All-Inclusive Goalie Discussion--Jones and Scrivens and Bears, Oh My!

[likid]

I believe this situation with Jones is the best that could happen to Kings regarding Quick.

I really had feeling at the start of the season that Quick lacked focus an he wasn't the same as we know him especially from PO, because with huge contract he was aware that he beat Bernier for first choice goalie spot and didn't feel anymore need that he need to compete for no.1 spot.

Now with Jones this can change. I'm sure Quick will still stay first choice, but if Jones prove that this start is not a fluke, than this can quickly change if Quick numbers will stay around 0,900.

But Quick numbers won't stay around 0,900 if he'll feel that his status is in danger. He is just to big competitor that he would let this slip away from him...

 

[gtwyc]

Things will get more interesting if Jones continues to play well but gets sent down as Quick is activated and has a few bad games.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Baby!

Care to name some names of posters who are going to overreact? You first!

we already know who. is there really a need to call em out?

i've already noticed it slowly being crept in from one already

 

[Whiskeypete]

Jones isn't going anyplace. he will be Bernier v2.0. the back up to Quick

Scrivens will either be traded by the TDL or not re-signed this summer.

Jones contract situation will give DL the same capability and flexibility he had a few years ago with the Quick - Bernier contracts. it will give him a solid 1 -2 combo in net, while having a #2 with a low AAV as he did before.

 

[Inner Turbulence]

I believe this situation with Jones is the best that could happen to Kings regarding Quick.

I really had feeling at the start of the season that Quick lacked focus an he wasn't the same as we know him especially from PO, because with huge contract he was aware that he beat Bernier for first choice goalie spot and didn't feel anymore need that he need to compete for no.1 spot.

I think it's more the other way around - Quicks injury actually helped the team focus. They tightened up defensively once it was Scrivens in net. Quick was left out to dry often early season, a lot more than what we've seen with Scrivens/Jones.

Hopefully the team maintains focus when Quickie returns.

 

[DryIslandBartender]

I think it's more the other way around - Quicks injury actually helped the team focus. They tightened up defensively once it was Scrivens in net. Quick was left out to dry often early season, a lot more than what we've seen with Scrivens/Jones.

Hopefully the team maintains focus when Quickie returns.

It's everyone else's fault but Quick's. Got it.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

It's everyone else's fault but Quick's. Got it.

I don't really think he's wrong, though it's not necessarily quantifiable. I can definitely recall early-season games where even though we dominated possession/play, the defense would break down in a godawful way; the opponent may not have a ton of shots against us, but when they did, it would be a tic-tac-toe play into the slot or something. Now certainly, it's Quick's job to be ready for those, and I think his biggest weakness is keeping focus when cold (and clearly his vulnerability to injury rises), but I would agree that the D was hanging him out more frequently than they have Scrivens or Jones.

Which goes back to our discussion on the previous page--we had no business being in OT with the Islanders, no matter what the shot count was. We were dropping a lot of stinkers in a normal slow start for us and Quick was certainly part of that, but his injury was a wake up call.

I'm not sure what your stance is, though, because you went from defending Quick on the last page to slamming him here?

 

[Cassy87]

What? Guy wins a cup and carries the team to the conference finals having a guy in the minors that had never even played an NHL game before and it was not smart to lock him up? Nonsense.

The Kings won the Cup by playing some of the best defensive hockey in any playoff season, and their overall dominance in possession & shots attempted was higher than at any time since those numbers started to be tracked.

Quick didn't carry the Kings to anything in 2012, or 2013. There has never, not once, been a time in Quick's NHL career where he wasn't regularly playing behind a very good defense.

 

[Nefarious]

In case anyone hasn't seen it yet, there is a feature story on NHL.com about the Kings goalie 'situation.'

Front page title, "EMBARRASSMENT OF RICHES"
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=696657&navid=DL|NHL|home

Also a POLL of who should backup Quick.

Who should back up Jonathan Quick when he returns to action?

Martin Jones (6-0-0, .972, 0.82, 3 SO):
55.81%
Ben Scrivens (7-3-4, .941, 1.66, 3 SO):
44.19%

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The Kings won the Cup by playing some of the best defensive hockey in any playoff season, and their overall dominance in possession & shots attempted was higher than at any time since those numbers started to be tracked.

