GDT: GM#76 LA Kings vs Edmonton Oilers @7:00

[Sol]

No, because no goaltender posts a .946 consistently. He's not the goalie he used to be in general, probably due to age and injuries, but he's still top-10 at worst.

The problem is that there are ebbs and flows to a season. At least you're able to acknowledge he was fire to start. Look at a guy like RInne for example who started like ass and is hot now. Who do you consider good goaltenders in this league? Because I can guarantee I can pull bad, mediocre, inconsistent stretches for any of them.

He's not the #1 goalie in the league and it's a volatile position. I just think your expectations are out of whack and it's on display in each and every GDT. I don't mind you calling him out when he's ass, but when you preemptively make two posts prior to each game wondering aloud how bad he's going to be...hell even in the Colorado GDT. You blew him up for letting in one goal. Goalies get scored on man, deal with it!

As an aside I think Petersen is gonna be a good one, my god, is that kid a stud. We may have struck gold there. But Quick isn't dead yet and there's no goalie in this league that's better when they're on top of their game.

I don't think he's top 10 even if stats say he is. This isn't a goalie who has won us games in 2018. He carried the team in the beginning of the season but has been inconsistent as f***. That's not top 10 goalie material to me.

He might not be dead but the Kings need Petersen to ready up and get ready to take his spot asap. Quick just isn't great anymore. He's just your run in the mill goalie now. Poor positioning and not a game breaker.


Injuries and age derailed him which isn't surprising for a goalie with his style. I don't know why people in general don't want to admit that he's not the same goalie. It's not an insult that he's aged.


I only see this from a select few of our fans that think he's still a great goalie. He can be at times phenomenal but that's few and far between. His inconsistency is what makes him a decent goalie now. There's no one better at his peak, but he's not at his peak often at all. He's aged, he missed most of last season. People need to understand this isn't 2012 Quick who won every f***ing game and gave the team a chance to make the playoffs when conceding 2 goals was a possible loss cause we weren't scoring.

 

[Sol]

Carter has been scoring goals but he looks much slower. And he's looked slow before injury. He's not doing much except getting goals but his overall game has suffered this season before injury and after.

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

if Carter is the reason we are in the position we are in, then how did we manage to be 2nd in the conference after 40 games?

 

[Kingspiracy]

Carter has been scoring goals but he looks much slower. And he's looked slow before injury. He's not doing much except getting goals but his overall game has suffered this season before injury and after.

He is still more effective than most other forwards on the team even if hes lost a step.

I think you're out to lunch with Quick btw, he is still a good goalie that scares the shit out of the opposition.

We do seem to be missing that veteran savvy, that passion and that drive. Perhaps some of our boys dont want to pay the price of success anymore since they have already won before.

We are not done yet though, we can still have a positive end to the season.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I don't think he's top 10 even if stats say he is. This isn't a goalie who has won us games in 2018. He carried the team in the beginning of the season but has been inconsistent as ****. That's not top 10 goalie material to me.

He might not be dead but the Kings need Petersen to ready up and get ready to take his spot asap. Quick just isn't great anymore. He's just your run in the mill goalie now. Poor positioning and not a game breaker.


Injuries and age derailed him which isn't surprising for a goalie with his style. I don't know why people in general don't want to admit that he's not the same goalie. It's not an insult that he's aged.


I only see this from a select few of our fans that think he's still a great goalie. He can be at times phenomenal but that's few and far between. His inconsistency is what makes him a decent goalie now. There's no one better at his peak, but he's not at his peak often at all. He's aged, he missed most of last season. People need to understand this isn't 2012 Quick who won every ****ing game and gave the team a chance to make the playoffs when conceding 2 goals was a possible loss cause we weren't scoring.

Then I'm sorry but I have to agree with the folks who say you are not very good at goalie evaluation.

You completely lack perspective of what top starting goalies do over the course of a season.

I'm not at all saying Quick is the same goalie, only that he's still a top goalie despite a stretch of inconsistency.

