Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 21 votes

Howard = Average


  • Please log in to reply
781 replies to this topic

#101 Carman

Carman

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 5,114 posts
  • Location:Riverview, MI

Posted 07 February 2013 - 03:19 PM

Yes.  Quick was elite all last season.  The Kings couldn't score goals to save their lives and he held them in a lot of games they had no business even being in. 

 

I know they don't really like to include many goalies in the nominations but he would've been a deserving candidate for the Hart.  Kings fans were chanting "MVP" when Quick stole another game even before the playoffs began. 

 

The playoffs and Cup run brought attention and legitimized his performance to the rest of the hockey world.  As for before last season, it's hard to say.  He was very good on an underachieving team but honestly it is hard to call someone truly elite when they don't have some hardware or at least stellar playoff runs to back it up. 

 

So Jimmy was .09 SV% and .18 GAA away from being a Hart trophy candidate? That's pretty damn close to elite is it not? Howard has proven to play at a top 5 goalie level for an entire season. There are not many goalies I'd take over him, and even fewer when you know Howard's not going to be paid like a top 5 goalie.



#102 evilzyme

evilzyme

    Games a gongshow.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,095 posts
  • Location:Howell, Michigan

Posted 07 February 2013 - 03:25 PM

So Jimmy was .09 SV% and .18 GAA away from being a Hart trophy candidate? That's pretty damn close to elite is it not? Howard has proven to play at a top 5 goalie level for an entire season. There are not many goalies I'd take over him, and even fewer when you know Howard's not going to be paid like a top 5 goalie.

 

The beauty of it is the arguments when they bring up "elite" goalies that "steal" games for their teams, yet apparently Howard isn't capable of this. None of them except Quick so far has lead their team to the cup. So... elite goalies "steal" games and are capable of it, but Howard, isn't "elite" because he hasn't taken us to the cup; but yet only one of the "elite" tenders has done so. Can someone tell me what the hell the difference is? :lol:


Edited by evilzyme, 07 February 2013 - 03:26 PM.

Pavel Datsyuk - "Pasha" - #13
"Got no fun if you got no puck"
'"I like ladies" - Towards the Lady Byng trophy
"Hannnnnnnnnnk"
"Okay $5 now"

 

I'm Don Cherry and Danny DeKeyser is my Kadri.


#103 shoobiedoobin

shoobiedoobin

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 348 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 03:33 PM

Sometimes worse goalies win because of their team. Just like in football you can bring up the Dilfer/Marino argument, you can bring up the same thing in hockey with Niemi winning a Cup and Cujo never winning one. What, was Tom Barrasso elite but Hasek wasn't until he was 37 years old? Or is a guy always elite but we're not allowed to bring it up (lest we not have a stat page to back up our claims) until he wins? Either way it's silly and illogical. We create rules and guidelines only to have them broken, so we try to mend them with even more rules and guidelines until we have a spiderweb of contradictions. The only way to tell is to know talent when you see it and even if we did (most people do not, let's just be real) we'd have a hard time tapping into that ability when we're thinking too emotionally about the game anyway.



#104 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 17,021 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 04:25 PM

So Jimmy was .09 SV% and .18 GAA away from being a Hart trophy candidate? That's pretty damn close to elite is it not? Howard has proven to play at a top 5 goalie level for an entire season. There are not many goalies I'd take over him, and even fewer when you know Howard's not going to be paid like a top 5 goalie.

Sure, in a universe where they determine the Hart trophy candidates by looking at a single statistic without taking into consideration how they actually played the games and what they meant to their team through a course of a season, I guess you could say Howard would be .09 SV% away.

 

I was basing my opinion on having watched a ton of Kings games the last few years along with Wings games.  All I said was Quick has played at a level Howard hasn't yet.  It's not really that outrageous of a statement, especially considering all the positive things I've said about Jimmy.  It remains to be seen if Quick himself will even be able to maintain that level of play long term.

 

Jimmy is very good, not elite.  And that's probably great for the Wings.  There are very few elite goalies out there and it takes a ton of cap space to keep them. 



#105 shoobiedoobin

shoobiedoobin

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 348 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 04:32 PM

Sure, in a universe where they determine the Hart trophy candidates by looking at a single statistic without taking into consideration how they actually played the games and what they meant to their team through a course of a season, I guess you could say Howard would be .09 SV% away.

How do we know they vote by watching them? Because I think it's more, a certain few people forming opinions and everyone else following. It's just not possible to watch every candidate in every game. Unless you don't do anything else in a day and you're a machine who doesn't need sleep you just can't watch every single candidate. I don't take awards all that seriously. It's a guide but sometimes more deserving guys don't win. Voters presumably watch every playoff game or close enough and still sometimes screw up the Smythe, how would they know in regards to full-on 82 game season awards?


