Official Luongo Hate / Love Thread

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
dhabums
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: Official Luongo Hate / Love Thread

Post by dhabums »

ESQ wrote:I got so frustrated debating Luongo a few weeks ago, pointing to the numerous stats supporting his elite play since the lockout, pointing out that no goalie can win a 7 game series when his team scores all of 8 goals, showing that his stats in elimination games are not as bad as people think, that his defense by the end of the Chicago series in '10 was utterly brutal, led by One-Ball Sami...

But Spector said it all so much better than I ever could:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2011/10/ ... n_canucks/
I realize Spector is looking for some publicity with an article like this, but for a guy who acknowledged more than once than Luongo was good for one bad goal a night in the playoffs, he sure is a staunch defender.
wienerdog
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:47 pm

Re: Official Luongo Hate / Love Thread

Post by wienerdog »

darren wrote: It's about absurd and unreasonable criticism. (Not all the criticism is absurd and unreasonable of course, I share some of it). It's about blaming Lou for shit that happens (or doesn't happen) 200 ft away from him, and expecting him to walk on water like Jesus Christ Almighty Himself because he takes home 10m (a number that is completely and utterly irrelevant to everyone on this earth except Aqualini's accountant). How many times has someone posted: "I don't care how tough that shot is, you make 10 million bucks so you HAVE TO make that save." In other words: "walk on water, please".

It's also about the selective memory about the performance Lou, and of other goaltenders.

"Lou lost us the Stanley Cup": But we won two of the games ONE TO NOTHING (completely forgotten) and scored a grand fucking total of EIGHT goals. But it's all Lou's fault. (By the way: the correlation between goals scored by Boston and Vancouver each game in the finals was near zero: it didn't fucking matter if Lou was great or a sieve, we never scored anyway. So spare me the "Lou sucks so bad that he made the rest of the team suck" argument because that argument sucks).

A Vezina nominee NOT named Luongo crapped the bed last night, but I suppose he gets a pass because those were tough shots (a pass that Luongo would never, ever get around here). I'm surprised this board isn't all over Lou for not getting the shutout. And can you IMAGINE what would have happened if Lou had let in that little five-hole softy in OT of the gold medal game? Or the brutal goal in game 2 OT of the SCF? Or the unscreened slapper from 40 ft in round 1 game 7 OT? (Right after making a series saving save on Sharp, but of course that's been forgotten too in the "Luongo playoff meltdown" narrative). He would have been nailed to a cross in the arena parking lot.
While I think RL is certainly the best goalie this club has ever had - by a country mile - I also think some of your comments are off-base here. I'll focus on two points:

1) It 100% does matter what RL earns, and it's not "irrelevant". Salary is always tied to expectation and Lu isn't immune to that. People want the players to perform according to salary. Whether it's the fans or the GM.

"He doesn't 'make' $10M. His cap hit is only $5.3M a year".

Well, that's false - he 'makes' what he's paid - and he only has a cap hit that low because of the incredibly risky contract that MG gave him. You could point the finger at Gillis as easily as at Luongo, but IMO, Roberto's become too inconsistent for that contract. If you are going to expose a club to the perils of a decade-long cap-hit like that for a 'tender, consistency had better be one of his strong points.

Interestingly, as ESQ has been pointing out for a few weeks, the stats tell a story of an elite level goaltender, but there is another tale of a "headcase meltdown" that I think unquestionably has an effect on the overall psyche of this team.

No matter where people stand on this issue, it's hard to argue that Luongo doesn't have some mental fragility / focus issues, and I contend that it's becoming enough of a problem that his contract could now be problematic. It depends on whether one really truly believes that this team can win with Luongo in net no matter what sort of pressure he faces.

After years of staunchly defending RL, I'm now in the camp that it's too easy to get into Luongo's kitchen, and IMO he poses enough of an uncertain variable that he could actually threaten our chances at a Cup as much as he could be the key piece in winning it. He's very hot-and-cold when the chips are down.

