Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
The sheer amount of misinformed ignorance from this post is astonishing. Just...wow. Do yourself a favor and actually bother to research before you make a series of poorly paragraphed gibberish barely worth acknowledgement.
Last man standing. Only Daniel Sedin and Alex Burrows were playing healthy in that series. Eight of our top ten were injured, one of whom was gone entirely and two that were taking painkillers just to stand. Luongo may have been inconsistent but to fault him for that loss is pure ignorance.
Have you watched the high lights or is it still too painful to turn the blinders off? Weak goal after weak goal doesn't inspire your team. No they couldn't score on T T but teammates watching luongo from the bench or on the ice know they can't trust him to make the big save. He was good in Boston 2 of 3 games and every other game he disappeared. But go ahead and keep blaming injuries for not winning when it's goaltending that's the reason they didn't win
Its funny how often the injury excuse gets tossed into every argument. Every team is banged up once they reach the finals. If you claim that your team had more injuries, then also realize that you have players on your team who simply could not handle the grind of the post season. So please do us all a favor and stop pretending as if injuries are exclusive only to your team.
The sheer amount of misinformed ignorance from this post is astonishing. Just...wow. Do yourself a favor and actually bother to research before you make a series of poorly paragraphed gibberish barely worth acknowledgement.
Last man standing. Only Daniel Sedin and Alex Burrows were playing healthy in that series. Eight of our top ten were injured, one of whom was gone entirely and two that were taking painkillers just to stand. Luongo may have been inconsistent but to fault him for that loss is pure ignorance.
15 goals against in three games and people still say he took us to game 7. Yeah he took ya to the wedding and left ya at the alter with your hands over your face. Two straight games to win the cup and he lays an egg in each one on top of the other bad games. Who cares about the games he played well when he's the reason you lost in the other four
Its funny how often the injury excuse gets tossed into every argument. Every team is banged up once they reach the finals. If you claim that your team had more injuries, then also realize that you have players on your team who simply could not handle the grind of the post season. So please do us all a favor and stop pretending as if injuries are exclusive only to your team.
To be fair he's blaming losing on injuries like the other team didn't have any. Trying to avoid that luongo is the biggest reason other than not being able to score on Thomas is the reason they lost.
The canucks took it to game 7 of the finals without hamhuis, whos great quality of hipchecking caused him injury. They came close with the sedins getting penalties for complaining to the refs after getting crosschecked in the head and back. They couldve had extra help but it did seem rather hard to play against the board of govenors team. Disciplinary campbell couldve given a little attention to ference fingering the fans. He could of chose to have no bias on romes late hit, wooo another D down. If you actually watched that series instead of looking for luongo faults on highlights, you may notice ALL the clipping done by the B's. Lastly, Matt Cooke did a terrible deed and probably ended Savards career. However, that injury allowed the great white rat Marchant a call up and the B's dont win the cup that year without that injury. So as a long time Canucks fan who is used to saying this...****** you matt cooke you cooky coker
To be fair he's blaming losing on injuries like the other team didn't have any. Trying to avoid that luongo is the biggest reason other than not being able to score on Thomas is the reason they lost.
There were many reasons the Canucks lost that series vs Boston. Lack of scoring, injuries, and Luongo's poor play in Boston were three of the main ones. Trying to rank them is totally subjective, and nothing more than an exercise in futility.
15 goals against in three games and people still say he took us to game 7. Yeah he took ya to the wedding and left ya at the alter with your hands over your face. Two straight games to win the cup and he lays an egg in each one on top of the other bad games. Who cares about the games he played well when he's the reason you lost in the other four
First goal, in the first link. Marchand drove the net and no one stopped him. While not a particularly great performance by Luongo, his defense was nowhere to be found despite those announcers happily blaming Lu for everything.
Game 3, first was a poor deflection after Raymond's stick broke that led to a disjointed play. Second, Perverly was left alone to linger while Edler made a horrible play and Kesler wasn't much better.
