HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

More Luongo Talk

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-27-2012, 07:00 PM
  #576
jayball75
Registered User
 
jayball75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckLuck View Post
Well done. I wonder what miracle rebuttal he has in his back pocket for this one.
Just agree to disagree.

jayball75 is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 07:07 PM
  #577
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayball75 View Post
Ok so it's a great shot and Marchand was a great playoff performer. Van did have some quality chances but Boston as a team and Thomas as an individual was in their head. Had luongo played better the rest of the team sees it and they play better. Watching goals like that doesn't always inspire your team to go out and get it back. My whole point of view is that out of all the negative things van went through injuries or whatever having him let bad ones in at a bad time was the biggest reason they lost. Whether those goals were the result of a bad play or coverage he needs to make those saves.
Thomas' play in the ECF was similar to Luongo's in the SCF... The difference is BOS bailed Thomas out with their offense while Vancouver was completely dependant on Luongo for their wins.

DJOpus is online now  
Old
12-27-2012, 07:57 PM
  #578
jayball75
Registered User
 
jayball75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Thomas' play in the ECF was similar to Luongo's in the SCF... The difference is BOS bailed Thomas out with their offense while Vancouver was completely dependant on Luongo for their wins.
So in that scenario a weak goal at a bad time no matter what happened before to create the chance is hard to come back from. Thomas was there to pick the team up way back in the first round against mtl when they went down 2-0 and whatever happened from game three on to the last game in the scf he was a beast and his teammates knew it. And like you said when he wasnt on the team made up for it. Vancouver situation was the opposite up down and all over the place was luongos game. I'm no expert on goaltending but to me he's out of control and off balance quite a bit. No goalie plays the exact same way as another but most play the percentage of where a shot could go. Whether its giguere who plays more of a blocking style when the puck is close and doesn't rely a ton on reflexes. Or quick who plays the lower part of the net like no other and challenges at the top of the crease a lot. I think luongo is somewhere in the middle of all that. He plays deep in the crease in most situations and is nowhere near as smooth and refined. He looks awkward and uncoordinated especially against his post when shots come at his feet. Maybe a new goalie coach would serve him well.

jayball75 is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 08:21 PM
  #579
kdfsjljklgjfg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gloversville, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
When his entire argument boils into a thinly veiled bash of Luongo, devolving further by disregarding every additional factor due to insufficient research or an understanding of the Canucks, then I am well within my right to call it accordingly. There were no facts, just blind assumptions that because Luongo had a poor save percentage, it was his fault.
The assumption is not based solely on a poor save percentage, it's based on the wild variation of his save percentage from game to game in a short period of time.

Quote:
I fail to see the point of your statistics? Our injuries rendered us a comparable team to Columbus? Not surprisingly, we performed to the expectations people might ave had they somehow warped into that final series. When your only healthy defense consists of Ballard, Tanev, Rome and Alberts. You cannot blame the goalie.
So what made the difference from Game 5 to Game 6 then, if the defense was so awful and injured? Again, it's the case of one player wildly varying versus several. Did Ballard and friends discover some magical one-game hockey equipment to become MVP-worthy players for Game 5, then lose the power for Game 6? You're not blaming the goalie when things go bad, but you're giving him all of the praise when things go well. You either have to say that Luongo was inconsistent, that everyone around him was simultaneously inconsistent, or that everyone on Boston was simultaneously inconsistent. Whether you directly blame Luongo for the numbers or not, a GAA line of 2-0-8-5.8-0-21-3 is wildly inconsistent on SOMEBODY's behalf, and I'm inclined to believe that it's much more likely that one person was so than several all at the exact same times.

Quote:
Luongo performed poorly in only one game prior to the Boston series. I find it curious this conveniently ignored, thus facilitating a means to devalue him. It couldn't possibly have to do with our injuries catching up to us. No, Luongo is simply an awful goalie. That must be it.
Maybe the horribly decimated defense you speak of was much less decimated at the time, plus versus far weaker teams, in much more low-pressure situations? Also, he was bad at least twice in the Chicago, then you could say once in Nashville. It wasn't just once.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic0n View Post
Stop talking out of your ass. Using 3 game samples to claim "inconsistency" is disingenuous at best.
Quick's SV% in the last 3 games of the 2012 finals: .944 .895 .913
Thomas' SV% in the last 3 playoff games he played .926 .923 .875
Lundqvist's stats in the last 3 playoff games he played: .897 .750 .897

They must suck just as much as Luongo does, eh? Wildly inconsistent! Mentally fragile!
And I'm not even cherry picking their worst "inconsistent" stretch like you did, simply the last 3 playoff games they played in.
As a matter of fact, it may very well have been those goalies' faults. Those goalies did have 3 game stretches of inconsistency. That's exactly what I was saying. Ok, so admittedly, I'm guilty of cherry-picking a little in that occasion by season-to-season. But did Quick go from a phenomenal shutout and great 2 goal game to an 8 goal game? Did Thomas go from being pulled 40 minutes into a game to getting a 31 save shutout?

