HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Notices

Jonathan Quick's Game 3 Performance

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-20-2011, 01:16 PM
  #51
DryIslandBartender
KCCO
 
DryIslandBartender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
How can rebound control be a problem when none of the goals were scored off rebounds?
So giving up rebounds is perfectly ok in your eyes? Long as it doesn't lead to a goal right?


Rebound control doesn't give the other team the puck...it becomes a problem when your trying to get the puck out of the zone. It gives the other team more chances. You want to limit shots and one way to do that is you don't give up a rebound.

We're giving up way too many shots in this series. Unacceptable against a talented team like the Sharks, they will just take advantage of it.

DryIslandBartender is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 01:20 PM
  #52
DryIslandBartender
KCCO
 
DryIslandBartender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sw1tch View Post
its the 1 where the Kings are running around in circles in the defensive zone, and the puck comes to Boyle 15 feet out for a clear shot, which Quick moves out for, then Boyle makes a backdoor pass to Clowe. Quick was playing the shot since Boyle had a clean shot available to him. Nothing wrong there at all
You don't stack your pads on that goal...it was a pure panic move on Quick's part. He was doing a Kelly Hrudey impersonation at the wrong time there. How can you say that there was nothing wrong at all with that? Jesus H Christ.

DryIslandBartender is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 01:24 PM
  #53
Brad Doty
Moderator
Compliance Hero
 
Brad Doty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: I.E.
Country: United States
Posts: 10,128
vCash: 250
I just can't believe people are still responding to this dude's trollbait. He's been doing this since last year. No way to have a rational goalie discussion with this guy at the helm...Quick posts a shutout, he disappears. Quick lets ONE in, he's right on it.

Brad Doty is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 01:26 PM
  #54
Josh Deitell
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Josh Deitell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 3,209
vCash: 500
It's not so much the quantity of the shots as the quality.

It is never, ever a goalie's fault if a team scores on a cross-seam one timer from anywhere lower than the top of the circles. If he makes a save, it's fantastic, but it's unfair to expect that. Those passes should not go through.

On top of that, Pavelski's goal was a partial breakaway where he beat his man to a rolling puck which took a perfect trajectory glove side high on the shot and Setoguchi's OT winner was a piss poor backchecking effort by Penner and Zeus. Both guys were within a few feet of the pass and didn't get their sticks on it.

No goalie in the world can be depended on to make those saves. The Kings allowed almost the same amount of shots in the shutout but they were all low quality.

Josh Deitell is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 01:38 PM
  #55
Rabid Ranger
Imperiled Knight
 
Rabid Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: The Abyss
Country: United States
Posts: 19,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BerniernextRoy View Post
You don't stack your pads on that goal...it was a pure panic move on Quick's part. He was doing a Kelly Hrudey impersonation at the wrong time there. How can you say that there was nothing wrong at all with that? Jesus H Christ.
Gotta love armchair quarterbacking.....

Rabid Ranger is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 01:43 PM
  #56
DryIslandBartender
KCCO
 
DryIslandBartender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Deitell View Post
It's not so much the quantity of the shots as the quality.

It is never, ever a goalie's fault if a team scores on a cross-seam one timer from anywhere lower than the top of the circles. If he makes a save, it's fantastic, but it's unfair to expect that. Those passes should not go through.

On top of that, Pavelski's goal was a partial breakaway where he beat his man to a rolling puck which took a perfect trajectory glove side high on the shot and Setoguchi's OT winner was a piss poor backchecking effort by Penner and Zeus. Both guys were within a few feet of the pass and didn't get their sticks on it.

No goalie in the world can be depended on to make those saves. The Kings allowed almost the same amount of shots in the shutout but they were all low quality.
Actually, yes goalies are asked to make those saves. That's what separates the good ones from the great ones.

Welcome to the playoffs...where you can't just play good as a Goaltender. Its not going to get you very far, especially against the Sharks. This is the second time we've gotten absolutely lit up by them in less than a few weeks.

DryIslandBartender is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 01:44 PM
  #57
Fripp
Registered User
 
Fripp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 1,829
vCash: 500
Can I have back the 3 minutes I spent reading this?

