I watched Luongo win 15 games last year for a team that put up the worst offense of any team to make it past round 1 post-lockout. If that offense shows up for ONE game in the final round, Luongo wins the Conn Smythe.
Seriously what the hell are you talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks
Luongo had too many poor games throughout the playoffs?? How many poor games did Thomas have? If Thomas's offense came up lame like the Canucks did, in the ECF, then the Canucks play Tampa and not Boston.
Hate to break it to you but the Bruins offense wasn't overwhelming at all. In case you forgot Game 7 against Tampa was a 0-0 game up until the dying minutes. The Bruins offense was hot against Vancouver in the home games, and in the Flyers series.
Against MTL it was just average, and against Tampa it was just average. Without Thomas playing insane we dont win the Cup. And Luongo let up way to many goals to even be in the Conn Smythe discussion in the finals. The idea that you think he could have won it is seriously RIDICULOUS. Thomas wins it even if the Bruins lose game 7. Luongo wasnt even in the dicsussion dude.
Superb game from Luongo. Almost stole a game Canucks had no business being in.
Obviously, it will be completely ignored and forgotten.
His great performance will be noted as will his letting in a terrible goal that cost his team the game.
He made brilliant saves throughout the night but that one putrid game is going to piss him off!
It wasn't his fault he lost. His teammates played garbage hockey all night. He just couldn't let that dribbler from a horrid angle go in.
Luongo was the best player on the Canucks tonight. 'nuff said.
I like the "'nuff said" as if to say that one strong game in a loss is enough to remove any doubt about his playoff performances.
I don't think anyone can say that he (Luongo) isn't capable of playing great games.
The issue with him seems to be is, when he has a bad game, he's really bad. Which would also be OK, except that he seems to have a few too many bad games in the playoffs.
Maybe he erases that reputation this year. He's on his way.
His great performance will be noted as will his letting in a terrible goal that cost his team the game.
He made brilliant saves throughout the night but that one putrid game is going to piss him off!
It wasn't his fault he lost. His teammates played garbage hockey all night. He just couldn't let that dribbler from a horrid angle go in.
Yeah, you gotta stop that Richards shot.
That was the first I've gotten to watch J.Quick, what a good young goalie. He does seem to over-commit quite often, a la Tim Thomas IMO though.
It's sad. Luongo had a solid game last night. Really no question about ti. But for his play, the Canucks lose 6,7 or 8-2. but he has a way of letting in softies, way to often. t\That's fuel to his critics fire.
I like the "'nuff said" as if to say that one strong game in a loss is enough to remove any doubt about his playoff performances.
I don't think anyone can say that he (Luongo) isn't capable of playing great games.
The issue with him seems to be is, when he has a bad game, he's really bad. Which would also be OK, except that he seems to have a few too many bad games in the playoffs.
Maybe he erases that reputation this year. He's on his way.
The thread is about who should start the next game. "'nuff said" was refering to having AV go with Luongo who clearly gave them a chance to win.
It's sad. Luongo had a solid game last night. Really no question about ti. But for his play, the Canucks lose 6,7 or 8-2. but he has a way of letting in softies, way to often. t\That's fuel to his critics fire.
So if Luongo didn't have a stellar game, it would have been called a complete meltdown. But because he has a stellar game then it's his teammates that get the blame? In other words, if he just plays well or decently it's deemed that his play was worse than it actually was?
The point I'm trying to make is that the Canucks typically have very poor outings like last night, and unless Luongo is absolutely stellar like he was last night, we are going to be blown out. It's not fair to call those games Luongo meltdowns when the team in front of him played like garbage.
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
BobbyLu played pretty well, outside of the 1st goal...Kings pretty well dominated..
It was a 5 on 3. I can't blame Luongo for that goal. It looked weak because Luongo was cheating expecting a pass. Had Richards passed the puck, Luongo makes what's deemed to he a great save. Instead Richards shot and it looked bad. If Luongo doesn't cheat, and Richards passes, it's almost a sure goal unless its a bad pass. Very tough situation there.
So if Luongo didn't have a stellar game, it would have been called a complete meltdown. But because he has a stellar game then it's his teammates that get the blame? In other words, if he just plays well or decently it's deemed that his play was worse than it actually was?
The point I'm trying to make is that the Canucks typically have very poor outings like last night, and unless Luongo is absolutely stellar like he was last night, we are going to be blown out. It's not fair to call those games Luongo meltdowns when the team in front of him played like garbage.