Those are some examples. I do not intent to dissect every goal with a fine tooth comb nor will I claim Luongo was by any means great. He was inconsistent but less so than the entire team in front of him. Some goals were weak, others it due to poor defensive coverage or a variety of differing reasons. There is a reason Nuck fans fear every time our coach thinks Bieska and Edler together is a good idea. Much in the same capacity Raymond with Kesler.
He was not, nor will he ever be, the reason we lost. Contrary to the popular opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayball75
To be fair he's blaming losing on injuries like the other team didn't have any. Trying to avoid that luongo is the biggest reason other than not being able to score on Thomas is the reason they lost.
Actually, if either of you had bothered to read my post. You would realize I never once lobbied exclusivity to any specific attribute but insinuated it was only among the many reasons. I am aware all teams have injuries but you find my a roster that had the following:
Kesler and Ehrhoff were taking painkillers between periods just to continue. You can even see Ehrhoff's expression on the few shot attempts he made. He could barely keep up with the play, let alone much else. Meanwhile Kesler was playing with a torn hip and groin injury, the former requiring six months surgery to remedy. Hamhuis was gone entirely, thus destroying our defensive dynamo pairing and rendering the necessity of Rome or Alberts to play, neither that have any business with long shifts in a playoff series.
Boston capitalized on a suspected opportunity. Kesler's entire line was decimated, allowing them to concentrate on the Sedins exclusively. With Henrik struggling due to a groin injury and Ehrhoff and Edler done. They easily manhandled them. Frankly, I credit Julien for his foresight.
Therefore, I challenge you to find me a team as supremely decimated by injuries. Would Boston have be so dominating Chara, Seidenberg, Ference and McQuid all be injured, with either Seidenberg or Chara gone entirely? Never mind the forward issues. Reliance on Kaberle would have been quite a sight to witness.
Had Kesler been at full capacity or Hamhuis present at all. We would likely have seen a different series. Does that mean Vancouver necessarily wins? No, but I sincerely doubt Boston score even half as many goals.
The reason why I hate injuries even being brought up is because injuries on the losing side are always overplayed as fans and media look at an excuse to latch onto to explain their team's loss. How do we know that most of the Bruins players were not suffering from significant injuries as well? Injuries that were not brought to light because they were irrelevant after the Bruins won the Cup.
The reason why I hate injuries even being brought up is because injuries on the losing side are always overplayed as fans and media look at an excuse to latch onto to explain their team's loss. How do we know that most of the Bruins players were not suffering from significant injuries as well? Injuries that were not brought to light because they were irrelevant after the Bruins won the Cup.
I guess you can point to total man games lost and total surgeries/rehabs reported? An amalgamation of said information would be pretty telling.
Fact is, it doesn't matter if you hate the excuse. Injuries are definitely a reason/cause for a teams downfall. Both teams have them, but it's usually one that has more, and to a greater severity. You just have to collect the info.
When you start to compile lists, as Bourne Endeavor has, it's clear to see which team suffered more under said circumstances. After that, it's just your own bias/perception that decides how much weight you put in said information.
The sheer amount of misinformed ignorance from this post is astonishing. Just...wow. Do yourself a favor and actually bother to research before you make a series of poorly paragraphed gibberish barely worth acknowledgement.
He DID do research. I can clearly see him pointing out statistics and facts. Saying "nuh uh, that's dumb." doesn't invalidate all of that, it only negates your own credibility.
Quote:
Last man standing. Only Daniel Sedin and Alex Burrows were playing healthy in that series. Eight of our top ten were injured, one of whom was gone entirely and two that were taking painkillers just to stand. Luongo may have been inconsistent but to fault him for that loss is pure ignorance.
Let's compare to another team then. Personally, I would take an injured Vancouver squad over a healthy Columbus squad.
Mason's 10-11 percentage of regular season games at .850 sv% or lower: 24%
Luongo's 10-11 playoff games at .850 sv% or lower: 28%
I think it's safe to say that losing was Luongo's fault, unless you want to call Steve Mason an elite goaltender who can steal games.
