2010 Olympic Hockey Thread

[Ben Kenobi]

Or maybe they should make Luongo captain...right Ben?

I thought Kesler should be the captain, or Mitchell.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you realize Canada is not sending the New Jersey Devils to the playoffs?

You were the one arguing that playoff performance last year was at all relevant.

Luongo also won more games during the regular season last year.

Brodeur would make a good backup to Luongo.

[Asher]

You were the one arguing that playoff performance last year was at all relevant.

Of the player, not the team.

Look at the numbers, Ben. They don't lie. Brodeur was the superior goaltender when the games got tough.

The team infront of him is not relevant.

Loungo has precisely zero experience in big-game goaltending. Brodeur has TONS. Luongo sucked ass in the 2nd round last year as the games got bigger and bigger.

Skill-wise, Luongo and Brodeur are both elite. The difference between the two is pedigree and historical performance in big games -- Brodeur has it, Luongo doesn't.

[Ben Kenobi]

Brodeur was the superior goaltender when the games got tough.

Brodeur lost in the first round.

Luongo had a winning record.

If you look at their respective first rounds, Luongo outperformed Brodeur. Luongo faced way stiffer competition because he was successful in winning a playoff round.

Loungo has precisely zero experience in big-game goaltending. Brodeur has TONS. Luongo sucked ass in the 2nd round last year as the games got bigger and bigger.

Yes, and Brodeur crumpled in a game 7.

Brodeur sucked so much that he wasn't able to reach the second round.

[Asher]

Brodeur lost in the first round.

Luongo had a winning record.

You're so ****ing stupid. The Devils lost in the first round, but not because of Brodeur. He was outstanding. Vancouver lost in the second around, arguably because Luongo sucked. This whole argument that the Canucks went 1 round farther means **** all.

Brodeur's won 3 Stanley Cups, Luongo has won none. If you're using the "team performance = goalie performance" fallacy like you are here, Luongo loses there too.

What matters is the players. Luongo wasn't very good (to his potential) in the playoffs, Brodeur elevated his game. That's the difference between a starting goaltender on the Olympic team, and his backup.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're so ****ing stupid. The Devils lost in the first round, but not because of Brodeur. He was outstanding.

Not as good as Luongo was in the first round. You have to compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges. Luongo was better then Brodeur in his first round and won the series. Luongo was better then Brodeur in the second round, as Brodeur didn't even play a game.

Vancouver lost in the second around, arguably because Luongo sucked. This whole argument that the Canucks went 1 round farther means **** all.

It means a great deal when you are evaluating who can win you the gold medal. You want the player who's ready now, and not 10 games from now. Sure Brodeur is better in cup finals, but you need to get there first.

What matters is the players. Luongo wasn't very good (to his potential) in the playoffs,

Luongo was excellent in the first round, and not as good in the second. He outperformed Brodeur in the first round and outperformed Brodeur in the second. You can say that his overall performance was not as good, but then you are comparing apples to oranges. Is 3-4 the same as 6-4?

Brodeur elevated his game. That's the difference between a starting goaltender on the Olympic team, and his backup.

Brodeur's elevated game was not as good as Luongo's in the first round. It wasn't good enough to get past Carolina.

[Ben Kenobi]

Luongo had a GAA of 1.15 in the first round. That's the kind of goaltending I want to see in the Olympics.

[Flubber]

SO Ben-- your argument for Luongo as Olympic starter seems to be

1. the games are in Vancouver
2. Luongo won more games than Brodeur last year


Asher argues in favor of Brodeur based on

1. Luongo's lack of a big-game pedigree
2. Brodeur's Stanley cup experience and wins, his past Olympic #1 status etc etc


I have to go with Asher on this one. Barring injury and of course depending on next year's play, Brodeur will be the presumptive #1. He has a longer history as an elite goalie and has a history, that includes winning it all , that Luongo does not have. Broduer did not have a stellar game 7 last year either but he has enough "big game' wins that his credentials remain impressive. For Luongo, a complete melt-down means people are questioning his "big-game" ability for the frst time


Overall

1 Brodeur has the more impressive list of accomplishments -- its not even close
2. On recent play, last year's playoffs, Brodeur remains ahead with better sv% and GAA-- The only thing Luongo had was more wins and excuse me if taking out St Louis doesn't tilt the balance for me

So for me its Brodeur's job to lose and Luongo is the heir apparent.

Fleury and Ward are probably battling for # 3 billing while Mason has to be seen as the outsider.

The only other factor for me will be how much will the brass consider pre-Olympic play-- IF some keeper is just playing at an other-worldly level in the run-up to the Olympics, do you ignore that?

I know that in some prior Olympics, the GM has been criticized for not picking up on some of the emerging talent and just going with the old guy that hasn't been so stellar this year but has the lonnger pedigree

[Kontiki]

Anyway, bickering with Ben aside, there were obviously some curious choices and omissions. I think it's kind of sad that neither Spezza or Savard were invited, but people like Marc and Jordan Staal, Andy MacDonald and Milan Lucic were. Yes, they can still make the team and yes, Spezza certainly floats more than he should, but Spezza and Savard are bonified 100 point threats every season and neither are as bad defensively as they're made out to be. Because Eric Staal scored 100 points once and has since shown himself to be not even a point-per-game player, everyone thinks he's a superstar. And his brothers arguably aren't even above average NHLers, but they're stars too because their last name is Staal. [/rant]

* Note: I do think Eric Staal is a legitimate Olympic candidate, I just also think he's not the second coming of Christ.

