Hank shines as Miller wins it in overtime

November 3, 2017, by
miller shattenkirk

Photo Credit: AP / Chris O’Meara

For the first time this season, the Rangers have won two games in a row. They played a very good game against a very good team, something we haven’t said all season. Henrik Lundqvist was absolutely phenomenal in this one, making 27 saves –many difficult– to do his job in the win. Andrei Vasilevskiy was just as good with 33 difficult saves.

The game had an interesting flow. It felt like the Rangers actually showed up for all three periods, another first this season. They dominated the first, and then Tampa adjusted and showed why they are one of the best this year. But the Rangers held their ground, perhaps finally showing that they can be a good team when they show up and play.

It wasn’t a perfect game, there were a ton of gripes with lineups and deployment, but the process on the ice was there.

On to the goals:

Rangers 1, Bolts 0

Nikita Kucherov fell in the neutral zone, which actually gave the Rangers a 3-on-1. This was a great passing play all around.

Bolts 1, Rangers 1

Mika Zibanejad had a bunch of chances on the powerplay, but then lost the puck at the blue line. That sprung a rush. Chris Kreider blew right by Yanni Gourde on the rush and went to Victor Hedman, who was already covered by Kevin Shattenkirk. That left the pass back to Gourde open, and an easy goal.

Rangers 2, Bolts 1

JT Miller wins it for the Rangers on a phenomenal effort. He stopped the Nikita Kucherov wrap around, then just did the rest himself. Just amazing.

Score Adjusted Corsi

The Rangers actually did a very good job of staying ahead of the puck possession game, and they did it against a Stanley Cup favorite. Again, it wasn’t perfect, but you take this as a good step forward and something that can be built on. I thought the Rangers controlled the first more and were dominated more in the second, but it looks like the whole game was even.

Scoring Chances (not score adjusted)

The Rangers started this game very nicely. It’s been a while since we’ve been able to say that. The Bolts turned it up in the second half of the game, but that’s expected from one of the top teams in the league. All in all, a good effort by the Good Guys here.

Shift Chart

Here’s the shift chart. David Desharnais got benched in the third, not sure for what. He didn’t play the final 15 minutes of regulation. However it’s bad that Jon Cooper knew to start matching Steven Stamkos against the dynamic duo of Steven Kampfer and Nick Holden.

The goalies really stole the show this game. This is an example of a game that wasn’t high scoring, but was still entertaining. It really shows that fans want fast paced hockey, and that goals aren’t necessarily a part of that. Goals happen, pace is better. I’ll get off my soap box now. I’ll enjoy two in a row. Win another, and it’s called a winning streak.

"Hank shines as Miller wins it in overtime", 5 out of 5 based on 6 ratings.
Categories : Game Wrap-ups


  1. Richter1994 says:

    The goalies were outstanding last night. It was like a playoff game in intensity and quality of play.

    The Rangers’ gap control was much better last night, not allowing TB to skate freely, which is a big key to stopping them.

    Give the coach and the team kudos, but Henrik has to play like last night for the Rangers to win. Same story as the past 12 years.

    Dave, DD was benched because he made an egregious turnover I think at the end of the 2nd that almost led to a goal.


    Smith, benched 3 games, could have kept Stepan by not re-signing him.

    As I said earlier this week, the Rangers have to be near .500 by the end of this week to have a chance. A win on Saturday will put them close to it.

    • Richter1994 says:

      It was Kreider that cut across on an already covered TB player on TB’s goal. I saw a number ending in “zero” so I didn’t know if it was Kreider or Miller. Shatty had the TB guy all locked up already. Kreider can be a great player but he is so (hockey) dumb sometimes.

      • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

        What are you saying? The “great” Chris Kreider is untouchable. To dare even think about criticizing him is grounds for turning in your Rangers fan card!!!!! 🙂

        • Mancunian Candidate says:

          Yeah, let’s ignore the fact that he scored the important goal for the Rangers against one of the league’s elite teams. Instead let’s ask why he isn’t a defensive genius, because it’s important to talk smack about bigtime players.

        • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

          Thats’ true. I mean, let’s look at all his all-star appearances, selections to Olympic teams, his contributions to last year’s US World Cup team, his regular appearances on all those lists of the league’s top wingers. Oh wait! None of those things have EVER happened!

          Kreider is a good player. At times, a very good player. he scored a big goal last night on a 3 on 1 and has done some nice things this year. I am glad he is on our team.

          But here’s the rub—he’s NOT at the moment a big time player. Not even close. BTPs are, by definition, guys who come through time and time again and are recognized by the industry as such. Kreider is not that player—not yet.

          Here’s hoping the streak he is on now becomes more the norm. If so, I will happily change my tune. The Rangers NEED him. And if not, if he can fetch a big return that sets up a better future, than that’s fine to.

          He’s a good player, but he’s not untouchable. That’s my only point here.

          • Mancunian Candidate says:

            Maybe you need to make these points after a game where Kreider doesn’t score his team’s only goal in regulation. It’s really tiresome when people who should know better criticize players for what they aren’t, rather than appreciating what they are.

            • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

              Fair enough. Ok, I accept that criticism. He was good last night and I should have left it at that. My point was that a) I was bummed that I missed out on the Kreider debate the other day and wanted to chime in and, b) I do think there is a tendency to NEVER criticize Kreider (along with Hayes and Miller), as if he is some high end talent on the same plane as Hank.

              We need more from our supposed stars. If Kreider is heating up, then excellent! We have a chance to turn things around here. Same for Miller and Hayes. We need these guys to truly be the great players many believe they can be to have any chance to be a legit Cup contender.

        • RichS says:

          We all know that Kreider and miller and eventually vesey [ just wait] and buch are not crosby and malkin, BUT they are terrific players who are KEEPERS! Over the past few years I said that strallman was our best defenseman that year and must be resigned, last year i said that lindberg was more valuable than stepan and I was right on both accounts! Same with kreider..
          Kreider scored 28 ? goals last year…..he is our best player, why would you want to trade him?

          • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

            Sorry Rich, but at the moment, they are are NOT terrific players. Terrific players are all-stars, they are Olympians, they show up on rankings of the best at their position (subjective as they are I grant you). Kreider and Miller are NOT that caliber of player—at the moment. You have a penchant for overstating a player’s true worth.

            I have never said I WANT to trade Kreider. What I have said, with all three of your “Untouchable elite beasts”, is that they are in fact NOT untouchable, and in the right deal I would have no problem parting with any of them. Again…in the RIGHT deal. You have to give to get.

            Stralman was a poor decision by Sather, but it was done with the cap in mind and probably the belief that if they went long term there, they might have trouble signing Kreider, who they probably expected would be much further along by now. Perhaps Miller too.

            Lindberg, I certainly agree we should have kept him. But it’s way too soon to conclude Lindberg is or will be a more valuable NHL player than Stepan. We would be a much better team today if we still had both of them.

          • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

            More on this topic from Sean Hartnett from CBS New His first sentence in today’s column…

            “If the Rangers are to get their season going in the right direction, they are going to need Chris Kreider, J.T. Miller and Kevin Hayes to embrace the challenge and step up as go-to guys.”

            This is pretty much EXACTLY what I have said all along, yet somehow questioning whether those guys are doing enough is like heresy to some of you. For the Rangers to be a legit Cup contenders, those guys have to be more than just good players. They need to be go to players. On a consistent basis. And if they can’t, then the Rangers should consider dealing one or more of them for a big return.

            Why is that concept so offensive to some of you?

          • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

            The full aticle, which to me is pretty much bang on accurate—


            • Mancunian Candidate says:

              You do realize Kreider & Miller scored the only Ranger goals last night? Against one of the best teams in hockey? Perhaps your triumphalist attitude towards their slow-starting seasons so far should be saved for a game where they don’t provide 100% of the Rangers’ goals. They certainly weren’t struggling last night, but guess what? A coach who dresses Kampfer & Holden is still making bad decisions, and still struggling.

              • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

                I don’t understand MC. I am not being triumphant here. I want them to succeed, not fail. I’m simply pointing out they need to be better more consistently. No different than what Hartnett said. If they use this last game to finally become “go to guys”, then I’ll be the first to applaud them.

                But on the AV matter, how is he “struggling”? What better options on defense does he have at the moment? Smith is struggling, and so far, the Rangers seems to be a better team when he is in street clothes. I thought Kampfer was pretty good last night.

                So you are saying it’s fine to rip AV, Kampfer and Holden after a great win, but not ok to question whether Kreider, Miller or Hayes have more to give?

                Seems like a pretty ridiculous double standard.

        • Richter1994 says:

          I guess so bro, looking at the thumbs down yo received here, lol.

    • tanto says:

      How about Hank has to at least match the other goalie — something he hasn’t done much this season.

      • Richter1994 says:

        And what about the rest of the Rangers? Do you honestly believe that the goalie is the reason for their record so far?

        Hank gave up 4 against Vegas and was still outstanding and saved the game for the Rangers. If you don’t agree then I think you need to go back and see the saves he made that game to keep his team in it until the 3rd period.

        • tanto says:

          … and what about the myriad of soft goals he’s let in so far this season?

          I’m not one of those people calling for Hank’s head every time he has a sub-par game, but let’s be honest here and note that he’s been letting in 1 or 2 soft goals in the majority of games he’s played. He’s done his part, along with the unstructured defensive play of both the d’ and the forwards. Just like the rest of the team, his 1st periods have been pretty uninspiring.

          • Mancunian Candidate says:

            So…..Hank stands on his head, outplayed Vasilevsky, and it’s still not good enough. Gotcha.

            • tanto says:

              You might want to reread what I wrote because it’s clear that you misunderstood it. As to whether he outplayed Vasilevsky that’s somewhat debatable. Both goalies played extremely well.

              My comment that he has to play as well as the other goalie is in reference to the statement: “but Henrik has to play like last night for the Rangers to win. Same story as the past 12 years.” I just think Hank has to play as well as the other goalie for this team to win more games than it loses. Sure, we can heap all the blame on the forwards for sometimes being defensively brain dead, or for the D being poorly structured … but we also need Hank to come up with the BIG saves — as he’s done in the past (albeit a little less so last year).

              I greatly respect everything Hank has done for this team over the years, but we can’t have any sacred cows.

              • pas44 says:

                Tanto, your horse is leaving you behind bub.

                Hank was incredible and his game is on a serious up swing..

              • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

                As I have said, Hank is the least of our problems. He was terrific last night and seems back on the upswing. Obviously, for this team to be succesful, Hank has to play like the elite goalie he has been for much of his career.

                So while I disagree with Tonto’s criticism, it is more than fair to say that Hank, along with the rest of the team, had not been on top of their game through the first 10 games or so. He needed to be better and continues to need to be better. So that’s fair.

              • tanto says:

                pas44, he wasn’t measurably better than Vasilevski, just ask Cooper. Bottom line in this league is that to win on a consistent basis you pretty much need error free goaltending.

                Eddie, my criticism is merely to point out that Hank hasn’t played like Hank in the first 11-12 games of the season, aside from perhaps the first Montreal game. I never said he was the problem, but he’s been part of the problem. Poor decision making, bad rebounds, etc. Sure, if the D (and forwards) had been playing better they could have masked his issues, but the reverse might be said as well. A few key saves here and there and this team is 7-5-2 instead of 5-7-2. I never advocated moving Hank (as some do), nor have I ever chosen to criticize his play virtually every time we lose a game (again, like some seem to do) … but I would think all true Ranger fans could agree that on the whole the Hank we’ve seen the last year or so hasn’t been quite as good as the Hank of the 10+ years prior —- in stretches though he can still be that “lights out” elite goalie. I hope for the best.

