HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Gradual Decline in Luongo's Game?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-01-2011, 03:30 AM
  #76
quat
vapid but stately
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 9,022
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal 9000 View Post
And that point was touched on in the sportsnet article. When he first started here, the expectation is that we'd soon win a Stanley cup. Four years later, we haven't won the cup (for many reasons), and people are feeling "betrayed" (for lack of a better word).

It was always the fans that built all this stuff up in their head, fueled by the media and the presidents trophy win. Luongo may have had his best season statistically last year but that doesn't matter because (as far as the fans are concerned) he'll never be as good as he was in 06-07, because we'll never feel that excited energy again - until he wins a Stanley cup for us and a Conn Smythe.

This whole issue says more about the fans than it does about Luongo himself.
Yep. It's kind of depressing that an online forum based on hockey has so many members on it that show such a complete lack of hockey knowledge. Same posters time and again spouting off on "how much they know about everything", when they don't have a freaking clue what they're going on about.

Makes you really appreciate those objective fans from teams all around the league that don't follow the hype generated by the media as they pimp themselves out for "exposure".

The loud mouth types that populate these threads are a particular kind of humor in and of themselves.

As for the OP, showing highlight clips of a completely different style of goaltending doesn't really prove it's more successful, it's just more flamboyant. The team is built to play for offense now, with a fast transition game. It's exciting to watch and can be successful. Call it the Detroit or Chicago model if you want. The goalie is asked to play further back in the net and the defense is more mobile and counteracts with puck control. Generally speaking the opponents are drawn further into zone with the expectation that the defense will be able to transition quickly to offense off shots on goal, trapping opponents behind the play.

The Canucks used to play more like Boston does, defense first, allow the goalie to be very aggressive and make sure to clean up rebounds and keep the front of the net clear from opponents. To be successful at that you need a big strong defense, something the Canucks sort of played at with pre concussion Willie Mitchell, but fell obviously short of when facing the Hawks the first and second time. The Hawks were allowed to walk in on Luongo time and again to pick up rebounds or go around his aggressive moves out of the net.

People blamed the teams failure on Luongo, when it seemed pretty clear that it was them lacking the horses to keep both size (Bufuglien) and speed (Kane), from driving the net. Thomas gets exposed the same way when Boston isn't playing a sound defensive game.... just that Thomas doesn't get the blame for it ... and nor should he.

That said, Luongo does deserve criticism when he loses focus, which does happen more often than it should for a player of his caliber and pay cheque. The rest of it, the Prima donna nonsense, the pump my tires complaints are no different than the crap you see from guys like Roloson, Hasek, and even Thomas. No one said a word about Thomas blaming the team for the loss against the Canucks when Burrows walked around he and Chara for the overtime winner.... if Luongo said anything like that he would have been crucified in the media.

quat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 04:04 AM
  #77
Walkingthroughforest
Johnny be good.
 
Walkingthroughforest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Swartzwelder View Post
He hasnt been the same (stylistically at least) since his groin injury

and also he should have won the vezina and hart in 2004
lol what?
Brodeur had 13 more wins, 4 more shutouts, and a .40 lower GAA.

And the non-playoff goalie deserves the Hart? give me a break.

Talk about brainwashing.

Walkingthroughforest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 04:12 AM
  #78
Christina Woloski
Registered Something
 
Christina Woloski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Narnia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Drebin View Post
But he won the gold medal in 2010

I agree. He was the best goalie in the league in 2007. He's top 10-15 now.
Cheers to not reading the rest of the thread.

Well done.







I absolutely hate this completely inaccurate threat title and kinda want it changed as it's perpetuating stupidity.

Tomorrow should I post a "Jonathan Toews attempts to cut opponents with his skate." Accuracy looks about the same.





.


Last edited by Christina Woloski: 11-01-2011 at 04:22 AM.
Christina Woloski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 04:13 AM
  #79
Christina Woloski
Registered Something
 
Christina Woloski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Narnia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Drebin View Post
Because you say it, does not make it true. There are at least 10 goalies Id rather have than him.
I'd like to hear those ten goalies listed out.

Because that's just fun.

