-
Posts
5,509 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by poetica
-
The pic has a (very cute) context... Eddie Lack @eddielack 14 Oct Hey @strombone1 I'm free for dinner... #rookie Strombone @strombone1 14 Oct @eddielack I'm not.... #veteran And in a video on CDC Lack said he'd asked Luo for dinner 3 times but been denied every time. So, today.... Eddie Lack @eddielack I can officially tell everyone that @strombone1 agreed on a dinner Wednesday night. I'm thinking Italian is preferred? #goalieunion #YES Strombone @strombone1 . @eddielack as a thk u I'm out shopping for a little something 2 show you my appreciation.Which one should I get? pic.twitter.com/9CaYfMhIH3 Eddie Lack @eddielack @strombone1 haha I think nr 6 but buy the rest so I can work myself up!!!
-
LOL!!
-
*LOL* Deb! Strombone @strombone1 21 Sep A 5th goal here would really set the city in a panic“@EdmontonOilers: #CaptionThis photo from Wednesday's game pic.twitter.com/bathguvpTc” At least his sense of humor still seems to be intact!
-
The gag/mask tweet was funny. But I seriously doubt it means he won't be tweeting anymore. Especially since it's not really him, right? Personally, I liked this previous tweet just for the hash tag: Strombone @strombone1 5 Sep Can't wait to see all my friends tomorrow! All are welcomed! #divatour2013 pic.twitter.com/pSZMXYsNnC
-
We all know Mariah would have botch slapped Gallagher!
-
Fixed it for you. This team will never benefit from being on CBC. Look at our last SC run. They spearheaded the media attacks on the Canucks and openly supported Boston over the only remaining Canadian team. More coverage from them is only more bashing waiting to happen.
-
I guess inspired by the interview... Strombone @strombone1 Thinking about changing my avatar pic for something a bit more appropriate for the upcoming season. Thoughts??? pic.twitter.com/nKq4R0DNYV EDIT: Once you stop laughing, that picture brings up so many questions. Why does he look like he's wearing knee pads? Why did he take his stick to the bathroom? (What would possible require stick handling? Wouldn't a glove have been better?) And doesn't the question mark invite the viewer to wonder #1 or #2?
-
Just noticed a funny conversation on Luo's Twitter I don't think has been posted: Iain MacIntyre @imacVanSun 20 Aug Can't believe Luongo would bring full circus to OLY camp. Be shocked if he doesn't make statement this week to blunt story. Strombone @strombone1 20 Aug @imacVanSun that's why they pay you the big bucks Iain........ Iain MacIntyre @imacVanSun 20 Aug @strombone1 My contract sucks. Strombone @strombone1 20 Aug @imacVanSun couldn't get traded to the province? Iain MacIntyre @imacVanSun 20 Aug @strombone1 Holding out for Miami Herald. Or The Buzzer (BC Transit leaflet). Now, back to column on football quarter-thingy Lulay. Strombone @strombone1 20 Aug @imacVanSun I wouldn't hold my breath for the Miami Herald if I were u........ Iain MacIntyre @imacVanSun 20 Aug @strombone1 Now you tell me. Guess I'll have to honour my contract in Vancouver. Proud to play behind @rcamcole.
-
(Article)NHL goalie rankings: Is Luongo still elite?
poetica replied to naslund.is.king's topic in Canucks Talk
Thank you. I've enjoyed our debates and your challenges to my opinions as well. And it is nice to interact with other passionate fans, even if our opinions differ. Well on that we can definitely agree. He is neither solely to blame nor blameless, just as I wouldn't put all of the blame on the Sedins or our D or anyone else. It's a team sport and every member has to contribute proportional to their position. A goalie may be able to steal the occasional game, just as your forwards might be able to steal the occasional game with spectacular scoring but the best plan will always be to have decent contributions by everyone. I like Cory too, but I also like Luo. I really do believe we'd likely be fine with either as long as we address all of the other aspects of our game that have been declining. Simply expecting better goaltending to address the issue won't fix it, in the playoffs or regular season. I wasn't happy to hear Torts got the job, but he does seem to be at least saying the right things. I'm am actually happy to hear that he wants to add a little more focus to our defense. Though, I do share your concern about added injuries if he does ask our top 2 lines to block more shots. (If anything, Kes should be barred from blocking shots. *lol*) If he can get the team to actually implement the things he's talking about, we could very well have another good run. I still believe we have a talented bunch of guys who can still compete at a high level. It really is a matter of getting the best of the guys we have, which seems to be Torts' mantra. If he can do that, I still believe this team can go all the way. And I'm already excited to see them try! Bring on 13/14! -
(Article)NHL goalie rankings: Is Luongo still elite?
