HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Notices

Isles fans quote Sharks fans blaming Nabby for playoff failures

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-10-2013, 01:33 AM
  #76
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpinTheBlackCircle View Post
nah, just the best save in the last 15 years in the playoffs:

Easily the best save I've ever seen in a playoff game let alone an overtime game. His save on owen nolan the previous round was pretty amazing too.

Someone said he didn't play well in big games? ********... he gave up one goal to MVP (i think?) Peter forseberg in a game 7 that the sharks lost 1-0. Selanne missed an open net... Just another case of the sharks inability to score when it mattered most.

NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 03:14 AM
  #77
oyster
Registered User
 
oyster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Watch Nabby's feet when he gets up from a split. Check to see if he is only using one leg on which to get upright. He was onesided with the Sharks. A small fault, but a fault nonetheless. It's another cause of fivehole.
See, I've noticed that too after someone pointed it out to me. The context was that Nabby was a very "economical" goalie who saved a lot of energy in how he recovered from the butterfly. A comparison was made to Kipper. Having never played goalie I can't speak much on this but it made some sense.

Also, during his time with the Sharks Nabby never lost a playoff series in which the Sharks scored at LEAST 2 goals/game which is damn good. It's a very familiar problem for the Sharks: Run up against a good playoff team who can shut down your top line, and the offense dries up.

oyster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 12:06 PM
  #78
CrazedZooChimp
Not enough guts
 
CrazedZooChimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,655
vCash: 1875
Send a message via AIM to CrazedZooChimp
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
Easily the best save I've ever seen in a playoff game let alone an overtime game. His save on owen nolan the previous round was pretty amazing too.

Someone said he didn't play well in big games? ********... he gave up one goal to MVP (i think?) Peter forseberg in a game 7 that the sharks lost 1-0. Selanne missed an open net... Just another case of the sharks inability to score when it mattered most.
Man, I was at the game where he made the save on Nolan, it was one of the weirdest experiences at a game I've seen. It felt like the whole arena was silent for a split second. I was on the far end of the ice, so I certainly assumed it went it. Then the whole crowd realized the red light didn't come on and just completely erupted. It was awesome.

It's much easier to tell when Niemi makes a save, because the rebound pops out right in front of him every time

CrazedZooChimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 02:13 PM
  #79
Sleepy
Registered User
 
Sleepy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Nabby's strength was reading the play. He cheated because of that and that is what gave up those 5hole and shortside goals. Nemo doesn't cheat, but he isn't athletic and isn't in the same universe for reading the play. Nemo is bigger and covers low better than Nabby did as Nabby did have a minor fault in stance.

And SJgoalie32 is right, the failures were far more attributable to scoring failures than Nabby himself. Of all of Nabby's series, the one where he fell hardest was Calgary where he got off his angles for a couple of games and did not adjust quickly enough to what Calgary was doing. His biggest success was dueling Roy in the Colorado series.
I'd also say his stick positioning needed some work and the way he was holding it let in some softies. Nonetheless, He wasn't the main reason the Sharks struggled. When Nabby's contract came up with the Sharks, cheap goaltenders were in-vogue (Niemi, Leighton, previously Osgood) and he had $24M on the table from the KHL. Only natural for them to split ways.

Sleepy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 02:26 PM
  #80
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 6,592
vCash: 500
It isn't as if the Sharks were terrible offensively for many of those playoff series. They had tons of chances and were throwing tons of shots on net; the other goalie simply stood on his head. A lot of people say that a goaltender in the playoffs has to beat the other team's goalie, and with Nabakov that frequently wasn't the case. Was his performance against Colorado good? Yes, but Roy was better. Against Dallas Nabakov was phenomenal IIRC, but Turco was better. Hiller was better in Anaheim, Niemi was better against Chicago.

I also think that there was much truth to the idea that Nabakov wore himself out by playing so many games.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 02:42 PM
  #81
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrNumber4 View Post
It isn't as if the Sharks were terrible offensively for many of those playoff series. They had tons of chances and were throwing tons of shots on net; the other goalie simply stood on his head. A lot of people say that a goaltender in the playoffs has to beat the other team's goalie, and with Nabakov that frequently wasn't the case. Was his performance against Colorado good? Yes, but Roy was better. Against Dallas Nabakov was phenomenal IIRC, but Turco was better. Hiller was better in Anaheim, Niemi was better against Chicago.

