As has been said before... this is Bledsoe/Brady, incumbent star OR up and coming star who could just be better.
Bledsoe was injured/ineffective and Brady came in, won the playoff game and went on to lead the Patriots to the Super Bowl. Bledsoe was traded in the off season and Brady has gone on to establish himself as potentially the greatest NFL QB of all time.
So... is Schneider Tom Brady? Not sure...
It's a helluva gamble though as the connotations brought on by playing him get really convoluted on both sides, good and bad.
I still think Luongo starts tomorrow...
The Canucks seem to the be the only team so cautious about it. Look at recent years - Halak/Price, Rask/Thomas, Elliott/Halak. If a goalie is having a spectacular season you have to at least give him a shot to continue it on in the games that count.
I was hoping Luongo would win the cup this year. I suppose there is still time but failing that just too many chances too many failures.
I can see Luongo accepting a trade to T.B. I know SY is very interested in Schneider. Not sure of his interest in Luongo. Montreal would probably be a fit in Luongo's mind but they don't need a goalie. Other than that don't know. I do know it will just get worse for Luongo. 1/2 the fans are already wanting to go in a different direction with more every day. Get rid of Schneider- he succeeds Luongo fails and Vigneault or Gillis or both could pay a price. He may want a trade.
If two of these happen together tomorrow, Luongo may be forced to leave Vancity. I actually think he's a nice guy, but hockey is a business.
1) Schneider indeed starts tomorrow
AND
2) Schneider wins tomorrow
If he loses, then Luongo may still have a chance, but I can't imagine AV going back to Luo if Schneider wins.
And in the pre-playoffs interview, Luongo kept saying in the interviews something along the lines of: "I'll play my best and whatever happens, happens. I'll be a good teammate". The bolded right there tells me Luongo isn't that confident because this year, FOR THE FIRST TIME in Luongo's career, a backup may steal his job..........................
It might not be completely accurate, but when they're on the same team comparing stats as well as their play and composure on the ice is probably a safe way to go. Watching all their games, I think virtually everyone (except y2kcanucks) would say that either both goalies have looked equally good throughout the year, or Schneider has looked better.
Luongo hasn't been bad this year - he's been relatively solid. Schneider has been spectacular and more consistent. Bottom line - he lets in almost 0.5 goals per game less than Luongo, his SV% is .018 higher than Luongo and his winning % is 69% compared to Luongo's 58%.
For whatever reason (he's better, healthier, team plays better in front of him, etc. etc.) Schneider has shown over the last two years that he gives his team a better chance to win than Luongo. This is not disputable.
We need a win. Isn't it time we play the odds?
Cue the "Schneider gets sheltered starts" argument.
EDIT: Also cue the "Schneider let in 2 bad goals in Game 6 in Chicago and then had to leave the game" argument.
If Luongo played as pathetic as our power play people would literally be rioting to get him out of here. I know this for a fact because he's been our best player by far and people still want to bench him. Yet the personnel on our power play seemingly get a free pass, just like our downright pathetic offense from last years playoffs.
Until we change the personnel upfront, no goalie is going to have sustained success on this team. Sorry to break it to most of you, but Schneider will take a lot of heat next year if he's our main goalie and doesn't take us to the Cup when this same group of forwards fail again.
Are you one of those people who think giving up a goal on a 5 on 3 is a bad goal?
Luongo has no let in a bad goal this series.
A bad goal is a bad goal, it doesn't matter if its 5-on-3 or not. 5 hole from that angle is a bad goal. He's played exceptionally well, but that's a bad goal.
A bad goal is a bad goal, it doesn't matter if its 5-on-3 or not. 5 hole from that angle is a bad goal. He's played exceptionally well, but that's a bad goal.
It's not a bad goal if you know anything about goaltending. In that situation he had to cheat to respect the backdoor pass. If he doesn't cheat, Richards passes the puck and it's an easy tap in. Luongo gambled and lost, but it doesn't make it a bad goal.
It's only a bad goal though cuz its Luongo. If it were Lundqvist or Rinne or Schneider he'd be given a free pass.
Im all for supporting Lu......... but redardless of a man or 2 advantage some of those goals should not have been let in. We need our elite to play elite especially our goalie, he was mediocre in game 2, we lost, time for Schnieds to show his stuff.
Im all for supporting Lu......... but redardless of a man or 2 advantage some of those goals should not have been let in. We need our elite to play elite especially our goalie, he was mediocre in game 2, we lost, time for Schnieds to show his stuff.
Luongo was great in game 1 and didn't let in a weak goal, and was good in game 2 and I still don't say he let in a weak goal.
You CANNOT reasonably say that the goal on the 5 on 3 was weak. That's incredibly stupid, and you would have to then admit that the shootout goal Schneider gave up in game 6 last year to Chicago was a weak goal. And you CANNOT blame Luongo for a goal when his own ****ing teammate falls on top of him.
The Luongo hate around here, and the city of Vancouver has reached stupid levels. Just plain stupid.
It's not a bad goal if you know anything about goaltending. In that situation he had to cheat to respect the backdoor pass. If he doesn't cheat, Richards passes the puck and it's an easy tap in. Luongo gambled and lost, but it doesn't make it a bad goal.
It's only a bad goal though cuz its Luongo. If it were Lundqvist or Rinne or Schneider he'd be given a free pass.
If you knew anything about goaltending you'd know that "cheating" is something you don't do, you trust your defenders to do their jobs and you do yours. When you cheat and you get caught, it's not on the defender anymore, it's on the goalie...thus, it's a bad goal.
If you guys saw the Chicago Pheonix game, that is real playoff goaltending from both sides. Seriously if Luongo vses Quick's play was at the level of Crawford vses Smith, that be acceptable.
