Jan Levine: Game 2: WAS 1 NYR 0, OT, Disappointing Loss, What's Needed in Game 3 No offense once again the story of Game 2, how to change it for Game 3

Rangers absolutely HAVE TO win these next two games at the Garden. If they lose either one, they're cooked...

It would be nice to see the Rangers occasionally bail Lundqvist out. For all of the times he has done it for his teammates, you would think they could give him occasional relief via goal support.

Too much to ask it seems because they make every opposing defense and goaltender look elite when most are ordinary/above average.

Jan, one thing, even if the Rangers got that delay of game call, would they have done anything with it? Highly unlikely, I produce more belly button lint, than this team produces any semblance of a scoring chance, especially on the power play.

It would be nice to see the Rangers occasionally bail Lundqvist out. For all of the times he has done it for his teammates, you would think they could give him occasional relief via goal support.

Too much to ask it seems because they make every opposing defense and goaltender look elite when most are ordinary/above average.

Jan, one thing, even if the Rangers got that delay of game call, would they have done anything with it? Highly unlikely, I produce more belly button lint, than this team produces any semblance of a scoring chance, especially on the power play.
- MidnightMarauder

Why I said the following in the blog: "Does anyone of us believe that if the Blueshirts did get the man advantage, they would have won?"

Why do people keep clamoring to rush Staal back? To try and prevent a sweep? Get back in the series? Get out of the first round?

The guy already admitted he is have depth problems with his vision and isnt comfortable on the ice with anticipating plays.

Sit him the rest of the season if you really value him

It would be nice to see the Rangers occasionally bail Lundqvist out. For all of the times he has done it for his teammates, you would think they could give him occasional relief via goal support.

Too much to ask it seems because they make every opposing defense and goaltender look elite when most are ordinary/above average.

Jan, one thing, even if the Rangers got that delay of game call, would they have done anything with it? Highly unlikely, I produce more belly button lint, than this team produces any semblance of a scoring chance, especially on the power play.
- MidnightMarauder

The coaching philosophy and the team's style of play dictates that they are going to try to win playoff games 1-0, 2-1, et. I realize that is how most playoff games are won, but you need to be able to threaten the other team offensively. If you don't your just waiting on the inevitable.

One of the most consistent questions that has been asked on this blog is whether we would have done the Nash/Gaborik deals over again? Or which team go the better end of the combined deals? I would prefer to answer it this way, which is not a total answer. If the Rangers were going to play the exact same style as they did last year, last year's personnel was better suited to play that style -- i.e., I would rather have last year's team than this one. With that said, I would do the Nash deal over again, but the team needs to evolve to the new personnel that has been brought in by the deal.

In short, if the Rangers need to open up things a little to create more scoring chances, than that is what they need to do, even if it means some odd man rushes here and there on Hank.

Why do people keep clamoring to rush Staal back? To try and prevent a sweep? Get back in the series? Get out of the first round?

The guy already admitted he is have depth problems with his vision and isnt comfortable on the ice with anticipating plays.

Sit him the rest of the season if you really value him
- FourFeathers773

Who here is rushing Staal back? He has been practicing full tilt for a while and it's up to him. If he can't go, then he can't go but if he can and be effective why wouldn't he play? The second part to that is he he can play effectively, it helps the other 5 D immensely regarding minutes and match ups plus he knows when to joinbthecrush and provide extra offense. We are not out of the series a win tonight and this can at least go 6 and we roll the dice.

Who here is rushing Staal back? He has been practicing full tilt for a while and it's up to him. If he can't go, then he can't go but if he can and be effective why wouldn't he play? The second part to that is he he can play effectively, it helps the other 5 D immensely regarding minutes and match ups plus he knows when to joinbthecrush and provide extra offense. We are not out of the series a win tonight and this can at least go 6 and we roll the dice.
- Blueshirts4ever

Glad its so easy to just roll the dice with a guys vision for life. This guy is 2 weeks removed basically saying he still has double vision and you want to put him at risk for permanent vision damage from probably just a moderate hit at this point to get out of the first round?

Enjoy the tickets buddy, if they win I might need you to take another set of tickets

The coaching philosophy and the team's style of play dictates that they are going to try to win playoff games 1-0, 2-1, et. I realize that is how most playoff games are won, but you need to be able to threaten the other team offensively. If you don't your just waiting on the inevitable.

One of the most consistent questions that has been asked on this blog is whether we would have done the Nash/Gaborik deals over again? Or which team go the better end of the combined deals? I would prefer to answer it this way, which is not a total answer. If the Rangers were going to play the exact same style as they did last year, last year's personnel was better suited to play that style -- i.e., I would rather have last year's team than this one. With that said, I would do the Nash deal over again, but the team needs to evolve to the new personnel that has been brought in by the deal.

In short, if the Rangers need to open up things a little to create more scoring chances, than that is what they need to do, even if it means some odd man rushes here and there on Hank.
- Pete V

It's a gamble but can they finish? You also have to consider who is leading the odd man rushes against. Maybe they do take more risks who knows?It's amazing how a bad bounce changes entire complexions of season but such is life in pro sports.

I think this was said in the last thread, something to the effect of, we win, its a series, we lose its (basically) over. Sometimes it is that simple. LETS GO RANGERS!

Glad its so easy to just roll the dice with a guys vision for life. This guy is 2 weeks removed basically saying he still has double vision and you want to put him at risk for permanent vision damage from probably just a moderate hit at this point to get out of the first round?

