Ghost of jas
Unsatisfied
Again, I understand why the Kings the favorite. But, why is beating the Sharks more impressive than beating the Pens, or beating the Ducks more impressive than beating the Flyers?
Pre-Game Talk: Stanley Cup Final: New York Rangers vs. Los Angeles Kings
- Thread starter rangers5000
- Start date
-
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
Miamipuck
Al Swearengen
Look up the game that was the straw that broke the camels back for Roy's career in Montreal. He had many a stinker as all goalies do.
Miamipuck
Al Swearengen
I'm sure Roy did - just couldn't recall off the top of my head which is why I couldn't say (like to recall, or have seen it for me to say it happened).
Miamipuck
Al Swearengen
It's cool it was just a famous game where he was kept in for 9 goals against in a 12-1 route. He said from the bench to the GM, "This is my last game in Montreal". In the old forum the bench was near where all of management sat.
Here is a link if you care:
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=145407
SJ played Alex Stalock in the LA series after Niemi was pulled. Anaheim played 3 goalies in the LA series. Crawford was hoping the puck would hit him in the LA series. Anaheim went with Gibson to save their season. He's just a baby. All of those series went the distance. If Crawford can make a lousy save and Chicago does a better job in the neutral zone in game 7, they win game 7. Crawford could not stop a beach ball in the Los Angeles series.
Miamipuck
Al Swearengen
No problem,every now and again my alzheimers allows me a memory or two. lol 1995 seems a lifetime ago.
Yes, it seems like Nash and (in the last series) the Brassard line have been working to get their playoff PDO stats down. Regression-towards-the-mean tendencies might bode well for these guys to have a great SCF. At least I could hope.
Swept In Seven
Disciple of The Zook
- Apr 27, 2010
- 9,687
- 1
Miamipuck
Al Swearengen
Jamal Mayers as well gave Montreal the edge in goaltending. I thought he was smoking crack.
Anahiem had pretty bad advanced stats as I recall and not a ton of depth, their positioning was looked at as a bit of a fluke, but I don't recall what Philly's stats were like
re: goaltending, it's just the same old BS that Lundqvist has "never won" or "carried his team to the cup"
The last goalie to carry his team to the cup was Hasek. It's just not really done. Giguere maybe the next closest to doing that. The Rangers have just never had a good enough team or played well enough as a team to win the cup and it's not even remotely Lundqvist's fault. If I recall correctly his even strength save percentage in the 2012 playoffs was insane, something like .944.
But it's still the same old...no respect how good you are until you win a cup even if that's a completely stupid way to judge players. Lundqvist has handily outplayed Quick by so much this postseason that it's not even funny but "Quick's experience gives him an edge!"
The Price crap was even more ridiculous and obviously a case of Canadian bias when coming from places like TSN. Price won a gold medal behind the most dominating defensive team ever assembled? Means he's a winner and will always beat Lundqvist who's never won anything (except his own gold medal and a Vezina but let's just ignore that because reasons)
Whatever
I fully agree. I understand the somewhat lazy way a person might look back at this series. Hank wins and he's a likely HOF lock. 'Money' goalie (even though he's been money as all can be thus far and is the underdog next round. Flip side, Quick wins, and the narrative might go "Quick with two Cups and a Smythe and Hank none of the above," and Quick gets labeled 'money,' Hank lost to the 'money' goalie, and somehow there were no other players on the ice in many people's post analysis. Strange how that works: we're the underdog, but if Hank doesn't win he didn't get 'er done and Quick's 'money.' I'm over-simplifying, obviously, but it's not far off base of how many people seem to view things. Not just pertaining to Hank, but, as you stated, many players who had great careers and didn't win a Cup.
it's tough, Levitate. They take small samples to make their judgments. I think what many in the mass media may recall about Lundqvist is how he finished against the Devils. Think there were a couple ones he'd like to have back and the last three games his GAA wasn't particularly stellar. That left an impression. Last season they go out in five against Boston. Tough to really be noticed when all eyes are on Boston. And that gives you the general impression regarding a championship-caliber goaltender. Certainly now they should be looking at him a bit differently since he has made it to the Cup, and now he will be looked at more deeply if these guys want to be able to say something intelligent, and perhaps they'll see he won a Vezina and a Gold Medal in the Olympics (which will be criticized since it wasn't against Canada). But if he loses, then focus goes on Quick who would now have won twice. Interesting how only goalies get a "W" and an "L", kind of like pitchers and QBs. Every hear of a lineman not being called great because he didn't win the Super Bowl? Or even a receiver or safety? Some team game, eh?
Kevin Allen of USA Today gave the Rangers the edge on D. Everyone else goes with the Kings because of Doughty. In the Habs series, Montréal was given the edge because of Subban. The Rangers went to work on Emelin and Markov. Emelin got hurt in game 4 blocking a shot. Subban was tired at the end of the series. Make Doughty defend with the speed of Kreider and Hagelin. Make Voynov and Greene defend. All rights shots. Same thing with the left defense.
419forever
Registered User
Fitzy
Very Stable Genius
- Jan 29, 2009
- 36,365
- 24,169
Subban just recently won a Norris trophy.
The big difference is that Doughty is more in the McDonagh mold. His offense is far from off the charts, but he's balanced, posed, and a very smart defender. Subban is more a tremendous physical athlete who is prone to mental lapses.
The big difference is that Doughty is more in the McDonagh mold. His offense is far from off the charts, but he's balanced, posed, and a very smart defender. Subban is more a tremendous physical athlete who is prone to mental lapses.
That's just the narrative given by men who don't understand the game.
I do however think that a player has the ability to lift a team into another state of play. Those players usually tend to be the best players in the league.
I also believe in expecting someone's full, or near full potential, and that that expectation is justified. I believe that at this stage, players should be able to eventually work their way to realize their ceiling. With high expectations comes high responsibility and when those expectations are not realized, criticism usually comes.
I think minus about 4 games this playoffs, Henrik has been playing at his ceiling - especially in every game that has mattered. I think he has lifted this team to another level of success that would not have been able to have been achieved with another goalie playing in his place. And while I recognize that even if he plays stellar hockey and the team does not, that they will likely lose, the team likely won't be able to win this upcoming series without him playing to his fullest potential.
The fault of the narrative is that they usually don't offer as much positive reinforcement as they do criticism. But 1 single player is able to lead his team to success, more times than not. If that player isn't playing up to expectations, that team usually loses - Giroux, Crosby, Subban, Toews/Kane for the first 5 games of the last series, Rask/Chara, Bobrovski, etc.
High expectations = high responsibility = high praise/high criticism. That's just how it is with the elite players. Henrik is elite.
You do realize that the Norris Trophy is given to the best player of the defensive position? Doughty has never gotten this prestige. He was a finalist 5 years ago, but didn't win.
But carry on, Subban clearly can't be in the same universe because that's what reporters and beat writers are saying to boost their hype of the series, rabble dabble, etc.
Subban was coming off a series where he torched the Bruins. Wasn't the same factor against the Rangers.
Any player can be prone to mental lapses. Even McDonagh who we have grown to expect nothing short of perfection from.
That includes Doughty. Hawks let him run loose. Had the Hawks done that with Subban he'd have scored 5+ goals on them this series and the narrative would be how hard he is to contain. The argument with Doughty and why he is so dangerous isn't that he's a balanced player. It isn't that his defense will stifle us. It is that his offense will. As you said, Doughty isn't as prolific on the offense as Subban was. We should be able to contain him, more or less, like we contained Subban.
- Status