There were many reasons the Canucks lost that series vs Boston. Lack of scoring, injuries, and Luongo's poor play in Boston were three of the main ones. Trying to rank them is totally subjective, and nothing more than an exercise in futility.
I understand what u mean but Goaltending is always the biggest reason for winning or losing no matter how you rank it IMO. The kings don't win unless quick plays the way he did. Injuries to important players or scoring don't really matter if you can't keep the puck out of your own net. The 86' 93' canadiens, 06' hurricanes or 11' bruins don't win without unreal hot goalies. And by that I mean the teams in front of them weren't odds on favorites to win the cup in those years. In the Boston/Vancouver series Boston made them look the way the leafs did everytime Boston played them. Intimidation played a big role in that series. Even the whole luongo/ Thomas media jabs have the advantage to Thomas.
He DID do research. I can clearly see him pointing out statistics and facts. Saying "nuh uh, that's dumb." doesn't invalidate all of that, it only negates your own credibility.
Let's compare to another team then. Personally, I would take an injured Vancouver squad over a healthy Columbus squad.
Mason's 10-11 percentage of regular season games at .850 sv% or lower: 24%
Luongo's 10-11 playoff games at .850 sv% or lower: 28%
I think it's safe to say that losing was Luongo's fault, unless you want to call Steve Mason an elite goaltender who can steal games.
Hey buddy, why dont you post Masons Playoff save percentage if youre using his regular season stats. Oh wait, it's 0.00%. Now please look at Luongos regular season stats and kindly show yourself out
Hey buddy, why dont you post Masons Playoff save percentage if youre using his regular season stats. Oh wait, it's 0.00%. Now please look at Luongos regular season stats and kindly show yourself out
IMO he's saying mason is considered to be one of the worst goalies in the NHL and his stats dedinately prove that. So for luongo to have the same stats in the playoffs doesn't make him very successful does it? For you to bring up luongos reg season stats as rebuttal well he could have 1.00 sv% and a 0.00 gaa and if he can't stop a beach ball come playoff time what difference does it make? Sure hope you didn't show yourself out and ill wait for your response.
[QUOTE=ProspectProphet;56762653]He didn't lose his job. Damnit this is frustrating seeing outsiders watch a few highlights then make these assumptions. For those who didn't notice:
-He had a very good season. Carried the team at times. Another PT for the Canucks starter.
-The team was without D. Sedin, Allstar- dman Edler was playing injured, same with Kesler. 3 of our top 4 skaters out or hurt vs. the eventual Cup winner
- The team was playing away from there usual strengths, trying to be more defensive with key offensive guys in rough shape or absent. It wasn't working for them. Not really surprising.
-Luongo wasn't the reason Canucks were down 2-0, the Canucks were. The team didn't play very well. The skaters looked flat, and the team needed a spark if they were going to get back into the series. Considering the injuries, there really weren't any viable options to realistically provide more offense. Why not give Schneider a chance? Goalie's get pulled when the team is playing poor. That IS part of the game. And how many times does it make the team play better? Sometimes. Worth a shot in my books, and many NHL coaches seem to agree.
-Schneider has done everything possible to earn more games (nothing to do with Luongo) He's been a star goalie at every level, and has every indication of doing it in the NHL
So, now Vancouver has a 2nd star goalie ready to show his stuff, and a flat team down 2-0. They needed a change. The team still lost the next game! Then D.Sedin comes back for game 4, and they win, then go to overtime the next game. If all you guys can come up with is "Luongo lost his job", then don't get mad if we don't take your opinions seriously. Schneider is cheaper and younger. Canucks believe he's going to be a star, it only makes sense to move the older guy. Think about it. Its not Luongo losing his job, its business. Luongo still is, and will be a starter for years to come. Just so happens that Schneider will be too. If we were moving Schneider instead, all you would be doing now, is devaluing Schneider because "he was moved to keep an older, more expensive goalie that chokes in big games. If the Canucks don't believe in him enough to move Luongo instead, then I'm not giving anything good for an unproven backup that rode the sucess of a PT-winning defence." or some crap like that.[/
And wherever he plays he'll be a playoff choker. Hope he stays there or goes somewhere else where the pressure folds his peewee mind. Great reg season goalie with all his a achievements but it took him three tries to beat Chicago and no telling how long this mental abuse will affect him. I also respect your opinion and the other supporters of luongo. Not everyone has the same opinion and that's what makes this fun
Sweet lets start comparing the 0-4 playoff performance of a rookie in the first round with a healthy yet uncompetitive team to a 32 year old in the 4th round of the playoffs with an offense injured defense decimated team. When youre not cherry picking years or reg/post season you may even notice that luongos overall save % was .914 in 10-11, as well as being .914 in 08-09 which was CBJs playoff year. Now you can get the idea that luongos % wouldve been above .920 going into the series for a .890 to bring him down to .914 overall. That seems like a good number and is on par with his regular season. Maybe if lou didnt tear his groin a few years ago he couldve posted another .941 playoff save percentage like he did in 06-07.
Some of you people would make great politicians i tell ya...
Sweet lets start comparing the 0-4 playoff performance of a rookie in the first round with a healthy yet uncompetitive team to a 32 year old in the 4th round of the playoffs with an offense injured defense decimated team. When youre not cherry picking years or reg/post season you may even notice that luongos overall save % was .914 in 10-11, as well as being .914 in 08-09 which was CBJs playoff year. Now you can get the idea that luongos % wouldve been above .920 going into the series for a .890 to bring him down to .914 overall. That seems like a good number and is on par with his regular season. Maybe if lou didnt tear his groin a few years ago he couldve posted another .941 playoff save percentage like he did in 06-07.
Some of you people would make great politicians i tell ya...
If you ask to see Mason's playoff performance compared to the Luongo stats I gave, then I'm going to provide Mason's playoff performance. Don't complain over getting the stats that you asked to receive.
That aside, yes, Mason was a rookie with an uncompetetive team. So how does that help Luongo's case that he still was only slightly better? Ok, Vancouver's defense was injury-decimated. Not knowing myself who was healthy or not, I'd still take:
An injured Edler over a healthy Tyutin
An injured Ehrhoff over a healthy Hejda
An injured Bieksa over a healthy Methot
Vancouver's entire 10-11 defense could've been injured and Columbus' 08-09 healthy. At worst, Vancouver is only slightly below Columbus' in skill.
Columbus' defense was just plain awful that season, healthy or not. They both played against a cup finalist, so Lu doesn't get a pass on quality of competition. He had a great but injured defense whereas Mason had a horrific defense even if healthy.
So, unless you want to tell everyone that Steve Mason can steal a series, then how isn't it Luongo's fault that Vancouver didn't win a cup when that series doesn't even match up well versus the only one of one of the worst goalies in the league?
This is a guy who was pulled from the game twice in that series and recorded a shutout twice in that series. That's the definition of inconsistency. Now what's more likely, that Luongo had up and down games in a radically short period, or that 10 other guys did simultaneously?
If Luongo's play dipped signufacantly due to the injured players in front of him; it just goes to prove he is a by product of playing for a stacked team.
You don't think he is sheltered most of the time?
This proves that.
Supposed injuries in the playoffs don't matter; go by man fames lost, or don't bother. Which players dropped out of the lineup at a time that corresponds to the decline of Luongo?
Newsflash; most hockey players play injured in the playoffs. Your team is soft; using injuries as an excuse to overlook the deficiencies in their game. Not a shock from a team that blames the refs every loss. Excuses, excuses, excuses.
If you ask to see Mason's playoff performance compared to the Luongo stats I gave, then I'm going to provide Mason's playoff performance. Don't complain over getting the stats that you asked to receive.