poetica replied to naslund.is.king's topic in Canucks Talk
LMFAO! Tell me another one! Because I would bet my last dollar if he were great in the playoffs but bad in the regular season people would be tearing him apart for making it so hard for us to even make the playoffs. And calling him inconsistent. And comparing him to goalies who are good in the regular season and saying he should be like them. And.... -
(Article)NHL goalie rankings: Is Luongo still elite?
poetica replied to naslund.is.king's topic in Canucks Talk
And yet again, I'm not absolving him of his part either. He was a BIG part of our loses. And a HUGE part of our wins. I just don't think it's fair that he gets the lion's share of blame. He may have underperformed in at least 4 games, but the team underperformed in 6 of 7 games. So, when they didn't score when Luo was playing well, it was because Thomas was that good. When they didn't score when Luo wasn't playing well, it was deflation at Luo's performance. So, it was the good goalie's fault when Luo played well and the bad goalie's fault when he didn't? And never the team's fault at all? And I assume they told you that personally rather than just assuming you know how they felt and assigning blame to Luo when it might not be the slightest bit true? And why does this "deflation" theory only seem to apply to our players? Are you suggesting that our players are more mentally weak than other team's players? Otherwise, explain why Boston didn't get deflated when Thomas didn't play well, like in the ECF when he gave up 3 goals in under 4 minutes, erasing a 3-0 lead Boston had taken in the 1st and eventually losing the game. Why didn't they get deflated by the fact that they HAD to win a game in which he allowed 4 goals? Why didn't they get deflated by the fact that they HAD to win a game in which he allowed 5? If this deflation theory has any truth to it whatsoever it either has to apply equally to all teams OR it has to be an indication that our players are unique in their mental weakness. Which is it? And if the latter, why is that Luo's fault? And why isn't he susceptible to it too? Yes, let's look at the LA series. In Game 1 Luo faced 12 more shots than Quick, including 3x as many PP shots and 2 shorthanded chances (compared to the 1 Quick faced.) In all of that, he allowed only 3 goals and ended the game with a .921 SV%, which was only .002 below Quick's SV% for that game. We did manage to score first in that game, but then gave up 2 PPGs. (Probably in part due to the fact that we took 5 penalties in just over 5 minutes in the 1st period, including 2 for puck over the glass.) We then managed to tie it up late in the 2nd. The GWG didn't come until 16:46 of the 3rd period. It was followed by an EN. How does that sound like Luo wasn't keeping his team in it? Don't get me wrong. I absolutely agree that Cory played better in that series. Luo wasn't as good in his second game while Cory was amazing in all of his. I also think Cory got the slightly better team in front of him too (and never faced such a disparity in PP shots as Luo did in the first game) but even still he only got 1 win. Why? Because that was the only game we scored 3 goals in. Luo hadn't gotten that kind of scoring support since Game 2 of the SCF. In the LA series, we even lost one game in which Cory only allowed a single goal, proving what I'm saying -- that even when the goalies are giving them a chance to win (though we apparently disagree on what exactly that means) they aren't capitalizing on it. People are demanding consistency from our goalie(s) and I agree, Luo needs to be more consistent. But our team is NOT consistent either and that's far more concerning because it means they can't capitalize when they get the chance. Look at the SJ series. Luo was easily the best Canuck on the ice and anyone who watched the games know that despite the fact that he gave up 3 goals in each of those games he played well. Just goes to show that it's not always the goalie that determines how many goals are scored against a team and that allowing 3 does not necessarily mean the goalie didn't "keep them in it." And yet again, we've NEVER been a shutdown goalie team. Why you and others are pretending otherwise is beyond me. A SCORING team that can not score will not win. Who cares if our goalie is praised if we're still out the 1st round? I want the swag, not the chatter. I agree. It's not the whole story, not by a long shot. But then, neither is the number of goals allowed. They're all just part of the story, which also includes injuries, media pressure, Rome's suspension, Raymond's injury and probably a whole host of things we'll never know about. Yes, we'll never know how it would have turned out if Luo had somehow, beyond all reasonable expectation, managed