Quick didn't carry the Kings to anything in 2012, or 2013. There has never, not once, been a time in Quick's NHL career where he wasn't regularly playing behind a very good defense.

Regardless, he put up record numbers, and still had to hold down the fort when things went wrong (it's easy to forget period 1 of the first game vs. the Blues, or shutting down Vancouver).

Also, hard to forget how he carried the team kicking and screaming to the playoff race when we were 29th in the league in offense. Remember the team only started playing better post-Sutter and REALLY well post-Carter. Defense or not, how many games did he lose when allowing 0 or 1 goals?

Edit: besides, I can't speak for him/her, but I'm fairly certain the post you were quoting was talking about we finally have a goalie who (defense or not) put up insane number and won the Conn Smythe. Not knowing what you have in the system, and knowing Bernier is heading out, why would you NOT lock him up, especially with this franchise's goaltending history? Quick is an icon for the 2012 run and it would have been career suicide to NOT sign him. On one hand, hindsight is 20-20, but on the other, there's STILL no reason to count Quick out. It's absurd.

 

[theMajor]

It's everyone else's fault but Quick's. Got it.

if youve watched the Kings quite often through the last couple seasons, youll notice (at least i have) that they tend to play a little tighter in front of goalies not named Jonathan Quick. not to say they take nights off when Quick is in net, but they dont play with the same urgency as they do when hes not in net. i thought it was pretty obvious. as the guy you quoted said, they left JQ out to dry more often this season than i've seen before....but JQ also hasnt been himself this year. id say the blame can be shared 50/50

 

[Steve Zissou]

Article up on front page of NHL.com

'Jones, Scrivens step up for Kings in Quick's absence'

Lot of props to Bill Ranford.

 

[jml87]

The Kings won the Cup by playing some of the best defensive hockey in any playoff season, and their overall dominance in possession & shots attempted was higher than at any time since those numbers started to be tracked.

Quick didn't carry the Kings to anything in 2012, or 2013. There has never, not once, been a time in Quick's NHL career where he wasn't regularly playing behind a very good defense.

There is no Cup without Jonathan Quick. I don't know how you can even argue this. The guy had a Vezina caliber season with a team that was second to last in offense. Yeah, they played great defense, but that doesn't mean that you can discount what the goaltender did. There were still 27 shots a game that got to the goalie and with his numbers he kept the team from falling out of 8th place. No Quick, there is no playoff run, therefore no Cup, it is that simple.

And in the playoffs, he continued to be outstanding. What happens when there is a defensive breakdown? What happens when you're down 1-0 already to team quickly gaining momentum and their best player catches a pass for a breakaway?



You think every goalie is going to be able to stop that or spend the whole damn season playing his ass off to get his team to the playoffs? When did Jonathan Quick and goaltending in general become so undervalued by some people around here? Did you forget when you had goalies who couldn't stop anything and wilted under the least amount of pressure?

In the playoffs in the last two years, there was still an average of 28 shots per game on goal. No matter how great your defense is, you still need a goalie to stop the puck and make great saves.

 

[Cassy87]

Regardless, he put up record numbers, and still had to hold down the fort when things went wrong (it's easy to forget period 1 of the first game vs. the Blues, or shutting down Vancouver).

Things went wrong fewer times with the Kings than with any other team in the NHL during the 2012 playoffs.

Also, hard to forget how he carried the team kicking and screaming to the playoff race when we were 29th in the league in offense.

Quick had a very good season, but he didn't carry the team any more than the defense did. If you don't want to give the defense any credit, that's your prerogative, and many do go the simplistic route and give all the credit to the goalie because they really don't understand HOW MUCH credit deserves to go to the defense. The fact of the matter is that no defense, except for St. Louis's, allowed fewer shots and fewer chances than the Kings did - so far as anyone can tell, anyway.

To say Quick carried the Kings "kicking and screaming" to the playoff race is misleading at best and flat-out dishonest at worst. The 2012 Kings weren't the 1998 Sabres, and Jonathan Quick wasn't Dominik Hasek, stopping 35 shots and several breakaways on an average night. The Kings deserve more credit than that.

No Quick, there is no playoff run, therefore no Cup, it is that simple.

