Game Wrap-ups

Rangers get a point, but lose in OT to Penguins

AP Photo/Seth Wenig
AP Photo/Seth Wenig

The Rangers had their win streak snapped at three games last night, losing in overtime to the Penguins in what was a pretty well played game by both clubs. The goalies were good, not great, and both picked their spots well for offense. But the Rangers were also lucky, as the Penguins hit three posts in the game. This game could have ended in regulation just as easily.

Phil Kessel really took it to the Rangers this game, clicking with Carl Hagelin all game and completely dominating the time they got against Dan Girardi (which was most of the game). That line did most of the damage for the Pens, but their success skewed what was a very good showing by the Rangers in the second and third periods. They shelled a bit in the third, clearly playing for overtime.

As always, you can view the full videos on our video page here. All GIFs are on nyrgifs.comfiltered under the date of the game. On to the goals:

Rangers 1, Pens 0

This started in the Rangers zone, as Dan Girardi shut down Matt Cullen on a chance. The puck eventually got to Jesper Fast, who flipped the puck out of the zone. The Rangers caught a break here, as Trevor Daley mishandled the puck, allowing Eric Staal to get the puck to Kevin Hayes to start a rush. Daley never fully caught Staal, who took the beautiful Hayes pass and deflected it with one hand.

Pens 1, Rangers 1

2016-03-27 20_11_39

2016-03-27 20_12_24

Derek Stepan bit on the initial Daley fake, which took him out of position. Daley got the puck to Derrick Pouliot on the wing with a lot of room, where Dan Boyle deserted his man to go block the shot (while Marc Staal dealt with his man in front). Stepan also went to Pouliot, so there was a miscommunication that left Matt Cullen wide open for the deflection and then the tip in.

Rangers 2, Pens 1

Eric Staal got his second after the Penguins couldn’t control the puck in their own zone, and Jesper Fast got the puck to Eric who put it over Fleury.

Pens 2, Rangers 2

2016-03-27 20_53_29

This was a bit of a miscommunication by Yandle, Lundqvist, and Dan Girardi. Carl Hagelin got in behind Yandle and Girardi, forcing Hank to play the puck. Yandle called for the puck to be wrapped around, but Hank backhanded it against the grain. Hagelin read it, got there, and put it on net. Hank was out of position, and Phil Kessel got there before Yandle could.

Pens 3, Rangers 2

2016-03-27 22_23_25

Three on three hockey is weird. Zuccarello was low on Crosby in front of the net and didn’t get good body position on him. Kris Letang’s shot hit off Crosby and went in. Three on three is weird.

Shot Attempts


I found this to be particularly interesting, as the Rangers clearly went into shell mode in the third period, playing for overtime. They also played a very good second period, but bookended a poor middle of the first with a solid beginning and end.

Scoring Chances


While the Rangers had stints of not getting any shot attempts, they did a solid job limiting the Pens to the outside. Kessel and Hagelin made the Penguins look a lot better than they actually were in this game.

Individual Corsi

icorsi copy

This is a bit misleading. As mentioned above, the Pens got a lot of shots, but few were quality chances. But this does at least give me some satisfaction that I thought Marc Staal had a nice game, which shows here.

Shot Location

locations copy

This looks like the Rangers gave up a lot of chances, but there are a lot of Bs and Ms in that chart on the left. Remember that only larger letters are scoring chances. I think the Rangers did a decent job defending in this game.

Shift Chart


Kessel and Hagelin mostly drew Girardi and Yandle, and made them look silly all game. That was a terrible matchup. If that’s the one thing this team learned, then that’s fine.

This was a well played game by both teams in a matchup that we will likely see in the first round of the playoffs again. You have to assume both goalies play better and the teams tighten up as well. By then, we could be looking at different teams.

"Rangers get a point, but lose in OT to Penguins", 5 out of 5 based on 2 ratings.
Show More


    1. Last Monday morning if you’d told me the Rangers would get seven points out of eight last week, I think all of us would have taken that. After what everyone on here said was a sickeningly disappointing, horrible, miserable, catastrophic West Coast road trip, everybody panicked. Trade everybody, fire the coach, change the system, the usual. Four games later, the team is in pretty good position. Three points clear of Pittsburgh; IMHO it is important to finish second, everybody knows the reason, seventh game at home, last line change, all that. It seems to me that is more important against the Pens than other teams. We’ll see.

      Were they playing for OT last night in the last eight minutes? Probably- it looked to me as though the Penguins were doing that too. Don’t want to throw away a point on the road. Puck bounces in off Cindy. Press on; rest up for Thursday and the stretch run.

