And for all those who think I'm just a huge Lundqvist homer and have read my posts over the decade, no, I'm not a pure Lundqvist homer, I'm a goalie homer if you go deeper. Let's just say I have a slightly more forgiving way of defining a goal as "weak" or a "softie" and that definition has always irked me, whoever you would call out. That's not just Lundqvist. A ton of discussions I've been in isn't to defend Lundqvist, but to defend the difficulties of being a goalie. I've lambasted posters who basically defined any Lundqvist goal as a softie and I've argued even more goals to not be as easy to save as you might think. You can think of me as you want and define it however to your liking, I don't care. According to me, I've always been trying to hold on to my principles. I haven't always defended Lundqvist, but alot of times I have defended him when I think it was uncalled for to blame him for the loss, because the analysis of a certain play forgot of a few things. As have I done for any goalie I've been discussing. That is a principle I've always been true to and you can check it up if you want to. I call a softie merited when I see it, by my view of goaltending, not before. The reason I keep these posts separate is, I want to separate my open homerism for Lundqvist - and all goalies - from my arguments why I keep him as special in all my love for the positioning of goaltenders. And yes, I'm also excited to see what "Shesty" can do in the next era. His brick wall style is very interesting. It's just a travesty that Lundqvist's career has to end like this.