And Chris Osgood has multiple cups. He must be way better than Richter.
Brian Noonan has a Cup. He must be better than Stamkos.
Jay Wells has a Cup. He must be better than McDonagh, Weber, Subban, Etc. Etc. Etc.Etc.Etc.Etc.Etc.
-
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
And Chris Osgood has multiple cups. He must be way better than Richter.
Brian Noonan has a Cup. He must be better than Stamkos.
Jay Wells has a Cup. He must be better than McDonagh, Weber, Subban, Etc. Etc. Etc.Etc.Etc.Etc.Etc.
Quick and Lundqvist are 1A, 1B. Quick seems to play better when it matters most.
BlueshirtBlitz
Foolish Samurai
Please tell me why Quick is 1B besides "playing better when it matters most" and other ridiculous conjecture. Quick had one game all playoffs where he was better than Hank: last night. If his team doesn't score 3-4 goals a game against SJ games 4-7, they're out of the PO's in round 1.
Price, Tuuka, Rinne (remember him? I guess he doesn't matter anymore because his team sucks) Bobrovsky are all arguably as good as Quick.
The no-call on King sucked in game 2.
But you know what? The team still had a lead in the 3rd period after that goal, and they still lost.
Agreed. In every actual goaltender stat, Lundqvist is significantly better than Quick in these playoffs, other than wins.
Lundqvist is the better goalie. Quick is on the better team.
I'd bet if the goaltenders switched teams, LA would have won game 1 and 2 in regulation.
BlueshirtBlitz
Foolish Samurai
Sure, but having a 4-2 lead with 18 minutes to go in the game sets a significantly different tone than having a goal gifted to the opposing team with the entire period left to go.
I agree, the Rangers could've shut it down. But the Kings are here for a reason. Marian Gaborik is Marian Gaborik for a reason. If the Rangers are gifted a free goal in either of the first two games, it's a 2-1 series at the worst.
I'll accept that the Rangers deserve to be down in the series. Should've cashed in in OT and should've played actual hockey last night. But they don't deserve to be in a 3-0 hole.
Same here. Some losses never leave you. I broke many things in my house once they tied that game up.
There are just times when it gets to you, that is one that will sting for a while.
That is, unless we win the cup.
Actually Rinne doesn't matter anymore not because his team sucks, but because he has played 67 games in the past TWO YEARS!!! So no, he is no longer on the list.
Bobrovsky was good last year, maybe the best goalie in the league. Not consistently better than Quick or Lundqvist. If Bob has a year like last year for 3 or 4 years in a row, put him on the list. Price has had one or two top years, not consistent enough and is hurt alot. I would put Tuukka Rask on the list. Maybe 1C to make you happy.
Everybody involved with the league agrees that Quick is one of the best goalies in the league. If you don't agree then you don't see Quick play very often.
BlueshirtBlitz
Foolish Samurai
Look at Quick's statistics. He makes saves at the rate of a league average goaltender. It's as simple as that.
Quick's reputation is buttressed by two good post-seasons and one good regular season. Take away his .929 SV% campaign and he has no years over .920%. Of course, you can't take it away, because he had an awesome year that year. Of course, like every challenger to Hank, he had one really good year...and that's it. Bob has been better than him the last two years, and he was better than him his first year in Philly, too. He's not on Hank's level. Most goalies in the league aren't.
If Hank is on the LA Kings, the series is still 3-0, and maybe the Kings would've won more convincingly in G1 and 2 due to freshness, because Hank wouldn't have let every series get to 7 with his team scoring 3-4 goals every game.
I'll fetch the spaceship so you can return to your home planet, called Richter was great one year because he had by far the best team in front of him and almost lost.
Richter had Leetch, in one of the greatest performances ever seen by a defenseman in the playoffs, Mark Messier, Adam Graves, Sergei Zubov, who led the team in scoring, a great youngster named Kovalev, Glenn Anderson, Esa Tikanen, Kevin Lowe, etc.
Lundqvist has McDonagh, Zucarello, and not much else.
Vancouver had Pavel Bure and Trevor Linden.
If you can't see the differences in personnel throughout my post, you are blinded by fanboy love. Perhaps you were a teen or 20ish in 94, so you believe that saying Lundqvist is better than Richter is sacrilegious to you.
If you can't or won't admit that in 94, the Rangers were thought of as the Cup favorite and that this team was questionable to make the playoffs, then you are in complete denial for fear of tarnishing anything about 94 even if it would not.
I will say this, Chosen, and that is I believe Richter had a pretty spectacular run in nets on a team that wasn't really known for keeping the opposing shots to the outside. He had a few shutouts, made some real quality and timely saves, was involved in a bunch of nailbiters, all-the-while having a stinker or two. Overall, it was a pretty spectacular performance in net, and I think that performance was better than Lundqvist's has been thus far in 2014. Not being a nostalgic Rangers fan, just remember a good run in goal then, but it admittedly was all part of a feeling good theme for the entire team and season too. It all went together. Osgood played great in net to win a Cup, on a great team, but I'm not anointing him the best goalie, or even a top 50 goalie.
Having said that, 1994 was Richter's second best playoff series, with his best being in 1997 when they didn't even make it past Philly in the conference finals. Akin to Lundqvist, he didn't have the support. Having said my piece about Richter in 1994, I will say that one cannot deny the team in front of him as part of the reason for the Cup and that if Lundqvist had that kind of production, I think it would be the Rangers who are up 3-0. But, who knows. That's what being a team was about. Richter was part of the team. The brotherhood that included Messier, Graves, Leetch, etc. They got along. They played for each other. It was a special team that year that couldn't duplicate because it really was a one and done kind of thing.