to play at least as well as the goalie who had been better than him all year. Of course, we'll also never know what would have happened if our team had managed to play better than the team they had been better than during the regular season. It's a bit of a cop out to say they won every close game. They scored only once in 2 games. Barely. (In the first game, we scored at 19:41 of the 3rd period.) Expecting to win every game in the SCF that way isn't realistic no matter how many times you say it. If that was the only way we were going to win, then we weren't going to win. If you're saying Thomas was just so good the team, even with their best effort, couldn't beat him, why are you blaming Luo for not beating him single-handedly? Again, if Thomas was too good to score on, he was too good to beat. Which is it? Luo's a flake who can't be relied on and has a long history of proving it, or that the team had every reason to assume he'd outplay Thomas in the SCF and steal them 4 wins? You can't have it both ways. A team deflated by the shock of bad goaltending can't be the same team that knew going in they had a goalie who had bad games. Luo's the goalie he's always been and generally speaking we've done pretty damn well with him. 52% playoff wins isn't exactly shabby. Yes, he had a problem with Chicago. But then, they were a big rival for a reason and it wasn't just Luo's play. Let's look at 09/10. Yes, we did score well in some games. But we were kept to 1 goal in game 6 and 2 goals in games 2 & 3. Luo wasn't good in that series (with a .897 SV%), but neither was Niemi (with a .898 SV%.) Of course, Luo also faced 203 shots while Niemi only faced 167. It's probably true that if Luo had played a little better in one game we could have won. But then, it's also true that if the team had played a little better in one game we could have won. For example, in game 2 of the 09/10 series Luo gave up 3 goals (the 4th was an EN) but we scored only 2. Luo could have been better in that game, but so could the rest of the team as they were outshot, 33-26, had 6 PPOs but only capitalized once and gave up 3 shorthanded chances which led to the tying goal. It was a similar story in the 08/09 series. Luo wasn't good in that series (with a .879 SV%), but neither was Khabibulin (with a .873 SV%.) Again we were seriously outshot, with Luo facing 173 shots compared to the 143 Khabibulin faced in the 6 game series. We lost game 6 even though Luo had a .929 SV% and kept it 1-1 to get us to OT despite the fact that we were outshot in that game by 13 shots. In OT, we managed only 1 shot while Chicago got 4 and the game winning goal. And in game 5 Luo gave up 3 but we scored only 2. Again we were outshot, with Luo facing 8 more shots. We also took 7 penalities while Chicago took only 3. Luo faced 11 PP shots while Khabibulin faced only 3. (We did manage to get 3 shorthanded shots while not giving up any though.) If your argument is that it's Luo's fault when he doesn't keep the games close, fine. But then apply that equally to all of our games and series. If he's to blame for not keeping the games close, the team is to blame for not winning close games, right? It can't just be Luo's fault all the time regardless of how the team plays. Again, you're assuming you know not only how they felt but why they felt it. But, I'll bite. Do you have any evidence that the D was reluctant to jump into the play in the last 3 games of the series? Because it doesn't seem to be true according to the shots: In game 1, our D put a combined 14 shots on goal. Our forwards had 20 shots. In game 2, our D put a combined 11 shots on goal. Our forwards had 22 shots. In game 3, our D put a combined 16 shots on goal. Our forwards had 25 shots. In game 4, our D put a combined 18 shots on goal. Our forwards had 20 shots. In game 5, our D put a combined 6 shots on goal. Our forwards had 19 shots. In game 6, our D put a combined 15 shots on goal. Our forwards had 23 shots. In game 7, our D put a combined 13 shots on goal. Our forwards had 24 shots. Other than in game 5 specifically, which we won, I don't see a big difference between any of the games. If anything, I wonder if the D focusing on defense instead of trying to get the offense going might have helped in that game. (I even mentioned in my previous post that I think the D being too offensively focused was a problem in that series.) If we keep pretending Luo is supposed to win every game for us while the rest of the team talks about how they "almost beat them with a 20 minute effort" that's sadly probably not a bad plan. All that being said, while we may disagree on several issues, some of them wildly, I would like to say that I apprecaite your intelligent discourse on the matter. -
(Article)NHL goalie rankings: Is Luongo still elite?