I could just as easily make the argument that without the Kings' excellent defense, there is no way Quick could have had the season he had.

I could just as easily show a video, as you have - perhaps Morris's goal from center ice in the Western Conference Finals? Maybe the turnover that led to a goal against in the Cup Finals? - but that's the thing about one isolated moment from a season or a playoff run, it doesn't really tell much of anything about the entire story.

After the elimination of Vancouver, the Kings dominated every remaining opponent they had in the 2012 playoffs - offensively and defensively. If you want to say Quick carried the Kings against Vancouver, you also must say the Kings carried Quick the rest of the way. You can't have it both ways.

 

[YP44]

The Kings won the Cup by playing some of the best defensive hockey in any playoff season, and their overall dominance in possession & shots attempted was higher than at any time since those numbers started to be tracked.

Quick didn't carry the Kings to anything in 2012, or 2013. There has never, not once, been a time in Quick's NHL career where he wasn't regularly playing behind a very good defense.

It is a team game and everyone needed to be on. however Quick stole some games for the Kings. Hard to argue that.

 

[jml87]

I could just as easily make the argument that without the Kings' excellent defense, there is no way Quick could have had the season he had.

I could just as easily show a video, as you have - perhaps Morris's goal from center ice in the Western Conference Finals? Maybe the turnover that led to a goal against in the Cup Finals? - but that's the thing about one isolated moment from a season or a playoff run, it doesn't really tell much of anything about the entire story.

After the elimination of Vancouver, the Kings dominated every remaining opponent they had in the 2012 playoffs - offensively and defensively. If you want to say Quick carried the Kings against Vancouver, you also must say the Kings carried Quick the rest of the way. You can't have it both ways.

How do you make that argument then? What numbers do you have to support that Quick would've wilted behind a weaker defense? He was making all the saves, he had fantastic numbers night after night, those are the facts. Like I said, he still face 27 shots a game. The defense cannot do everything.

There's a difference. It's called circumstance. Those bad goals were far outweighed by all the saves he made. I picked that save because if Sedin had scored Vancouver has all the momentum in that game. The Kings start to doubt themselves with the Canucks getting back one of their best players from injury. There are pivotal moments. Brown's hit on Sedin. Richards play in the first game. Kopitar's overtime goal in first SCF game. Moments that can change the tide of the series. Yes, there were times that Quick made mistakes, everyone did, but he came up big when it mattered most.

No one carried the playoffs, I never said that. It was a joint effort, but Quick's play got them there. They played great defense but he was still forced to make game saving stops because giving up more than one or two goals meant a loss that season for the Kings until Carter showed up. You ask every single man in that locker room who was the most important and who was their best player that season, I bet they all say Quick (except Quick himself).

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Things went wrong fewer times with the Kings than with any other team in the NHL during the 2012 playoffs.

Quick had a very good season, but he didn't carry the team any more than the defense did. If you don't want to give the defense any credit, that's your prerogative, and many do go the simplistic route and give all the credit to the goalie because they really don't understand HOW MUCH credit deserves to go to the defense. The fact of the matter is that no defense, except for St. Louis's, allowed fewer shots and fewer chances than the Kings did - so far as anyone can tell, anyway.

To say Quick carried the Kings "kicking and screaming" to the playoff race is misleading at best and flat-out dishonest at worst. The 2012 Kings weren't the 1998 Sabres, and Jonathan Quick wasn't Dominik Hasek, stopping 35 shots and several breakaways on an average night. The Kings deserve more credit than that.

I could just as easily make the argument that without the Kings' excellent defense, there is no way Quick could have had the season he had.

I'm sorry, but the systems argument to cheapen a goaltender's performance is getting tiresome.

Your first statement...how do you want to back that up? And how can you hold that against the goalie, especially when he took care of business when he WAS pressured?

Your boldfaced statement is just borderline insulting. No one in this thread or any thread is taking credit away from the defense by giving plenty to Quick. I've played the game at a high level as well AS a defenseman and it's a symbiotic relationship. Regardless of the defense's performance (which DOES work well with Quick's style because they allow him to be agressive) the goalie had a Vezina-nominee season.

