2015 NHL Playoffs - Round 2

[Cereal]

Ovechkin looked pissed at the end.... flying through the handshake line as quickly as possible.

 

I've been really growing weary of folks complaining about low-scoring Rangers hockey etc. etc. .... the whole series was just fine, entertaining HOCKEY.  If you really need that much more scoring in order to enjoy yourself, then learn more about the game or something.  Or perhaps people just think it's the cool thing to call it boring.

[TrueBlueGED]

Ovechkin looked pissed at the end.... flying through the handshake line as quickly as possible.

 

I've been really growing weary of folks complaining about low-scoring Rangers hockey etc. etc. .... the whole series was just fine, entertaining HOCKEY.  If you really need that much more scoring in order to enjoy yourself, then learn more about the game or something.  Or perhaps people just think it's the cool thing to call it boring.

 

Insulting people's understanding of the game because they like different aspects of it than you do is always a good approach.

[nfreeman]

Ovechkin looked pissed at the end.... flying through the handshake line as quickly as possible.

 

I've been really growing weary of folks complaining about low-scoring Rangers hockey etc. etc. .... the whole series was just fine, entertaining HOCKEY. If you really need that much more scoring in order to enjoy yourself, then learn more about the game or something. Or perhaps people just think it's the cool thing to call it boring.

I thought it was the worst, least entertaining of any of the playoff series so far.

 

Could you explain what I and evidently many others are misunderstanding about the game of hockey? I've only been watching the game for 45 years or so and so don't really get it.

 

Or maybe you could simply disagree and explain why in a constructive and respectful manner.

[Cereal]

Guys... I didn't mean to be insulting. There is just a lot more to the game than flashy goals.

 

There is plenty of offensive and defensive strategy, positioning, individual battles, etc. to provide entertainment.  Twelve guys on the ice at a time... lots of dynamics, actions, reactions, gambles and mistakes and capitalization and display of brilliant skill that doesn't result in a goal.  I'm no expert at hockey (far from it compared to MANY of y'all), but there's a lot I can learn about the game by watching different parts of it, without needing goals in order to do so.

 

So, "learn more about the game" (from my original post) means: Try to pay attention to all the other really cool and interesting aspects of the game.

[Thorner]

Your points are all well and good Cereal, not directing this at you in particular:

 

I find the Rangers to be incredibly boring. This is the 6th! of their 8 wins this playoffs that have been by the score of 2-1. A low scoring game can be very entertaining, but you can pretty much go into any Rags game and anticipate the same old result. It takes the excitement out when you routinely know it's going to be 2-1.

 

They are a very good team - hell I picked them to win the Cup in my bracket - but I was sincerely rooting for Washington to pull this out.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Thorny

[bunomatic]

Your points are all well and good Cereal, not directing this at you in particular:

 

I find the Rangers to be incredibly boring. This is the 6th! of their 8 wins this playoffs that have been by the score of 2-1. A low scoring game can be very entertaining, but you can pretty much go into any Rags game and anticipate the same old result. It takes the excitement out when you routinely know it's going to be 2-1.

 

They are a very good team - hell I picked them to win the Cup in my bracket - but I was sincerely rooting for Washington to pull this out.

this is a good take.

 

I found their games boring compared to some of the other series so honestly I watched 3, maybe 4 of their games so far. I'll prolly try to watch all of the eastern final and western final regardless of style of play. It just ramps up from here on in. 

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Go Rangers

[Eleven]

Ugh.  It's like waking up to find that Christmas has been canceled.

 

So now we have a stifled Rags-Tampa series to go with a Chicago-Anaheim series.  The former is unwatchable because it will be unentertaining; much of the latter is unwatchable, for me, due to time zone issues.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Eleven

[That Aud Smell]

It's not the lack of goals, per se, that make the Rangers dull to watch. Although the 3-goal game is a natural result of what the Rags do.

If people enjoy what the Rangers do, then bully for them because that is where the league is and further trending. I imagine the same people who are entertained by the Rangers' brand of hockey also enjoyed the dead puck era.

Not me, and not a lot of hockey fans. The Rangers' style of play seeks to minimize the flow and skill that I most enjoy about the game, to gum up the works at every opportunity (and especially in their half of the neutral zone), minimize chances, counterattack opportunistically (yes, with speed), and then lock things down when they get a goal and rely on a terrific goalie.

It's fairly brutal to watch. Like some warped echo of the game at its best.

(And yes I'm aware I just described the Hasek era Sabres. It's a different animal when your team is the one winning that way.)

Edited May 14, 2015 by That Aud Smell

[X. Benedict]

It's not the lack of goals, per se, that make the Rangers dull to watch. Although the 3-goal game is a natural result of what the Rags do.

 

If people enjoy what the Rangers do, then bully for them because that is where the league is and further trending. I imagine the same people who are entertained by the Rangers' brand of hockey also enjoyed the dead puck era.