poetica replied to naslund.is.king's topic in Canucks Talk
You offered 2 contradictory theories. Which did you want to go with? That the team did try and that Thomas was just too good to beat? Or that the team didn't bother to try because they didn't know how much Luo would suck in each game? If the team did try and Thomas was just too good to beat, then we just weren't going to win. The rules of hockey don't change just because a goalie is hot. If he was too hot to score on, he was too hot to beat. Period. As for the "deflation" theory, they're hockey players. They aren't supposed to get deflated. They're expected to try to win no matter what every time. And that doesn't even begin to address the fact that Game 2 was the only time we scored before the 3rd period. Were they deflated so much in Game 1 by Luo's shutout that they couldn't score until the last minute of the game? (And if they were deflated by Luo's bad performance, why wouldn't you think Luo could be deflated by the incredibly decreased lack of scoring support he was getting? They're all hockey players and subject to the same psychology, right?) Honestly, I just don't get this shock that Luo wasn't able to get MORE than 2 shutouts, a 2 GAA game and a 3 GAA while playing against a team with a 3.22 GAA coming in to the SCF. Even with Luo's big blowout game, and including the EN and goals against Cory, Boston a 3.29 G/G against us. Of course, that 8 GAA game really skews thing. If you take out that game, we had a 2.5 GAA over the remaining 6 games. And in our 4 home games, we had 1.25 GAA. How is that not winnable? We knew coming in that Thomas was the better goalie. In the regular season Thomas had a SV% 0.01 better than Luo. (To put that into perspective, that's greater than the difference between Luo's 10/11 and 11/12 regular season SV%.) And going into the SCF Thomas had a .929 SV% while Luo had a .922. Expecting Luo to outperform Thomas for 4 games with little or no scoring support was frankly more dumb than I think our team is. We had no reason to expect, or even believe it possible, to win a Cup with only 8 goals. If that's all we could score, we couldn't win. We knew we were going against the best goalie in the league that year and a high scoring team. Surely the team knew it wasn't going to be an easy road. Surely they knew expecting to win with shutouts was not a realistic game plan. Surely they knew that Luo is almost always better at home, so we would have a better chance to win home games than the games in Boston. I'm sure they did try to win them and certainly didn't expect to lose them as badly as we did, especially the 8 GAA game, but then, we didn't expect the Rome suspenion or the Raymond injury (in a later game) either. Crap happens. At home Luo did exactly what we needed him to do and probably a little better than we had a right to expect. So it was on the team to take advantage. They'd scored against good goalies in earlier rounds. We scored 16 times against Crawford in a 7 game series in round 1, and he had a .927 SV% in that series. We scored 13 times against Rinne in a 6 game series in round 2, and he had a .932 SV% in that series. So we could score against goalies putting up good numbers. We just didn't against Thomas, but we should have been able to. (Thomas had a .953 SV% in their sweep of Philly and Philly still managed to score 7 goals in 4 games. We only manged 8 goals in 7 games.) As for outshooting Boston by 21 shots, so what? Everyone outshot them. In the regular season, only 1 team allowed more SA/G than Boston did. And even in the playoffs, only 4 teams allowed more SA/G than Boston and all of them were out in the first round. In the playoffs, their SA/G was 2.1 higher than their S/G. Obviously allowing a higher number of lower quality shots was just part of their game plan, not an indication that we were doing anything special. In fact, prior to the SCF, Boston had allowed an average of 33.5 SA/G and in the SCF, we put up an average of 35.1 shots per game. Prior to the SCF, we had allowed an average of 31.6 SA/G and in the SCF, Boston put up an average of 32.1 shots per game. Put another way: According to their pre-SCF SA/G, we should have expected to get 234.5 shots against Boston. We got 246. According to our pre-SCF SA/G, Boston should have expected to get 221 shots against us. They got 225. So, we got 12 more shots than their average and they got 4 more shots than our average. So, we really only outshot them by 8 shots. And most, if not all, of those could probably be accounted for by their more conservative play in Game 7 to protect their lead. Also, in the playoffs, our SA/G increased by 1.7 over our regular season average. Boston's only increased by 1.3. So, Luo was still facing more shots than he was used to than Thomas was. -
(Article)NHL goalie rankings: Is Luongo still elite?