      Should be a fun April. Regards- orange

      1. Sure they played for the OT, and the point they got. Pens win, we get a point, they still have a game in hand, but can’t pass us in the standings, so no harm. Would have loved the second point, but at this stage I’m not going to complain!!!!!!!!!

  1. Very good game against a speedy team. We had some chances but still need more movement in the offensive zone.

  2. How official is WarOnIce’s shot charts… I’m only counting 23 SOG and the rangers where credited for 27. For me watching the game I felt like early on they gave them more shots than actually hit the net so I’m inclined to believe 23 more than the 27 the NHL showed. And of course that makes the difference in my stupid fantasy league between winning and losing… Thanks to whomever kept the stats at the garden last night…

  3. The NBC announcers were all over the fact that the Pens needed an ROW instead of a shootout. Good time out by Sullivan to keep Crosby out there. AV should have countered by using a second defenseman, or at least putting a more defensively responsible winger than Zucc out there against Crosby.

  4. This game is an example why you need 4 lines. If Fast was moved to the 4th line and Oscar was on the 3rd line you can roll 4 lines. Now why would Moore or Stalberg want to play with Glass so they can play less when the game is on the line? Because Glass has such great character? Glass has been playing well but that does not mean he should have a space on the 4th line.
    We did not lose this game because of Glass some may say. We did not put our best players in a position to win. The 4th line was not put in the best position to help the team thats why they played less.
    We lost last year because the same thing happened last year. Eddie, thats not crazy its logical. Crazy is when you see something wrong and you agree with it. You agreed with a loser.And the you call people crazy. And you make excuses for the wrong. Come back with your long explanation that the coach won X amount of games therefore he knows best, bla bla bla.

    1. Not sure what you’re talking about. The Rangers are no longer a four line team. The top 3 lines are so good they can easily play about 17 minutes a night leaving a mere 9 minutes for the 4th line. Dom Moore will get a few extra shifts with a lead because he can win draws, but the 4th line should be reduced to nothing more than PK time and an occasional, something like 1 out every 7, even strength shift. Glass can play his role perfectly now. He should get about 8 shifts a game to go out and take the body.

      This is the beauty of picking up Eric Staal. The depth and versatility in the top 9 is outstanding. And if a forward isn’t playing well on a particular night, Viktor Stalberg can move up to the third line without issue.

      1. 2 years ago the talk was about how important it is to have 4 lines rolling. Even during this year the coach says he would like to roll 4 lines.
        During a tough 7 game series you want to roll 4 lines as much as possible so that you keep your team fresh. Last year is an example that it did not happen and we did not even make it to the finals. And the only reason you can’t roll 4 lines is The coach is stuck behind Glass.

        1. But the Rangers now have three lines that do not require sheltered minutes, that can match up against the oppositions top lines. That allows AV to use all three lines as if they were first lines. 17 minutes a piece isn’t running those lines to the ground it simply means less ice for the 4th line.

          The past two years the Rangers third line was a scoring line that required sheltered minutes. The Brassard line two years ago and the Hayes line last year, were lines that you didn’t feel comfortable sending out against the oppositions top line. With the addition of E. Staal, now all three lines are essentially first lines.

          So again, it’s less about not wanting to roll 4 lines because of Glass and more about not really needing the fourth line to take a regular shift. And having Glass as a guy that gets thrown out there occasionally to throw a few hits is exactly how Glass should be used.

        2. And as far as rolling four lines through out the year, it’s pretty clear, when you look at the Rangers’ ice times this season, that AV is not pushing anyone at this point. The goal was to keep the team fresh for the playoffs, and other than Hank, every Ranger has had their ice time kept to a non-taxing level.

          Look at McD, normally he’s a 24 minute D, this season? 21 minutes a game, and there are a bunch of nights McD didn’t even play 20 minutes. Sure, the Rangers might have a few more points right now if AV pushed Brass, Zucc, and McD’s ice time, but AV realized there was no need for that.

          I’m excited to see what this team looks like in the playoffs once more ice time is doled out to the top players on the team.

          1. Exactly Chris. This was good coaching. It was imperative to keep the guys fresh, get enough points to qualify, and then unleash them come playoff time.

            The only thing that I think I would have done differently was sit Boyle more. Perhaps he would have these last few weeks if not for McIlrath’s injury. Boyle has played well, and we need him to be fresh for the playoffs. But he is pushing 40 and needs some time off I would imagine.

        3. Rock, you do make a valid point about four lines. Of course, the coach and everyone else would love to have the 4th line they had two years ago. But you see, there’s this little thing called a salary cap. You’ve heard of it right? The Gary Bettman NHL means, unless you happen to be in a certain cycle in your cap management, you will most assuredly NOT have the depth you’d like to have. Pretty much every team has depth issues. That’s why the league is so balanced.

          As for the rest of your babble, as usual, you are so blinded by your hate of the coach (kind of hard to call a guy who’s won five playoff series in two years, and guided his team to what will be two 100+ point seasons consecutively a loser….my goodness!). and the player that you don’t see reality. The 4th line, as constructed right now, has arguably been the Rangers best line durng this most recent stretch. You, yourself, have acknowledged that Glass has been playing well. So why on God’s green earth would you break up a line that is working at the moment? What exactly does Oscar Lindberg bring to the table at the moment? Before yesterday, the only place he could have played was to replace a slumping Hayes. But with the game Hayes played yesterday, it pretty much rules that out.

          Lindberg had a nice start, and he did well when paired with E. Staal and Stalberg. But once Nash came back, Lindberg had to sit. He takes bad penalties and is still learning the game. I don’t trust him at all in a 4th line role over Glass.

          Do you actually understand what the purpose of a 4th line is? This whole notion of “you play your most talented players” doesn’t always apply to the 4th line. It’s why the silly argument last year “why is he benching Miller and playing Glass” makes no sense. Glass has a very specific role. He plays limited minutes. By your own admission, he is playing well in that role. Your “logic” escapes me.

          And again, it is quite likely that you are the only person in the world who follows hockey that actually believes that the reason we lost to the Bolts was NOT because of the injuries, NOT because our best players upfront couldn’t produce, but specifically because Tanner Glass was playing instead of James Sheppard, the latter of which who no team wanted and is playing in the Swiss League. You actually believe that playing James Sheppard or an AHL player would have put us in the SC Finals last year?! I don’t even know what to say, except it’s simply the most preposterous theory I’ve ever heard. But it’s a free country, and you are entitled to be as delusional as you wish.

          1. Lindberg is probably better than Moore at this point. I might play him ahead of Fast just to get Fast off the PK, but last night AV seemed to realize he could minimize that problem without benching Fast.

            I think Sheppard was better than Glass last year, but not by much. There are lots of ways to improve a hockey team, but no one big answer.

          2. It’s a valid argument, and maybe he was. (however, I saw no evidence at all that he was an upgrade). But we don’t suddenly win Game 7 and go to the SC Finals because Sheppard is in and Glass is out. That’s my point, and that’s where the conversation goes WAY off the rails.

            As for the rest, the coach likes Fast. He has more experience. To me, he is the more polished player. No way would I sit Moore at this point.

            Lindberg is fine as a 12F/13F option. Beyond that, I wouldn’t play him other than to rest guys or to bench Hayes if Hayes doesn’t get his game together (and last night, he certainly did).

          3. I was taking a middle position on Glass-Sheppard — Sheppard was actually better, but as you say, it wasn’t important.

            I have real doubts that the Rangers can go very far in the playoffs if they insist on playing the Moore-Fast duo on the PK. It isn’t a goal a game spot, but it certainly feels like it.

            I think we remember the player Moore was and ignore the player he is. I think the real difference between the 4th line of the last few years and this year is the decline in Moore.

          4. You raise a valid point Ray. That being said, Moore has been much better in recent game since he was called about by AV. I’m partial to veterans, and I would bank on Moore’s experience over what Lindberg brings to the table…at least at this point. The PK has been much better these last three games. We shall see.

          5. I’m with you, Lindberg in for Fast makes sense & I too would like to see Fast off the PK.

          6. The Rangers were playing well without Nash, Correct? Because he is supposedly a better player the someone else has to come out? I am sorry for your Zombie love for failure and for your support the failure of the past. AV can go to the finals 100 times and still lose he will still be a failure who chooses to lose because he is stubborn. It was a self inflicted wound.
            Why in the world, If you are so close in talent with the other team, why tie one hand behind your back with a person that has one particular trait which is a checker to someone that has a variety of traits as Oscar such as center or winger and youth and talent and is capable of scoring.
            You do your damn best in trying not to understand what I am saying and support failure. We had the best team last year even without Zucc and then you take the worst player in the league that screws up the whole line making it off balance, and last year Glass was not playing like this year and he absolutely sucked.
            I do not think you understand the roll for the 4th line in the new hockey age. The fighter is not needed anymore. You have to remove your caveman thoughts of what 4th liners do.
            I maybe the only person who thinks these thing and thats alright. My decisions are not the reason why we lost last year. The questions need to be asked because no one else has the balls the question the king who has no clothing. He was not asked these questions and it is obvious that he has an unhealthy infinity for Glass while other players get thrown in the ash heap of the bench. Better players get benched while the worst player plays. Players notice this and who wants to play less because of Glass?
            The Bolts had an advantage the did not have a stubborn coach who loves only 1 player and is willing to lose because of him! Maybe AV has man love for Glass?