 

Not me, and not a lot of hockey fans. The Rangers' style of play seeks to minimize the flow and skill that I most enjoy about the game, to gum up the works at every opportunity (and especially in the neutral zone), minimize chances, counterattack opportunistically (yes, with speed), and then lock things down when they get a goal and rely on a terrific goalie.

 

It's fairly brutal to watch. Like some warped echo of the game at its best.

 

(And yes I'm aware I just described the Hasek era Sabres. It's a different animal when your team is the one winning that way.)

 

I'm hearing quite a bit of discussion about putting the red line back in play and the two-line pass rule back in the game. 

The logic:  NHL defenses are now so far back to prevent the long breakout pass that it has killed 5 on 5 offense. 

[LGR4GM]

It's not the lack of goals, per se, that make the Rangers dull to watch. Although the 3-goal game is a natural result of what the Rags do.

 

If people enjoy what the Rangers do, then bully for them because that is where the league is and further trending. I imagine the same people who are entertained by the Rangers' brand of hockey also enjoyed the dead puck era.

 

Not me, and not a lot of hockey fans. The Rangers' style of play seeks to minimize the flow and skill that I most enjoy about the game, to gum up the works at every opportunity (and especially in the neutral zone), minimize chances, counterattack opportunistically (yes, with speed), and then lock things down when they get a goal and rely on a terrific goalie.

 

It's fairly brutal to watch. Like some warped echo of the game at its best.

 

(And yes I'm aware I just described the Hasek era Sabres. It's a different animal when your team is the one winning that way.)

That right there was my problem with it.  I don't need 5 or 10 goals a game but it would be nice to see 5 or 10 scoring chances a period.  I mean the USA Canada Gold Medal game that finished 3-2 and was one of the best games I have ever watched because it was all action.

 

The game last night was dump the puck in. Fight for it down low. Cycle it to the point. Shoot once. Blocked or easy save.  Puck cleared. 

[That Aud Smell]

I'm hearing quite a bit of discussion about putting the red line back in play and the two-line pass rule back in the game. 

The logic:  NHL defenses are now so far back to prevent the long breakout pass that it has killed 5 on 5 offense. 

 

Interesting. I'm skeptical about whether going back to 2-line pass prohibitions would improve the situation.

 

I don't have the big-picture knowledge to understand that the NHL D's are sitting way back. But the report gives me a visual of an NHL game becoming somewhat more like an NBA game -- half-court/half-rink offensive sets, if you will. And no-thanks to an NBA-ification of the NHL. The NBA fans have been crying for years (decades) to get that game back to its show-time roots. That is, NBA fans want the game to feature more flow and skill.

 

That right there was my problem with it.  I don't need 5 or 10 goals a game but it would be nice to see 5 or 10 scoring chances a period.  I mean the USA Canada Gold Medal game that finished 3-2 and was one of the best games I have ever watched because it was all action.

 

The game last night was dump the puck in. Fight for it down low. Cycle it to the point. Shoot once. Blocked or easy save.  Puck cleared. 

 

Precisely my point. I fell asleep, and was startled awake by the OT winner.

[SwampD]

So, we want to change the rules because of one team?

 

Now that that other team is no longer relevant, can we get rid of the trapezoid?

 

 

 

Hey, wait a minute,… maybe it's the trapezoid that has stifled offenses. With goalies not being able to play the puck, they can't, on occasion, force the play at one end anymore. It allows dump and chase from farther back in the zone.

[Kruppstahl]

It's not the lack of goals, per se, that make the Rangers dull to watch. Although the 3-goal game is a natural result of what the Rags do.

 

If people enjoy what the Rangers do, then bully for them because that is where the league is and further trending. I imagine the same people who are entertained by the Rangers' brand of hockey also enjoyed the dead puck era.

 

Not me, and not a lot of hockey fans. The Rangers' style of play seeks to minimize the flow and skill that I most enjoy about the game, to gum up the works at every opportunity (and especially in their half of the neutral zone), minimize chances, counterattack opportunistically (yes, with speed), and then lock things down when they get a goal and rely on a terrific goalie.

 

It's fairly brutal to watch. Like some warped echo of the game at its best.

 

(And yes I'm aware I just described the Hasek era Sabres. It's a different animal when your team is the one winning that way.)

THIS!  Hockey is broken right now and it needs fixing.

 

I can't imagine Gretzky twirling around with time and space to make a pretty play.  I can't imagine The Flower flying down the wing, hair blowing in the breeze.  Or a flowing, passing, coordinated attack coming from the French Connection anymore.

 

There's no room out there and everyone's equipment is now like NFL football equipment.  No fear. No big deal to get in front of shots.

 

Hockey is now trench warfare, not Blitzkrieg.

 

I prefer the Blitzkrieg approach.  It's 18,000 times more fun to watch.

