Jonathan Quick is still a system goalie

[x Tame Impala]

Every goalie is dependent on the system in front of them. Quick has been very good for a very long time.

Ridiculous OP

 

[57special]

Criticism is welcomed but Quick is **** talked on the main boards constantly and it has been like that for years. Just look at the posts from this thread, some are claiming he was "lucky" which is completely ridiculous with the amount of playoffs games he has played.

That's a personal opinion. Ren is an inverted Anakin Skywalker; he wants to seem like the irredeemable monster but he keeps being overtaken by vulnerability and an earnest desire to be loved whereas Anakin is a ticking time bomb, he works really hard to seem like a fundamentally decent, empathetic person but he has this overwhelming selfishness that takes over and unfortunately his character leaves much to be desired, there's just no layers to him. I'm gonna end it here since I don't want to go off topic.

Literally the only thing bad I've ever said about Quick was that he was awful last night. The actors playing Ren and Anakin are both more awful than Quick was last night, and Quick will get better.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Literally the only thing bad I've ever said about Quick was that he was awful last night. The actors playing Ren and Anakin are both more awful than Quick was last night, and Quick will get better.

I will say--like Doughty--that Quick sometimes gets caught trying to do too much to spark the team. Those are the games he goes super-gumby for no real reason, which is what last night turned into for him. For both players, those compound the issues: which is why when they ARENT great--like last night--they're awful. There's seemingly no "eh, he was good" middle ground for those guys. They're either superhuman, great, or terrible (or maybe they're just more noticeable because of their prominence and importance to the Kings' success).

I think over this last little stretch of playing hurt he's trying to do too much. And he'll play every night if you let him because he's all heart, which is why the coach needs to check him, but Stevens is gutless.

But system goalie, OP, lollll. The Kings changed their system entirely this year. Quick (and Doughty) WAS the system on defense for the first 35 or so games. We were near the bottom of high danger scoring chances against and possession for crying out loud. I bet you couldn't even describe what we're doing right now.

 

[Sacha Baron Corbin]

Quick is also 32 with 500+ games played now and has had three severe injuries since 2012-2013, so I don’t think it’s a stretch to say he’s breaking down physically and can’t play the same active style he was known for. The problem is this has shown some fundamental flaws in his game that he was once able to cover with his athleticism, but after two groin tears and a back injury it’s understandable if he doesn’t have the same movement to his game, which he relies on heavily.

That being said he’s had one bad month this season where he was supposedly playing through another injury (Rob Blake confirmed Quick had an injury, but I say supposedly because I don’t remember if they gave any indication of how long it was affecting him)

Anyways when he’s healthy he’s still the least of the Kings worries, as RJ said him and Doughty are literally the Kings entire defense most nights, but Stevens is going to run them both into the ground.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

Quick is elite. Every time the leafs play the kings he's the guy I worry about most. He's the last goalie in the league I'd want to meet in a playoff series

 

[authentic]

They call him Jonathan Quick for a reason.

 

[Fatty McLardy]

They call him Jonathan Quick for a reason.

Ya cuz that's his name...

 

[Osprey]

Nah, it's much simpler. He is an athlete who relies on world class physicality. His technique has always been flawed - drops too early, over plays shots from distance, all symptoms of over challenging. Because he can. Better than anybody.

Another big reason why he can (or could) over-challenge is the system that cleans up rebounds and covers for him. In that way, he probably does need the system (maybe more than it needs him), so perhaps that makes him a "system goalie," but people tend to use that as a derogatory term and I've never really looked at it like that. I look at it as a perfect fit (or at least it was under Sutter) and don't really see how that's a negative unless the discussion is HOF eligibility or similar (which this thread is not).

Another thing that makes it hard to grade Quick is that one of his biggest weaknesses is focus. You can tell that he's focused when he's playing fast and aggressively. He doesn't play like that very much during the regular season, though, the exceptions tending to be games against rivals (like the Ducks and Hawks). That's another way that he fits the team so well, IMO: he doesn't care about the regular season as much as he should. In the playoffs, he's far more focused and looks like an elite goaltender, but it's hard to grade him as that in general when those games are outnumbered by the ones in which he doesn't seem to play with the same focus.

