Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
I don't find Quick playing in L.A. to be a helpful point...not sure if you're American or not, but the Kings goalie is not a marketable thing even to the NHL itself haha
I think people were actually a little slow to notice Quick because he played in the West, perhaps.
Can I just stream of consciousness thoughts about Quick at you?
The Kings were a grimy and very good defensive team in Quck's prime. But Quick wasn't really the type to take full advantage of it. Quick was a weird goalie. In some ways, he's like a precursor to Andrei Vasilevskiy...the hips, the way that he immediately seals the ice, the shuffle ability, the miracle lateral saves, supreme glove-lyness, etc.
Obviously, Quick is much smaller and much more impatient. In other ways (these ways), he's like a bad version of Fleury or Bobrovsky in that he's antsy, his feet get all goofy and un-set and it throws him off his angle, forcing him into a deficit. He sort of plays like a coiled spring, but then applies it to the vertical angles. I dislike most of that.
I don't know the numbers on this...but it just felt like Quick was better on breakaways, but you could probably shoot one past him...especially with a fake shot and some movement. But Quick didn't throw himself in the trash after a shot fake, he's like a weapons-grade spider monkey...he could move with you about as well as any goalie from this era (any era?). He can go paddle down, he has the flexibility and the tracking to get the glove up to save the day.
The GMs rated him quite highly in the mid-2010s in the polls. He was 1st (or tied for 1st with Price) in one of them IIRC.
I think towards the end when his hips and back started to go and he was just sliding around, doing splits for the hell of it. Honestly, I don't know how he's even still in the game...and watched him for a little bit last night after my game, he shutout Seattle...but I don't even understand how he competes with these low angle shots these days and all that.
Now, unlike Bobrovsky and Fleury, Quick has a really strong mental game. The Kings had a lot of ways they could have gone besides Quick...he battled through the Cheese and worked his way into it. Then you watch his work in the playoffs, the guy is pretty much stainless steel. He also competes his bag off. 9 out of 9 compete. He comes back with his process, he keeps playing his way...
I think there's a bit of an adaptability aspect (possibly lacking) to him that needs to be considered. But he also gave a very long run of surprisingly reliable play. We didn't get a lot of him in the postseason over the course of his career in terms of runs, so that's also a little tricky.
All in all, it's a guy I can go either way on really...I'd understand if people like him, I'd understand if people hate him...
I think people were actually a little slow to notice Quick because he played in the West, perhaps.
Can I just stream of consciousness thoughts about Quick at you?
The Kings were a grimy and very good defensive team in Quck's prime. But Quick wasn't really the type to take full advantage of it. Quick was a weird goalie. In some ways, he's like a precursor to Andrei Vasilevskiy...the hips, the way that he immediately seals the ice, the shuffle ability, the miracle lateral saves, supreme glove-lyness, etc.
Obviously, Quick is much smaller and much more impatient. In other ways (these ways), he's like a bad version of Fleury or Bobrovsky in that he's antsy, his feet get all goofy and un-set and it throws him off his angle, forcing him into a deficit. He sort of plays like a coiled spring, but then applies it to the vertical angles. I dislike most of that.
I don't know the numbers on this...but it just felt like Quick was better on breakaways, but you could probably shoot one past him...especially with a fake shot and some movement. But Quick didn't throw himself in the trash after a shot fake, he's like a weapons-grade spider monkey...he could move with you about as well as any goalie from this era (any era?). He can go paddle down, he has the flexibility and the tracking to get the glove up to save the day.
The GMs rated him quite highly in the mid-2010s in the polls. He was 1st (or tied for 1st with Price) in one of them IIRC.
I think towards the end when his hips and back started to go and he was just sliding around, doing splits for the hell of it. Honestly, I don't know how he's even still in the game...and watched him for a little bit last night after my game, he shutout Seattle...but I don't even understand how he competes with these low angle shots these days and all that.
Now, unlike Bobrovsky and Fleury, Quick has a really strong mental game. The Kings had a lot of ways they could have gone besides Quick...he battled through the Cheese and worked his way into it. Then you watch his work in the playoffs, the guy is pretty much stainless steel. He also competes his bag off. 9 out of 9 compete. He comes back with his process, he keeps playing his way...
I think there's a bit of an adaptability aspect (possibly lacking) to him that needs to be considered. But he also gave a very long run of surprisingly reliable play. We didn't get a lot of him in the postseason over the course of his career in terms of runs, so that's also a little tricky.
All in all, it's a guy I can go either way on really...I'd understand if people like him, I'd understand if people hate him...