I also think that there was much truth to the idea that Nabakov wore himself out by playing so many games.
In some ways, the lack of offense was being outcoached. The Sharks did not adapt quickly enough to the opposition. Some of the lack of adaptation is on the players and some on the GM for putting less than a multidimensional team on the ice. However, the primary responsibility falls to the coach.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 03:15 PM
  #82
Blackbear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillR10 View Post
The game in Detroit where he played the puck to the wrong team for an empty net comes to mind. Don't get me wrong, I loved nabby as a shark, but the one softy here and there was costly especially playing in Ron Wilson's defensive system. No one can completely blame him as its a team effort but it didn't help.
Not sure what you are thinking but during the Wilson years Sharks had the best team defense in the league. Go look at shots against those years. Among the best 3-5 every season. And an analysis that's been discussed here before on estimated shot quality showed SJ gave up shots with lower than average scoring potential. The main reason Nabokov ever had good win numbers in SJ was the low number of quality shots against. it sure wasnt his save percentage most years which was below median for starting goalies. As always he has had some stronger and weaker streaks since he has left but his performance behind the weaker defenses in Leningrad and Hempstead is hardly surprising.

Blackbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 09:57 PM
  #83
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 29,090
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrNumber4 View Post
It isn't as if the Sharks were terrible offensively for many of those playoff series. They had tons of chances and were throwing tons of shots on net; the other goalie simply stood on his head. A lot of people say that a goaltender in the playoffs has to beat the other team's goalie, and with Nabakov that frequently wasn't the case. Was his performance against Colorado good? Yes, but Roy was better. Against Dallas Nabakov was phenomenal IIRC, but Turco was better. Hiller was better in Anaheim, Niemi was better against Chicago.

I also think that there was much truth to the idea that Nabakov wore himself out by playing so many games.
That's a good way of scapegoating your goalies. The other team was able to score. The Sharks weren't for many series the Sharks lost. In the end, it's still a team game. I still can't find it acceptable to blame a goalie when your team scores less than twice a game over the course of a series, but that's just me.

I do agree with you that Nabby played too many games during the season but that's on the coaches for not reeling him in and sitting his ass down.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 10:26 PM
  #84
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
That's a good way of scapegoating your goalies. The other team was able to score. The Sharks weren't for many series the Sharks lost. In the end, it's still a team game. I still can't find it acceptable to blame a goalie when your team scores less than twice a game over the course of a series, but that's just me.

I do agree with you that Nabby played too many games during the season but that's on the coaches for not reeling him in and sitting his ass down.
Hallelujah we agree!

NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 01:40 AM
  #85
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
Hallelujah we agree!
Ironmaning goalies is a fallacy. Only one goalie in the last two decades won after playing 70 or more in reg season, Brodeur. The counterargument is that the team doesn't even make the playoffs without the #1 going ironman (IMO also a fallacy). Most goalies aren't cut out to do ironman and win in the playoffs. I have seen several where the fatigue was evident when they finally lost.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 01:44 AM
  #86
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrNumber4 View Post
It isn't as if the Sharks were terrible offensively for many of those playoff series. They had tons of chances and were throwing tons of shots on net; the other goalie simply stood on his head. A lot of people say that a goaltender in the playoffs has to beat the other team's goalie, and with Nabakov that frequently wasn't the case. Was his performance against Colorado good? Yes, but Roy was better. Against Dallas Nabakov was phenomenal IIRC, but Turco was better. Hiller was better in Anaheim, Niemi was better against Chicago.

I also think that there was much truth to the idea that Nabakov wore himself out by playing so many games.
One of the issues the stats guys address is shots/chances. A lot of teams go into defensive shells with the lead. A lot of teams win and get outshot/outchanced because they hold the lead for a large majority of the series. The stats guys use score-tied shots/chances to judge the relative offense of opponents to remove the style of play influence. Also, teams that are behind will frequently go to the kitchen sink strategy, everything at the net, which doesn't do a lot for shot quality.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 02:21 AM
  #87
Blackbear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
That's a good way of scapegoating your goalies. The other team was able to score. The Sharks weren't for many series the Sharks lost. In the end, it's still a team game. I still can't find it acceptable to blame a goalie when your team scores less than twice a game over the course of a series, but that's just me.