              • Pavel_burito says:

                He won. So yes, he outplayed the other goalie in a 1:1 game

              • tanto says:

                Pavel, winning doesn’t always equate to playing better. If that’s your only criterion for playing better I suggest you get some more criteria.

          • Richter1994 says:

            News flash: They ALL give up soft goals. ALL, including the great Jonathan Quick, the media darling, and oh yes, how’s Carey Price doing this year after signing a max deal?

            Hank, once again, stole last night’s game. If you think otherwise than you and Leather should start the “Hank Haters” club.

            Ok, so maybe you’re not a “hater” but what is it you want from the guy? He, single handedly has given us as Ranger fans 12 years of playoffs and joy. Is he “perfect?” God no, but who is? Given the teams in front of him over the years he has more than earned his return on investment. Some fans just don’t acknowledge it.

            • tanto says:

              Never suggested otherwise Richter, but I still can acknowledge the fact that over the last year his goaltending has slipped. Yes he’s Rangers royalty but he isn’t sacred.

              • Richter1994 says:

                He’s sacred but not perfect anymore, I agree with that.

                You’re not blindly making Henrik a scapegoat so I was probably too harsh on you at first, so I apologize.

                I get sensitive on the Hank issue. The guy has positively influenced NY sports like some of the icons that have come through here over the years. He deserves some tolerance from the fans.

      • Hockey Sittoo says:

        Leather did you change your name?

    • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

      Good points all around.

      See, AV does bench his vets when it’s appropriate. What’s fair to say is that some players, vets or not, get longer leashes. Pretty much the way every coach functions.

      • rglv says:

        Yes, that is why Holden is still playing after giving away the puck in D zone time and time again. It is not the veterans he benches it is the favorites he is playing regardless of their performance.

        • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

          And the better options at the moment are?????

          Every coach plays favorites. Every…single…one.

          • Richter1994 says:

            “And the better options at the moment are?????”

            Mrs. Trump

            • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

              Well, Smith at the moment is a trainwreck. If he wasn’t in street clothes, then people would be saying “see, AV would NEVER sit a vet”. Hopefully he gets his act together and soon.

              The rest are AHL players (largely Gorton’s and Drury’s call) and are not options at the present time.

              I, on the other hand, am ready to go.

              The Trumps could make the Rangers great again, who knows? 🙂

              • Richter1994 says:

                Smith will come around, but will he play to his contract? That’s another story.

      • Richter1994 says:

        For one game he coached the right way and we have him on ice skates skating into the HOF, lol.

        I gave him credit for the game, don’t push it my good friend. 🙂

  2. SalMerc says:

    Finally a 60 minute effort.
    While watching the game, thought to myself that JT seemed invisible most of the game. Nice ending.

    Team showed an edge last night as well.

    • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

      For some reason, his minutes were reduced for much of the game. But he was out there late and in OT. But you know, he must have snuck out on the ice in that situation because as has been said, AV hates Miller! 🙂

  3. James Carr says:

    It’s it coincidence or a pattern the rangers two best efforts this season, Montreal and Tampa, have come with Smith in the press box?

    • sherrane says:

      The Rangers have allowed 4 goals in the 3 games Smith has been benched (Montreal, St. Louis, and Tampa) and 44 goals in the 11 games he’s played.

    • Mintgecko says:

      Nope I called it out over the summer that he looked way off and that the real name that the team will miss will be Klein. I’ve said it before that the Rangers are missing one more top 4 quality name and that was before I saw a Mcd who was was hurt/not playing well. This team should give Graves a shot to play, his game would play well into games like last night.

    • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

      I did fear over the summer that the Rangers might be making a mistake with Smith. I hoped I was wrong because he did play well once he came to the Rangers at the deadline. But so far….awful.