See the above for my opinion on inconsistency of players vs goalie.

kdfsjljklgjfg is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 08:29 PM
  #580
CanuckLuck
Registered User
 
CanuckLuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayball75 View Post
So in that scenario a weak goal at a bad time no matter what happened before to create the chance is hard to come back from. Thomas was there to pick the team up way back in the first round against mtl when they went down 2-0 and whatever happened from game three on to the last game in the scf he was a beast and his teammates knew it. And like you said when he wasnt on the team made up for it. Vancouver situation was the opposite up down and all over the place was luongos game. I'm no expert on goaltending but to me he's out of control and off balance quite a bit. No goalie plays the exact same way as another but most play the percentage of where a shot could go. Whether its giguere who plays more of a blocking style when the puck is close and doesn't rely a ton on reflexes. Or quick who plays the lower part of the net like no other and challenges at the top of the crease a lot. I think luongo is somewhere in the middle of all that. He plays deep in the crease in most situations and is nowhere near as smooth and refined. He looks awkward and uncoordinated especially against his post when shots come at his feet. Maybe a new goalie coach would serve him well.
I feel like you're being overly critical of a goaltender that has excelled and been elite at the NHL level for 10 years now.

The entire Canuck team imploded in the SCF. They were beaten to death and didn't have nearly close to the quality line-up they were so successful with. All teams deal with injuries and so did the Bruins; but it is indisputable that the Canucks suffered more, especially on their back-end.

Luongo played poorly in 3 games against the Bruins but his poor performances are overblown. The truth is the TEAM didn't show up and the TEAM's mistakes always tend to reflect on the goaltender.

CanuckLuck is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 08:44 PM
  #581
skywarp75
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,014
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zetterberg View Post
The assumption is not based solely on a poor save percentage, it's based on the wild variation of his save percentage from game to game in a short period of time.



So what made the difference from Game 5 to Game 6 then, if the defense was so awful and injured? Again, it's the case of one player wildly varying versus several. Did Ballard and friends discover some magical one-game hockey equipment to become MVP-worthy players for Game 5, then lose the power for Game 6? You're not blaming the goalie when things go bad, but you're giving him all of the praise when things go well. You either have to say that Luongo was inconsistent, that everyone around him was simultaneously inconsistent, or that everyone on Boston was simultaneously inconsistent. Whether you directly blame Luongo for the numbers or not, a GAA line of 2-0-8-5.8-0-21-3 is wildly inconsistent on SOMEBODY's behalf, and I'm inclined to believe that it's much more likely that one person was so than several all at the exact same times.



Maybe the horribly decimated defense you speak of was much less decimated at the time, plus versus far weaker teams, in much more low-pressure situations? Also, he was bad at least twice in the Chicago, then you could say once in Nashville. It wasn't just once.



As a matter of fact, it may very well have been those goalies' faults. Those goalies did have 3 game stretches of inconsistency. That's exactly what I was saying. Ok, so admittedly, I'm guilty of cherry-picking a little in that occasion by season-to-season. But did Quick go from a phenomenal shutout and great 2 goal game to an 8 goal game? Did Thomas go from being pulled 40 minutes into a game to getting a 31 save shutout?

See the above for my opinion on inconsistency of players vs goalie.
and these are Canuck fans who watch every minute of every game every season, and they're all telling you that goaltending wasnt the problem, it is an entire team not showing up and getting blown out. John Quick or Tim Thomas wouldnt have changed the outcome of those blowouts. The Canucks still would have lost. And no the team didnt no show DUE to soft goals against, the soft goals against were due to the now showing.

skywarp75 is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 09:03 PM
  #582
Toxic0n
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 646
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zetterberg View Post
The assumption is not based solely on a poor save percentage, it's based on the wild variation of his save percentage from game to game in a short period of time.



