dom

Weren't they supposed to learn from what happened in last year's playoff's?

Yumcha

Well, they did sorta...they advanced past the first round, didn't they...?

srika

wstevens

If the team can't win with all that, then they simply aren't very good

Yumcha

You forget about all the soft goals let in by their not-physically injured name-brand goalie.

wstevens

Wow, I've only been on here 12 minutes over the last year and I'm already tired of seeing "name brand goalie"

Yumcha

It's too bad it was not Detroit playing LA...because, given the choice over Chicago's no-name, I'm sure Howard would've shut out the Kings in all 4 games in a sweep. Thank goodness it was Chicago and not Detroit.

Yumcha

Considering I'll be here until I die, it will continue.

wstevens

Just be prepared for the worst: if Chicago loses, it will all be Crawford's fault. No matter what. And you will never hear the end of it. Crawford will become synonymous with the root cause of any failure. If any sports team or individual ever loses anything important, we will say they "Crawforded."

Yumcha

I expect it. Because, clearly, when Chicago loses, it is ALL the fault of the goalie's. Not because of poor defense or puck support...nope. It is all on Crawford. He's so important, he's become bigger than Toews, Hossa, Kane, Keith, Sharp, Bickell, Seabrook, and etc.

When other teams lose, like LA, it is an assortment of injuries, cosmic stars being misaligned and Justin Beaver being in the seats...never the fault of their name-brand goalie.

wstevens

And every reply to every Yumcha post will include a Crawford non sequitur at the end.

Yumcha

So, wstevens...what's with the AWOL-ness? I mean, you bought a nice M3 and thought you were better than us or something?

black label

Being that Crawford has won a cup and Tuukka has not, doesn't that make Crawford the "brand name" goalie in the finals

Yumcha

Actually, no. Huet was the backup to Niemi in Chicago's 2009 Cup run.



So, Crawford is quite no-name. And quite second-rate. He clearly took PEDs to beat Quick.

black label

Yumcha

It's okay. Both Huet and Niemi are no-names and thus, forgettable.



Don't mind me as I will never forget how big Quick's 5-hole was in Game 5.

dom

Well to be fair, that is a pretty fawked up thing to have in the seats.

Can't believe I'm going here again....

Yumchah, I think you've proved your point and I think I've at least agreed that you can win without a 'name brand' goalie. But the stats don't lie. Going back years we've proved that having that elite net minder improves your chances tremendously.

Now that's not to say the game hasn't or won't change and having that goalie isn't as important as it once was. But the facts are, most teams won a cup with an elite goalie. If the next 10-20 years show otherwise than times have changed. Nothing more.

Hi wstevens

wstevens

Hi dominy.

I'd guess that most Cup winning teams had a "name brand" goalie. However, it is obviously possible to win the Cup without one. BUT, the "no name" will have to play really well for the team to win.

black label

Well if you remember the Bruins "historic" performance that year, you can understand why I try to forget that season.

Still, Tuukka's name has less letters in it so he still has less of a name than Crawford.

Moog-Type-S

No excuses really, just stating how banged up the team was.

They beat the out of themselves in the Blues series in 6 games , and the Sharks series went to 7.

Yumcha

I'm good. And certainly, my point is no longer really leveled at you.


Using Crawford as an example, I will say that he's a mid-tier goalie. While he has made some timely saves, there is no way we can say he's better than the other marquee names like Quick, Lundqvist, Miller, and etc. Not even close.

But, with the draconian salary cap, paying $5M and up for a marquee goalie can be a very tough question because whatever you spend to pay for that goalie, you lose in depth. Ultimately, Chicago won with depth over LA. The defense combined with the great back-checking of the forwards allowed for a greater overall D that was able to combine with serviceable goaltending.

Otherwise, you are counting all your beans on one player...or, in other words, having one position assume all the risk instead of distributing it. I argued this back in 2009 and still maintain it today.

Times have changed. If the salary cap is gone...sure, get a great "name-brand" goalie. But, those are so rare. I'd rather go for depth as that's a bit easier...and frankly, Detroit (yes, I hate them) has proven this strategy works. And Chicago is doing a darn fine job copying that.

That's all.

Moog-Type-S

Howard is the better goaltender.

Yumcha

...and your name-brand goalie let in soft goals that would make Dan Cloutier proud.

Yumcha

I'm sure he's agreeing with you from the driving range.

Moog-Type-S

Yummy's point has always been about the double zeros on the roulette.

Yup, they do come up from time to time.

The smart General Manager's money is to go with the odds, and get a top tier goaltender.

Quick proved it last year.

....as well as the laundry list of top-tier Stanley Cup winning goaltenders.

Sure, you can play the double-zeros, they do come up from time to time, but in general it's a suckers bet. Play the better odds....history does not lie.

Yumcha

^ Keep saying that. You have two unproven netminders in the Finals again.

And you still can't deny Quick let in some real goals.

Moog-Type-S

Yup, top-tier goaltenders never let in soft goals.

...and Quick never misplayed the puck or let in a soft goal on the way to winning the Conn Smythe and the Stanley Cup.

The more you type about this nonsense the more delusional it sounds

Yumcha

Context, Waldorf. You're saying your Kings lost because of injuries. I'm adding in that Quick also let in some really bad goals that if saved, would probably keep the Kings playing.


Nice try.

Moog-Type-S

Never said they lost because of injures. Only stated how banged up they were and how they had a hard road. It catches up to you eventually.