        1. AV finally put a line up that may work. Not Fast on the 1st or 2nd line. Fast does not play well with Kreider and has not played well, and the coach forces him into positions he does not belong! Put him back on the 4th line. Is it not obvious? Fast does not look too bad on the 3rd but better on the 4th line.
          Fast, Moore, and Stalberg would be the best 4th line in the league. Do you not agree?

          1. I do not. Again, only a person blinded by a single minded hate of a player would look at the 4th line and say it isn’t working. Glass has played well for the most part, but it drives you crazy that the target of your hate is succeeding. Lindberg has NOT been good. It’s the same bogus Sheppard argument. It’s doesn’t materially change anything for the better and probably, given that Glass has played well, it changes things for the worse. AV’s focus now is making sure he has the right combinations upfront to maximize the ability of his difference making players, not the marginal difference a 4th liner might make to what is already a solid enough 4th line.

            Don’t you have any other topic you wish to comment on? Or is Glass your singular obsession? Do you have pictures in your room with Glass and an X over his face or something? I’m sure there are help lines out there that can guide you through this difficult time in your life. 🙂

          2. I just want to say that Glass gets a lot of negative bashing and Oscar has a much higher ceiling of course .Glass is not the issue at all. The only real issue I fear in the playoff is the defensive by means of Dan G. I wish Skjei would play over Dan G albeit he is a rookie and Dylan would give Dan B some rest when back from his injury.. As long as the forwards perform well back checking and in addition to the D-men puck possession in the d-zone dishing out a first good pass to the wingers to begin the rush through the neutral zone, the Rangers will be a tough out.

          3. AZ….playing a rookie like Skjei, with virtually no NHL experience, and expect him to contribute in a meaningful way in the SC Playoffs against the best players and teams in the league is a stretch at best. Not to mention you are suggesting replacing a righty with a lefty. Barring injury, there’s no way that happens.

            I do think that if the cap space allows (and depending on the Wolfpack playoff situation), you might see Skjei recalled, and he can give M. Staal a break if need be. And yes, McIlrath can give Boyle and/or Girardi a rest when the kid is medically cleared to play.

          4. Right on AZGene, our two Dan’s are a recipe for disaster, I feel good about the rest of the team overall, but come playoff time, these 2 are a train wreck waiting to happen!

          5. Again its not about Glass its about the stupid moves of the coach. Our obsession is with the Rangers and what they do good or bad. Bad seems to be what I am obsessing about. You try so hard to change the meaning of what I say. Glass is not the problem its the stupid moves of the coach.
            Is it your job to misunderstand and defend mistakes? Players have to preform and coaches have to make correct decisions. You obfuscate over complicate the coaches mistakes.
            Thats right he does not make mistakes. No mistakes were made in the playoffs last year. All the player decisions were perfect and not questionable. No different out come is possible with Shepard. And of course YOU KNOW your right.

          6. Ok, you win….. James Sheppard, now toiling as a part time winger in the Swiss League, would have got it done, no doubt, and we would have lifted the Cup. He would have been the difference. Of course! AV is a loser, despite his record. Absolutely! Isn’t it obvious!?

            That’s our report Bizzaro World Ranger Report for this week. Please tune in again next week when Rangers Rock takes a fresh look at Ron Low and Bryan Trottier, and proves they were, without a doubt, the two best coaches in Rangers history! And, a special feature on Pavel Brendl, and why he was the most underrated player in Rangers history!

            That’s next week, same Rock time, same Rock channel, on the Bizzaro World Rangers Report……..where records mean nothing.

    2. This is really just opinion. AV, who is a good coach, believes that ideally you should roll four lines and keep your players as fresh as possible. Tortorella, who is a good coach, thinks that playing the fourth line is just taking minutes away from your better players. Do you want to play Rick Nash 17 or 19 minutes a game? Do you benefit more from the extra two minutes or more from greater effort during the 17?