      • Rangers Rock says:

        I thought so too.
        The problem might be McD. When they showed how much the D was on the ice and McD only had 6 minutes. We could see the team defense was good.
        I think its time to get rid of the McDonut they play better without him.

        • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

          I’m getting scared here because we might be “somewhat” in agreement…just somewhat mind you. 🙂

          I certainly do not believe that the Rangers “play better” without McDonagh. This is the same “addition by subtraction” argument that people used with Stepan—and it’s totally false.

          McDonagh is a good player. I think he misses Girardi much more than any one out here seems to realize. I admire the guy and his competitiveness. But his contract comes up after next season, and I’m sure he will either want a big raise or possibly may want to go home to Minnesota to finish up his career. Who knows?

          Depending on what the return would be, the status of the development of the Rangers young defensemen in the AHL, and of course where the Rangers are in the race come the trade deadline, yes, I agree, the Rangers COULD consider dealing McDonagh. I’m not opposed to it. But the Rangers will not and should not do it just to “get rid” of him.

      • sherrane says:

        When you read things on Red Wings message boards after the trade like, “What did we have to give up to get the Rangers to take Smith off our hands?” and “It doesn’t matter what we got, trading Smith is addition by subtraction!”, is cause for concern. I am still hopeful the change of scenery will help him achieve his potential and he’s just in a slump. If not, we’ll have debates regarding who should go first between Holden, Staal, or Smith.

    • Richter1994 says:

      Coincidence but that doesn’t mean that the signing wasn’t a mistake. Now there’s a situation where the cap space could have been put to better use given the fact that the Rangers had enough young D men to fill the spot.

      • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

        Yep. Starting to think you may well be right on this. Especially signing Shatty AND Smith. Made it real hard to clear any room for the youngsters. But that suggests to me that either, they thought they could easily deal Holden and/or they didn’t fully believe any of the younger options, even ADA, would be NHL ready at this point. Maybe mid-season?

        • Richter1994 says:

          Stepan could have been spared if Smith is not re-signed.

          Zib, Stepan, Hayes, and DD. Does anyone cmplain about those centers as a group?

          • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

            Largely agree, but of course Stepan still likely needed to go regardless because of the pending NMC creating a cap management issue for Gorton. The real swing and miss was not finding a way to retain Lindberg. Lose one..ok. Lose both without replacing them….poor job by the GM.

            • Richter1994 says:

              That’s what bothers me too. Don’t over pay but send something to Vegas to take someone else other than Oscar.

              But I fear, “someone” was not a fan of Oscar. “Someone” who gives out playing time. I’m not naming names.

              • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

                Arneil? 🙂

              • Richter1994 says:

                ah, nooooooooooooo, and not Ruff, so that leaves…

              • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

                Jim Ramsey? I hear he thought Lindberg was a hypochondriac. 🙂

                I know there is a “narrative” that some have advanced about AV not liking Lindberg. It goes back to 2015-16, when some out here trashed AV for not playing the guy…but then it turned out that Lindberg had hip issues that required surgery. Then last year, he missed the beginning of the season and frankly it took awhile for Lindberg to find his game. No question, come playoff time, Lindberg played his best hockey.

                So as I see it, this was a young player who AV brought along slowly (as he does with many young guys), then he was hurt pretty significantly and we of course have no idea to what extent he was playing hurt last year. Come playoff time…AV played him, and played him a lot.

                So I’m not sure if that’s really a “real thing” that AV wasn’t a fan. Could be, but I see no evidence to support it.

              • Richter1994 says:



              • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

                Sorry, Boo isn’t playing tonight! 🙂

  4. Rangers Rock! says:

    I think it was Kreider who squirted the water, I saw the water bottle in his hand before that happened.
    I thought the players weren’t good enough to compete. What a bunch of B players beating this team?
    It’s nice to see the coach putting the players in a position to win that selfish bastard!

    • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

      Players responsible for wins. Coach responsible for losses. The world according to Rock.

      And when our one true star is shining, that being our future HOFer, then yes, in a given game, they can beat anyone. Hank has proven that over the years. The formula for victory.

      • Reenavipul says:

        Actually, any decent coach worth a damn would indeed credit the players for a victory and himself for the loss.

        Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then.

        • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

          Obviously. But what AV or any coach would say in a press conference is not the point. The point is that wins and losses are a shared responsibility. While players, coaches, management all bear a responsibility win or lose, I certainly believe, especially in hockey, that the person MOST responsible for success is first and foremost the GM (and his staff), next up is the players, and then after that is the coach. I think the coach is the recipient of too much blame and too much praise.

          But in terms of your blind squirrel, does that visually impaired rodent find the acorn 619 times, more than any other of his species other than the top 12 of all time? If so, there must be LOTS of even blinder squirrels!

          • Rangers Rock says:

            This blind rodent found a few good teams which he sabotaged.
            You are ass-backward! The coach is the driver and if he can’t shift right, it makes no difference how good the car is!
            As you see the players can play! You fail to see when the coach puts it in the wrong gear(players, lineup, Glass).
            We know you don’t judge the coach so it’s useless to argue with a halfwit.

            • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

              And I had such high hopes for you after the prior post above! 🙂

              No one is suggesting that these players can’t play. Of course they can. But if the coach is that clueless, then please explain 619 wins!

              And also, I’m still waiting to hear your analysis of who on the Rangers is actually a “great” player that you keep insisting they are….other than Hank, who you seem to have little use for.

              • Rangers Rock says:

                You wont judge the coach, so don’t judge the players.

              • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

                I judge both. In the coach’s case, he has a track record of excellence that might one day lead him to the HOF. The players you seem to think are “great” (but still won’t indentify) will only get into the Hall with paid admission.

                So it’s a judgment made the way any sane individual would make it—based on track record. The coach has an excellent one. The players, other than Hank, do not.

              • Rangers Rock says:

                He has a track record of losing in the playoffs! By Sabotage!

              • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

                Of course he does RR…of course. Keep believing your delusions.

    • roadrider says:

      It was Hayes. You could see it clearly on the replay.

  5. amy says:

    the rangers are putting it together at the right time tomorrow night is Florida and then a three game homestand against the BlueJackets, the B’s and the Oilers let’s make hay guys

  6. Peter says:

    The team came out strong on the forecheck and they were beating the Bolts to the puck early. Yes a 60 minute effort finally. Miller’s goal was a thing of beauty. Kreider getting another goal and Grabner banging one off the post bodes well for the team. Bottom line is that if they show up they can beat even the good teams.

    • upstate tom says:

      miller’s effort this year has been fantastic !!! the rest need to catch up.

      • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

        That was a pretty goal….but again the overrating of Miller is unbelievable. He has hardly been “fantastic”, not even close.

      • RichS says:

        Upstate Tom…
        I have always been impressed with Millers effort…..drives hard to the net, speed coming into the zone, willing to go into the corners , delivers some great bodychecks…..with all he does another 22 goal season would be fine with me!!!!
        I call him the anti-stepan…….

      • Richter1994 says:

        Actually, and I am a huge Miller fan, his effort has sucked until this past week or so where he has woken up. This past week he has been pretty good.

        But I forget what recent game it was where he glided back while the opponents were on an odd man rush and picked up no one on the play, leading to a goal. That effort was not very good.

        • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

          A sustained high level effort along with poor decision making has always been the knock on him, which is why he was at first reportedly not a favorite of Torts and then definitely not a favorite of AV. But he’s matured into a much more reliable player now.

          That being said, we need MUCH more from him.

    • Mintgecko says:

      Miller had a quiet game besides scoring that goal. I think it’s time to drop either Zucc or Nash down to reunite Hayes and JT.