 

[SladeWilson23]

^^I personally think Quick should be in the HOF when it's all said and done.

 

[Machinehead]

You don't "fluke" your way to a stanley cup.

It's been done and it'll be done again.

Nobody wants to admit it.

I'm not saying the 2014 Kings specifically, but teams have done it.

 

[Sol]

It's been done and it'll be done again.

Nobody wants to admit it.

I'm not saying the 2014 Kings specifically, but teams have done it.

Well neither of the Kings cups were a fluke. 2012 & 2014. 2 cups in 3 seasons disproice that.

 

[Machinehead]

Well neither of the Kings cups were a fluke. 2012 & 2014. To cups in 3 seasons disproice thatt

I absolutely agree with that.

If anything, the Kings not doing better in the regular season was a fluke.

Didn't they have like a dozen shootout loses the year they missed he playoffs?

 

[Sol]

I absolutely agree with that.

If anything, the Kings not doing better in the regular season was a fluke.

Didn't they have like a dozen shootout loses the year they missed he playoffs?

I think so. I might have blocked it out.

 

[Fatty McLardy]

It's been done and it'll be done again.

Nobody wants to admit it.

I'm not saying the 2014 Kings specifically, but teams have done it.

Ya the Rangers in 1994 were pretty flukey..

 

[Machinehead]

Ya the Rangers in 1994 were pretty flukey..

Actually, they were loaded and almost lost to a Cancuks team that was inferior throughout the lineup. And that series is over in 4 if Kirk MacLean doesn't make 52 saves in game 1. So yeah, that proves my point.

 

[PunkRockLocke]

Would you rather have a guy like Luongo or Lundqvist that has fantastic seasons but can't get over the hump and win a cup, or a goalie that has won two cups, one while taking the Conn smythe with an utterly dominating playoff performance?

I know my answer.

The Kings aren't the team they were 2012 - 2014, so sure Quicks numbers are down a bit. But he has proven he can win in clutch times. That's all that really matters.

 

[Machinehead]

Would you rather have a guy like Luongo or Lundqvist that has fantastic seasons but can't get over the hump and win a cup, or a goalie that has won two cups, one while taking the Conn smythe with an utterly dominating playoff performance?

I know my answer.

The Kings aren't the team they were 2012 - 2014, so sure Quicks numbers are down a bit. But he has proven he can win in clutch times. That's all that really matters.

You really think Lundqvist or Luongo aren't winning Cups on the 2012 and 2014 Kings?

I don't mean that as a knock on Quick, but c'mon.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Would you rather have a guy like Luongo or Lundqvist that has fantastic seasons but can't get over the hump and win a cup, or a goalie that has won two cups, one while taking the Conn smythe with an utterly dominating playoff performance?

I know my answer.

The Kings aren't the team they were 2012 - 2014, so sure Quicks numbers are down a bit. But he has proven he can win in clutch times. That's all that really matters.

Actually the good defensive Kings teams deflated his SV%.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Would you rather have a guy like Luongo or Lundqvist that has fantastic seasons but can't get over the hump and win a cup, or a goalie that has won two cups, one while taking the Conn smythe with an utterly dominating playoff performance?

I know my answer.

The Kings aren't the team they were 2012 - 2014, so sure Quicks numbers are down a bit. But he has proven he can win in clutch times. That's all that really matters.

The thing is, they weren't. OP literally strategically waited until they dropped, likely due to his ongoing injury. There was not one peep from the "save percentage is everything" crowd early in the year about his play, he was getting literally completely looked over in Vezina talk despite being top-3 in everything in waaaaay up top in GSAA because the Kings were giving up immense amounts of dangerous shots, very little chatter about how good he really was playing. Posters were literally going out of their way to avoid talking about him, look at the early Vezina threads. It's crazy. Yet, the moment he hurts someone's fantasy team, boom, here we are.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Quick is seriously getting underrated on this site.

I remember watching him singlehandedly steal game 4 to sweep the Blues in 2012. But looking back at the series scores it's easy to think the Kings steamrolled them.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Quick is seriously getting underrated on this site.

I remember watching him singlehandedly steal game 4 to sweep the Blues in 2012. But looking back at the series scores it's easy to think the Kings steamrolled them.

Even the first period of that series the Blues looked like they were going to roll us. Quick was the only thing stopping that until we found our feet and brains.

But all people seem to remember is the Devils series when he wasn't tested as much, and as a consequence his save percentage came down to only .946 from over .950.

 

[Machinehead]

Quick is seriously getting underrated on this site.

I remember watching him singlehandedly steal game 4 to sweep the Blues in 2012. But looking back at the series scores it's easy to think the Kings steamrolled them.

Quick is a solid goaltender and I think there's some validity to the idea that the lack of shots against on the championship Kings teams crapped on his save percentage.

But the idea that he won Cups that superior goaltenders wouldn't win because he's "clutch" is pretty smelly. Especially Lundqvist, whose numbers in elimination games are absurd.

 

[kingsfan28]

Quick is a solid goaltender and I think there's some validity to the idea that the lack of shots against on the championship Kings teams crapped on his save percentage.

But the idea that he won Cups that superior goaltenders wouldn't win because he's "clutch" is pretty smelly. Especially Lundqvist, whose numbers in elimination games are absurd.

In 2014 down 3-0 to the Sharks, he won 4 straight elimination games and 3 game 7's total on his way to his 2nd cup. That's not clutch?

Yet with all those elimination game wins, Hank still has no cups to show for it. How many superior goalies have cups over the last 8 seasons? He wasn't superior in 2014 SCF and was a snowpile away from being swept. Quick was better, yet gets very little respect for what he's done.

 

[Machinehead]

In 2014 down 3-0 to the Sharks, he won 4 straight elimination games and 3 game 7's total on his way to his 2nd cup. That's not clutch?

Yet with all those elimination game wins, Hank still has no cups to show for it. How many superior goalies have cups over the last 8 seasons? He wasn't superior in 2014 SCF and was a snowpile away from being swept. Quick was better, yet gets very little respect for what he's done.

Didn't say Quick isn't clutch, exactly. He is. I just think it's silly to imply that he's the only one who could have won those games. I think shoo-in Hall of Fame goaltenders like Luongo and Lundqvist could have handled it.

It's foolish to compare team accomplishments when the Ontario Reign have been a better defensive team than the Rangers for the latter half of Lundqvist's career.

Also, the Rangers hit three posts in game 5, the Kings scored three goals on 17 shot attempts in game 3 (yes, they had 17 the entire game), plus the controversial Dwight King goal in game 2, so let's stop bringing up the snowpile as if the Rangers got the only break in the series.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Quick is a solid goaltender and I think there's some validity to the idea that the lack of shots against on the championship Kings teams crapped on his save percentage.

But the idea that he won Cups that superior goaltenders wouldn't win because he's "clutch" is pretty smelly. Especially Lundqvist, whose numbers in elimination games are absurd.

You do have to go all the way back to the 60's and 70's to find any goalies who have a higher SV% in their lower shot volume games than their higher shot volume games. I can tell you definitively that every goalie in the past 30 to 35 years has a higher SV% in their higher shot volume games. I think it may just be the evolution of how the game was played back in the 60's and 70's as to why you have to go so far back to find any goalie with a higher SV% in their lower shot volume games. There is more of a "get pucks on net" mentality in today's game than there maybe there was back 50 years ago.

The thing about Lundqvist is he's had SC caliber teams in front of him before. 06, 07, 08, 13, 14, and 15 were all SC caliber Rangers teams imo. I'm not saying they were as good defensively as the Kings teams were, but those teams were all elite teams with the capability of winning the Cup.