Does Roberto Luongo deserve more praise?

[crowfish]

Why bother - obviously I am just " ignorant or biased or some combination of the two ".

Well you called me biased for posting objective all time statistics. Lets see your arguments. You must know somthing I do not. Does Luongo have the highest save% of alltime of goalies that played at least 1000 games? Is that my biased opinion or a fact?

 

[crowfish]

You’ve also left out some important details.

2007 - focuses his attention on the ref in overtime because of a non-call and Ducks score because of it, eliminating the Canucks.

2009 - 7uongo, enough said.

2011 - complete meltdown in the final. Almost got reverse swept in round 1.

2012 - go back and watch Mike Richards’s goal to get the Kings on the board in Game 1.

See a pattern?

This is not an arugment. You can pick bad games or moments from any player. The fact is Luongo was a .918 goalie in the playoffs... Making a list of his worst moments means nothing.

and lol at complete meltdown in the finals. He had 2 shutouts in 7 games, that is 50% of a stanley cup worth of shutouts. One bad game skewed his overall numbers. If the Canucks won game 7 there would be zero narritive of a complete meltdown. So your entire narritive is based on his team losing one game. It is a foolish way to judge a player's career.

 

[Nasti]

This is not an arugment. You can pick bad games or moments from any player. The fact is Luongo was a .918 goalie in the playoffs... Making a list of his worst moments means nothing.

and lol at complete meltdown in the finals. He had 2 shutouts in 7 games, that is 50% of a stanley cup worth of shutouts. One bad game skewed his overall numbers. If the Canucks won game 7 there would be zero narritive of a complete meltdown. So your entire narritive is based on his team losing one game. It is a foolish way to judge a player's career.

It’s not a bad argument. He crapped the bed in the biggest moments. That’s literally the most important part of any player’s legacy.

And lol at one bad game. He had four bad games in the final. Talk about revisionist history. Jeez.

 

[crowfish]

The other fact you will never hear from "Luongo is choker" crowd

In the 2011 finals Luongo lost 4 games.

In those 4 games, the Canucks scored 3 goals combined...
In the 3 games he won the Canucks scored 5 goals...

The Canucks averaged 1.14 goals per game in the finals. And the narritive is that Luongo is a choker? Let's use some brain cells.

 

[crowfish]

It’s not a bad argument. He crapped the bed in the biggest moments. That’s literally the most important part of any player’s legacy.

And lol at one bad game. He had four bad games in the final. Talk about revisionist history. Jeez.

Okay, why didn't he let it a bad goal in OT of Canada vs USA?

According to your theory he crapped the bed in every big spot of his career, what happened? He forget to choke?

And lol at 4 bad games... The canucks scored 3 GOALS in those 4 losses. He had f***ing 8 goals worth of support in 7 games... They only averaged 1.67 goals in his 3 wins. He had to play his ass off the series to even make it to 7 games.

 

[Nasti]

The other fact you will never hear from "Luongo is choker" crowd

In the 2011 finals Luongo lost 4 games.

In those 4 games, the Canucks scored 3 goals combined...
In the 3 games he won the Canucks scored 5 goals...

The Canucks averaged 1.14 goals per game in the finals. And the narritive is that Luongo is a choker? Let's try use some brain cells.

The other fact that you will never hear from the “it wasn’t Luongo’s fault” crowd...

He gave up 15 goals in the three games in Boston and he played less than 120 minutes due to being pulled twice.

You‘re right, he was spectacular.

 

[crowfish]

The other fact that you will never hear from the “it wasn’t Luongo’s fault” crowd...

He gave up 15 goals in the three games in Boston and he played less than 120 minutes due to being pulled twice.

You‘re right, he was spectacular.

How many goalies in NHL history have won a 7 game finals when their team has scored 8 or fewer goals, would you care to venture a guess?

 

[Nasti]

Okay, why didn't he let it a bad goal in OT of Canada vs USA?

According to your theory he crapped the bed in every big spot of his career, what happened? He forget to choke?

And lol at 4 bad games... The canucks scored 3 GOALS in those 4 losses. He had f***ing 8 goals worth of support in 7 games... They only averaged 1.67 goals in his 3 wins. He had to play his ass off the series to even make it to 7 games.

Well, he did give up a bad tying goal with 20 seconds left, so there is that. And before you say it wasn’t his fault, go back and watch how he fumbled a simple dump in with his glove seconds before the goal. Could have been a simple whistle but there he was losing focus again.

How many goalies in NHL history have won a 7 game finals when their team has scored 8 or fewer goals, would you care to venture a guess?