I do agree with you that Nabby played too many games during the season but that's on the coaches for not reeling him in and sitting his ass down.
Actually why wouldn't you expect a playoff team to be hard to score against? They got into the playoffs because they're a good team right? That is exactly the arena (very close games against strong opposition) where Nabokov's proclivity for giving up softies is the biggest back breaker. The Chicago series is the perfect example. Sharks were laboring mightily for every score but so were B'hawks. The difference in the series was very much a few of the most jaw droppingly soft goals you ever saw. Then of course there's the unscreened slow coaster from about 45 feet that Lange potted to turn a virtual series lock one year into one of the bigger playoff debacles in SK history.

Blackbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 02:28 AM
  #88
Evincar
Spirit of '94
 
Evincar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Ironmaning goalies is a fallacy. Only one goalie in the last two decades won after playing 70 or more in reg season, Brodeur. The counterargument is that the team doesn't even make the playoffs without the #1 going ironman (IMO also a fallacy). Most goalies aren't cut out to do ironman and win in the playoffs. I have seen several where the fatigue was evident when they finally lost.
Quick and Richter played 69 and 68 games respectively in their Cup winning seasons.

Evincar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 02:49 AM
  #89
Evincar
Spirit of '94
 
Evincar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackbear View Post
Actually why wouldn't you expect a playoff team to be hard to score against? They got into the playoffs because they're a good team right? That is exactly the arena (very close games against strong opposition) where Nabokov's proclivity for giving up softies is the biggest back breaker. The Chicago series is the perfect example. Sharks were laboring mightily for every score but so were B'hawks. The difference in the series was very much a few of the most jaw droppingly soft goals you ever saw. Then of course there's the unscreened slow coaster from about 45 feet that Lange potted to turn a virtual series lock one year into one of the bigger playoff debacles in SK history.
Ah the 2007 series vs Detroit. It could be argued that Nabby was the best player in that series along with Grier and Jumbo. The Lang goal was embarrassing but it never would have happened if Marleau and Guerin turnover the puck at center ice.

Here's Game 2. Do you blame Nabby for any of those goals?



Marleau, Guerin and Ron Wilson are to blame for that choke job. Others too. I think Rivet and McLaren werent very good either iirc.

Evincar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 03:20 AM
  #90
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 6,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litework View Post
Ah the 2007 series vs Detroit. It could be argued that Nabby was the best player in that series along with Grier and Jumbo. The Lang goal was embarrassing but it never would have happened if Marleau and Guerin turnover the puck at center ice.

Here's Game 2. Do you blame Nabby for any of those goals?



Marleau, Guerin and Ron Wilson are to blame for that choke job. Others too. I think Rivet and McLaren werent very good either iirc.
Perhaps that is the problem. Too often, there were too many players (including Nabakov), who ,for whatever reason, were "slumping". Call it puck luck, nerves, lack of versatility or adaptability, or whatever.

Understandably, since the bad permeates in the memories more than the good does, this measurement is unfair to SJ players since they've played so many playoff series over the past 8 years; a player is bound to have a sub-par one or even two. Even so, since 1997, which players' play have been acceptable over their tenures as Sharks? Off the top of my head, I'd say Mike Ricci, Scott Hannan, Vincent Damphousse, maybe Jonathon Cheechoo(can't remember a bad series from him), maybe Ryane Clowe, and Logan Couture with all his vast experience. Even Niemi didn't have a solid start to his SJ tenure.

Even when you look at the "non-core/non-utility" players, this holds true. I can think of Blake, Winnik (in a very short sample size), and maybe Rivet as RS success that played well in the postseason. Brown struggled in both tenures. Guerin was a disaster in every series. Moen was 0/1; Ekman constantly fell flat. Grier had a couple of bad series, Nichol laid an egg, Campbell was terrible against Dallas....even Malhotra only had what, one goal in 2010? I'll give Moore a pass....



But I'd like to think that any player that is part of your team's core needs to have more "good" series than bad series...and that a franchise player should never have a series like Marleau's last year, or Nabakov's vs. Anaheim,

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 07:31 AM
  #91
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 29,090
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackbear View Post
Actually why wouldn't you expect a playoff team to be hard to score against? They got into the playoffs because they're a good team right? That is exactly the arena (very close games against strong opposition) where Nabokov's proclivity for giving up softies is the biggest back breaker. The Chicago series is the perfect example. Sharks were laboring mightily for every score but so were B'hawks. The difference in the series was very much a few of the most jaw droppingly soft goals you ever saw. Then of course there's the unscreened slow coaster from about 45 feet that Lange potted to turn a virtual series lock one year into one of the bigger playoff debacles in SK history.
You don't want to use the Hawks as a comparable for this argument. The Hawks scored more than two goals a game in a series every time and actually scored many goals in a couple of series to overcome Niemi's goals allowed. 17 in 6 games against Nashville, 23 in 6 games against Vancouver, 13 in 4 games against San Jose, and 25 in 6 games against Philadelphia. Their lowest per game ratio is the Nashville series where it was almost three goals per game.

