Thread: Speculation: More Luongo Talk
View Single Post
12-28-2012, 09:20 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gloversville, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,542
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Kesler is Bestler View Post
The fact that Luongo gave up 8 goals has more to do with him specifically asking AV not to pull him. And the entire argument that "good goalies dont give up 8 goals" is silly because even Roy gave up 9 goals once (ironically in the same circumstance but in his case it was the coach refusing to pull him)
So Roy didn't have a terrible game when he had 9 goals? Where did you get me saying "good goalies don't give up 8 goals" or ANYTHING of the sort? He was bad THAT SERIES.

Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
That's kind of a simple minded way of thinking isn't it? Blame one person because its easier than putting the blame on those actually responsible?
Not because it's easier, because it makes more sense and is much more likely. This isn't just a hockey thing, that logic applies to EVERYTHING. What's more likely, that you win the lottery, or that you and all of your friends win the lottery 2 days in a row, then miss the next day, then win the next day? What's more likely, that Team X doesn't get the 1st overall pick next draft, then gets is the year after, or that Team A gets the 1st overall pick, Team B gets the 2nd, and Team B gets the 3rd, then none of them get top 3 the next year?

Mathematically speaking, it's much more likely for one variable to occur than several.

How about this...since the lockout season, no team has scored fewer goals per game (GPG) than Vancouver in the fact despite Vancouver vs. Boston going 7 games, no team has actually scored fewer goals in total than Vancouver in the SCF since the lockout.

Only one winner has ever finished withing 1.6 GPG of Vancouver (and they were still scoring at a 0.9 GPG pace higher than Vancouver). In short, Vancouver didn't come even close to scoring enough goals to win a series.
You apparently completely missed me saying:
Maybe any other goalie wouldn't have changed a loss to a win, but I would think they could've made it less of a complete embarrassment.
My point is Luongo, at best, was rather inconsistent in his play. He was bad in at least 2 games, and you could say 3. Meanwhile, he was great in 2 others. To be on opposite extremes of play quality is inconsistent. Yes, ok, maybe his team was flip-floppy too that series. But to deny that while, maybe not all, a solid chunk of it is Luongo's fault, is ludicrous.

kdfsjljklgjfg is offline