poetica replied to naslund.is.king's topic in Canucks Talk
So, if a goalie gives up 3 the team gets a free pass (game 7)? And if the goalie gives up 8 in one game, the team gets a free pass for scoring only that many goals in the entire series? And why is the team being injured an excuse for our lack of offense, but not a strong indication that our defense was also suffering? -
(Article)NHL goalie rankings: Is Luongo still elite?
poetica replied to naslund.is.king's topic in Canucks Talk
Every 1 time, you mean? And are you forgetting that is also the game Rome took out Horton? That was a HUGE momentum shifter. (Of course let's ignore that we also gave up 13 PP shots, which led to 2 goals, and 7 shorthanded chances, which led to another 2 goals.) Yep, it was all just Luo. Like always. In fact, I heard he stunk so bad in that game it actually caused global warming. Retroactively. Damn that Luo! But, remind me again, how did that keep the team from scoring a single goal in Game 7? -
(Article)NHL goalie rankings: Is Luongo still elite?
poetica replied to naslund.is.king's topic in Canucks Talk
Really? A goalie with a .916 playoff SV% is dreadful? He had a .915 this year and if stats reflected only his play, it would be much higher. He also had a .914 in 10/11. Despite the hyperbole so common to this Chicken Little forum, Luo's allowed 3 or fewer goals in 75% of his playoff games. (And he allowed 3 or fewer goals in 71% of his games in 10/11.) We've also won 52% of the playoff games he's started despite the fact that we've only scored 2 or fewer goals in 54% of our playoff games during Luo's time here. (If you're interested, you can read a short comparison with other teams in a previous post of mine.) If you think that means he doesn't play like he belongs in the NHL "more than half the time" you need a reality check! -
(Article)NHL goalie rankings: Is Luongo still elite?
poetica replied to naslund.is.king's topic in Canucks Talk
Good, you're decided then. You think Luo sucks in the playoffs and has for all but his first year. So, obviously he's was not a goalie who was ever going to steal us a Cup and it was silly to ever expect it. Going forward, obviously with a goalie like him we need to SCORE to win. See how easy it was for us to agree that scoring is what we need in the postseason? And now you can adjust your expectations and save yourself some disappointment every time he doesn't get a shutout in the future. You're welcome. -
(Article)NHL goalie rankings: Is Luongo still elite?
poetica replied to naslund.is.king's topic in Canucks Talk
I still don't know who gave him the "elite" title that apparently obligates him more than all other players on the team combined. But, if a big salary does create added responsibility, what about the Sedins? Shouldn't their combined $12.2M have gotten us more than 2 goals and 5 total points in the SCF series? Especially given that they were the 1st and 4th top point producers in the regular season and our team's 1st and 2nd point producers in those playoffs. -
(Article)NHL goalie rankings: Is Luongo still elite?
poetica replied to naslund.is.king's topic in Canucks Talk
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? -
(Article)NHL goalie rankings: Is Luongo still elite?
poetica replied to naslund.is.king's topic in Canucks Talk
Actually, I did answer it. I've never claimed Luo or anyone is "elite" and I've repeatedly said that I don't understand what it's even supposed to mean. It seems to vary too much from person to person without any basis in reality beyond "whatever the guy I'm hating on isn't." That's not an objective standard. But while we're on the subject of dodging questions, I'm still waiting on your answer to my repeated question... -
(Article)NHL goalie rankings: Is Luongo still elite?