And as for carrying the team? You're right, that Sabres team actually scored more than the Kings. Quick was no doubt our MVP for most of that season until the offense was able to pull its head out of its ass. He got NO run support and lost quite a few 1 and even 0 GA games if memory serves correctly. No, Quick was not Hasek of that year, but that's a pretty stupidly high standard to hold someone to to admit they had a great performance. He kept us in the playoff race until the ship was righted and even if the defense was strong Quick was fantastic.

As for the last statement? I guess you could, but what would be the point, that we would have been fine with any other goalie? I'm not so sure.

It baffles me that fans of an organization that has had such little success at the goaltending position for years can't acknowledge talent when it punches them in the face.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The Kings won the Cup by playing some of the best defensive hockey in any playoff season, and their overall dominance in possession & shots attempted was higher than at any time since those numbers started to be tracked.

Quick didn't carry the Kings to anything in 2012, or 2013. There has never, not once, been a time in Quick's NHL career where he wasn't regularly playing behind a very good defense.

P.S. the 2007-2011 Kings called and say thanks for lying about their abilities

 

[Whiskeypete]

he kept the team from falling out of 8th place. No Quick, there is no playoff run, therefore no Cup, it is that simple.

JML is dead on, end of discussion. to dismiss this and spin it another direction is pure fail. without Quick in 2011-12 regular season, they don't make the PO's that year....period. everyone knows this and trying to debate this and convince people is pointless. JQ kept that team in games it shouldn't have been in and won games it shouldn't have.

you don't want to believe it, that is fine but get out of here with that nonsense

without what is below.....there is NO Cup....end of story

 

[losingsand]

ALL of the kings showed up during the CUP RUN. The WHOLE team was on fire... I still say this team wins the cup with Bernier in net. Maybe we wouldn't have gone 16-4... maybe 16-7 with bernier but in my opinion.. we still win that cup w/ Bernier in net.

 

[Cassy87]

Your first statement...how do you want to back that up?

It's not like scoring chances aren't available for those playoffs. NHL Numbers has them, CBS Sports even tabulated them. Sure, there's a bit of variation from chart to chart, but the consensus of those figures are clear - and that's that Quick faced fewer chances against per game than any other goalie.

And how can you hold that against the goalie, especially when he took care of business when he WAS pressured?

Again, you're making the argument that the team was carried to the playoffs and the Cup by Quick. Just because I don't believe Quick carried them any more than the team carried Quick does not mean that I'm holding anything against him. It's not an all-or-nothing, "he carried them or he sucked" argument here, is it?

No one in this thread or any thread is taking credit away from the defense by giving plenty to Quick.

You just said Quick carried the team "kicking and screaming" into the playoff race. So, how are you giving credit to the team or its defense with a statement like that?

You're right, that Sabres team actually scored more than the Kings.

So, Quick had a better season in 2012 than Hasek in 1998?

No, Quick was not Hasek of that year

OK. Now, Hasek had the better season. That's a pretty quick flip-flop.

It baffles me that fans of an organization that has had such little success at the goaltending position for years can't acknowledge talent when it punches them in the face.

I said up there that he had a very good season in 2012. If you don't want to read what's written, again, that's your prerogative. But don't misrepresent what I'm saying if you're not willing to even read it. Pretty simple.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

It's not like scoring chances aren't available for those playoffs. NHL Numbers has them, CBS Sports even tabulated them. Sure, there's a bit of variation from chart to chart, but the consensus of those figures are clear - and that's that Quick faced fewer chances against per game than any other goalie.

"fewer chances against per game" doesn't mean he didn't see hard work or important, timely and dangerous scoring opportunities. I don't disagree with your general premise here as I'm not even making the argument about the playoffs but that's not as simply quantifiable as you're making it seem.

Again, you're making the argument that the team was carried to the playoffs and the Cup by Quick. Just because I don't believe Quick carried them any more than the team carried Quick does not mean that I'm holding anything against him. It's not an all-or-nothing, "he carried them or he sucked" argument here, is it?

No no, read again--I'm talking about regular season pre-Carter, not the playoffs.

You're not SAYING it's all-or-nothing but your implications that Quick's role is minimized is pretty clear.

You just said Quick carried the team "kicking and screaming" into the playoff race. So, how are you giving credit to the team or its defense with a statement like that?

