pretty sure on a 2 on 1 you challenge the shooter and leave the pass to the defensemen.. so if he's indeed backing in playing the pass like you mentioned.. then he played it wrong.. but he didn't.. just didn't challenge enough that's all, not a great goal, but definitely not a poor goal either. 4 goals against in 3 games means nothing. Luongo gave up 2 goals in 3 games in the SCF when we probably easily coulda lost in all 3 of those games if any other goalie played and gives up just 1 or 2 goals per. what do ppl remember? Luongo choked, not Luongo carried the canucks to game 7, with our anemic offense in the SCF we were lucky to even have a chance to clinch considering how many goals/offense we were able to generate... it was Luongo costing the Canucks a stanley cup instead of Luongo gave the team a chance of the cup. Sorry without Luongo in the finals we wouldn't have those 3 wins with a chance to win. So if all the retards take off their bias sunglasses.. it should be Luongo gave the Canucks a chance at clinching the cup, not Luongo choked the cup away.
Ok, let me break this down for you guys from a goalie's perspective.
On a 2 on 1, the goalie takes the shooter, the defense takes the pass. However what you don't realize is that although the goalie takes the shooter, the goalie can't come out to challenge the shot as much when its an odd man rush. On an even man rush (1 on 1, 2 on 2) or breakaway the goalie comes out much further to challenge the shot since the odds are, the puck carrier is likely to shot since the other forward(s) is covered. On a odd man rush (2 on 1, 3 on 2 ...), the goalie doesn't come out as far to challenge the shot since he has to stay back a bit to cover the back door. Its standard training for goalies and you learn this in Goalie 101.
On the OT goal, it was one of those perfect laser beam shots against a butterfly goalie (top blocker side). Schneider had the proper angle (in hindsight probably a bit deeper than he would have liked ... but it was Jarret Stoll ... not a sniper, not offense to Stoll, 9 times out of 10, he misses that shot). So as Schneider faces the 2 on 1, he's probably playing the pass a bit more since its the 3rd or 4th line on the ice.
Would Luongo have stopped this shot ... absolutely not. It was a good shot and Luongo probably would've stayed back a bit for the same reasons explained above. Not only that, Luongo has less active blocker/glove hands than Schneider.
As for last year's SCF, in my opinion, if Schneider was in net last year ... we would have won the cup already. Although Luongo played well at home ... he was horribly inconsistent in Boston. Schneider (same age as Quick) was ready for prime time last year. He would have been just as good as Luongo at home; but Schneider would have been much better than Luongo in Boston.
It was the coach's fault last year for stubbornly sticking with an inconsistent #1 goalie when all indications suggest we should have shared the load more with Schneider last year in the playoffs.