View Single Post
Old
01-12-2011, 11:24 AM
  #1047
Janerixon
Registered User
 
Janerixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimp View Post
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.
Chimp
I know you probably know way more about the intricacies of goaltending, as it seems you have a pretty extensive goaltending background. My problem with the goal was that Lundqvist was not hugging the post. He has done this before. He has a tendency to make amazing saves, and fail to stop shots that are not only possible but if he was in proper position easy to save.

If he was hugging the post, from the angle where the shot was taken not only would he have stopped the puck but most likely the puck would have dropped right in front of him for an easy stop as it was a high shot and would have been deadened by his arm/chest protector making the save. By dropping so low he cuts down the chance for the puck to slip through his legs, but gives up the top of the net, where any intelligent shooter knows is the best place to beat lundqvist.

I think Lundqvist is an elite goalie, I know he drops early to take away the bottom of the net, but from a bad angle like that (where the puck has to be shot high and perfectly under the crossbar to get in) he should be hugging the post.

I do appreciate Hank's consistency. He is extremely consistent and gives this team a chance to compete most nights. My problem's with his goaltending are very minimal. He needs to hug the post on bad angle shots as it has beat him twice, and one time he swiped at one with his glove when it was going wide and knocked it in the net from a bad angle. Other than his softie goals, there are no complaints about him. I am not calling for him to be benched. I do not blame him for our terrible PP or lack of effort last night. If there was another goalie in net who knows what the score would have been, but it was Henrik and I know he is a top 5 goalie in the world, that is a very stoppable shot.

as far as your complaints about the PP, i agree that it needs to improve but I think there are some steps being put in place to fix that.

First we acquired Wolski to add some more goal scoring ability. We have 2 units capable of PP goals wolski-anisimov-gaborik, fedotenko/drury-dubinsky-mza, with staal-stepan, gilroy-girardi on the points
second we get callahan back in a couple of weeks to go onto that 2nd PP which finally gives us a player who will stand in front of the net to screen a goalie and score a garbage goal so we have to wait on that
third michael del zotto is finally in hartford working on getting his game, he was excellent at times last season running the powerplay, he disappeared this season and letting him get his game back may help us this year, if not maybe next

The only big changes I would like to see to our PP would be
1) Boyle - the dude is a monster, he can score and can stand in front of the net, why is he not getting time? this is a no brainer to me
2) our defensemen on the PP need to be in sync with the forwards, too many time gilroy, girardi, etc dump the puck in and no one is chasing it. this is unacceptable, either we are dumping and chasing or we are carrying the puck in the zone, this needs to be determined, whats the point of dumping the puck in when everyone is standing still at the blue line to have the opposing team get it and clear the zone?
3) I think Stepan is better down low on the PP then at the point, and even as sam (who barely can see a thing these days) pointed out Stepan has been having a rough go on the point as of late, it's time he is moved back up and we give Sauer or Eminger some PP time for now

Janerixon is offline