That aside, yes, Mason was a rookie with an uncompetetive team. So how does that help Luongo's case that he still was only slightly better? Ok, Vancouver's defense was injury-decimated. Not knowing myself who was healthy or not, I'd still take:
An injured Edler over a healthy Tyutin
An injured Ehrhoff over a healthy Hejda
An injured Bieksa over a healthy Methot
Vancouver's entire 10-11 defense could've been injured and Columbus' 08-09 healthy. At worst, Vancouver is only slightly below Columbus' in skill.
Columbus' defense was just plain awful that season, healthy or not. They both played against a cup finalist, so Lu doesn't get a pass on quality of competition. He had a great but injured defense whereas Mason had a horrific defense even if healthy.
So, unless you want to tell everyone that Steve Mason can steal a series, then how isn't it Luongo's fault that Vancouver didn't win a cup when that series doesn't even match up well versus the only one of one of the worst goalies in the league?
This is a guy who was pulled from the game twice in that series and recorded a shutout twice in that series. That's the definition of inconsistency. Now what's more likely, that Luongo had up and down games in a radically short period, or that 10 other guys did simultaneously?
its very obvious you didnt watch that cup final series. you keep babbling that lu let in weak goal after weak goal. if you had actualy watched the games, you'd know that the canucks team folded, and was completely non competetive in those games, giving up golden scoring opportunity after golden scoring opportunity, while getting literally zero quality scoring changes themselves. those losses were due to a completely flat team in which maybe 1 or 2 of the 20 players was actually on his game.
this is what the haters are so cluless to, is the team game. any other goalie would have lost those games too, and thats a fact. you can argue they might have let in a few less goals, but not that they'd have won the game.
also, if they judge every single goalie in the NHL, only Thomas could be considered 'less of a choker'. which is the funny part, defending a goalie has half as many NHL games played, and might be retired. But Lu is 'inconsistent', even tho he's great every single season, and none of the goalies they claim are better have any of thise consistency.
As time advances I begin to think Luongo would be almost ideal for Edmonton. I think he would thrive in an environment where the emphasis is not on goaltending. The top line in Edmonton is becoming an awesome unit and will be the focus of attention until after Luongo is retired. Luongo is also a calming influence, not unlike Moog was.
He didn't lose his job. Damnit this is frustrating seeing outsiders watch a few highlights then make these assumptions. For those who didn't notice:
-He had a very good season. Carried the team at times. Another PT for the Canucks starter.
-The team was without D. Sedin, Allstar- dman Edler was playing injured, same with Kesler. 3 of our top 4 skaters out or hurt vs. the eventual Cup winner
- The team was playing away from there usual strengths, trying to be more defensive with key offensive guys in rough shape or absent. It wasn't working for them. Not really surprising.
-Luongo wasn't the reason Canucks were down 2-0, the Canucks were. The team didn't play very well. The skaters looked flat, and the team needed a spark if they were going to get back into the series. Considering the injuries, there really weren't any viable options to realistically provide more offense. Why not give Schneider a chance? Goalie's get pulled when the team is playing poor. That IS part of the game. And how many times does it make the team play better? Sometimes. Worth a shot in my books, and many NHL coaches seem to agree.
