HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Los Angeles Kings (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=42)
-   -   Jonathan Quick scouting report - created for San Jose prior to game 1 (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=908281)

TonySCV 04-26-2011 03:44 PM

Jonathan Quick scouting report - created for San Jose prior to game 1
 
This is an independent scouting report service that the Sharks hired and they've published their report on Quick as an example of their work.

A fascinating read: http://thegoalieguild.com/2011/04/quick-playoffs/ The report itself is full of gold.

The summary is below the report. Here's an excerpt:

"In the first period, Quick allowed just one goal on 84 shots (.988 %). In the second frame, he allowed 12 goals on 73 shots (.836 %). In the third, he allowed just four goals on 54 shots for a .926 save percentage. In overtime he stopped 14 of 17 shots. Overall, Quick ended with 209 saves on 229 shots for a .913 save percentage and 3.16 goals-against average.

Within that breakdown, Quick surrendered five goals in the second period of Game 3 and three goals in the second period of Game 4. The only goal he allowed in Game 5 also came in the second period.

But don’t be fooled by Quick’s basic stats. He was way more effective and timely than they will show. But something is clearly going on during the second period, and it’s not easily defined by simply watching the games. Most of the second-period goals that he allowed were not weak or considered his fault. This could be a dynamic tied to team performance, or it could be all mental. Nobody knows except him.

Yet in the playoffs, regardless of situation or blame, a goaltender must stop every puck fired his way. It didn’t happen for Quick in this series, but I can safely say that he’s rapidly evolving into an elite starter. There’s no reason why he can’t win 40 games next season and earn recognition as a possible Vezina Trophy finalist."

Telos 04-26-2011 04:01 PM

That was surprisingly very accurate. Surprised there weren't any suggestions on dump-ins or any reference at all to his shaky ability at playing the puck.

KINGS17 04-26-2011 04:02 PM

Quote:

"...I can safely say that he’s rapidly evolving into an elite starter. There’s no reason why he can’t win 40 games next season and earn recognition as a possible Vezina Trophy finalist."


For some of you, the summer homework is writing this 1000 times.

JT Dutch* 04-26-2011 04:07 PM

Quote:

Finally, Quick has a really active stick. He’s very consistent at pulling his stick across his body when moving side to side and he’s also a very effective puck-moving goaltender
... Hahaha are they serious with this? I mean, I know Quick is generally pretty overrated but holy Christ, there's some flat-out B.S. right there.

Quote:

There’s no reason why he can’t win 40 games next season and earn recognition as a possible Vezina Trophy finalist.
... LMAO!!! Did Quick's agent write up this report? Because, damn. His chances of being a Vezina finalist next season are about the same as Danny DeVito's chances of eloping with Natalie Portman.

The unintentional comedy on some of this is off the charts.

FTheScene 04-26-2011 04:09 PM

"and he’s also a very effective puck-moving
goaltender"

i love me some quick, but this is wrong.

Shellz 04-26-2011 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FTheScene (Post 32682979)
"and he’s also a very effective puck-moving
goaltender"

i love me some quick, but this is wrong.

The communication between him and the players is what needs to get better. I think it's something he can work on and excel.
I do think he is getting better though.

sjmay* 04-26-2011 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT Dutch (Post 32682947)
... Hahaha are they serious with this? I mean, I know Quick is generally pretty overrated but holy Christ, there's some flat-out B.S. right there.



... LMAO!!! Did Quick's agent write up this report? Because, damn. His chances of being a Vezina finalist next season are about the same as Danny DeVito's chances of eloping with Natalie Portman.

The unintentional comedy on some of this is off the charts.

Effective does not equal good or even great.....gotta look up those words bud....

Ziggy Stardust 04-26-2011 04:22 PM

His biggest weakness was exposed by the Sharks. Observe how many cross ice passes led to goals against Quick. Granted, most of those plays are defensive breakdowns, but more often than not, if San Jose connected with a cross ice pass, it wound up in the net.

Regardless, he's still the best goalie to put on a Kings uniform in a very long time and I expect to see a 50-30 split with Bernier next season.

FootKnight 04-26-2011 04:24 PM

I'm sure none of you will believe this, because I'm only saying it now, but I have always thought you all exaggerate Quick's puck handling problem a lot. It's actually pretty ridiculous. I never bothered to post about it, because it wouldn't have been worth the **** I would get for it.

