Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion Henrik Lundqvist

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
Baby Punisher said:
You wanna start talking about bad goals given up by a Rangers goalie start with Lundqvist and work your way back. Every goalie has given up terrible goals in their careers and Lundqvist is no exception. I understand the fanbase has a blind love for Lundqvist and he can do no wrong in many peoples eyes but, the fact remains as far as he taken the Rangers in his career he never single handily carried them to a cup. It's a shame because he does deserve a cup the same way every player and the fan base deserves a cup.
Click to expand...


Blind love? you mean like yours for Richter? He gave up a terrible goal that lost the series. Hank never lost a series, he was usually the reason the Rangers were even in a series. The teams in front of Richter when he won, should have won. There's no way in hell you say that about the teams Hank played behind.

Also you said Richter kept teams from being lottery picks, really? That doesn't work both ways? Hank is the only reason this franchise has been relevant since 2007. I may sound like Nevesis and not I am even close as a Hank defender. Yeah he has has bad games and has given up bad goals something he would never admit. Neither here nor there, at least he picked a player that should have the undying love of every Rangers fan. Richter was a great goalie at times, like really good. Hank has been a consistently great goalie almost all the time since he entered the NHL, not at times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReggieDunlop68, NCRanger and Ail
I've also been a huge Lundqvist defender during his career in NYR, but I'm also a goalie defender, period. I could just as well defend the opposing goalie when he deserves it. A perfect shot is always a perfect shot, a screen is a screen and a deflection is a deflection. My bar for calling a goal a softie is far higher than for a majority.

To mention something when I arrived in 2005, the discussion on the main boards was, who's the best goalie in the NHL? Brodeur, Kipper or Lundqvist? Then it was Nabokov, Leclaire, Miller, Luongo, Huet. Thomas, Mason, Quick, Bobrovsky, Price and so on, or Lundqvist? They all came and went away, most of them with a flash in the pan season, before having flat tire seasons all over the place. Not Hank.

Maybe that's why Hank is so ridiculously dominant in the "goals saved for his team" statistic, which has Lundqvist up on a huge mountain, with a bunch of goalies halfway behind him. He has been that good for so long. How could he get such a lead, apart from playing for so long? Because he was always in the top of high danger chances faced - and he was always elite at saving those.

Like after the series against LA. Alot of people claimed Quick is a better big time goalie than Lundqvist. Like they ignored he played really bad in the first two series, but his team carried him. He faced far less high quality chances than Lundqvist and saved less of them. He also had a worse save percentage. But sure, Quick was better... if you take objectivity out of the window. Like Lundqvist ever had the luxury of playing bad - or even average - in a series if NYR were to advance. He had to be the best player on the ice.

It has always been, who is the best, x, y or Lundqvist? That says alot. Now Lundqvist isn't in the discussion that much anymore, but I don't know who would be, playing in net for NYR and Vigneault at this point. He's still a very good goalie, who had his first bad season at 35, playing for the coach that chased both Luongo and Schneider out of town before he himself was fired.

When you look at the rosters and especially the defensive rosters of the teams Lundqvist has played behind, we have no clue how NYR could reach the playoffs so concistently. But then again, we know why. Because of their most consistent player.

I mean, he had a highlight reel show of his 25 best saves after the 2011 season and those all of them were pretty ridiculous. If you would continue that highlight reel show up until today, you would probably have a video reaching over an hour.



 
  • Like
Reactions: ReggieDunlop68, GlasgowNewYorkRanger, mrmovies779 and 2 others
Miamipuck said:
Blind love? you mean like yours for Richter? He gave up a terrible goal that lost the series. Hank never lost a series, he was usually the reason the Rangers were even in a series. The teams in front of Richter when he won, should have won. There's no way in hell you say that about the teams Hank played behind.

