HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Notices

Goalie Conundrum thread (2013 edition)

View Poll Results: Our Goalie Situation - What's the Fix?
Stick with Crawford - he'll bounce back 28 36.84%
Assume Emery Will Become Our # 1 4 5.26%
Wait for a Prospect to Be Ready (plz specify who) 3 3.95%
Trade for a Goalie (plz specify who) 21 27.63%
Sign a free agent Goalie (plz specify who) 0 0%
Reconcile ourselves to the fact we're weak in goal and our strength will come from elsewhere 17 22.37%
Other (plz specify) 3 3.95%
Voters: 76. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-25-2013, 03:05 PM
  #301
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,039
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
So where is this goalie coming from? Because goalies like Lehtonen don't become UFA's.



What about the season where he was great? He has stopped the pucks we have needed him too.

I can't believe people are complaining when Crow is 3-0-0 with a 1.98GAA and a 920sv%. He's let in 1 BAD GOAL!!!!!!!!!!!!
need to trade to get one... just need to be patient.


about the season he was great? That's fine, but Crawford being great is for other goalies average. Last year he sucked, this year he hasn't so far. That's fine. Need to prove it in more than 3 games.
He let in 1 softy + that goal when he thought it would be good to sleep a bit on the ice instead of standing up... or the 2 goals he was saved by Keith

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 03:19 PM
  #302
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorMenT View Post
The Blackhawks remind me of the current way to win in the NFL. Get a defense that is just meh (goalie in this case) and an offense that will win by just out scoring the opponent. While I wish we had a better goalie, I think Crawford is improved from last year, but still not as good as we would all hope.

He may still improve more, but even if he allows 2.5 goals a game average, our offense should still be able to take care of business.
Really, so Green Bay, Houston, Atlanta, New England, and their high powered offense and meh D all are going to the Super Bowl, or is it the teams that had maybe the best defenses in the play-offs are going to the Super Bowl.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 03:25 PM
  #303
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,039
vCash: 500
It's as always. Need a balanced team. We need good goaltending. We don't need a Rinne to win the cup. We need a goalie that can make the saves when we need it. OT is a time you really need your goalie to make no mistake.

If he goes down, our season is over or Bowman has to overpay to get one via trade

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 03:27 PM
  #304
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
Really, so Green Bay, Houston, Atlanta, New England, and their high powered offense and meh D all are going to the Super Bowl, or is it the teams that had maybe the best defenses in the play-offs are going to the Super Bowl.
The top team in offense yards per game

NFC: San Fran
AFC: Baltimore

Scoring offense in all the playoffs: 1st San Fran (36.5 PPG) 3rd Baltimore (30.5 ppg)

They won because their offenses went crazy, not because of their defenses.

Illinihockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 03:35 PM
  #305
crazyhawk
Registered User
 
crazyhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
Really, so Green Bay, Houston, Atlanta, New England, and their high powered offense and meh D all are going to the Super Bowl, or is it the teams that had maybe the best defenses in the play-offs are going to the Super Bowl.
Hockey and football are a little different seeing as possession changes like every second at times.
We won in 2010 with good goaltending not great. Now it's up to Crawford to be good. So far he's not awefull, not great but I'd say pretty darn good!

crazyhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 03:40 PM
  #306
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,306
vCash: 500
I think people have forgot some of the awful goals Niemi let in during that cup run. He came up huge in game 1 against the Sharks and game 2 against the Flyers but other than that he was not great. Under .900 save% in 3 games against Nashville (out of 6), 3 games against Vancouver (out of 6), 1 game against the Sharks (out of 4) and 5!! games against Philly (out of 6).

Illinihockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 03:59 PM
  #307
hawksfan50
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,829
vCash: 500
As long as Crawford is good enough -lets acknowledge ONE bad goal a game he shoulda had + ONE more that we cannot blame him on - you can win MOST games giving up only 2 for sure goals a game given our offense...but to achieve that he must make the KEY saves at the right moment to OFFSET the for certatain at least 2 goals we KNOW he is going to give up at least every game...NOW in games where he gives up more than that -it becomes more problematic for us winning those -still if our vauted offense is as good as we think--then we ought to still will 60% of those games we give up 3 or more ..
So the key to Crawford is him limiting as much as possible games where he gives up more than 2 goals--WE KNOW he just is not going to get that many shutouts (No Halak he...) or 1 goal games (because in addition --there is nearly ALWAYS that 1 bad goal he shoulda had) ,but if that is the worst most of the time-he willbe "good enough" for us to contend for the Cup ..Most nights the Hawks should outshoot the opponents and have over 30 shots --most nights....IF we limit oppsing shots to the 24-26 range --so say 25 on average -it means for 2 goals only a game CC must save at a.920 or better save%...THAT then is the issue --he has never sustained that over a an NHL season nor even a GAA of 2 or less ..his best so far has been 2.30 GA per game in 2010/11(his save % was @.917 that year so .920 is not out of the question;that year he faced an average of 27.105 shots per game)...BUT
that was then-this is now and so IF I'm right on the shots against per game we allow on average this year as being ONLY 25 --THEN even duplicating his .917 save % of 2010/11 results in a GAA of 2.075 per game...

So our TEAM can help him keep it at approx 2 goals or only slightly higher IF he can manage between .917 and .920 save% AND we limit teams to near only 25 shots a game..so far in the 3GP he has started CC is at a .923 save% facing 26 shots per game ...His save% probably adjusts down a bit and our TEAM need to tighten up just a bit to get that to only 25 against a game and voila HE SHOULD be able to give us that 2 goals against or very close to it ONLY per game -but since he gets few shut-outs-that will probably be a steady run of mostly 2 goals given up almost every night ...IT will not be like a Halak with many shutouts then some big blow-outs interspered to inflate the GAA and save % to at least human levels from something superhuman...So CC will instead always be "meh" and just "good enough" but good enough MEANS .917-.920 range and means our TEAM cannot let him face many more shots than 25 or so too often. our TEAM can help him as much as he can help the TEAM --not by any kind of brilliance-but simply by TIMELY key saves to offset the bad goal he always will give up and by having a good enough save% for the ***** he does face .He's not going to give us ELITE .930 + goaltending --but he cannot be at .900-.910 or worse --hemust be a "middle" type GOOD ENOUGH goalie -we need .917-.920 or slightly better from him for the not too burdensome shot load our team will place on him...It is not like he'llbe barraged with 35-40 shots a night like Lehtonen has to try to stop.. ALL we ask of CC is be "good enough" ...