Most of the time, Quick makes good plays with the puck behind the net. The problem is that when it goes wrong, it goes horribly wrong, but that's actually a small percentage of the times he handles it.

JT Dutch* 04-26-2011 04:26 PM

Quote:

his body is condensed in an awkward manner in order to track the puck through bodies. This is a positive aspect of fhis game, but exposes a lot of space in the top corners and causes him to open up holes and appear small in the crease.
... 100% agree with this, though. This happened all series long.

Quote:

“No lead is safe and no defecit is too large with Quick. Fire pucks early and often in order to wear him down physically and mentally. Force him to fight through traffic to see the puck so that he wastes a lot of energy during a game. Put pucks on the net from any and all angles. Try to surprise him with low, hard shots - this will cause late reactions and bad rebounds. He is prone to giving up the weak, untimely goal and relaxes at moments in a game where there’s not much urgency, or your 3rd and 4th lines are on the ice.”
... 100% agree with this whole passage, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjmay (Post 32683080)
Effective does not equal good or even great.....gotta look up those words bud....

Quote:

ef·fec·tive (-fktv)
adj.
1.
a. Having an intended or expected effect.
b. Producing a strong impression or response; striking
... OK, I stand corrected. If the intended and/or expected effect of puckhandling is to turn the puck over a great deal and to at times even give up goals as a result of it, then yes - Quick is quite the effective puckhandler.

Shellz 04-26-2011 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust (Post 32683177)
His biggest weakness was exposed by the Sharks. Observe how many cross ice passes led to goals against Quick. Granted, most of those plays are defensive breakdowns, but more often than not, if San Jose connected with a cross ice pass, it wound up in the net.

Regardless, he's still the best goalie to put on a Kings uniform in a very long time and I expect to see a 50-30 split with Bernier next season.

Yep. Totally agree. I think a lot of goalies have that problem though. And if it's saved, it must be a pretty good one.

TonySCV 04-26-2011 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FTheScene (Post 32682979)
"and he’s also a very effective puck-moving
goaltender"

i love me some quick, but this is wrong.

It's been rough, but it got better as the season wore on.

Ziggy Stardust 04-26-2011 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shellz (Post 32683461)
Yep. Totally agree. I think a lot of goalies have that problem though. And if it's saved, it must be a pretty good one.

I think the biggest problem Quick had in handling those types of passes was that he was relying way too much on his agility and flexibility rather than technique. He made himself smaller by going for an outstretched split save.

I understand he is trying hard to extend himself across, but his overcommitment to the player with the puck is forcing him to make those type of save attempts, so when he has to slide over, that is his only option at that point. If he's less aggressive, he could shuffle across and stay square in his butterfly as opposed to laying flat on his belly.

The Kings D (particularly the backchecking forward) also constantly had problems picking up the trailing passing option. The Sharks constantly would bring the puck in deep then look for that trailing pass in the high slot or top of the circles. The D can't let those passes go through. I think the little support Quick had may also have resulted in his overaggressive play towards the puck carrier, leaving the trailer open for a quality shot at an open net.

DIEHARD the King fan 04-26-2011 05:16 PM

I have a different take on this than any poster yet.

I can talk about Quick's puck handling skills (or lack thereof)
or how once he's down and with lateral movement his glove seems less accurate than otherwise, or even how his agility and mobility caise him to over-commit at times, . . .

But please, Please, PLEASE tell me that our organ-eye-za-shun went the extra mile as well and obtained a similar report on Niemi. I'd hate to think that our brain trust doesnt believe in the value of an independent analysis, or simply didnt even consider giving itself every advantage possible, right?

TonySCV 04-26-2011 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIEHARD the King fan (Post 32684081)
I have a different take on this than any poster yet.

I can talk about Quick's puck handling skills (or lack thereof)
or how once he's down and with lateral movement his glove seems less accurate than otherwise, or even how his agility and mobility caise him to over-commit at times, . . .

But please, Please, PLEASE tell me that our organ-eye-za-shun went the extra mile as well and obtained a similar report on Niemi. I'd hate to think that our brain trust doesnt believe in the value of an independent analysis, or simply didnt even consider giving itself every advantage possible, right?

I'd say the scoreboard results speak for themselves yes?