  7. chrisqct says:

    They looked great and competed in all areas of the ice…. the WHOLE time. Great to see, finally felt like a real game. They kept their feet moving which is a big difference. They took the extra strides instead of reaching and lunging for a play.

    Great effort by Miller on the OT winner. He plays like a cowboy out there, and sometimes it all works together for a beautiful play like that.

    I wish they were playing like this in early October. They may have bought AV some time here. But we’re only a loss or two away from him on a very short leash again…

  8. avsucks says:

    Finally it was fun again to watch a hockey game.

  9. Eduardo!Eduardo!Eduardo! says:

    I heard JT snuck away from AV (the man who hates kids) to score the game winner. Let’s all make sure that the coach doesn’t get any credit and please blame him for all the bad. Because I heard AV has been telling his D men to turn the puck over as much as they can and for the forwards not to skate to fast.Lets face it he’s a bad man and hates all kids. He tells little children not to grow up and play hockey or he will find them and bench them all

  10. Leaterneck says:

    To get a point across this headline is why I can no longer stand Leaky. The Rangers it should read as from top down the team played well….but who gets the credit? Leaky…..GTFOOH….this was a team win

    • Hockey Sittoo says:

      So you can’t stand Lundqvist because people on this blog like him and give him too much credit? That doesn’t really have anything to do with his play on the ice. If your hatred of him is just a knee jerk reaction to others adoring him I guess that makes more sense than despising a generational Hall of Fame goalie who puts everything out there every time he plays.

      • Leaterneck says:

        Let’s get this clear, he is not what you just said he is….he is in the Cujo category not Roy

        • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

          I would say no one is the Roy/Broduer category. Not even Hank, although there’s no doubt in my mind that Roy and Broduer played on far more talented teams than Hank ever has.

          To me, Hank is that next tier of greatness. Belfour, Tony O, Hasek. He’s right in that wheelhouse of greatness. You want to include CuJo fine, but do you think fans of CuJo called him “leaky” or whatever? That’s the part I don’t get with you.

          Dave’s headline is perfectly appropriate. Yes, it’s a team win, of course it is, but Hank’s star shined the brightest last night, just like Vasilevsky’s star shined brightest for Tampa. He would have been the story if TB had won.

        • Hockey Sittoo says:

          Which part do you disagree with? He is clearly the best goalie for a stretch of about 10 years from 2005 to 2015 which I would call a generation. Just look at how many times he was nominated for a Vezina or finished in top 6 while consistently being in the statistical top tier of every relevant category. As far as being a Hall of Fame goalie, every single commentator who I have heard address the question (and I am not talking about MSG folks) agrees he is a slam dunk with or without a Stanley Cup.

      • Spozo says:

        He’s not the best goalie of this generation? He’s not a Hall of Famer?

    • Spozo says:

      At least you’re admitting that you’re hatred of Lundqvist has absolutely nothing to do with playing hockey.

  11. craig says:

    How about some credit for the way Staal and Kamper have played. I’m liking Kamper more and more. Zucc. finally woke up, good sign. The players are finally back checking and utilizing their speed to neutralize in the neutral zone and back checking in the defensive zone. More of a defensive minded focus, with each man covering his man. A thought, if doable, put a trade package together with Hayes (maybe Graves) included and get Duchane for a big offensive upgrade at center. At this point, Colorado may go for it.

    • Chris F says:

      Staal has quietly been fairly serviceable this season, which is why it’s all the more frustrating that nearly every other defensemen has struggled mightily.

      If our top-4 played like top-4 defenders, AND Staal was having a bounce back season, we’d be in real good shape.

    • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

      It’s a good point Craig about Staal. He’s been solid enough. Kampfer may have played his best NHL game ever last night. Need to see more though before I’m sold.

      As for Hayes, I’m no fan, but I would not trade him at the moment. We have a weakness at center and I’d want to add to what we have, not deplete it. I’d trade Miller or Kreider (not straight up for Duchene obviously), but they’d be my hook to land the center we need. Again, just riffing here. I have no idea what these guys are worth on the market. None of us do.