      1. Absolutely right Ray. Sully, a Torts disciple, also seems like he will overplay his best players. Not saying one way is better than another, but I prefer the AV approach when you are maneuvering through the regular season and trying to keep players fresh. When Torts was here, it always seemed like his Rangers teams were burnt out come playoff time.

        Come playoff time though, I suspect we will see a tilting towards an imbalance to the better players. Just depends on who’s playing well.

      2. 17 to 19 minutes a night is totally within reason for a top forward. Especially when you consider 3-4 minutes a night are on the PP and therefore considerably less taxing.

        And Sully is absolutely overplaying his best players. Letang’s ridiculous amount of ice time this year is Exhibit A.

  5. Having lived in DC for the past 4 years, last night was my first game watching at MSG since the renovation.
    – The seats are comfy, the food options looked good, and the bathrooms are plentiful..
    – There is really not enough room in the concession hallways though, 1st intermission was worse than the Beltway traffic down here in DC
    – I thought the warm-up music was incredibly loud
    – The pre-game video projection thingie was great, though
    – Wow, when all the MSG fans cheer in unison, it is really powerful. Only happened about twice all night though, otherwise it was isolated patches of “LGR” chants that rarely spread outside a section or two.
    – Do fans not do the “Hen-rik” chant anymore? I only heard it once, maybe. And that was after a easy save on a puck he had just turned over. On the other hand, every time he made a really good save, the music came on so the fans couldn’t cheer.
    – I thought the live video feed from the “music box” was pretty neat.

    My thoughts on the game:
    – If I had a dollar for every time Hank played the puck and it resulted in a turnover, I could afford to sit in those 100-level seats that are always empty.
    – Zucarello was clearly interfered with on the first goal. He’s on his way to challenge the point and just get completely bumped off the play. Truth be told, he probably wasn’t close enough to have stopped the shot anyway, but it was textbook interference.
    – Hagelin is really fast. He an Kessel really gave the Rangers trouble.
    – On the other hand, judging by the number of times we booed, Crosby didn’t have the puck that much, and didn’t really impact the game.
    – I was surprised how often AV rolled out the 4th line in the offsensive zone. I know with the last change he was trying to protect certain matchups, but it seemed an odd choice at times, especially earlier in the game when we still could have used an offensive push.

    1. Thank you!
      Another poor usage of the 4th line. If you have 1 checker and 2 great offensive and defensive players, you do not put the best players in position to succeed. Is that a sign of a coach that wants to win and takes every available ways to try to win, not this coach. But if Fast was on the 4th line it would not be a problem because you would have 3 two way players not 2 capable of scoring.

  6. Overall, I was very pleased with yesterday. Defense played well. Great to see the third line click. E. Staal looked terrific and that’s what we are going to need…contributions from all four lines. Really good news to see Hayes play well too. Hopefully it gives him some confidence. And the PK is slowly rounding into form, which is CRUCIAL if we are to make a deep run.

    Brassard is in my doghouse today. What a ridiculous, sloppy, lazy penalty to take with a second left. While it was great that we killed it, it certainly may have had a cumulative impact on the deciding goal. That simply can not happen and I hope the coaching staff will ream him out behind closed doors for that one.

    The second goal by Hank was just a really bad decision. Shouldn’t happen but he’s human. He’s the least of our worries.

    The Pens look really, really good. If we play them in the first round, the winner has a great chance to beat the Caps,and a really good SC contender will be out in the first round.

    1. I only caught about the last 10 minutes of the game and then OT, and it was only on the radio. Dave Maloney was in utter disbelief that Brassard took that high stick at the end of regulation. I was chuckling to myself hearing that on the drive home. It’s exceedingly rare for a broadcaster to take a player to task like that on the air.

    2. I actually thought Brassard’s stick was being held or tied up behind him. It came up as he pulled it loose with one hand and the high stick was incidental to the forward momentum. Bad timing, true, but bad luck mostly.

      1. Maybe, but he’s taken WAY too many careless penalties this year, so I don’t give him he benefit of the doubt. It’s the only blemish on an otherwise very good season.

  7. Zucc should not have been on the ice in the last minute , not with Brass anyway E Staal having a great game to that point should have been out there , or Nash and $otto 21 . Needed to get to the shoot out if we didn’t want to push it in the 5 min OT.Hay we took 7 of 8 lets take 7 of 8 in next 4 and go from there . Lets not play down to Buffalo or Canes . LGR

Back to top button