Player Discussion Henrik Lundqvist

[NYRKING30]

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

Unless you're Hank.

Not liking Hank is one thing but the way your implying it is ruining whatever little credibility, (if any),you had.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

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

Love you Boo, dont come at me

That was definitely the weirdest label I've been given on HFNYR.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

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.

Why do people who have played the game at an insignificant level feel that it gives them a more credible opinion? I played rugby at the highest level in my country but that doesn't make me an expert aside from what goes on behind closed doors. And even that is irrelevant when discussing the high level sports.

You played beyond youth hockey but refuse to talk about it any further? So, beer league hockey it is then. Great, that makes you an expert at absolutely nothing.

 

[darko]

I played in a beer league for almost 2 decades. Just a beer league, nothing else.

 

[Hire Sather]

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.

If you're gonna talk down to others, you could at least expand on your experience.

 

[Gresch04]

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

Won over 30 games only twice, .904 career save %, no Vezina, and probably the 6-7 best goalie of his era. He had a solid career... not exceptional, not amazing, and not great. Love Richter but I don't romanticize his "greatness" after the fact. Hank>>>>>>Richter.

 

[Phoicon]

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

I played A-level juniors but the thing about goaltenders was something I was taught the first time I stepped on the ice: "You never blame the goalie." Pretty much all old-timers told us that and everybody followed it. I think people who have not played understand the gist of it just as well.

Never once in my "career" (insert the Simpson hahaha laugh track) did I hear even one guy say one bad thing about our goalie(s) and in peewee hockey you sometimes you lose 27-9 or some Euroleague basketball score like that and we had some deeply emotionally troubled people on our teams + violent and cursing coaches so there was a lot of chaos and intimidation over a soundtrack of Eye of the Tiger and other 70s rock (supposed to set the mood to win) but the corner for goalies was always calm and if he won - it seemed like the happiest place on the planet.

Besides, the Rangers lost the Cup final because of our terrible coaching and lack of elite scoring talent. It was one of the most lopsided finals ever.

It was like a boxing match where one guy just pounds the other one round after round and the weaker guy gets a punch in every second round. And then they say the match was close because there was no knockout. It really wasn´t.

Neutral fans probably could not wait for it to be over. It was disgusting to watch as a Rangers fan, to be honest. First periods were tolerable/nice.

But as soon as the second period started - AV demanded that we follow his insane methodology and it went down the hill. Third periods = death.

Impossible to say which goalie outplayed the other in that final.

 

[smoneil]

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.

Point of order--you aren't questioning their opinions. You are dismissing them as invalid without giving any reason beyond your ambiguous playing history. But then again, I analyze text and arguments professionally, so your response to this probably won't be valid to me.

 

[smoneil]

Won over 30 games only twice, .904 career save %, no Vezina, and probably the 6-7 best goalie of his era. He had a solid career... not exceptional, not amazing, and not great. Love Richter but I don't romanticize his "greatness" after the fact. Hank>>>>>>Richter.

While I agree that Hank >> Richter, context comes into play here. Being the 6-7 best goalie of an era is still damned impressive when your era includes names like Roy, Belfour, Vanbiesbrouck, Brodeur, Hasek, and Joseph. And that's not even counting Darren Puppa.

 

[smoneil]

Besides, the Rangers lost the Cup final because of our terrible coaching and lack of elite scoring talent. It was one of the most lopsided finals ever.

It was like a boxing match where one guy just pounds the other one round after round and the weaker guy gets a punch in every second round. And then they say the match was close because there was no knockout. It really wasn´t.

Neutral fans probably could not wait for it to be over. It was disgusting to watch as a Rangers fan, to be honest. First periods were tolerable/nice.

But as soon as the second period started - AV demanded that we follow his insane methodology and it went down the hill. Third periods = death.

Impossible to say which goalie outplayed the other in that final.

LA didn't even have a lead until the 3rd game, IIRC. The team came out strong game after game, got the first goal, and then AV tried to turtle for 30-40 minutes. I think everyone thought that series was so lopsided because they spent most of it trying to hang on for dear life to 1-goal leads. If AV had a bit more confidence in his team, they may well have hoisted Lord Stanley. That was the point that I really started loathing AV (and the point where I think Girardi fell off the boat as a useful player--Girardi was just awful through that whole series).