(However it would be NICE if we could develop a young stud goalie who CAN give us elite .930+ saving efficiency --we are not goiing to get that unless we get very lucky -if we continue letting other NHL teams pick off the highest rated goalies with round one or early to mid round two picks--it is not a guarantee their relatively high draftees will turn out as "special" elite NHL goalies--but it ought to up the ante for that possibility over gambling that a 3rd-7th rounder will emerge as such .WE did take Kent Simpson in the 2nd round--but that was late 2nd at #58 (and in any case I did not like the pick before the draft when i saw Simpson whiff on a long 50 footer at the World U-18's that spring prior to that draft -that SHOULD have sent up the red flags on him -BUT we have no control for poor judgement of our scouting staff )...
Most hockey experts do not rate the later round goalie picks we tok for the pipeline (Carruth and MATTSSON) as "elite potential" goalies either -or even If they ever "make it" as even an NHL back-up ...SO we NEED to roll the dice for a change and get a goalie rated as worthy of going as a firstrounder or high second rounder .I have already dismissed the much hyped ZACHARY FUCALE -the #1 rated NA goalie by Centrl Scouting whose save% stats simply do NOT justify his high rating despite the fact he pays on the top team in the Q and faces a relativelyeasy low shot total against per game ....THE 2nd rated NA goalie at mid-term is ERIC COMRIE--now OUT FOR THE SEASON with a hip injury requiring surgery --to be hones he too did not excite me and NOW red flag on that injury and how he might recover or not -well it raises RISK ....That leaves the #3 rated goalie in NA--TRISTAN JARRY 6'2 181 (EDM,WHL) -who has been STELLAR but only played in 18 games as the OILKINGS' back-up to vet stasrter Laurrent Brossoit--nevertheless JARRY has BETTER STATS than BROSSOIT--JARRY has an amazing 5 shut-outs in18GP and a stingy 1.60 GAA and a greast.936 save%..but beyond that -he impressedme in his 16 save no goals given up last half of the game duty for losing TEAM CHERRY at the TOP PROSPECTS GAME...I liked both his hybrid style (not the usual butterfly only cookie-cutter goalie) and more so his ATTITUDE excuding CONFIDENCE he COULD stop pucks very efficiently (some of his save were difficult scoring chances for any goalie to stop) -I THINK (my huinch) he has "IT" -a special quality of both talent focus and attitude that will make him that elsusive "Elite" goalie to covet for the pipeline ... My only question is that as the mid-term #3 rated NA goalie plus asdd in the #1 rated eurogoalie (JUUSE SAROS) and he might (as of now) be thought of as "ONLY"
4th goalie taken and so likely to skip by round one into early to mid round 2 instead..
HOWEVER - maybe by FINAL rankings the scouting orgs (AND mist NHL teams) will ADMIT they had ity wrong at mid-term-- and JARRY could be the 1st or 2nd goalie taken off the board in the draft -in ROUND ONE...if that is the cae -willhe be off the board before the Hawks pick? I would not want to risk that chance-so I would TRAE UP to get him if necessary (we do not have 2nd or 3rd rounders to give as part of the deal in 2013 oicks ,but we could give either other prospects from our pipeline or 2014 picks in some move up package) ...I still must ALSO wait and see how SAROS plays at the World U-18's --maybe he will vault into consideration for the TOP goalie on my list and what ought to be the Hawks target list....The other goalie i have a hunch on is PHILLIPE DESROSIERS
(Rimouski ,QMJHL) -his save% is only .906 BUT he is a late birthdate for the draft (Aug 16th birth date) and I think is now improving a lot -a good mix of technique focus and athleticism 6'1 187 --and he faces more shots a night than Fucale or Jarry do --Fucale a bit over 23 shots a game,Jarry a bit over 24 shots a game ,Desrosiers close to 30 shots a game ...He may not go in round one but maybe erly round two --so IF JARRY and Saros are ff the board when we pick --my next hunch would be totake Desrosiers over Comrie or Fucale (perhaps we trade down into the early 2nd and get him with that pick and pick up another 2nd for the 2014 draft or maybe we trade our first doen a bit to a team with mutiple 2nd rounders this year--if any such oppoutunities exist)?

Anyone we draft in goal will not help us for several yesrs-but it does not mean Stan sould NEVER take a goalie early with a first rounder or early 2nd.At some point you gotta TRY gettingthe higher rated goalies in the top 4 or top 5 list and your scouts need to pick the ONE from that top group who WILL "make it" because proably the other 3or 4 of that top 4 or 5 will fizzle out .but if you do pick the right kid of thsat top rated bunch -you probably have that elusive elite "goalie of the future" teams would love to posess in the pipeline...better than having all the hockey experts tell you your pipeline goaltending iss "meh" ...So at SOME POINT STAN will have to TRY to draft "THE SAVIOUR" in net -maybe it will be the 2013 draft we fINALLY get around to atempting this EARLY instead of putiing it off to LATER in the draft --right now with no 2nds or 3rds anyway -if we do not use our first for a goalie or trade down to early 2nd if our top 2 goalie targets are already off the board -tHEN the earlest we get a crack at a goalie to draft willbe ROUND 4 ---at that late we pray for luck rather than what we coulda shoulda done at an earlier opportunity from the consensus top 4-5 goalies for the draft ..
Of couse with our vaunted scouting staff I have ZERO faiith they will pick the right guy
---but that willbe the fun ---looking back years from the draft to see who got it right --their pick or my hunch to take --providing there was a choice when the pick came up -if my target is off the board already then the only thing they could have done was trade UP -but if they let my trget get away and settle for their pick and my target turns out better- then I will of course haunt them for years over their big mistake. If their target selectedturns out better than mine then i will laud them for their scouting astuteness and admit my error. The fun in these draft scenarios is trying to see WHO is the better judge of talent projection ...THe only time the Hawks and I agreed on a first rounder since 2001 was with TOEWS -it was nice to get on the sae page for a change---and that worked out GREAT ...I got raked for TURRIS over KANe-but i said it would take several years for TURUS to add weight and "arrive" -so Kane got an immediate head start..Kane still may outpoint Turris each year even know going forward--BUT TURRIS now 195 lbs is really emerging well as Ottawa's #2 lione cENTRE and he plays a 200 foot game unlike Kane ..AS long as KAne gives us a good PP we will not complain even if hs +?- and ES game is not some great net benefit --but TURRIS is looking very good now in his 2C role for Ottawa -who knows -maybe we see them play each other in the CUP this year? THEN we'll see which of them is the more valueable playoff guy...

