NHL Thread

[Thom Yorke]

I'd take Quick as my goalie hands down over Lundqvist. Lundqvist has been great this playoffs and is the most consistent regular season goalie for sure, but I have way more faith in Quick coming up big when he's needed. He kind of epitomizes that Kings team. They don't always look that impressive, but they get in the zone and do what they need to do to get the job done in the end.

[Ninetales]

I have this feeling quick (who is a good goalie mind you) is overrated because of the team he plays on. Besides one good season he's been a pretty middling goalie on a great team. Also him and lundqvist have identical playoff sv%. It's no just this year that lundqvist has been dominant. Infact this is his worst playoff season in the past 3. Lundqvist is by far the better goalie

[Thom Yorke]

The Rangers under Tortorella were more committed to blocking shots and keeping things to the outside than any team I've seen. I know you like the Habs (or at least Subban), so if you can imagine the Habs system on roids, that's what the Rangers were. I always thought that D deserved way more credit.

Even as a Bruins fan that loves Rask (another goalie people put up as one of if not the best in the league), there isn't a goalie I'd take on my team over Quick. Rask has one of the best save percentages of all time for the playoffs, and is always hovering around that .930 mark, but I don't have faith that he can come up big at the right times all the time. Same thing for Lundqvist, although he hasn't been quite as good in the playoffs.

The Kings level of competition they've faced has been absurd as well. I've never seen a team have to deal with perennial powerhouses year-after-year like this. The only time the Kings were the favourites in a series with home-ice advantage was against the Sharks last year. The other 11 series they started on the road, yet they're 9-3 in series with Quick in net.

Sharks x3 (105, 6th GF; 97*, 24th GF; 111, 6th GF)
Blackhawks x2 (132*, 2nd GF; 107, 2nd GF)
Blues x2 (109, 21st GF; 103*, 17th GF)
Canucks x2 (103, 2nd GF; 111, 5th GF)
Coyotes (97, 18th GF)
Devils (102, 15th GF)
Ducks (116, 1st GF)

* On pace for this many points in an 82 game season.

[Paul Smeenus]

I think both Quick and Lundqvist are potential Vezina-level netminders (IIRC Lundqvist *did* win in '12, the same year that Quick won the Conn Smythe), not this season of course, but both can potentially lights-out an opponent on any given night. I think the difference is the firepower Quick has in front of him. I think the addition of Gaborik has been major for LA.

[Ninetales]

Originally Posted by Thom Yorke

The Rangers under Tortorella were more committed to blocking shots and keeping things to the outside than any team I've seen. I know you like the Habs (or at least Subban), so if you can imagine the Habs system on roids, that's what the Rangers were. I always thought that D deserved way more credit.

Welll in 2012-2013 (while Lundqvist and Quick were playing respectively),

Average 5on5 shot against distance NYR = 34.3 feet
Average 5on5 shot against distance LA = 34.3 feet

Exactly the same. And yet Quick allowed 4 more goals on over 200 less shots. The year before the rangers allowed shots from an average of 33.8 feet, while the kings kept opponents to a much better 36 feet. 2010-2011 was an even larger difference (32.1 to 36.5). So no, the Rangers were not a better team at keeping pucks away from the net than the Kings during Torts' tenure. And you can just look at the graphics to see that they have way more shots from in close than the kings.

Playoffs last year, Lundqvist had a better sv% than Quick, but also had shots from farther away. The year before was exactly the opposite (ie Quick having better sv% with shots from farther away. The differences between the two were also very similar). So basically they had nearly identical playoff numbers the last 2 years with lundqvist is significantly outplaying quick this year.

Originally Posted by Thom Yorke

Even as a Bruins fan that loves Rask (another goalie people put up as one of if not the best in the league), there isn't a goalie I'd take on my team over Quick. Rask has one of the best save percentages of all time for the playoffs, and is always hovering around that .930 mark, but I don't have faith that he can come up big at the right times all the time. Same thing for Lundqvist, although he hasn't been quite as good in the playoffs.

Im not really sure why youd concede that some of Rask's great numbers come with him playing on a great team, but defend quick's comparatively worse numbers on a similarly great team.

And im not knocking the Kings. They are a powerhouse and probably the best team in the league, but it's not because of Quick that they are winning. Crawford has similar career playoff numbers as Quick and hes getting lynched.

[Paul Smeenus]

A slightly overconfident Rangers fan on another forum

"Rangers in 3 as the overwhelmed Kings just throw in the towel, after being outscored 24-2 in the first 3 games"

[Paul Smeenus]

So...who else thinks the Rangers lost their best chance to steal one last night?

[FRED HALE SR.]

Originally Posted by Paul Smeenus

So...who else thinks the Rangers lost their best chance to steal one last night?

I think they looked pretty solid. They just need to stop standing still for periods of time. Minus the last horrible clearing pass they should have stolen that one. I think they will take the next game, just a sneaking suspicion. They looked more physical then LA and their team speed can create problems for them. I think this series is going 7.

[Paul Smeenus]

I think the Kings are a near lock for game 2. I think they didn't take the Rangers seriously enough in that first period, and in particular Doughty isn't gonna be nearly as sloppy at the blue line like that first goal. I think the Rangers have a good chance in game 3 in the Garden

[Paul Smeenus]

OK this is VERY good news for the league

Los Angeles Kings break franchise and arena business records at Game 1 - ESPN Los Angeles