poetica replied to naslund.is.king's topic in Canucks Talk
When have I ever said he was elite in general or in specific games? When did I say he was spectacular in that game? That was not my point. My point is that it's not true to say that he didn't give us a chance to win. He did. Not every game, true, but enough to get a Cup if the rest of the team had been able to take advantage. Did the rest of the play up to their potential? Was their performance in Game 7 "elite"? How many games in the SCF did they carry more than their share? Luo did it twice. I'm not saying I want people to hate on the rest of the team. Not even close. I just want people to be fair in their assessment. Luo could have been better, but he carried the team twice in the SCF alone. The team could only be argued to have carried him twice in the entire playoffs. They only needed to do it one more time. Of course, the team had lots of injuries and all of them (especially Luo) were stressed out by the mean-spirited media. There are lots of reasons why we lost. Not all of them are Luo's bad games. The entire team deserves credit and blame. I'm just tired of people saying it was all Luo's fault or that he kept us from winning the Cup. That just ignores the full reality. -
(Article)NHL goalie rankings: Is Luongo still elite?
poetica replied to naslund.is.king's topic in Canucks Talk
I understand. I do that all the time. So to address the rest... Luo gets all of the blame while the team gets none because Thomas was good? Despite the fact that our point production had already dropped off from the regular season even before the SCF, you're just going to blame our lack of scoring on Thomas? Let me see if I understand. Luo gets all of the blame for Boston scoring, while they get no credit for being a high scoring team throughout the entire playoffs. And Thomas gets all of the credit for preventing us from scoring, but the rest of our team has no blame for not scoring despite the fact that every other team had been able to score against Thomas at a greater rate than we did. (Philly managed to score only one less goal than we did and they were swept in 4 games.) Yeah, that seems entirely factual and fair. And again, how is 3 goals against not giving the team a chance to win? -
(Article)NHL goalie rankings: Is Luongo still elite?
poetica replied to naslund.is.king's topic in Canucks Talk
Oh, so quality of shots doesn't matter. Quick one off shots against Thomas' chest were every bit as hard to save as set up cycles and shorthanded breakaways. Got ya. Yep, a team that's playing well gives up as many shorthanded shots as they take in PP shots. And whether or not it was "impressive" wasn't what I asked. I asked how 3 total goals against was "not showing up" or putting the game out of reach. -
(Article)NHL goalie rankings: Is Luongo still elite?
poetica replied to naslund.is.king's topic in Canucks Talk
I was obviously talking specifically about holding our players accountable for the Cup run. How many of those threads were created for that specific reason? And how many of them were created to address the fact that we didn't score enough, which is what I specifically said? There are probably more active threads in which Luo is being singularly blamed right now than threads that have assigned any blame to the rest of the team combined. -
(Article)NHL goalie rankings: Is Luongo still elite?
poetica replied to naslund.is.king's topic in Canucks Talk
In all seriousness, who are the goalies you think are "elite"? Who are these goalies who never gave up 5+ goals? Without even looking at every year in their careers I found pretty much every goalie has given up 5+ goals at least a few times, even if we're only talking about the playoffs... Thomas did twice in 10/11 and he won a Cup (because his team won one of those games.) Quick did twice in 10/11 playoffs. Brodeur's career is so long (and impressive!) that I only looked at 2 years. In 02/03 he allowed 5 goals (before being pulled) in the playoffs that year, and won a Cup. In 11/12, he was pulled once after 3 goals in 12 shots in the first round and he allowed 5 goals in Game 6 of the SCF. Rask allowed 6 goals once in the playoffs this year. Crawford allowed 5 goals once this year, and he won a Cup (because his team won that game.) If "elite" goalies never allow 5+ goals, then there aren't any. Could Luo be better? Yes! Just like the rest of the team. We have a great bunch of players who are underperforming and that needs to change. Was/is Luo elite? I have no idea because I don't know what that word is supposed to mean. To hear Canucks fans tell it "elite" just means whatever our goalie isn't. And that's not fair. Or helpful. -
(Article)NHL goalie rankings: Is Luongo still elite?
poetica replied to naslund.is.king's topic in Canucks Talk
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....