Ongoing NHL thread - Part deux

[forty_three]

Yeah I'm sure with Ben Scrivens and Martin Jones, they would have been just fine in the playoffs going against San Jose, Anaheim, Chicago and the Rangers

While Jonathan Quick was out, those two goalies played half of those games against non playoff teams from mid-November to Christmas

I'm tired of the narrative that you don't need a great goalie to win a Cup with the Kings - Ben Scrivens and Martin Jones aren't even anywhere close to being on the same level as Jonathan Quick - he's the only current goalie that has multiple Stanley Cups yet people think it's the system that has made him successful?

Tired of it

Jonathan Quick is a well above average goalie. But the Kings system covers his weaknesses very well. If he was anywhere that did not get to second chances, he would drop in rankings very fast.

If he went to Edmonton and not Scrivens, he would not carry them to a cup. However, if Scrivens was the man in LA, they'd still have a pretty decent chance.

Teams don't make the goalie, and a goalie does not make the team. They have to work together. Very few goalies in history could make any team they played on better by themselves. And the ones that could, Quick is nowhere near on any level.

What of Niemi, Crawford, Osgood, Fleury...

^^ Your jib. I like the cut of it.

 

[Cobiemonster]

What of Niemi, Crawford, Osgood, Fleury...

All of those teams were great in the regular season and they didn't have to be great

The Kings haven't dominated in the regular season and Jonathan Quick's play(especially a few seasons ago) was extraordinary to help them sneak into the playoffs

If the Kings didn't have Jonathan Quick, they wouldn't have those two cups - you can't say that about the names you mentioned, those guys were replaceable - Chicago proved that with Antti Niemi and Corey Crawford - Detroit had shown it all those years with the different goalies they've won with

Jonathan Quick is 10 times better than any of those other goalies - 41 playoff wins in the last three seasons, I don't care who you are, but you're telling me that's not a sign of a great goalie?

Any goalie can win in the regular season, but very few have the ability to turn it up in the playoffs - why would you pick any goalie other than Jonathan Quick in the playoffs? He's played in about every big game situation you could ask for and has passed with flying colors - goaltending is a mental game and he's better at it than anyone else in the league

 

[KennyBanyeah]

All of those teams were great in the regular season and they didn't have to be great

The Kings haven't dominated in the regular season and Jonathan Quick's play(especially a few seasons ago) was extraordinary to help them sneak into the playoffs

If the Kings didn't have Jonathan Quick, they wouldn't have those two cups - you can't say that about the names you mentioned, those guys were replaceable - Chicago proved that with Antti Niemi and Corey Crawford - Detroit had shown it all those years with the different goalies they've won with

Jonathan Quick is 10 times better than any of those other goalies - 41 playoff wins in the last three seasons, I don't care who you are, but you're telling me that's not a sign of a great goalie?

Any goalie can win in the regular season, but very few have the ability to turn it up in the playoffs - why would you pick any goalie other than Jonathan Quick in the playoffs? He's played in about every big game situation you could ask for and has passed with flying colors - goaltending is a mental game and he's better at it than anyone else in the league

You're telling me that if the Kings had traded Quick for Tuukka Rask, Carey Price or Henrik Lundqvist, etc. that they definitely would NOT have won the Cup? I don't think you can say that. Quick has played great in the last 3 playoff seasons, no doubt, but his abilities do not put him in a class of his own.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

If he went to Edmonton and not Scrivens, he would not carry them to a cup. However, if Scrivens was the man in LA, they'd still have a pretty decent chance.

I also believe this. I also point out, again, that they also could've just kept Bernier.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

All of those teams were great in the regular season and they didn't have to be great

The Kings haven't dominated in the regular season and Jonathan Quick's play(especially a few seasons ago) was extraordinary to help them sneak into the playoffs

If the Kings didn't have Jonathan Quick, they wouldn't have those two cups - you can't say that about the names you mentioned, those guys were replaceable - Chicago proved that with Antti Niemi and Corey Crawford - Detroit had shown it all those years with the different goalies they've won with

Jonathan Quick is 10 times better than any of those other goalies - 41 playoff wins in the last three seasons, I don't care who you are, but you're telling me that's not a sign of a great goalie?