 

[Sol]

Then I'm sorry but I have to agree with the folks who say you are not very good at goalie evaluation.

You completely lack perspective of what top starting goalies do over the course of a season.

I'm not at all saying Quick is the same goalie, only that he's still a top goalie despite a stretch of inconsistency.

Agree to disagree.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

I'm pretty sure GoldenBear is a former goalie, and is therefore completely unable to have a reasonable conversation about goaltending.

I would agree with you that Quick was bad and has been bad for most of the year. It's telling that the King's backup goalies have better stats year after year. Quick almost seems to be the lynchpin to the unpredictability of this team.

20 some odd years in net, at a relatively high level.

I am perfectly fine with having a reasonable conversation about goaltending,

But when your sol premise is he sucks because he was in the position he needed to be in, and the puck took a bad bounce, that's a shit evaluation of the play and does a disservice to everyone.

When you can't accurately describe what actually happened on a goal, then you lose all credibility in determining what is a good goal vs what is a bad goal.

The Hornquist goal a month or so ago, that was a crap goal, absolutely, no doubt about it, twice on Sundays, but the first goal last night, to try and in the blame on Quick is asinine and I will call it out.

Come up with something more than, he sucks.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

For me, that's being Sutter free, esp for Brown. I don't think that's STevens. Having been a fan of his from his Flyers coaching reign, I've been disappointed. But then again , the Flyers teams he had , had more top end talent on the first 3 lines.

I get that in the NHL, coaches have a short tenure, but 1 year, given the hand he was dealt, doesn't seem fair. I think he'll get next year and if they still fail, he'll get yanked. Tho, curious if Quenville is being canned (as has been in the rumor winds) they'd opt to hire him.

Also, I think the owners are well aware of the awful effect DL's last 3 yrs, had, esp pisisng away first round picks. Every time I see Kyle Conner, it hurts to think he should be a King.

As for strength and conditioning, they aren't kids, they know what they have to do. From what I've see it's mental, they're lazy and that goes back for 3 prior seasons. They wait until the 3rd period to show up. that's arrogant and it's cost them points. They don't look fatigued or tired when they are staging those 3rd period comebacks. And I'm tired of Brown and co saying post game 'we weren't ready' or 'we need to play a full 60'. It's been too many years, enough excuses.

They will have some new young blood on next year's team and I think they will make trades in the off season to improve.
The WC is tough and their division will only get tougher.
And next year, Doughty aside, their core is older and that's not a good recipe.

That is possible that it's free from Sutter has nothing to do with Stevens, won't really know until next year I suppose.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

20 some odd years in net, at a relatively high level.

I am perfectly fine with having a reasonable conversation about goaltending,

But when your sol premise is he sucks because he was in the position he needed to be in, and the puck took a bad bounce, that's a **** evaluation of the play and does a disservice to everyone.

When you can't accurately describe what actually happened on a goal, then you lose all credibility in determining what is a good goal vs what is a bad goal.

The Hornquist goal a month or so ago, that was a crap goal, absolutely, no doubt about it, twice on Sundays, but the first goal last night, to try and in the blame on Quick is asinine and I will call it out.

Come up with something more than, he sucks.

I think with last night's goals, it's possible to distribute blame to the team on each of them.

I don't really blame the first one on Quick, but it was saveable....but two teammates blew it behind the net and Pearson blew it in front of the net. The puck was in a total blind spot for any goalie. Quick could have 'guessed' better I suppose and I didn't like his leg positioning but I don't blame him for it. That goal is emblematic of his biggest weakness though and the one the Sharks in particular (and the Oil apparently) expose the most--getting him dizzy with behind the net plays. But even then, the Oilers executed quickly and three Kings did nothing but watch.