I don't expect the opposition to be easy to score against but if you fancy yourself a Cup contending team, you have to be able to score more than twice a game for the duration of a series. People like to say well Nabby has to be better than the other goalie, that's just false. It's not Nabby's responsibility to put the puck behind their goalie. That's the offense and Cup-winning teams don't let bad goals stifle their offense. It's an excuse and it's scapegoating if they buy into that process.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 11:45 AM
  #92
lobsters
Registered User
 
lobsters's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: the interwebs
Posts: 196
vCash: 500
nabokov was good at times as a shark and is not solely to blame for our rocky history. failing is a joint effort:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjqM_GSdD04

lobsters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 01:49 PM
  #93
USF Shark
Zion politikn
 
USF Shark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: DC Area
Country: United States
Posts: 20,263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litework View Post
Ah the 2007 series vs Detroit. It could be argued that Nabby was the best player in that series along with Grier and Jumbo. The Lang goal was embarrassing but it never would have happened if Marleau and Guerin turnover the puck at center ice.

Here's Game 2. Do you blame Nabby for any of those goals?



Marleau, Guerin and Ron Wilson are to blame for that choke job. Others too. I think Rivet and McLaren werent very good either iirc.
Rissmiller and Marleau were the ones who screwed up by trying to make some crazy scoring play out of what should have been a simple dump in. They made a bone headed play. However, Nabby should have had that. No question about it. That game should have ended in a Sharks victory, and they should have been up 3-1 in the series. Nabby ****ing blew it. Patty and Rissmiller also ****ing blew it

__________________
"I hate books; they only teach us to talk about things we know nothing about."
-Jean Jacques Rousseau
USF Shark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 02:20 PM
  #94
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 27,127
vCash: 500
This season the isles used 37 yr old Nabby, like a workhorse.

I think he accounted for all of this seasons wins, except 1.That shows how little faith the isles had in DiPietro. Then Nabby was playing so well when Poulin came up, they felt he gave them the best chance to win.

He's gotten major props from coaches, teammates and the press for his on ice and locker room leadership. I've no idea whether his struggles against the Pens, causes Snow to look elsewhere this summer.

CREW99AW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 12:16 AM
  #95
param
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,033
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
Because GAA is a great measure of a goaltender's ability.

Nabby was excellent in 03-04. He was pretty good in 06-07. Otherwise he was pretty bad. I'm not saying he was a choker, but he just wasn't as good a goaltender as we like to remember.
Ah yes the "stats are meaningless" rebuttal, it is the hospice of the inept argument.

param is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 04:39 AM
  #96
SJGoalie32
Registered User
 
SJGoalie32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: TealTown, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
One of the issues the stats guys address is shots/chances. A lot of teams go into defensive shells with the lead. A lot of teams win and get outshot/outchanced because they hold the lead for a large majority of the series. The stats guys use score-tied shots/chances to judge the relative offense of opponents to remove the style of play influence. Also, teams that are behind will frequently go to the kitchen sink strategy, everything at the net, which doesn't do a lot for shot quality.
That's also what happens with teams that are underdogs and can't hang offensively with the favorite. When your net is getting peppered and you're getting outshot 50-20, you can't do anything but go into a shell and cling on for dear life. Control the slot, keep the opposition to the perimeter, don't let Thornton get any of his passes through, and just try to block as many shots and clear as many rebounds as possible.

A much higher percentage of goals are scored off of transitions and breakaways than zone setup & cycling. When you're getting outshot 50-20 and the puck is getting cycled in your defensive zone the entire game, pretty much the only scoring chances you get at all are going to come on breakaways, transitions/odd-man rushes, and the occasional forced turnover. On the flip side, when you're always in the offensive zone, you never get transition or breakaway opportunities because the other team is just always in its defensive slot-controlling shell.