 

[Phoicon]

LA didn't even have a lead until the 3rd game, IIRC. The team came out strong game after game, got the first goal, and then AV tried to turtle for 30-40 minutes. I think everyone thought that series was so lopsided because they spent most of it trying to hang on for dear life to 1-goal leads. If AV had a bit more confidence in his team, they may well have hoisted Lord Stanley. That was the point that I really started loathing AV (and the point where I think Girardi fell off the boat as a useful player--Girardi was just awful through that whole series).

Yeah, that is what I probably meant behind my hyperbole We played to lose. Not to win.

 

[CHGoalie27]

Won over 30 games only twice, .904 career save %, no Vezina, and probably the 6-7 best goalie of his era. He had a solid career... not exceptional, not amazing, and not great. Love Richter but I don't romanticize his "greatness" after the fact. Hank>>>>>>Richter.

His ability to rise to the clutch game was most definitely exceptional. Only Roy and Hasek were more dominant/reliable in that era, and Cujo was right next to Richter.
Belfour was fantastic though he played most of his career on contenders that would've been with or without him.
You couldn't get to Brodeur, but he was still pretty damn fun to watch.

Both Hank and Richter are/were high ranking members of the little to no help in front/being the only one on the team worth a damn club...

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

No but I did sleep at a holiday inn Express.

Long live the King...

 

[Filthy Dangles]

I could have been the next generational talent in the NHL but I decided I'd rather argue with strangers about credentials on HFboards

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I played A-level juniors but the thing about goaltenders was something I was taught the first time I stepped on the ice: "You never blame the goalie." Pretty much all old-timers told us that and everybody followed it. I think people who have not played understand the gist of it just as well.

Never once in my "career" (insert the Simpson hahaha laugh track) did I hear even one guy say one bad thing about our goalie(s) and in peewee hockey you sometimes you lose 27-9 or some Euroleague basketball score like that and we had some deeply emotionally troubled people on our teams + violent and cursing coaches so there was a lot of chaos and intimidation over a soundtrack of Eye of the Tiger and other 70s rock (supposed to set the mood to win) but the corner for goalies was always calm and if he won - it seemed like the happiest place on the planet.

Besides, the Rangers lost the Cup final because of our terrible coaching and lack of elite scoring talent. It was one of the most lopsided finals ever.

It was like a boxing match where one guy just pounds the other one round after round and the weaker guy gets a punch in every second round. And then they say the match was close because there was no knockout. It really wasn´t.

Neutral fans probably could not wait for it to be over. It was disgusting to watch as a Rangers fan, to be honest. First periods were tolerable/nice.

But as soon as the second period started - AV demanded that we follow his insane methodology and it went down the hill. Third periods = death.

Impossible to say which goalie outplayed the other in that final.

I’ll second some of this.

Only in club and garbo tiers did people take a consistent dump on the goalie win or lose unless the said net minder was just a piece of shit as a person, and in that case, they wouldn’t be there too long.

 

[Bluto]

Hank is the reason the Rangers made the finals that year. AV couldn't adjust and the team in front of him, namely the offense played like complete shit. Game 3 was a complete embarrassment and summed up the series. Hank was the reason that we didn't get swept by an average score of 5-0.
The fact of the matter is that since the 05-06 season, the reason why the Rangers have been relevant is because of Lundqvist.
Put Hank on these Pitt teams over that span and they have 6 or 7 cups.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I could have been the next generational talent in the NHL but I decided I'd rather argue with strangers about credentials on HFboards

I played football as a kid so I know exactly how the players at the World Cup feel now when they are on the field

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Yes, I played beyond youth hockey and we will leave it at that.

Really setting a high bar there
What about all the people who played above your dubious experience level and disagree with your assessment? I am amused how you keep ignoring that.

Why do guys who have never played get so up in arms about having their opinions questioned?

We've established that you have no idea if/how long I played and we've established that it's irrelevant.

Sorry, but unless you have played the game, you really CAN'T understand the nuances of playing.
It may offend, but its the truth.

Which nuances? No offense taken. You need to have a point that's worth considering to offend most people.

