Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion Stuart Skinner

TopShelfGloveSide said:
How does that not change anything? That makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Because Pickard still needs to show that he can play against non bottom feeders before I think you can say he is as good as Skinner. Putting up W's against Chicago doesn't prove he is even a good backup. Suggesting that he's as good as Stu is a silly statement to make when he isn't good enough to get those chances, even if Skinner is leaving us wanting a lot more against top competition. It also doesn't change that our management is really limiting our team this year if we don't get a starting goalie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stoneman89
ManofSteel55 said:
Because Pickard still needs to show that he can play against non bottom feeders before I think you can say he is as good as Skinner. Putting up W's against Chicago doesn't prove he is even a good backup. Suggesting that he's as good as Stu is a silly statement to make when he isn't good enough to get those chances, even if Skinner is leaving us wanting a lot more against top competition. It also doesn't change that our management is really limiting our team this year if we don't get a starting goalie.
Click to expand...
But Skinner has proven he can’t play against top competition this season. So pickard being unsuccessful would prove nothing.

They both aren’t starting goalies though. I think we agree on that.
 
bucks_oil said:
Look, I appreciate the comparison, I think it is a useful one. I do wish we could upgrade on Skinner...

... but I don't think hyperbole is particularly useful for the debate.

If you look at 2001/02 to 2003/04... the years Cloutier was starter for Vancouver, and you filter by 100 games played (to get the guys who actually played starter roles), you are right... you end up with 33 goalies and Cloutier is in 21st place... but you also end up with Aebicher in 1st place (above Roy), so be careful...

If you do the same comparison over the last three seasons, this is what you get:

There are 32 goalies on the list. Skinner is 13th (pretty average). There are TWO cup winners above him on the list and THREE cup winners below him on the list, and one cup winner (the guy he lost to by one goal) tied with him.

And the guy most of us want to trade for (including me if I'm honest) is SECOND LAST on the list.

My point #1: Nobody is saying shooting for "pretty average" is what we should be doing.... but there are no easy solutions and Skinner is not a difference maker... I mean that in both a positive and a negative sense.

My point #2: The fact that there are FOUR cup winners at or below Skinner's level also proves what we already know... that consistent goaltending is tough to find. Now Skinner is struggling statistically this year (or at least at the start of the year, which hasn't washed out of the numbers yet). Having said that, what we get in Skinner is generally "consistently average".

My point #3: What having an "about average" starter at a "well below average" salary allows us, is to build a team with THE STRONGEST set of forwards and arguably near the strongest set of D... and bank cap... which we have done. Now hopefully we manage to spend some of that cap on an insurance policy for Skinner - I agree that we need that.
Click to expand...

You're missing a few key points.

Skinner is not a technically sound goalie. Just like Dan Cloutier.


What we need is a "technically sound goalie" who doesn't necessarily have to be Vezina caliber.
The year Corey Crawford won the cup, he was 6th in save percentage.

Everyone knew he wasn't an elite goalie. But he was reliable, and consistent, and he put up MONSTROUS numbers behind an incredible defense.

His numbers are high because of the team defense in front of him. Not him standing on his head making jaw-dropping saves like Price or Lundquist.
1739557136118.png


Chris Osgood, is another "technically solid" goalie who brought consistency.
He wasn't Patrick Roy, he wasn't Hasek, he wasn't Brodeur.

He was just a consistent goalie who backstopped one of the all-time greatest teams to a few cups.
He didn't need to make the flashy saves, he didn't need to handle the puck. He just needed to be a solid goalie that didn't kill his team:

1739557234696.png


I'm honestly not sure if Gibson is the answer. But there's no way in hell we can be sitting on Skinner for the 3rd year in a row thinking that this is the best we can ever hope for.

He's a below-average goalie who has their numbers pumped by playing behind a VERY stacked team.

Manny Legacy was CLEARLY the weak link on an insanely stacked team. They put old-man Osgood back in net 3 years later and won the cup, and ran it back again for another finals appearance.


Stuart Skinner IS Manny Legacy. He could be a backup to Dom Hasek on a cup winner, but he's not able to win one as a starter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MessierThanThou, frag2 and (deleted member)
Perfect_Drug said:
You're missing a few key points.

Skinner is not a technically sound goalie. Just like Dan Cloutier.


What we need is a "technically sound goalie" who doesn't necessarily have to be Vezina caliber.
The year Corey Crawford won the cup, he was 6th in save percentage.

Everyone knew he wasn't an elite goalie. But he was reliable, and consistent, and he put up MONSTROUS numbers behind an incredible defense.

His numbers are high because of the team defense in front of him. Not him standing on his head making jaw-dropping saves like Price or Lundquist.
View attachment 977208

Chris Osgood, is another "technically solid" goalie who brought consistency.
He wasn't Patrick Roy, he wasn't Hasek, he wasn't Brodeur.

He was just a consistent goalie who backstopped one of the all-time greatest teams to a few cups.
He didn't need to make the flashy saves, he didn't need to handle the puck. He just needed to be a solid goalie that didn't kill his team:

View attachment 977209

I'm honestly not sure if Gibson is the answer. But there's no way in hell we can be sitting on Skinner for the 3rd year in a row thinking that this is the best we can ever hope for.

He's a below-average goalie who has their numbers pumped by playing behind a VERY stacked team.

Manny Legacy was CLEARLY the weak link on an insanely stacked team. They put old-man Osgood back in net 3 years later and won the cup, and ran it back again for another finals appearance.


Stuart Skinner IS Manny Legacy. He could be a backup to Dom Hasek on a cup winner, but he's not able to win one as a starter.
Click to expand...

Osgood is probably more like Talbot, Legace is more Skinner lol.

We beat Detroit in 2006 in large part because Holland was a dumb ass who bet a President's Trophy team on a sieve in net and paid the price for it immediately when we upset them in the 1st round.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MessierThanThou and Perfect_Drug
Continues to be the second best goalie on the ice. When will the dopes upstairs admit their mistake?
 
Check out this goal from Robertson last year at 2:25 in this video:

Stu Skinner will never change. He is totally unreliable and we have a 12 million dollar dman in front of him who is very clutch at being a disaster for his own team. Skinner never has a chance to lead this team to the finals with his lackluster goaltending skills and with two defensive black holes in front of him in the form of Bouchard + Nurse.

Still should have gotten a real starting goalie who doesn't let in super embarrassing goals but that's just my opinion
 
This Skinner thread is beating a dead horse. He is bad and it’s made worse by our management continuing to put him out there.

I can’t even blame him if he plays in game 3 and sucks… he just shouldn’t be out there.
 
The silver lining is that he has made it an easy decision to not qualify him next year.
There's better and cheaper UFA options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 1 more.
    • Total: 4 (members: 2, guests: 2)

    Latest posts

    Ad

    Ad

    Top Bottom