 

If I want a "strategy" thinking man's game, I'll watch soccer and baseball.

 

That's what I did last night...ditched Rangers Game 7 in favor of pre-recorded Juventus vs. Madrid in UEFA semi-final....great game too.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Kruppstahl

[That Aud Smell]

Hockey is now trench warfare, not Blitzkrieg.

 

If I want a "strategy" thinking man's game, I'll watch soccer and baseball.

 

Good analogy there.

 

I will say this about soccer: I still see plenty of flow and skill on display when I watch the EPL. Far less so in the NHL.

[qwksndmonster]

I found the Rags series boring as well.  Most of the play takes place on the perimeter of the offensive zones.  Board battles, board battles, board battles.  I fast forwarded through more than 1 Rags game this round.

[nfreeman]

Your points are all well and good Cereal, not directing this at you in particular:

 

I find the Rangers to be incredibly boring. This is the 6th! of their 8 wins this playoffs that have been by the score of 2-1. A low scoring game can be very entertaining, but you can pretty much go into any Rags game and anticipate the same old result. It takes the excitement out when you routinely know it's going to be 2-1.

 

They are a very good team - hell I picked them to win the Cup in my bracket - but I was sincerely rooting for Washington to pull this out.

 

And the 8th out of their 12 playoff games that was decided by a 2-1 score (plus another game that ended 1-0).

 

But I don't think the Rangers are the problem.  The NHL is the problem.

 

It's not the lack of goals, per se, that make the Rangers dull to watch. Although the 3-goal game is a natural result of what the Rags do.

 

If people enjoy what the Rangers do, then bully for them because that is where the league is and further trending. I imagine the same people who are entertained by the Rangers' brand of hockey also enjoyed the dead puck era.

 

Not me, and not a lot of hockey fans. The Rangers' style of play seeks to minimize the flow and skill that I most enjoy about the game, to gum up the works at every opportunity (and especially in their half of the neutral zone), minimize chances, counterattack opportunistically (yes, with speed), and then lock things down when they get a goal and rely on a terrific goalie.

 

It's fairly brutal to watch. Like some warped echo of the game at its best.

 

(And yes I'm aware I just described the Hasek era Sabres. It's a different animal when your team is the one winning that way.)

 

That right there was my problem with it.  I don't need 5 or 10 goals a game but it would be nice to see 5 or 10 scoring chances a period.  I mean the USA Canada Gold Medal game that finished 3-2 and was one of the best games I have ever watched because it was all action.

 

The game last night was dump the puck in. Fight for it down low. Cycle it to the point. Shoot once. Blocked or easy save.  Puck cleared. 

 

THIS!  Hockey is broken right now and it needs fixing.

 

I can't imagine Gretzky twirling around with time and space to make a pretty play.  I can't imagine The Flower flying down the wing, hair blowing in the breeze.  Or a flowing, passing, coordinated attack coming from the French Connection anymore.

 

There's no room out there and everyone's equipment is now like NFL football equipment.  No fear. No big deal to get in front of shots.

 

Hockey is now trench warfare, not Blitzkrieg.

 

I prefer the Blitzkrieg approach.  It's 18,000 times more fun to watch.

 

If I want a "strategy" thinking man's game, I'll watch soccer and baseball.

 

That's what I did last night...ditched Rangers Game 7 in favor of pre-recorded Juventus vs. Madrid in UEFA semi-final....great game too.

 

I agree.  That game was like watching paint dry.  The Caps, very late in the 3rd period, had only 3 shots on goal in the period.

 

But as mentioned above, I don't blame the Rangers -- they're trying to win within the rules.  I blame the NHL.

 

I'm hearing quite a bit of discussion about putting the red line back in play and the two-line pass rule back in the game. 

The logic:  NHL defenses are now so far back to prevent the long breakout pass that it has killed 5 on 5 offense. 

 

I think any improvement based on this would be very marginal (and quite possibly a net negative).

[Kruppstahl]

This may be out of left field for some users here, some of whom may not even have been born at the time...

But who remembers the last real Battle of Alberta in 1991?  

 

That remains the best 7 game Cup playoff series I have ever seen.

 

It had it all.  The ice loaded with future hall of famers, Messier throwing what Harry Neale called "the best elbow I've ever seen" that nearly decapitated Rick Nattress. Theo Fleury flying around like a crazy man.  I remember him taking a charge at an Oiler, the Oiler moving, and little Theo flying face first into the boards.  Big time heavyweight fights with the likes of Tim Hunter and Dave Brown...unbelievable goaltending, unbelievable end to end action, unbelievable excitement and anticipation. Unbelievable flow, play making, passing...

 

That NHL doesn't exist anymore.  

 

The NHL needs to do something about this.

[Thorner]

I agree, you can't really blame the Rangers for their style of play, it is largely effective. It's on the NHL.