As a matter of fact, it may very well have been those goalies' faults. Those goalies did have 3 game stretches of inconsistency. That's exactly what I was saying. Ok, so admittedly, I'm guilty of cherry-picking a little in that occasion by season-to-season. But did Quick go from a phenomenal shutout and great 2 goal game to an 8 goal game? Did Thomas go from being pulled 40 minutes into a game to getting a 31 save shutout?

See the above for my opinion on inconsistency of players vs goalie.
Maybe not 8 goals, but Thomas did let in 5 and then posted a shutout the next game and then let in 4 goals in the next (in TBL series). So is it his fault or the team's fault? Applying your logic, he is solely responsible and is inconsistent. Looks at the goals he let in against TBL:

4-5-0-4-1-5-0
SV% .879 .878 1.0 .889 .971 .808 1.0


He won a Vezina and a Stanley Cup, how is that possible with inconsistent stats like that?

Look, I'm not saying Luongo is without blame but it is a team game. They don't get "magical one-game hockey equipment to become MVP-worthy players", they simply have bad games as a TEAM.

Toxic0n is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 09:20 PM
  #583
jayball75
Registered User
 
jayball75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckLuck View Post
I feel like you're being overly critical of a goaltender that has excelled and been elite at the NHL level for 10 years now.

The entire Canuck team imploded in the SCF. They were beaten to death and didn't have nearly close to the quality line-up they were so successful with. All teams deal with injuries and so did the Bruins; but it is indisputable that the Canucks suffered more, especially on their back-end.

Luongo played poorly in 3 games against the Bruins but his poor performances are overblown. The truth is the TEAM didn't show up and the TEAM's mistakes always tend to reflect on the goaltender.
Let me first say I do agree that bad play or injuries can contribute to more quality chances against.but if you're gonna let wristers in from the top of the circle on a clean shot no tip or screen or let soft goals through the five hole on a usual routine save just for a couple of examples. That's weak goaltending no matter how you look at it. As an elite goalie those are the saves you make to bail your team out after they make a mistake. You're the last line of defense so play that way when your team needs you instead of what he did.

jayball75 is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 09:46 PM
  #584
CanuckLuck
Registered User
 
CanuckLuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayball75 View Post
Let me first say I do agree that bad play or injuries can contribute to more quality chances against.but if you're gonna let wristers in from the top of the circle on a clean shot no tip or screen or let soft goals through the five hole on a usual routine save just for a couple of examples. That's weak goaltending no matter how you look at it. As an elite goalie those are the saves you make to bail your team out after they make a mistake. You're the last line of defense so play that way when your team needs you instead of what he did.
He wasn't brilliant in those games, I get it. His bad performance is amplified when the entire team ALSO plays poorly. That's the double standard you don't seem to get with Luongo. What athlete doesn't have a bad game? And why is it the marginal performances by other goaltenders are always ignored?

We could give examples of Lundqvist, Quick, etc completely flubbing saves. It's a difficult position, one with a microscope constantly on it-And one where your mistakes result in goals. It's sad you have to continually beat a dead horse trying to explain to Canucks fans, a goaltender they've watched over the last 5 years, he is lousy.

CanuckLuck is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 10:49 PM
  #585
kdfsjljklgjfg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gloversville, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by skywarp75 View Post
and these are Canuck fans who watch every minute of every game every season, and they're all telling you that goaltending wasnt the problem, it is an entire team not showing up and getting blown out. John Quick or Tim Thomas wouldnt have changed the outcome of those blowouts. The Canucks still would have lost. And no the team didnt no show DUE to soft goals against, the soft goals against were due to the now showing.
Luongo getting pulled twice in one series shows that the Canucks COACH saw a problem with the goaltending. Furthermore, in the NHL, an 8 goals-allowed can be and should be attributed to the goalie every time. If he's so elite, then I don't care if he has no defensemen at all, he shouldn't be getting lit up THAT hard. Maybe any other goalie wouldn't have changed a loss to a win, but I would think they could've made it less of a complete embarrassment. Even if not abysmal, Luongo had at the least a rather bad game in both games 3 and 4, and a case could be made for game 6 as well. He was not elite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckLuck View Post
I feel like you're being overly critical of a goaltender that has excelled and been elite at the NHL level for 10 years now.

The entire Canuck team imploded in the SCF. They were beaten to death and didn't have nearly close to the quality line-up they were so successful with. All teams deal with injuries and so did the Bruins; but it is indisputable that the Canucks suffered more, especially on their back-end.

