The Legend of Lundqvist

[Boom Boom Geoffrion*]

The only thing 'The King' has been consistent is in how he fails each playoffs.

This isn't Tennis or Boxing. There are so many gears in motion that, singling out the 1 player who does show up in big games is straight up asinine.

No one deserves anything. When he lifts it over his head he deserves it.

So Dan Marino never deserved a championship? How about Barry Sanders? Thurman Thomas?

There are a ton of athletes in various sports that have ultimately done enough to deserve a championship. Henrik absolutely is one of those.

Sure he's great in the regular season but just can't seem to figure out the post season.

You make absolutely no sense, considering, Henrik's been a career overachiever in the playoffs.

He has figured it out. But when your teams skaters get shut out 2 times in the Eastern Conference Finals, it's kind of hard to win.

 

[Bending and Tending]

And a Conn Smythe trophy.

Since we're speaking of teams, Quick won with an 8th seeded team. Henrik couldn't do it with a Presidents Trophy winner.

Quick also failed to make the playoffs with a defending Stanley Cup champion team in front of him.

 

[Babin]

Regular season, there is none more consistent than King Hank over his career.

Im pretty sure we said the same thing about Roberto Luongo and even if he's not a goalie, same thing about Joe Thornton, doesn't change the fact that they both seen a probably the biggest "looser" of there generation...

Try playing goalie and win games when the team infront of u dont score goals. If u figure out how to win with them not scoring please get back to me!

Im pretty sure thats exactly what Jonathan Quick did in 2012...

 

[Bending and Tending]

Just checked...

Dallas Stars 261 goals
New York Rangers 252 goals
New York Islanders 252 goals


Fascinating how a team that can't score was tied for second highest scoring team in the NHL.

What's really fascinating is how the regular season statistics don't directly translate to the playoffs.

 

[The Night King]

I don't see what case could be made for Quick, he's had one great year and that's it. He's not even a top-5 goalie in the league anymore.

Especially if we're talking in terms of starting a new team and drafting a goalie, Price's age makes him the #1 choice no question.

Id take Quick without hesitation. Best big game goalie in the game. Price hasn't proven **** in the playoffs. So my decision is pretty easy.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Im pretty sure thats exactly what Jonathan Quick did in 2012...

Wrong...

 

[Frank Drebin]

Id take Quick without hesitation. Best big game goalie in the game. Price hasn't proven **** in the playoffs. So my decision is pretty easy.

Why didn't Quick make the playoffs this year? Regular season games not "big" enough?

 

[who_me?]

Why didn't Quick make the playoffs this year? Regular season games not "big" enough?

Stanley Cup hangovers. It sometimes happens. Something Price wouldn't know about.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Stanley Cup hangovers. It sometimes happens. Something Price wouldn't know about.

He just knows about beating Quick in Sochi.

Anyways, not sure why Quick is being mentioned so much in this thread.

 

[I am not exposed]

Lundqvist = Luongo. For a period of time in their careers, they're considered to be the best or among the best goaltenders in the world, but they're also Cupless and were ultimately outperformed by their counterparts in the playoffs.

And to address the other discussion comparing Lundqvist to Hasek, no, he's no Hasek. Hasek did more with less and was the best player in the league for a couple of years.

Lundqvist is certainly one of the top 3-5 goalies in the league though, and that group is usually in a rotation between himself, Quick, Price, Rinne and Rask. Same applies with any other position too, there's no constant as to who is the best as it rotates between Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin and Stamkos or with Karlsson, Keith, Subban, Doughty and Weber for dmen. So long as they're consistently performing in that upper echelon, they're among the best.

From year to year you can make a case for who the best is in their respective positions, but can anyone definitively say there's been a single player who has been the clear cut best at his position year after year? Nope.

Good post. I agree.

 

[nhlfan9191]

Jonathan Quick disagrees.

Quick has 1 good season compared to Lundqvists 10.

 

[Babin]

Wrong...

What kind of response is that? just look it up, thats exactly what he did...

 

[I am not exposed]

Id take Quick without hesitation. Best big game goalie in the game. Price hasn't proven **** in the playoffs. So my decision is pretty easy.

I would Quick over any other goalie when it comes to the playoffs.

And just for the record, I can't stand Quick or the Kings.

 

[Frank Drebin]

What kind of response is that? just look it up, thats exactly what he did...

Look up the playoff stats. Kings finished 3/16 for goals for, the only reason they didn't finish #1 in the post season is because of the Pitt-Phi ridiculous 1st round inflating both teams goals for. I highly doubt the Kings win with bottom half offense either year.

 

[Babin]

Quick has 1 good season compared to Lundqvists 10.

Quick as 2 cup and a Conn Smyth compared to Lundqvist no cup or Con Smyth...

 

[Mav3rick07]

Jonathan Quick disagrees.

I agree.


Apparently having a good team in front of you means that your ridiculous athleticism and freak reflexes means nothing.

Not to mention the Conn Smythe and two Stanley Cups.

Lundqvist also has the luxury of playing against Eastern Conference teams. I'm not knocking Lundqvist, he's one of my favorite goalies and right now arguably the greatest goalie in the world but I would put Quick up there too with him.

 

[ThePSEGPowerPoster]

Quick as 2 cup and a Conn Smyth compared to Lundqvist no cup or Con Smyth...

I regard Quick higher than Hank. I'm in the "a Cup isn't somethinf you deserve, it's something you earn" boat. To say as if it is a formality that a guy deserves a Cup is ridiculous. He isn't the reason they lost but he contributed to their series loss. I mean, he got obliterated twice.