Also you said Richter kept teams from being lottery picks, really? That doesn't work both ways? Hank is the only reason this franchise has been relevant since 2007. I may sound like Nevesis and not I am even close as a Hank defender. Yeah he has has bad games and has given up bad goals something he would never admit. Neither here nor there, at least he picked a player that should have the undying love of every Rangers fan. Richter was a great goalie at times, like really good. Hank has been a consistently great goalie almost all the time since he entered the NHL, not at times.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

I'll rip Hank for bad goals, and he deserves that from time to time, but he has been the most consistent Ranger goaltender in history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReggieDunlop68, ZiGOODejad and Miamipuck
Miamipuck said:
Do people forget the goal he gave up against Pittsburgh, from the freaking redline? Holy **** how can anyone with a straight face say Richter was better, he wasn't even close and I love Richter. If Hank was playing net in front of those 1992 or 1994 teams they win both years quite easily.
Click to expand...

That will forever stick in my craw for as long as Ill live. The Rangers had that Pens team against the ropes and that goal caused them to fall off a cliff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReggieDunlop68, Baby Punisher, Miamipuck and 1 other person
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
Thats just simply not true in the mid-90's. And past then, Richter did little to rescue the bad teams the way Lundqvist has. Revisionist history at it's worst.

In fact, the '92 team was arguably the best Ranger team in quite a while and Richter almost single-handedly torpedoed their chances with an epic gaffe.
Click to expand...

In many ways, the 1991-92 Ranger team was better than the 1993-94 team. Richter's gaffe cost the Rangers the Cup that season. Rangers win that game, they go up 3-1 in the series, and Pittsburgh wasn't coming back from that.

Rangers would have swept Boston and Chicago.

Other things, Richter never won a playoff game 1-0. The one chance he did, he gave up a goal with 7.7 seconds left.

Richter gave up a terrible goal in Game #5 of the finals less than 30 seconds after the Rangers fought back to tie the game in the third. Had he not done that, there was no doubt the Rangers were going to find the winner, and we would have never seen Game #6 and Game #7.

The late 90's? Richter was actually as much of the reason for losses as anyone else. He was routinely coughing up a terrible go ahead goal at a critical time, or couldn't make a save to hold a lead. Not saying that a goaltender would have made the difference with those awful teams, but a Lundqvist might have dragged a 1997-98 team or 1998-99 team into a 8th seed.
 
Inferno said:
Other than Dominic hasek..Henrik is the best goalie I've ever seen in my lifetime.

Richter..as much as I love him..woudlnt make my top 25.
Click to expand...
I won't rate Richter, as I've not seen enough of him, only highlights and some rare historic game. But as for Lundqvist, yeah, I rate him pretty damn high, just as you. Brodeur was great, but he played behind a powerhouse where he could face 18 shots a game and maybe a small handful of them actually required some effort. His biggest skill was his stickhandling and passing, which shouldn't be underestimated. Hasek is also my #1, he was unreal. Roy was also great and basically created the butterfly, but he played for Colorado without the cap roof.

What separates Hasek and Lundqvist is they played for teams where they pretty much single handedly had to try to get their teams anywhere (well, except for Hasek in Detroit). Hank's career is truly remarkable. He joined the league as a rival of my team in SHL, but I knew I had to follow his career, because it was obvious his career would be something very special.

Of all of them, I can't think of any great goalie that came so close to a cup, pretty much by being the only world class player on the team. And all those seasons dragging NYR kicking and screaming NYR into the playoffs, where they didn't belong. Simply unreal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Inferno
Inferno said:
Other than Dominic hasek..Henrik is the best goalie I've ever seen in my lifetime.

Richter..as much as I love him..woudlnt make my top 25.
Click to expand...
I have to agree on everything you said...and said well ! Hasek was in a league of his own on some of those poor Sabre team deeply loaded in toughness and lacking in depth for many years . He kept them in so many games...sure made for great entertainment though . No offense to Brodeur and Roy ....both great goalies but always good D in front or team D overall certainly helped them.....but on talent alone...Hasek has my vote .
 
Chimp said:
I won't rate Richter, as I've not seen enough of him, only highlights and some rare historic game. But as for Lundqvist, yeah, I rate him pretty damn high, just as you. Brodeur was great, but he played behind a powerhouse where he could face 18 shots a game and maybe a small handful of them actually required some effort. His biggest skill was his stickhandling and passing, which shouldn't be underestimated. Hasek is also my #1, he was unreal. Roy was also great and basically created the butterfly, but he played for Colorado without the cap roof.

