(Article)NHL goalie rankings: Is Luongo still elite?

[Plum]

Sorry I screwed up

Game 3 7-2 Chi Loss

Game 4 5-0 Chi (Lu let in 4) Loss

Game 5 4-3 Nsh Loss

Game 3 4-3 SJS Loss

Game 3 8-1 Bos Loss

Note the team never bailed him out

Now every game Lu bailed the Canucks out. Every time the Canucks scraped by with a win... Just enough goals to get by.

Game 1 2-0 Chi Win 32 Saves

Game 3 3-2 Chi Win 30 Saves

Game 7 2-1 Chi Win 31 Saves

Game 1 1-0 Nsh Win 20 Saves

*Game 2 2-1 Nsh Loss 44 saves (He gave them every chance to win)

Game 6 2-1 Nsh Win 23 Saves

Game 1 3-2 SJS Win 27 Saves

Game 5 3-2 SJS Win 54 Saves

Game 1 1-0 Bos Win 36 Saves

Game 2 3-2 Bos Win 28 Saves

Game 5 1-0 Bos Win 31 Saves

He stole more games than he lost for the Canucks. He plays good when it matters.

Some of those are just the usual.

Stealing games isn't those 3-2 wins. It is the ones where the Canucks can play their defense first defense and get some greasy goals.. While letting Luongo getting some average shots on.

[Riviera82]

Quicks SV% was .909 this year. Continue to tell me how much you know about hockey.

The team as a whole hasn't been the same since the run. Not just Lu. Your defense falters.... guess who looks bad? How would you like a job where, every time you make a mistake, a red light goes on and 18,000 people boo?

Also I was referencing the fact that you say I am living in the past... I called out how you respond and I nailed it.

What a coincidence. That's Luongo's career playoff save percentage post-2007. Sparkling.

[Riviera82]

Brodeur has already shown how great of a goaltender he is. He is the best goalie to ever play between the pipes, don't even try to argue about this.

He was 36? At Olympics?

Very close to 38 actually.

[Riviera82]

I simply asked you (repeatedly) to answer a question. You said Luo didn't "show up when it matters" and specifically mentioned game 7 in the SCF. I just asked how 3 goals is "not showing up." Not sure why you're having so much trouble answering....

17 saves on 20 shots in a winner-take-all game for the championship is not a very good example of "showing up". Period.

[Drouin]

17 saves on 20 shots in a winner-take-all game for the championship is not a very good example of "showing up". Period.

But 0 goals is.

[Riviera82]

all this talks, and you still haven't explain how would you expect the team to reach the game 7 with 8 goals in total without Luongo posting those 2 shut outs...

because of that, i am out. You have your mind set on something, and no stat/logical evidences will convince you otherwise. It's a ridiculous thing that I have to ask someone why they think the team with that kind of scoring can get to game 7 in the first place... I am not going to waste anymore time in a circular argument with you.

You understand that a series can be won in less than 7 games, right? Extending a series to game 7 isn't the same as actually winning it. Luongo plays 1 decent road game and there's a good chance the Canucks have a cup in 5 or 6 games.

[Riviera82]

you still haven't answer how important do you think game 5 was?

keep dodging the question. You almost reach to the point where i am convince i can't have any meaningful and logical conversion with you.

Game 5 wouldn't have been nearly as important if Luongo hadn't gotten bombed in games 3 and 4. Because he did and we lost in spectacular fashion, yes game 5 became very important.

[Riviera82]

But 0 goals is.

For Tim Thomas and his 37 saves, yeah.

[Papayas]

You understand that a series can be won in less than 7 games, right? Extending a series to game 7 isn't the same as actually winning it. Luongo plays 1 decent road game and there's a good chance the Canucks have a cup in 5 or 6 games.

lol. 8 goals in 7 games and you are trying to tell people that the team should have win the series in less than 7 games if it wasn't for Luongo...

amazing logic bro. Keep this attitude up in real life too

some people in vancouver are just out of their minds sometimes...

[Drouin]

For Tim Thomas and his 37 saves, yeah.

of course, just dodge it lmao

[wallstreetamigo]

For Tim Thomas and his 37 saves, yeah.

And the Canucks offense too don't forget which rational minds would probably suggest had a little something to do with the loss in Game 7. Not sure how you blame Luongo for that but I'm sure haters will find a way.

Seriously, 8 goals in 7 games seems to suggest there was more of an issue than the goalie not showing up. Without Luongo the Canucks could easily have been swept in the series.

[Guest Dasein]

You do know that the Conn Smythe isn't just given to a player on the winning team? And we got to game 7 not because of the two 1-0 shutouts but because of Luongo's poor play in Boston. We were up 2-0 and 3-2 and choked our way to game 7. It's an embarrassment since we are 1 of 4 teams out 47 to have 2-0 series lead in the SCF to lose. That's a pretty elite club of chokers.

