NHL Thread

FRED HALE SR. · 06-10-2014, 05:22 PM

Smart money is on Kopitar and Gaborik for the CS. Another shutout by Quick could make it very interesting however. I was in the same belief as Nine that Lundqvist was at Quicks level before the playoffs. Its not even close in crunch time, Quick has been unbelievable. Lundqvist should win the vezina though he had an exceptional year and carried the Rangers at times. That one call changed the complexity of the series, we would be looking at a good series otherwise.

Thom Yorke · 06-10-2014, 05:28 PM

Williams deserves some consideration, but I think it's between Kopitar and Doughty, with Kopitar having the edge due to his position.

The Ascension · 06-10-2014, 05:33 PM

No goaltender with a .910 sv% and 2.69 GAA is winning the Smythe in this day in age. Maybe in the late 80s.

Thom Yorke · 06-10-2014, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninetales

Why is it always stats vs watch the games as if theyre mutually exclusive. It's like you think i just read spreadsheets and have never seen a game in my life.

I think what makes people love quick so much is the way he makes saves. He's very good at extending across the crease and making saves that look incredible whereas Rask or Lundqvist make them look more routine. Just a theory but Quick is more likely to make a highlight real save than the other two, but that doesnt mean hes better.

I havent been able to see a lick of these finals unfortunately, so I cant really comment on it, but no generally I wont change my opinion of a player based on 1 shutout they had. Anyone can look good in small sample sizes.

That's how Quick plays though. While Rask/Lundqvist shouldn't be discredited for being positional goalies, Quick shouldn't be criticized for being aggressive. For Quick, that's what it's all about, coupled with using his unbelievable lateral movement to cover up for being so far out. Either way though, Quick is just way better when it matters most. Lundqvist and Rask have a reputation for fizzling out, whereas Quick elevates his game.

The Ascension · 06-10-2014, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom Yorke

That's how Quick plays though. While Rask/Lundqvist shouldn't be discredited for being positional goalies, Quick shouldn't be criticized for being aggressive. For Quick, that's what it's all about, coupled with using his unbelievable lateral movement to cover up for being so far out. Either way though, Quick is just way better when it matters most. Lundqvist and Rask have a reputation for fizzling out, whereas Quick elevates his game.

Think I can safely say that Lundqvist does not have nor deserve a reputation for "fizzling out".

Ninetales · 06-10-2014, 05:41 PM

No i wasnt criticizing him, just saying that could be the reason people gravitate to giving him more praise than he deserves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom Yorke

Lundqvist and Rask have a reputation for fizzling out, whereas Quick elevates his game.

Quick has had what a mediocre playoffs and a shutout in game 3 of the finals?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom Yorke

Either way though, Quick is just way better when it matters most.

When it matters most is when a puck is coming towards the net. And Lundqvist is better at keeping them out.

FRED HALE SR. · 06-10-2014, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninetales

No i wasnt criticizing him, just saying that could be the reason people gravitate to giving him more praise than he deserves.

Quick has had what a mediocre playoffs and a shutout in game 3 of the finals?

Quick has faced far better competition coming out of the West especially with regards to offensive game plans. The Ducks, Blackhawks, and Sharks all were in the top five in scoring.

Ninetales · 06-10-2014, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR.

Quick has faced far better competition coming out of the West especially with regards to offensive game plans. The Ducks, Blackhawks, and Sharks all were in the top five in scoring.

Yes thats true. And hes also playing behind a much better team too.

Thom Yorke · 06-10-2014, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Ascension

Think I can safely say that Lundqvist does not have nor deserve a reputation for "fizzling out".

What else would you call it? You're never going to be as good in the series you lose, but he certainly has a reputation for crashing back down to the earth when the Rangers inevitably get eliminated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninetales

No i wasnt criticizing him, just saying that could be the reason people gravitate to giving him more praise than he deserves.

Quick has had what a mediocre playoffs and a shutout in game 3 of the finals?

When it matters most is when a puck is coming towards the net. And Lundqvist is better at keeping them out.

If you're so big on numbers, look up what Quick has done in elimination games this postseason (AKA when it really matters). Does it matter that he was giving up 5 a game to San Jose early if he completely shut them down in 4 straight to close them out? The guy just embodies this Kings team, and IMO is the most crucial part of why they've been so successful the last 3 years. They go through the motions in the regular season, just enough to get by, and just take off in the playoffs. It's not a coincidence that they've faced the stiffest competition in the league and are about to be 10-1 in those series.

The Ascension · 06-10-2014, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom Yorke

What else would you call it? You're never going to be as good in the series you lose, but he certainly has a reputation for crashing back down to the earth when the Rangers inevitably get eliminated.

Well, outside of this year and 2012, he has never had an above average team in front of him, and even in those years, the team in front of him had notable flaws and issues.

Do I think Lundqvist could have been better in this series? Yes, sure. That being said, he's not the one who has been turning pucks over to the Kings in prime scoring position, nor is he the one who has been unable to keep the Kings away from the front of the net.

I am fairly confident in saying that if the Rangers had Quick, they'd be in the same predicament they are now. Actually, no, I'll go further. If the Rangers had Quick, they wouldn't have gotten out of the second round.

For the record, this isn't me saying that Lundqvist is the ONLY reason the Rangers made it to the finals - he isn't. I think that saying he's the main reason is fairly accurate, though. That, and tremendous overall depth throughout the lineup.

06-10-2014, 05:22 PM	#1951 (permalink)
FRED HALE SR. Neo-Maxi-Zoom-Dweebie Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: So-Cal Posts: 3,752	Smart money is on Kopitar and Gaborik for the CS. Another shutout by Quick could make it very interesting however. I was in the same belief as Nine that Lundqvist was at Quicks level before the playoffs. Its not even close in crunch time, Quick has been unbelievable. Lundqvist should win the vezina though he had an exceptional year and carried the Rangers at times. That one call changed the complexity of the series, we would be looking at a good series otherwise. __________________ " I slashed and burned thru my 15 minutes of fame."

06-10-2014, 05:28 PM	#1952 (permalink)
Thom Yorke Music Addict Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 1,848	Williams deserves some consideration, but I think it's between Kopitar and Doughty, with Kopitar having the edge due to his position.

06-10-2014, 05:33 PM	#1953 (permalink)
The Ascension RJ4W Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: NJ Posts: 100	No goaltender with a .910 sv% and 2.69 GAA is winning the Smythe in this day in age. Maybe in the late 80s.