Fripp is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 01:47 PM
  #58
SLang
Registered User
 
SLang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 3,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BerniernextRoy View Post
We're giving up way too many shots in this series. Unacceptable against a talented team like the Sharks, they will just take advantage of it.
Seems to me to be a contradiction. The Sharks ARE offensively talented. They ARE going to get their shots.

It's more about where we allow those shots to come from, and how we're controlling traffic/sticks in front of our GT, no matter what his name is. Game 2 was a great example of this.

SLang is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 02:17 PM
  #59
DryIslandBartender
KCCO
 
DryIslandBartender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLang View Post
Seems to me to be a contradiction. The Sharks ARE offensively talented. They ARE going to get their shots.

It's more about where we allow those shots to come from, and how we're controlling traffic/sticks in front of our GT, no matter what his name is. Game 2 was a great example of this.
Yes absolutely. They absolutely dominated play in our own zone, lack of rebound control contributed to that as well. If you want to ignore that aspect, that's fine.

I said in the PGT there were some major issues I had with the Kings during that meltdown, allowing that many high quality shots is one of them. Leadership and effort are just couple other things that stick out to me in game 3.

Bottom line is, we're down 2-1 and Quick has a couple games left here. We'll see what happens...

DryIslandBartender is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 02:32 PM
  #60
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BerniernextRoy View Post
I said in the PGT there were some major issues I had with the Kings during that meltdown, allowing that many high quality shots is one of them. Leadership and effort are just couple other things that stick out to me in game 3.
... I can't believe that you'd look at a game like last night's and say that "effort" was one of the issues. It was pretty clear to me that the team was TOO pumped up, TOO hyper, TOO excited - and it cost them their focus to a certain degree. The Sharks' offense accounted for the rest.

These are the playoffs. Players on every team are going to be giving 100% effort. That's not an issue. The teams that are mentally tougher and more focused are going to usually prevail. The Sharks have been there many times before, and the Kings have not. The Sharks didn't have anything to lose from the time they were down 4-0, and in a way, I think it took a lot of the pressure off. Nobody expected them to come back, not even themselves, and what it did was get them thinking about just finishing the game and avoiding embarrassment - just like the Kings were thinking the same thing back in 1982 and 2001. They were able to get on a roll, just by doing the little things correctly at first, then gaining confidence/momentum as they went along.

JT Dutch* is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 02:38 PM
  #61
Telos
Moderator
In Dean We Trust
 
Telos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Reno, Nv.
Country: United States
Posts: 26,163
vCash: 3578
Send a message via ICQ to Telos Send a message via AIM to Telos Send a message via MSN to Telos Send a message via Yahoo to Telos
In no way could this loss be laid at the feet of Quick. Several of those goals were unstoppable, and Niemi played far worse. While I don't believe the goaltending debate is answered between Quick and Bernier, we are still a long way away from solving this puzzle of a team, and this game only helps further ensure that we still have a long road ahead.

__________________

“Every good army needs a couple of criminals.” - Dean Lombardi
Telos is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 02:40 PM
  #62
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BerniernextRoy View Post
Yes absolutely. They absolutely dominated play in our own zone, lack of rebound control contributed to that as well. If you want to ignore that aspect, that's fine.

I said in the PGT there were some major issues I had with the Kings during that meltdown, allowing that many high quality shots is one of them. Leadership and effort are just couple other things that stick out to me in game 3.

Bottom line is, we're down 2-1 and Quick has a couple games left here. We'll see what happens...
You mean besides the 50 or so he will play next season?

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 02:46 PM
  #63
kingsfan77
Registered User
 
kingsfan77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 318
vCash: 500
I can not see putting blame for this game on Quick. To me it comes down to back break downs, very bad coaching and being a young team. If he made any save on those shots they would have been huge highlight reel saves. Those type of saves dont have all the time.