- FourFeathers773

There is noway in the world the organization would put him on the ice if only a moderate hit would cause him permanent vision damage. No way, now how! If playing can make his situation worse or put him in danger, than he shouldn't play. If it is just a matter of him not being completely comfortable, than that is a different question that I can't really answer -- i.e., would his participation be a net negative to the team.

The coaching philosophy and the team's style of play dictates that they are going to try to win playoff games 1-0, 2-1, et. I realize that is how most playoff games are won, but you need to be able to threaten the other team offensively. If you don't your just waiting on the inevitable.

One of the most consistent questions that has been asked on this blog is whether we would have done the Nash/Gaborik deals over again? Or which team go the better end of the combined deals? I would prefer to answer it this way, which is not a total answer. If the Rangers were going to play the exact same style as they did last year, last year's personnel was better suited to play that style -- i.e., I would rather have last year's team than this one. With that said, I would do the Nash deal over again, but the team needs to evolve to the new personnel that has been brought in by the deal.

In short, if the Rangers need to open up things a little to create more scoring chances, than that is what they need to do, even if it means some odd man rushes here and there on Hank.
- Pete V

Tortorella's stubbornness is a detriment, to himself and to the team. He is not all that is wrong here because the players absolutely know what they need to do to succeed but the combination of the style of play and the effect it has on the more skilled players is not conducive to a winning formula. This team has more skill than last season so naturally the style needs to be adjusted accordingly. It hasn't and the team is struggling because of it.

He is a good coach, but he is stubborn in his seemingly refusal to adjust the strategy. Something has to give, starting tonight.

Holla !

I think this was said in the last thread, something to the effect of, we win, its a series, we lose its (basically) over. Sometimes it is that simple. LETS GO RANGERS!
- B2B76

They need to hold serve at home, simple as that. They split at MSG, this series is over. They absolutely need to take these next two home games.

It's a gamble but can they finish? You also have to consider who is leading the odd man rushes against. Maybe they do take more risks who knows?It's amazing how a bad bounce changes entire complexions of season but such is life in pro sports.
- Blueshirts4ever

It is not just one bad bounce. Sure, they win in overtime its a 1-1 series, but they haven't been impressive all year long. This team's current level of play is simply not good enough to do any damage, unless Hank is out of this world. And, even when he is, the team still can't win if the score 1 goal in two games.

They need to be able to score against good teams, and I am sorry, but scoring goals against teams that mailed it in during the last 2-3 weeks of the season, just doesn't impress me.

They can be better, but time is running out. They need to raise their level of play, and turn this into a series. Otherwise, it will be complete reevaluation time at year's end.

Really doesn't matter what anyone thinks. That is not a penalty. Like how stubborn can you people be? You did not get wronged. You're grasping here and its pretty silly.

He had one (frank)ing hand on his stick and a BOUNCING puck got DEFLECTED over the glass.

Get over it. You would have done NOTHING on the PP anyway. You're going to need to look at different areas of your game to come back and win this series so dry up the "(frank) the refs" tears and get to work.

Really doesn't matter what anyone thinks. That is not a penalty. Like how stubborn can you people be? You did not get wronged. You're grasping here and its pretty silly.

He had one (frank)ing hand on his stick and a BOUNCING puck got DEFLECTED over the glass.

Get over it. You would have done NOTHING on the PP anyway. You're going to need to look at different areas of your game to come back and win this series so dry up the "(frank) the refs" tears and get to work.
- blondinwrx

Easy troll, most of us admit the Rangers would have likely squandered that opportunity anyway. Now go back and play with the other Caps fans that chant a goalie's name after he gets beat cleanly, and the crossbar was the only thing that saved a goal.

Also - Holtby is the epitome of class and if he wants to share a FACT then he damn well can. It sure was an easier night for him - who are you to disagree and QQ about him stating that? Like I'm actually peeved he would say that BECAUSE of the fire it should light in the blueshirts' bellies...like c'mon.

Don't worry about what were saying. Worry about how you play on the ice.

Easy troll, most of us admit the Rangers would have likely squandered that opportunity anyway. Now go back and play with the other Caps fans that chant a goalie's name after he gets beat cleanly, and the crossbar was the only thing that saved a goal.
- MidnightMarauder

Not really a trolling comment.

" we will win tonight"

Not really a trolling comment.
- blondinwrx

As the great Ron Burgundy would say, agree to disagree.

" we will win tonight"
- jambodelta99

Agh, the good old days when this team actually has quality leadership in the locker room.

Really doesn't matter what anyone thinks. That is not a penalty. Like how stubborn can you people be? You did not get wronged. You're grasping here and its pretty silly.

He had one (frank)ing hand on his stick and a BOUNCING puck got DEFLECTED over the glass.

Get over it. You would have done NOTHING on the PP anyway. You're going to need to look at different areas of your game to come back and win this series so dry up the "(frank) the refs" tears and get to work.
- blondinwrx

Deflected off what? the reasoning was not intentional, sorry but that penalty is almost never intentional, don't troll, we know our PP sucks and it wouldn't have mattered if they had a full period of PP's

Really doesn't matter what anyone thinks. That is not a penalty. Like how stubborn can you people be? You did not get wronged. You're grasping here and its pretty silly.

He had one (frank)ing hand on his stick and a BOUNCING puck got DEFLECTED over the glass.

Get over it. You would have done NOTHING on the PP anyway. You're going to need to look at different areas of your game to come back and win this series so dry up the "(frank) the refs" tears and get to work.
- blondinwrx

The Rangers most likely would not have scored, the PP sucks but that was a penalty. It didn't get deflected. He took a full whack at it, whether he had one hand on the stick or not. He went and took a whack at the puck and knocked it over the glass. Penalty, and it was a lucky break for Washington.