Player Discussion Henrik Lundqvist

[Gresch04]

I think I said that Hank was a better goalie than Richter in an earlier post. I didn't comment on who was, technically, the better goalie (which is extremely difficult to quantify). I did comment on who I thought was the GREATEST Ranger goalie. Who reached the greatest height? Who brought the glory?

So did Trent Dilfer and Doug Williams in the NFL and neither are the greatest by any measure. Goalies, like QBs, have brilliant careers, great stretches, and great moments. Hank has had a brilliant career. Richter had a great stretch. Antti Niemi had a great moment, like Dilfer and Williams. Hank>Richter no matter how you slice it.

 

[Mikos87]

Leetch never even remotely solo† carried his team as Lundqvist has let alone for as long a Lundqvist has.

†Although his performance in 1994 was remarkable, he most certainly did not solo carry that team, or any other team.

2014 series against PIT. Games 5,6,7.

Those games, he stole a year of Crosby and Malkin's hockey lives. Very rare performance

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

My hockey analysis is that Quick outplayed Hank. There you go.
Have you ever played the game at any advanced level?

You just responded with the hockey forum equivalent of "Do you even lift"

Enlighten me, what does your "advanced level of hockey play" help you see that allows you to determine Quick played better? So far all you said is "He won the cup and made 'a ton of unreal saves'". If you put Quick on the NYR and Lundqvist on the Kings you are implying Quick would still win. Why?

I'm not sure that your implied "advanced level of play" means much. There are plenty of analysts who played at levels so high that what you played in was like Pee wee to them and THEY say Hank was better. Now what? We dismiss their analysis despite their even more advanced levels of play? It's alllllmost like the argument "I played at a high level so i'm right" is laughably simple.

I know I can be a jerk here but I feel I really went out of my way to be fair and not nasty in my earlier posts. Oh well.

 

[vladmyir111]

Quick was good, but he didn't have to be godly to win that series by any stretch of the imagination. Rangers kept missing open nets in timely moments (as you may recall 4 of 5 games were decided in OT) and LA just kept blasting away all series long as the Rangers turtled, I can't even imagine the shot attempts ratio in that one.

 

[The S5]

You just responded with the hockey forum equivalent of "Do you even lift"

Enlighten me, what does your "advanced level of hockey play" help you see that allows you to determine Quick played better? So far all you said is "He won the cup and made 'a ton of unreal saves'". If you put Quick on the NYR and Lundqvist on the Kings you are implying Quick would still win. Why?

I'm not sure that your implied "advanced level of play" means much. There are plenty of analysts who played at levels so high that what you played in was like Pee wee to them and THEY say Hank was better. Now what? We dismiss their analysis despite their even more advanced levels of play? It's alllllmost like the argument "I played at a high level so i'm right" is laughably simple.

I know I can be a jerk here but I feel I really went out of my way to be fair and not nasty in my earlier posts. Oh well.

So you're telling me you've never even stepped onto the ice.
Thanks, I think were done here.

 

[The S5]

So did Trent Dilfer and Doug Williams in the NFL and neither are the greatest by any measure. Goalies, like QBs, have brilliant careers, great stretches, and great moments. Hank has had a brilliant career. Richter had a great stretch. Antti Niemi had a great moment, like Dilfer and Williams. Hank>Richter no matter how you slice it.

Terrible analogy.
Richter had a great career and was considered among the top echelon of goalies during his time.

 

[The S5]

NEW YORK, CONCRETE JUNGLE WHERE DREAMS ARE MADE OF, THERES NOTHING YOU CAN'T DO

Unless you're Hank.

 

[Irishguy42]

So you're telling me you've never even stepped onto the ice.
Thanks, I think were done here.

The "have you even played the game?" argument is dumb and doesn't actually have anything to it.

Gatekeeping always used as a last line of defense to look superior and dismiss all other arguments from someone else.

 

[haohmaru]

So you're telling me you've never even stepped onto the ice.
Thanks, I think were done here.

I've played and it doesn't matter.

LA was simply the better team and not by a little. By a mile. They were outshot by nearly 50 in 5 games and I don't even want to know what the attempts were. Hell, the one game we won by a single goal and were outshot 15-1 in the third period.

If you've played you lay it at the feet of the team, not the goaltender, particularly when you were sorely out played in 4 of 5 games.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

So you're telling me you've never even stepped onto the ice.
Thanks, I think were done here.

Yeah, you're done. The moment the "Have you even played" remark is used, you're done. Playing hockey yourself doesn't make you an expert. This remark is even dumber than the "Have you ever watched a game on an advanced level" question

 

[Inferno]

Quick was excellent in that series..but honestly I felt there was a legit argument to give Henrik the Conn smythe.

 

[Inferno]

Question to s5. What advanced level did you play..and was it as a goalie. If it wasn't as a goalie....GOD HELP YOU!