Luongo played poorly in 3 games against the Bruins but his poor performances are overblown. The truth is the TEAM didn't show up and the TEAM's mistakes always tend to reflect on the goaltender.
I can accept that. It may have been lost in there somewhere, but my initial intent was to show that it's ludicrous to not attribute any of the Canucks' misfortunes to Luongo being, to some degree, rather inconsistent in the biggest hockey series there is (unless you want to say Olympics, but that's an entirely different argument).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic0n View Post
Maybe not 8 goals, but Thomas did let in 5 and then posted a shutout the next game and then let in 4 goals in the next (in TBL series). So is it his fault or the team's fault? Applying your logic, he is solely responsible and is inconsistent. Looks at the goals he let in against TBL:

Look, I'm not saying Luongo is without blame but it is a team game. They don't get "magical one-game hockey equipment to become MVP-worthy players", they simply have bad games as a TEAM.
I never said that he was solely responsible, just that it seems to make more sense to put the brunt of responsibility on him, as it makes more sense than blaming several other players simultaneously. See above. I can understand your points though.

kdfsjljklgjfg is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 12:45 AM
  #586
JayBeautiful
Nature Boy
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Maple Ridge BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 448
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by skywarp75 View Post
and these are Canuck fans who watch every minute of every game every season, and they're all telling you that goaltending wasnt the problem, it is an entire team not showing up and getting blown out. John Quick or Tim Thomas wouldnt have changed the outcome of those blowouts. The Canucks still would have lost. And no the team didnt no show DUE to soft goals against, the soft goals against were due to the now showing.
and...for Roberto to earn the 3 wins against Boston he had to post a 0.66 GAA, in the 4 losses even if he posts a 1.5 GAA, "The Canucks still would have lost".

JayBeautiful is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 01:09 AM
  #587
ZKassian9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 50
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayball75 View Post
Let me first say I do agree that bad play or injuries can contribute to more quality chances against.but if you're gonna let wristers in from the top of the circle on a clean shot no tip or screen or let soft goals through the five hole on a usual routine save just for a couple of examples. That's weak goaltending no matter how you look at it. As an elite goalie those are the saves you make to bail your team out after they make a mistake. You're the last line of defense so play that way when your team needs you instead of what he did.

Quick let a goal in from the center line in last years playoffs, I guess he's terrible too according to your logic. In your line of thinking a goalie has to play flawless every game or he's terrible. Every player has off nights. Lu has carried the Canucks in many games where the team in front of him was non existent.

ZKassian9 is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 01:10 AM
  #588
Kesler is Bestler
Registered User
 
Kesler is Bestler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,077
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zetterberg View Post
Luongo getting pulled twice in one series shows that the Canucks COACH saw a problem with the goaltending. Furthermore, in the NHL, an 8 goals-allowed can be and should be attributed to the goalie every time. If he's so elite, then I don't care if he has no defensemen at all, he shouldn't be getting lit up THAT hard. Maybe any other goalie wouldn't have changed a loss to a win, but I would think they could've made it less of a complete embarrassment. Even if not abysmal, Luongo had at the least a rather bad game in both games 3 and 4, and a case could be made for game 6 as well. He was not elite.



I can accept that. It may have been lost in there somewhere, but my initial intent was to show that it's ludicrous to not attribute any of the Canucks' misfortunes to Luongo being, to some degree, rather inconsistent in the biggest hockey series there is (unless you want to say Olympics, but that's an entirely different argument).



I never said that he was solely responsible, just that it seems to make more sense to put the brunt of responsibility on him, as it makes more sense than blaming several other players simultaneously. See above. I can understand your points though.
The fact that Luongo gave up 8 goals has more to do with him specifically asking AV not to pull him. And the entire argument that "good goalies dont give up 8 goals" is silly because even Roy gave up 9 goals once (ironically in the same circumstance but in his case it was the coach refusing to pull him)


Last edited by Kesler is Bestler: 12-28-2012 at 01:19 AM.
Kesler is Bestler is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 02:02 AM
  #589
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zetterberg View Post
I never said that he was solely responsible, just that it seems to make more sense to put the brunt of responsibility on him, as it makes more sense than blaming several other players simultaneously. See above. I can understand your points though.
That's kind of a simple minded way of thinking isn't it? Blame one person because its easier than putting the blame on those actually responsible?

