So when he wins, it's all credit to him. When he loses, it's because of his teammates
And you seem to be adopting the exact same extreme stance, only from the opposite side of the fence: when the team wins, it's because the team bailed out Henrik; when they lose, it's because Henrik sucked. You're being just as absurd as the people you're laughing at.
I think Henrik has more talent than Richter overall. But I'm judging Richter based on his entire career, whereas with Henrik I only have a few seasons to go on. Right now, I'll say Richter. When all is said and done, I think it will probably be Henrik.
only if Henrik wins a cup...which he won't as long as Sather is at the helm.
He's played well enough for the first 4+ years that when he does let in a soft looking goal, I'm waiting for the re-play to determine who really is at fault..
Lundqvist gives up at least one to two soft, weak, pathetically lame goals per game.
Lundqvist gives up at least one to two soft, weak, pathetically lame goals per game.
It's rare when he doesn't.
If that were true, and he cut those goals out, he'd have a GAA between 0.40 and 1.40. Which would be absolutely inhuman. So I'm gonna go with you're grossly exaggerating things.
Lundqvist gives up at least one to two soft, weak, pathetically lame goals per game.
It's rare when he doesn't.
Please stop. I'm embarrassed that you and I voted the same way on this poll.
Also, can people please stop citing the amount of wins that Henrik has? The Rangers have 50 shootout wins since the lockout. That's 50 games that would have ended in ties during Richter's era. Comparing goalies by looking at wins was stupid even before the shootout era. Now, it's beyond idiotic.
You either have some sort of personal vendetta against Lundqvist, or you just really dont understand whats been happening the last 4+ seasons. I havent decided which yet.
Probably a bit of both.
One man's garbage, is another man's treasure.
Some people know garbage when they see it. Other's like to make excuses and claim it's not that it's garbage, it just that it's been thrown into a pile with other garbage.
But the stink rises from all of the individual pieces of trash in the pile.
Some people know garbage when they see it. Other's like to make excuses and claim it's not that it's garbage, it just that it's been thrown into a pile with other garbage.
But the stink rises from all of the individual pieces of trash in the pile.
Thats how i feel about it, but just think what that 94 team would be with a prime Hank in net.
Same results?
Maybe, maybe not.
Richter was a backbone member of that team, it's not like he was Chris Osgood on a great Detroit team.
There's simply no way to answer that question.
The challenge is that the further we get from 1994, the less likely we are to find posters who actually remember it. Or remember it through older eyes.
If the average poster on these boards is 21 years old, they would've been about 6 years in 1994. Their memories of Richter are the last few injury-filled years playing on sinking ships.
If you look at the last 25 years, you pretty much have Beezer, Richter and Lundqvist.
Beezer won more than 300 games in his career and a Vezina, but no cup.
Richter won more than 300 games, won a cup, a world cup, was nominated but never won a Vezina.
Lundqvist is about 150 wins at this point, no cup, but an Olympic Gold medal and a few Vezina nominations.
If that were true, and he cut those goals out, he'd have a GAA between 0.40 and 1.40. Which would be absolutely inhuman. So I'm gonna go with you're grossly exaggerating things.
You can go with whatever the hell you want. It's my opinion and I know I'm right.
Richter. Not entire career, though. Just a few seasons in early 90ies. Lundqvist may end up being better goalie, but I'd stand by my choice for the simple reason: better glove.
You can go with whatever the hell you want. It's my opinion and I know I'm right.
Don't need your approval.
You sound like a politician. I wont bother backing up my opinions with any form of evidence, empirical or otherwise, instead I will assume it is absolutely and completely true because, after all, I am the best hockey analyst out there.
And you seem to be adopting the exact same extreme stance, only from the opposite side of the fence: when the team wins, it's because the team bailed out Henrik; when they lose, it's because Henrik sucked. You're being just as absurd as the people you're laughing at.
You sound like a politician. I wont bother backing up my opinions with any form of evidence, empirical or otherwise, instead I will assume it is absolutely and completely true because, after all, I am the best hockey analyst out there.
BRB said it was pathetic analysis. I think you should with that one. You'll fit right in there.
Really? I'd say it's just you contradicting yourself since you have zero evidence to support your position, despite the fact that you know you're right.
I grew up watching the Rangers and saw Richter and Lundqvist and I gotta say that I think Lundqvist is better and will have a better career. Unfortunately for me, as a Flyers fan, I think Lundqvist is the best goalie in the league (or at least top three). Without him the Rangers are pretty screwed.
Gotta look at the era. Richter was in an era where the "birth" of the butterfly style goaltending was coming around. Lundqvist pretty much grew up in it. There may be a greater emphasis on goaltenders now, but Richter stood out in an era where goalies often didn't, and was easily the most dominant goaltender in the league when he was on.
Richter, in my eyes, wasnt really big enough to play the butterfly effectively. He needed to play standup because it was the only position where he filled more than a quarter of the net at any given time.
Gotta look at the era. Richter was in an era where the "birth" of the butterfly style goaltending was coming around. Lundqvist pretty much grew up in it. There may be a greater emphasis on goaltenders now, but Richter stood out in an era where goalies often didn't, and was easily the most dominant goaltender in the league when he was one.
Richter all the way for me.
Good points, and I agree. That said, I have a gut feeling that when all is said and done, Henrik Lundqvist will have the more impressive career.
It's tough though, since I'm not sure if I'm voting based on who is more talented, who I would want in a big game, or who will have the better career. For those respective categories, I'd go: Lundqvist, Richter, Lunqvist (eventually).
Really? I'd say it's just you contradicting yourself since you have zero evidence to support your position, despite the fact that you know you're right.
You're free to say and think what you wish. Doesn't make you right, though.
Unlike most Rangers fans on these boards, I actually watch the games and understand what I'm seeing.
Which ultimately plays a much larger role than scouring the internet for stats and watching a few isolated highlights.
Richter, in my eyes, wasnt really big enough to play the butterfly effectively. He needed to play standup because it was the only position where he filled more than a quarter of the net at any given time.
Richter was not ever a Butterfly style goaltender. Has nothing to do with his size.
Richter was always a positional standup goalie, with excepetional athleticism, vision, anticipation and reactionary instincts.
The Butterfly style was designed more for goaltenders who are that athletic or quick in their reactions. Goaltenders who typically lack thiose attributes as well as lacking good vision/anticipation of the puck and play.
The Butterfly style is supposedly more of a "safe" style, for goaltenders who lack some of the natural athletic attributes required to play a standup, positionally and instinctually strong game. That is the foundation of the Butterfly Style.
