View Single Post
Old
01-12-2011, 03:40 AM
  #1031
Chimp
Registered User
 
Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my food garden.
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janerixon View Post
This says it all. So because Hank made 36 other saves we should give him a pass? It was a costly error, lets hope he doesn't make it for a 3rd time.

I am not calling for his head, but it sucks is all. I can't understand why this team can't get past a 3 game win streak.
Of course Hank will say he should have stopped it. I don't think I've ever heard him say he accepts a goal he theoretically could have saved if you ask him, it's kind of part of his winning mentality. Lundqvist is even harder on himself than some of you guys in here, and that says alot. I say that save stays in theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janerixon View Post
This game could have easily been 1-1 going to overtime. Hank let in a softie, there is no excuse for that. Doesn't matter the Habs outplayed us the second half of the game, the 2nd goal was preventable and cost us a point. It's great he made 36 other saves, he should have made one more really easy save.

If we are in the playoffs and lost this game on that goal people would be screaming bloody murder. If you want to argue that than you are the one who is delusional. This game along with the blue jackets game and the loss early in the season to the islanders will stick in my mind if we start to falter as games we should have collected a point or more from.
This is not only directed towards you.

Did we watch the same goal? That you write this goal off as an easy save says ALOT. At what stage does the actual shot come into the equation of the save? Or does the angle single handedly make the shot an easy save in your book? What kind of logic is that? A roofed shot is a roofed shot, from a smaller angle, such a shot is obviously even more ridiculous to pull off. You think Carolina fans roasted Ward when Zuccarello scored on him? Those I saw praised Zuccarello. We roast Hank at best. When do you actually stop blaming the goalie and praise the opposing goalscorer in here? Let me guess? NEVER (apart from the humble outliers in this thread who actually admit it was a laser of a shot)?

He was square to the shooter. He had basically 97.5+% of the net covered from creating a wall, so that he wouldn't allow the real softie you're crying about. He was basically a knight in full armour, daring a shooter to hit the narrow opening for his eyes in his helmet and still have a theoretical chance to save it. He has a fraction of a second to react to the shot. He raised his shoulder, but a shot that goes just over a shoulder is incredibly hard to stop, it's a dead zone for a goalie. I speak from experience. Do you? I hardly think so.

Sure, he could have stood up and tried to make a reaction save on the shot instead of creating a wall, opening up a much bigger chance for the softie 5 hole or underneath the arms, which are much easier shots to pull off and what shooters usually are aiming for from that angle. But come on. That shot was ridiculous (I wonder how many shots Pouliot would require to score from that angle again) and I do count in freaks of nature into the equation if a goal was a softie or not. You obviously don't. If you hit the water bottle from relatively short distance, regardless of angle, chances are you will score a goal on basically every goaltender in the league, regardless of the name on the back. Because covering every inch underneatch the crossbar would make you look really dumb and really hurt your GAA. Not one single goalie has made it into NHL from having the "stop all freak of natures" approach for a reason. Modern goalies play the numbers for a reason.

If this was a softie, you basically claim Hank cannot allow any goal from not saving the first shot. That gets me to the point that you don't appreciate the position of goaltending from lack of understanding and is spoiled as hell to have the elite consistency (yes, that quality that some of you with tunnel vision in here are dead sure Hank doesn't have) that Hank gives this team. If you compare Lundqvist to all the other goalies in the league, which again the tunnel visioners don't seem to do, it becomes pretty evident Hank is the most consistent and durable goaltender, at such a high level, in the league at this stage in his career. That's (probably) why Hasek considers him the best in the world, because he understands the importance of consistency over a career and didn't pick the right now choice in Miller like every other HFer. Or Thomas now. I take the goalie that is always up there, thank you.

Every other elite goalie in the league have had substantial off years in their career. The season some in here consider an off-year for Hank (I don't), was still an incredibly high goalie standard that most goalies would dream to have as their best year. That's consistency. If you allow 38 shots and score 1 goal yourself, chances are you will not win many hockey games. If you allow 38 shots on net, chances increase that the opposition will score on the freak of nature shot of a goal. It's not that hard to understand.

You mention the playoffs. Until this team can produce a PP worthy of the name, we have no business in a playoff. Absolutely no business at all. There is a limit how many goals you can score against strong teams at even strength and shorthanded. A solid PP wins close games, our pathetic PP just lose games. Enough said. You claim it was a softie, I claim your opinion is based on nothing but emotional frustration and a simplified write off as to why NYR lost this game. Don't even get me started on why you compare this goal to other goals (Columbus & Islanders), because they aren't comparable.


Last edited by Chimp: 01-12-2011 at 05:14 AM.
Chimp is offline