C'Mon. It's widely accepted that Goalies, like their QB counterparts in the NFL are considered to affect the outcome of a game in a greater way than any other player. In hockey, a goalie can win a game if his teammates aren't doing the job. The Backstopper is the most important player in the game. When he has a poor game, it is evident to everyone watching. Same is true when he has a stellar game.
That was the first I've gotten to watch J.Quick, what a good young goalie. He does seem to over-commit quite often, a la Tim Thomas IMO though.
This, below is bang on.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks
It was a 5 on 3. I can't blame Luongo for that goal. It looked weak because Luongo was cheating expecting a pass. Had Richards passed the puck, Luongo makes what's deemed to he a great save. Instead Richards shot and it looked bad. If Luongo doesn't cheat, and Richards passes, it's almost a sure goal unless its a bad pass. Very tough situation there.
.... and I'm certainly not a Canucks/ or Luongo supporter. Truth be told he was dead in the water either way, 5 on 3's, when played right, will do that.
As someone who grew up in the Boston area and went to BU, I saw alot of Schneider (more than I wanted to!) when he played at BC.
He was always a big game goalie, and I think if Vancouver starts him and uses him in the playoffs they take the cup home this year. As a Bruins fan I am loathe to admit this, but its honestly how I feel.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Schneider's stats are better relative to his average when he plays against better teams.
Luongo's stats are about the same or go down when he plays better teams.
However, it doesn't matter. Schneider won't get a fair chance.
It's politics. Can't have a $60m+ plus contract go to waste. Gotta play Luongo even if it costs us the cup like it did last year.
Well, at the very least at the end of game 2 of the SCF Luongo was probably the odds on favourite for the Conn Smythe. He was the Canucks playoff MVP. You could speculate that had the Canucks won game 7 that Thomas would have won the MVP anyways, although Luongo did have 2 1-0 shutouts in the SCF, and probably would have needed another 1-0 shutout in game 7 for the Canucks to win the Cup, so 3 1-0 shutouts in the SCF probably would have clinched the Conn Smythe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wKetch22
Hate to break it to you but the Bruins offense wasn't overwhelming at all. In case you forgot Game 7 against Tampa was a 0-0 game up until the dying minutes. The Bruins offense was hot against Vancouver in the home games, and in the Flyers series.
Against MTL it was just average, and against Tampa it was just average. Without Thomas playing insane we dont win the Cup. And Luongo let up way to many goals to even be in the Conn Smythe discussion in the finals. The idea that you think he could have won it is seriously RIDICULOUS. Thomas wins it even if the Bruins lose game 7. Luongo wasnt even in the dicsussion dude.
As underwhelming as the Bruins offense may have been, the Canucks was worse:
Round 1, Boston averaged 2.43 goals for per game, Canucks averaged 2.23
Round 2, Boston averaged 5 goals for per game, Canucks averaged 2.33
Round 3, Boston averaged 3 goals for per game, Canucks averaged 4
through 3 rounds the Bruins averaged 3.22 goals for per game, Canucks averaged 2.78 goals for per game.
The Bruins clearly had a better offense than the Canucks throughout the playoffs. Without Luongo playing insane the Canucks don't even get to game 7 of the SCF, by your standard. And again, without the Bruins offense bailing out Thomas once in the ECF, the Bruins don't even get to the SCF and that's a luxury Luongo never had. The game I'm referring to is game 2 of the ECF when Thomas allowed 5 goals but still won the game. In fact, throughout the whole playoffs the Bruins won 2 games when Thomas let in 4 or more goals, whereas the Canucks won 0 when Luongo did.
It was a 5 on 3. I can't blame Luongo for that goal. It looked weak because Luongo was cheating expecting a pass. Had Richards passed the puck, Luongo makes what's deemed to he a great save. Instead Richards shot and it looked bad. If Luongo doesn't cheat, and Richards passes, it's almost a sure goal unless its a bad pass. Very tough situation there.
Thats fair enough, and I agree.
IMO Luongo plays until he sucks, two games in a row. Not saying that he will.
IMO Luongo plays until he sucks, two games in a row. Not saying that he will.
I agree. If Luongo has two bad games in a row then Luongo should be replaced by Schneider, at least for one game. It worked well in the regular season.
Goals 1-4: Luongo makes great intitial save, 3+ Canucks players aimlessly float towards the net and allow the Kings to score while he was out of position.
Goal 2: Breakaway. Stoppable, but Brown pulled a nice move.
The thread is about who should start the next game. "'nuff said" was refering to having AV go with Luongo who clearly gave them a chance to win.