Christina Woloski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 04:53 AM
  #80
Ski Powder
Watch out, I bite.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Somewhere Up North
Country: Canada
Posts: 886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stupendous Man View Post
I laugh at the people who bring up statistics to support the moronic argument that he was just as good last year as he's been in previous years. If you even watched a quarter of the 2007 season you would he was in another mindset. We were 3rd in the conference but we were among the bottom in goals for. Luongo held the fort every night to propel us to the playoffs. His average save % came from playing for a garbage team. Anyone who watched the playoffs series against Dallas in 07 would have known how Luongo completely took over the series. Words can not describe how angry I feel when people just assume Luongo has been this streaky way since he arrived in Vancouver.

I still remember before every game that season they would show interviews asking the opposing players what their goals were for each game. And they always answered the same, we have to find a way to solve Luongo. Compliments came pouring out of their a**. I have never seen him get the same respect he did back then.

Stats are a good measurement for the forwards and Dmen because they control the flow of the game, but you have observe goalies actually playing to determine how good they are.
Bingo to everything.

He just doesn't play the same style anymore, and I respect everyone's opinion, but if you haven't watched nearly every Canuck game since Luongo's been a Canuck and just base your opinion on the media's take of things and numbers then I'm sorry, but your view might be a little hazy.

He was the reason I got into hockey and goaltending. His play in his Panther days and first year here were spectacular. I remember whenever I was watching the games on tv or listening to the radio in 06-07 and chances were coming, I just had this sense of calmness and that everything was going to be alright, that he'd make the save.

I'm 21 now, and as much as I idolized him back then, he's just not the same anymore. He lacks confidence and his instincts and reflexes have faltered. His style has completely changed and maybe that groin injury has more to do with it than I know but even though his numbers are relatively the same or even the 2nd best in his career last year, he's not the same. He was arguably one of the best goaltenders playing on no-offense teams whereas now he's still a top goalie but the quality of this Canucks team is helping his numbers.

And please, don't say his numbers were inflated back in the day due to being on defensive minded teams. Everybody knows Florida wasn't good at anything, even defense and Vancouver, as defensive minded as we were, still gave up plenty of grade A opportunities and had problems cleaning up rebounds.

Here's to hoping, one way or another, he gets his old game back and returns to the superstar he once was.

Ski Powder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 06:10 AM
  #81
theripper
Registered User
 
theripper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,085
vCash: 500
oh canucks fans, you make me sick. boo a goalie who was one of a few who actually made it to a game away from the cup, then burn the city down. rogers arena sounds like a library,and you have the audacity to be arrogant?

theripper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 07:16 AM
  #82
JuniorNelson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: E.Vancouver
Country: Australia-Aboriginal
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Luongo's decline has been well documented. We have all seen it.

He was the best reactional goalie, now he has become a top five positional goalie.

He will be a steady goalie the rest of the season with no big dips or variance in his play.

He has demonstrated he takes the playoffs too seriously. He needs to be calmed during the playoffs, not amped up. He needs a rest once in a while.

If the Canucks had had more confidence in Schnieder, they would have played him in game four of the final. This season they might.

JuniorNelson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 07:46 AM
  #83
hatterson
Global Moderator
 
hatterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,679
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorNelson View Post
Luongo's decline has been well documented. We have all seen it.
Documented like this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
Here's Luongo's ES Sv% from 2000-01 to 2010-11:

0.930
0.928
0.925
0.937
(lockout)
0.926
0.928 (first year with Canucks)
0.929
0.936
0.925
0.934

__________________
Come join us on the By The Numbers forum. Take a look at our introduction post if you're new. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.
hatterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 08:23 AM
  #84
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,135
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfroThunder396 View Post
I like how cleverly you constructed your response as if to make it seem like I was the one being unreasonable.

Based on your other posts on this board, I'm under the impression you feel that goaltenders can be ranked solely on save percentage with no other stats or context.
Ranking goalies based on ES Sv% (or SQNSV%, though there are some issues there) is not a bad way to go about it. When it comes to the position, making saves is overwhelmingly the most important aspect of a goalie's game. I'd like to see anyone argue otherwise.

GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 08:28 AM
  #85
EvoX
Registered User
 
EvoX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 173
vCash: 500
I don't have all the stats to prove that he is "declining"; but as a Canucks fan I could say it has been a while since Luongo "stole" a game for the team. It just hasn't happened a lot last season and so far this year (zero).

EvoX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 09:21 AM
  #86
Uber Coca
Registered User
 
Uber Coca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mackee View Post
Having Rollie Melanson as your goaltending coach doesn't help matters either.

Trust me, I watched him nearly ruin several goaltenders in Montreal including Price. Hackett, Theodore, Garon, Huet all suffered under Melanson. He loves his goalies playing deep in their net. One of the better moves the Habs have made in recent years was hiring someone else.