The guys who earned Cups will always be regarded higher (Hasek, Marty, Roy and even Quick). Defending a guy who was obliterated twice in the ECF, choked in the 2011 ECF, and was meh in the SCF and treating him as if he should be considered a Cup caliber goalie already is ridiculous to me.

Good goalie. Possibly great. Not in the same tier as guys who have won Cups and are also good/great. Quick took 2 Kings teams who couldn't score in the regular season. I mean if folks kill Nash for being lights out in the regular season and just ok to good in the playoffs, why is Hank excused for his two abominations which contributed to this loss?

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

He just knows about beating Quick in Sochi.

Anyways, not sure why Quick is being mentioned so much in this thread.

The only direct correlation is see is that the "wins" argument was being held FOR Lundqvist and AGAINST Quick in 2012, but suddenly the narrative has flipped.

I believe you can't really use these things in a vacuum, but using other goalies as comparison points, I think people are just grouchy that the narrative changes depending on the situation.

My personal opinion is that guys like Lundqvist and Price get their games examined under the lens that they can do no wrong, while their opposition--Holtby, Bishop, et. al.--are not getting the same despite outplaying them frequently. Have they earned that? I think Hank has to SOME degree for his body of work, but it is truly unfair that Henrik puts up a .902 in a series and people are falling all over themselves to make excuses for him, while Crawford, Andersen, AND Bishop are doing MUCH better on the page and they are either going largely unnoticed or, in Crawford's case, getting flat out insulted.

Save percentage isn't the be all and end all, obviously, and as a Quick fan I've argued the opposite till my face turns blue, but now folks on the OTHER side of that are getting a dose of it and wondering why they're meeting resistance.

 

[Frank Drebin]

The only direct correlation is see is that the "wins" argument was being held FOR Lundqvist and AGAINST Quick in 2012, but suddenly the narrative has flipped.

I believe you can't really use these things in a vacuum, but using other goalies as comparison points, I think people are just grouchy that the narrative changes depending on the situation.

My personal opinion is that guys like Lundqvist and Price get their games examined under the lens that they can do no wrong, while their opposition--Holtby, Bishop, et. al.--are not getting the same despite outplaying them frequently. Have they earned that? I think Hank has to SOME degree for his body of work, but it is truly unfair that Henrik puts up a .902 in a series and people are falling all over themselves to make excuses for him, while Crawford, Andersen, AND Bishop are doing MUCH better on the page and they are either going largely unnoticed or, in Crawford's case, getting flat out insulted.

Save percentage isn't the be all and end all, obviously, and as a Quick fan I've argued the opposite till my face turns blue, but now folks on the OTHER side of that are getting a dose of it and wondering why they're meeting resistance.

Good post. I've been hard on the Quick camp lately, which is strange because he's one of my favourite goalies in the league.

 

[Machinehead]

Sv% doesn't tell the whole story. Tampa got some scoring chances in this series that are about as automatic as you get, and he even stopped quite a few of those; Stamkos in game 5, Stamkos in game 6, Paquette in game 7, Johnson in game 7.

The only thing you can really fault him for is game 3 in overtime because that was a weak goal, and while his defense was legendary in its futility that night, he didn't make that big save.

It's true people have talked up our defense as elite while still defending Lundqvist. Fans being homers, what a surprise. They've been wrong about our defense. That only time it's ever been even decent is last year, and we lost Stralman and basically lost McDonagh who was a body bag all year.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Sv% doesn't tell the whole story. Tampa got some scoring chances in this series that are about as automatic as you get, and he even stopped quite a few of those; Stamkos in game 5, Stamkos in game 6, Paquette in game 7, Johnson in game 7.

The only thing you can really fault him for is game 3 in overtime because that was a weak goal, and while his defense was legendary in its futility that night, he didn't make that big save.

I think you can fault him for the 1st goal last night too, no?

 

[Machinehead]

I think you can fault him for the 1st goal last night too, no?

On the replay from behind the net, I never saw the puck until it was in, so I can't imagine he did.

 

[sharks9]

Id take Quick without hesitation. Best big game goalie in the game. Price hasn't proven **** in the playoffs. So my decision is pretty easy.

Quick will go down in hockey history as another Cam Ward except his team was good enough to carry him to a 2nd Cup win. 1 season in his entire career with a SV% over .920 makes him far from the best goalie in the league.

And like someone else said, what does it say about Quick that he couldn't win it in Sochi or even make the playoffs with a Cup champion roster in front of him this year?

 

[Zakkk]

And he has played 111 playoff games and has better gaa and sv% in the playoffs than in reg season. He is one of the best ever. Future hall of famer,not even debatable imo

Actually, it is very debatable. So far he only has 1 Vezina and that's it. He definitely needs more hardware to become HOF.

Yeay right.. "part of the probelm" He's The best goalie in the world right now, period.

He absolutely was part of the problem. Had he not let in 12 goals in two games in this series, Rags would now be in the finals. And he's not the best goalie in the world right now (Price is probably).

Just stop it already people. You're just embarrassing yourself with these claims.
Yes, Lundqvist is a good and USUALLY consistent. But he's not the second coming of Hasek and he's also partly the reason why Rangers lost.

 

[Rorschach]

Marty helped himself quite a bit. You know how Hank can't play the puck to save his life? Marty was the GOAT at that. He cut off maybe 8-10 shots a game.

Hank isn't in his stratoshphere.

Quick is a master with the puck...a master of scaring us Kings fans to death that is...

I agree that Marty's puck handling can't be overlooked and it's just another thing that can't be measured by the normal stats like save %.