ramone1984 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Great read, thanks for posting the numbers. Also enjoyed the break down of how Luongo needed to play in order to win the SCF. Those expectations are a little unreasonable. Cheers Ramone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supermanbieksa Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Why wouldn't people think that Cory should have a legit chance of getting the starting job? If he plays better he should play, just like every other player. Why shouln't he get that chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkoshack Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 Love how the article puts "big games" and "meltdowns" in quotes as if they weren't meltdowns and they weren't in big games. Both elimination games against Chicago before this year were true meltdowns and they were indeed big games, just like games 6 and 7 of this past year's finals, both of which were also meltdowns and both of which were truly big games. I guess the writer believes that you can prove anything with numbers. Luongo is arguably the worst "big game" goalie in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammerculture Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Great article! Totally agree with the point of this article/thread. Luongo is not the problem. The problem has been the tendency for the Canucks scoring to dry up during the playoffs in general, but, especially, when they are faced with a hot goalie. One area that really needs some extra attention is the PP during the playoffs. The Canucks somehow manage to plummet from the top PP team to the worst during the playoffs last season. Sure, injuries made a difference. But I think it was more than that. They really need more than Daniel and Kesler as PP snipers! Unfortunately, the TEAM is up to their old tricks again. I was hoping that with the departure of Pratt, we might see some quality sports journalism happening. No such luck. Much as I can tolerate BMac, he knows practically nothing about hockey (the number one sport in Vancouver) - and, already, he and his mediocre sidekick, Taylor, are creating fake controversy (yesterday it was Hodgson, again). And as far as the so-called Kurtenbloggers are concerned, I think there are at least half a dozen regulars, here, who know more about sports, and could certainly do a better job! But, I guess that station is not really concerned with quality, all they care about is creating controversy! I wish someone would set up another station, again, for some decent competition! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raph Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I agree with what the article is trying to prove. But the thing that killed the Canucks and Luongo is the type of goals that Luongo lets in. A team can come back if it is a good goal that gets by your goalie, but when it is a saveable goal and it goes in. It just kills all momentum that team had. I am a Luongo fan but come playoff time you don't know which goalie you will get. First round is a prefect example games 1-3 was great Luongo was on top of his game then game 4-5 and yea the defense didn't help him out much but there were some goals where Luongo could have saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny411 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 he played great. we love luongo we got bombed in game 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I believe the biggest fault was the defence. You can't blame Luongo in the SCF at all - the guy somehow posted 2 shutouts and was IMO the only reason we lasted 7 games. Without Lu Boston would have finished us in 5. Don't forget, our team ranked 3rd last for goals-for per game in the playoffs, including all the horrible teams swept in the 1st round. Lets look at the injuries we had on defence. Hamhuis gone in the 1st game. Rome suspended. Edler broke his hand (so basically can't shoot, can't defend and can't hit - useless). We had to play a rookie Tanev and Ballard, a guy who may be good but was rusty as hell. When you take out the top half of your D-core (minutes-wise they were 3 of our top-4) no goalie has a chance. That would be the equivalent of Boston losing Seidenberg, Kaberle and Chara breaking his hand. With the lack of depth they have after their 6th man, we would have destroyed Thomas had that have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zduck14 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 The thing is Luongo have brilliant games and he has less brilliant games, but that's the thing, to be the best goalie you have to be more consistent. Luongos top form is great but is lowest point is low and shows up to often. Well when i was playing you had to play good to give the team confidence, if I wasn't playing great my defence would struggle. So if you let in like one or two easy goals, the players in front of you get nervous because they don't trust you. Luongo is a great goaltender, but not consistent enough! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanford Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 That's a legit question, and I'm sure AV's learned his lesson. I agree with you whole-heartedly. Under certain circumstances though, you have to stick to your #1 guy even if there's a chance he's going to become ultra-embarrassing for the night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newsflash Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I agree it seems the rest of the team starts to melt down when Luongo lets in one. Make the next ones go in ultra easy. The problem with this line of thinking is that it becomes a systematic problem... instead of just a problem in goal. And people want to believe their is a quick fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dasein Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 3 years straight of doing this... hasn't worked yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konman Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 My question is... how can the media bash Luongo for last years playoffs? The Canucks scored 8 goals total in 7 cup finals games.... was Luongo suppose to get 4 SOs? Luongo had 4 SOs in 60 games during the year... and then put up another 4 SOs in 25 playoff games... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konman Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 What a load of rubbish. The entire team was playing on one leg and almost won a cup for Luongo. The only position not decimated by injury was the goaltender position. Give it a rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laplace Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I'm not sure if you're familiar with magnets at all; but, to this day, after almost 200 years of studying them, nobody has been able to prove a magnetic monopole exists, that is, a magnet with one polarity. What I'm getting at is: Luongo will never have everyone on his side, there will always be a group that love him and a group that hates him for many reasons. I personally don't like Luo because he didn't give the Canucks a home team discount, unlike Burrows, Sedins, Kesler, Bieksa etc... IMO if you're going to get paid more than Thomas, then outplay him. That being said, I am comfortable saying he's our goalie, because, he's still a top 5 goalie, and that should be good enough to eventually win a damn cup! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucksFC Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Luongo meltsdown in the playoffs like Fukushima does during an earthquake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyfall Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Luongo is awesome at times and I see that. However hes too arrogant and so ppl feel like he should back up his words. When he gets lit up he doesn't admit it. He was also given a ridiculous amount of control from day 1 on the team that not even linden got. The deal is if you're that good and given the key to the city prove it. But he isn't that good although a lot of the times he is pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkoshack Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 During the Olympics, do you think Roberto won it for Canada? Or do you think, as usual, he almost blew it for us and Sidney won it for us. Come on...give your head a shake...your eyes are stuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russianrocket961 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 pulling him when he let in 3 goals and putting in cory might have been a different series Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sedin3322 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Simple question: who was the worst player in Boston and the best player in Boston. The Cup came down to one win in Boston and Lou was the worst player on the ice, while Thomas was the best player on the ice. Break down the stats for the games in Van and in Boston ,the change in Lou's stats tells the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traumatic Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Torn about this TBH. Statistics is the 'tool of the devil'....it can be manipulated to prove any point you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.