Edit: Beaten to it. Point remains however.
I respectfully disagree. Melanson, IMO, made some pretty ordinary goaltenders look good with terrible teams.

Hackett save %:
1993-94 Chicago Blackhawks NHL 0.890
1994-95 Chicago Blackhawks NHL 0.913
1995-96 Chicago Blackhawks NHL 0.916
1996-97 Chicago Blackhawks NHL 0.927
1997-98 Chicago Blackhawks NHL 0.917
1998-99 Chicago Blackhawks NHL 0.871
1998-99 Montreal Canadiens NHL 0.914
1999-00 Montreal Canadiens NHL 0.914
2000-01 Montreal Canadiens NHL 0.887
2001-02 Montreal Canadiens NHL 0.904
2002-03 Montreal Canadiens NHL 0.926

Pretty respectable numbers with the Habs if you consider the team they had back then (Petrov, Ulanov, Quintal, Laflamme to name a few). Hackett play dropped significantly when shipped to Boston, but he was getting old and on the decline.

Theodore:
2001-02 Montreal Canadiens NHL 0.931
Hart and Vezina trophies

This one is pretty debatable. One could say Theodore's an average goaltender having an awesome year, or that he's a good goaltender who couldn't reach the level of this season afterwards. Either way, Melanson was the goaltender coach that year and if he's getting pointed when the goaltenders (Luongo more precisely here) are having bad seasons, he should be responsible when they're playing great too.

As for Garon, well he never really had the opportunity to showcase his talent with Montreal as a number 2 goaltender. Has Melanson really something to do with Garon's play afterwards? Maybe, but Garon may never had the talent to be a legit number 1 neither.

Huet save% with Montreal and Washington:
2005-06 Montreal Canadiens NHL 0.929
2006-07 Montreal Canadiens NHL 0.916
2007-08 Montreal Canadiens NHL 0.916
2007-08 Washington Capitals NHL 0.936

Good numbers with a more respectable Montreal team than Hackett had. I remember the media and the fans crying over the trade to Washington for a second round pick. That's because, while being inconsistent, he was a key part of the team in those years.

As for Price, it's also debatable. One could say he was young and unexperienced, or simply bad those years. I, for one, think it's the first option.

Uber Coca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 10:34 AM
  #87
Frank Drebin
Registered User
 
Frank Drebin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsBeReality View Post
I'd like to hear those ten goalies listed out.

Because that's just fun.
In NO particular order:
Thomas
Lundqvist
Miller
Rinne
Cam Ward
Fleury
Bryzgalov
Vokoun
Quick
Price
Kipper
Backstrom

And thats not including young guys who will be better like Reimer, Crawford etc.

Dissect this list if you wish (I know you will), but I guarantee the GM's of the above goalies teams would have a hearty chuckle if offered a 1 for 1 trade of Luongo for their starter.

But at least he's got that gold medal and a couple second place vezina votes, right?


Last edited by Frank Drebin: 11-01-2011 at 10:39 AM.
Frank Drebin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 10:36 AM
  #88
RogerRoeper*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 21,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOMapleLaughs View Post
I forget, but didn't the Canucks score a total of 1 total goal for games 6 & 7?

Luongo failed?!?

Um, what about the 'mvp' Sedins? Or naked Kesler?

With that offense, it was literally impossible for Luongo to close out that series.
Still doesn't take away how terrible he was in those games. If he was great, but they didn't score, then fine. But that doesn't excuse how badly he played.

RogerRoeper* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 10:37 AM
  #89
Frank Drebin
Registered User
 
Frank Drebin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
Still doesn't take away how terrible he was in those games. If he was great, but they didn't score, then fine. But that doesn't excuse how badly he played.
He's still top 3 / top 5 in the league. Don't try to deny it.

Frank Drebin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 10:54 AM
  #90
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
Here's Luongo's ES Sv% from 2000-01 to 2010-11:

0.930
0.928
0.925
0.937
(lockout)
0.926
0.928 (first year with Canucks)
0.929
0.936
0.925
0.934


Really don't see any evidence of "decline."
Bold is where he played for an infinitely better team.

If you can't see the difference there you're lost. The guy has the same stats he had on a team that have nobody that he does on one of the most stacked teams in the NHL... if you can't figure out that a save % should go up with better defense (i.e. less quality shots) then you're crazy.