Edited by shoobiedoobin, 07 February 2013 - 04:32 PM.


#106 GoalieManPat

GoalieManPat

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Location:Swartz Creek, MI

Posted 07 February 2013 - 04:46 PM

This team has 15 other problems before you could even think of listing Howard as one of them. Most fans just see a goal being scored and are to stupid to realize how the goal was scored. They just see it go past the goalie and automatically blame the goalie. 



#107 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 17,021 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 04:56 PM

How do we know they vote by watching them? Because I think it's more, a certain few people forming opinions and everyone else following. It's just not possible to watch every candidate in every game. Unless you don't do anything else in a day and you're a machine who doesn't need sleep you just can't watch every single candidate. I don't take awards all that seriously. It's a guide but sometimes more deserving guys don't win. Voters presumably watch every playoff game or close enough and still sometimes screw up the Smythe, how would they know in regards to full-on 82 game season awards?

 

wow you guys will debate anything. 

 

Instead of getting side tracked in a fictional Hart Trophy debate, I'd like to get back to my original points.  All I said was Quick has played at a level Jimmy hasn't yet.  That's my opinion based on having watch them both play a lot the last few seasons. 

 

Second, as I said earlier, of the problems this Red Wings team has, Howard is not at or anywhere near the top of that list. 

 

Lastly, I think Jimmy is a very good goaltender and it's probably an advantage of the Wings to be able to sign him at a "very good" and not "elite" rate, especially with the cap getting cranked down again.  Very few of those goaltenders turn out to be worth the money.  I think Howard is more than good enough to win a Cup with the right team in front of him. 



#108 e_prime

e_prime

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,715 posts
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY

Posted 07 February 2013 - 05:03 PM

wow you guys will debate anything. 

 

Instead of getting side tracked in a fictional Hart Trophy debate, I'd like to get back to my original points.  All I said was Quick has played at a level Jimmy hasn't yet.  That's my opinion based on having watch them both play a lot the last few seasons. 

 

Second, as I said earlier, of the problems this Red Wings team has, Howard is not at or anywhere near the top of that list. 

 

Lastly, I think Jimmy is a very good goaltender and it's probably an advantage of the Wings to be able to sign him at a "very good" and not "elite" rate, especially with the cap getting cranked down again.  Very few of those goaltenders turn out to be worth the money.  I think Howard is more than good enough to win a Cup with the right team in front of him. 

 

So, what does that number look like to you?  In dollars, I'm thinking in the Anderson/Halak/Schneider ballpark.


QUOTE
(AtomicPunk @ February 4, 2010 - 12:16AM)

Imma let you finish, and your cap numbers are all good and all that, but imma let Kenny figure it out. Kenny's cap numbers were the best cap numbers this year.

#109 shoobiedoobin

shoobiedoobin

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 348 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 05:15 PM

wow you guys will debate anything.

 

Instead of getting side tracked in a fictional Hart Trophy debate, I'd like to get back to my original points.  All I said was Quick has played at a level Jimmy hasn't yet.  That's my opinion based on having watch them both play a lot the last few seasons. 

 

Second, as I said earlier, of the problems this Red Wings team has, Howard is not at or anywhere near the top of that list. 

 

Lastly, I think Jimmy is a very good goaltender and it's probably an advantage of the Wings to be able to sign him at a "very good" and not "elite" rate, especially with the cap getting cranked down again.  Very few of those goaltenders turn out to be worth the money.  I think Howard is more than good enough to win a Cup with the right team in front of him. 

How is it debating? It's a question.

 

Quick has gotten overrated in a big hurry. I don't think he's done anything Jimmy couldn't with some help from his team. Honestly both teams being equal, I'd rather have Jimmy.


Edited by shoobiedoobin, 07 February 2013 - 05:15 PM.


#110 CrimsonFlame

CrimsonFlame

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 862 posts
  • Location:Troy, Michigan

Posted 07 February 2013 - 05:20 PM

How is it debating? It's a question.

 

Quick has gotten overrated in a big hurry. I don't think he's done anything Jimmy couldn't with some help from his team. Honestly both teams being equal, I'd rather have Jimmy.

 

Quick is better than Howard.  A lot better.  It's not even close. 



#111 shoobiedoobin

shoobiedoobin

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 348 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 05:38 PM

Quick is better than Howard.  A lot better.  It's not even close. 

Bulls***. "It's not even close" is code for "Quick has his name engraved in something so we're not allowed to say Jimmy's better".


Edited by shoobiedoobin, 07 February 2013 - 05:38 PM.