What separates Hasek and Lundqvist is they played for teams where they pretty much single handedly had to try to get their teams anywhere (well, except for Hasek in Detroit). Hank's career is truly remarkable. He joined the league as a rival of my team in SHL, but I knew I had to follow his career, because it was obvious his career would be something very special.

Of all of them, I can't think of any great goalie that came so close to a cup, pretty much by being the only world class player on the team. And all those seasons dragging NYR kicking and screaming NYR into the playoffs, where they didn't belong. Simply unreal.
Click to expand...
Think Bernie Parent and the Flyers during their 2 year domination because of Parent in goal . He won them 2 Cups ....simple as that . Richter had a stretch much like Parent did...but only one Cup.
 
leetch99 said:
Think Bernie Parent and the Flyers during their 2 year domination because of Parent in goal . He won them 2 Cups ....simple as that . Richter had a stretch much like Parent did...but only one Cup.
Click to expand...
I can't say much about Parent, that's way earlier than I can even talk about. I watched some NHL playoff games from 2000 and onwards at my mother's place, because she and her husband had extra channels.

But as for Richter in the same sentence as "carrying a team to a cup"? Saving a penalty shot isn't enough. Lundqvist saved a breakaway from Ovechkin in OT at a crucial moment, but that doesn't exactly become remembered as much, as it didn't lead to a cup.



I mean look at that team. Messier, Leetch, Graves, Kovalev, a young Zubov (what a dumb trade), Larmer, Tikkanen, Gartner, Beukeboom, Amonte... I mean come on. Maybe the defense wasn't that great, but those players? That's as far from "carrying a team" as I can think of. It's like saying Fleury single handedly carried the Penguins to cups. Richter was an integral piece to winning, but he didn't have to carry his team.

What did Hank have? McDonagh, Jagr for his first year (injured for the playoffs)... and that's that list. And even McDonagh is a joke compared to Leetch. Maybe Richter didn't exactly have many All-Star D-men, but he did have Leetch and he was pretty damn awesome. And Lundqvist also had trash defensemen. And trash forwards.
 
Last edited:
Mike Richter is my childhood hero and favorite player.

Lundqvist is a Hall of Famer. Richter had a nice career. There's no comparison. And that's not even a slight on Richter, Lundqvist is probably a top 20 goalie all time.

Calling it a blind love for Lundqvist from the fans is laugh out loud funny. As if it is unearned and undeserved. Why do you think everyone loves him so much? It's because he's been one of the best goalies in the league every single season for 13 straight seasons (ok last year was the first and only he wasn't). He earned his reputation and status. Also talking about Hank playing on better teams than Richter is funny. Richter had about 4 or 5 seasons of bad teams, during which he would do his best but ultimately fail at propping them up. Lundqvist dragged teams with Erik Christiansen as 1C and Michael Roszival as 1D to the playoffs. GTFO of here with that.

Lundqvist has had maybe THREE seasons with a good team in front of him. 2012, 2014 and 2015. Other than that they range from downright garbage to at best bubble teams. ALWAYS made to seem better because of him.

I can't believe in 2018 we're having this conversation. As if cold hard facts and limitless evidence mean nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrhockey193195
Rozsival and Marek Malik as the top pairing. Haha, those times. Christensen as #1C, that brings back memories. Zherdev as the top scorer with 58 points, only to be kicked out the next year. The three albatrosses in Drury, Gomez and Redden, that was really rough to watch. Markus Näslund way out of his prime, who was so disappointed with his performance he retired after his season with NYR. Biron quit his career trying to do what Lundqvist does every given night, which is stop an avalanche.

Having D-men like Poti, Gilroy, Rachunek, Eminger, Strudwick, Mara, Ward, Kalinin, Ozolinsh, Bickel, Pöck, Bäckman, Kondriatev, Woywitka, Kasparaitis, McCabe, I mean, bwahahahaha! What the hell? Where the "stars" were McDonagh, Strålman, Girardi and Staal and two of them detoriated pretty damn quickly and were awful with the puck.