It's just like Gonchar, if the Senators didn't expect his production to go down after he merely maintained it playing with two of the top three players in the NHL.... well their management is stupid if they actually thought he'd maintain that level of production. He was already declining when he went to Pitts just like Luongo for Van, it's just not as noticeable in the stats because both players were insulated very well.

Gonchar... by guys who could make even a fringe NHLer score goals.

Luongo... by having a solid defense and offense in front of him.

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 11:00 AM
  #91
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uber Coca View Post
I respectfully disagree. Melanson, IMO, made some pretty ordinary goaltenders look good with terrible teams.
Deleted the rest just to shorten the quote. While I agree with you it can be noted that Melanson has struggled in the past with tier 1 type goaltenders. He's great at making an average goaltender look good but he isn't known for helping prodigy type goaltenders take the leap to the next level.

Like if the Avs had Melanson a few years back... they'd have probably kept Budaj. I don't see Melanson helping Luongo achieve that "next level" or "highest level" of play though. Carey Price improved quite a bit after having a new coach.

Of course you can chalk it all up to "new coach" because you learn things from multiple coaches you're naturally going to take the good from each one. At the end of the day judging coaching is a crap shoot anyways, you can have the best coach and if you've got a pack of lazy losers who suck, you won't go anywhere. You can have the worst coach in the history of the NHL and still win the cup if you have good players who aren't lazy who are committed to winning. It's honestly the biggest crap shoot in professional sports. Sure a good coach can make a mediocre team better, or a bad coach can make a solid team not as effective. At the end of the day it's the players who make the real difference.

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 11:08 AM
  #92
hatterson
Global Moderator
 
hatterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,679
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
Bold is where he played for an infinitely better team.

If you can't see the difference there you're lost. The guy has the same stats he had on a team that have nobody that he does on one of the most stacked teams in the NHL... if you can't figure out that a save % should go up with better defense (i.e. less quality shots) then you're crazy.

It's just like Gonchar, if the Senators didn't expect his production to go down after he merely maintained it playing with two of the top three players in the NHL.... well their management is stupid if they actually thought he'd maintain that level of production. He was already declining when he went to Pitts just like Luongo for Van, it's just not as noticeable in the stats because both players were insulated very well.

Gonchar... by guys who could make even a fringe NHLer score goals.

Luongo... by having a solid defense and offense in front of him.
ES save % has very little to do with the team in front of a goalie.

hatterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 11:22 AM
  #93
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,473
vCash: 50
Much like Huet, Luongo is a confidence goalie and he's just going through a rough patch right now. He'll go on nice streak to balance out his numbers at some point. However, you never know when the good or the bad is going to show up with a goalie like that. The best thing they can go right now is to give him a lot of minutes even though it might be tempting to start Schneider.

digdug41982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 11:30 AM
  #94
Uber Coca
Registered User
 
Uber Coca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
Deleted the rest just to shorten the quote. While I agree with you it can be noted that Melanson has struggled in the past with tier 1 type goaltenders. He's great at making an average goaltender look good but he isn't known for helping prodigy type goaltenders take the leap to the next level.

Like if the Avs had Melanson a few years back... they'd have probably kept Budaj. I don't see Melanson helping Luongo achieve that "next level" or "highest level" of play though. Carey Price improved quite a bit after having a new coach.

Of course you can chalk it all up to "new coach" because you learn things from multiple coaches you're naturally going to take the good from each one. At the end of the day judging coaching is a crap shoot anyways, you can have the best coach and if you've got a pack of lazy losers who suck, you won't go anywhere. You can have the worst coach in the history of the NHL and still win the cup if you have good players who aren't lazy who are committed to winning. It's honestly the biggest crap shoot in professional sports. Sure a good coach can make a mediocre team better, or a bad coach can make a solid team not as effective. At the end of the day it's the players who make the real difference.
Melanson sure struggled with top goaltenders. Probably depends on how you see it; IMO, we were quite lucky to have him in the 2000's. Just take a look at the rosters,... yuck. But as you stated, Melanson's effects on a goaltender's performance have some limits.

As for the bolded part, I agree. The coaches are motivational leaders that are taking too much crap when the team is losing and too much praise when the team is winning.

Uber Coca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 12:39 PM
  #95
TOML
Registered User
 
TOML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Walnut Grove
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
Still doesn't take away how terrible he was in those games. If he was great, but they didn't score, then fine. But that doesn't excuse how badly he played.
Of course it doesn't. Nonetheless, if he had lost by merely one goal for each game, he would've still been labelled a big game choker etc. and the Canucks would remain cupless. In fact, even if he won, he wouldn't have gotten any credit, as in Team Canada's win. No arguing that.

