Triumph Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 He just has these big stretches where he is just mediocre. He plays too deep in his net, he's beatable up high, and if it weren't for his huge pads he wouldn't be so good down low either. and then he must have big stretches where he's one of the best goalies in the league. the fact that lundqvist has an exploitable 'weakness' doesn't make him a bad goalie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random Poster Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 and then he must have big stretches where he's one of the best goalies in the league. You mean when Renney choked off the Rangers into a defense first team with 5 men back behind the red line? Those shootouts the Rangers constantly seemed to be in sure helped too. the fact that lundqvist has an exploitable 'weakness' doesn't make him a bad goalie. It doesn't make him an elite one, either. Lundqvist is overrated. Playing in New York and considering the goaltenders the Rangers have had in net after Mike Richter makes him perfect hype material. This season is when you'll see where Lundqvist stacks up among the "elite" goaltenders. When Torts decided to open up the attack, IMO, he was also doing it on the premise that Queen would bail them out, especially with that offense first defense and 2 rookies in front of him who do think offense first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 (edited) The Lundqvist bashing is simply because he is a Ranger. It's expected, but he's been consistently a top 5 goalie since the lockout started. You don't have to say he's better than Brodeur, but don't pretend he isn't a top goalie in this league. I don't think you can find a goalie since the lockout who has had a SP above .910 and GAA below 2.45 every year. Maybe Backstrom in Minny, but he didn't play in 2005-2006. Edited November 29, 2009 by devilsrule33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 (edited) You mean when Renney choked off the Rangers into a defense first team with 5 men back behind the red line? Those shootouts the Rangers constantly seemed to be in sure helped too. lundqvist is also one of the best goalies in the shootout. the devils have more shootouts than the rangers, also. It doesn't make him an elite one, either. Lundqvist is overrated. Playing in New York and considering the goaltenders the Rangers have had in net after Mike Richter makes him perfect hype material. This season is when you'll see where Lundqvist stacks up among the "elite" goaltenders. When Torts decided to open up the attack, IMO, he was also doing it on the premise that Queen would bail them out, especially with that offense first defense and 2 rookies in front of him who do think offense first. i hear a lot of talk about how much lundqvist is overrated, but what i don't hear is a lot of talk about who's better. luongo is the only goalie i'd put definitely above lundqvist. vokoun and brodeur are on around the same level as lundqvist, tim thomas probably too, *maybe* nicklas backstrom. then who? please don't say something like cam ward or marty turco or m.a. fleury. and of course he has a 1.85 GAA with a .932 save percentage against new jersey, so he's totally exploitable. Edited November 29, 2009 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsfan26 Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 the fact that lundqvist has an exploitable 'weakness' doesn't make him a bad goalie. Everyone who is not elite is not bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 (edited) The biggest problem with Lundqvist is his consistency. When he is on top of his game, he is tops in the league. His problem is that he has too many games / stretches where things start falling apart for him. Overall, on an every-day basis, he is definitely top 5-10 and it would be extremely foolish for any team to let him go. Edited November 29, 2009 by Amberite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hattrick Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 BTW, Valiquette was in goal for this game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neutral Zone Trap Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 BTW, Valiquette was in goal for this game. Indeed he was, which is a good thing, otherwise the Pens would have had 12 goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sokar Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 lundqvist is also one of the best goalies in the shootout. the devils have more shootouts than the rangers, also. i hear a lot of talk about how much lundqvist is overrated, but what i don't hear is a lot of talk about who's better. luongo is the only goalie i'd put definitely above lundqvist. vokoun and brodeur are on around the same level as lundqvist, tim thomas probably too, *maybe* nicklas backstrom. then who? please don't say something like cam ward or marty turco or m.a. fleury. and of course he has a 1.85 GAA with a .932 save percentage against new jersey, so he's totally exploitable. i think Ryan Miller is a pretty good goalie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Fan Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Top 