Meanwhile -I cannot let the Hawks vaunted scouting off the hook for passing on Kopitar for Skille (I specifically posted on many websites to AVOID SKILLE and take KOPITAR if he fell to us--when they bypassed him still up on the board for SKILLE --that was a SCREAM moment -I was so mad at them)...
THEN there was the KEVIN HAYES fiasco --he was on most lists only a late 30's pick -instead they take him at #24 -way too early -- I wanted BROCK NELSON who NYI got at #30 that draft after we traded our #30 down for #35 (LUDVIG RENSFELDT) and #58 (KENT SIMPSON) -I had RENSFELDT targeted for #30 --the Hawks of course already let him go out out the system by not signbing him -I think they gave up on him way to early -and SIMSPON I had given up on BEFORE the draft because i saw him whiff at a 60 footer in the Workd U-18's and that told me RED FLAG--AVOID -yet THEY still go ahead and take him....I still say that NELSON and RENSFELDT would be a better draft than K.Hayes and Simpson ---NELSON has 24 pts in 30GP for NYI's AHL team in his first pro year and i think will help NYI as a 2nd line C in future ....K,Hayes is a marginal 4th line C or w -IF he ever makes the Hawks when hhe finishes at BC..... RENSFELDT never got the chance to develop in the NA game in the AHL--IF he ever getys an NHL shot from another team he willneed to develop in Sweden--he is playing with MALMO in the ALLSVENSKAN league this year ...but looking at what he did in the OHL for Sarnia -he was no worse a prospect than many teams signed to further develop in their systems-I fo not know why the Hawjs gave up so early on him...Whatever --they did and now we must get hype on several prospects that really have no real better shot at making it that Rensfeldt had excepot that the Hawks gave them a chance .I am not sayning Rensfeldt would be some big NHl scorer -but maybe with his size and skating could have been a useful 3rd liner .I certainly do not see Kevin Hayes as anything better..
BOTH were late first to mid-30's types and that is usually 2nd line at best,maybe third line more realistic,or probably do not make it or if so marginally a 4th liner --but still you draft a 2nd rounder you usually give him some time in the minors to develop ...to see IF he can achieve te potential you thought when you drafted him..Instead they quit on Rensfeldt IMO too easrly to find out ...no we probably never know..
BUT Simpson loks like meh -as i predicted--and K. hayes is not the star at BC in his Jr, yr thast he should have been for a first rounder..and BROCK NELSON looks like the best of all of them-as I had slotted...SO I do think that draft was a FIASCO as far as they messed up the first 2 rounds...

hawksfan50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 04:04 PM
  #308
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawksfan50 View Post
As long as Crawford is good enough -lets acknowledge ONE bad goal a game he shoulda had + ONE more that we cannot blame him on - you can win MOST games giving up only 2 for sure goals a game given our offense...but to achieve that he must make the KEY saves at the right moment to OFFSET the for certatain at least 2 goals we KNOW he is going to give up at least every game...NOW in games where he gives up more than that -it becomes more problematic for us winning those -still if our vauted offense is as good as we think--then we ought to still will 60% of those games we give up 3 or more ..
So the key to Crawford is him limiting as much as possible games where he gives up more than 2 goals--WE KNOW he just is not going to get that many shutouts (No Halak he...) or 1 goal games (because in addition --there is nearly ALWAYS that 1 bad goal he shoulda had) ,but if that is the worst most of the time-he willbe "good enough" for us to contend for the Cup ..Most nights the Hawks should outshoot the opponents and have over 30 shots --most nights....IF we limit oppsing shots to the 24-26 range --so say 25 on average -it means for 2 goals only a game CC must save at a.920 or better save%...THAT then is the issue --he has never sustained that over a an NHL season nor even a GAA of 2 or less ..his best so far has been 2.30 GA per game in 2010/11(his save % was @.917 that year so .920 is not out of the question;that year he faced an average of 27.105 shots per game)...BUT
that was then-this is now and so IF I'm right on the shots against per game we allow on average this year as being ONLY 25 --THEN even duplicating his .917 save % of 2010/11 results in a GAA of 2.075 per game...

So our TEAM can help him keep it at approx 2 goals or only slightly higher IF he can manage between .917 and .920 save% AND we limit teams to near only 25 shots a game..so far in the 3GP he has started CC is at a .923 save% facing 26 shots per game ...His save% probably adjusts down a bit and our TEAM need to tighten up just a bit to get that to only 25 against a game and voila HE SHOULD be able to give us that 2 goals against or very close to it ONLY per game -but since he gets few shut-outs-that will probably be a steady run of mostly 2 goals given up almost every night ...IT will not be like a Halak with many shutouts then some big blow-outs interspered to inflate the GAA and save % to at least human levels from something superhuman...So CC will instead always be "meh" and just "good enough" but good enough MEANS .917-.920 range and means our TEAM cannot let him face many more shots than 25 or so too often. our TEAM can help him as much as he can help the TEAM --not by any kind of brilliance-but simply by TIMELY key saves to offset the bad goal he always will give up and by having a good enough save% for the ***** he does face .He's not going to give us ELITE .930 + goaltending --but he cannot be at .900-.910 or worse --hemust be a "middle" type GOOD ENOUGH goalie -we need .917-.920 or slightly better from him for the not too burdensome shot load our team will place on him...It is not like he'llbe barraged with 35-40 shots a night like Lehtonen has to try to stop.. ALL we ask of CC is be "good enough" ...

