At what point are we gonna win one for HIM? How can anyone be “satisfied” with the play last night? They juked us up real good.

And you want to talk about spinning something? Wow.

Before that penalty, I was sure we’d win. Once Voros took it, I was sure we’d lose, and I guess Hank’s maybe had the same thought in his head?

Textbook call, no complaints about the ref making that call. Combination of laziness and stupidity from Voros…oh yeah, and lack of conditioning

Look, this team has WEAKNESSES, just about everywhere. So on any given night it is just a question of which player(s) or unit(s) will screw it up just enough for us to lose, thanks to deficient basic ability or stupidy such as the unforgiveable Gomez holding penalty when the team was already down a man. Can he sit a game for that, I mean just sit the fuk down for a game without pay?

The biggest problem this team has, right now, is that it cannot get a point out of losing in regulation. Let’s work on that. Say, you win in regulation or overtime, you get two points. And say you lose in regulation or overtime you get one point. Also, if you are losing in the final two minutes of regulation, the team with the lead has to pull its goaltender, in fairness to the team which is trailing but really needs a goal or two to catch up. This way, you have TWO empty nets at the end of the game, we know our gimmic-loving Commissioner would find “excitement” in that.

Now then, if we also make the nets wider – well, you get the idea. With wider nets and two empty goals who cares if the Rangers lose, just so long as the game is “Exciting,” right, Gary?

“Lundqvist has allowed four goals or more in six of his last 11 starts after having surrendered that many in two of his first 24. He has yielded five or more goals in five of his last 17 starts after allowing that many in four of his previous 61.”

Montreal goes ape every time someone brushes their goalie. They should have taken advantage of that fact by causing a commotion and trying to throw them off their game. That’s where we are missing Avery. Duguay is right.

That was arguably our most complete performance of the year from our offense and defense. Everyone was firing on the same cylinder except for Hank.

My problem with him is not the bad goals. It’s his unwillingness to BATTLE after giving up said bad goals. Soon as the first one went in, Hank packed in for the night. As if to say, I don’t have it, good luck.

To me, that’s been his problem here from day 1. Sure, he’s been excellent for us at time and one A LOT of games, but he hasn’t showed me he’s a warrior yet. Guys like Mike Richter, elite goaltenders, give up 2 bad goals early then play better. Hank, consistently, goes into the shitter after 1 bad goal at any point in the season.

Goal 1: Should never happen
Goal 2: Kicked out a rebound on a shot from the red line to the top of the circles center ice; might has well been on a tee
Goal 3: Never was ready after the faceoff. Didn’t come out and challenge at all. Great shot but gave him top corner uncontested.
Goal 5: Worst of them all. Backbreaker. Sure, Lang beat Staal clean but he still was on a bad angle in close. Hank was litterally sitting as far back in the net as possible. There was basically no way to get beaten high short side if he takes ONE step out from the crease and challenges. He let Lang dictate the move and got beat REAL bad.

So, let’s call a spade a spade. The loss falls on hank. So, I suppose that means the loss falls on Renney for starting him in your eyes.