Stanley Cup Playoffs 2014-2015 IV Discussion, picks, and predictions/Final

[217 Forever]

But regarding #5 - Fleury didn't play that well when the Penguins won (he played much better the previous year, when they lost), and his play alone cost them for like the next four playoffs. How can someone continually rate Fleury as a winner based on Stanley Cup ring backed by a mediocre performance from six years ago?

In your opinion, was Fleury better in 07-08 with a .933 / 1.97 and losing in the Cup, or 08-09, with a .908 / 2.61 and winning in the cup?

I almost kept him out because I figured you'd harp on him (and he has had an uneven playoff career no question).

Keep in mind though that Marty had some iffy playoffs as well. If you play long enough that's bound to occur.

 

[Desert Devil]

In no universe would I pick Richter over Lundvist. That's crazy talk. Richter is more overrated than Lundqvist has ever been.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

Richter is actually another great example of what I'm talking about.

He was very good in the 93-94 playoffs, and then was horrendous in 7 games in 94-95 and 11 games in 95-96. Then he had a very good playoffs in 96-97. Did Richter lose his clutch ability from 94-96 then regain it in 97?

In most cases a "clutch" playoff performance is no different than a 20-game hot streak during the regular season.

 

[217 Forever]

Richter is actually another great example of what I'm talking about.

He was very good in the 93-94 playoffs, and then was horrendous in 7 games in 94-95 and 11 games in 95-96. Then he had a very good playoffs in 96-97. Did Richter lose his clutch ability from 94-96 then regain it in 97?

In most cases a "clutch" playoff performance is no different than a 20-game hot streak during the regular season.

It's a good and fair argument. All I know is that Richter made a big difference in his Cup year (broke my heart for sure) and that holds a lot of weight with me.

 

[glenwo2]

Yeah, hockey is a team game. Not sure how you can fault Lundqvist for the Rangers' playoff inadequacies when he's been a beast in the playoffs the last four years.

You're probably of the ilk that thought Jonathan Quick played well in the playoffs last year because he "won the cup." Let's not pay attention to how many goals the team scores or anything, or how the defense plays. If the goalie gets a ring, he's clearly better than the goalie that doesn't have one.

Didn't he give up 6 goals twice in the series against the Bolts, though?

 

[glenwo2]

In no universe would I pick Richter over Lundvist. That's crazy talk. Richter is more overrated than Lundqvist has ever been.

Still to this day, I'm baffled as to how Richter got into the Hall Of Fame.

 

[NJDevs26]

Still to this day, I'm baffled as to how Richter got into the Hall Of Fame.

He got in the US Hockey Hall of Fame (and well deserved since you could make an argument of him being the best US goalie of all time), not the big one in Toronto.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

Didn't he give up 6 goals twice in the series against the Bolts, though?

We can focus on a game here and there all we want, but it's hard to argue with:

20gp, .931, 1.82
12gp, .934, 2.14
25gp, .927, 2.14
19gp, .928, 2.11

In consecutive playoff seasons. That's pretty damn good and damn consistent. Rangers wouldn't have moved past Washington if it weren't for Lundqvist.

 

[217 Forever]

We can focus on a game here and there all we want, but it's hard to argue with:

20gp, .931, 1.82
12gp, .934, 2.14
25gp, .927, 2.14
19gp, .928, 2.11

In consecutive playoff seasons. That's pretty damn good and damn consistent. Rangers wouldn't have moved past Washington if it weren't for Lundqvist.

We may disagree on some things, but I appreciate that you put effort into your arguments and don't just blurt out nonsense.

 

[Emperoreddy]

In no universe would I pick Richter over Lundvist. That's crazy talk. Richter is more overrated than Lundqvist has ever been.

Ya. I don't even think it's a question. I dislike Henry but you take him over Richter.

 

[Tundra]

Lundqvist was more consistent, but if it's one game against insurmountable odds, I'd take Richter. What he did to us in game 6 in 1994 was ridiculous as well as the high level he played in the 1996 world cup. Richter's ceiling was extremely high when he found that comfort zone.

 

[sbresistor]

didn't Talbot have better or similar #s to Lundqvist this year? 'product of the system' lol

hey look, he's a good goalie- but his best hasn't been good enough for the Rangers to win a cup. He shouldn't be hyped so much, in game 3 vs Tampa -

 

[AfroThunder396]

I went over to Lundqvist's house for a drink, but he didn't have any Cups.

 

[NJD Kula]

I still can't believe Bishop and the Bolts won the game, and I don't think it's because Bishop is a good goalie. It has more to do with the fact he's 7 feet tall on skates and covers the entire net without moving. He was literally sitting on the goal line at one point. That's pretty sad, he's so hurt he can barely move side to side but it doesn't even matter.

Bishop could have easily been pulled after the first period if the Hawks didn't choke 2 wide open nets and get some bad bounces. The 19 shots allowed were a product of Bishop flopping around like a fish and being unable to control rebounds or dictate play at any point. Bishop is not good - it's like watching Shawn Bradley playing goalie.

It's a complete aberration and a miracle should he keep winning games while clearly injured, yikes.

 

[Bleedred]

didn't Talbot have better or similar #s to Lundqvist this year? 'product of the system' lol

hey look, he's a good goalie- but his best hasn't been good enough for the Rangers to win a cup. He shouldn't be hyped so much, in game 3 vs Tampa -

Talbot is NOT better than Lundqvist or as good, just because he went on a hot streak. Hey! Scott Clemmensen had similar numbers to Marty that year he was injured! I'll defend Lundqvist all day on that one, for the fact that I had to listen to morons talk about how Clemmensen was just as good as Marty because of his hot streak.