(However it would be NICE if we could develop a young stud goalie who CAN give us elite .930+ saving efficiency --we are not goiing to get that unless we get very lucky -if we continue letting other NHL teams pick off the highest rated goalies with round one or early to mid round two picks--it is not a guarantee their relatively high draftees will turn out as "special" elite NHL goalies--but it ought to up the ante for that possibility over gambling that a 3rd-7th rounder will emerge as such .WE did take Kent Simpson in the 2nd round--but that was late 2nd at #58 (and in any case I did not like the pick before the draft when i saw Simpson whiff on a long 50 footer at the World U-18's that spring prior to that draft -that SHOULD have sent up the red flags on him -BUT we have no control for poor judgement of our scouting staff )...
Most hockey experts do not rate the later round goalie picks we tok for the pipeline (Carruth and MATTSSON) as "elite potential" goalies either -or even If they ever "make it" as even an NHL back-up ...SO we NEED to roll the dice for a change and get a goalie rated as worthy of going as a firstrounder or high second rounder .I have already dismissed the much hyped ZACHARY FUCALE -the #1 rated NA goalie by Centrl Scouting whose save% stats simply do NOT justify his high rating despite the fact he pays on the top team in the Q and faces a relativelyeasy low shot total against per game ....THE 2nd rated NA goalie at mid-term is ERIC COMRIE--now OUT FOR THE SEASON with a hip injury requiring surgery --to be hones he too did not excite me and NOW red flag on that injury and how he might recover or not -well it raises RISK ....That leaves the #3 rated goalie in NA--TRISTAN JARRY 6'2 181 (EDM,WHL) -who has been STELLAR but only played in 18 games as the OILKINGS' back-up to vet stasrter Laurrent Brossoit--nevertheless JARRY has BETTER STATS than BROSSOIT--JARRY has an amazing 5 shut-outs in18GP and a stingy 1.60 GAA and a greast.936 save%..but beyond that -he impressedme in his 16 save no goals given up last half of the game duty for losing TEAM CHERRY at the TOP PROSPECTS GAME...I liked both his hybrid style (not the usual butterfly only cookie-cutter goalie) and more so his ATTITUDE excuding CONFIDENCE he COULD stop pucks very efficiently (some of his save were difficult scoring chances for any goalie to stop) -I THINK (my huinch) he has "IT" -a special quality of both talent focus and attitude that will make him that elsusive "Elite" goalie to covet for the pipeline ... My only question is that as the mid-term #3 rated NA goalie plus asdd in the #1 rated eurogoalie (JUUSE SAROS) and he might (as of now) be thought of as "ONLY"
4th goalie taken and so likely to skip by round one into early to mid round 2 instead..
HOWEVER - maybe by FINAL rankings the scouting orgs (AND mist NHL teams) will ADMIT they had ity wrong at mid-term-- and JARRY could be the 1st or 2nd goalie taken off the board in the draft -in ROUND ONE...if that is the cae -willhe be off the board before the Hawks pick? I would not want to risk that chance-so I would TRAE UP to get him if necessary (we do not have 2nd or 3rd rounders to give as part of the deal in 2013 oicks ,but we could give either other prospects from our pipeline or 2014 picks in some move up package) ...I still must ALSO wait and see how SAROS plays at the World U-18's --maybe he will vault into consideration for the TOP goalie on my list and what ought to be the Hawks target list....The other goalie i have a hunch on is PHILLIPE DESROSIERS
(Rimouski ,QMJHL) -his save% is only .906 BUT he is a late birthdate for the draft (Aug 16th birth date) and I think is now improving a lot -a good mix of technique focus and athleticism 6'1 187 --and he faces more shots a night than Fucale or Jarry do --Fucale a bit over 23 shots a game,Jarry a bit over 24 shots a game ,Desrosiers close to 30 shots a game ...He may not go in round one but maybe erly round two --so IF JARRY and Saros are ff the board when we pick --my next hunch would be totake Desrosiers over Comrie or Fucale (perhaps we trade down into the early 2nd and get him with that pick and pick up another 2nd for the 2014 draft or maybe we trade our first doen a bit to a team with mutiple 2nd rounders this year--if any such oppoutunities exist)?

Anyone we draft in goal will not help us for several yesrs-but it does not mean Stan sould NEVER take a goalie early with a first rounder or early 2nd.At some point you gotta TRY gettingthe higher rated goalies in the top 4 or top 5 list and your scouts need to pick the ONE from that top group who WILL "make it" because proably the other 3or 4 of that top 4 or 5 will fizzle out .but if you do pick the right kid of thsat top rated bunch -you probably have that elusive elite "goalie of the future" teams would love to posess in the pipeline...better than having all the hockey experts tell you your pipeline goaltending iss "meh" ...So at SOME POINT STAN will have to TRY to draft "THE SAVIOUR" in net -maybe it will be the 2013 draft we fINALLY get around to atempting this EARLY instead of putiing it off to LATER in the draft --right now with no 2nds or 3rds anyway -if we do not use our first for a goalie or trade down to early 2nd if our top 2 goalie targets are already off the board -tHEN the earlest we get a crack at a goalie to draft willbe ROUND 4 ---at that late we pray for luck rather than what we coulda shoulda done at an earlier opportunity from the consensus top 4-5 goalies for the draft ..
Of couse with our vaunted scouting staff I have ZERO faiith they will pick the right guy
---but that willbe the fun ---looking back years from the draft to see who got it right --their pick or my hunch to take --providing there was a choice when the pick came up -if my target is off the board already then the only thing they could have done was trade UP -but if they let my trget get away and settle for their pick and my target turns out better- then I will of course haunt them for years over their big mistake. If their target selectedturns out better than mine then i will laud them for their scouting astuteness and admit my error. The fun in these draft scenarios is trying to see WHO is the better judge of talent projection ...THe only time the Hawks and I agreed on a first rounder since 2001 was with TOEWS -it was nice to get on the sae page for a change---and that worked out GREAT ...I got raked for TURRIS over KANe-but i said it would take several years for TURUS to add weight and "arrive" -so Kane got an immediate head start..Kane still may outpoint Turris each year even know going forward--BUT TURRIS now 195 lbs is really emerging well as Ottawa's #2 lione cENTRE and he plays a 200 foot game unlike Kane ..AS long as KAne gives us a good PP we will not complain even if hs +?- and ES game is not some great net benefit --but TURRIS is looking very good now in his 2C role for Ottawa -who knows -maybe we see them play each other in the CUP this year? THEN we'll see which of them is the more valueable playoff guy...