5 this season so far: 1) Brodeur 2) Fleury 3) Miller 4) Kiprusoff 5) Rinne top 5 since the lockout: 1) Brodeur 2) Luongo 3) Kiprusoff 4) Miller 5) Nabokov Lundqvist??? Couldn't see him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 i think Ryan Miller is a pretty good goalie oh yeah, good point, miller has definitely put his name on that list, certainly top 10 and if he keeps this up, top 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neutral Zone Trap Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 i don't know why i dignify things like this with a response, but this is utterly laughable. Well, since you obliged this time so will I, just to satisfy your ego. I seldom reply to your posts because I find yours quite laughable too. Especially since you are a self professed "expert". Just because the New York media tells you that Lundqvist is an elite goalie, does not make it so. Having a low GAA and high SV % is insignificant, the only stat that matters for a goalie is wins. When will you get that into your head ? Besides, Lundqvist is far too inconsistent to be considered an elite goaltender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neutral Zone Trap Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Do you realize how silly you sound? Really ? coming from someone who lied about their age saying they were 37 when they were 17. What's that saying about glass houses and throwing stones ? Don't believe the NY media kiddo, you'll be better off for it in the long run Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) Just because the New York media tells you that Lundqvist is an elite goalie, does not make it so. lol yeah that's why i think lundqvist is an elite goalie - i'm always listening to sam rosen and reading john dellapina. Having a low GAA and high SV % is insignificant, the only stat that matters for a goalie is wins. When will you get that into your head ? this is seriously the dumbest thing i've ever read on here, and i've read a lot of your other posts. you do understand that the goalie has nothing to do with the offense, right? either way: lundqvist was 8th in wins in 07, 4th in 08 and 09, and is 10th so far this year. sounds pretty awesome to me. Besides, Lundqvist is far too inconsistent to be considered an elite goaltender. 'inconsistent' and 'elite' are terrible words that describe nothing, and yes i use them both. anyone who doesn't have lundqvist in their top 6 goalies is either just a rangers hater or not worth listening to on hockey matters. Edited November 30, 2009 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neutral Zone Trap Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 lol yeah that's why i think lundqvist is an elite goalie - i'm always listening to sam rosen and reading john dellapina. this is seriously the dumbest thing i've ever read on here, and i've read a lot of your other posts. you do understand that the goalie has nothing to do with the offense, right? either way: lundqvist was 8th in wins in 07, 4th in 08 and 09, and is 10th so far this year. sounds pretty awesome to me. 'inconsistent' and 'elite' are terrible words that describe nothing, and yes i use them both. anyone who doesn't have lundqvist in their top 6 goalies is either just a rangers hater *or not worth listening to on hockey matters. If you think goalies have nothing to do with offense, I don't know what to tell you. Goalies have more affect on offense than forwards do. Top 6 ? last time you said top 5, which is it ? I don't have Lundqvist as a top 5 (or top 6) in the NHL because he is too inconsistent, the stats (something you ooze over) prove it. Just like Tim Thomas, another one of your "elite" goalies *Nice elitest attitude you have there MR self professed expert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random Poster Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) lundqvist was 8th in wins in 07, 4th in 08 and 09, and is 10th so far this year. sounds pretty awesome to me. Brodeur has his share of shootout wins, but so does Lundqvist. That's why wins is watered down in the "New" NHL. But, what's not watered down is playoff series wins. For an "awesome" goaltender, he's lacking come Spring. For a goaltender with now 4 playoff years under his belt, he's got two series wins. That's hardly "awesome". 'inconsistent' and 'elite' are terrible words that describe nothing, and yes i use them both. Funny that both are used when negotiating contracts..... anyone who doesn't have lundqvist in their top 6 goalies is either just a rangers hater or not worth listening to on hockey matters. That's right Triumph, when people don't agree with you just say they aren't worth listening to. Edited November 30, 2009 by SJP20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 'inconsistent' and 'elite' are terrible words that describe nothing. Quoted for truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 But, what's not watered down is playoff series wins. For an "awesome" goaltender, he's lacking come Spring. For a goaltender with now 4 playoff years under his belt, he's got