The second one I think he saves on almost any other night. Not 'at fault' because that was uncharacteristically Kopitar losing his man, but I can't remember Quick underplaying a shotpass in recent memory, he's usually over there being strong on that post, especially given McDavid pretty well whiffed the first attempt. I agree with you that he had to play the initial point shot and the most dangerous player in the league backdoor is bad news period, but this would have been a huge save and one he makes many nights (and doesn't typically get enough credit for).

The third one...plenty of team blame to go around. Quick got beat on a breakaway by the best player in the world.

In short, either of the 2nd two goals would have been a huge save. We need those from him down the stretch. That's where I depart heavily from Sol's opinion that "Quick is bad." I think most other nights he makes at least one of those two saves, which is why I didn't like his performance last night, even if you can blame those goals on team breakdowns. We don't need him to be good, we need him to be great, and he wasn't great last night...but he's sure not as terrible as folks are making it seem. I truly think a lot of folks on this board are lacking goalie perspective around the league if Quick isn't even a top-10 starter in their eyes.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

I think with last night's goals, it's possible to distribute blame to the team on each of them.

I don't really blame the first one on Quick, but it was saveable....but two teammates blew it behind the net and Pearson blew it in front of the net. The puck was in a total blind spot for any goalie. Quick could have 'guessed' better I suppose and I didn't like his leg positioning but I don't blame him for it. That goal is emblematic of his biggest weakness though and the one the Sharks in particular (and the Oil apparently) expose the most--getting him dizzy with behind the net plays. But even then, the Oilers executed quickly and three Kings did nothing but watch.

The second one I think he saves on almost any other night. Not 'at fault' because that was uncharacteristically Kopitar losing his man, but I can't remember Quick underplaying a shotpass in recent memory, he's usually over there being strong on that post, especially given McDavid pretty well whiffed the first attempt. I agree with you that he had to play the initial point shot and the most dangerous player in the league backdoor is bad news period, but this would have been a huge save and one he makes many nights (and doesn't typically get enough credit for).

The third one...plenty of team blame to go around. Quick got beat on a breakaway by the best player in the world.

In short, either of the 2nd two goals would have been a huge save. We need those from him down the stretch. That's where I depart heavily from Sol's opinion that "Quick is bad." I think most other nights he makes at least one of those two saves, which is why I didn't like his performance last night, even if you can blame those goals on team breakdowns. We don't need him to be good, we need him to be great, and he wasn't great last night...but he's sure not as terrible as folks are making it seem. I truly think a lot of folks on this board are lacking goalie perspective around the league if Quick isn't even a top-10 starter in their eyes.

I know what your saying, but that wasn't a typical behind the net, set play, etc, watch it again, the puck is in the pair, the Oiler player bats it so it's going toward the corner that quick is protecting the post on. As Reider falls, he managed to smack it straight to Aberg, who had to make a quick stickhandle, and tuck it in, it was a fluke play at best.

Second, I don't know if he underplayed it, or not, but he absolutely has to focus on the point like they are going to shoot it, anything else he risks getting beat, the fact that it ended up behind the net to me, that's 100% on Kopitar not playing the man.

Third, man, I dunno what to tell you, when I first saw it, I thought, cmon Quick gotta have that, but as it was discussed more and more, that's just an absolute world class play by a world class player. MacDavid, was not going to shoot that puck and Quick read that, and MacDavid changed his mind, keep in mind, AT FULL SPEED and with the puck FOUR FEET in front of him. Anyone that has shot the puck knows that shooting the puck four feet in front of you, is kinda like blowing for a brick wall to fall over, you have ZERO leverage, he read that Quick wasn't prepared for the shot because no goalie would have been.

He would have had to be GUMBY to make a save on the first goal, the second, I can concede, while the team NEEDED to him to make that save, it would have been a top 10 save if he had done so, and that's a bit heavy to ask of your netminder.

 

[Sol]

He is still more effective than most other forwards on the team even if hes lost a step.

I think you're out to lunch with Quick btw, he is still a good goalie that scares the **** out of the opposition.

