It was a joke, dummy. But 28 goals in 6 games is enough reason to pull him if he starts Game 4 poorly. We're trying to win a Cup here, not stroke egos.

Yeah, Hank's gonna demand a trade if he gets pulled. :rolleyes: That's not how playoff hockey works. Corey Crawford got yanked after one period this postseason and he has a ring. It wasn't a big deal and he was ready to go when called on again. Nobody is bigger than the team, if you're giving up 6 goals a game, you know you run the risk of getting benched, period.

Exactly.

The Lightning pulled Bishop in the 2nd period of Game 3 of the Canadien's series when he let in 3 of 14 shots. It's not like it's unprecedented or something - they're all professional

Hank should have been pulled after the Killorn goal in my opinion. He had given up 3 straight at that point (granted the Tyler Johnson goal was impossible, but he had a look at the Palat ppg goal - that should have been stopped).

If NYR goes down a goal Friday, especially if it's on one that should have been stopped, Vigneault would be certifiably nuts and flagrantly irresponsible to not put Talbot in. Bottom line.

JC, are you new?
he damn near demanded a trade when torts was there, essentially giving the franchise the "he goes or i go" speech. You think this guy would step aside for Talbot happily? making $9M to sit. So what happens if Talbot wins you your cup, then what? you look down at the end of the bench and see $9M sitting with his glove and blocker on, with no helmet. If Talbot proves he can win a cup, the writing is most definitely on the wall, why pay one dude $9M when you can pay the guy who finished off the run $4M? And let's be honest here, it's not like the rangers ooooze loyalty here.

Corey Crawford, really? they have literally been trying to push that guy out of town for 4 years now, he's beyond expendable, but nobody wants his contract. He was a professional about getting the hook, bc he will literally never have it as good as he does right now, with Chicago. Crawford is also, far from, "the best goalie in the world"

*also, i want to make this perfectly clear, PULLING, and STARTING are 2 very different things, all my points are based on STARTING a new goalie, in a new game. BUT, you run the risk of pulling a goalie and having to play the hot goalie the next game, slippery slope


-bt-

completely different scenario danno.
that series was 3-0 TB, what would be the point in continuing to play a guy who clearly is having an off night?Up 3-0 in a series, the team that's up is playing with house money, and It TOTALLY made sense to pull him, as TB just walked away from that game knowing they weren't going to mount a comeback, and its just smart to give a guy a break when you realize the outcome is essentially sealed.

-bt-

Brian,

The guy is a sieve. He gave away a 2 goal lead in the Conference Finals.

He turned a 2-0 lead into a 4-2 deficit - to me, you've used up all of your mulligans. The next shaky start, he's gone.

Are you saying there is no time that he can be pulled?! Ever?

Let's say Tampa (for the sake of discussion) holds sway tomorrow, he has a steady game, but comes up short - final score 2-1 with 25 saves.

They go to NY Sunday, facing elimination, and he gives up a soft goal in the first period.

He is GONE. Has to be.

For the majority of the goals, he's been left on an island. He shouldve been pulled after the 5th goal the other night. There was just no reason to leave him in there. But he's starter the rest of the way no matter how many goals he gives up. Him at 80% still gives you a better chance at winning a game than Cam at 100%.

Sieve? That's a bit strong. Forgetting all other intangible aspects for a moment, Talbot hasn't played a game in 6 weeks. Tough spot for him to step into, if it were even a consideration, which it probably isn't.

Dan, his initial reply was to most likely sarcastic "start Talbot" post. He never said you couldn't pull him. I agree with BT that you have to start Henry. he hadn't been great but the Rangers have given up a ridiculous number of odd man breaks and are consistently getting beaten to the loose pucks in their end.

He is technically off right now. Just as he was early in the season. Can he correct that in 2 days? I hope so.

Regarding Nash, I agree it's not his fault, especially when they scored 5 goals last night. BUT, I am troubled by the play where he took the lead pass, and only had to outskate Garrison to get to the net, but instead veered off and took a relatively weak wrist shot from 30 feet. That was inexcusable.

I agree and it looked especially bad with Fast resembling Patrick Kane on that breakaway earlier in the game. Nash looks like he's scared to make a mistake. He's more visible than last postseason but still isn't asserting himself like he does in the regular season. So tired of watching him skate in 1-on-1 and try to go to the perimeter rather than taking his big ass right down the middle.

Old Tim Hockey......no not the horse
 

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sports...521-story.html

-bt-

I heard him say that last night. I think Milbury thinks his job is to be "edgy". But I certainly took it as him saying Perry was an annoyance, who needed to be "dealt with", but by hitting him every time the opportunity arose. Not taken out. There are a lot of players who's jobs are to aggravate opponents, while toeing a fine line. And it has ALWAYS been true, there are guys out there that you despise as opponents, but would love to have as a team mate.

That said, Milbury should explain himself, and apologize if his words were taken the "wrong" way.

Mike milbury is a first rate douche.

But I came here to nominate Andrew Shaw for an Oscar for that dive. Ha, they were looking for blood..er, you can't draw blood when the stick never touched the guy

Well...if the Hawks lose to Anaheim...and that is a distinct possibilty... it won't be because of tired D-Man or shaky goaltending. It will be because one of the best collection of NHL talent around can't score a freakin' power play goal if they were 5 on 2!!

:zz:

10 goals in 46 shots against Bishop. I think we've heard enough chatter about the Rangers' goaltending for a little bit.

Best of 3 now!!! Henrick was awesome in 2nd

The "Sieve" was Ok tonight:rolleyes: Heck of an answer to the debacle that was game 3

Can't tell you how happy it made me to see the Rangers make a point of being physical with Tyler Johnson from puck drop. Add to that Nash & Marty scoring 3 goals and a lot of sh!t that should've been happening all series finally got done.

As a huge Hawks fan I'm not sure my heart can take much more of this...:D

The Rangers finally showed up. Their defense finally figured out that they needed to take the middle away and Tampa could not react. Bishop is off - I don't know if it an injury or what, but the last 2 games he has been dreadful.

In stark contrast, Lundqvist stops 38 shots (though admittedly, the NYR D had a lot to do with the fact that most of these shots were feeble, "throw it at the goal and hope for a rebound" shots.

Neutral zone turn overs are the bane for each team thus far - the team that can control the neutral zone has a heavy advantage.

Tied series boys, anything can happen here