two series wins. That's hardly "awesome". And it's hardly awful compared to several of the goalies who are anointed the elite of this league. Kipper? Luongo? Nabokov? And dare I say it, Brodeur. Yes, he has his Cups and his records, but he hasn't backstopped NJD very far in recent years. The only ones of the usual suspects when it comes to these lists that 'show up' come spring time are Ward and Miller...when their teams get to the playoffs, that is. And of course MA Fleury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funetiklee Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Having a low GAA and high SV % is insignificant, the only stat that matters for a goalie is wins. When will you get that into your head ? If you think goalies have nothing to do with offense, I don't know what to tell you. Goalies have more affect on offense than forwards do. These statements nearly made my head explode. Please explain how goalies more affect on offense than forwards. I'm intrigued. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) Re: Lundqvist, on the downside, he tends to have a long stretch (mid-season), where his save% is somewhere in the .880s, and he looks a bit ordinary; having said that, he owns a career save% of .916, which shows that he also has some pretty spectacular stretches as well...he always seems to come out strong at season's beginning and finish up well at season's end. In each of the last three seasons, the Rangers looked like they were in danger of missing the playoffs heading into the last quarter, only to finish up each season with surges of 13-3-4, 12-3-5, and 12-6-1. Lundqvist had a lot to do with that, and all of three of those situations were clearly pressure-type stretches. So far his pattern over the course of a regular season has been great - meh - great. If he could even out his highs and lows more (find a way to turn his mid-season .880s stretch into more of a high .890s-low .900), he'd clearly be one of the best. He's clearly up there though. Edited November 30, 2009 by Colorado Rockies 1976 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 So far his pattern over the course of a regular season has been great - meh - great. If he could even out his highs and lows more (find a way to turn his mid-season .880s stretch into more of a high .890s-low .900), he'd clearly be one of the best. He's clearly up there though. This is all true, although a cynic could claim part of his success is due to his illegal pads If this season's proving anything it's that there are only two real elite goalies - Brodeur and Luongo (despite his own postseason idiosyncrascies, he's just too consistent to not put up there), and everyone else is a step down though I've always been a Ryan Miller fan too. I thought Thomas was up there after his Vezina season but he's had a Steve Mason-like meltdown this year. Ward's career arc looks a little like Mike Richter's, great in the clutch but only a top goalie in the long run every two or three seasons. Lundqvist like you said is too up and down in the regular season and doesn't have enough playoff success behind him. Fleury's a good goalie on a great team, Osgood has been that more often than not in his career too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) Brodeur has his share of shootout wins, but so does Lundqvist. That's why wins is watered down in the "New" NHL. But, what's not watered down is playoff series wins. For an "awesome" goaltender, he's lacking come Spring. For a goaltender with now 4 playoff years under his belt, he's got two series wins. That's hardly "awesome". when have the rangers had a good team? when have they had a defenseman significantly better than nhl average? they had decent teams in 07 and 08 and managed a series win in both years. last year the only reason why the rangers had a chance at a series win was henrik lundqvist, as the rest of the team played basically terrible. Edited November 30, 2009 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 anyone who doesn't have lundqvist in their top 6 goalies is either just a rangers hater or not worth listening to on hockey matters. To be fair, this is a pretty terrible comment. Goalie performance is incredibly subjective and to put someone in a box like that doesn't fly. If you want to say that someone who doesn't think Lundqvist is one of the better goalies in the league is not worth listening to, that's a different story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exit56 Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 I should know better than to click into these threads. It's all subjective, none of us can be considered experts until someone actually pays us to hear our opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmigliore Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) Having a low GAA and high SV % is insignificant, the only stat that matters for a goalie is wins. When will you get that into your head ? Thats as foolish as saying the only stat that matters for pitchers is wins. Come on, man. Edited November 30, 2009 by nmigliore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.