Shane Doan?

[MassHavoc]

I hate the soft goals argument, every goalie has a highlight real of soft goals. They just happen, it's a puck it bounces funny, it hurts to get it by, and it's hard to stop.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Let me explain what I and I'm sure Espo mean by "quality" shot.



A shot that is from the point, side boards, goal line, bad angle or outside of the house are generally considered poor quality. Shots inside the house, guys being untouched are quality shots. It's not debatable, there is a difference in shots. Crawford let in many low quality shots he should routinely have stopped. As in some of the videos I posted above the opposition were given too many prime scorong chances and got off quality.shots that resulted in goals, or 2nd chance goals. Crawford has very little chance on those.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Correction, some shots from the point, typically unscreened are poor quality.

 

[R K]

Let me explain what I and I'm sure Espo mean by "quality" shot.



A shot that is from the point, side boards, goal line, bad angle or outside of the house are generally considered poor quality. Shots inside the house, guys being untouched are quality shots. It's not debatable, there is a difference in shots. Crawford let in many low quality shots he should routinely have stopped. As in some of the videos I posted above the opposition were given too many prime scorong chances and got off quality.shots that resulted in goals, or 2nd chance goals. Crawford has very little chance on those.

Thanks but again Trev some of us were watching the game before you were breathing. We know what "quality shots" mean. The two most important I showed above, were sloppy soft fucking goals that cost the Hawks a playoff series. The Nashville was a team "deflating goal".



I thought you were done again with this?

 

[R K]

I hate the soft goals argument, every goalie has a highlight real of soft goals. They just happen, it's a puck it bounces funny, it hurts to get it by, and it's hard to stop.

You mean like the two OT goals in consecutive games? Look at game 4, he really even never gets the shot off and it trickles 5 hole on Crawford. Yup, that's a Quality shot alright. One leaving the Hawks down 3-1 in a playoff series.

 

[Variable]

Let me explain what I and I'm sure Espo mean by "quality" shot.



A shot that is from the point, side boards, goal line, bad angle or outside of the house are generally considered poor quality. Shots inside the house, guys being untouched are quality shots. It's not debatable, there is a difference in shots. Crawford let in many low quality shots he should routinely have stopped. As in some of the videos I posted above the opposition were given too many prime scorong chances and got off quality.shots that resulted in goals, or 2nd chance goals. Crawford has very little chance on those.

The difference being that many average goalies save those goals. It's being shown that Crawford may not be even average. The shot quality or chance or whatever you want to call it doesn't vary from team to team as much you believe it does. Hardly at all. There would be vast differences, not microscopic ones.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Thanks but again Trev some of us were watching the game before you were breathing. We know what "quality shots" mean. The two most important I showed above, were sloppy soft fucking goals that cost the Hawks a playoff series. The Nashville was a team "deflating goal".



I thought you were done again with this?

Theres a difference between knowing what it means and applying that meaning. All I'm saying as Corey was not the only reason. Those two OT goals were soft im not disagreeing.



Now I'm done. No reason to keep typing the same shit if nobody is going to read it. The fact that I'm not alone on this observation essentially at this point is good enough for me to walk away.

 

[R K]

Theres a difference between knowing what it means and applying that meaning. All I'm saying as Corey was not the only reason. Those two OT goals were soft im not disagreeing.



Now I'm done. No reason to keep typing the same shit if nobody is going to read it. The fact that I'm not alone on this observation essentially at this point is good enough for me to walk away.

Defense needs to be better, goalie flat out sucked at times. Goalie's soft goals deflate the team and the defense. I was preaching what you are trying to sell, but just have zero confidence in Crawford. Hopefully I'm wrong.



And again ask Eruns there is a stat sheet out there showing the "quality shots" you are talking about. It proves your argument is a little flawed. I had a hard time believing it myself.

 

[sniper]

theres a stat on quality shots? isnt that too opinionated to be thrown out there as a stat?

 

[R K]

theres a stat on quality shots? isnt that too opinionated to be thrown out there as a stat?

I think it was a chart someone made with shots taken.

 

[sniper]

I think it was a chart someone made with shots taken.

oh so you mean like areas of the ice? that would be cool to look at, sounds more accurate than what i was thinking about

 

[R K]

oh so you mean like areas of the ice? that would be cool to look at, sounds more accurate than what i was thinking about

Yes.

 

[Variable]

oh so you mean like areas of the ice? that would be cool to look at, sounds more accurate than what i was thinking about

If you're into actually learning about the game more than just learning the overused narratives and generalizations and age old hockey cliches, Puck Prospectus is your friend. Seriously, there is so much in their annual book that is never even talked about or gone into about the game which helps you understand it soooo much better.

 

[supraman]

No body is blaming the goalie except the equater guy. Most are saying there are better options than Crawford. Lou is a better goalie. Both in stats and in play.



I defended Crawford all year. But it got to the point where he deflated the team in front of him, IE the being or seeming to be more comfortable in front of Emery. You can put it on the D if you like but I think that's wrong.



Notice the score here 1-1... From here on they got their ass kicked.



[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWTCpK2PtsM[/media]

AGAIN. Jesus Christ. I have figured out the hawks goaltending position. Take the guy you want to start, make him a backup. Let the #2 guy start. Midway through the season, swap them and BAM we win the cup.

 

[the canadian dream]

i like the cut of your jib supra





now tell me how we fix that disgusting diaper shitting powerplay

 

[supraman]

i like the cut of your jib supra





now tell me how we fix that disgusting diaper shitting powerplay

Copy whatever we did the cup year, which includes but is not limited to re-acquiring players from that year

 

[Ashor-redtribe]

Thanks but again Trev some of us were watching the game before you were breathing. We know what "quality shots" mean. The two most important I showed above, were sloppy soft fucking goals that cost the Hawks a playoff series. The Nashville was a team "deflating goal".



I thought you were done again with this?

and the entire NHL saw this....but no Crawford will bring us a cup. I just don't see the fire in his eye.

 

[Ashor-redtribe]

wow really nothing going on in the NHL

 

[MassHavoc]

With the contracts, Crow.

 

[R K]

and the entire NHL saw this....but no Crawford will bring us a cup. I just don't see the fire in his eye.

I don't agree with this either. Niemi brought us a cup and he flat out sucked in the Stanley Cup final. Luckily the other teams goalie sucked more.