I respect Luongo and all that he's done for this club, but I do think I'd rather pay the same money for a goalie with slightly lesser stats, but more certainty in the kitchen. Preferrably one that knows how to speak to the media in high pressure situations.

2) You make the point of Rinne crapping the bed last night - I didn't see the game, so I won't comment on that.

What I will comment on is a game between the NYR and our Nucks - which I did see most of - in which another perennial Vezina candidate stood on his head to stone us, while our goalie gave up a rebound so juicy that my two year old nephew could have buried it. That was the 1st goal of the game. You might feel differently about it, but I think Lu could have played that better and it ending up taking all the wind out of the sails. It spelled the end of that game.

Is he to blame for that loss? I think not, but he certainly didn't outperform the guy at the other end - 200' away as you say - that had had a much, much, much harder test than Louie did at that moment.

So whether the comparison is fair or not, he was nowhere near what Lundqvist's performance was. Not even in the same postal code.

And that, my friend, sums up why Roberto gets a hard time on nights like that.
dbr
CC Legend
Posts: 3059
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Official Luongo Hate / Love Thread

Post by dbr »

I have nothing to add to this discussion, however in the explosion of Roberto Luongo coverage today I noticed this amusing .gif on Pass it to Bulis:

Image
User avatar
Rumsfeld
CC Legend
Posts: 4201
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:48 pm
Location: Raqqa

Re: Official Luongo Hate / Love Thread

Post by Rumsfeld »

I think it's a trifle odd how people keep pointing out the final game against Chicago last year as a way of defending Luongo's playoff abilities. The Canucks completely dominated that game from a territorial and scoring chances standpoint, and Crawford stood on his head to keep it close until Luongo gave up a questionable goal to Toews in the dying minutes. The save Lou made on Sharp in OT was huge, but from a technical standpoint it was pretty routine. He had tons of time to get across and Sharp missed the open corner and shot it right into him. Crawford did give up a stinker to Burrows in OT, but that was after badly outplaying Lou the entire series, and nobody is trying to make a claim that Crawford is an elite goalie. He was a rookie who nobody had any expectations for going into that series.

The notion that Luongo is anything more than an average playoff goalie is pants-on-head retarded at this point. He is a very good regular season goalie who plays behind a great team and yet has been badly outplayed by the guy at the other end of the ice in five out of seven series going back three years. By definition, an above-average playoff goalie would outplay his counterpart more often than not. An ELITE goalie, IMO, is a goalie who, at least once or twice a playoff, steals games for his team in which his team is being outplayed, outshot and outchanced. How many times has Lou done that in the playoffs? Have we ever even won a playoff game with Lou in net in which we were badly outplayed?

Luongo very rarely steals games, has never stolen a series, and has an alarmingly frequent tendency to get absolutely lit up by weak shot after weak shot.

Hopefully it doesn't happen this year, but if/when it does, I wonder how many weak excuses people here will come up for him then. I know there's a tendency as fans to rally behind our guy when he's getting lambasted in the media, and I agree that that criticism is at times over-the-top and unfair. But at some point you have to accept that the guy has looked crappy in the post-season more often than he's looked good. A few good games does not make up for at least as many horrible ones when we are debating whether a guy is truly "elite".

It's also somewhat petty for posters to keep making broad overstatements about Luongo detractors, suggesting that they "blame Luongo for everything". It's strawman bullshit, and a lame attempt to skew legitimate concerns into something unreasonable and vindictive.

I certainly don't primarily blame Luongo for us losing to the Bruins, although he certainly does shoulder some blame. Injuries, Tim Thomas, and a lack of willingness by the officials to call penalties on the B's cost us that series, but the notion that the Sedins and Kesler, who were injured and shouldn't have even been playing, are more responsible than our so-called superstar goalie (who gave up a solid dozen terrible goals) is laughable. Luongo was healthy and by far our worst player in four out of seven games. He has legitimately earned some criticism for that, and he would be feeling that heat IN ANY HOCKEY CITY ON EARTH. He plays the most important position on the team and when he's bad, he's REALLY bad. And in the playoffs he is bad too often.

