Lundqvist is not overrated; New York Rangers are. Usually, the Rangers have been a one or two-line team, and Lundqvist's been exceptionally helpful in their making the playoffs.
This is basically true. Many years we've been carried by our goaltending (which in recent years has included contributions from guys like Talbot and Raanta) which inflated our win totals. Or, more accurately, made us appear to be better than the sum of the forwards + defensemen--as the goalie is part of the team and shouldn't be discounted when determining how good a team is. With the advent of the "fancystats," I'd often hear from opposing fan bases how our Corsi sucked, our PDO was high, whatever. And yet we won games in large part because of the reliable presence in net.
When it comes to the playoffs, Henrik has had some down series, but when you've played 128 playoff games over however many series, that seems likely to occur. There have been so many times over the years where I've said, "With as shitty as we looked in the last round, Henrik is going to have to steal 2-3 wins for us this round." And many times, he has. Other than the team that lost in the Finals and the teams the lost in the ECF to the Devils (when the entire teams appeared to be dead on their feet), I don't recall any real "powerhouse" Rangers teams. The rest of the teams have been good, made occasionally really good by the play of Lundqvist. Maybe with a couple teams that were mediocre, made good by Lundqvist, thrown into the mix.
He has been consistently excellent throughout his career. His first "bad" season was last year at age 34 when he had a .910 SV%. He's just been really good every year, which is what makes him great overall. That consistency. Unfortunately, he's only played on one or two teams that should be considered "legitimate" contenders for a Cup and neither he nor the team could pull it off. All those other years, the other playoff exits, the only way we win a Cup is if he steals four complete series. Maybe other guys have been able to do that and he hasn't, but I can't really fault him for that.
He has picked up the team so many times over the years, regular season and playoffs, and it seems like rarely do they pick him up. Literally countless times, even on the "good" teams, the team looked like hot garbage (especially under Torts) but he'd bail them out. Then the next game he'd give up a bad goal and the team would have no response. It's like they depend on him to be near-flawless and if he's not they fold like a tent. That he's been able to accomplish as much as he has with some of the disasters in front of him that he's had to deal with is impressive.
He's my favorite player, favorite since Richter. I obviously desperately want to see him win a Cup here but recognize the diminishing likelihood of that, as his play is starting to slip. At this point I wish he could be moved somewhere that he'd have a better shot. But, he has a big contract that probably prevents him from being moved; and what "contender" would even need him? So he'll probably retire without a Cup, which is sad, but he shouldn't have any regrets.
TL;DR the Rangers have rarely been "that good" and Hank has always bailed them out. That he couldn't steal an entire playoff isn't something I hold against him.