I place this one more on the coaching staff then Quick.

kingsfan77 is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 02:49 PM
  #64
Scottkmlps
Moderator
 
Scottkmlps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ladysmith, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,368
vCash: 500
Quick was not the problem AT ALL! The team in front of him, after going up 4-0, thought, "Hey we got this in the bag.". That is the reason they lost. They didn't learn a thing from last years playoffs.
Murray is also to blame. He should've called a timeout when it was 5-4. Get out of the period up a goal and play a tight defensive checking game in the 3rd. They had the Sharks down and out and eased up on the throttle. As soon as San Jose got that first goal, my thought was, "Oh ****, this isn't going to end well.".

Scottkmlps is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 02:49 PM
  #65
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
... This is from the "timeout" thread but I'll post it here, since I suppose this is the goalie thread and it's more appropriate here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
Somewhere in there, when the score was 5-3 or 5-4, Quick needed to make a game-saving save.

Great goalies can carry a team when asked - Quick had his chance to clean up behind some sloppy play in front of him and he couldn't do it.

After SJ scored a couple, Quick lost his edge - he played waaaay back in his crease and was flopping down everywhere at anytime. All which which helped SJ get a few more goals.
... You know, all I have heard up to this playoff series and up to last night's game has been "Quick this, Quick that, he's elite, he's one of the best in the league, he's great, he's a big game goalie, he's so mentally tough, etc. etc. etc."

There's a big difference between saying "he didn't give up any soft goals" and "he played great last night", and Quick did NOT play great. In this series, he's given up a soft goal in game 1 that, while it didn't prove to be the difference in the game, it certainly didn't help, he had a comparatively easy game 2, and an average game 3.

At no time has he shown me that he's THE GUY who is going to steal a playoff game or a playoff series or lead the team to the promised land, or even come close to that.

I think he should start game 4, because this is the playoffs. If this was the regular season, I'd definitely say that Bernier should get the next one, but playoff losses are obviously more difficult to get over and I don't want Quick as the chosen number one to be stewing about this game for more than a day. The Kings, for better or worse, have pinned their hopes on this guy. I didn't agree with the decision, but what's done is done.

JT Dutch* is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 02:55 PM
  #66
DryIslandBartender
KCCO
 
DryIslandBartender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... I can't believe that you'd look at a game like last night's and say that "effort" was one of the issues. It was pretty clear to me that the team was TOO pumped up, TOO hyper, TOO excited - and it cost them their focus to a certain degree. The Sharks' offense accounted for the rest.

These are the playoffs. Players on every team are going to be giving 100% effort. That's not an issue. The teams that are mentally tougher and more focused are going to usually prevail. The Sharks have been there many times before, and the Kings have not. The Sharks didn't have anything to lose from the time they were down 4-0, and in a way, I think it took a lot of the pressure off. Nobody expected them to come back, not even themselves, and what it did was get them thinking about just finishing the game and avoiding embarrassment - just like the Kings were thinking the same thing back in 1982 and 2001. They were able to get on a roll, just by doing the little things correctly at first, then gaining confidence/momentum as they went along.
There damn well was an effort issue. You don't play hard for 20 minutes and then coast in the next 20 minutes. Brown himself referenced taking periods off in his quotes. You cannot do that in the playoffs. This is not the regular season where you can just coast to a shoot out and win on some gimmicky shot. This team needs to learn how to win in regulation.

DryIslandBartender is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 02:59 PM
  #67
SC2008
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by two out of three* View Post
If you give up 5 goals in ONE period you are NOT the guy. I know everybody likes to slob on him (Quick), but if Bernier starts the game everybody is walking home a happy Kings fan.

But it's okay. "Quicks the guy."

Why?

"Because he is."
As a Sharks fan even this is laughable. Quick plays shutout hockey in 6 of his last 7 regulation period and you want to get rid of him.

As someone said earlier, Niemi is playing far worse than Quick. Expect to see Nittymaki in game 4.

SC2008 is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 03:01 PM
  #68
TonySCV
Moderator
One More Time
 
TonySCV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 12,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC2008 View Post
Expect to see Nittymaki in game 4.
That's a bummer for us. The Sharks certainly played better when Nittymaki was put in the net.

I'd be really surprised if he didn't go back to Niemi. They acquired him to ride him through the playoffs. When you switch to your backup for the duration of a series, that's basically waving the white flag on Niemi. I'm not sure the Sharks org is prepared to do that, or would even allow that.

