Toggle sidebar

Jonathan Quick

Kingjordan

Kingjordan

Registered User
Jun 29, 2008
1,571
15
What do you think about Quick's season? Has your opinion changed about him?

Going into the season my opinion was Quick was the best Goalie in the NHL. This season was a struggle. The Defense was a struggle so can not say it's just about Quick but curious are you as confident in him after this season as you where before the season started?
Click to read more...
 
Quick posted close, or met his career average numbers(in other areas). He had an average season(for him).

He is going to be 30 years of age next season. He will never play as well as 2012 ever again.

People expecting him too play like 2012 Quick, need to see how age effects production.

With that said, Quick is fine going forward. His play is still at a high level.
 
Last edited:
Other than that one exceptional year he's an average goalie who had an average season. He's a great big game player but consistency is also an incredibly valuable trait and Quick doesn't seem to have it.
 
BigBrown said:
Other than that one exceptional year he's an average goalie who had an average season. He's a great big game player but consistency is also an incredibly valuable trait and Quick doesn't seem to have it.
Click to expand...

Quick is consistent though.

In all the seasons Quick has posted over 60 games played (a full season).

Has 35+ wins at least 2.40 GAA(league average) 5 SO (on average) 9.15 SV. % (on average).

That's consistent.
 
Last edited:
He's a big game goalie and played like one down the stretch. His numbers were ridiculous. It's a shame half the roster took most nights off.
 
Hes still a good goalie but it seems like opponents can shake him and he can be too aggressive, which bites him in the arse. He makes some incredible acrobatic saves but often hes only in the position to do so because he was out of position in the first place.

I think his problems partially stem from trying too hard when the guys in front of him screw up.

Overall our goalie situation with Quick and Jones, along with That 70s Line, is the only part of the lineup I'm happy with at the moment going into next season.
 
damacles1156 said:
Quick is consistent though.

In all the seasons Quick has posted over 60 games played (a full season).

Has 35+ wins at least 2.30 GAA 5 SO (on average) 9.15 SV. % (on average).

That's consistent.
Click to expand...

Sure, I was thinking in shorter terms though. Quick usually has some great months and some bad ones, at least that's the impression I've gotten, and that's what stopping him from reaching the numbers he had in 2011/2012 again. Now you could argue that's what most goalies have and you'd probably be right, but my guess is Quick's numbers are more up and down than that of other goalies that are considered 'great', therefor my argument that he lacks consistency. But I'm too lazy to find the numbers to back my claim up :)
 
BigBrown said:
Sure, I was thinking in shorter terms though. Quick usually has some great months and some bad ones, at least that's the impression I've gotten, and that's what stopping him from reaching the numbers he had in 2011/2012 again. Now you could argue that's what most goalies have and you'd probably be right, but my guess is Quick's numbers are more up and down than what other goalies that are considered great are, therefor my argument that he lacks consistency. But I'm too lazy to find the numbers to back my claim up :)
Click to expand...

You just described every single Goalie, and player in the NHL.

It's why Kopitar is a 65-70 point player.

The only consistent (Elite) player in the NHL is Crosby, and he has his ups and downs. It's why career years , are called (career years).
 
Didn't come up with enough of those saves only Quick can make, but probably had better scoring chances against him than in years past. Chicken or egg scenario.
 
damacles1156 said:
You just described every single Goalie, and player in the NHL.

It's why Kopitar is a 70 point player.

The only consistent Elite player in the NHL is Crosby, and he has his ups and downs. It's why career years , are called (career years).
Click to expand...

Well I did say that I would assume his numbers are more up and down than that of other considered great goalies. Again, mostly speculating since I don't have the numbers in front of me.
 
Quick sucks. We all know he sucks.

We've just let him fool us with the cup wins, conn smythe, and other nonsense for the past few years.

But he sucks.
 
If an NHL player hits his career averages(which that is what is expected of him), why does it matter how he got there ?.

Does anyone complain that Ovi hit 30 goals yet again ? (Ovi is a career average 30 goal scorer).

The point is, it's impossible to play at a high level consistently for just about everyone in the NHL.

Ask yourself this, "Is Carey Price going to play this lights out, ever again" ? The odds are no, never again.
 
Last edited:
Chain said:
he can be too aggressive
Click to expand...

There's Quick the athlete, and Quick the goalie. When it's split 50/50, you can't score on him. When it goes too far one way or the other, especially in the athlete direction, he can just be all over the place. A 60/40 split either way works pretty well most of the time. He's usually over at 60 in the athlete part against Chicago, and they're so damn quick and skilled that they take advantage of it very often.

He walks a fine line. Too aggressive, and he can look lost. Not aggressive enough, and his biggest asset is taken away.
 
damacles1156 said:
If an NHL player hits his career averages(which that is what is expected of him), why does it matter how he got there ?.

Does anyone complain that Ovi hit 30 goals yet again ? (Ovi is a career average 30 goal scorer)
Click to expand...

Im not specifically speaking about Quick here but actually how a player gets to their average does matter.

A bit of hyperbole here but say a goalie lets in 0 goals or 5 every night and nothing in between. Say his team scores 2.8 goals a night pretty consistently. That goalies average would be 2.5. Hes going to have 41 shutouts but still lose half the seasons games. Take a goalie who has some bad nights and some great nights but most of the time stays pretty close to his 2.5 avg, now that team that scores 2.8 goals per game fairly consistently is winning the majority of their games. Consistency means a lot.

Having said that I don't know if Id consider Quick to really be more inconsistent than most other goalies. Maybe a little. But I think for the team in general, inconsistency was pretty high this season. I don't really put that on Quick.
 
Quick is partially a product of this team; just like any other goalie in the league. Kings fit their 'career average' this season yet the vast majority of this roster was all crests and troughs. Both in effort and results. The former producing the latter.
 
Chain said:
Im not specifically speaking about Quick here but actually how a player gets to their average does matter.

A bit of hyperbole here but say a goalie lets in 0 goals or 5 every night and nothing in between. Say his team scores 2.8 goals a night pretty consistently. That goalies average would be 2.5. Hes going to have 41 shutouts but still lose half the seasons games. Take a goalie who has some bad nights and some great nights but most of the time stays pretty close to his 2.5 avg, now that team that scores 2.8 goals per game fairly consistently is winning the majority of their games. Consistency means a lot.

Having said that I don't know if Id consider Quick to really be more inconsistent than most other goalies. Maybe a little. But I think for the team in general, inconsistency was pretty high this season. I don't really put that on Quick.
Click to expand...

You described a scenario that has never happened in the history of the NHL.

Come up with a more realistic scenario that can be put into context.

Something like:

Kopitar sucked on the road this season, but still made his career average(or got close). But, Kopitar sucking on the road, lost the Kings points in the standings. That is a valid and logical argument with what you are trying to describe.

But you have to point out a flaw with Quick, using the scenario above with this season and his numbers.
 
Last edited:
I agree with others that have said that there's no other goalie other than JQ they'd rather have. Sure, the first half of this season, he looked real pedestrian. After the all-star break, however, he was the Quick we all know and love. I understand that 2012 Quick will probably never be seen again, but this long off-season should let him rest up. He should(and hopefully will) have a good season next year.
 
Folks, you have define (Good season). Is it 2012 ?

Cause Quick posted a season that in is in line with his other (Good seasons).

You understand what I am saying ?

Unless you folks are saying Quick had one good season (2012). Is that what you are saying ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom