View Single Post
10-02-2010, 11:52 AM
Registered User
Chimp's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my food garden.
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,693
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by ThirdEye View Post
I get the sarcasm (haha), but I think some of you guys have taken it to the other end of the extreme. On all of the goals yesterday the player had beaten one of our defenders or was untouched. Also, all the goals were scored right in front of the net. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be thrilled if that's the kind of defense these guys are going to play on a regular basis this season.

[B]I consider soft goals shots from the points that aren't deflected, shots behind defenders, shots from odd angles and stuff like that. I thought he was hung out to dry a bit yesterday[B]
The highlighted part often baffles me. People throw the word "softie" around way too much. It's a given most things are either white or black - especially in New York - and I know the excectations on Hank to carry the team are as high as his salary and his own expectations, but there's a limit how much a guy can do to patch a broken defense on any given night.

While discussing semantics, what do people consider a "softie"? I agree with ThirdEye on his view, which shouldn't come as a surprise (I don't think we've ever disagreed on anything), but just because our star goalie doesn't play lights out, it doesn't mean he had a weak game.

Lundqvist wasn't bad, he wasn't lights out (which always requires a bit of luck with the randomness of a puck on bad ice), he just did what you can expect. Sure, he could have saved one goal or so with an incredible save, but in situations like yesterday, it's also up to the dice.

Chimp is offline   Reply With Quote