We do seem to be missing that veteran savvy, that passion and that drive. Perhaps some of our boys dont want to pay the price of success anymore since they have already won before.

We are not done yet though, we can still have a positive end to the season.

He's a decent goalie. And I doubt he scares anyone anymore. Quick of the past for sure. Not anymore. And hopefully Carters overall game bounces back cause he doesn't look too good. Vilardi needs to make the team next year though

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

He's a decent goalie. And I doubt he scares anyone anymore. Quick of the past for sure. Not anymore. And hopefully Carters overall game bounces back cause he doesn't look too good. Vilardi needs to make the team next year though

You're right, he doesn't scare anyone anymore, that's why in the PLAYERS poll, he was voted the 2nd hardest goaltender to play against....

Where the hell do you come up with this crap?

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

RJ

Just to add more fuel for Calgary, Gaudreau isn't playing either, so no Monahan, no Gaudreau

 

[ScoreZeGoals]

He's a decent goalie. And I doubt he scares anyone anymore. Quick of the past for sure. Not anymore. And hopefully Carters overall game bounces back cause he doesn't look too good. Vilardi needs to make the team next year though

This years NHLPA players poll had Quick as the second most difficult goalie to score on in the entire league

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

This years NHLPA players poll had Quick as the second most difficult goalie to score on in the entire league

Doesn't matter, according to Sol, he doesn't scare anyone because....because. Absolutely ZERO reasoning behind it, just....because.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I know what your saying, but that wasn't a typical behind the net, set play, etc, watch it again, the puck is in the pair, the Oiler player bats it so it's going toward the corner that quick is protecting the post on. As Reider falls, he managed to smack it straight to Aberg, who had to make a quick stickhandle, and tuck it in, it was a fluke play at best.

Second, I don't know if he underplayed it, or not, but he absolutely has to focus on the point like they are going to shoot it, anything else he risks getting beat, the fact that it ended up behind the net to me, that's 100% on Kopitar not playing the man.

Third, man, I dunno what to tell you, when I first saw it, I thought, cmon Quick gotta have that, but as it was discussed more and more, that's just an absolute world class play by a world class player. MacDavid, was not going to shoot that puck and Quick read that, and MacDavid changed his mind, keep in mind, AT FULL SPEED and with the puck FOUR FEET in front of him. Anyone that has shot the puck knows that shooting the puck four feet in front of you, is kinda like blowing for a brick wall to fall over, you have ZERO leverage, he read that Quick wasn't prepared for the shot because no goalie would have been.

He would have had to be GUMBY to make a save on the first goal, the second, I can concede, while the team NEEDED to him to make that save, it would have been a top 10 save if he had done so, and that's a bit heavy to ask of your netminder.

If I didn't make it clear I actually agree with you, I'm just trying to be critical. Expecting your goalie to be the best player on the ice literally every night is an unfair load for even the best of the best even if it's needed.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

This years NHLPA players poll had Quick as the second most difficult goalie to score on in the entire league

"agree to disagree."

 

[Drivesaitl]

This years NHLPA players poll had Quick as the second most difficult goalie to score on in the entire league

Just ftr the NHLPA players poll took place from September to January. With a lot of that poll taking place earlier. So that the polled players, a lot of them, would be talking about the pre-injury Quick. They'd be talking primarily older memories of 2015-16 or earlier. Quick was a good- great goalie, nobody disputing that. But there wasn't enough sample last year to really evaluate. This year results have been mixed.

First of all I appreciate that the Kings historically have been one of the better defensive clubs in the league. Its not just Quick preventing GA. Its a team that historically doesn't give up a lot and that typically has outshot opponents. So that while Quick has great GAA numbers his Save percentage stats are somewhat more ordinary historically.