The question isn’t about the Canucks team. The question is about Luongo and his play no matter how many times you want to change the subject.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You’ve also left out some important details.

2007 - focuses his attention on the ref in overtime because of a non-call and Ducks score because of it, eliminating the Canucks.

2009 - 7uongo, enough said.

2011 - complete meltdown in the final. Almost got reverse swept in round 1.

2012 - go back and watch Mike Richards’s goal to get the Kings on the board in Game 1.

See a pattern?

Yes, I see a pattern of ignoring the total scope of his performances to focus solely on the negatives.

Case in point, Luongo won 3 games in the 2011 Final with a combined goal support of 5. 1-0, 3-2 (OT), 1-0. In those games he allowed 2 goals on 97 shots (.979). In their four losses, the Canucks scored a combined 3 goals. The series is framed as “Luongo’s meltdown” but the reality of those games was that Vancouver had a total-team meltdown.

Similar in 2009 game 6. Nobody talks about how Chicago, a much better team than Vancouver at that time, kicked their ass through most of that game and were given a chance by a bunch of difficult saves. Do you remember how that 3rd period meltdown played out? Unforced error behind the net which gifted the Hawks the tying goal? Repeatedly allowing Kane to dance down the slot with minutes left in a tied playoff game? The Canucks were noticeably the worse team.

2007, highlighting the elimination goal in a 5-game series where the goalie put up a .930. Luongo had fifty six saves that night. What do you want him to do, skate down the ice and score?

Same thing in 2012. The goal you’re talking about was a 5-on-3, Luongo had a man wide open on his back post and guessed wrong as to whether Richards would shoot or pass. The rest of that game he was fantastic and gave Vancouver a chance despite their being outplayed. Do you remember how the GWG was scored? Do you remember how Game 2 of that series went? Not one but two goals scored when his own defensemen fell on top of him after making the initial save, not one but two shorthanded goals scored on breakaways. Again, Vancouver was a shit team defensively. They leaned heavily on Luongo to cover up for that deficiency, which doesn’t fly in the playoffs even if you have a Lundqvist or a Price.

 

[Nasti]

Yes, I see a pattern of ignoring the total scope of his performances to focus solely on the negatives.

Case in point, Luongo won 3 games in the 2011 Final with a combined goal support of 5. 1-0, 3-2 (OT), 1-0. In those games he allowed 2 goals on 97 shots (.979). In their four losses, the Canucks scored a combined 3 goals. The series is framed as “Luongo’s meltdown” but the reality of those games was that Vancouver had a total-team meltdown.

Similar in 2009 game 6. Nobody talks about how Chicago, a much better team than Vancouver at that time, kicked their ass through most of that game and were given a chance by a bunch of difficult saves. Do you remember how that 3rd period meltdown played out? Unforced error behind the net which gifted the Hawks the tying goal? Repeatedly allowing Kane to dance down the slot with minutes left in a tied playoff game? The Canucks were noticeably the worse team.

2007, highlighting the elimination goal in a 5-game series where the goalie put up a .930. Luongo had fifty six saves that night. What do you want him to do, skate down the ice and score?

Same thing in 2012. The goal you’re talking about was a 5-on-3, Luongo had a man wide open on his back post and guessed wrong as to whether Richards would shoot or pass. The rest of that game he was fantastic and gave Vancouver a chance despite their being outplayed. Do you remember how the GWG was scored? Do you remember how Game 2 of that series went? Not one but two goals scored when his own defensemen fell on top of him after making the initial save, not one but two shorthanded goals scored on breakaways. Again, Vancouver was a shit team defensively. They leaned heavily on Luongo to cover up for that deficiency, which doesn’t fly in the playoffs even if you have a Lundqvist or a Price.

I’m noticing a lot of Luongo supporters distracting from the discussion by saying how the team melted down around him. I don’t deny that. They did. But Luongo also melted down. That’s who this discussion is about. It‘s not like he stood on his head and still lost because the team around him failed. He failed as well. I don’t think poorly of his play because he lost. I think poorly of his play for always losing focus in the biggest moments. I didn’t just cherry pick the negatives. Those were key moments in his career. 3.41 GAA and .891 SV% in the final ain‘t good.

 

[Weztex]

Him getting into the Hall really opens the door for other goalies given he has no hardware. Goalies are really underrepresented in the HHOF.

Goalies are indeed underrepresented. That said, guys like Gerry Cheevers and Rogatien Vachon are already in so Luongo getting the nod doesn't set any kind of precedent.

