Remember Martin Jones? Campbell? Scrivens? Budaj?Yet ignoring the biggest stat that he’s only played 13 games..
Yeah but I remember most importantly Ranfords latest apprentice who got 5 million dollars a year to play in the AHL because he was that bad. Let’s not even talk about how those goalies did leaving the Kings because that makes your argument look more hilariousRemember Martin Jones? Campbell? Scrivens? Budaj?
When Copley lets in two goals in the first minute, they don't have much choice.they seriously went back to Quick because he made 7 saves last game?? lol k
not tonight. durzi with the 5 hole goal.Shut out in back to back games? We can do it!!!
But trading for a goalie because of a few bad goals from 2 games isn't reactionary? He's 10-3.
What? They did the job until someone better could take over. I'm not saying ride Copley into the playoffs, I'm just saying trading for another goalie because of 3 bad goals is reactionary.Yeah but I remember most importantly Ranfords latest apprentice who got 5 million dollars a year to play in the AHL because he was that bad. Let’s not even talk about how those goalies did leaving the Kings because that makes your argument look more hilarious
Lets let one of our 1000 RDmen play goalYes Faust, quick will play rest of the game unless there’s a third goalie on the bench we don’t know about
What? They did the job until someone better could take over. I'm not saying ride Copley into the playoffs, I'm just saying trading for another goalie because of 3 bad goals is reactionary.
Doughty volunteersLets let one of our 1000 RDmen play goal
You’re absolutely insane if you believe that it’s a perfectly good idea to use an unproven goalie with the other options being way over the hill Quick and Petersen. Lol absolutely lunacy.What? They did the job until someone better could take over. I'm not saying ride Copley into the playoffs, I'm just saying trading for another goalie because of 3 bad goals is reactionary.