And the forwards? Marginally better? They were awful. They could barely defend and couldn't score at all. It was a circus. And they still made the playoffs all the time, except for that shootout against the Flyers, where Jokinen missed the last penalty shot.

Any forward worth a damn was Gaborik, but he was with Torts instead of Vigneault. Bad timing. Zuccarello grinding his way in. Richards was a bad player sometimes playing well, more than the other way around. It's not a long list. Not exactly HHOF material there either.

That these NYR teams got so far and had so many playoffs is pretty much all on Lundqvist. He was peppered with quality shots and had the goal support of a low tier soccer team. That was rough to watch.
 
Chimp said:
Rozsival and Marek Malik as the top pairing. Haha, those times. Christensen as #1C, that brings back memories. Zherdev as the top scorer with 58 points, only to be kicked out the next year. The three albatrosses in Drury, Gomez and Redden, that was really rough to watch. Markus Näslund way out of his prime, who was so disappointed with his performance he retired after his season with NYR. Biron quit his career trying to do what Lundqvist does every given night, which is stop an avalanche.

Having D-men like Poti, Gilroy, Rachunek, Eminger, Strudwick, Mara, Ward, Kalinin, Ozolinsh, Bickel, Pöck, Bäckman, Kondriatev, Woywitka, Kasparaitis, McCabe, I mean, bwahahahaha! What the hell? Where the "stars" were McDonagh, Strålman, Girardi and Staal and two of them detoriated pretty damn quickly and were awful with the puck.

And the forwards? Marginally better? They were awful. They could barely defend and couldn't score at all. It was a circus. And they still made the playoffs all the time, except for that shootout against the Flyers, where Jokinen missed the last penalty shot.

Any forward worth a damn was Gaborik, but he was with Torts instead of Vigneault. Bad timing. Zuccarello grinding his way in. Richards was a bad player sometimes playing well, more than the other way around. It's not a long list. Not exactly HHOF material there either.

That these NYR teams got so far and had so many playoffs is pretty much all on Lundqvist. He was peppered with quality shots and had the goal support of a low tier soccer team. That was rough to watch.
Click to expand...
The coaching staff got every drop of production they could have gotten out of those guys. They played a system that allowed them to succeed. It was brutal on the body but that's how it was and Lundqvist stood on his head nearly every game. What I do remember about that system was the games were very boring. Alot of trapping and standing up at blueline.
 
Miamipuck said:
Blind love? you mean like yours for Richter? He gave up a terrible goal that lost the series. Hank never lost a series, he was usually the reason the Rangers were even in a series. The teams in front of Richter when he won, should have won. There's no way in hell you say that about the teams Hank played behind.

Also you said Richter kept teams from being lottery picks, really? That doesn't work both ways? Hank is the only reason this franchise has been relevant since 2007. I may sound like Nevesis and not I am even close as a Hank defender. Yeah he has has bad games and has given up bad goals something he would never admit. Neither here nor there, at least he picked a player that should have the undying love of every Rangers fan. Richter was a great goalie at times, like really good. Hank has been a consistently great goalie almost all the time since he entered the NHL, not at times.
Click to expand...
I do have blind love for Richter. I feel like a lot of people on and off the board don't give him the credit he deserves for what he did for the franchise and downplay his role and his career.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrhockey193195
Marty Brodeur. Without his incredible goaltending and passing skills, the Devils would have won zero Cups.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YearOfTheCat
Xref said:
Marty Brodeur. Without his incredible goaltending and passing skills, the Devils would have won zero Cups.
Click to expand...

Ummm he had 2 HOF defenseman in front of him and his team invented the system that ruined hockey. Not to mention that 95 team had a great offense.
 
mattyd99 said:
Ummm he had 2 HOF defenseman in front of him and his team invented the system that ruined hockey. Not to mention that 95 team had a great offense.
Click to expand...

Those HOF defensemen are HOF defensemen because of Marty's skills. They could play above the circles because Marty covered a lot of ice behind them.
 
When I was a kid fanboy I used to argue that Richter was better than Brodeur and Brodeur was a product of the Devils. That was a dumb opinion, and (to bring it back to this conversation) Lundqvist is way closer to Brodeur than he is to Richter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xref
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom