The skaters did their part. The goalie didn't. They scored more than enough goals, and asking them to score even more is pretty ridiculous. Asking Leighton to make a couple extra saves, however, is a different matter.
__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
The skaters did their part. The goalie didn't. They scored more than enough goals, and asking them to score even more is pretty ridiculous. Asking Leighton to make a couple extra saves, however, is a different matter.
Ok, so Leighton shoulders the blame for not making enough saves in the SCF. But gets no credit for the shutouts in Montreal? When he made every same for three out of the five games they play? There, his showing up was a product of the team playing well. Here, when your best scorers aren't scoring and your third defensive pairing is essentially not playing, Leighton is not a product of the team in front of him and he shoulders all the blame.
I get it, your logic only works when it supports what you are arguing! Team game when the team wins, goalie loss when the team loses.
Ok, so Leighton shoulders the blame for not making enough saves in the SCF. But gets no credit for the shutouts in Montreal? When he made every same for three out of the five games they play? There, his showing up was a product of the team playing well. Here, when your best scorers aren't scoring and your third defensive pairing is essentially not playing, Leighton is not a product of the team in front of him and he shoulders all the blame.
I get it, your logic only works when it supports what you are arguing!
Did you watch the Montreal games? Their team got completely manhandled. The one game where they needed to rely on Leighton he folded.
The fact remains: whenever the team really needed to rely on Leighton, (except for what, one period?) he failed. He was, and is, a bad NHL goalie who owes his success to his team.
My logic is sound because it takes into account all factors...unlike yours, which is hell-bent on defending Leighton at all costs and ignoring other factors which show he wasn't terribly important. He was along for the ride, he wasn't pulling the team along.
Did you watch the Montreal games? Their team got completely manhandled. The one game where they needed to rely on Leighton he folded.
Three shutouts in a conference finals is an incredible feat. Doesn't matter who is in net, who they are playing, or how the team is playing. There have been TONS of conference finals where one team was severely overmatched, and I'd be willing to bet that the series in Montreal is one of only a few in the history of the NHL that included three shutouts. Your very own logic seems to bolster my feelings on this. It is unfair to ask the skaters to score more when they are already scoring "enough" and it is therefore the goalie's fault they lost. However, it is somehow ok to take away from a goalie who got three shutouts in an ECF because the rest of the team played well.
Quote:
The fact remains: whenever the team really needed to rely on Leighton, (except for what, one period?) he failed. He was, and is, a bad NHL goalie who owes his success to his team.
Hey, I never said (or at least not in two years...) that Leighton was a good goalie. He owes a ton of his success to his team. BECAUSE THIS IS A TEAM GAME. Win as a team. Lose as a team. Very rarely is it one player's fault that a team wins or loses a single game, let alone a series. The Stanley Cup could have been won by the Flyers if THE TEAM PLAYED BETTER. But they didn't. So they lost. Goalies played poorly. 1/3 of the defense played poorly. And our best scorers played poorly.
Three shutouts in a conference finals is an incredible feat. Doesn't matter who is in net, who they are playing, or how the team is playing. There have been TONS of conference finals where one team was severely overmatched, and I'd be willing to bet that the series in Montreal is one of only a few in the history of the NHL that included three shutouts. Your very own logic seems to bolster my feelings on this. It is unfair to ask the skaters to score more when they are already scoring "enough" and it is therefore the goalie's fault they lost. However, it is somehow ok to take away from a goalie who got three shutouts in an ECF because the rest of the team played well.
Hey, I never said (or at least not in two years...) that Leighton was a good goalie. He owes a ton of his success to his team. BECAUSE THIS IS A TEAM GAME. Win as a team. Lose as a team. Very rarely is it one player's fault that a team wins or loses a single game, let alone a series. The Stanley Cup could have been won by the Flyers if THE TEAM PLAYED BETTER. But they didn't. So they lost. Goalies played poorly. 1/3 of the defense played poorly. And our best scorers played poorly.
The team was so much better than Montreal that anybody could have been in net. Leighton flat out wasn't challenged, except in one game...and he lost. Most of the shots he faced were easy perimeter shots. That series was an awesome mismatch.
And, sorry, but the team played good enough in the SCF. All they needed was some saves from their goalie and they didn't get them. Asking the team to do more is absurd, they did everything they could and were let down by their goaltending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers
Haha. He does have a point though. This has been a two-plus season long argument...
Careful, or you'll be sleeping on the couch tonight.
Last edited by Beef Invictus: 02-28-2012 at 03:50 PM.
Reason: merged
The team was so much better than Montreal that anybody could have been in net. Leighton flat out wasn't challenged, except in one game...and he lost. Most of the shots he faced were easy perimeter shots. That series was an awesome mismatch.
I disagree. So many teams get manhandled in the playoffs and in the regular season and aren't shutout. I mean think of all the goalies out there that have let up goals in games where the other team is absolutely dominated. Three shutouts in five games (regular season or playoffs) is one hell of a feat regardless of the quality of shots, etc. If it wasn't we would see it a lot more.
Quote:
And, sorry, but the team played good enough in the SCF. All they needed was some saves from their goalie and they didn't get them. Asking the team to do more is absurd, they did everything they could and were let down by their goaltending.
So asking the team's three best players to do only slightly more is absurd, but asking their worst player to do slightly more is not. An interesting stat...Jeff Carter had the best +/- of the three and he was -6. That is unacceptable from your three best players, regardless of how poor your defense and goalie are. Gagne was -8. Richards was -7. They combined for 4 goals. Expecting them to do more is a travesty.
