Am I the only one who thinks Vancouver's defense is rather mediocre defensively? It's entirely built on smooth skating and quick counterattacks. Bieksa and Ballard are lol defensively. Vancouver hasn't had a real shutdown guy, since when, Mitchell? At least Lundqvist has Staal, plus a couple other really good defensive guys.
Sure Kesler is a beast defensively, but when the Sedins are on if they don't get the puck first, the other team usually gets the opportunity to set up a scoring chance because Vancouver plays wide open (REALLY wide open), and the Sedins don't have the speed to get back in the defensive zone quickly. Of course if the puck goes the other way it usually turns into a 3 on 2 or a 2 on 2 which the Sedins have a damn good chance of scoring on.
While not really shutdown guys Salo is very reliable and Edler is usually solid.
if lundqvist was on the canucks, they would be winning consecutive stanley cups
if he was on what is now a lottery team he carries them to the playoffs easily
if he was on any top 2 team in any division he makes them a favorite for the stanley cup
btw luongo has had alot better team in front of him on the canucks than the rangers have had in lundqvists career
Lunqvist haters come talk to me when Lunqvist lets in 8 goals in ANY significant game let alone in the Stanley Cup. There is no justification to claim he chokes at ALL besides going on google and googling his playoffs stats. Watch the game, the guy is amazing. This is the best team he's ever played behind, so haters watch out. Luongo was a big reason why the Canucks lost the cup. Lundqvist will be the reason the rangers win the cup
Because Luongo has been on much better teams and because Lundqvist can be looked at as the only reason his team even makes the playoffs, prior to this season. The Rangers' playoff exits have not been Lundqvist's fault either; he's typically their best player in the playoffs, only to have the team in front of him cave in. Sure, that doesn't mean he's never had a bad game, but with mediocre teams in front of him, playing mediocre hockey in the playoffs, he hasn't had any golden opportunities to blow, so it's hard to say he's ever choked.
Also, Henrik dominated for Sweden on his way to Olympic Gold. Luongo was almost a passenger on a stacked team Canana.
Lundqvist had players like Forsberg, Alfredsson, Zetterberg on his team, and Nik Lidstrom on his blueline. Lundqvist got spanked 5-0 by Russia, then didn't really need to do too much in a pair of blowout wins over Switzerland and the Czech Republic. Full credit to him for playing well in the final and stopping Jokinen when it counted, but hey, it was no dominant performance.
Luongo won the gold in 2010 with Canada without losing any games. He allowed a bad goal to Visnovsky against Slovakia, but redeemed himself by denying Demitra in the dying seconds to preserve the 3-2 win. Then there was the final, where he was solid most of the game, although he gave up a late equalizer to Parise, and then stopped Pavelski's slapshot just seconds before Crosby scored the winner.
It seems like both goalies did their part, but weren't really called upon much.
Originally Posted by SwedenCanada
To start with I like both teams and both goaltenders.
When they're on their game they're both great.
When Luongo and Lundqvist have great games they're both Vezina-good. They can both peak to aprox. the same height.
Lundqvist on the other hand is in my opinion one of the most consistent goaltenders.
Luongo can lose a "safe win"-game. He can throw games.
When Lundqvist is having a bad game he's ordinary bad.
When Lundqvist loses it's usually a feeling of a team that let Hank down. He usually keeps them in the game.
When Luongo loses it's a feeling of a goalie let down. When Luongo is having a bad game he's BAD and thats the truth.
It's easier to predict the outcome of the game when Lundqvist is in net than to predict it with Luongo in net. An offnight for Lundqvist might be 1 bad goal. An offnight for Luongo might be 3-4 bad goals.
To compare them with lovely statistics (this season):
Number of games when allowed more than 3 goals:
Lundqvist 1 (1x4 goals)
Luongo 3 (2x4 goals, 1x5 goals)
Worst save percentage in a game:
Number of games with less than .900%:
As I said before when Luongo is bad he's really bad. This is the biggest difference between them.
Comparing these two is easiest summed up by:
Lundqvist - Give us a chance to win the game.
Luongo - Don't give away this game.
Lundqvist got "positive pressure": Come on give us a chance to win.
Luongo got "negative pressure": Don't let us down!
This has more to do with the teams they play on right now. A goalie on an average team is responsible for stealing games, giving his team a chance against superior opposition, while a goalie on a good team is responsible for not screwing up. There was a time (around 2007) when Luongo did, in fact, steal games for the Canucks, but now he doesn't really need to do that much.
Originally Posted by FromTheSide
Because unlike loungo, Lundqvist didn't play like **** when his team needed him (which was basically every single round) since lundqvist had average at best rosters infront of him and had to go up against powerhouses like WSH, PIT, BUF (Presidents trohpy year) while loungo at least had the presidents trophy / division winning canucks infront of him.
And the two teams that Luongo has historically had trouble with (Chicago and Boston) aren't powerhouses?
Originally Posted by Sonny Lamateena
Lundqvist has never lost to a lower seeded team in the playoffs.
Luongo has lost to a lower seeded team twice in the playoffs.
How often has Lundqvist had a chance to play a lower seeded team in the playoffs?
Originally Posted by serge2k
Luongo usually makes the Canucks better, but he inevitably falls apart in the playoffs and while his teams have been pretty meh at times in front of him he makes it virtually impossible to win.
Look at game 6 vs Chicago (1), team gets 5 goals and he just falls apart.
Lundqvist has had his share of bad playoff games, such as getting pulled in Games 5 and 6 after getting his team a 3-1 lead against the Caps in 2009.
At this point I still think King Henrik is a better goalie, but it's closer than you think.