 

[CloutierForVezina]

Case in point, Luongo won 3 games in the 2011 Final with a combined goal support of 5. 1-0, 3-2 (OT), 1-0. In those games he allowed 2 goals on 97 shots (.979). In their four losses, the Canucks scored a combined 3 goals. The series is framed as “Luongo’s meltdown” but the reality of those games was that Vancouver had a total-team meltdown.

This was unfortunately the case. I know when you get deep in the playoffs every team is playing through injuries, but the Canucks were almost entirely crippled at that point. They had pretty much nobody left on D and they bled high danger chances against at an absurd rate. Watching it live felt like every other play was an odd man rush against and the Bruins just picked them apart.

Edler was playing with 2 broken fingers.

Ehrhoff had a serious shoulder injury that required offseason surgery immediately after the playoffs.

Hamhuis tore his groin trying to hipcheck Lucic and was out completely.

That's their top 3 D right there. All of them injured and either entirely out of the lineup or playing crippled.

That's not even mentioning the fact they also lost their best defensive forward, Malhotra, for the entire playoffs.

People can point and say Luongo should have found a way to shut the door anyways but it was borderline miraculous they managed even 3 wins in that series.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I’m noticing a lot of Luongo supporters distracting from the discussion by saying how the team melted down around him. I don’t deny that. They did. But Luongo also melted down. That’s who this discussion is about. It‘s not like he stood on his head and still lost because the team around him failed. He failed as well. I don’t think poorly of his play because he lost. I think poorly of his play for always losing focus in the biggest moments. I didn’t just cherry pick the negatives. Those were key moments in his career.

But in a lot of those situations he did stand on his head. Again, you are hanging a 4-1 series loss on him when he put up a .930, and made 56 saves in the elimination game. That’s the definition of standing on his head against a much better team. The series was unwinnable.

He didn’t melt down in 2011 Game 7. Boston scored 3 greasy goals from the crease. Vancouver got shut out. That is not a goalie’s L. Again, the game and series were unwinnable.

2012, look at the actual goals in Game 2 that caused Vancouver to switch goalies. It’s ludicrous to blame the goalie for those. The fact of the matter is that Vigneault made a losing gamble that bringing in Schneider would turn things around in a series where they just played like shit.


A huge part of this is that those Vancouver teams were one of the all time examples of a regular season team, a paper tiger that didn’t have the elements needed for playoff success. They weren’t even a real contender for all that long, only about 3 years. Better developed teams like Anaheim and Chicago and LA and Boston just beat them into submission every spring. Goaltending isn’t going to cover that up, so no matter how it plays out you eventually have Luongo in the spotlight while everything falls apart.

 

[crowfish]

Well, he did give up a bad tying goal with 20 seconds left, so there is that. And before you say it wasn’t his fault, go back and watch how he fumbled a simple dump in with his glove seconds before the goal. Could have been a simple whistle but there he was losing focus again.


The question isn’t about the Canucks team. The question is about Luongo and his play no matter how many times you want to change the subject.

The answer is zero, but I am sure you already knew that, because how impossible would it be to win a 7 game series with 8 total goals of support.

Okay he gave up a bad game tying goal (your subjective opinion), but lets go with that. Then why didn't he choke in OT? Your theory was that he chocked EVERY time in the biggest games, so you still have some explaining to do.

And actually you are the one making this about the Canucks team... Your whole argument is based on the playoffs. I didn't realize it was the 2011 Luongos vs the 2011 Bruins.

My arguments for Luongo are based on his career statistics, since that is a much better way to evaluate a players career. I'll take 1000 games worth of data over a few playoff games where the outcomes are highly subject to variance. There are bad calls, injuries, lucky bounces, or even just a hard fought 50/50 games where one team has to lose. There are many ways to lose in a small sample size of games, it is not under the control of one player.

 

[Nasti]

The answer is zero, but I am sure you already knew that, because how impossible would it be to win a 7 game series with 8 total goals of support.

Okay he gave up a bad game tying goal (your subjective opinion), but lets go with that. Then why didn't he choke in OT? Your theory was that he chocked EVERY time in the biggest games, so you still have some explaining to do.

And actually you are the one making this about the Canucks team... Your whole argument is based on the playoffs. I didn't realize it was the 2011 Luongos vs the 2011 Bruins.

My arguments for Luongo are based on his career statistics, since that is a much better way to evaluate a players career. I'll take 1000 games worth of data over a few playoff games where the outcomes are highly subject to variance. There are bad calls, injuries, lucky bounces, or even just a hard fought 50/50 games where one team has to lose. There are many ways to lose in a small sample size of games, it is not under the control of one player.