Any goalie can win in the regular season, but very few have the ability to turn it up in the playoffs - why would you pick any goalie other than Jonathan Quick in the playoffs? He's played in about every big game situation you could ask for and has passed with flying colors - goaltending is a mental game and he's better at it than anyone else in the league

I think I was kinda making the same point you are

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

You're telling me that if the Kings had traded Quick for Tuukka Rask, Carey Price or Henrik Lundqvist, etc. that they definitely would NOT have won the Cup? I don't hink you can say that. Quick has played great in teh last 3 playoff seasons, no doubt, but his abilities do not put him in a class of his own.

He obviously meant as opposed to a mediocre goalie, but I would take Rask Price or Hank over Quick in a heartbeat. I don't think there are many that wouldn't.

 

[KennyBanyeah]

He obviously meant as opposed to a mediocre goalie, but I would take Rask Price or Hank over Quick in a heartbeat. I don't think there are many that wouldn't.

Well... apparently there is at least one. ^^^^

 

[Harry Crack]

He obviously meant as opposed to a mediocre goalie, but I would take Rask Price or Hank over Quick in a heartbeat. I don't think there are many that wouldn't.

I would take JQ first , no contest. His ability and his mental ability to forget a bad goal ( MAF fault #1) and his confidence is what makes him the best there is in the NHL today.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

I would take JQ first , no contest. His ability and his mental ability to forget a bad goal ( MAF fault #1) and his confidence is what makes him the best there is in the NHL today.

Rask and Hank don't have that?

 

[Cobiemonster]

Jonathan Quick is a well above average goalie. But the Kings system covers his weaknesses very well. If he was anywhere that did not get to second chances, he would drop in rankings very fast.

If he went to Edmonton and not Scrivens, he would not carry them to a cup. However, if Scrivens was the man in LA, they'd still have a pretty decent chance.

Teams don't make the goalie, and a goalie does not make the team. They have to work together. Very few goalies in history could make any team they played on better by themselves. And the ones that could, Quick is nowhere near on any level.

It is a team effort and you need a great team, but it's easy to say if he was on a different team with a different type of system, that he would fail - he would fail because the team is most likely not as good as the team he was on before

All I'm saying is, if Ben Scrivens and Martin Jones were that good, the Kings wouldn't have given Jonathan Quick a 10 year extension, they would have just plugged those other two guys in or just kept Jonathan Bernier - Jonathan Quick has the track record and quite frankly, I would take him over every goalie in the league, even over Henrik Lundqvist - as good as Hank is, he's failed in the playoffs and there is no denying that either - whether he has the mental makeup to win big games is up for debate but he hasn't gotten it done, and I don't like when people say that he doesn't have the team around him to win, their team was good enough to get them to the Cup and as a goalie you have to take over - he had 2-0 and 4-2 leads in the first two games in LA and whether the defense was good enough or not that's up for debate either but he blew those leads too and he didn't get it done

At some point, credit has to be given when credit is due - Jonathan Quick has two Stanley Cups so he's doing something right, and we'll probably never know what he'll be like on another team because as long as he's winning with the Kings, there will be no reason in the world to let him go - he's a big part of the dynamic of that team and his ability to move on from each game, win or loss - he carries the attitude that Darryl Sutter has and not every goalie has that mental ability to move on from wins and losses - that's what separates him from guys like Niemi, Crawford and Fleury, who have won Cups but have also played horrendously bad in some big games the last few years - those three guys can't win a game single handedly on a consistent basis, yet Jonathan Quick has shown over and over that he can do so

At some point as a goalie, you either get it done or you don't - your goalie has to give the rest of the team confidence in big situations, Jonathan Quick gives his team more confidence than any other goalie in the league - we talk about how great goalies like Tuukka Rask, Carey Price and Henrik Lundqvist are, and their talent level is tremendous, but my whole point is about winning big games - those three guys have the talent to do so and on different occasions they've taken their team deep into the playoffs, but they haven't gotten it done yet - will they get it done at some point? Odds aren't that bad that one of those three will win it all at some point and it's not like their teams aren't that good, so there shouldn't be a ton of excuses, but until they get it done, there will always be questions of whether they're good enough to win it all, not whether they're talented enough

 

[Cobiemonster]

Rask and Hank don't have that?

