It's funny to see a dozen guys arguing this subject, and every single one using different criteria as to what an elite goalie is. Some here say Quick's won two cups and that's all that matters. By that definition goalies like Chris Osgood are great. Afterall they start playoff games and win cups.
On the other hand some say his SV% doesn't matter because he steps it up in the playoffs. To these people it doesn't matter you're below average almost every single regular season, because you've had two great playoff runs for the most dominant team in the league. Likewise they attack goalies like Rask who have the highest career save percentage of all time in the NHL and say regular season doesn't matter and that it's because of playing behind such a good team. It's as if Quick or Crawford winning cups wouldn't be because they're playing behind such amazing teams. Would they win cups in Winnipeg or Florida? How about St. Louis or Nashville? I'm trying to imagine Quick or Crawford in San Jose or St. Louis and I can't see either of those teams becoming any more succesful in the post season, despite acquiring these proven cup winning playoff performers to their roster.
Every goalie is a product of their system. The differences between the goalies in the NHL are really small. The whole discussion about elite goalies is farcical. Every year someone is declared to be so far above everyone else that it's unreal, and the next year this forum decides that he's been overrated all along. It's happened to Price, Rask, Rinne and multiple others. Even the 'always elite no matter what kind of garbage stretch he's on' Lundqvist has gotten heat for not winning cups. Once again, as if Quick or Crawford would've won any cups or Conn Smythes playing for the Rangers instead of Hank.