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

So you're telling me you've never even stepped onto the ice.
Thanks, I think were done here.

Fascinating. You are so desperate to feel like you won an internet argument that you literally just imagined me saying something I never said. Huh.

Doesn't matter who has stepped on the ice because like I said

"I'm not sure that your implied "advanced level of play" means much. There are plenty of analysts who played at levels so high that what you played in was like Pee wee to them and THEY say Hank was better. Now what? We dismiss their analysis despite their even more advanced levels of play? It's alllllmost like the argument "I played at a high level so i'm right" is laughably simple."

Literally everyone here is saying relatively the same thing to you.

The "have you even played bro" defense is like one of HF's biggest universal jokes...but you legitimately used it as an argument. Thank you for the laugh

 

[Inferno]

Fascinating. You are so desperate to feel like you won an internet argument that you literally just imagined me saying something I never said. Huh.

Doesn't matter who has stepped on the ice because like I said

"I'm not sure that your implied "advanced level of play" means much. There are plenty of analysts who played at levels so high that what you played in was like Pee wee to them and THEY say Hank was better. Now what? We dismiss their analysis despite their even more advanced levels of play? It's alllllmost like the argument "I played at a high level so i'm right" is laughably simple."

Literally everyone here is saying relatively the same thing to you.

The "have you even played bro" defense is like one of HF's biggest universal jokes...but you legitimately used it as an argument. Thank you for the laugh

I'd say the have you ever played argument is fine as long as it's for stuff you can't see...ie coach effects or locker room stuff or training or what not. When it comes to on ice stuff anyone can see...it's absolutely worthless.

 

[Inferno]

Henrik was the best ranger in that series...honestly it wasn't even remotely close. I'd say if I had a Conn smythe vote I woulda had henrik first and Williams second.....av thirs on behalf of the kings.

 

[Irishguy42]

Henrik was the best ranger in that series...honestly it wasn't even remotely close. I'd say if I had a Conn smythe vote I woulda had henrik first and Williams second.....av thirs on behalf of the kings.

Disagree.

Snow pile behind Henrik was the best Ranger in that series. By a country mile.

 

[CHGoalie27]

No one is understating what Mess did for this franchise.

No one **in their right mind** is understating what Mess did for us. I've seen plenty posts where people do...and I think he is still the number one most important Ranger in our history.

If Henrik somehow gets a team that won't get shutout when it counts and wins a Cup, or they let goalies cross the red line, he will step into the number 1 spot given all he's done for 13 years and counting...

Richter and Leetch are about level after the two...further down the list of importance in NYR history, Kovalev was my fav growing up then Hank came along...I don't want to live out my life and not have seen him with the Cup in the air...

 

[CHGoalie27]

All y'all getting trolled pretty good in here...

Whenever someone calls him less than the best ever I go off.

I'm a very easy troll target :/

 

[Synergy27]

No one **in their right mind** is understating what Mess did for us. I've seen plenty posts where people do...and I think he is still the number one most important Ranger in our history.

If Henrik somehow gets a team that won't get shutout when it counts and wins a Cup, or they let goalies cross the red line, he will step into the number 1 spot given all he's done for 13 years and counting...

Richter and Leetch are about level after the two...further down the list of importance in NYR history, Kovalev was my fav growing up then Hank came along...I don't want to live out my life and not have seen him with the Cup in the air...

Are you me?

 

[CHGoalie27]

Are you me?

Fren.

 

[Siddi]

Not gonna lie. Calling @Amazing Kreiderman "a Hank fan" made me chuckle.

Love you Boo, dont come at me

 

[The S5]

Question to s5. What advanced level did you play..and was it as a goalie. If it wasn't as a goalie....GOD HELP YOU!

Yes sir, I was a goaltender. Yes, I played beyond youth hockey and we will leave it at that.
Why do guys who have never played get so up in arms about having their opinions questioned?
Sorry, but unless you have played the game, you really CAN'T understand the nuances of playing.
It may offend, but its the truth.

 

[Irishguy42]

Yes sir, I was a goaltender. Yes, I played beyond youth hockey and we will leave it at that.
Why do guys who have never played get so up in arms about having their opinions questioned?
Sorry, but unless you have played the game, you really CAN'T understand the nuances of playing.
It may offend, but its the truth.

Oh please.

Just because you've played doesn't mean you know the nuances of playing either.

Amateur/non-pro/beer league is not even close to the NHL, which is what we're all discussing. So "muh experience" doesn't really mean much.

 

[silverfish]

I used to play goalie for my brothers in front of our house so basically I'm an expert.

AMA about goaltending

 

[IamNotADancer]

So you're telling me you've never even stepped onto the ice.
Thanks, I think were done here.

I'm interested in your answer to his question though.