Despite shoddy all around play Quick had them in the playoff race. He got crapall for run support and as good as the team defense was he still had to play fantastic game in and game out for us to squeak out wins and stay in the race. Simply, he had no margin for error. That doesn't necessarily mean the defense wasn't good, as you can see.

So, Quick had a better season in 2012 than Hasek in 1998?

What? I don't think so. Just stating a fact--different teams, different styles. I'm showing that Quick had even LESS margin for error than 1998 Hasek.

OK. Now, Hasek had the better season. That's a pretty quick flip-flop.

I think he did. That might be the best single performance by a goaltender of all time (that whole year for him, really). An unfair standard to hold someone to, don't you agree?

I said up there that he had a very good season in 2012. If you don't want to read what's written, again, that's your prerogative. But don't misrepresent what I'm saying if you're not willing to even read it. Pretty simple.

Well, when you're saying one thing and clearly implying another, I'm going to call you on it. That's not misrepresentation.

 

[Cassy87]

Despite shoddy all around play Quick had them in the playoff race.

That's the thing. It wasn't "shoddy all around play". The Kings just weren't scoring goals, and that was due to unsustainably low shooting percentages. Once those percentages went up as they were bound to do, the scoring returned.

You're not SAYING it's all-or-nothing but your implications that Quick's role is minimized is pretty clear.

Well, when you're saying one thing and clearly implying another

You're talking about "implied" stuff as if you're having to read between the lines, which is baffling. I'm saying very plainly that as much as Quick had a very good season in 2012, he didn't carry the Kings anywhere that the team's very good defense didn't carry them. That's not minimizing anything. There's nothing to lose in translation or interpretation. It's a very simple, clear, and plain point being made.

I'm just going to stop here. It doesn't do any good to further the discussion if you're not going to respond to what I've said and instead respond to what you are imagining I'm saying. It's a pretty obvious strawman argument and I don't need or want to help you along with that at all.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

That's the thing. It wasn't "shoddy all around play". The Kings just weren't scoring goals, and that was due to unsustainably low shooting percentages. Once those percentages went up as they were bound to do, the scoring returned.

You're talking about "implied" stuff as if you're having to read between the lines, which is baffling. I'm saying very plainly that as much as Quick had a very good season in 2012, he didn't carry the Kings anywhere that the team's very good defense didn't carry them. That's not minimizing anything. There's nothing to lose in translation or interpretation. It's a very simple, clear, and plain point being made.

I'm just going to stop here. It doesn't do any good to further the discussion if you're not going to respond to what I've said and instead respond to what you are imagining I'm saying. It's a pretty obvious strawman argument and I don't need or want to help you along with that at all.

I guess I must have imagined responding to your other points point-by-point.

Okay, you shouldn't feel compelled to carry on the discussion if you don't want to. But I boldfaced what I have beef with just for clarity should the discussion end here--you keep bringing up what should be essentially good points but you're not backing them up with actual numbers--burden of proof.

The second thing is a lot of this is going to be subjective, like the defense vs. goalie argument. That's fine. We can agree to disagree. But it's not right to make absolute statements without proof, set the bar for fantastic play at 1998 Hasek, and ignore my other points before attempting to suggest I'm strawmanning you. It's not the case. I'm simply asking you to back up your thoughts.

 

[jml87]

ALL of the kings showed up during the CUP RUN. The WHOLE team was on fire... I still say this team wins the cup with Bernier in net. Maybe we wouldn't have gone 16-4... maybe 16-7 with bernier but in my opinion.. we still win that cup w/ Bernier in net.

That doesn't change the fact that they don't make it to the playoffs without Quick. And these what if arguments do not hold up. We don't know how dynamics would've changed with Bernier in net and we don't know how Bernier would've reacted to the pressure. All we know is that Quick had a .929 s% in the regular season and an incredible .946 s% in the playoffs when the Kings won it all.

 

[Rorschach]

The Kings won the Cup by playing some of the best defensive hockey in any playoff season, and their overall dominance in possession & shots attempted was higher than at any time since those numbers started to be tracked.

Quick didn't carry the Kings to anything in 2012, or 2013. There has never, not once, been a time in Quick's NHL career where he wasn't regularly playing behind a very good defense.

Jack Johnson says hi.