You can't shovel the stench of the Boston games away from Luongo and there is no way he would've won the Conn Smythe if we had won game 7 1-0 as Thomas would still have only allowed 9 goals to Luongo's 17 in your scenario. The Conn Smythe was going to Thomas win or lose that series. He kept Boston in it for all seven games whereas Luongo only did it for four in your scenario. Either way it's a moot point like you say as Thomas was the Vezina winning, Conn Smythe winning and Stanley Cup winning goaltender easily dispatching our Jenning winning and Presidents winning goaltender.

Ultimately I guess we'll have to agree to disagree but I found the notion of Luongo winning the Conn Smyhte laughable given his poor performances in Boston.

I do know that Conn Smythe can go to the losing team player. Many media members pointed out that Luongo would have won the MVP if Vancouver won it because it's hard to ignore the two 1-0 shutouts that got us there, and because no one on our team could seem to score. And those are the guys that vote for the Conn Smythe...

[TimberWolf]

I do know that Conn Smythe can go to the losing team player. Many media members pointed out that Luongo would have won the MVP if Vancouver won it because it's hard to ignore the two 1-0 shutouts that got us there, and because no one on our team could seem to score. And those are the guys that vote for the Conn Smythe...

What media members?

[Riviera82]

And the Canucks offense too don't forget which rational minds would probably suggest had a little something to do with the loss in Game 7. Not sure how you blame Luongo for that but I'm sure haters will find a way.

Seriously, 8 goals in 7 games seems to suggest there was more of an issue than the goalie not showing up. Without Luongo the Canucks could easily have been swept in the series.

The 8 goals in 7 games gets pointed to so often. Why dont any of the staunch Luo supporters ever point to the 20 goals allowed by Luongo in the 5.86 games worth of time he played, which happened to include his famous 2 shutouts as well.

20 goals.

[Riviera82]

Nevermind the Stanley Cup Final for a minute. I think the bottom line is this. Luongo has started and finished 10 playoff series in his career and has finished 5 of them with sh!t numbers. Granted, in the other 5 he played very well but that's the thing, it's seems he can only be counted on to play well every other series on average. Elite in the regular season yes, in the playoffs no. End of story.

[5Fivehole0]

Nevermind the Stanley Cup Final for a minute. I think the bottom line is this. Luongo has started and finished 10 playoff series in his career and has finished 5 of them with sh!t numbers. Granted, in the other 5 he played very well but that's the thing, it's seems he can only be counted on to play well every other series on average. Elite in the regular season yes, in the playoffs no. End of story.

fair enough, thats a tough point to argue... But I also lay some of the blame on the team in front of him

[poetica]

I'll play devil's advocate here. The answer to your question is that particular series. The only way the Canucks were going to win is if Luongo played consistently lights out for all seven games. Even then it might not have been enough but we'll never know and I choose to believe they would've won.

That series came down to a duel between netminders. Boston couldn't beat Luongo for the first three games in Vancouver because Lu outperformed Thomas. Unfortunately he couldn't match Thomas the other four games. In that series a deficit of more than one goal proved decisive. Seems unfair but there it is.

In the regular season the team showed they were more than capable of coming back from the quick deficits Lu often dealt the team with but the playoffs are a whole different animal and each series has its own unique dimensions and developments and can be completely different and unrelated from the regular season and from series to series. Some series, teams are scoring in a firefight. Other times tight defensive play by the same teams determines the outcome whereas PP can determine others. And in others it can come down to the battle of netminders which I felt the 2011 SCF was. Thomas got hot and played stellar for all seven games whereas Luongo could only match it for three games.

To answer your question a 3 goal deficit in that series was unfortunately in your words "not showing up." The only chance the Canucks had in that series was if it was close. And not close for just five minutes, one period or two. It had to be close for all 3 periods. Lu wasn't terrible in Game 7 except the third goal but either way the deficit was too much. Thomas always kept it close that series giving Boston every chance and was better which is why he won the Cup and the Conn Smythe.

I agree with many of your points about injuries, lack of scoring and so on but Luongo played his part in the failure too. Playing lights out less than 50% of a series doesn't cut it. He HAS to be consistent and play to the required level in a series to give us a shot. Every game counts and every goal counts and can change or shift momentum or even be a turning point in a series.

Luongo is still here so I'll support him like I supported Schneider, Cloutier and others before and hope he can have better success in the playoffs but my beliefs have changed and am not optimistic of deep runs anymore not just because of Luongo but because the team has declined and not improved since 2011. So I'll keep it simple and just enjoy watching Canucks hockey for as long as they can each year before bowing out.

If we were only ever going to win by completely changing our style of play at the last minute, abandoning the fact that we were built around being a high scoring team, and expecting our goalie to do what no other goalie has ever done and steal 4 games while getting less support than ever before, all while under some of the most intense pressure a hockey player has ever faced, then we were never going to win. It's really that simple.