How about this...since the lockout season, no team has scored fewer goals per game (GPG) than Vancouver in the finals...in fact despite Vancouver vs. Boston going 7 games, no team has actually scored fewer goals in total than Vancouver in the SCF since the lockout.

Only one winner has ever finished withing 1.6 GPG of Vancouver (and they were still scoring at a 0.9 GPG pace higher than Vancouver). In short, Vancouver didn't come even close to scoring enough goals to win a series.

Vancouver's goals against wasn't great either, they finished 3rd last in goals against among the 14 teams to make the finals but that would have been good enough to win the Cup the year before (in 2010).

Goals for was certainly more of an issue than goals against so it's really tough to say that the blame should go more on the goalie than the skaters IMO.

DJOpus is online now  
Old
12-28-2012, 06:47 AM
  #590
jayball75
Registered User
 
jayball75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZKassian9 View Post
Quick let a goal in from the center line in last years playoffs, I guess he's terrible too according to your logic. In your line of thinking a goalie has to play flawless every game or he's terrible. Every player has off nights. Lu has carried the Canucks in many games where the team in front of him was non existent.
Yes but the issue is he had four of those in a seven game series. One game here and there can be called a night off.

jayball75 is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 07:52 AM
  #591
MISC*
Negged.
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,691
vCash: 500
It's a thing of beauty watching Toxicon slap around Zetterberg at his own game.

MISC* is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 08:20 AM
  #592
kdfsjljklgjfg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gloversville, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kesler is Bestler View Post
The fact that Luongo gave up 8 goals has more to do with him specifically asking AV not to pull him. And the entire argument that "good goalies dont give up 8 goals" is silly because even Roy gave up 9 goals once (ironically in the same circumstance but in his case it was the coach refusing to pull him)
So Roy didn't have a terrible game when he had 9 goals? Where did you get me saying "good goalies don't give up 8 goals" or ANYTHING of the sort? He was bad THAT SERIES.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
That's kind of a simple minded way of thinking isn't it? Blame one person because its easier than putting the blame on those actually responsible?
Not because it's easier, because it makes more sense and is much more likely. This isn't just a hockey thing, that logic applies to EVERYTHING. What's more likely, that you win the lottery, or that you and all of your friends win the lottery 2 days in a row, then miss the next day, then win the next day? What's more likely, that Team X doesn't get the 1st overall pick next draft, then gets is the year after, or that Team A gets the 1st overall pick, Team B gets the 2nd, and Team B gets the 3rd, then none of them get top 3 the next year?

Mathematically speaking, it's much more likely for one variable to occur than several.

Quote:
How about this...since the lockout season, no team has scored fewer goals per game (GPG) than Vancouver in the finals...in fact despite Vancouver vs. Boston going 7 games, no team has actually scored fewer goals in total than Vancouver in the SCF since the lockout.

Only one winner has ever finished withing 1.6 GPG of Vancouver (and they were still scoring at a 0.9 GPG pace higher than Vancouver). In short, Vancouver didn't come even close to scoring enough goals to win a series.
You apparently completely missed me saying:
Quote:
Maybe any other goalie wouldn't have changed a loss to a win, but I would think they could've made it less of a complete embarrassment.
My point is Luongo, at best, was rather inconsistent in his play. He was bad in at least 2 games, and you could say 3. Meanwhile, he was great in 2 others. To be on opposite extremes of play quality is inconsistent. Yes, ok, maybe his team was flip-floppy too that series. But to deny that while, maybe not all, a solid chunk of it is Luongo's fault, is ludicrous.

kdfsjljklgjfg is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 08:51 AM
  #593
JuniorNelson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: E.Vancouver
Country: Australia-Aboriginal
Posts: 4,611
vCash: 50
Luongo didn't play as well in the SCF as he has statistically, in the regular season? You don't say?

What is more interesting to me is the Luongo we have now. Months of speculation and character assasination must have had some effect? Worse, how will a lost season affect him? He'll be an older goalie eighteen months out of hockey.

If there is a season, I hope the fanbase isn't expecting a team altering return. I don't think it's coming. We have been told the Canucks quietly offered Luongo at the deadline. Then, they had months to do a trade last summer? That isn't what I thought the market would be like at all.

Canucks would be well served to chase picks, if they had another GM. Gillis is too wacky to build through the draft. He did days of psych tests and interviews and still drafted Hodgson. At any rate, the offered returns aren't going to push anybody over the top.

Gillis might get it. He might think the draft is too uncertain and trade for young players or good prospects. That would be ideal, if there are some offered. This is why an Edmonton deal would be awesome. I think Dubnyk has moved them out of the market, though.

Canucks would be lucky to get a young roster player, now. Why? It's because the market has spoken and we still own Luongo. It's time to take the medicine and move him to Florida for a second round pick, if they really want him off the team? Otherwise, why do it? It's not like his market value will get worse. If anything, the danger is that he'll retake the starting job and Schnieder will be back-up.

I suggest now is not the time for a Luongo trade. He shopuld be allowed to compete in camp for the starting job and moved if he demands it. otherwise, the puny offers aren't enough to trade away a decent goalie for.

Luongo for a roster player with size and grit, or forget about it.

JuniorNelson is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 09:02 AM
  #594
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,236
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zetterberg View Post
So Roy didn't have a terrible game when he had 9 goals? Where did you get me saying "good goalies don't give up 8 goals" or ANYTHING of the sort? He was bad THAT SERIES.



Not because it's easier, because it makes more sense and is much more likely. This isn't just a hockey thing, that logic applies to EVERYTHING. What's more likely, that you win the lottery, or that you and all of your friends win the lottery 2 days in a row, then miss the next day, then win the next day? What's more likely, that Team X doesn't get the 1st overall pick next draft, then gets is the year after, or that Team A gets the 1st overall pick, Team B gets the 2nd, and Team B gets the 3rd, then none of them get top 3 the next year?

Mathematically speaking, it's much more likely for one variable to occur than several.



You apparently completely missed me saying:


My point is Luongo, at best, was rather inconsistent in his play. He was bad in at least 2 games, and you could say 3. Meanwhile, he was great in 2 others. To be on opposite extremes of play quality is inconsistent. Yes, ok, maybe his team was flip-floppy too that series. But to deny that while, maybe not all, a solid chunk of it is Luongo's fault, is ludicrous.
Just back from a few good Christmas days off.....i'm hoping by your name that you are a Wing's fan. You seem to really be laying some HEAVY negativity on Luongo...and as a Leafs fan, we take enough heat for undue hatred toward him.

Just my opinion, but speaking to the cup finals (which seems to be your point of contention), the whole Canucks team took a big dump on the center ice dot in that series. The fact that they won 3 games while only scoring 8 goals in the entire series speaks volumes. Instead of saying "Luongo couldn't win that one last game...." why not say "how the Hell could the rest of that team not win 1 game for Luongo?".

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 09:04 AM
  #595
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,236
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorNelson View Post
Luongo didn't play as well in the SCF as he has statistically, in the regular season? You don't say?

What is more interesting to me is the Luongo we have now. Months of speculation and character assasination must have had some effect? Worse, how will a lost season affect him? He'll be an older goalie eighteen months out of hockey.

If there is a season, I hope the fanbase isn't expecting a team altering return. I don't think it's coming. We have been told the Canucks quietly offered Luongo at the deadline. Then, they had months to do a trade last summer? That isn't what I thought the market would be like at all.

Canucks would be well served to chase picks, if they had another GM. Gillis is too wacky to build through the draft. He did days of psych tests and interviews and still drafted Hodgson. At any rate, the offered returns aren't going to push anybody over the top.

Gillis might get it. He might think the draft is too uncertain and trade for young players or good prospects. That would be ideal, if there are some offered. This is why an Edmonton deal would be awesome. I think Dubnyk has moved them out of the market, though.

Canucks would be lucky to get a young roster player, now. Why? It's because the market has spoken and we still own Luongo. It's time to take the medicine and move him to Florida for a second round pick, if they really want him off the team? Otherwise, why do it? It's not like his market value will get worse. If anything, the danger is that he'll retake the starting job and Schnieder will be back-up.

I suggest now is not the time for a Luongo trade. He shopuld be allowed to compete in camp for the starting job and moved if he demands it. otherwise, the puny offers aren't enough to trade away a decent goalie for.

Luongo for a roster player with size and grit, or forget about it.
I know 1 game isn't a determining factor....but Damn he looked good for Canada in the Spengler yesterday.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 10:16 AM
  #596
ZKassian9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 50
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Just back from a few good Christmas days off.....i'm hoping by your name that you are a Wing's fan. You seem to really be laying some HEAVY negativity on Luongo...and as a Leafs fan, we take enough heat for undue hatred toward him.