Meanwhile -I cannot let the Hawks vaunted scouting off the hook for passing on Kopitar for Skille (I specifically posted on many websites to AVOID SKILLE and take KOPITAR if he fell to us--when they bypassed him still up on the board for SKILLE --that was a SCREAM moment -I was so mad at them)...
THEN there was the KEVIN HAYES fiasco --he was on most lists only a late 30's pick -instead they take him at #24 -way too early -- I wanted BROCK NELSON who NYI got at #30 that draft after we traded our #30 down for #35 (LUDVIG RENSFELDT) and #58 (KENT SIMPSON) -I had RENSFELDT targeted for #30 --the Hawks of course already let him go out out the system by not signbing him -I think they gave up on him way to early -and SIMSPON I had given up on BEFORE the draft because i saw him whiff at a 60 footer in the Workd U-18's and that told me RED FLAG--AVOID -yet THEY still go ahead and take him....I still say that NELSON and RENSFELDT would be a better draft than K.Hayes and Simpson ---NELSON has 24 pts in 30GP for NYI's AHL team in his first pro year and i think will help NYI as a 2nd line C in future ....K,Hayes is a marginal 4th line C or w -IF he ever makes the Hawks when hhe finishes at BC..... RENSFELDT never got the chance to develop in the NA game in the AHL--IF he ever getys an NHL shot from another team he willneed to develop in Sweden--he is playing with MALMO in the ALLSVENSKAN league this year ...but looking at what he did in the OHL for Sarnia -he was no worse a prospect than many teams signed to further develop in their systems-I fo not know why the Hawjs gave up so early on him...Whatever --they did and now we must get hype on several prospects that really have no real better shot at making it that Rensfeldt had excepot that the Hawks gave them a chance .I am not sayning Rensfeldt would be some big NHl scorer -but maybe with his size and skating could have been a useful 3rd liner .I certainly do not see Kevin Hayes as anything better..
BOTH were late first to mid-30's types and that is usually 2nd line at best,maybe third line more realistic,or probably do not make it or if so marginally a 4th liner --but still you draft a 2nd rounder you usually give him some time in the minors to develop ...to see IF he can achieve te potential you thought when you drafted him..Instead they quit on Rensfeldt IMO too easrly to find out ...no we probably never know..
BUT Simpson loks like meh -as i predicted--and K. hayes is not the star at BC in his Jr, yr thast he should have been for a first rounder..and BROCK NELSON looks like the best of all of them-as I had slotted...SO I do think that draft was a FIASCO as far as they messed up the first 2 rounds...

Illinihockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 04:08 PM
  #309
Cullksinikers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: 'Merica
Country: United States
Posts: 14,525
vCash: 500

Cullksinikers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 04:17 PM
  #310
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyhawk View Post
Hockey and football are a little different seeing as possession changes like every second at times.
We won in 2010 with good goaltending not great. Now it's up to Crawford to be good. So far he's not awefull, not great but I'd say pretty darn good!
2010 was not the norm, stop using that as an example. This isn't 2010, the Hawks don't have 1st line guys playing on their 3rd line. They don't have a team that is much deeper and more talented then the rest of the league. Goalies are the most important position in hockey, it's why the list of avg. goalies to win the Cup is about as small as avg. QB's to win the Super Bowl, while you don't need the future HOF to win either you 95% of the time do need a top 10 one to win it. This team isn't 2010 so the same goaltending as 2010 won't win anything.

Perfect example take 2010 off the list and go back 20 years.
1993- Patrick Roy
1994- Mike Richter
1995- Matrin Brodeur
1996- Patrick Roy
1997- Mike Vernon
1998- Chris Osgood
1999- Ed Belfour
2000- Martin Broduer
2001- Patrick Roy
2002- Chris Osgood
2003- Martin Brodeur
2004- Nikolai Khabibulin
2006- Cam Ward
2007- Jean-Sebastien Giguere
2008- Domink Hasek
2009- Marc-Andre Fleury
2011- Tim Thomas
2012- Johnathan Quick

Crawford isn't on that list with any of those goalies in terms of talent and skill. You need a very good goalie to win the Stanley Cup, not just someone who isn't bad.


Last edited by Sir Psycho T: 01-25-2013 at 04:32 PM.
Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 04:26 PM
  #311
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
2010 was not the norm, stop using that as an example. This isn't 2010, the Hawks don't have 1st line guys playing on their 3rd line. They don't have a team that is much deeper and more talented then the rest of the league. Goalies are the most important position in hockey, it's why the list of avg. goalies to win the Cup is about as small as avg. QB's to win the Super Bowl, while you don't need the future HOF to win either you 95% of the time do need a top 10 one to win it. This team isn't 2010 so the same goaltending as 2010 won't win anything.
Marc Andre-Fleury, Jimmy Howard, Cam Ward, Antti Niemi are all average at best goalies, a couple of whom had dynamic playoff runs they haven't repeated. I think Tim Thomas is the only post lock out goalie that has a career save % over .920

Illinihockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 04:27 PM
  #312
Judrix
Kruger is our 2C
 
Judrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 2,340
vCash: 500
I made an honest attempt to read all that, but I had to stop pretty early on.