Sure, Luongo is excellent in the regular season (sans October), but I don't think we really give a whole lot of fucks about the regular season at this point, do we. The playoffs are a pressure cooker, and Luongo has wilted under that pressure and wilted badly. I want a goaltender that can provide consistently DECENT netminding and give our great roster a chance to get 'er done without pumping the tires of the opposition every other night with several first-period softies. Is Schneider that guy? Maybe. I like what I see from him. But the chances are he'll be moved before the playoffs and we'll give 'ole Roberto another kick at the can. At least Cory should be able to fetch back somebody who can give us some much-needed scoring depth.

I want Luongo to find his game consistently in the playoffs more than anybody, but I'm not going to sit here pretending it's all gumdrops and buttercups and that what happened the last three playoffs didn't actually happen. If Luongo performs admirably this playoffs I'll be cheering him as loudly as anyone, and I'll also be the first guy on the board to praise him for it.
Last edited by Rumsfeld on Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chairman of the Jim Benning Appreciation Society
User avatar
Todd Bersnoozi
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: Official Luongo Hate / Love Thread

Post by Todd Bersnoozi »

It has been talked about before, Lecavalier for Luongo

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puc ... hl-wp15380

Might be the most realistic option, if we ever want to unload Luongo (both have similar contracts, rise of Stamkos makes Vinny somewhat expendible, Lou gets to go back near Florida). We'd run with Schneids, maybe bring up Lack. Vinny/Kes line might be dynamite together.
User avatar
Rumsfeld
CC Legend
Posts: 4201
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:48 pm
Location: Raqqa

Re: Official Luongo Hate / Love Thread

Post by Rumsfeld »

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:It has been talked about before, Lecavalier for Luongo

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puc ... hl-wp15380

Might be the most realistic option, if we ever want to unload Luongo (both have similar contracts, rise of Stamkos makes Vinny somewhat expendible, Lou gets to go back near Florida). We'd run with Schneids, maybe bring up Lack. Vinny/Kes line might be dynamite together.
Somewhere in a low-rent corner of Chinatown, Jumanji just got a hard-on.
Chairman of the Jim Benning Appreciation Society
User avatar
dhabums
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: Official Luongo Hate / Love Thread

Post by dhabums »

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:It has been talked about before, Lecavalier for Luongo

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puc ... hl-wp15380

Might be the most realistic option, if we ever want to unload Luongo (both have similar contracts, rise of Stamkos makes Vinny somewhat expendible, Lou gets to go back near Florida). We'd run with Schneids, maybe bring up Lack. Vinny/Kes line might be dynamite together.
Pssst, hey. It's me. Tampa is IN Florida, not near it.

--

I can't imagine the flak a lazy, overpaid and disinterested Lecavalier would get in Vancouver.
Fred
CC Legend
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:00 pm

Re: Official Luongo Hate / Love Thread

Post by Fred »

Different view
Boston, Vancouver, and the Stanley Cup Hangover

Posted by Cam Charron under Analysis, Editorial on Oct 21, 2011


Last season’s Stanley Cup finalists Boston Bruins and Vancouver Canucks both won big Thursday night, with 6-2 and 5-1 victories over the Toronto Maple Leaves and Nashville Predators, respectively. The big victories are a little out of character the start of this NHL season, with both teams having stumbled out of the gate to a combined 2-7-1 record before last night’s games.


.947 save percentage at even strength a season ago. .929 to start this season. Must be booze involved.

The Stanley Cup hangover. The dreaded Stanley Cup hangover. Champagne for the winning Bruins, double Jack-and-Cokes for the losing Canucks, resulting in what amounts to a three-month slog wherein all of about 46 NHLers just want to roll over and grab a breakfast bagel with piles of grease.


