brutal. The players are not skating to create passing lanes or to create space. AV makes a statement that he doesn’t have the players for his coaching style. So what now, the Rangers management are suppose to blow up this team so the new players can try to figure out AV’s bizarre coaching style.
    The Rangers were a very good hockey team last year. They didn’t need a coaching change. If Henrik Lundquist wasn’t happy with the coach too bad. Someone should of told him not to be such an egotistic maniac and stick to his goaltending duties. The Rangers are currently icing a team that is awful to watch. If they can’t right this ship, then the coach and the GM who hired him, both need to go.

    • SalMerc says:

      Although I think they let Slats die with dignity and he announces his retirement in January.

    • Joe says:

      The Rangers were not a very good hockey team last year. They got in by the skin of their teeth and were manhandled by the Bruins.

      This team needs an overhaul…its full of 4th liners
      and guys that are playing like 4th liners…Boyle,Pyatt, Dorsett, Pouliot, Brassard, even Cally. What about Step?

      Did you see Nash last night? He looked like he was dragging the Zamboni behind him.

      I’m disgusted.

    • VinceR says:

      I can’t argue with too much of this. Not sure how much Hank actually had in that? The truth between what was said about Hank vs. what Sather came out with later is probably somewhere in between. It doesn’t reflect well on Hank (coupled with the comments of his business partner) and if management really though Torts had a team playing unwatchable hockey…well, careful what you wish for.

      I’m not sure AV’s coaching style is all that bizarre, in fact I don’t think this situation is on AV at all. I think as flatbush mentioned, to sum up, Torts had disagreements with Sather…I think it was “I’m playing this style because we don’t have a team that can play another way and be anywhere near successful”. Sather was stubborn and hired someone else. He didn’t even bother making any roster adjustments, but brought in a coach with a style that was perceived as more offensive based without giving him the tools to play said style.

      I don’t think they should have gotten rid of Torts (I didn’t exactly hide on these boards last year about how big a Torts fan I am)…I also don’t think AV is a bad coach. Now the roster and Sather have been exposed in the matter.

  11. Justin says:

    You guys are nuts if you think that first goal was soft. Stralman blew the angle to the point where Hank has to hedge against the short side shot, the far side shot and the chance Calvert tries to cut across the net mouth. Combine that with the fact that the puck was placed up under the elbow leaves Hank with absolutely no chance.

    This is a classic case of “results must match new contract”

    • Tommy T says:

      THANK YOU JUSTIN !!!!!

    • Dave says:

      I tried to outline it on the breakdown, but people are stubborn.

      • Chris F says:

        Well that’s not derisive at all.

        You guys usually have top-notch analyses, but dismissing a dissenting view as ‘nuts’ and ‘stubborn,’ especially on something as subjective as whether or not Hank should have made a particular save is fairly arrogant.

        I think from that angle, with Stralman squeezing Calvert to the putside and greatly reducing the likelihood of a cut-across, that Hank needs to play that better. You disagree. Hardly an anomoly.

      • Walt says:


        Go to Blue Shirts United, watch the high lights, and listen to what Ron Dugay had to say on that goal. He also said what was said about Hank maybe two weeks ago on TSN, the Canadian ESPN, scouts have found a weak spot in Hank’s game, high, glove side! That is exactly where he got scored upon.

        Hank was a great goalie, love all his work in the past, but he isn’t playing up to that level. No way is he a top there or four goalie, maybe top 8-9 the way he is playing. As BR said, maybe Hank is tooooooo comfortable now!!!!!!!

    • Ray says:

      I didn’t see it, but almost every goal can be stopped. I suspect that there is a guy in the AHL who gives up fewer soft goals than Lundqvist, but is playing in the minors because he lets in far too many good goals. What makes a great goalie is stopping shots that seem impossible to stop. Giving up three goals in a period is not being a miracle worker – and even a backup in the NHL should be something of a miracle worker.

  12. Bloomer says:

    I will give the goalie the benefit of the doubt on the 1st and 2nd goal. On the 3th. this was a rising shot the second it left the shooters stick. Why did Lundquist go down? He needs to stand-up there, not on his knees looking for chump change. Talbot would of stopped the 3rd goal from going on.

    • Hatrick Swayze says:

      3rd goal was more the fault of:

      Hagelin- blew the coverage on the weakside D as he was the off winger. I know he had the high forward tied up at the top of the circle, but if he is going to position himself in that area, I think he needs to make sure the puck doesn’t go through that area of the ice in our D zone.

      Del Zotto- turning away from a shot like that was embarassing. The shot was going well wide, until he turned like a fool and the puck went off of his backside and in. Completely changed the angle on Lundqvist. I’ve played D pretty much my whole life, and when someone takes a shot like that, he should be looking to face the shot for a block while tying up whatever stick is in front from an opposing player to make sure they don’t get a deflection. I honestly could not believe he turned like that. Complete n00b.

      • Dave says:

        Yes and no here. Yes, MDZ needs to face forward. No, that’s not on Hagelin. The overload leaves the weak side point man open. Hagelin had the right guy.

      • Bloomer says:

        It was a shot that couldn’t break a pane of glass. Lundquist’ save percentage speaks for itself this year, his performance is subpar and below league average. The fans can continue to blow sunshine up his backside but he is not good right now.

        • Hatrick Swayze says:

          I never said that he is playing well or up to standards. That doesn’t mean that every goal is on him.

      • SalMerc says:

        So if I understand this correctly, Hank is still the greatest and no goals are actually stoppable.