[Asher]

Not as good as Luongo was in the first round. You have to compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges. Luongo was better then Brodeur in his first round and won the series. Luongo was better then Brodeur in the second round, as Brodeur didn't even play a game.



It means a great deal when you are evaluating who can win you the gold medal. You want the player who's ready now, and not 10 games from now. Sure Brodeur is better in cup finals, but you need to get there first.



Luongo was excellent in the first round, and not as good in the second. He outperformed Brodeur in the first round and outperformed Brodeur in the second. You can say that his overall performance was not as good, but then you are comparing apples to oranges. Is 3-4 the same as 6-4?



Brodeur's elevated game was not as good as Luongo's in the first round. It wasn't good enough to get past Carolina.

Hate to break this to you, Ben, but the "first round" experience is not at all relevant. Look at the whole picture, stop cherrypicking.

Why don't we compare the performance of Luongo vs Brodeur in the 3rd round, or finals?

Luongo had a GAA of 1.15 in the first round. That's the kind of goaltending I want to see in the Olympics.

What was his GAA in the second round, Ben, as the games got bigger and the teams got better? Eg, a situation more like what we'd see in the 2010 Olympics?

They played ****ing St Louis in the 1st round. That's why his stats are inflated.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hate to break this to you, Ben, but the "first round" experience is not at all relevant. Look at the whole picture, stop cherrypicking.

I am looking at the whole picture. When comparing apples to apples, Luongo was far superior.

Why don't we compare the performance of Luongo vs Brodeur in the 3rd round, or finals?

Why don't we compare the performance of Ken Dryden to Luongo. Or maybe Vezina? Ancient history.

What was his GAA in the second round

Better then Brodeur.

They played ****ing St Louis in the 1st round. That's why his stats are inflated.

And New Jersey LOST to Carolina, in the powerhouse division of the NHL.

[Asher]

I am looking at the whole picture. When comparing apples to apples, Luongo was far superior.

Except he's not. His numbers are worse, and they got worse as the games got bigger.

Why don't we compare the performance of Ken Dryden to Luongo. Or maybe Vezina? Ancient history.

Because Dryden is not competing with Luongo for the job. Brodeur is. Comparing them is apt.

Better then Brodeur.

This is demonstrably false.

Tell us, what was Luongo's GAA in the 2nd round as the games got bigger and teams got tougher?

And New Jersey LOST to Carolina, in the powerhouse division of the NHL.

Carolina was a far better team than St Louis was.

[Ben Kenobi]

I have to go with Asher on this one. Barring injury and of course depending on next year's play, Brodeur will be the presumptive #1.

All respect to Brodeur, I wouldn't run with him in the Olympics. For the simple reason that I'm not getting the goalie of years ago. Yes, he's more accomplished, but the question is who is going to win you the games in December when you need them?

He has a longer history as an elite goalie and has a history, that includes winning it all , that Luongo does not have.

That is true. Luongo has only been in the playoffs twice. However, he has always been a big game goalie, and has taken teams where they shouldn't have.

He lost to the eventual cup champs in Anaheim, after stealing a series from Dallas.

He had nearly a sub goal a game performance against St. Louis last season, and did just fine except for game 6 against Chicago, where he got injured and played through. Stats don't tell the whole story, and I wouldn't pick my goalie based only on his stats.

The stats show that through the longer sample of last season, that Luongo was the better goalie then Brodeur.

Broduer did not have a stellar game 7 last year either

He choked, simple as that. Luongo got ran and decided to play through injury, which wasn't the best decision. I don't want Brodeur as my goalie if he's going to give us the performance he did in Carolina, end of story.

but he has enough "big game' wins that his credentials remain impressive. For Luongo, a complete melt-down means people are questioning his "big-game" ability for the frst time

I don't see why they are, but then people are irrational. I don't see why one meltdown was worse then the other.

2. On recent play, last year's playoffs, Brodeur remains ahead with better sv% and GAA-- The only thing Luongo had was more wins and excuse me if taking out St Louis doesn't tilt the balance for me

St. Louis was a better team then Carolina was last year, and Carolina beat New Jersey. Why would you go with the loser who has lost his touch?

I know that in some prior Olympics, the GM has been criticized for not picking up on some of the emerging talent and just going with the old guy that hasn't been so stellar this year but has the lonnger pedigree

That's exactly my criticism. I want the best goalie in 2010, who will give me the best chance of winning. That goalie is Luongo. Two years ago I'd have said Brodeur, but now it's not. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that argument. Brodeur is an amazing goalie, but right now, he's not as good as Luongo.

[Asher]

That is true. Luongo has only been in the playoffs twice. However, he has always been a big game goalie, and has taken teams where they shouldn't have.

Ben, did you not see the Vancouver-Chicago series at all?

Lets look at these big games. Vancouver on the brink of elimination, how did Luongo do?

Game 5: 89% svp
Game 6: 76% svp

This is Luongo 'always being a big game goalie'?

[-Jrabbit]

You two are just precious!