He is just too far below Jonathan Quick right now. Their goaltender makes about 10 big saves while Luongo makes like 3. That is how sad the ratio is.
Luongo was great in game 1 and didn't let in a weak goal, and was good in game 2 and I still don't say he let in a weak goal.
You CANNOT reasonably say that the goal on the 5 on 3 was weak. That's incredibly stupid, and you would have to then admit that the shootout goal Schneider gave up in game 6 last year to Chicago was a weak goal. And you CANNOT blame Luongo for a goal when his own ****ing teammate falls on top of him.
The Luongo hate around here, and the city of Vancouver has reached stupid levels. Just plain stupid.
Your level of protectionism for Luongo has reached equally stupid levels.
If you guys saw the Chicago Pheonix game, that is real playoff goaltending from both sides. Seriously if Luongo vses Quick's play was at the level of Crawford vses Smith, that be acceptable.
He is just far below Jonathan Quick right now. Their goaltender makes about 10 big saves while Luongo makes like 3. That is how sad the ratio is.
You are wrong too...Luongo has outplayed Quick for the most part. We haven't tested Quick with anywhere near the same quality of chances. Stop watching hilights and try watching the actual game.
You are wrong too...Luongo has outplayed Quick for the most part. We haven't tested Quick with anywhere near the same quality of chances. Stop watching hilights and try watching the actual game.
Nope I saw the game, he definitely didn't outplay Quick. No where close in game 2.
If you knew anything about goaltending you'd know that "cheating" is something you don't do, you trust your defenders to do their jobs and you do yours. When you cheat and you get caught, it's not on the defender anymore, it's on the goalie...thus, it's a bad goal.
And I don't give free passes.
You gave free passes to Schneider for his goals last year. If you're considering what Luongo gave up to be bad goals, then all 3 goals Schneider gave up in the Chicago game were bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flack
If you guys saw the Chicago Pheonix game, that is real playoff goaltending from both sides. Seriously if Luongo vses Quick's play was at the level of Crawford vses Smith, that be acceptable.
He is just too far below Jonathan Quick right now. Their goaltender makes about 10 big saves while Luongo makes like 3. That is how sad the ratio is.
Well you didn't see the game last night so you wouldn't know. Luongo giving up a goal on a 5 on 3 = soft, Luongo giving up a goal when his teammate almost puts it in the net himself, and then another teammate plows on top of him = soft goal, but Quick letting in a goal off a weak wrister from the point = outplaying Luongo. Your complete hatred and bias against Luongo is sickening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flack
Nope I saw the game, he definitely didn't outplay Quick. No where close in game 2.
We'll once again have to agree to disagree...but that's ok, I'm used to you being wrong now.
Just tell me when I have I been wrong in making a prediction?
3 of the major things I have said so far all came true:
1) I said don't underestimate the Kings -> we are down 2-0 in a series with home ice advantage. I got flamed for saying that.
2) Defense has major issues (I made a thread on that in the regular season) -> clearly obvious. During the regular season people got mad at me and said i was overreacting and that the team isn't trying.
Even now this is my reaction...Really???...
3) Luongo didn't show up for practice usually is a bad sign -> game 2 ending.
I am sorry I think I'll will stick with my opinion this time instead of listening to those who claim to know more.
Oh and yea 50% pp is not a prediction that I made.
Can you remember any quality saves he made in the game?
Quick? I don't recall any robbery's, but he turned away some point blank shots from Raymond especially, and others. Seemed great positionally (Schniederlike) and firm when all traffic crashed in his crease. Lu let in that one with the shenanigans infront of him so gotta give game 2 to Quick, and yes of course his D was much better too.
You gave free passes to Schneider for his goals last year. If you're considering what Luongo gave up to be bad goals, then all 3 goals Schneider gave up in the Chicago game were bad.
Well you didn't see the game last night so you wouldn't know. Luongo giving up a goal on a 5 on 3 = soft, Luongo giving up a goal when his teammate almost puts it in the net himself, and then another teammate plows on top of him = soft goal, but Quick letting in a goal off a weak wrister from the point = outplaying Luongo. Your complete hatred and bias against Luongo is sickening.
If that's how you'd prefer to argue your points then we might as well agree to disagree because it would be useless to try and find any sense of objectivity when it comes to discussing Luongo with you.
For the record, I absolved Schneider of 1goal that the moronic masses deemed his fault on a puck handling error, which it wasn't. It was clearly Hamhuis' error, not Schneider's.
Just tell me when I have I been wrong in making a prediction?
3 of the major things I have said so far all came true:
1) I said don't underestimate the Kings -> we are down 2-0 in a series with home ice advantage. I got flamed for saying that.
2) Defense has major issues (I made a thread on that in the regular season) -> clearly obvious. During the regular season people got mad at me and said i was overreacting and that the team isn't trying.
Even now this is my reaction...Really???...
3) Luongo didn't show up for practice usually is a bad sign -> game 2 ending.
I am sorry I think I'll will stick with my opinion this time instead of listening to those who claim to know more.
Oh and yea 50% pp is not a prediction that I made.
Please do keep your opinion, levity is always welcome and encouraged.
Quick? I don't recall any robbery's, but he turned away some point blank shots from Raymond especially, and others. Seemed great positionally (Schniederlike) and firm when all traffic crashed in his crease. Lu let in that one with the shenanigans infront of him so gotta give game 2 to Quick, and yes of course his D was much better too.
It was the most unspectacular game a goalie with 46 saves has ever played IMO. Not saying he was terrible, but I think LA had better chances. Lu had one goal that squeaked in on him that he might want back, but overall he was pretty strong IMO.