        C’mon! He needs to make some big saves to pump up our poor effort. Talbot made a good one in the 2nd and a good one in the 3rd. Hank needs to concentrate and get back to being a goalie and not the 2nd line of defense (what he did under Torts).

        • Bloomer says:

          The 3rd string goalies the Rangers are playing against don’t seem to have a problem coming up with a good saves. But Hank is a god and above criticism by the lowly Ranger followers.

    • Justin says:

      Lundqvist went down because it is the modern style of play. The basic logic is that covering the bottom half of the ice prevents a lot more goals than standing up and taking away a less dangerous area of the net.

      We may not like individual goals that go in, but that was a deflection at close range. Just because he could have done something different doesn’t mean that he should. The style he plays prevents a hell of a lot more goals than what he gives up in those fluky situations.

      Look, before anyone gives me a hard time for being a Hank apologist, I have no problem with folks criticizing his play, but let’s make sure he deserves it.

  13. Joe says:

    Right on Bloomer!

    Certain guys on certain teams will always get a pass…Hank is one of them. Even he knows he sucks right now.

    Why are people so afraid to criticize this guy? Are they worried about his feelings?

  14. BobM says:


    I was not referring to your comment at all. What I was trying to infer is that statistics can be manipulated any way you want, but at the end of the day, it is the bottom line, and the bottom line is that this team is simply either not good enough, not motivated enough, is not acting like a team, not playing like a team, and is the cellar in many other statistical items. Puck possession is but one stat. Two years ago, we were in other teams head that we were a tough team to play, I would love to be a fly on the wall and listen to what of the coach of the opposition has to say, other than “automatic two points”.

  15. BobM says:

    it was just a play on words, Fenwick, Chadwick.

    Guess we all are in a grumpy mood the way things are going.

  16. BobM says:

    I know I and a handful of others felt after the rough start that “Houston, we have a problem” while others felt that not enough games were played to statistically make any rhyme or reason to come to any conclusions. I think that after 33 games, we can come to some of reasoning that

    1)we are not a winning team
    2)we cannot score even though we were supposed to have this new offense first system in place
    3)we are middle of the road on giving up goals
    4)we cannot win at home for some strange reason. The excuse of losing on the road at the beginning of the season seems moot now that we are not taking home ice advantage
    5)middle of the road in power play
    6)towards the top in penalty kill
    7)middle or the road in penalties taken, so we are not a well disciplined team. When we had Prust and Rupp, yeah, we took penalties, but other teams did not mess with us
    8)shots and goal for and against are even
    9)If we do not score first we are doomed, we cannot hold a lead
    10)If we give up the first goal, we don’t have the legs to make a comeback at all. LAST PLACE
    11)We are in the middle of the pack when leading after the first and second periods
    12)We are not good at winning faceoffs

    The one bright spot is that we have never lost in a shoot out!

  17. @Centerman21 says:

    This streak could end up being what forces Sather to make a trade. They need a 3rd RW. Any righty will do with Cally out for a month or more. I truly believe if the 3rd line could generate something, then this could be a competent team. Maybe I’m crazy.

  18. supermaz says:

    Stop making excuses for Hank. He sucks as much as the rest of the team. (with Zucc and McDonagh being the exceptions)

    • VinceR says:

      Yes, Justin, the guy who runs a goalie camp professionally, is just an apologist. You must be right, I mean you are supermaz and you always have such great input like “so and so sucks”. I don’t understand why you don’t start your own blog…so insightful.

  19. BobM says:

    You do realize that the dynamic 1993-4 team that was best of the best in almost every category only won the Stanley Cup by a single goal?

    After steamrolling the entire league during the regular season, zipping through the Islanders and Caps, it took 7 games against both the Devils and Canucks.

    In order for a team to be successful, you need to be in the top 3 in most categories; PP, PK, scoring , goal tending, rookie successes, leadership, coaching, confidence winning at home, winning on the road etc.

    Not happening this year, next year doesn’t look too promising either.

    We are too focused on puck possession only.

  20. VinceR says:

    RE:Hank…I don’t think anyone is against criticism, or are saying that he is no where near himself. People seem to want to pin all goals directly on him or that Talbot is the answer.

    Yeah Talbot made a couple of nice saves, including one on a puck that he passed directly to a opposing player. People are also forgetting that first PK ain which they cleared the zone maybe once and Hank killed nearly by himself. Also the shot total on Hank was 13 when he got pulled after 10 minutes, not much of which were low quality. After that CBJ didn’t reach 26 SOG until halfway through the third.

    He doesn’t get a pass and hasn’t been himself, but not every single goal is on him, as frustrating as it is. And yes, he needs to play better and is part of the problem, but saying that it’s his fault and that he sucks/is going to suck from now on because he is no longer saving the team’s ass constantly and covering for terrible play? That’s a bit ridiculous.

  21. Ray V says:

    One one word describes this team to me right now…


    No one seems to know where anyone is. Pass are almost blind. An as far as effort, we all see the games and see its just does not exist except for Zuccs. There was a play at the end of the second period where Zuccs and his line were on top of the CBJ net, CBJ iced the puck and who made it first back to to Rangers side of the ice? Zuccs. Everyone has been invisible. I have said for 5 games no, even Krieder lost that fire. Bench him one game(no like its really going to hurt anything at this point) and watch him come back fired up like after his call up. May be can fire up the rest of this team. With that said, lets package Richards, Boyle and MDz now and ship them out while there still may be some value. We need a shake up now.