Lets do a comparison. Devan Dubnyk, who I don't even particularly like as a goalie, and who has played on some shitty teams, has an IDENTICAL .916 career save%. That should immediately cause reflection, because Dubnyk played half his career and GP with Edmonton. Reflecting that, his GAA average is much higher than Quicks. 2.55 vs 2.28. For goalies btw a difference this large in career totals is significant. So that Dubnyk maintained the same career save % while facing more work, and more GA. For him to have the same % he has to be seeing more work/game, more shots. Just think about it. Would anybody on the Kings board be defending Dubnyk as much?

Next I took a look at where its going wrong for the Kings this season. What jumps out at you is more goals allowed in first period than any other period. 72-55-56 respectively. The 72GA is the 4th highest figures in the league. The only teams worse are all bad. Again for point of comparison, Talbot, in Edmonton, is a goalie considered to have the worst starts in the league this season. He carries much of the weight and yet Edmonton is 9th in the category. To put this into perspective the Edmonton Oilers have allowed 12 first shot GA this season. (Talbot 10 of them) Pretty bad starts. NHL doesn't break the per period stats down per goalie, would be interesting to look at. But both carry much of their clubs weight so probably influence the team numbers significantly.

Now I see that the more common attribution expressed here is that the Kings start games really poorly. I have a mixed view on that because I've seen Quick give up a lot of weak goals early and that he almost always looks better as a game goes on. Its been my impression. This is anecdotal, but in a recent game the Kings were outshooting their opponent 19-4 in the first period and they were down 2-0. It seemed like I had seen that movie before. That isn't consistent with a team being outplayed to start. Its more about a goalie letting in half the shots he saw. (The Kings of course lost the game)

Now I realize that GAA and Save% are metrics influenced by goalie and team variables but the eye test says Kings are historically pretty good at limiting serious chances, good at limiting shots, good at providing levels of defence. Again Quicks stellar GAA career record reflects that. But Quicks more ordinary career save %, does it reflect something else?

Just food for thought.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

If I didn't make it clear I actually agree with you, I'm just trying to be critical. Expecting your goalie to be the best player on the ice literally every night is an unfair load for even the best of the best even if it's needed.

I know you were, and it amazes me the only argument people can bring is, he sucks. No critical thinking, no, he did this wrong, just....he was on the goal line, or, he should have stopped that, nonsense like that.

 

[Sol]

This years NHLPA players poll had Quick as the second most difficult goalie to score on in the entire league

Tbh the players had some interesting opinions.

 

[Sol]

Just ftr the NHLPA players poll took place from September to January. With a lot of that poll taking place earlier. So that the polled players, a lot of them, would be talking about the pre-injury Quick. They'd be talking primarily older memories of 2015-16 or earlier. Quick was a good- great goalie, nobody disputing that. But there wasn't enough sample last year to really evaluate. This year results have been mixed.

First of all I appreciate that the Kings historically have been one of the better defensive clubs in the league. Its not just Quick preventing GA. Its a team that historically doesn't give up a lot and that typically has outshot opponents. So that while Quick has great GAA numbers his Save percentage stats are somewhat more ordinary historically.

Lets do a comparison. Devan Dubnyk, who I don't even particularly like as a goalie, and who has played on some ****ty teams, has an IDENTICAL .916 career save%. That should immediately cause reflection, because Dubnyk played half his career and GP with Edmonton. Reflecting that, his GAA average is much higher than Quicks. 2.55 vs 2.28. For goalies btw a difference this large in career totals is significant. So that Dubnyk maintained the same career save % while facing more work, and more GA. For him to have the same % he has to be seeing more work/game, more shots. Just think about it. Would anybody on the Kings board be defending Dubnyk as much?

Next I took a look at where its going wrong for the Kings this season. What jumps out at you is more goals allowed in first period than any other period. 72-55-56 respectively. The 72GA is the 4th highest figures in the league. The only teams worse are all bad. Again for point of comparison, Talbot, in Edmonton, is a goalie considered to have the worst starts in the league this season. He carries much of the weight and yet Edmonton is 9th in the category. To put this into perspective the Edmonton Oilers have allowed 12 first shot GA this season. (Talbot 10 of them) Pretty bad starts. NHL doesn't break the per period stats down per goalie, would be interesting to look at. But both carry much of their clubs weight so probably influence the team numbers significantly.