      • Mintgecko says:

        I could see a package deal coming over with a notable 3c or 4c and a couple of role players, maybe 1 for the bottom 6 and the other for the bottom 4.

        • Mintgecko says:

          No way that they trade Hayes with JG and AV telling everyone how much of a influence he was to dumping Stepan to the Yotes.

      • craig says:

        Thanks Eddie,
        I really don’t like Hayes as you can tell. I would rather give Chytil or Lettieri a shot at center then to continue watching this overrated dufuss. Big soft player, not that good on faceoffs, can’t score and doesn’t know when to pass the puck (not sharp hockey sense). The only real thing he has going, is that he is a decent stick handler. But that’s about it.

  12. lv says:

    Hard to figure. Smith was solid with Red Wings and in short stint with Rangers last year. How is that he forgot how to play now?

    • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

      But was he? He was good last season for both teams, no doubt. Prior seasons? I had heard mixed things.

      • Mintgecko says:

        Quincey and him were terrible for the Wings. I much rather have a younger Klein skating in the top 4 than Smith on the 3rd pair.

    • Richter1994 says:

      He got the money?

      • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

        I sure hope that’s not it. If so, this is going to go down as one of the worst FA signings in recent years.

        • Richter1994 says:

          It may end up that way bro, and I was pretty much in favor of his re-signing, just not over $4M per.

  13. upstate tom says:

    well, needless to say but if they had put that much effort into all their games they wouldn’t have lost many of them. so i guess the effort aspect says a lot for this team. ‘NO EXCUSES ‘

    • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

      I don’t know if it was effort. Sometimes teams slump. Sometimes teams that lost key pieces and are integrating new ones take time to mesh. We have no idea really what the cause of the early season malaise was, or if last night was the beginning of something or not.

      We shall see.

  14. Hockey Sittoo says:

    Interesting although not surprising tweet from @digdeepbsb today:
    “Among goaltenders who’ve played 3000 min of 5-on-5 hockey since 2016-17, Lundqvist has faced the highest % of High Danger Shots (22.33%).”

    Might have a tiny bit to do with his “drop off” …

  15. Downtown Blues says:

    Did anyone read where Girardi was a little shocked when his Ranger career ended? Article by Zipay in Newsday today.

  16. Larry says:

    my confidence never wavers in AV that he will do a great job in the regular season and the NYR would get bounced in the 1st round of the playoffs under his coaching.

    • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

      Yeah, except that getting bounced in the first round actually happened only once in his tenure as Rangers coach. He’s won more playoff series than any coach in team history other than Lester Patrick.

      So your statement is factually inaccurate.

      • Reenavipul says:

        Talk about a low bar to clear.

        Lester Patrick did that in an era where if you won 2 rounds you won the cup: If he was in a 4rd era, Patrick would have at least double the number of them.

        • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

          You make a fair point. It’s always tough to compare eras obviously. It’s much the same as a discussion of who’s runs were more impressive—the Yankees of McCarthy and Stengel or the Yankees of Torre? The latter two never had to worry about surviving multiple playoff rounds before the Series. But they also never had the chance to make the playoffs as a WC team.

          In the case of the Rangers, obviously, with only six teams, you can only have two rounds. A better comparison that I use is Emile Francis. He coached the Rangers for 10 years and won just five playoff rounds, despite having, most of those years, some of the best collection of talent that the Rangers have ever had. AV has won 6 rounds in four seasons, so that’s pretty impressive compared to the Cat, whose in the HOF.

          Ironically, both may have the same fate in the end—no Cups.

    • Richter1994 says:

      Sounds about right. Even if the Rangers make the playoffs this year they will have to play most games at playoff level intensity due to the nice hole they dug for themselves. It takes a lot of energy to do that so what will they have left for the playoffs?