This is the same Kings team that was struggling to score one goal per game after Kopitar went down, yet they had no problem lighting Niemi up like a Christmas tree.

The Kings scored the same number of goals as the Sharks did this series. That should tell you all you need to know about whether or not the Kings coaching staff did their homework on Niemi... and whether the Sharks have a prayer in Round 2 (they don't - not with Niemi in net).

A related article: http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puc...urn=nhl-wp3516

Muzzinga 04-26-2011 05:36 PM

When you are a team playing against Quick, i dont think you can have any set tactic. This year he improved on his positioning and angles and now has no weakness a team can really exploit (except puck handling). His only weakness is himself in that he just lapses in concentration at times and lets in those silly goals. He has the crazy athleticism to his advantage. At the start of the year, i thought Bernier would take over from Quick, but Quick improved hugely from last year, and i now think Quick will be the better goalie of the 2 in the future

Zad 04-26-2011 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIEHARD the King fan (Post 32684081)
I have a different take on this than any poster yet.

I can talk about Quick's puck handling skills (or lack thereof)
or how once he's down and with lateral movement his glove seems less accurate than otherwise, or even how his agility and mobility caise him to over-commit at times, . . .

But please, Please, PLEASE tell me that our organ-eye-za-shun went the extra mile as well and obtained a similar report on Niemi. I'd hate to think that our brain trust doesnt believe in the value of an independent analysis, or simply didnt even consider giving itself every advantage possible, right?

I think I saw that report. Wasn't it just a one liner that said, "He sucks"?

KingNick07 04-26-2011 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjmay (Post 32683080)
Effective does not equal good or even great.....gotta look up those words bud....

Yeah... But he's not "effective" at moving the puck either...

GaryLivingston 04-26-2011 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust (Post 32683883)
I think the biggest problem Quick had in handling those types of passes was that he was relying way too much on his agility and flexibility rather than technique. He made himself smaller by going for an outstretched split save.

I understand he is trying hard to extend himself across, but his overcommitment to the player with the puck is forcing him to make those type of save attempts, so when he has to slide over, that is his only option at that point. If he's less aggressive, he could shuffle across and stay square in his butterfly as opposed to laying flat on his belly.

The Kings D (particularly the backchecking forward) also constantly had problems picking up the trailing passing option. The Sharks constantly would bring the puck in deep then look for that trailing pass in the high slot or top of the circles. The D can't let those passes go through. I think the little support Quick had may also have resulted in his overaggressive play towards the puck carrier, leaving the trailer open for a quality shot at an open net.

The thing is, on a lot of those cross ice passes they are going short distances and you can't just "shuffle" across the crease in order to time it right and gain the angle to the puck from the shooter.

You can butterfly slide or power slide across the crease but I think even a more technical full butterfly goaltender is going to end up in desperation splits mode on most of those saves/save attempts because of the amount of energy needed to push in order to get there in time.

Most of those passes to Quick's back door weren't very soft and delayed. They were hard and accurate and the shooter had little hesitation (if any) putting them to the net.

I don't think Quick's wrong for committing to those save attempts. Honestly, that's what a goaltender is trained to do without hesitation. Commit to the shooter. It's the defense's responsibility to commit to the passing lanes and pass receiver's and shut them down.

If the goaltender is committed to the shooter and he manages to make a backdoor pass to a wide open team mate the goaltender is forced to commit 100% to the new shooter and do so without hesitation and with full aggression.

Sure, Quick might be able to clean up some of his technique to stay more compact and in full butterfly but, you can not criticize his commitment to a shooter. That's his job.

Also, when you are more aggressive and get close to the player you are cutting down the angle and able to be low and still get coverage of the net against a shooter. It works a lot of the time. It works most of the time actually. Think back at all the great saves Quick made this season and last making that move. Far more than went in because of it.

Quick also made LOTS of saves on those back door plays. But, it is impossible to make them all. Especially, given the number of chances the Sharks had to execute them.

GaryLivingston 04-26-2011 08:49 PM

And, that report is flawed in a huge way to say Quick is effective at moving the puck. That's his greatest weakness and a glaring one. Moving the puck is more than being able to stick handle. To me it includes the decisions you make while stick handling...who you pass to, how decisive you are in passing it, how accurate you are at making those passes, and if you aren't passing it how smart are you at clearing the puck while stick handling it.

I am confused how any scouting report would go into predictions for who they are scouting. How does that help the team reading the report?

Why would the Sharks care if Quick is on his way to being an elite goaltender? Just stick to right now. The future is meaningless to them.

The Butcher 04-26-2011 08:59 PM

Just because he makes occasional mental mistakes that lead to direct turnovers or goals does not mean that his actual puck handling skill level is low.

People, Quick ain't the problem and I don't find any humor in the thought of him winning a Vezina Trophy(s) in his career.

GaryLivingston 04-26-2011 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakingsdrummer (Post 32694727)
Just because he makes occasional mental mistakes that lead to direct turnovers or goals does not mean that his actual puck handling skill level is low.

People, Quick ain't the problem and I don't find any humor in the thought of him winning a Vezina Trophy(s) in his career.

I certainly think he will get nominated a couple times in his career if he keep progressing the way he has.

But, how could anyone think he is good at moving the puck? He rarely knows what to do with it while stick handling.

He never makes stretch passes to help break out. He rarely moves the puck along the boards to a team mate in a poised manner. He often times fumbles the puck. He often times hesitates while stick handling the puck to move it. He always looks uncomfortable and rushed and unsure of his actions while stick handling.

I am not saying he is a bad goalie. He is fantastic. But, that is a very obvious weak point in his game.

I hope he spends a lot of time in the off season working on his skills in that area. He'll improve in such a huge manner if he did and really not have any one weakness that stands out.

sjmay* 04-26-2011 10:29 PM

I think people are confusing the role that the goaltender has in moving the puck with the role the defense has with moving the puck and are completely underestimating the communication aspect between the goaltender and the defenseman.

90% of the time, moving the puck for the goaltender means stopping it behind the net, setting up the break out from there, or moving it quickly to a corner AWAY from the forechecker, Quick is excellent at that.

The remaining 10% is where everyone gets the idea he is poor at moving the puck, when he is required to use 2 hands on his stick, he is inept at that and needs to practice that, that does not mean he is not effective at moving the puck though.

GaryLivingston 04-26-2011 11:36 PM

Nah. He's pretty terrible at moving the puck away from forecheckers too.

And, any time he is behind the net...stopping up the puck and clearing it away from a forechecker he is using two hands on his stick. Most of the time he is doing so in a hectic manner.

And, yeah, he needs to have better communication with the D too. That's a problem that leads to miscues for sure. And, of course, that is a shared responsibility. But, he's not excellent at moving the puck at all.

If you want to talk about clearing rebounds and directing rebounds into safe areas, ok, he's great at that. But, not moving the puck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjmay (Post 32698410)
I think people are confusing the role that the goaltender has in moving the puck with the role the defense has with moving the puck and are completely underestimating the communication aspect between the goaltender and the defenseman.

90% of the time, moving the puck for the goaltender means stopping it behind the net, setting up the break out from there, or moving it quickly to a corner AWAY from the forechecker, Quick is excellent at that.

The remaining 10% is where everyone gets the idea he is poor at moving the puck, when he is required to use 2 hands on his stick, he is inept at that and needs to practice that, that does not mean he is not effective at moving the puck though.

p.s. STOPPING a puck is not MOVING a puck. Big difference between the two.

sjmay* 04-26-2011 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryLivingston (Post 32701318)
Nah. He's pretty terrible at moving the puck away from forecheckers too.

And, any time he is behind the net...stopping up the puck and clearing it away from a forechecker he is using two hands on his stick. Most of the time he is doing so in a hectic manner.

And, yeah, he needs to have better communication with the D too. That's a problem that leads to miscues for sure. And, of course, that is a shared responsibility. But, he's not excellent at moving the puck at all.

If you want to talk about clearing rebounds and directing rebounds into safe areas, ok, he's great at that. But, not moving the puck.



p.s. STOPPING a puck is not MOVING a puck. Big difference between the two.

Meh, disagree, and to be honest, I really don't notice when he moves the puck behind the net to the corner, without stickhandling, I am assuming that he does it like every other net minder, when he doesn't stick handle, it's short sweeps with the blocker.

As far as stopping the puck vs moving the puck, they are considered part of moving the puck, or puck handling for net minders.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:21 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.