Do you think we could have won the cup in 2011 with the Dallas/Anaheim Luongo in goal? I honestly do. Maybe even 2010 too. Something has happened to him since then. I don't know whether it's got something to do with the defense or if Luongo peaked back then or what. Both theories have massive holes in them. He's also pretty damn good in the regular season but seems very fragile in the playoffs when the big money is on the table. He's not always crap and he's not always brilliant, but he's consistently inconsistent.
They may have won, but it probably would have been contingent on Luongo getting 3 shutouts in his 4 wins because with the way the Canucks were scoring, I don't really see any other way.
Not to mention, 2007 Luongo had a more solid defense playing in front of him as Mitchell, Ohlund, Salo, Bieksa, and Sopel played pretty much every single playoff game that year. Compare that to who's been manning the defense at the end of their recent playoff runs. This past year saw Bieksa (injured leg), Salo, Edler (broken fingers), Ehrhoff (separated shoulder), Tanev, and Alberts. Last year by the end they had Bieksa, Ehrhoff, O'Brien, Salo (on one testicle), and Alberts.
I just don't see how a straight across comparison makes sense when Luongo was playing behind a healthy defense first team one year and a patchwork of barely healthy guys in the last few. And that's why 08-09 was so disappointing, because the team was mostly healthy and was scoring well and he blew it. Luongo deserves pretty much any criticism he gets for that year. Since then though, I don't see him as being the primary culprit in the teams' playoff losses.
Quote:
I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here or even suggest that anyone who supports him unconditionally is wrong. I'm just saying that a few years of highly inconsistent playoff play is enough to give me doubts. I don't like it, but those doubts are there. And there's nothing more I'd love than for Luongo to make me look like a fool.
I think most reasonable people have doubts about Luongo's ability. Obviously he hasn't performed up to snuff in some key moments and has lost that aura of invincibility that he used to have (an aura that was always unrealistic, IMO). However, I think the team itself has a lot of question marks but most people are focusing only on goaltending. I'm still not 100% convinced that the Sedins can come out on top while playing a Norris caliber defenseman, or that Kesler can stay healthy and effective through a playoff run, or that Vigneault can consistently get the better of his opposition and I think all those guys have things to prove. I believe in them all because I think they're good enough to win, but they all have spotty playoff records just as Luongo does. But for some reason Luongo is the lightning rod. I guess part of it is just the nature of the position, but I see other goalies going through similar struggles that get far, far less attention (Bryzgalov, Lundqvist, Miller, Rinne, etc. have all had some awful moments in the playoffs).
They may have won, but it probably would have been contingent on Luongo getting 3 shutouts in his 4 wins because with the way the Canucks were scoring, I don't really see any other way.
Not to mention, 2007 Luongo had a more solid defense playing in front of him as Mitchell, Ohlund, Salo, Bieksa, and Sopel played pretty much every single playoff game that year. Compare that to who's been manning the defense at the end of their recent playoff runs. This past year saw Bieksa (injured leg), Salo, Edler (broken fingers), Ehrhoff (separated shoulder), Tanev, and Alberts. Last year by the end they had Bieksa, Ehrhoff, O'Brien, Salo (on one testicle), and Alberts.
I just don't see how a straight across comparison makes sense when Luongo was playing behind a healthy defense first team one year and a patchwork of barely healthy guys in the last few. And that's why 08-09 was so disappointing, because the team was mostly healthy and was scoring well and he blew it. Luongo deserves pretty much any criticism he gets for that year. Since then though, I don't see him as being the primary culprit in the teams' playoff losses.
I think most reasonable people have doubts about Luongo's ability. Obviously he hasn't performed up to snuff in some key moments and has lost that aura of invincibility that he used to have (an aura that was always unrealistic, IMO). However, I think the team itself has a lot of question marks but most people are focusing only on goaltending. I'm still not 100% convinced that the Sedins can come out on top while playing a Norris caliber defenseman, or that Kesler can stay healthy and effective through a playoff run, or that Vigneault can consistently get the better of his opposition and I think all those guys have things to prove. I believe in them all because I think they're good enough to win, but they all have spotty playoff records just as Luongo does. But for some reason Luongo is the lightning rod. I guess part of it is just the nature of the position, but I see other goalies going through similar struggles that get far, far less attention (Bryzgalov, Lundqvist, Miller, Rinne, etc. have all had some awful moments in the playoffs).
I'd say the Sedin's get just as much flakk for their playoff performances as Luongo gets for his. AV gets a ton of criticism as well.
Got nothing really to argue about there - and i agree with this.
