Thread: Proposal: St. Louis-Philadelphia-Buffalo
View Single Post
Old
11-04-2013, 04:47 PM
  #79
RomersWorld*
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteenMachine View Post
If the Blues had scored on the powerplay at all in those series Quick wouldn't have "been the better goalie" would he. Holy **** you have the laziest logic ever. Blues didn't score - Quick did it! Kings scored barely 1 more goal per game in some of their wins - Elliott's fault every time! Quick even had some of the softest goals of the entire playoffs WHEN THEY WON IN 17 GAMES! No it wasn't goaltending, that's like saying Crawford is some how better than Niemi because he's won more recently on the exact same team as Niemi. Maybe just maybe, the goalies are more interchangeable than the top end talent who have scored all of your key game winning goals, closed out series single-handedly, and shut down some of the best forwards in the league.
So the Blues lost because they couldn't score more than 2 goals per game but then you say that the Kings scored barely 1 more goal per game in some of their wins. So which is it? Is it impossible to win scoring 2 goals per game or is it possible when you have Quick? Do the Kings score even less with a better goalie than Elliot in net? I think so.

No, it isn't like saying Crawford is some how better than Niemi because he's won more recently on the exact same team as Niemi. That is something you said and it doesn't really make sense at all.

And BTW, Crawford is better than Niemi ever was as a Blackhawk. And the same exact team?

Byfuglien-Toews-Kane
Brouwer-Sharp-Hossa
Versteeg-Bolland-Ladd
Kopecky-Madden-Eager

Keith-Seabrook
Campbell-Hjalmarsson
Sopel-Hendry

is the exact same as

Bickell-Toews-Kane
Sharp-Handzus-Hossa
Saad-Shaw-Stalberg
Bolland-Kruger-Frolik

??

The Kings won the Cup scoring 2.6 goals per game(non-empty net). Is is so inconceivable that if the Blues got past the Kings they would've scored more goals? Or is their offense completely inept and unable to produce at all during the playoffs no matter what? That is good new to hear if true.

Game 1: 2-1 OT Blues
Game 2: 2-1 Blues
Game 3: 1-0 Kings
Game 4: 4-3 Kings
Game 5: 3-2 OT Kings
Game 6: 2-1 Kings

Game 4. Blues scored 3 goals but Elliot gave up 4. Look at how close all of these games were. With a better goaltender, the Blues might have gotten out of this series. The Kings scored 2 goals per game and won the series. I was lead to believe that was impossible, but here we have proof it is in fact possible.

J. Quick: .944 SV%
B. Elliot: .919 SV%

That was the difference. The Kings goaltending was the difference in the series and the reason the Blues went home in the 1st round.

The year before:
J. Quick: 28/29, 27/29, 18/20, 23/24 = 96/102 = 0.941 SV%
B. Elliot: 26/28, 16/21, 18/22, 16/18 = 76/89 = 0.854 SV%

Well, lets see if Elliot gets a 3rd shot at it.

Some teams can overcome having their goalie outplayed but the Blues aren't one of them. The Blues aren't the Blackhawks or the Red Wings of old, they simply aren't as talented. Just because the Hawks won with Niemi and Crawford doesn't mean the Blues can do the same. They won't win with interchangable type goalies. Thus you see a 1st and 2nd round exit when they go against the Kings. If they have a goaltender capable of stealing a series like a Halak or Ryan Miller do they fare better? Maybe, maybe not. But I know how they fared with Elliot.

RomersWorld* is offline   Reply With Quote