Rangers-Maple Leafs: It Takes 60 Minutes to Win, But Just One Minute to Lose
Wow! Talk about an old adage coming true. It really did only take one, er, seven and a half minutes for the Rangers to see their two-goal lead evaporate and turn into a three-goal deficit.
Does anyone else feel like every single NHL rookie scores their first goal against the Blueshirts? Cause I sure as hell do. Not only did John Mitchell score his first goal Saturday night against the Rangers; he scored his first two.
I said after the second that the Rangers looked sloppy. Unfortunately, they proved me right. I feel like this loss tonight is almost as bad as the loss against Montreal last season when the Rangers were up 5-0.
I said Toronto should not be overlooked. I do not think they were, but I do think they were not given the respect any NHL team should receive.
The Rangers' ineptitude on the power play again hurt them. Had they scored on their final power play, they would have taken a 3-0 lead and possibly put the game out of reach for Toronto.
Valiquette probably wants the go-ahead goal back. A shot by Pavel Kubina from the point...a puck on edge...straight through everyone. But I don't think Valiquette is to blame for tonight's loss. He played much better than the five goals against the score sheet would suggest.
The Maple Leafs got a solid game from Vesa Toskala in net, and an inability to clear the puck by the Rangers equaled a 5-2 win for the Leafs.
The Rangers will be back at it again Tuesday night at home against the Islanders, who blew a 4-1 lead of their own Saturday night at home against Montreal, who might just be the beasts of the East.
But like I have said before, you cannot and will not win all of them. How they respond Tuesday against an Islanders team who will come out strong against the Rangers as they always do will tell us all a lot about the resolve of the New York Rangers.
More tomorrow. Thanks for reading...
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?