Quote:
Originally Posted by Thom Yorke
What else would you call it? You're never going to be as good in the series you lose, but he certainly has a reputation for crashing back down to the earth when the Rangers inevitably get eliminated.
|
Well, outside of this year and 2012, he has never had an above average team in front of him, and even in those years, the team in front of him had notable flaws and issues.
Do I think Lundqvist could have been better in this series? Yes, sure. That being said, he's not the one who has been turning pucks over to the Kings in prime scoring position, nor is he the one who has been unable to keep the Kings away from the front of the net.
I am fairly confident in saying that if the Rangers had Quick, they'd be in the same predicament they are now. Actually, no, I'll go further. If the Rangers had Quick, they wouldn't have gotten out of the second round.
For the record, this isn't me saying that Lundqvist is the ONLY reason the Rangers made it to the finals - he isn't. I think that saying he's the main reason is fairly accurate, though. That, and tremendous overall depth throughout the lineup.