You're giving most of us a laugh instead.

 

[The S5]

Really setting a high bar there
What about all the people who played above your dubious experience level and disagree with your assessment? I am amused how you keep ignoring that.


We've established that you have no idea if/how long I played and we've established that it's irrelevant.


Which nuances? No offense taken. You need to have a point that's worth considering to offend most people.

You're giving most of us a laugh instead.

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you. I played collegiate hockey and no, it doesn't matter if someone played beyond high school to understand the game at a level those who didn't play can't.
Any former player who tells you a person who has never played can fully understand the game is either lying or just being agreeable.
Don't know why you are being defensive. I have my opinion and anything you type isn't changing it.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you. I played collegiate hockey and no, it doesn't matter if someone played beyond high school to understand the game at a level those who didn't play can't.
Any former player who tells you a person who has never played can fully understand the game is either lying or just being agreeable.
Don't know why you are being defensive. I have my opinion and anything you type isn't changing it.

You started a pissing contest, were the ONLY one engaged in it this whole time, got embarrassed and called out by half the board and now "I'm not going to get in a pissing contest" LOL.

At no point have I been defensive. I've criticized your immature behavior up to this point but that's the extent of it. You offered up a subjective opinion without knowing how to defend it. When you are ready to defend it, please feel free to return and do so. I don't know why you are so afraid to have an intellectual discussion and have to keep deferring to weak, arbitrary stances or outright hostile comments.

So far your argument is "Quick won the cup and made unreal saves."

You are telling me that THIS is something you needed to play college hockey to figure out?

 

[The S5]

You started a pissing contest, were the ONLY one engaged in it this whole time, got embarrassed and called out by half the board and now "I'm not going to get in a pissing contest" LOL.

At no point have I been defensive. I've criticized your immature behavior up to this point but that's the extent of it. You offered up a subjective opinion without knowing how to defend it. When you are ready to defend it, please feel free to return and do so. I don't know why you are so afraid to have an intellectual discussion and have to keep deferring to weak, arbitrary stances or outright hostile comments.

So far your argument is "Quick won the cup and made unreal saves."

You are telling me that THIS is something you needed to play college hockey to figure out?

LOL, I am far from embarrassed.
I understand that there is a lot of man love for Hank. He is a very good goalie, top 20 or so of all time. But, I am tired of hearing about how he deserves a Cup. Goalies have the ability to impact the outcome of a game more so than any other player on the ice. Hank had a shot and didn't make the saves he needed to win. Quick did.
It isn't about the number of shots, its the quality and timeliness of the saves.
Quick has two rings and a Conn Smythe, Hank doesn't.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

LOL, I am far from embarrassed.
I understand that there is a lot of man love for Hank. He is a very good goalie, top 20 or so of all time. But, I am tired of hearing about how he deserves a Cup. Goalies have the ability to impact the outcome of a game more so than any other player on the ice. Hank had a shot and didn't make the saves he needed to win. Quick did.
It isn't about the number of shots, its the quality and timeliness of the saves.
Quick has two rings and a Conn Smythe, Hank doesn't.

You should take a few minutes and read this:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/most-important-position-on-a-team.2502147/

 

[The S5]

You should take a few minutes and read this:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/most-important-position-on-a-team.2502147/

So, HF boards votes C as most important and that is the gospel? Give me a break.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

So, HF boards votes C as most important and that is the gospel? Give me a break.

Oh. Right. These people didn't play hockey on Friday nights with friends so their opinion doesn't matter.

Anyway, I didn't ask you to just look at the poll. Read through it. There are some good arguments in there. Well, if you accept an opinion other than your own without using the "bro, do you even play" card.

You should try it. Engaging in an actual argument instead of dismissing opinions and assuming you're the smartest guy in the room because you lace 'em up once in a while.

 

[darko]

Oh. Right. These people didn't play hockey on Friday nights with friends so their opinion doesn't matter.

Anyway, I didn't ask you to just look at the poll. Read through it. There are some good arguments in there. Well, if you accept an opinion other than your own without using the "bro, do you even play" card.

You should try it. Engaging in an actual argument instead of dismissing opinions and assuming you're the smartest guy in the room because you lace 'em up once in a while.

Bro, do you even post?