Judrix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 04:33 PM
  #313
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
2010 was not the norm, stop using that as an example. This isn't 2010, the Hawks don't have 1st line guys playing on their 3rd line. They don't have a team that is much deeper and more talented then the rest of the league. Goalies are the most important position in hockey, it's why the list of avg. goalies to win the Cup is about as small as avg. QB's to win the Super Bowl, while you don't need the future HOF to win either you 95% of the time do need a top 10 one to win it. This team isn't 2010 so the same goaltending as 2010 won't win anything.

Perfect example take 2010 off the list and go back 20 years.
1993- Patrick Roy
1994- Mike Richter
1995- Matrin Brodeur
1996- Patrick Roy
1997- Mike Vernon
1998- Chris Osgood
1999- Ed Belfour
2000- Martin Broduer
2001- Patrick Roy
2002- Chris Osgood
2003- Martin Brodeur
2004- Nikolai Khabibulin
2006- Cam Ward
2007- Jean-Sebastien Giguere
2008- Domink Hasek
2009- Marc-Andre Fleury
2011- Tim Thomas
2012- Johnathan Quick

Crawford isn't on that list with any of those goalies in terms of talent and skill. You need a very good goalie to win the Stanley Cup, not just someone who isn't bad.
You can't compare pre-lockout to post-lockout. Everything has changed.

Illinihockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 04:35 PM
  #314
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,306
vCash: 500
I'd also advise you to go take a look at MAF's stats. 9 years in the NHL, 2 seasons above a .915 save %. (career .909). Cam Ward has a career .910 save %. Crawford's career save % is .911.

Illinihockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 04:43 PM
  #315
cherrypik
Registered User
 
cherrypik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Mundelein, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
Marc Andre-Fleury, Jimmy Howard, Cam Ward, Antti Niemi are all average at best goalies, a couple of whom had dynamic playoff runs they haven't repeated. I think Tim Thomas is the only post lock out goalie that has a career save % over .920
Yeah and you can throw Osgood in there as well. It's the Bowman way!

I say lets roll with Crawford and hope last year was a sophmore slump and he gets hot in the playoffs. I remember when playoff tics went on sale in 2010 I decided not to purchase any because we didn't pick up a goalie and neither Niemi nor Huet can grab #1. They both got exposed against a weak Columbus team, NYI team and Washington(after being up 2 or 3 goals) afternoon game at home.

cherrypik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 05:35 PM
  #316
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 21,558
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
I'd also advise you to go take a look at MAF's stats. 9 years in the NHL, 2 seasons above a .915 save %. (career .909). Cam Ward has a career .910 save %. Crawford's career save % is .911.
Are you honestly comparing Cam Ward with Crawford?

DisgruntledHawkFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 06:28 PM
  #317
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
You can't compare pre-lockout to post-lockout. Everything has changed.
Post Lockout,
Ward
Giguere
Hasek
Fleury
Thomas
Quick

Which one of those goalies is Crawford even as good as? MAF maybe, but Fleury is proven, Crawford isn't.

Only ok-good goalies usually don't win. To constantly bring up 2010 as an example is asinine. The Blackahawks had more depth then any team since with 9-10 current or future top 6 fowards on that team. That doesn't happen and this team isn't that deep so the same goaltending won't win. PERIOD!

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 06:34 PM
  #318
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
Are you honestly comparing Cam Ward with Crawford?
I would trade Crawford and a 1st for Ward right now and run away knowing we just robbed Carolina blind.

Cam Ward's career numbers aren't as good because early in his career he played for a crappy team while still learning the game. Since 08-09 his SV% is .919 with 15 SO.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 07:58 PM
  #319
unbridledid
Registered User
 
unbridledid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
I would trade Crawford and a 1st for Ward right now and run away knowing we just robbed Carolina blind.

Cam Ward's career numbers aren't as good because early in his career he played for a crappy team while still learning the game. Since 08-09 his SV% is .919 with 15 SO.
Ward is anything but average. Too bad we took bab(up)chuk that year instead of Ward.

unbridledid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 08:03 PM
  #320
unbridledid
Registered User
 
unbridledid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawksfan50 View Post
As long as Crawford is good enough -lets acknowledge ONE bad goal a game he shoulda had + ONE more that we cannot blame him on - you can win MOST games giving up only 2 for sure goals a game given our offense...but to achieve that he must make the KEY saves at the right moment to OFFSET the for certatain at least 2 goals we KNOW he is going to give up at least every game...NOW in games where he gives up more than that -it becomes more problematic for us winning those -still if our vauted offense is as good as we think--then we ought to still will 60% of those games we give up 3 or more ..
So the key to Crawford is him limiting as much as possible games where he gives up more than 2 goals--WE KNOW he just is not going to get that many shutouts (No Halak he...) or 1 goal games (because in addition --there is nearly ALWAYS that 1 bad goal he shoulda had) ,but if that is the worst most of the time-he willbe "good enough" for us to contend for the Cup ..Most nights the Hawks should outshoot the opponents and have over 30 shots --most nights....IF we limit oppsing shots to the 24-26 range --so say 25 on average -it means for 2 goals only a game CC must save at a.920 or better save%...THAT then is the issue --he has never sustained that over a an NHL season nor even a GAA of 2 or less ..his best so far has been 2.30 GA per game in 2010/11(his save % was @.917 that year so .920 is not out of the question;that year he faced an average of 27.105 shots per game)...BUT
that was then-this is now and so IF I'm right on the shots against per game we allow on average this year as being ONLY 25 --THEN even duplicating his .917 save % of 2010/11 results in a GAA of 2.075 per game...

