View Single Post
Old
02-24-2007, 10:36 PM
  #24
Chimp
Registered User
 
Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my food garden.
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,517
vCash: 500
I was just waiting for this kind of thread. This just proves how much some of you people know about goaltending, which in this case seems to be zero, zip and none.

Lundqvist plays a butterfly stance, which has it's pros and cons. If you want a goaltender that stands up, you will have to look hard, since there are hardly none left in the entire league. The butterfly is simple more effective. Heck, not even a standing goalie will have it easy when the puck is roofed with a laser, don't kid yourself.

If you had a goalie playing the standup style, you would whine yourself to death over all easy five holes and low shots that get in (which statistically are where most of the shots go, it's certainly not in the top corners).

Ask a friend to throw a tennisball at you just over your shoulder and see how easy it is to catch it. Now try it with goalie equipment on. If you get a hard shot just over the shoulder on any goaltender, it's a guaranteed goal in any sport.

If you try to blame this loss on Lundqvist, just as you try to blame him for each and every other loss this team has had out there... your're simply incredible.

There are soft goals for a goalie and there were none in this game against Columbus. You could ask Chimera to try to get off that kind of good shot on 20-30 attempts and I bet he wouldn't be able to make it happen again. Nash also got an incredible shot away.


Last edited by Chimp: 02-24-2007 at 10:43 PM.
Chimp is offline   Reply With Quote