I agree that Thomas was great in those playoffs. But I don't understand the claim he gave his team a chance to win every game unlike Luo when just to get to the Finals Boston had to win 4 games in which Thomas gave up 3, 4 or 5 goals. (And 3 of those were must wins in a 7 game series.) He was great, but he was also carried by his team in 4 games. Luo was only carried by his team twice (as we only won 2 games when he gave up 3 goals.) Even if we had won Game 7 we would have carried our goalie less than Boston did. Maybe (obviously) our team wasn't up to the challenge, but that doesn't make it Luo's fault that his team wasn't able to do their part. And frankly I don't understand how any intelligent hockey fan can not see that.

Furthermore, I know it's the common argument to claim it was a "goalie battle" but it's not true. Saying it was a "goalie battle" supposes that all other factors were equal and that the only difference was the play of each goalie. But that isn't even close to the truth of that series. In reality, Boston's players were doing their job. Their D focused on defending and even made a couple of saves (see Game 7 highlights for one example), while ours allowed Bruins players to stand in front of Luo for quick tip-ins, gave up multiple short handed chances, and allowed them to run into Luo and knock the puck out of his pads and into the net. And that was just Game 7.

Their top scorers were putting up shots and getting goals, while ours were barely noticeable most games. (Daniel got 4 points. Hank got only 1. And Hank only got a faceoff win over 50% in a single game. He was below 40% in the first 2 games.) To try to make up for it, our D was often so focused on trying to create offense that it was detrimental of our defense. (We had 2 Dmen with over 20 shots in that series. We also only had 2 forwards with over 20 shots. And one of them was Lappy. Burrows got only one more shot in that series than Salo, and Hank got 2 less.)

For it to be a goalie battle the team has to level the playing field. Luo didn't do his job in Boston. I agree. But, I also know that the team didn't do their part in every game either. And if you don't expect the team to win with a deficit, wh would you expect Luo to win with one?

[DeNiro]

This is now a Luongo tribute video thread!

[Heretic]

Nevermind the Stanley Cup Final for a minute. I think the bottom line is this. Luongo has started and finished 10 playoff series in his career and has finished 5 of them with sh!t numbers. Granted, in the other 5 he played very well but that's the thing, it's seems he can only be counted on to play well every other series on average. Elite in the regular season yes, in the playoffs no. End of story.

And exactly how have the Canucks been since Luongo got here?

"Elite in the regular season yes, in the playoffs no. End of story."

I think we have a winner there.

Thanks for saying what we realists have been saying all along - the problem is the team - not the goalie.

[Heretic]

If we were only ever going to win by completely changing our style of play at the last minute, abandoning the fact that we were built around being a high scoring team, and expecting our goalie to do what no other goalie has ever done and steal 4 games while getting less support than ever before, all while under some of the most intense pressure a hockey player has ever faced, then we were never going to win. It's really that simple.

I agree that Thomas was great in those playoffs. But I don't understand the claim he gave his team a chance to win every game unlike Luo when just to get to the Finals Boston had to win 4 games in which Thomas gave up 3, 4 or 5 goals. (And 3 of those were must wins in a 7 game series.) He was great, but he was also carried by his team in 4 games. Luo was only carried by his team twice (as we only won 2 games when he gave up 3 goals.) Even if we had won Game 7 we would have carried our goalie less than Boston did. Maybe (obviously) our team wasn't up to the challenge, but that doesn't make it Luo's fault that his team wasn't able to do their part. And frankly I don't understand how any intelligent hockey fan can not see that.

Furthermore, I know it's the common argument to claim it was a "goalie battle" but it's not true. Saying it was a "goalie battle" supposes that all other factors were equal and that the only difference was the play of each goalie. But that isn't even close to the truth of that series. In reality, Boston's players were doing their job. Their D focused on defending and even made a couple of saves (see Game 7 highlights for one example), while ours allowed Bruins players to stand in front of Luo for quick tip-ins, gave up multiple short handed chances, and allowed them to run into Luo and knock the puck out of his pads and into the net. And that was just Game 7.

Their top scorers were putting up shots and getting goals, while ours were barely noticeable most games. (Daniel got 4 points. Hank got only 1. And Hank only got a faceoff win over 50% in a single game. He was below 40% in the first 2 games.) To try to make up for it, our D was often so focused on trying to create offense that it was detrimental of our defense. (We had 2 Dmen with over 20 shots in that series. We also only had 2 forwards with over 20 shots. And one of them was Lappy. Burrows got only one more shot in that series than Salo, and Hank got 2 less.)

For it to be a goalie battle the team has to level the playing field. Luo didn't do his job in Boston. I agree. But, I also know that the team didn't do their part in every game either. And if you don't expect the team to win with a deficit, wh would you expect Luo to win with one?

IMHO, I'd say that the team didn't do their part in any game.

Without Luongo, we would have been swept - just like 1982.