48 replies to this topic

[MantaRay]

I don't know that Lundqvist will lead the Rangers to a Cup or win multiple Vezinas. I feel like he will have serious competition with M.A Fleury, Kari Lethonen, and Roberto Luongo for the Vezina every year, meaning he might win a few but it's not a guarantee, and as for the Cup, he'll have to get it soon because Jagr ain't here forever and when he leaves the Rangers will be in serious trouble.

I do know that he is way better than Legace and Nabokov. He is not a flash in the pan, and I would be willing to bet on that as well. This isn't Jim Carey - he already has a gold medal and is a stellar goaltender. I just have no idea how you can compare him to Mike Dunham - he's not Mike Dunham.

Gosh, the finals aren't even finished and it seems people can wait to see their predictions for next year.

Here's for you "juicy", the comparison to Dunham:

Allusion I: For those who can remember: When the Rangers first got Dunham from Nashville after Richter went down it was considered a steal by many Ranger fans. After he won his first few games he considered "Broder like" to many Ranger fans and the press. That soon disappeared as the novelty wore off and he actually played a full season his star began to fade. Lunqvist, in his honeymoon period, lets see how this novelty plays out.

Allusion II: Lunqvist is actually closer to Dunhams achievements than "Brodeur-like"


QUOTE(Derek21 @ Jun 14 2006
I don't usually do this. But I am so sick of it. So I'm going to tell you how I feel. When Lundqvist dominates the fvcking division for the next decade and leads the Rangers to a Cup and wins multiple Vezinas, what will you have to say then?

-IF he does, I will admit that I was wrong. But that is a pretty big IF. IF he wins multiply Vezina's and a few Stanley Cups, THEN you can talk about him being in the "Brodeur mold" To date: he has not achieved anything close to Marty aside from your skewed imagination/potential.

QUOTE(Derek21 @ Jun 14 2006
I am sick of Manta labeling our star players. For once, I am going to be bold. Lundqvist was the best damn goalie in the Eastern Conference all year until he got hurt. And he gives me the same feeling Richter did. And I believe he'll be an even better netminder.

-What star players??? You have one--Jagr. I stated that he will probably not have as good a year as last year because team won't underestimate the Rangers as they did early in the season.

I stated that Jagr is about 80% of your offense, and that I don't see him repeating this as:

A) there is no-layoff that will effect veterans players
B) the officiating will not be as beneficial to the Rangers as they were Sept-Nov. when breathing on the opposition was a penalty.

Let's see how magical Lundqvist is when he isn't playing with a lead and not winning games.

This year there ARE expectations in NY, if it starts out frustrating for Jagr, and he sulks (last years in Pitt and Washington) the Rangers are done.

I don't know that Lundqvist will lead the Rangers to a Cup or win multiple Vezinas. I feel like he will have serious competition with M.A Fleury, Kari Lethonen, and Roberto Luongo for the Vezina every year, meaning he might win a few but it's not a guarantee, and as for the Cup, he'll have to get it soon because Jagr ain't here forever and when he leaves the Rangers will be in serious trouble.

I do know that he is way better than Legace and Nabokov. He is not a flash in the pan, and I would be willing to bet on that as well. This isn't Jim Carey - he already has a gold medal and is a stellar goaltender. I just have no idea how you can compare him to Mike Dunham - he's not Mike Dunham.

Gosh, the finals aren't even finished and it seems people can wait to see their predictions for next year.

Here's for you "juicy", the comparison to Dunham:

Allusion I: For those who can remember: When the Rangers first got Dunham from Nashville after Richter went down it was considered a steal by many Ranger fans. After he won his first few games he considered "Broder like" to many Ranger fans and the press. That soon disappeared as the novelty wore off and he actually played a full season his star began to fade. Lunqvist, in his honeymoon period, lets see how this novelty plays out.

Allusion II: Lunqvist is actually closer to Dunhams achievements than "Brodeur-like"


QUOTE(Derek21 @ Jun 14 2006
I don't usually do this. But I am so sick of it. So I'm going to tell you how I feel. When Lundqvist dominates the fvcking division for the next decade and leads the Rangers to a Cup and wins multiple Vezinas, what will you have to say then?

-IF he does, I will admit that I was wrong. But that is a pretty big IF. IF he wins multiply Vezina's and a few Stanley Cups, THEN you can talk about him being in the "Brodeur mold" To date: he has not achieved anything close to Marty aside from your skewed imagination/potential.