This is actually most evident in rec league hockey. It's why power plays in rec leagues result in SH goals almost as often as they do in PP goals. With a bunch of mediocre to novice scrubs on the ice, having one extra/fewer player rarely makes a difference. Especially since the better players usually do PK work in rec leagues. What DOES make a difference is that the attacking defense starts pinching in more on the PP with the puck always in the zone.....so one mistake, any mistake at the point, is going to result in a clean breakaway. On the flip side, PK always hangs back, so PP units almost never get clean breakaways. PP gets more shots, PK gets higher quality opportunity.

I remember having this conversation when the 2010 playoffs started against the Avs. There were a few games where the Sharks dominated on the shot clock but lost the game. So I went and found the shot chart, saved the image, opened it in MS paint, and drew an oval around the shots located from the crease to the top of the faceoff circles, and out to each faceoff dot. Did that on both sides. I showed it to my wife and asked, "Knowing nothing else about the game except who took more shots from this prime area, who would you say won the game?" The team with more shots in that area won like 80-90% of the time, including that entire Blackhawks series. That 1-0 OT game where Boyle shot it into his own net and the Sharks had like a 52-16 shot advantage? The Avs actually had more shots in that prime scoring oval. The Sharks had like 40+ shots from 40 feet out or more in that game. And so it went game after game after game.

SJGoalie32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 04:49 AM
  #97
SJGoalie32
Registered User
 
SJGoalie32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: TealTown, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW View Post
This season the isles used 37 yr old Nabby, like a workhorse.

I think he accounted for all of this seasons wins, except 1.That shows how little faith the isles had in DiPietro. Then Nabby was playing so well when Poulin came up, they felt he gave them the best chance to win.

He's gotten major props from coaches, teammates and the press for his on ice and locker room leadership. I've no idea whether his struggles against the Pens, causes Snow to look elsewhere this summer.
Well, even completely taking what happened against the Pens out of the equation......the reality is that Nabokov has a history of groin injury problems, will be 38 years old by the time training camp starts, and hasn't been the starting goalie for a full regular season in 3 years.

38-year-olds with an injury history do not usually make for viable long-term goaltending solutions. A smart GM should be looking elsewhere either way.

SJGoalie32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 05:27 AM
  #98
SJGoalie32
Registered User
 
SJGoalie32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: TealTown, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by murdock1116 View Post
I'm sure in hindsight you can look at Nabby's stats and say they were good. But the softies and backbreaking goals he let in were brutal, and that doesn't reflect in the numbers.
Partially because, as a goaltender myself, I probably don't agree with your assessment (or many other people's assessment) of what actually constitutes a "softy."

And when your team scores less than two goals in a game, ANY goal that's given up regardless of quality automatically becomes a "backbreaker."

Niemi gave up what I thought was a fairly weak second goal in Game 3 against the Canucks (an unscreened wrist shot from above the faceoff circles). When you're trailing 0-1 or tied 1-1, it's a "backbreaker." When you're up 5-1, nobody cares. Same shot. Same goal. Same goalie. Different offensive production.

Quote:
Originally Posted by murdock1116 View Post
He was a good goalie though, I just am much more confidant with Niemi now than I ever was with Nabby.
But that's the thing.....I don't understand what that confidence is based on?

Statistically, Niemi is on par or worse than Nabokov. Since he's been the with the Sharks, Niemi has a lower save percentage than Nabokov in the postseason. He's given up more goals per game. He's lost more games. Heck, he's been yanked out of more games. Qualitatively, the types of goals Niemi has given up has been far worse than what Nabby allowed, and that's arguably minus the upside humongous robbery type save (though I could make a very strong case that Niemi actually does make those, they're just not as flashy or obvious). At least to my goaltending eye.

SJGoalie32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 06:16 AM
  #99
RainbowDash
20% Cooler
 
RainbowDash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Equestria
Posts: 1,924
vCash: 500
I just watched highlights of the Isles/Pens game, and holy **** was every goal Nabby let in pretty bad.

I don't miss those goals at all.

RainbowDash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 11:26 AM
  #100
do0glas
Registered User
 
do0glas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,806
vCash: 500
hard to say he didnt fail in that series against the pens, but they were pretty poor defensively as well. they wouldve needed a lot of puck luck and someone like tavares to actually be a monster. but that was his first playoff series. the future looks good for them.

do0glas 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 12:23 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.