I'm still not 100% convinced that the Sedins can come out on top while playing a Norris caliber defenseman, or that Kesler can stay healthy and effective through a playoff run, or that Vigneault can consistently get the better of his opposition and I think all those guys have things to prove. I believe in them all because I think they're good enough to win, but they all have spotty playoff records just as Luongo does.
But for me, my biggest concern going into our next playoffs will still be Luongo - even if he has another Vezina calibre regular season.
Canucks were the best team in the league last year without question. They were unhealthy enough in the playoffs to mitigate that fact and they lost. Considering how over-matched they were in the finals, I think it's commendable that they fought and clawed to get it to a game 7 (Luongo included).
People are simply unwilling to accept "bad luck" as a reason for losing. It doesn't neatly fit the sports narratives we're taught to believe in and look for, so people ignore it. Could the Canucks have overcome it and won? Sure. But they would have needed a couple lucky goals for that to happen -- sort of like the ones Nashville got in the second round. They didn't get any of those momentum changing moments in the back half of the series and they lost. It happens.
Canucks were the best team in the league last year without question. They were unhealthy enough in the playoffs to mitigate that fact and they lost. Considering how over-matched they were in the finals, I think it's commendable that they fought and clawed to get it to a game 7 (Luongo included).
People are simply unwilling to accept "bad luck" as a reason for losing. It doesn't neatly fit the sports narratives we're taught to believe in and look for, so people ignore it. Could the Canucks have overcome it and won? Sure. But they would have needed a couple lucky goals for that to happen -- sort of like the ones Nashville got in the second round. They didn't get any of those momentum changing moments in the back half of the series and they lost. It happens.
Its so true. Last season's run to the Finals had its share of luck & fit what most Hollywood sports movies have shown.
-He beat our enemies in Game 7, OT no less.
-A player becomes unstoppable.
-We get a HUGE break on Bieksa's Game 5 OT goal. It also happened to be the anniversary of the last time we went to the Finals.
-Play the Big Bad Bruins, we don't have luck & we lose.
Could you imagine if we did have some luck that swayed momentum our way in Game 7 to win our 1st Cup & on home ice? Its a Disney movie in front of our eyes
Canucks were the best team in the league last year without question. They were unhealthy enough in the playoffs to mitigate that fact and they lost. Considering how over-matched they were in the finals, I think it's commendable that they fought and clawed to get it to a game 7 (Luongo included).
People are simply unwilling to accept "bad luck" as a reason for losing. It doesn't neatly fit the sports narratives we're taught to believe in and look for, so people ignore it. Could the Canucks have overcome it and won? Sure. But they would have needed a couple lucky goals for that to happen -- sort of like the ones Nashville got in the second round. They didn't get any of those momentum changing moments in the back half of the series and they lost. It happens.
^^^THIS. So this.
It just blows me away what people expect out of Luongo. He could go 16-0 in the playoffs with 16 shutouts and everyone would hate him because he'd get cocky or something. He's the best goalie the Canucks have ever had and all everyone wants to do is **** all over the guy. Oh, he choked in the finals? Show me one Canuck who didn't this year. The team was too beat up, and just didn't have enough left in the tank, period.
We scored 8 goals in the finals and yet people actually want to believe Luongo is a problem??
If anything the question has to be who's going to step up and provide us with that secondary offence.
It's hilarious that people fail to understand how **** our offence was during the playoffs and despite that we came within one win of the cup.
In other words if you aren't scoring goals and yet you're still winning it's most likely due to good goaltending and good defensive play.
No, you don't get it...the Canucks would have needed to score 25 goals (over 6 goals per game clip) in those 4 combined losses - 3 in boston plus game 7 in vancouver to pull out those games. Vancouver was not beat 1-0, 2-1, 3-1, they were DESTROYED and HUMULIATED 8-1, 4-0, 5-2, 4-0 in those losses.
No, you don't get it...the Canucks would have needed to score 25 goals (over 6 goals per game clip) in those 4 combined losses - 3 in boston plus game 7 in vancouver to pull out those games. Vancouver was not beat 1-0, 2-1, 3-1, they were DESTROYED and HUMULIATED 8-1, 4-0, 5-2, 4-0 in those losses.
And the games we won were because of Luongo 1-0, 3-2, 1-0.
The only thing both the wins and the losses have in common is the fact that we barely scored any goals. We scored 5 goals in the games we won and we scored 3 goals in the games we lost.
Offensively if we were better maybe things are different.
And the games we won were because of Luongo 1-0, 3-2, 1-0.