He was terrible for games in the Chicago series and still won. Why? He got offense. Like, more than 0.5 goals-per-game offense.

In the finals, Luongo was beaten by a better goaltender, who had a better defense and offense in front of him at the time due to injuries and suspensions. Pretty simple.

TOML is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 01:12 PM
  #96
iceless
-`ღ´-
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
Here's Luongo's ES Sv% from 2000-01 to 2010-11:

0.930
0.928
0.925
0.937
(lockout)
0.926
0.928 (first year with Canucks)
0.929
0.936
0.925
0.934

Really don't see any evidence of "decline."
Compare it to league-wide SV%, which has been trending up considerably since the lockout: http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/stats.html

Also, just watching him play (ignoring stats and the defense in front of him), you can tell he's regressed.

iceless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 01:20 PM
  #97
SoTzuMe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quat View Post
Yep. It's kind of depressing that an online forum based on hockey has so many members on it that show such a complete lack of hockey knowledge. Same posters time and again spouting off on "how much they know about everything", when they don't have a freaking clue what they're going on about.

Makes you really appreciate those objective fans from teams all around the league that don't follow the hype generated by the media as they pimp themselves out for "exposure".

The loud mouth types that populate these threads are a particular kind of humor in and of themselves.

As for the OP, showing highlight clips of a completely different style of goaltending doesn't really prove it's more successful, it's just more flamboyant. The team is built to play for offense now, with a fast transition game. It's exciting to watch and can be successful. Call it the Detroit or Chicago model if you want. The goalie is asked to play further back in the net and the defense is more mobile and counteracts with puck control. Generally speaking the opponents are drawn further into zone with the expectation that the defense will be able to transition quickly to offense off shots on goal, trapping opponents behind the play.

The Canucks used to play more like Boston does, defense first, allow the goalie to be very aggressive and make sure to clean up rebounds and keep the front of the net clear from opponents. To be successful at that you need a big strong defense, something the Canucks sort of played at with pre concussion Willie Mitchell, but fell obviously short of when facing the Hawks the first and second time. The Hawks were allowed to walk in on Luongo time and again to pick up rebounds or go around his aggressive moves out of the net.

People blamed the teams failure on Luongo, when it seemed pretty clear that it was them lacking the horses to keep both size (Bufuglien) and speed (Kane), from driving the net. Thomas gets exposed the same way when Boston isn't playing a sound defensive game.... just that Thomas doesn't get the blame for it ... and nor should he.

That said, Luongo does deserve criticism when he loses focus, which does happen more often than it should for a player of his caliber and pay cheque. The rest of it, the Prima donna nonsense, the pump my tires complaints are no different than the crap you see from guys like Roloson, Hasek, and even Thomas. No one said a word about Thomas blaming the team for the loss against the Canucks when Burrows walked around he and Chara for the overtime winner.... if Luongo said anything like that he would have been crucified in the media.
This is an excellent post. Nicely done. I'd add that the Canucks have other arrogant personalities in their locker room (e.g. Kesler, Lapierre) who are currently lauded. There is a blatant double-standard with regards to this sort of stuff.

The mix of Canucks fans with their enormous, misplaced sense of entitlement and fans of other teams who love to see rival players fail creates such an infuriating climate.

SoTzuMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 01:20 PM
  #98
Crows*
 
Crows*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,307
vCash: 500
I laughed out loud when I read the list above having brygalov ahead of luongo . What a joke . What had bryzgalov done? Be awful in the playoffs last year . That's about it .

Crows* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 02:35 PM
  #99
Frank Drebin
Registered User
 
Frank Drebin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crows View Post
I laughed out loud when I read the list above having brygalov ahead of luongo . What a joke . What had bryzgalov done? Be awful in the playoffs last year . That's about it .
Well, then they are even I guess.

Frank Drebin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 02:49 PM
  #100
Noir
Registered User
 
Noir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Vancouver, CAN
Posts: 592
vCash: 500
The difference between Ian Clark - Luongo vs Rolie Melanson - Luongo is pure night and day. Regardless, I prefer the Ian Clark - Luongo not on any technical merits, but rather it's just the brand of goaltending I prefer.


Too bad, Clark started up his goalie school and couldn't commit to Canucks full-time which led to the Melanson hiring.

Noir 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 02:19 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.