-Schneider has done everything possible to earn more games (nothing to do with Luongo) He's been a star goalie at every level, and has every indication of doing it in the NHL
So, now Vancouver has a 2nd star goalie ready to show his stuff, and a flat team down 2-0. They needed a change. The team still lost the next game! Then D.Sedin comes back for game 4, and they win, then go to overtime the next game. If all you guys can come up with is "Luongo lost his job", then don't get mad if we don't take your opinions seriously. Schneider is cheaper and younger. Canucks believe he's going to be a star, it only makes sense to move the older guy. Think about it. Its not Luongo losing his job, its business. Luongo still is, and will be a starter for years to come. Just so happens that Schneider will be too. If we were moving Schneider instead, all you would be doing now, is devaluing Schneider because "he was moved to keep an older, more expensive goalie that chokes in big games. If the Canucks don't believe in him enough to move Luongo instead, then I'm not giving anything good for an unproven backup that rode the sucess of a PT-winning defence." or some crap like that.[/
And wherever he plays he'll be a playoff choker. Hope he stays there or goes somewhere else where the pressure folds his peewee mind. Great reg season goalie with all his a achievements but it took him three tries to beat Chicago and no telling how long this mental abuse will affect him. I also respect your opinion and the other supporters of luongo. Not everyone has the same opinion and that's what makes this fun
3 times to beat Chicago... you realize its a team-game, right? And mental abuse??? if so, wouldn't beating them have reversed any affects, making him stronger mentally? For a guy with a "peewee mind", he seemed to handle the Olympics better than Brodeur...
When you say stuff like " wherever he plays he'll be a playoff choker", it seems like you don't understand how the team in front of the goalie affects the game, or maybe you are just concerned with having "fun".
Go ahead and have your own opinions, but its clear that you don't like Luongo, and don't factor in the play of the guys in front of him or the style of hockey they play.
If Luongo's play dipped signufacantly due to the injured players in front of him; it just goes to prove he is a by product of playing for a stacked team.
You don't think he is sheltered most of the time?
This proves that.
Supposed injuries in the playoffs don't matter; go by man fames lost, or don't bother. Which players dropped out of the lineup at a time that corresponds to the decline of Luongo?
Newsflash; most hockey players play injured in the playoffs. Your team is soft; using injuries as an excuse to overlook the deficiencies in their game. Not a shock from a team that blames the refs every loss. Excuses, excuses, excuses.
Except its backed up by the broken bones and multiple surgeries, and still-lingering affects of those injuries. Didn't hear about Boston or LA having multiple surgeries - and you can't keep those things quiet. They just weren't nearly as injured. You have to take into account the severity of the injuries, or you just made a terrible, narrow-sighted post.
I understand what u mean but Goaltending is always the biggest reason for winning or losing no matter how you rank it IMO. The kings don't win unless quick plays the way he did. Injuries to important players or scoring don't really matter if you can't keep the puck out of your own net. The 86' 93' canadiens, 06' hurricanes or 11' bruins don't win without unreal hot goalies. And by that I mean the teams in front of them weren't odds on favorites to win the cup in those years. In the Boston/Vancouver series Boston made them look the way the leafs did everytime Boston played them. Intimidation played a big role in that series. Even the whole luongo/ Thomas media jabs have the advantage to Thomas.
Goaltending is always the biggest reason for winning or losing? You can't honestly believe that, can you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayStBullies
If Luongo's play dipped signufacantly due to the injured players in front of him; it just goes to prove he is a by product of playing for a stacked team.
You don't think he is sheltered most of the time?
This proves that.
Supposed injuries in the playoffs don't matter; go by man fames lost, or don't bother. Which players dropped out of the lineup at a time that corresponds to the decline of Luongo?
Newsflash; most hockey players play injured in the playoffs. Your team is soft; using injuries as an excuse to overlook the deficiencies in their game. Not a shock from a team that blames the refs every loss. Excuses, excuses, excuses.
Yep, the Canucks shelter Luongo. Their trapping, defense first system is undeniable proof of that. Phoenix and St Louis are usually considered the exemplars of systems that inflate goalie stats, but it really should be Vancouver. It's truly amazing how such a defensive team is also the highest scoring team over the past three seasons, all while taking minimal chances and sheltering Luongo. No wonder they want to trade him.
Also, thanks for making the assessment that Vancouver is a soft team. Coming from a fan of those rough and tumble Maple Leafs your opinion on the matter is truly invaluable. Whenever I watched the Leafs play last season I always had to do a double take, just to make sure I wasn't watching a replay of the '75 Flyers. Hopefully if Vancouver ever has to face Boston in the playoffs again they'll take a page out of Toronto's book and play them tough and hard.