Quote:
Careful, or you'll be sleeping on the couch tonight.
The team was so much better than Montreal that anybody could have been in net. Leighton flat out wasn't challenged, except in one game...and he lost. Most of the shots he faced were easy perimeter shots. That series was an awesome mismatch.
And, sorry, but the team played good enough in the SCF. All they needed was some saves from their goalie and they didn't get them. Asking the team to do more is absurd, they did everything they could and were let down by their goaltending.
.
you mean those same easy perimeter shots that Bryz is letting in routinely ???
-We scored nearly 4 goals per game. Doesn't matter where it came from. We scored nearly 4 goals a game on average.
-Michael Leighton posted atrocious numbers and, by the accounts of most fans who watched the games, played horribly.
-Michael Leighton let in quite possibly the worst Stanley Cup winning goal ever and in a game six no less.
-Michael Leighton, with the exception of brief parts of the 09-10 season, has always been an AHL goalie. AHL goalie. In fact, he currently plays in the AHL. Also, even when he did post good numbers in 09-10, with exceptions, it was noted by a lot of fans on this website, myself included, that Leighton played horribly and had an all-star defense cover up for him to help post those numbers.
Taking all those facts into consideration I can safely say that, yes, Michael Leighton is a horrible NHL goaltender and lost, or at the very least very greatly contributed, to us losing a potential Stanley Cup. That's what I know.
-We scored nearly 4 goals per game. Doesn't matter where it came from. We scored nearly 4 goals a game on average.
-Michael Leighton posted atrocious numbers and, by the accounts of most fans who watched the games, played horribly.
-Michael Leighton let in quite possibly the worst Stanley Cup winning goal ever and in a game six no less.
-Michael Leighton, with the exception of brief parts of the 09-10 season, has always been an AHL goalie. AHL goalie. In fact, he currently plays in the AHL. Also, even when he did post good numbers in 09-10, with exceptions, it was noted by a lot of fans on this website, myself included, that Leighton played horribly and had an all-star defense cover up for him to help post those numbers.
Taking all those facts into consideration I can safely say that, yes, Michael Leighton is a horrible NHL goaltender and lost, or at the very least very greatly contributed, to us losing a potential Stanley Cup. That's what I know.
If you look back at the quotes from Holmgren after the fact..he specifically said that although Leighton was not completely at fault he said "he didn't give the team a chance to win." I remember it clear as day and the admission is not exactly some surprising revelation. Now he also called out some other players or at least said they didn't have enough and suggested better conditioning would help them get over the top that is why Lavi with the close out interviews impressed it upon the players that although they would have a shortened offseason he wanted them to come into camp better conditioned. Now I'm not going to bring up who he mentioned bc the hens will decend like they always do when certain names are brought up but Holmgren did mention other names other than LOL-EIGHTON....
Since this is the TRADE DEADLINE thread, wanted to say Timmy P commented on the whole SJ wanted JVR thing. Wilson said he wanted JVR, Homer asked if Couturer was available and Wilson said no, so Homer then said no.
On another note, how cool/confusing would it have been to have Couturier-Coutuer on the same line LOL
Since this is the TRADE DEADLINE thread, wanted to say Timmy P commented on the whole SJ wanted JVR thing. Wilson said he wanted JVR, Homer asked if Couturer was available and Wilson said no, so Homer then said no.
On another note, how cool/confusing would it have been to have Couturier-Coutuer on the same line LOL
I wouldn't have been able to handle that. Can you imagine Coatsey trying to deal with that?
Since this is the TRADE DEADLINE thread, wanted to say Timmy P commented on the whole SJ wanted JVR thing. Wilson said he wanted JVR, Homer asked if Couturer was available and Wilson said no, so Homer then said no.
On another note, how cool/confusing would it have been to have Couturier-Coutuer on the same line LOL
UGH, yea that would be crazy esp. if ur listening on radio alone.. hahaah GL with that
Since this is the TRADE DEADLINE thread, wanted to say Timmy P commented on the whole SJ wanted JVR thing. Wilson said he wanted JVR, Homer asked if Couturer was available and Wilson said no, so Homer then said no.
On another note, how cool/confusing would it have been to have Couturier-Coutuer on the same line LOL
Well it shows how much Homer values JVR. So now the Toronto fans will still offer their crap for him on the trade board. Couture is a player I would have loved to trade JVR for haha. Both teams are smart and decided against it
Well it shows how much Homer values JVR. So now the Toronto fans will still offer their crap for him on the trade board. Couture is a player I would have loved to trade JVR for haha. Both teams are smart and decided against it
It was never even close.
SJ's GM apparently called Homer and said "We'd like to trade Niemi for JVR" and Homer was obviously offended at such a crap offer so he said "and we'd like to trade JVR for Couture" and then they both hung up.
Actually pretty funny on Homer's part to roll w/ the punches and make an equally bad offer. Perhaps he's been trolling hfboards trade section?
SJ's GM apparently called Homer and said "We'd like to trade Niemi for JVR" and Homer was obviously offended at such a crap offer so he said "and we'd like to trade JVR for Couture" and then they both hung up.
Actually pretty funny on Homer's part to roll w/ the punches and make an equally bad offer. Perhaps he's been trolling hfboards trade section?
Couture and JVR have similar offensive ceilings.
Couture : JVR is FAAAAAAAAAAAAR closer than Niemi : JVR.
Quite frankly, would you trade Leighton for JVR? I would too.
Would you trade Couturier (Couture) for JVR? Probably not, but it's something to consider.
