Five Observations From The Rangers' Loss In Chicago
1. Last season the Rangers had "Tommy Tinkers", but this season they have "Johnny Juggles". Can you believe the Rangers fielded yet another different lineup last night? Avery was moved up to the first line where he was unimpressive, while Christensen is already on his way out by moving to the fourth line. Center Brian Boyle was put on the wing as Brashear made his way back into the lineup. Tortorella gives a whole new meaning to the term controlled chaos...or is it really just confusion?
2. There is good news in all of this! For the first time since the 1970's, the Rangers have a "Goal-a-Game" line! Too bad it's the only goal they will score for that game. And should I really even call it a line? It's more like a two-thirds. If anyone other than Gaborik could control this offense for just one game, I may drop dead. I'm not taking out a life insurance policy anytime soon.
3. The Rangers' defense pinch more than a pervert in an Italian back alley. Marc Staal cost his team the game last night when he lead the rush up ice in overtime and failed to get back into his position. Redden was the only sound defenseman during the game. Staal was just clueless, Rozsival was lazy, Del Zotto and Girardi were unimpressive, and Gilroy looked like Rico Fata trying to play defense.
4. Is the real Henrik Lundqvist finally back? After making 39 saves in what was easily his best game of the season, we can only hope. It was his first game in weeks that he did not give up a soft goal. We may even have to adjust our new Henrik Lundqvist patented shooter-tutor, that was created before last night's game (see below). I really felt bad for him in the end because he deserved, so badly, to win this game. He stood on his head but the team in front of him was terrible; disgustingly allowing themselves to be out shot 41-16. They only had one shot during the third period, and I didn't see it, so it must have been Maloney's during a commercial break. (See #5)
To read the rest of this article, click here.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?