Two weeks into this young NHL season, the dreaded “Stanley Cup Final” hangover has taken a toll upon the Boston Bruins and Vancouver Canucks.

In their first six games, the Bruins sported a 2-4 record, the Canucks 2-3-1.

The Bruins and Canucks aren’t the only teams off to surprisingly slow starts to the season. The Tampa Bay Lightning and San Jose Sharks, conference finalists last spring, also lurched out of the gate, with both teams winning only one of their first five games.

NHL puck drops: Stanley Cup havingover taking toll on teams

In that piece, Lyle Richardson appears to be ignoring the early season PDO warning signs, and that can be an indication as to why the Canucks and Bruins have struggled so mightily out of the gate. The Canucks headed into last night against Nashville had a PDO of 978. Boston had one of 983. Last season, both teams were respectively a 1016 and a 1023 thanks to some stellar goaltending on each side.

Early on in the season, Boston’s shooting has fallen off, while Vancouver can’t buy a save. Hangover? Or an alcohol-induced slump?

The Cup Hangover (big-C, big-H) is one classic hockey narrative that appears to be confirmed more than refuted, but I’m still not one to buy the argument. People point out that Chicago went from being Cup Champions to a mere 8-seed last season, but tend to ignore that that team was a +33 in goal differential and one of the best possession teams in the league last season. They had trouble getting saves in key situations early on in the season and dropped a lot of close ones, yet still managed 97 points. They also started the season 5-2-1.

Part of the problem with the Cup Hangover theory is that I think people fail to look at how just how bloody unlikely it is to get back to the dance but these teams are perennially propped up as Cup favourites after their success of the previous season. Since the lockout however, there have been 12 available spots in the Stanley Cup Finals taken by 10 teams, with only Detroit and Pittsburgh having repeat occurrences. You generally need to have a good team with a couple of guys on career pace and some excellent, unsustainable goaltending in the post-season to make it, and a few good players on cheap contracts, otherwise you’ll lose a whole bunch of them in the off-season and struggle to win any more games.

Last season, the Boston Bruins benefit from the single best statistical season from a goaltender in the history of hockey, a goaltender who was even better in the playoffs. Obviously those aren’t numbers that are prone to be repeated, with a .938 save percentage in the regular season, and neither goalie up there on either list is guaranteed to win anything. The 2003 Mighty Ducks and 1998 Washington Captials, backed by J.S. Giguere and Olaf Kolzig, had little else to their names (although Peter Bondra hit 52 goals that season. He was the only player who counted more than 20). What you see, however, is not many repeat winners up there. Regression stings, and the probability that Tim Thomas will be any better this year than last is near nil.


Shot 14.5% last playoffs. Thus far, shooting 7.1%. Must be booze involved.

When we look at the Boston Bruins, we see a team with a pair of excellent skaters in Patrice Bergeron and Zdeno Chara and a handful of really strong depth players who chip in with three pretty good lines rather than one or two over-powering ones. Do we see a dynastic squad that should be a perennial cup favourite without any hurdles throughout the season? No. It isn’t a team that shouldn’t win just 2 out of 6 games every now and again. Heck, even in the playoffs, they went 4-5 between May 19 and June 10, and went 2-4 between April 4 and April 16. Slumps happen. Is it coincidental that it’s happened to the Bruins out of the gate? Yes. Also to the Canucks? Also yes.

Check out the October records of recent Cup finalists:

Chicago 2010: 7-5-1
Philadelphia 2010: 6-4-1
Pittsburgh 2009: 6-5-1
Detroit 2009: 6-2-1
Detroit 2008: 5-2-3
Pittsburgh 2008: 9-3

The thing is, teams that make it to the finals have a combination of good players and good percentages, so we might be expecting them to run the table a little bit as soon as they enter next season. This didn’t happen this season. Both teams have hit a bump in the road PDO-wise and it’s allowed a few people to craft narrative about certain struggles. Are the Canucks and Bruins both good teams? Yes. Are they good enough so that they can waltz through every month a couple of games above .500? Not so, because few teams are, and most of those teams were mostly present in the year’s prior to the lockout, when good teams could afford to keep their best players.