Having said that, 1994 was Richter's second best playoff series, with his best being in 1997 when they didn't even make it past Philly in the conference finals. Akin to Lundqvist, he didn't have the support. Having said my piece about Richter in 1994, I will say that one cannot deny the team in front of him as part of the reason for the Cup and that if Lundqvist had that kind of production, I think it would be the Rangers who are up 3-0. But, who knows. That's what being a team was about. Richter was part of the team. The brotherhood that included Messier, Graves, Leetch, etc. They got along. They played for each other. It was a special team that year that couldn't duplicate because it really was a one and done kind of thing.
Everyone can use statistics, but that only tells a part of the story. A large part of a goaltenders success relies on the team in front of him.
The fact remains: Jonathan Quick is an ELITE goaltender. One of the top 5 in the league right next to Hank.
I tend to view goaltenders on their technical ability and not purely statistical because I am used to teaching it from that point of view. Statistics are the result of your technical ability with the team skating in front of you/defending, and sometimes, having some puck luck go your way.
They both have different styles, but are on the same level both technically, and athletically (with the edge in flexibility to Quick)
If you have some time to kill, take a look at both of these videos and watch their styles. While I am more of a fan (technically speaking) of Lundqvist's style, Quick is a great hybrid/butterfly goalie, and in a league that is dominated by straight butterfly goaltending now-a-days, its refreshing to see him play this way.
Both have superb reflexes, and have insane power/speed in butterfly slides/recoveries. A pleasure to watch them both.
Lundqvist IS the better goalie, but I just wanted to point out that Quick is right up there with him not only statistically, but technically as well.
Quick happens to have a much better team in front of him.
Great to watch them both in the prime of their careers.
The fact remains: Jonathan Quick is an ELITE goaltender. One of the top 5 in the league right next to Hank.
I tend to view goaltenders on their technical ability and not purely statistical because I am used to teaching it from that point of view. Statistics are the result of your technical ability with the team skating in front of you/defending, and sometimes, having some puck luck go your way.
They both have different styles, but are on the same level both technically, and athletically (with the edge in flexibility to Quick)
If you have some time to kill, take a look at both of these videos and watch their styles. While I am more of a fan (technically speaking) of Lundqvist's style, Quick is a great hybrid/butterfly goalie, and in a league that is dominated by straight butterfly goaltending now-a-days, its refreshing to see him play this way.
Both have superb reflexes, and have insane power/speed in butterfly slides/recoveries. A pleasure to watch them both.
Lundqvist IS the better goalie, but I just wanted to point out that Quick is right up there with him not only statistically, but technically as well.
Quick happens to have a much better team in front of him.
Great to watch them both in the prime of their careers.
Miamipuck
Al Swearengen
This year in the playoffs, Quick has face 80 more shots than Lundqvist and has made 65 more saves. I also think you are selling him short saying take away one year and his stats are average.
this series was lost with our giveaways when we had the lead in games 1 and 2. stepan's giveaway when we were up 2-0 in game 1. girardi's giveaway in ot in game 1. richards giveaway when we were up 2-0 in game 2. mcdonagh giveaway when we were up 4-3 in game 2. even nash with the weak dump in last nite that led to the first goal. keenan was spot on after the game last nite, this is the stanley cup finals. when you have a lead and you have the puck in the defensive zone you HAVE TO get it out. theres no excuses. you have to be smart with the puck. you have to decisive with the puck. you have to be strong with the puck. those defensive zone turnovers/giveaways led directly to the kings getting back in the game and winning the game. its inexcusable this time of year. we're not down 3-0 because of bad bounces or bad calls or bad luck. we're down 3-0 because we havent played good enough or hard enough. those weak clears arent gonna get it done in june.
realistically we should be down 2-1, we should have won game 2 despite the richards and mcdonagh turnovers. but im sick of hearing about not getting bounces or bad luck. they gotta play better, end of story.
realistically we should be down 2-1, we should have won game 2 despite the richards and mcdonagh turnovers. but im sick of hearing about not getting bounces or bad luck. they gotta play better, end of story.
Keenan Rips Rangers After Demoralizing Game 3
http://bleacherreport.com/tb/ddgCz?utm_campaign=tsiphone&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=twitter.com
http://bleacherreport.com/tb/ddgCz?utm_campaign=tsiphone&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=twitter.com
The same Keenan who negotiated with other teams during the '94 Finals? Come on man.
TheTakedown
Puck is Life
- Jul 11, 2012
- 13,694
- 1,493
well, the kings seem to have a tendancy to choke up series games when being able to clinch.
The most we can realistically hope for at this very moment is a game 4 win at home... Satisfy the fans, go out with a bang, and Thank jesus for a wonderful season...
If that carries into game 5, we'll consider it a bonus at that point.
The most we can realistically hope for at this very moment is a game 4 win at home... Satisfy the fans, go out with a bang, and Thank jesus for a wonderful season...
If that carries into game 5, we'll consider it a bonus at that point.
When the Kings look at each other in the room, How confident do you think they are?
When the Rangers look at each other in the room, How confident do you think they are?
There ya go.
It was nice while it lasted, but this team needs some tweaking.
When the Rangers look at each other in the room, How confident do you think they are?
There ya go.
It was nice while it lasted, but this team needs some tweaking.
I've heard that. Was that ever confirmed?
Maybe it's one reason why Edso hates him so much.
He probably hates Keenan because Keenan is an *******. Its well documented that one of the 94 team's rallying points was stuffing it to Keenan.
- Status