Remember Game 2 when Henrik Lundqvist was complaining about the Dwight King goal? He was frustrated after that and it made a difference - the Rangers gave him a two goal lead and his mind started wandering once he gave up one goal - he didn't give the team a whole lot of confidence after that - people always complained that they would never score for Hank and they gave him four goals on the road and he gives up five

Those guys are really talented but being a goalie means you have to be mentally on top of your game and understand the subtleties of the position - it also gives the rest of the team confidence when you are on your game mentally - those teams lost confidence when their goalies started struggling and weren't at their best

 

[Harry Crack]

Remember Game 2 when Henrik Lundqvist was complaining about the Dwight King goal? He was frustrated after that and it made a difference - the Rangers gave him a two goal lead and his mind started wandering once he gave up one goal - he didn't give the team a whole lot of confidence after that - people always complained that they would never score for Hank and they gave him four goals on the road and he gives up five

Those guys are really talented but being a goalie means you have to be mentally on top of your game and understand the subtleties of the position - it also gives the rest of the team confidence when you are on your game mentally - those teams lost confidence when their goalies started struggling and weren't at their best

Totally agree- like the great NFL ball tossers , the mental ability to forget and bear down on the next play is paramount.

 

[Harry Crack]

Rask and Hank don't have that?

LOL, - their are 5 top goaltenders , but their is also the top guy on that list. JQ ......last 3 years and counting ....IMHO Buddy.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Remember Game 2 when Henrik Lundqvist was complaining about the Dwight King goal? He was frustrated after that and it made a difference - the Rangers gave him a two goal lead and his mind started wandering once he gave up one goal - he didn't give the team a whole lot of confidence after that - people always complained that they would never score for Hank and they gave him four goals on the road and he gives up five

Those guys are really talented but being a goalie means you have to be mentally on top of your game and understand the subtleties of the position - it also gives the rest of the team confidence when you are on your game mentally - those teams lost confidence when their goalies started struggling and weren't at their best

Quick's never had a bad game at a terrible time?

 

[Harry Crack]

Quick's never had a bad game at a terrible time?

No shame there .....USA is like us Canadians.......neither Country cares jack shit about the bronze

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

LOL, - their are 5 top goaltenders , but their is also the top guy on that list. JQ ......last 3 years and counting ....IMHO Buddy.

I think his 2012 performance was one of the best I've seen by a goalie in my lifetime. I don't think I'll ever see something that dominant again.

But I'm still going with Rask or Hank. If either had the team Quick has in front of him they'd both be polishing rings by now (I know Rask has one but that was during Timmy time).

 

[forty_three]

I don't know what part of people saying "There are holes in Quick's game" equates to you thinking every is calling him a useless scrub.

I also don't think anyone is doubting that Quick is better than Scrivens or Jones. But you don't seem to get that there is a matter of degrees. Yes, they gave Quick a long extension for his results. But in what you're posting it seems like you think that's because they think Scrivens is total shit in comparison to Quick. When in actuality the difference between the two could be as minor as the staff liked the way Quick spoke in the locker room better. I've coached goalies for almost 20 years now, and I can tell you there are often nearly microscopic differences between two goalies. Picking one doesn't mean the other one is useless.

Saying the Kings could have success with Scrivens is not a dig at Quick. It's a compliment to the way the Kings play and an acknowledgement of the similarities in Scrivens' and Quick's play.

I don't understand why you seem so offended that anyone dare impugn the honor of Johnny Kick the Posts by daring to state that he benefits from the system in front of him, just as much as that system benefits from his acrobatic first save style.


And the Rangers did not lose because Hank fell apart. Yes, he got angry a few times, but he did not lose his focus or fall out of his gameplay style. Play goal for a long time and you will understand he changed NOTHING. The Kings pushed the Rangers around and made the whole team play out of position, and they generated quality chances because of it. The Kings manhandled the Rangers and the Sharks that year in exactly the same way. Niemi didn't change much either.

Give some credit to your team, too. Not just that one piece.

 

[forty_three]

Quick's never had a bad game at a terrible time?

That USA team quit on him. No one showed up. That loss was not on him.

 

[esls79]

Quick is pretty good, but he's no Eric Ersberg. If it wasn't for the path he paved for Quick, no Cups for the Kings.

 

[Cobiemonster]

Quick's never had a bad game at a terrible time?

I never said he hasn't - he had the game against St. Louis where he mishandled the puck, but it's about what you do after that and how you respond - he responded greatly in situations where he had a bad game or a bad moment - other guys haven't and that's a big difference when you're in big time situations

And quite frankly, do you think he's really going to care about something that happened in the Olympics? I know players have pride for their country but it's not like he's going to care a whole lot about that going forward - it wouldn't stick in his mind as much as it would if something happened with the Kings