Jump to content

2013-2014 NHL thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've gotta say, it's been several years now where every game the Hawks play, the story is about how good the other goalie is. Our goalie very often surrenders fewer goals than opposing super-goalie. Not a peep.

 

Crawford isn't always great and we're going to hate that contract, but the broadcasting tandem had the Hawks losing Game 5 when we were up 3-1. Tuuka, Quick, Howard, Miller, whoever. I've seen our guy beat 'em. I'd like to see someone talk about Crawford as if he's not a swinging door for once. It's one of those deals where every goal allowed confirms that he sucks and no great game or series or playoffs ever matters. I hope he saves the end of our series like he did in Minnesota

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jake @ May 30, 2014 -> 05:57 PM)
I've gotta say, it's been several years now where every game the Hawks play, the story is about how good the other goalie is. Our goalie very often surrenders fewer goals than opposing super-goalie. Not a peep.

 

Crawford isn't always great and we're going to hate that contract, but the broadcasting tandem had the Hawks losing Game 5 when we were up 3-1. Tuuka, Quick, Howard, Miller, whoever. I've seen our guy beat 'em. I'd like to see someone talk about Crawford as if he's not a swinging door for once. It's one of those deals where every goal allowed confirms that he sucks and no great game or series or playoffs ever matters. I hope he saves the end of our series like he did in Minnesota

Story from who? Just the broadcasters? You can say "our goalie surrenders fewer goals" but all that really means is that the Hawks scored more goals than the other team. It doesn't say how many shots were faced, what type of goals went in, etc.

 

Rask is better than Crawford. So is Quick. So if the story is that Quick is better than Crawford, that bothers you? I'm not sure how you can argue against that this series.

 

Miller? Not too sure anyone thought he was better than Crawford - at least anyone that watched the end of the season. Should I bring up Mike Smith and Phoenix in 2011? Maybe the worst Crawford has ever played. He sure as hell didn't beat Mike Smith that series.

 

Crawford hasn't played well this series. Can't argue against that. Quick has made tougher and timelier stops all series.

 

Crawford isn't a swinging door, but to me he's only a slightly above average goalie. Maybe he's near the top of the 2nd tier of goalies? That's about as far as I'd go with him. The team in front of him makes him look a whole lot better than he is.

 

Crawford absolutely needs to play great one or both of these next two games to advance. Dial up Crawford 2011 game 7 Vancouver. That's the best he's ever played. You get that tonight and we'll see you Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 30, 2014 -> 08:44 PM)
Every time the Kings score f***ing Seabrook is standing there.

 

He was the first one back and didn't even put his stick on the ice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all of these years, Seabrook has been a mediocre player who has looked decent because of Keith. This postseason, Keith hasn't been there to bail him out. I'm just glad Foley isn't doing these games. "Rough play there BUT HE WAS A PLUS 30!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...