QUOTE(Derek21 @ Jun 14 2006
I am sick of Manta labeling our star players. For once, I am going to be bold. Lundqvist was the best damn goalie in the Eastern Conference all year until he got hurt. And he gives me the same feeling Richter did. And I believe he'll be an even better netminder.

-What star players??? You have one--Jagr. I stated that he will probably not have as good a year as last year because team won't underestimate the Rangers as they did early in the season.

I stated that Jagr is about 80% of your offense, and that I don't see him repeating this as:

A) there is no-layoff that will effect veterans players
B) the officiating will not be as beneficial to the Rangers as they were Sept-Nov. when breathing on the opposition was a penalty.

Let's see how magical Lundqvist is when he isn't playing with a lead and not winning games.

This year there ARE expectations in NY, if it starts out frustrating for Jagr, and he sulks (last years in Pitt and Washington) the Rangers are done.

[Triumph]

Lundqvist cannot be compared to Dunham. Where is Dunham's Olympic gold medal? In fact, when did Mike Dunham lead a team to the playoffs? When Dunham was Lundqvist's age, he was the starter in Albany not a Vezina contender. His achievements are far closer to Brodeur because Brodeur took the league by storm in 94 as well, winning a Calder - with Ovechkin and Crosby in the picture, Lundqvist probably won't get one, but any other year he would have - like if Brodeur had come up in 93, he would have lost to Teemu Selanne.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread - anyone comparing Henrik Lundqvist to Mike Dunham either doesn't know what they're talking about or is purposely looking to start fights.

[Devils731]

What is a better comparison, Jim Carey to Mike Dunham or Jim Carey to Martin Broduer? The point isn't that Lundqvist won't be a superstar, the point is that there have been amazing goaltenders after 1 season who went on to flop and so to compare a goalie with one fantastic year to a goalie with a fantastic career isn't a good comparison.

[Derek21]

What is a better comparison, Jim Carey to Mike Dunham or Jim Carey to Martin Broduer? The point isn't that Lundqvist won't be a superstar, the point is that there have been amazing goaltenders after 1 season who went on to flop and so to compare a goalie with one fantastic year to a goalie with a fantastic career isn't a good comparison.

In terms of Lundqvist's desire to win, it's similar to the great Brodeur. The guy hates losing. After how bad it ended, I'll bet any amount of money that he is working his ass off to be stronger so that injuries aren't an issue. I expect him to come into camp refocused and determined.


I have supreme confidence in Henrik.

[coldply123]

Lundqvist is a very athletic goalie.


But his fundamentals as a goalie are not as good as other young goalies like Miller or Cam Ward even.


That said, there would be 12-14 teams fighting themselves to pencil him in as their #1 goalie.

I think Lundqvist's injuries had to do with several things.


1. He faced a considerably longer season as an NHL starter, and he played in the Olympics.

2. He had a god-awful set of defense pairings in front of him, and was tested hard, especially the latter portion of the season.


I still like how fluid he can be at times in the crease, but he has some work to do on the finer points of being a goalie. Whether or not he masters them will decide how good he truly can be.

[Derek21]

You forgot one other thing. Lundqvist was rail thin which had to contribute to his hip flexor. He admitted after the season that he needed to get stronger.

If there is one flaw in his goaltending, maybe it's upstairs. Though earlier in the season his glove was lightning quick. Not so much that it wasn't at the end. But blocker side high is an area that needs work.

He stays very square to the shooter and tries to take away anything down low. And relies on quick reflexes for high shots. But blocker side sometimes leaves room.

[MantaRay]

What is a better comparison, Jim Carey to Mike Dunham or Jim Carey to Martin Broduer? The point isn't that Lundqvist won't be a superstar, the point is that there have been amazing goaltenders after 1 season who went on to flop and so to compare a goalie with one fantastic year to a goalie with a fantastic career isn't a good comparison.

Thanks Devils731; at least someone is paying attention.

[MantaRay]

Anyway, I'm done with this thread - anyone comparing Henrik Lundqvist to Mike Dunham either doesn't know what they're talking about or is purposely looking to start fights.

Or you're not really comprehending the point. Take some deep breath's there Juicy.

[annabelle]

Pratts kind of a goof and his show sucks bag, i have been hearing that he said on his show the other day that Nonis (mr timbit himself!) will be announcing the new Canucks coach soon, possibly tomorrow, not that anyone here cares, just thought i'd throw it out there