You can lose a series where your team only scores 8 goals and still come out of it with dignity. Luongo didn’t do that.

On Canada, they won goal despite Luongo, not because of him. And he had what, one save in overtime?

Don’t know what you’re talking about. I‘ve been talking about multiple years of Luongo’s career. 2011 included. It’s you who keeps bringing up the rest of the team. And yeah, playoffs are kind of important.

I value high pressure situations much more than regular season games. That’s obviously where we differ.

 

[crowfish]

You can lose a series where your team only scores 8 goals and still come out of it with dignity. Luongo didn’t do that.

On Canada, they won goal despite Luongo, not because of him. And he had what, one save in overtime?

Don’t know what you’re talking about. I‘ve been talking about multiple years of Luongo’s career. 2011 included. It’s you who keeps bringing up the rest of the team. And yeah, playoffs are kind of important.

I value high pressure situations much more than regular season games. That’s obviously where we differ.

The mental gymnastiscs is unbelivable.

2011 Canucks score 8 goals in 7 games, they lost because of Luongo
2010 Gold Medal game Luongo saves 34 of 36 shots and they won in spite of him

Luongo had a 1.76 GAA and .927 SV% in that tournament btw. Brodeur was 2.90 GAA and .867% in his 2 starts, but they won gold "despite" Luongo.

You clearly have some serious deep seeded bias against Luongo.

 

[Ruthervin]

One of the most overrated goalies of his era. He should get less praise. The guy had gaf after gaf in the biggest moments of his career.

Chicago broke him in 2009. Before that however, he was phenomenal. He absolutely stonewalled Dallas in the first round of the 2007 playoffs. Luongo could have and should have been that generation's version of Hasek, Roy, Brodeur. Instead, he became that generation's version of Curtis Joseph. Still very very good, but not as great as he should have been.

 

[Nasti]

The mental gymnastiscs is unbelivable.

2011 Canucks score 8 goals in 7 games, they lost because of Luongo
2010 Gold Medal game Luongo saves 34 of 36 shots and they won in spite of him

Luongo had a 1.76 GAA and .927 SV% in that tournament btw. Brodeur was 2.90 GAA and .867% in his 2 starts, but they won gold "despite" Luongo.

You clearly have some serious deep seeded bias against Luongo.

You’re not even reading what I’m writing which makes this conversation a waste of my time. I never said they lost because of Luongo. I simply said that he wasn’t good and then all you did was make excuses and bring up the rest of the team because you apparently cannot have the team and goalie suck at the same time. I’m done.

 

[Ruthervin]

Canucks vs. Bruins 2011 re-visited:

I know some guys on here are analyzing the Canucks/Bruins Stanley Cup series from 2011, and so I'll weigh in on that. I don't want to take too much away from the Bruins since they had a hell of a team and won fair and square, and I also don't want to use injuries as an excuse (to the point where it takes away from Boston's great play in that series and season as a whole), but the truth of the matter is that 6 of the Canucks' top 9 forwards and 4 of our top 6 defensemen were either playing severely hurt (i.e. Kesler, twins, etc.), or weren't even in the line-up (i.e. Hamhuis, Samuelson, etc). Yes, Boston had injuries as well (Horton, Savard), but they were by far the healthier team.

On the way to the cup finals, the Canucks played two of the most physical teams that year (Nashville and San Jose). While Tampa and Montreal were solid teams that year, they weren't very physical. Philadelphia was but they were imploding internally and so Boston mopped the floor with them.

As far as the actual finals went, many people say that Luongo was the only reason why the Canucks were in it but this isn't true. During the first two games of that series, although the games were close on paper (score), the Canucks dominated play and it was actually Tim Thomas that kept the score artificially close. Go back and watch the games for proof........even the commentators commented on how gassed the Bruins often looked heading into the 3rd periods in those two games.

To the Bruins' credit, their coaches adjusted their strategy after game 2 (combined with the Canucks' health deteriorating), and so Boston dominated the Canucks in Games 3 and 4. Game 5 was a coin flip in which the Canucks won.....and a game in which the Canucks actually dominated the Bruins physically. In Game 6, the Canucks actually outplayed the Bruins in this game - outside of a horrifically bad 4-5 minute stretch in which the Bruins scored 4 goals. Before that 4-5 minute disaster however, the Canucks carried the play for the first few minutes and almost scored the games' first goal.