#112 CrimsonFlame

CrimsonFlame

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 862 posts
  • Location:Troy, Michigan

Posted 07 February 2013 - 05:44 PM

Bulls***. "It's not even close" is code for "Quick has his name engraved in something so we're not allowed to say Jimmy's better".

 

No it's that Quick is hands down a much better goalie. You wouldn't find a single person outside of Detroit who would think Howard is better than Quick. 



#113 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 17,021 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 05:54 PM

So, what does that number look like to you?  In dollars, I'm thinking in the Anderson/Halak/Schneider ballpark.

 

Honestly I'm pretty terrible at predicting contract amounts.  Especially given the new CBA, it'll be interesting to see what that does to the free agent market. 

 

Given the new rules if they sign him long term Jimmy's first few years may be at low value, then jump up significantly.  Because I think on the front end you can make 100% leaps up in value, it's only the back end that is subject to the variance rule.  Plus the lower first few years can help avoid escrow payments as the dollar amount of the cap (ideally) increases each year.



#114 shoobiedoobin

shoobiedoobin

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 348 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 06:02 PM

No it's that Quick is hands down a much better goalie. You wouldn't find a single person outside of Detroit who would think Howard is better than Quick. 

 


Group opinion isn't very relevant.



#115 CrimsonFlame

CrimsonFlame

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 862 posts
  • Location:Troy, Michigan

Posted 07 February 2013 - 06:11 PM


Group opinion isn't very relevant.

No but it's more accurate since it would eliminate bias if we factor in every fan base. 



#116 Carman

Carman

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 5,114 posts
  • Location:Riverview, MI

Posted 07 February 2013 - 06:13 PM

Back on to the discussion I agree with you Harold on pretty much everything, Howard isn't at Quick's level in my opinion, but he's not far off. Before the all star break I feel Howard was playing at this level that Quick was playing at, now Quick stayed there longer and through the playoffs which gives him a big edge. But the difference in the two will easily be negated by his contract, and that's the main point I was trying to get. Howard won't be making close to 6 million like Quick, and it's not like the age difference is that great either, 2 years.

 

I just don't see how Howard is average, in any sense of the word. And I don't know what goalies are "elite", and how do you get there. And then how would we go about and get this elite goalie that will be a Hasek incarnate and be able to win Vezina's behind terrible teams(something that I believe doesn't exist right now in the NHL). And that was my other point, I just don't see how there are 15 goalies better than Howard.



#117 shoobiedoobin

shoobiedoobin

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 348 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 06:17 PM

I'm not speaking for the fan base. I'm just speaking for myself. 1:1 I think Jimmy's better. Not by a lot but still. The only real difference is the team in front of them. I saw those late season LA games where Quick "stole" them and while he looked good it was very much the same type of theft that occurred in the postseason, only with his offense showing up. His defense was solid as a rock in those games.


Edited by shoobiedoobin, 07 February 2013 - 06:19 PM.


#118 Euro_Twins

Euro_Twins

    Healthy Scratch

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,482 posts
  • Location:Windsor, Ontario

Posted 07 February 2013 - 06:28 PM

not going to debate about this, but I will post some evidence of how much "better" Quick is

 

Career stats;

 

Quick : 2.31 gaa .916 sv% playoffs 2.12 gaa .926 sv% (before the 2011/2012 playoffs his gaa was 3.33 and sv% was .899 in the playoffs)

 

Howard 2.44 gaa .916 sv% playoffs 2.63 gaa .915 sv%

 

Quick doesn't appear TO ME to be "so much better"



#119 BuckeyeWingsfan80

BuckeyeWingsfan80

    The more the better

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 08:37 PM

Howard would start for at least 25 other teams.  Get a grip.


Don't take it from fans on LGW, take it from his peers. NHL players have spoken and they think Tootoo is the dirtiest player in the league.

Get a clue already.

#120 dobbles

dobbles

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 864 posts
  • Location:Tulsa, OK

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:17 PM

why is it people always try to compare every goalie to quick now? 15 months ago, quick was still looking over his shoulder at bernier. he had a great year last year and a great playoff run, but its not like he has been a top goalie for a decade or anything... 1 solid season does not make an 'elite' goalie...

 

 

jimmy howard is extremely underrated by most wings fans. he isn't perfect, but he has made the team a lot better than it would have been with someone else. the wings defense has been crap for 2-3 seasons now and even nick was fairly badin his own zone at the end. everyone has been guilty of poor defensive play. the sheer number of odd man chances the wings give up compared to 5 or 10 years ago is embarrassing.


I love Maltby, but to say he wasn't a ****** is a dis-service to his career of douchebaggery.






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users