Sure, the Bruins have, but they’re not a team that is especially good without their goaltending. The Canucks have, but they were without Ryan Kesler for a few games to start the season. Cup Hangover? Not buying it. Call it what you want, maybe a bad hair day, but a slow-start for Cup finalists is not something that repeats year after year after year, not so enough to give it a proper name and its own term in the great hockey encyclopedia.

Hockey is crafted in a way that we expect much of our superstars. When they fail to perform, we look for reasons. Sometimes it’s because variance isn’t swinging for them the way it swung in favour of a team that managed to win 16 games without losing any more than 11. Good teams play out of their minds, and maybe we’re just expecting a little too much out of the gate of the poor Vancouver Canucks and Boston Bruins.
cheers
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8363
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: Official Luongo Hate / Love Thread

Post by Island Nucklehead »

Nice post Rummy. I don't agree with all of it, but you've made some great points.

I'm too hungover to write a whole helluva lot, but I will say that nobody wins a 7 game series scoring 8 goals. Just like the other night VS New York, nobody wins a game 0-0. Luongo gave up a juicy rebound, but we didn't put any pucks in the net.

Dude got 2 shutouts in the Finals. Tim Thomas had the best season and playoffs of any goalie ever. You expect Luongo to top that? I don't give a flying fuck if the Sedins or Kesler are injured. More excuses. We couldn't score, so we couldn't win. Lou was probably third on our excuse list last spring, behind our imaginary offense/PP and injuries.

He takes way too much flak in this city. He deserves SOME, but booing your star goalie when your team has a doughnut on the board is fucking retarded. Those fans should be all be lined up and tested for mental retardation. Downright ignorant.

You would think that a city with a team that has pretty much sucked at hockey for 90% of it's existence would learn to appreciate when you have a good team and star players that WANT to play here...
User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 28115
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Official Luongo Hate / Love Thread

Post by Strangelove »

Rumsfeld wrote:I think it's a trifle odd how people keep pointing out the final game against Chicago last year as a way of defending Luongo's playoff abilities. The Canucks completely dominated that game from a territorial and scoring chances standpoint, and Crawford stood on his head to keep it close until Luongo gave up a questionable goal to Toews in the dying minutes. The save Lou made on Sharp in OT was huge, but from a technical standpoint it was pretty routine. He had tons of time to get across and Sharp missed the open corner and shot it right into him. Crawford did give up a stinker to Burrows in OT, but that was after badly outplaying Lou the entire series, and nobody is trying to make a claim that Crawford is an elite goalie. He was a rookie who nobody had any expectations for going into that series.

The notion that Luongo is anything more than an average playoff goalie is pants-on-head retarded at this point. He is a very good regular season goalie who plays behind a great team and yet has been badly outplayed by the guy at the other end of the ice in five out of seven series going back three years. By definition, an above-average playoff goalie would outplay his counterpart more often than not. An ELITE goalie, IMO, is a goalie who, at least once or twice a playoff, steals games for his team in which his team is being outplayed, outshot and outchanced. How many times has Lou done that in the playoffs? Have we ever even won a playoff game with Lou in net in which we were badly outplayed?

Luongo very rarely steals games, has never stolen a series, and has an alarmingly frequent tendency to get absolutely lit up by weak shot after weak shot.

Hopefully it doesn't happen this year, but if/when it does, I wonder how many weak excuses people here will come up for him then. I know there's a tendency as fans to rally behind our guy when he's getting lambasted in the media, and I agree that that criticism is at times over-the-top and unfair. But at some point you have to accept that the guy has looked crappy in the post-season more often than he's looked good. A few good games does not make up for at least as many horrible ones when we are debating whether a guy is truly "elite".

