Of course this is made decidedly easier due to the fact that you don't actually sign the chequesTodd Bersnoozi wrote: I wouldn't complain about paying him the rest of his contract.

Moderator: Referees
Of course this is made decidedly easier due to the fact that you don't actually sign the chequesTodd Bersnoozi wrote: I wouldn't complain about paying him the rest of his contract.
Seriously? You don't already consider him easily the best goalie the Canucks have ever had???Todd Bersnoozi wrote:Put it this way, if Lou could win us one stinking cup, I'd easily consider him the best goalie ever for our franchise. He could suck for the remainder of his contract by being a backup or minor leaguer and I'd still say he's awesome and I wouldn't complain about paying him the rest of his contract.
Wait a second.ESQ wrote:This is what people don't recognize about Luongo's greatness - he has been an elite goalie for so long. Giguere would be elite - if you only looked at the 2003-2008 stretch. Since then he's a .500 backup goalie.dbr wrote:JS Giguere picked up 39 of his 52 career playoff games in two playoff years: the first at age 25 in which he turned in a HOF-calibre performance and the second at age 29 when he wasn't as good but had two of the league's most effective defensemen in front of him.Mondi wrote:No, I think the point is that a guy like Giguere has stepped his game up in the playoffs, whereas Luongo has stepped his game down.The idea that Giguere only played in the playoffs at his absolute peak and therefore his stats aren't representative is silly. Look at the teams he has been on for the past four seasons. Conversely, Luongo has only played in the playoffs during his prime 27-33. And he's only had stacked or relatively stacked Vancouver teams in front of him.
Since then he has seven playoff games in six years (and zero in five) has his stats have gone into the toilet.
Luongo had 7 consecutive 30+win seasons. That puts him in a tie for second all time with Patrick Roy, Henrik Lundqvist, and Ryan Miller, and behind only Patrick Roy. And that is in spite of Luongo starting his career with the shittiest franchise in the League.
ukcanuck wrote:Seriously? You don't already consider him easily the best goalie the Canucks have ever had???Todd Bersnoozi wrote:Put it this way, if Lou could win us one stinking cup, I'd easily consider him the best goalie ever for our franchise. He could suck for the remainder of his contract by being a backup or minor leaguer and I'd still say he's awesome and I wouldn't complain about paying him the rest of his contract.
...wtf have you been sleeping the past five years?
No goalie has backdropped the Canucks to a better record and check it out only Maclean ever came as close in the playoffs and he only did it once.
Don't get me wrong, I like Lou and all. He's a great regular season goalie and he has done a really good job for us over the years, but I think if I'm going into the playoffs, I'd take a Captain Kirk in his prime over him. Kirk had some good years, but not the same longevity of success like Lou; however, I dunno. I think Lou's meltdowns leaves a big question mark for me. When we needed Lou to step up the most, he played like a panzy being kicked around like a rag doll, which just totally deflated the team. On the other hand, Kirk's calm and cool demeanor inspired confidence to his team. He was able to hold the fort and give his team a chance to win when it mattered most. All the regular season stuff doesn't matter much to me, it's all about what a guy/team does in the playoffs.ukcanuck wrote:Seriously? You don't already consider him easily the best goalie the Canucks have ever had???
...wtf have you been sleeping the past five years?
No goalie has backdropped the Canucks to a better record and check it out only Maclean ever came as close in the playoffs and he only did it once.
What are you smoking?Todd Bersnoozi wrote: On the other hand, Kirk's calm and cool demeanor inspired confidence to his team. He was able to hold the fort and give his team a chance to win when it mattered most. All the regular season stuff doesn't matter much to me, it's all about what a guy/team does in the playoffs.
Are you really comparing the GAA and SV% from a goaltender in 1994 to one in 2012?vic wrote:What are you smoking?Todd Bersnoozi wrote: On the other hand, Kirk's calm and cool demeanor inspired confidence to his team. He was able to hold the fort and give his team a chance to win when it mattered most. All the regular season stuff doesn't matter much to me, it's all about what a guy/team does in the playoffs.
Career Playoff Stats (Both goalies have/had played 100% of their playoff games as a Canuck):
KM:
7 Playoffs - 68GP - 34W - 34L - 2.84GAA - .907SV%
RL:
6 Playoffs - 64GP - 32W - 31L - 2.54GAA - .915SV%
When you talk about holding the fort, the above stats show that RL has held the fort better than KM.
McLean had the privilege of playing behind a sqad that scored 19 times in the 94 SCF. Had the team only managed 8 goals like the 2011 squad, that series would have been over in 4 or 5.
Thank you for pointing that out! He's behind Brodeur, not Roy.Meds wrote:
Wait a second.
How is he tied for second WITH Patrick Roy (an others), but also behind Patrick Roy.....
vic wrote:What are you smoking?
Career Playoff Stats (Both goalies have/had played 100% of their playoff games as a Canuck):
KM:
7 Playoffs - 68GP - 34W - 34L - 2.84GAA - .907SV%
RL:
6 Playoffs - 64GP - 32W - 31L - 2.54GAA - .915SV%
When you talk about holding the fort, the above stats show that RL has held the fort better than KM.
McLean had the privilege of playing behind a sqad that scored 19 times in the 94 SCF. Had the team only managed 8 goals like the 2011 squad, that series would have been over in 4 or 5.
Look on the bright side....he can't be on the cover of EA NHL 15