The only thing both the wins and the losses have in common is the fact that we barely scored any goals. We scored 5 goals in the games we won and we scored 3 goals in the games we lost.
Offensively if we were better maybe things are different.
You can't blame this loss on Luongo.
The games we won he played well, he did not steal any of them.
The offense never had a chance to get back in the game to Luongo's brutal play.
No one is exclusively blaming him, but imo he was the single biggest factor. Although you can't really quantify the blame, just for argument's sake I'd venture to propose the following
Luongo - 30%
The offense - 20%
Injuries - 15%
AV - 15%
Thomas - 10%
NHL/Refs 10% - not for bias, but for bad calls, two of which standout: the Rome suspension and the Daniel misconduct
No one is solely pinning the blame on Luongo. But we aren't hiding from the fact that he was the single biggest issue for that last, and has been a huge problem in the playoffs for 3 years straight.
The games we won he played well, he did not steal any of them.
The offense never had a chance to get back in the game to Luongo's brutal play.
No one is exclusively blaming him, but imo he was the single biggest factor. Although you can't really quantify the blame, just for argument's sake I'd venture to propose the following
Luongo - 30%
The offense - 20%
Injuries - 15%
AV - 15%
Thomas - 10%
NHL/Refs 10% - not for bias, but for bad calls, two of which standout: the Rome suspension and the Daniel misconduct
No one is solely pinning the blame on Luongo. But we aren't hiding from the fact that he was the single biggest issue for that last, and has been a huge problem in the playoffs for 3 years straight.
I think you're underestimating how brutal the offense was. Like I pointed out above, Chicago won the cup with a goalie allowing more goals in the SCF than Luongo did (in 1 fewer game as well). But no team in the history of the NHL has won (or even lost for that matter) a 7 game series while scoring as few goals the Canucks did.
Or to put it more succinctly, Luongo allowed fewer goals than either cup finalist goalie in 09-10, while the Canucks goal scoring was so bad that it broke a 62 year old record for offensive futility in a playoff series. Luongo was sub-par in the final but the Canucks' offense was unprecedentedly and historically bad. We might go another 50 years before we see another team score that few goals in a 7 game series. Hell, we might never see it again; the last record stood up for over 6 decades.
roberto luongo is jykell and hyde. Sometimes, We (the fans) get glimpes of luongo playing lights out. making saves look easy and hims invincible. but other times, we've seen the worst of luongo. if he lets in 1 goal, let it be a weak shot, softie whatever you wanna call it. luongo can be absoutely dreadfull. He's a good regular season goalie every year for vancouver. But when the playoffs starts, he reverts back..to his oldself. it's frustrating to watch. Gets rattled too easily.
Or to put it more succinctly, Luongo allowed fewer goals than either cup finalist goalie in 09-10, while the Canucks goal scoring was so bad that it broke a 62 year old record for offensive futility in a playoff series. Luongo was sub-par in the final but the Canucks' offense was unprecedentedly and historically bad. We might go another 50 years before we see another team score that few goals in a 7 game series. Hell, we might never see it again; the last record stood up for over 6 decades.
Dude, you're talking to people that would ***** up a storm if Luongo scored a hat trick because he didn't pass to his teammates enough and clearly isn't a team player. They want to believe Luongo is the biggest problem with this team, and they are not going to be told otherwise. Don't waste your time.
Let me know when you find quotes from the rest of the team taking personal responsibility for not scoring enough and choking right along side Luongo.
That's not the point. Lozeongo choked, but has yet to admit it. I never said he was the only one to blame. Maybe you should take a remedial reading course!
The games we won he played well, he did not steal any of them.
Haha. Oh wow, that's hilarious. 2 goals against in 3 wins but NO, of course he didn't steal any of them. That's pretty standard fare to allow 2 goals in 3 games of the SCF.
As opendoor posted, statistics speak for themselves — the Canucks pathetic offence broke a 60+ year record while Luongo still got scored on less than SCF winning goalies in recent history.
In 2 or 3 of our losses (can't remember anymore, been too long), the team was only down 1-0 at the 25-30 minute mark. It's hardly Luongo's fault that they couldn't offer him any help whatsoever.
The team as a whole needed to be better. I don't know what some of you get out of vilifying just one member of it.
It still amazes me how people still defend Luongo. It reminds of how people still tried to defend Cloutier back in the day.
When you guys look back at all this, you'll feel just as stupid as those who tried to defend the last #1 goaltender that played here.
It's pretty amazing that this team is so amazing that it carried Cloutier 2.0 to Game 7 of the Cup Finals. I mean, you'd think that an amazing team like that would have just lit up the opposition along the way, right?