It's also somewhat petty for posters to keep making broad overstatements about Luongo detractors, suggesting that they "blame Luongo for everything". It's strawman bullshit, and a lame attempt to skew legitimate concerns into something unreasonable and vindictive.

I certainly don't primarily blame Luongo for us losing to the Bruins, although he certainly does shoulder some blame. Injuries, Tim Thomas, and a lack of willingness by the officials to call penalties on the B's cost us that series, but the notion that the Sedins and Kesler, who were injured and shouldn't have even been playing, are more responsible than our so-called superstar goalie (who gave up a solid dozen terrible goals) is laughable. Luongo was healthy and by far our worst player in four out of seven games. He has legitimately earned some criticism for that, and he would be feeling that heat IN ANY HOCKEY CITY ON EARTH. He plays the most important position on the team and when he's bad, he's REALLY bad. And in the playoffs he is bad too often.

Sure, Luongo is excellent in the regular season (sans October), but I don't think we really give a whole lot of fucks about the regular season at this point, do we. The playoffs are a pressure cooker, and Luongo has wilted under that pressure and wilted badly. I want a goaltender that can provide consistently DECENT netminding and give our great roster a chance to get 'er done without pumping the tires of the opposition every other night with several first-period softies. Is Schneider that guy? Maybe. I like what I see from him. But the chances are he'll be moved before the playoffs and we'll give 'ole Roberto another kick at the can. At least Cory should be able to fetch back somebody who can give us some much-needed scoring depth.

I want Luongo to find his game consistently in the playoffs more than anybody, but I'm not going to sit here pretending it's all gumdrops and buttercups and that what happened the last three playoffs didn't actually happen. If Luongo performs admirably this playoffs I'll be cheering him as loudly as anyone, and I'll also be the first guy on the board to praise him for it.
Wrong.
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!
User avatar
Rumsfeld
CC Legend
Posts: 4201
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:48 pm
Location: Raqqa

Re: Official Luongo Hate / Love Thread

Post by Rumsfeld »

Would the good doctor care to elaborate?
Chairman of the Jim Benning Appreciation Society
User avatar
darren
CC Veteran
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:45 am

Re: Official Luongo Hate / Love Thread

Post by darren »

Rumsfeld wrote:
It's also somewhat petty for posters to keep making broad overstatements about Luongo detractors, suggesting that they "blame Luongo for everything". It's strawman bullshit, and a lame attempt to skew legitimate concerns into something unreasonable and vindictive.
Well-argued post. It is true... when he melts down, he really melts down. I still disagree with you on the 2010 playoffs though.

I do think that the view of many people here can fairly be characterized as "everything is Lou's fault".
User avatar
darren
CC Veteran
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:45 am

Re: Official Luongo Hate / Love Thread

Post by darren »

Rumsfeld wrote:The Canucks completely dominated that game from a territorial and scoring chances standpoint, and Crawford stood on his head to keep it close until Luongo gave up a questionable goal to Toews in the dying minutes.
And if the Canucks had managed to score a couple of Crawford in the preceding 55 minutes, the Toews goal would have been a meaningless footnote, and nobody would be talking about it.

In other words, you are judging Luongo based on what happens 200ft away from him, over which (it should not be necessary to point out) he has NO control whatsoever.

And I claim this is absurd and unreasonable.
User avatar
darren
CC Veteran
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:45 am

Re: Official Luongo Hate / Love Thread

Post by darren »

dhabums wrote: While you may want to tell yourself your goalie's performance doesn't affect the rest of the team and how the game is played, I'll most respectfully and smirkingly disagree.
You bought your ticket, so you can smirk if you want.

However, the FACTS are on my side, not yours.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 12281
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Official Luongo Hate / Love Thread

Post by Topper »

Strangelove wrote:You pay your money, you have the right to boo Lou.

If I'm sitting next to you I have the right to get in your face about that.
Do I sit in Aldergrove or Chilliwack?
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
Post Reply