So our TEAM can help him keep it at approx 2 goals or only slightly higher IF he can manage between .917 and .920 save% AND we limit teams to near only 25 shots a game..so far in the 3GP he has started CC is at a .923 save% facing 26 shots per game ...His save% probably adjusts down a bit and our TEAM need to tighten up just a bit to get that to only 25 against a game and voila HE SHOULD be able to give us that 2 goals against or very close to it ONLY per game -but since he gets few shut-outs-that will probably be a steady run of mostly 2 goals given up almost every night ...IT will not be like a Halak with many shutouts then some big blow-outs interspered to inflate the GAA and save % to at least human levels from something superhuman...So CC will instead always be "meh" and just "good enough" but good enough MEANS .917-.920 range and means our TEAM cannot let him face many more shots than 25 or so too often. our TEAM can help him as much as he can help the TEAM --not by any kind of brilliance-but simply by TIMELY key saves to offset the bad goal he always will give up and by having a good enough save% for the ***** he does face .He's not going to give us ELITE .930 + goaltending --but he cannot be at .900-.910 or worse --hemust be a "middle" type GOOD ENOUGH goalie -we need .917-.920 or slightly better from him for the not too burdensome shot load our team will place on him...It is not like he'llbe barraged with 35-40 shots a night like Lehtonen has to try to stop.. ALL we ask of CC is be "good enough" ...

(However it would be NICE if we could develop a young stud goalie who CAN give us elite .930+ saving efficiency --we are not goiing to get that unless we get very lucky -if we continue letting other NHL teams pick off the highest rated goalies with round one or early to mid round two picks--it is not a guarantee their relatively high draftees will turn out as "special" elite NHL goalies--but it ought to up the ante for that possibility over gambling that a 3rd-7th rounder will emerge as such .WE did take Kent Simpson in the 2nd round--but that was late 2nd at #58 (and in any case I did not like the pick before the draft when i saw Simpson whiff on a long 50 footer at the World U-18's that spring prior to that draft -that SHOULD have sent up the red flags on him -BUT we have no control for poor judgement of our scouting staff )...
Most hockey experts do not rate the later round goalie picks we tok for the pipeline (Carruth and MATTSSON) as "elite potential" goalies either -or even If they ever "make it" as even an NHL back-up ...SO we NEED to roll the dice for a change and get a goalie rated as worthy of going as a firstrounder or high second rounder .I have already dismissed the much hyped ZACHARY FUCALE -the #1 rated NA goalie by Centrl Scouting whose save% stats simply do NOT justify his high rating despite the fact he pays on the top team in the Q and faces a relativelyeasy low shot total against per game ....THE 2nd rated NA goalie at mid-term is ERIC COMRIE--now OUT FOR THE SEASON with a hip injury requiring surgery --to be hones he too did not excite me and NOW red flag on that injury and how he might recover or not -well it raises RISK ....That leaves the #3 rated goalie in NA--TRISTAN JARRY 6'2 181 (EDM,WHL) -who has been STELLAR but only played in 18 games as the OILKINGS' back-up to vet stasrter Laurrent Brossoit--nevertheless JARRY has BETTER STATS than BROSSOIT--JARRY has an amazing 5 shut-outs in18GP and a stingy 1.60 GAA and a greast.936 save%..but beyond that -he impressedme in his 16 save no goals given up last half of the game duty for losing TEAM CHERRY at the TOP PROSPECTS GAME...I liked both his hybrid style (not the usual butterfly only cookie-cutter goalie) and more so his ATTITUDE excuding CONFIDENCE he COULD stop pucks very efficiently (some of his save were difficult scoring chances for any goalie to stop) -I THINK (my huinch) he has "IT" -a special quality of both talent focus and attitude that will make him that elsusive "Elite" goalie to covet for the pipeline ... My only question is that as the mid-term #3 rated NA goalie plus asdd in the #1 rated eurogoalie (JUUSE SAROS) and he might (as of now) be thought of as "ONLY"
4th goalie taken and so likely to skip by round one into early to mid round 2 instead..
HOWEVER - maybe by FINAL rankings the scouting orgs (AND mist NHL teams) will ADMIT they had ity wrong at mid-term-- and JARRY could be the 1st or 2nd goalie taken off the board in the draft -in ROUND ONE...if that is the cae -willhe be off the board before the Hawks pick? I would not want to risk that chance-so I would TRAE UP to get him if necessary (we do not have 2nd or 3rd rounders to give as part of the deal in 2013 oicks ,but we could give either other prospects from our pipeline or 2014 picks in some move up package) ...I still must ALSO wait and see how SAROS plays at the World U-18's --maybe he will vault into consideration for the TOP goalie on my list and what ought to be the Hawks target list....The other goalie i have a hunch on is PHILLIPE DESROSIERS
(Rimouski ,QMJHL) -his save% is only .906 BUT he is a late birthdate for the draft (Aug 16th birth date) and I think is now improving a lot -a good mix of technique focus and athleticism 6'1 187 --and he faces more shots a night than Fucale or Jarry do --Fucale a bit over 23 shots a game,Jarry a bit over 24 shots a game ,Desrosiers close to 30 shots a game ...He may not go in round one but maybe erly round two --so IF JARRY and Saros are ff the board when we pick --my next hunch would be totake Desrosiers over Comrie or Fucale (perhaps we trade down into the early 2nd and get him with that pick and pick up another 2nd for the 2014 draft or maybe we trade our first doen a bit to a team with mutiple 2nd rounders this year--if any such oppoutunities exist)?