TonySCV is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 03:03 PM
  #69
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BerniernextRoy View Post
There damn well was an effort issue. You don't play hard for 20 minutes and then coast in the next 20 minutes. Brown himself referenced taking periods off in his quotes. You cannot do that in the playoffs. This is not the regular season where you can just coast to a shoot out and win on some gimmicky shot. This team needs to learn how to win in regulation.
Sorry but JT is right, the effort was there (except from Penner).

In the second the Kings started playing the sharks game (high flying, run and game, a speed game), that doesn't suit us at all. What Brown means by taking periods off he means taking periods off from the system, which is different than trying hard, ie: effort. Effort was there, focus was not.

JDM is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 03:04 PM
  #70
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BerniernextRoy View Post
There damn well was an effort issue. You don't play hard for 20 minutes and then coast in the next 20 minutes.
... If they coasted, I didn't see it. Their execution was lacking, not their effort. They had a terrible second period because of their lack of execution and their lack of focus. They had an OK third period; they seemed to get some of their defensive awareness back, and they created some good chances at the other end. In OT, they just got beat, very much like the first game of the series. I don't consider the OT goal part of the breakdown at all. The breakdown was the second period.

JT Dutch* is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 03:07 PM
  #71
Since 1967
 
Since 1967's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 24
vCash: 500
During last nights game Quick was one of the only players that DIDN'T f-up. I can't believe there are people so retarded in the world as to believe that any goal last night was the fault of JQ, and not the D.

Unbelievable...

Since 1967 is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 03:08 PM
  #72
Since 1967
 
Since 1967's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 24
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC2008 View Post
As a Sharks fan even this is laughable. Quick plays shutout hockey in 6 of his last 7 regulation period and you want to get rid of him.

As someone said earlier, Niemi is playing far worse than Quick. Expect to see Nittymaki in game 4.
Exactly.

Since 1967 is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 03:08 PM
  #73
DryIslandBartender
KCCO
 
DryIslandBartender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... This is from the "timeout" thread but I'll post it here, since I suppose this is the goalie thread and it's more appropriate here.



... You know, all I have heard up to this playoff series and up to last night's game has been "Quick this, Quick that, he's elite, he's one of the best in the league, he's great, he's a big game goalie, he's so mentally tough, etc. etc. etc."

There's a big difference between saying "he didn't give up any soft goals" and "he played great last night", and Quick did NOT play great. In this series, he's given up a soft goal in game 1 that, while it didn't prove to be the difference in the game, it certainly didn't help, he had a comparatively easy game 2, and an average game 3.

At no time has he shown me that he's THE GUY who is going to steal a playoff game or a playoff series or lead the team to the promised land, or even come close to that.

I think he should start game 4, because this is the playoffs. If this was the regular season, I'd definitely say that Bernier should get the next one, but playoff losses are obviously more difficult to get over and I don't want Quick as the chosen number one to be stewing about this game for more than a day. The Kings, for better or worse, have pinned their hopes on this guy. I didn't agree with the decision, but what's done is done.
I understand where you are coming from, but I have to say the reason why Quick is starting is because this is his time to shine. Make no mistake, management is evaluating this team during the playoffs because this is where your flaws get exposed.

We've corrected some problems from the last playoff appearance, we've dumped Randy Jones, added Mitchell. Gave Quick more rest through this season. We still got some games left, so we'll just have to see where that takes us.

DryIslandBartender is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 03:16 PM
  #74
DryIslandBartender
KCCO
 
DryIslandBartender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
Sorry but JT is right, the effort was there (except from Penner).

In the second the Kings started playing the sharks game (high flying, run and game, a speed game), that doesn't suit us at all. What Brown means by taking periods off he means taking periods off from the system, which is different than trying hard, ie: effort. Effort was there, focus was not.
So you think the Kings kept their foot on the gas in the second period? You don't think they let up a little?

DryIslandBartender is offline  
Old
04-20-2011, 03:17 PM
  #75
DryIslandBartender
KCCO
 
DryIslandBartender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
You mean besides the 50 or so he will play next season?
Depends.

DryIslandBartender is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:50 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.