...but then again not having Richards for the majority of the series...I guess you can blame it on injuries, he leaves a giant hole on the team when he is out. Everyone knows his mind blowing playoff point stats.

If you think Quick was at fault for their losses, then you truly don't know hockey, or you are flat out lying.

Quick played lights out goal tending.
He would have won another Conn Smythe.

Don't be silly.

black label

^^^
On the topic of goalies and conn smythe awards, it always annoys me. It's too easy to hand it to the goalie saying, "if they didn't have him they wouldn't have won."

Moog-Type-S

The list of scrubs and bottom of the barrel Stanley Cup Winning Goaltenders from Expansion to present:
Year Goalie Team
1968 Gump Worsley Montreal Canadiens
1969 Gump Worsley Montreal Canadiens
1970 Gerry Cheevers Boston Bruins
1971 Ken Dryden Montreal Canadiens
1972 Gerry Cheevers Boston Bruins
1973 Ken Dryden Montreal Canadiens
1974 Bernie Parent Philadelphia Flyers
1975 Bernie Parent Philadelphia Flyers
1976 Ken Dryden Montreal Canadiens
1977 Ken Dryden Montreal Canadiens
1978 Ken Dryden Montreal Canadiens
1979 Ken Dryden Montreal Canadiens
1980 Billy Smith New York Islanders
1981 Billy Smith New York Islanders
1982 Billy Smith New York Islanders
1983 Billy Smith New York Islanders
1984 Grant Fuhr & Andy Moog Edmonton Oilers
1985 Grant Fuhr Edmonton Oilers
1986 Patrick Roy Montreal Canadiens
1987 Grant Fuhr Edmonton Oilers
1988 Grant Fuhr Edmonton Oilers
1989 Mike Vernon Calgary Flames
1990 Bill Ranford Edmonton Oilers
1991 Tom Barrasso Pittsburgh Penguins
1992 Tom Barrasso Pittsburgh Penguins
1993 Patrick Roy Montreal Canadiens
1994 Mike Richter New York Rangers
1995 Martin Brodeur New Jersey Devils
1996 Patrick Roy Colorado Avalanche
1997 Mike Vernon Detroit Red Wings
1998 Chris Osgood Detroit Red Wings
1999 Eddie Belfour Dallas Stars
2000 Martin Brodeur New Jersey Devils
2001 Patrick Roy Colorado Avalanche
2002 Dominik Hasek Detroit Red Wings
2003 Martin Brodeur New Jersey Devils
2004 Nikolai Khabibulin Tampa Bay Lightning
2005 None No Team
2006 Cam Ward Carolina Hurricanes
2007 J.S. Giguere Anaheim Ducks
2008 Chris Osgood Detroit Red Wings
2009 Marc-Andre Fleury Pittsburgh Penguins
2010 Antti Niemi Chicago BlackHawks
2011 Tim Thomas Boston Bruins
2012 Johnathan Quick


Never heard of these guys

Yumcha

So, you don't think Quick was at fault for letting in 4 goals and getting yanked...? You don't think it was Quick who let in two save-able shots in Game 5 to put your team in a 2-0 hole...?

You don't think it was Quick who let in that softie to Bickell the other night that everyone said he should've saved...?



You think Quick really outplayed Crawford...? Okeydokey.

Maybe you don't watch hockey either...and are just as big of a myopic and fair-weathered fan as I...

Moog-Type-S

Truth is that's not as common as you think.

Somewhere around a dozen goaltenders have won the Conn Smythe since 67 expansion. The rest are defense or forward. More skaters than goaltenders have won it.

Yumcha

Keep digging your hole.

You prove my point exactly in my post above (#37583). The last few years, who is truly THAT elite in that list? Let's see...Giguere? Niemi? Bulin? Osgood? Fleury? Ward?

So, clearly, Chicago and Detroit have idiot GMs to pile their money on depth instead of putting in $5-$6M for a goalie. Yup.

Moog-Type-S

Yup, Quick is at fault for the series.
Not the team only playing 2 complete games.

It's about as logical an argument as that list I posted that shows how no-name goaltenders win cups. :wink:

That scrub Quick never made any good saves, and never got the Kings through the first couple of rounds. Everyone was saying how horrible he was in all three rounds. Kings should cut the guy loose.

oh the myopia and nonsense

Moog-Type-S

Yup that's what you pulled from history.

I would think you lost your mind, if I didn't know half of your theory is just shtick.

Go sell your theory to the GM's in the league.

I bet the Kings could have won the cup with old beach ball Cloutier.

Yumcha

^ You have no idea what is being argued and go on in your nonsense.

Again, I state: A serviceable goalie with a great system in front of him = Cup. How has Crawford not proven that already...? I'm clearly not arguing he's a great goalie.



You seem to think all teams need future HoFers. And give me a break, when did I say Cloutier or a crap goalie helps win a Cup...? So, keep -ing to make yourself feel better.

Yumcha

So, let me understand this: After all of this, Moog-Type-S has somehow...SOMEHOW...deduced that I'm saying an ECHL-class goalie can help a team win the Cup.





And that Quick, his beloved MVP did not let in ANY soft goals against Chicago that helped the Hawks win the series in 5. Okayyyyyy.

Yumcha

black label, I'm relieved it's just you and I going forward. At least our arguments will make sense.

black label

As a side note, I'm expecting every hockey talk regular to send a thank you card to the address listed in my location thanking the Boston Bruins organization for eliminating the Penguins, preventing Crosby from hoisting the cup over his head and therefore saving this thread from deletion by