Anyone we draft in goal will not help us for several yesrs-but it does not mean Stan sould NEVER take a goalie early with a first rounder or early 2nd.At some point you gotta TRY gettingthe higher rated goalies in the top 4 or top 5 list and your scouts need to pick the ONE from that top group who WILL "make it" because proably the other 3or 4 of that top 4 or 5 will fizzle out .but if you do pick the right kid of thsat top rated bunch -you probably have that elusive elite "goalie of the future" teams would love to posess in the pipeline...better than having all the hockey experts tell you your pipeline goaltending iss "meh" ...So at SOME POINT STAN will have to TRY to draft "THE SAVIOUR" in net -maybe it will be the 2013 draft we fINALLY get around to atempting this EARLY instead of putiing it off to LATER in the draft --right now with no 2nds or 3rds anyway -if we do not use our first for a goalie or trade down to early 2nd if our top 2 goalie targets are already off the board -tHEN the earlest we get a crack at a goalie to draft willbe ROUND 4 ---at that late we pray for luck rather than what we coulda shoulda done at an earlier opportunity from the consensus top 4-5 goalies for the draft ..
Of couse with our vaunted scouting staff I have ZERO faiith they will pick the right guy
---but that willbe the fun ---looking back years from the draft to see who got it right --their pick or my hunch to take --providing there was a choice when the pick came up -if my target is off the board already then the only thing they could have done was trade UP -but if they let my trget get away and settle for their pick and my target turns out better- then I will of course haunt them for years over their big mistake. If their target selectedturns out better than mine then i will laud them for their scouting astuteness and admit my error. The fun in these draft scenarios is trying to see WHO is the better judge of talent projection ...THe only time the Hawks and I agreed on a first rounder since 2001 was with TOEWS -it was nice to get on the sae page for a change---and that worked out GREAT ...I got raked for TURRIS over KANe-but i said it would take several years for TURUS to add weight and "arrive" -so Kane got an immediate head start..Kane still may outpoint Turris each year even know going forward--BUT TURRIS now 195 lbs is really emerging well as Ottawa's #2 lione cENTRE and he plays a 200 foot game unlike Kane ..AS long as KAne gives us a good PP we will not complain even if hs +?- and ES game is not some great net benefit --but TURRIS is looking very good now in his 2C role for Ottawa -who knows -maybe we see them play each other in the CUP this year? THEN we'll see which of them is the more valueable playoff guy...

Meanwhile -I cannot let the Hawks vaunted scouting off the hook for passing on Kopitar for Skille (I specifically posted on many websites to AVOID SKILLE and take KOPITAR if he fell to us--when they bypassed him still up on the board for SKILLE --that was a SCREAM moment -I was so mad at them)...
THEN there was the KEVIN HAYES fiasco --he was on most lists only a late 30's pick -instead they take him at #24 -way too early -- I wanted BROCK NELSON who NYI got at #30 that draft after we traded our #30 down for #35 (LUDVIG RENSFELDT) and #58 (KENT SIMPSON) -I had RENSFELDT targeted for #30 --the Hawks of course already let him go out out the system by not signbing him -I think they gave up on him way to early -and SIMSPON I had given up on BEFORE the draft because i saw him whiff at a 60 footer in the Workd U-18's and that told me RED FLAG--AVOID -yet THEY still go ahead and take him....I still say that NELSON and RENSFELDT would be a better draft than K.Hayes and Simpson ---NELSON has 24 pts in 30GP for NYI's AHL team in his first pro year and i think will help NYI as a 2nd line C in future ....K,Hayes is a marginal 4th line C or w -IF he ever makes the Hawks when hhe finishes at BC..... RENSFELDT never got the chance to develop in the NA game in the AHL--IF he ever getys an NHL shot from another team he willneed to develop in Sweden--he is playing with MALMO in the ALLSVENSKAN league this year ...but looking at what he did in the OHL for Sarnia -he was no worse a prospect than many teams signed to further develop in their systems-I fo not know why the Hawjs gave up so early on him...Whatever --they did and now we must get hype on several prospects that really have no real better shot at making it that Rensfeldt had excepot that the Hawks gave them a chance .I am not sayning Rensfeldt would be some big NHl scorer -but maybe with his size and skating could have been a useful 3rd liner .I certainly do not see Kevin Hayes as anything better..
BOTH were late first to mid-30's types and that is usually 2nd line at best,maybe third line more realistic,or probably do not make it or if so marginally a 4th liner --but still you draft a 2nd rounder you usually give him some time in the minors to develop ...to see IF he can achieve te potential you thought when you drafted him..Instead they quit on Rensfeldt IMO too easrly to find out ...no we probably never know..
BUT Simpson loks like meh -as i predicted--and K. hayes is not the star at BC in his Jr, yr thast he should have been for a first rounder..and BROCK NELSON looks like the best of all of them-as I had slotted...SO I do think that draft was a FIASCO as far as they messed up the first 2 rounds...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0GW0Vnr9Yc

unbridledid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 08:03 PM
  #321
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
Are you honestly comparing Cam Ward with Crawford?
When Cam Ward won the Cup, he had a .882 save%. He didn't break .905 until his 4th year in the league. So when e won the Cup, he wasn't a great NHL goalie.

Illinihockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 08:42 PM
  #322
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 21,558
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
When Cam Ward won the Cup, he had a .882 save%. He didn't break .905 until his 4th year in the league. So when e won the Cup, he wasn't a great NHL goalie.
Except he replaced Gerber and played Conne Smythe caliber hockey. Again, he was a goalie. Watching games tells you so much more than stats ever could.

I'll ask again. Do you really believe that Cam Ward is a comparable talent to Corey Crawford?

DisgruntledHawkFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:26 PM
  #323
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
When Cam Ward won the Cup, he had a .882 save%. He didn't break .905 until his 4th year in the league. So when e won the Cup, he wasn't a great NHL goalie.
This photo says otherwise.


Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:30 PM
  #324
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 21,558
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
I just... that playoff, he was incredible. Simply amazing. No idea what the stat line said, but for somebody who watched every single Hurricane game since the second round that year it was clear that he was just playing at another level.

DisgruntledHawkFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:42 PM
  #325
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
I just... that playoff, he was incredible. Simply amazing. No idea what the stat line said, but for somebody who watched every single Hurricane game since the second round that year it was clear that he was just playing at another level.
If it wasn't for Ward the Hurricanes are out in round 1, the Canadies killed them in game 1 then lit up Gerber again in game 2. The Habs scored 12 goals in the first 2 games, in the following 4 all won by Carolina and started by Ward they scored 5.

From then on he posted 3 SO and kept Carolina in every game, the only bad game I remember was game 5-6 against New Jersey where he got pulled, beyond that he was the reason the Hurricanes won the Cup. To compare Crawford to him is laughable.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 12:36 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.