Now I see that the more common attribution expressed here is that the Kings start games really poorly. I have a mixed view on that because I've seen Quick give up a lot of weak goals early and that he almost always looks better as a game goes on. Its been my impression. This is anecdotal, but in a recent game the Kings were outshooting their opponent 19-4 in the first period and they were down 2-0. It seemed like I had seen that movie before. That isn't consistent with a team being outplayed to start. Its more about a goalie letting in half the shots he saw. (The Kings of course lost the game)

Now I realize that GAA and Save% are metrics influenced by goalie and team variables but the eye test says Kings are historically pretty good at limiting serious chances, good at limiting shots, good at providing levels of defence. Again Quicks stellar GAA career record reflects that. But Quicks more ordinary career save %, does it reflect something else?

Just food for thought.

All of what you said is accurate, Kings limit a lot of high quality chances, so it inflates his stats for sure, because he hasn't been making big saves and winning games by himself in 2018. Only maybe a couple games in 2018 where he did really good.



The big reason our first periods suck is because he sucks in the first period. I've watched all the games and the Kings aren't getting curb stomped to be always down a couple goals in the 1st. He just sucks in the first this year. Badly.


Unsurprisingly these people who are adamantly defending Quick and speaking about him as if he's 2012 Quick are the same people who were defending Richards nonstop when he was abysmal using similar talking points that are based in the past while failing to differentiate the past to now. How'd that turn out?? The same Dwight King defenders as well. Where are they now ? Players change, it'd help you guys to realize that.


Richards 2.0 the same people.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

All of what you said is accurate, Kings limit a lot of high quality chances, so it inflates his stats for sure, because he hasn't been making big saves and winning games by himself in 2018. Only maybe a couple games in 2018 where he did really good.



The big reason our first periods suck is because he sucks in the first period. I've watched all the games and the Kings aren't getting curb stomped to be always down a couple goals in the 1st. He just sucks in the first this year. Badly.


Unsurprisingly these people who are adamantly defending Quick and speaking about him as if he's 2012 Quick are the same people who were defending Richards nonstop when he was abysmal using similar talking points that are based in the past while failing to differentiate the past to now.


Richards 2.0 the same people.

Not even remotely the same, the problem is, you can't come up with anything other than, he's bad.

You can't explain why, you can't break down a play, literally the only thing you've said is, he's bad.

You struggle to define what is bad.

 

[Sol]

Not even remotely the same, the problem is, you can't come up with anything other than, he's bad.

You can't explain why, you can't break down a play, literally the only thing you've said is, he's bad.

You struggle to define what is bad.

I have before but you don't agree ? Why waste my time telling you why it's his fault when you've already made up your mind that it isn't. It'd be a waste of time going back and forth through plays that we have a fixed position on that neither you or I would want to concede on. I don't struggle to define, you just don't understand.

And it is very much the same, it's the same Richard's defenders for the most Part.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

I have before but you don't agree ? Why waste my time telling you why it's his fault when you've already made up your mind that it isn't. It'd be a waste of time going back and forth through plays that we have a fixed position on that neither you or I would want to concede on

No you haven't, if you have, I don't remember. All I see from you is, he's bad, he should have stopped this etc etc, without any breakdown of the actual play that happened,

Until you do that, you are showing yourself to be ignorant of what is actually a good or a bad goal.

Feel free to break down any of the three goals from last night.

 

[Sol]

No you haven't, if you have, I don't remember. All I see from you is, he's bad, he should have stopped this etc etc, without any breakdown of the actual play that happened,

Until you do that, you are showing yourself to be ignorant of what is actually a good or a bad goal.

Feel free to break down any of the three goals from last night.

Read Drivesaitls posts about the errors on the goals. And I have, you just don't remember.