In Game 7 - again, the score doesn't do justice to the score. Thomas outplayed Luongo big time here but the Canucks carried the play. Don't believe me? Look at the total shots (37-21), total number of hits (something insane like 47-25 or 49-26), high danger chances, possession, etc. Canucks came out favourably on all of these metrics. Only difference is that Thomas badly outplayed Luongo in this game (Thomas was the better goalie in this series but Luongo had the superior career overall..........as evidenced by all stats, metrics, personal achievements, and career earnings). Many media members talked about how the Bruins dominated Game 7 but this was biased reporting as the Canucks were the most hated team in the league at the time.

In my opinion - had both teams been healthy, I believe the series would have been similar to the Chicago-Boston finals in 2013. I also believe that the January 7th 2012 game was also very indicative of what would have happened if both teams had been healthy (Canucks won that game 4-3.......in Boston).

 

[nergish]

I remember Luongo bobbling a routine puck that led to the US tying the game for the Gold medal in 2010 as well as Slovakia clawing there way back into a game they had no business being in during the semi’s. He was never a money goaltender. He was great, but he was a mental midget. Guys like Lundqvist and Price would’ve killed to play for teams half as good as that Vancouver roster. They did more with far less.

You are definitely underestimating how good Luongo was from '06-10, leading up being the goalie for Team Canada. He played for some pretty weak Canucks teams, and was the best player on the ice for us for several years.

 

[nhlfan9191]

You are definitely underestimating how good Luongo was from '06-10, leading up being the goalie for Team Canada. He played for some pretty weak Canucks teams, and was the best player on the ice for us for several years.

The point of my post wasn’t that Luongo wasn’t a great goalie. It was that he had some pretty big head scratching moments in big games. If you had to pick a goalie to win you a do or die game, Luongo was not that guy.

 

[Nasti]

Below were Luongo’s direct competition during his career. Game 7 of the final. Do you pick Luongo over any of these guys?

Lundqvist
Quick
Price
Brodeur
Thomas
Vasilevsky
Fleury

I wouldn’t.

The point of my post wasn’t that Luongo wasn’t a great goalie. It was that he had some pretty big head scratching moments in big games. If you had to pick a goalie to win you a do or die game, Luongo was not that guy.

This is the point I’ve been making as well. He was anti clutch. Great during the regular season but too much in his own head during big games. Most non-Canucks fans saw this.

 

[nergish]

If you had to pick a goalie to win you a do or die game, Luongo was not that guy.

I don't entirely agree, as he did come up clutch in some big games over his career, but that was kind of what I meant when I say our fanbase did end up souring on him a bit.

He was fantastic during the run to the Finals, but did not show up in Game 7.
That alone was enough for me to say "okay, let's see what we can get for Lou and roll with Schneider".

We all know how that ended up...

 

[Chairman Maouth]

I'm a Canucks fan.

2007 playoffs Luongo was amazing. After 2007 he was not a big game goalie. Wen it really counted, he faltered.

The Canucks missed the playoffs in 2008. The following two years the Hawks defeated us both years and lit Luongo up both times - 2009 and 2010. I wanted Luongo gone after the 2010 playoffs. If that had happened we could be 2011 Stanley Cup champs.

The other team stuff about them choking - I'm not buying into that. The Canucks were extremely beaten up by the time the finals even started.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The point of my post wasn’t that Luongo wasn’t a great goalie. It was that he had some pretty big head scratching moments in big games. If you had to pick a goalie to win you a do or die game, Luongo was not that guy.

The thing is, all great goalies have those moments. Brodeur, Roy, Hasek, Belfour. They all had moments in huge games where you could just point and laugh at how badly they screwed things up. Patrick Roy, who won two Conn Smythes, made arguably the #1 unforced gaffe in playoff history. The entire reason the Miracle on Ice occurred was that Vladislav Tretiak played badly enough against college kids to get pulled. Martin Brodeur, the winningest goalie of all time, personally blew a Finals game in 2003 which nearly cost Jersey a Cup, and was responsible for the most stunning last-minute blown lead in Game 7 history.

The difference was that they offset those moments with a bunch of winning memories. That's the key for goalie legacies. People mention those moments above as minor letdowns on the way to multiple Cups. The narrative is that they were born winners, but nobody's perfect, right?

Luongo played maybe 2-3 Cup contending seasons in his entire career, the rest of it on mediocre-to-bad teams. People have very clear memories of how those Cup contending seasons ended, and nothing to offset them. Even in the case where he did win with a dominant international team, people carry over the narrative about his NHL playoffs to find reasons why his gold medal performance wasn't as clean as it should have been. Even just one Cup would have changed everything (as it did for Belfour) but instead his team got pummeled in that Game 7. That one game set the permanent tone for the rest of the narrative.