Just my opinion, but speaking to the cup finals (which seems to be your point of contention), the whole Canucks team took a big dump on the center ice dot in that series. The fact that they won 3 games while only scoring 8 goals in the entire series speaks volumes. Instead of saying "Luongo couldn't win that one last game...." why not say "how the Hell could the rest of that team not win 1 game for Luongo?".

Agreed. The only reason the Canucks made it to game 7 was because of Lu. The team disappeared in front of him. Anybody that blamed the series on Lu obviously didn't watch.
The lockout will not affect Lu. Gilliis, Vigneault and teammates have repeatedly said Lu is the hardest working Canuck. There's a reason he is an elite goalie.

ZKassian9 is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 10:29 AM
  #597
Shawnathon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Thomas' play in the ECF was similar to Luongo's in the SCF... The difference is BOS bailed Thomas out with their offense while Vancouver was completely dependant on Luongo for their wins.
Tampa had a formidable offense. Most shots beating Thomas were good ones. Luongo looked like an AHL goalie playing in Boston. You can't compare the two series because they were completely differen't.

Shawnathon is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 10:46 AM
  #598
Toxic0n
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 646
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnathon View Post
Tampa had a formidable offense. Most shots beating Thomas were good ones. Luongo looked like an AHL goalie playing in Boston. You can't compare the two series because they were completely differen't.
Boston scored at 2.98 G/G in the regular season in 2010-2011, Tampa at 2.94.
So Boston's offense is not as formidable Tampa's? Or are you just making stuff up to suit your point?

Toxic0n is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 12:25 PM
  #599
kdfsjljklgjfg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gloversville, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Just back from a few good Christmas days off.....i'm hoping by your name that you are a Wing's fan. You seem to really be laying some HEAVY negativity on Luongo...and as a Leafs fan, we take enough heat for undue hatred toward him.

Just my opinion, but speaking to the cup finals (which seems to be your point of contention), the whole Canucks team took a big dump on the center ice dot in that series. The fact that they won 3 games while only scoring 8 goals in the entire series speaks volumes. Instead of saying "Luongo couldn't win that one last game...." why not say "how the Hell could the rest of that team not win 1 game for Luongo?".
And yet he allowed that same number of goals they scored in a single game, got yanked within 10 minutes in another, and many would say he played pretty poorly in a third. He played:
Phenomenal
Great
Horrific
Bad
Phenomenal
Horrific
Decent

Most of his games were on one side of the spectrum or the other. He was inconsistent. Yes, he was great at times, but he was also awful at times. Being pulled from the game twice and getting a shutout twice in a 7 game series is not consistent play by any means.

As I've repeated myself several times, sure, maybe any other goalie couldn't have saved that team. But Luongo got completely embarrassed more than once. As awful as the defense may have been in front of him at times, it has to be acknowledged that Luongo was far from steady, and his level of play varied quite a bit in that single series.

Whether you want to say that he was horrifically inconsistent, or only slightly so, with the team's play making it more perceivable, that's up to you. But I think it's a heck of a stretch to say that it was entirely the team's fault and he was great every game. Even the worst defenses in the league wouldn't allow 15 goals in 112 minutes of play across 3 games if they had an elite, or even just decent goalie performance behind them for the entirety of this time. Luongo was great in parts of this series, but to some degree or another he was well below his talent level for at least 2 games, and not at his best for another.

kdfsjljklgjfg is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 12:47 PM
  #600
jayball75
Registered User
 
jayball75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZKassian9 View Post
Quick let a goal in from the center line in last years playoffs, I guess he's terrible too according to your logic. In your line of thinking a goalie has to play flawless every game or he's terrible. Every player has off nights. Lu has carried the Canucks in many games where the team in front of him was non existent.
Wake up and read what i said. All of you have a problem admitting he let in **** goals that can be blamed on him. Letting one bad goal in like quick did is TOTALLY different then having four complete garbage games that where luongo let in a number of weak goals. I don't care if you keep saying its a team game. Put yourself on the team watching your goalie play like that. Do you gain confidence in him? I think not. Can you go out and take chances to score knowing your goalie isnt there to bail you out? A goalie doesn't have to be conn smythe caliber every game but he does need to be solid at least. You can go on and on about how he got you to the seventh game but I see it different. There is no seventh game if he actually plays like an elite goalie.

jayball75 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 12:05 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.