I went over to Lundqvist's house for a drink, but he didn't have any Cups.

I loved the Marty gif which was posted last year after the Rangers were beaten in the SCF.

And one of the really good things I'll say about Bishop, TB was SUNK for a couple years by BAD goaltending before acquiring him.

Blimpback was one of the biggest busts of a trade in a while, overpaid for him and he sunk them in the playoffs last year in a round 1 sweep while Bishop was injured. With how mediocre and overrated Montreal is, they might have lost if Bishop played that series.

 

[tr83]

I still can't believe Bishop and the Bolts won the game, and I don't think it's because Bishop is a good goalie. It has more to do with the fact he's 7 feet tall on skates and covers the entire net without moving. He was literally sitting on the goal line at one point. That's pretty sad, he's so hurt he can barely move side to side but it doesn't even matter.

Bishop could have easily been pulled after the first period if the Hawks didn't choke 2 wide open nets and get some bad bounces. The 19 shots allowed were a product of Bishop flopping around like a fish and being unable to control rebounds or dictate play at any point. Bishop is not good - it's like watching Shawn Bradley playing goalie.

It's a complete aberration and a miracle should he keep winning games while clearly injured, yikes.

The Tampa D locked it down pretty good there at the end.

I feel if Ben Bishop was 6'2'', he would not be in the NHL. His positioning is terrible. He looks like Lundqvist when he tries to catch something in his glove.

 

[217 Forever]

Lundqvist was more consistent, but if it's one game against insurmountable odds, I'd take Richter. What he did to us in game 6 in 1994 was ridiculous as well as the high level he played in the 1996 world cup. Richter's ceiling was extremely high when he found that comfort zone.

I agree with you, and why I want a goalie who can stop 50 shots if he has to more than a guy who consistently just gives up 2 goals/game.

 

[billingtons ghost]

In no universe would I pick Richter over Lundvist. That's crazy talk. Richter is more overrated than Lundqvist has ever been.

Must not have seen much of Richter, eh?

 

[billingtons ghost]

We can focus on a game here and there all we want, but it's hard to argue with:

20gp, .931, 1.82
12gp, .934, 2.14
25gp, .927, 2.14
19gp, .928, 2.11

In consecutive playoff seasons. That's pretty damn good and damn consistent. Rangers wouldn't have moved past Washington if it weren't for Lundqvist.

If you take statistics as your sole holy measurement, then yeah -

But that is a silly, silly argument.

Here you go. I have to hold my nose to watch Rangers highlights, and I have to admit that these actually don't do the guy justice. I still see the guy in my nightmares from '94. The only thing Lundqvist has on him as a goalie is the size of his pads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0e6eyGfvyA

 

[Desert Devil]

Must not have seen much of Richter, eh?

Not true. I grew up on him and many other 90s goalies as it was the position I played. I like him better than Lundqvist but to compare the two is silly.

 

[yRessUneChose]

In no universe would I pick Richter over Lundvist. That's crazy talk. Richter is more overrated than Lundqvist has ever been.

this lol


as a Devs fan, I always thought that Richter just was ''good'', I mean look at that 93-94 team, that team was stacked lmao


whereas, I understand people will hate me, but, Henrik can carry his team on his back, and win game by himself(just like last year SCF, where the only game they won was because of him)

but yeah, to pardon myself, how can you crown yourself King, when you have 0 Stanley Cups


edit:

so Henrik turning 33, if Rangers fans would compare to Brodeur's career(some are stupid enough to) Henrik has been to 1 SC, lost it, Brodeur 5, won 3,

so, if Henrik plays at a high level for perhaps 3-4years, they'd have to win 3-4cups in a row,

not hapenning

 

[Bleedred]

I'm the biggest Devils Richter fan there is, I'm okay with putting Lundqvist over him though.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

If you take statistics as your sole holy measurement, then yeah -

But that is a silly, silly argument.

Here you go. I have to hold my nose to watch Rangers highlights, and I have to admit that these actually don't do the guy justice. I still see the guy in my nightmares from '94. The only thing Lundqvist has on him as a goalie is the size of his pads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0e6eyGfvyA

I know you hate goalie statistics, but how can anyone argue that Lundqvist hasn't been good when he's surrendering around two goals per game in the playoffs over the last four years? That gives his team a tremendous chance to win, and it's not on Lundqvist if the Rangers haven't seized it.

Watching highlight reels is probably a sillier argument.

 

[217 Forever]

I know you hate goalie statistics, but how can anyone argue that Lundqvist hasn't been good when he's surrendering around two goals per game in the playoffs over the last four years? That gives his team a tremendous chance to win, and it's not on Lundqvist if the Rangers haven't seized it.

Watching highlight reels is probably a sillier argument.

Conversely, what if the Rangers just had better teams than what they've played the last few playoff seasons and Lundqvist SHOULD have won those series. The East has been weak relative to the west for several years. The only truly top quality playoff teams they have faced the last few years are Boston, Tampa, and LA, and they (and he) lost all of those series and, to my recollection, the other goalie played better in every one of those series.

 

[Sgt Brylin]

I agree with you, and why I want a goalie who can stop 50 shots if he has to more than a guy who consistently just gives up 2 goals/game.

A description that, incidentally, also covers Ben Scrivens