Mike Keenan, who coached the Rangers to the 1994 Stanley Cup title, is giving Post readers his insights and opinions periodically during these finals. The coach also will be appearing on MSG Network as an analyst beginning Sunday night. As told to Steve Serby.
The New York Rangers have to play Game 2 with no fear of failure.
The Kings are a very experienced hockey club, and that’s part of the learning curve for the Rangers — they have to learn that this is the Finals, you have to step it up even to a different level than you did in the first three rounds of the playoffs. Brad Richards and Martin St. Louis have won the Stanley Cup, but for the rest of the Rangers, it was a learning experience.
You have to continue to play with authority, and you have to play with a lot of energy and passion and emotion. The Rangers were on their heels a little bit in Game 1 — I wouldn’t call it intimidation, I don’t think they were intimidated by the Kings, but I think that they began to have a little bit of fear of failure. And you have to have the mental strength to step over that hurdle when you’ve got a lead, or when there’s a big push back from the opposition.
You’re playing against a team with a core group that has won the Cup already, they know what it takes.
When I sensed any fear of failure, I would do this often: with any team I’ve ever had, I would point out the small, incremental things that we could do strategically, and/or point out some of the things that you could exploit right on the bench. Or I would put out players that I could see had the energy — maybe they were physical players, maybe they were skilled players — but had a sense for their game at that particular time, and I would double-shift or triple-shift people like that, and change the momentum of a hockey game.
I’d like to see Rick Nash step it up. He’s a quality player, he’s had some world-class experience and success. He has to be a factor. He has to demonstrate that he can make a difference. I’d like to see more out of him.
He didn’t shoot as much — Derek Stepan didn’t shoot as often as he should also, he’s always looking to unload the puck. You have to surprise goaltenders like Henrik Lundqvist and Jonathan Quick. You have to shoot the puck and surprise them. You can’t be looking for the perfect opportunity, because if you give them a chance to read, they will stop the puck.
And I want to see Nash be more of a physical presence with his determination to go to the net, to look for loose pucks, to drive to the net when he has the puck, to show some speed on the outside. To go in there without fear, into the front of the net, and drive to the net … and be a presence. I didn’t feel that he was a presence Wednesday night.
Richards and St. Louis have to be game-breakers as well. And on the back end, the Rangers don’t have a Brian Leetch. Ryan McDonagh’s improved his game, and you’ve got a group of competent defensemen, but you don’t have the real game-breaker. So they have to try to as a group to bring more to the table than they did in Game 1.
Chris Kreider has speed, and he could be on loose pucks. He can play with a little bit of an edge … but he’s learning, he’s inexperienced, and I’m sure Wednesday night’s game taught him a lot about the consistency he has to have to bring his best level of play every shift. I didn’t see that in every shift, but his speed could be very helpful to the Rangers as well.
I don’t know the players, but I would support Dan Girardi. I think he’s a solid character, I think he’s a solid player. I’d just tell him it’s not what happens to you, it’s how you respond to what happens to you, so let’s be ready for the next game, and that applies to all the players — they let down in the third period — whether they’re a little bit in awe, or whether they were just being pressed that much harder.
The first thing I’d be encouraged by is Lundqvist’s goaltending. He again showed that he can keep the Rangers in a game, and he had to do that in the third period even to get to overtime.
I’d also be very encouraged by the fact that LA showed some openings for the Rangers when they generated speed in the neutral zone, and in particular, when they were killing penalties.
They had three or four great opportunities on the penalty kill, and LA conversely is going to want to really close that part of their game off, because that’s too dangerous, too careless, on behalf of the Kings. If they don’t, then certainly the Rangers can continue to take advantage of sometimes sloppy play on the LA power play.
I’d be encouraged by the fact that they’ve got good speed, and surprising speed. I don’t think the LA Kings were ready for the Rangers’ speed. Carl Hagelin generated some great chances on the penalty killing in particular. That was a big surprise for Los Angeles, there’s no question about it.
The things I’d want to clean up are the energy level has to be greater than it was in the third period. The compete level has to increase. Because the initial start was quick, fast, dynamic, and then they sat back a little bit, LA came to them and tied the game up, and then New York really didn’t show any initiative after that. They had a couple of chances late in the third period, but they really didn’t play with the emotional investment that they should have prior to even giving up the 2-0 lead.
I think LA was probably a little bit emotionally expended at the start of Game 1 because of the previous series with Chicago, but then once they found their game, the Rangers weren’t ready for it. Drew Doughty showed he’s a game-breaker again Wednesday night.
Quick is a very solid goaltender, but I still give a little bit of the edge to Lundqvist. I think he was a little bit more in control, but then again, it’s really hard to give Quick a fair evaluation when he didn’t see any shots for about 12 minutes in the third period and Lundqvist was being bombarded. If they had scored a goal for Lundqvist, he would have won the game for them.
We lost Game 1 in overtime in 1994 at the Garden. The Rangers should be looking at video, they should be reinforcing the positive, they should be emphasizing the aspect of their emotional investment when LA’s really coming at them hard and putting pressure on their D. They have to have quick outlets, they have to know that’s coming. It’s not one thing that you will say to the team, especially with two days off, they’ve got a lot of time to do a lot of teaching, and have them more ready for Game 2.
They have to win at least one game in Los Angeles, and it would be a huge win for them if they could carry some momentum back to New York. The Kings have proved that they can win the big games on the road, they’ve done it for three consecutive series Game 7s. And LA doesn’t change its game much from its home ice or on the road. It would be a huge boost for New York if they can win Game 2.
I never use the term Must Win. You have to win four hockey games — it could be the first four … it could be the last four. That’s the Must.
The Rangers were down and out against Pittsburgh and they came back and played great hockey to put out a very strong team. So they have to take some solace in that as well and apply it now at a higher level.
Let’s see if the Rangers did learn from Game 1. I think that they will, that they have. Rangers in 7. I won’t change my mind after one game.