It cuts both ways. Gus had to get used to a new D partner and a team just put together as well...

L Schenn played a top 4 role and down the stretch a top pairing role for the Flyers this season. What was he for Canada? He played better for the Flyers than Team Canada.

Love that Meltzer stepped up to correct your inaccurate blanket statement.

The key for Gus is health. If he has it next year, he can be a top 4 for us. Do not marginalize his last 10 NHL regular season games and World hockey tournament performances. He played Timonen-esque.
- phillydentist

My statement wasn't innacurate. And if Bill misundestood what I was saying, as if I thought it was an All Star game situation, I clarified that in a follow up post.

I'd be happy to discuss any part of my post, that you think is innacurate.

And your comments here support my statement, that teammates and defense pairings aren't used to playing together. That's a big part of why I feel that the level of play is below the NHL level.

I agree that Gustafsson getting healthy is a reason why his play improved. I think it's possible that he reaches a top 4 level, but right away, not practical. I think he can play a solid 3rd pair game, and man the PP on the 2nd pairing. I'll settle for him providing a solid, mobile, puck moving presence added to the lineup. And not expect him to be a top 4 level player. At least not right away. That is a fair and realistic expectation for Gustafsson.

Lots of goalies who have been beasts in the playoffs, have not necessarily put up great numbers in the regular season:
Billy Smith NYI early 80's
Ron Hextall PHL mainly in his early career in the late 80s not so much in the 90s
Grant Fuhr EDM
Tom Barraso PTS (had some great regular seasons earlier in his career but in his
cup years with PTS, he saved his best for the postseason
Chris Osgood DTR
and now
Jonathan Quick LA

I would be very happy with a goalie who is good in the regular season and turns it up a notch in the playoffs.
- BiggE

In Hextall's Conn Smythe season, he was one of the top statistical goalies in the regular season. He had the 3rd best GAA and the only top 10 GAA qualifier that year with a save % over .900(he was at .902)

In Hextall's Conn Smythe season, he was one of the top statistical goalies in the regular season. He had the 3rd best GAA and the only top 10 GAA qualifier that year with a save % over .900(he was at .902)
- Jsaquella

Good point, but it just seemed that as good as he was during the season that year, he was even better in the playoffs. Then again my memories are 26 years old and a lot of scotch has been drunk since then

I don't think there's anyone that feels that Gustafsson can't assume a top six role for the Flyers next season.

I'm not sold he can handle a top 4 role, yet. I don't care for people being anointed off of a small sample size. That said, Gustafsson has played well in the past, which is why I have little doubt he can be part of the solution on defense. The thing that remains to be seen is just how big a part he will be.

He's certainly earned the opportunity.
- Jsaquella

I think the only way he's not in the opening game lineup is if he plays his way out of it. Which I don't think is going to happen. I think he's ready for a full time NHL role.

Good point, but it just seemed that as good as he was during the season that year, he was even better in the playoffs. Then again my memories are 26 years old and a lot of scotch has been drunk since then

- BiggE

He was great in the playoffs that year, but by the end of his career, he'd put up stellar regular season numbers and be plagued by weak goals in the playoffs.

He had a great individual season last year. And he's been a tremendous playoff goaltender.

But the rest of his body of work during the regular season has been poor.

Perhaps he's just improving. Or perhaps he just the next Chris Osgood.
- bradleyc4

interesting that you categorize a 39, 35, and 35 win season (2010, 2011, and 2012) as poor. Gaa of 2.48, 2.54, and 2.24. Sv pct. .914, .907, .918. none of those numbers are poor. greatest ever? no. poor? hardly.

and to be fair, this was his 4th season as the full time starter. lundqvist has been in the league since 2005-06. he's got 4 more years of material. let's see where quick is in 4 years time.

He was great in the playoffs that year, but by the end of his career, he'd put up stellar regular season numbers and be plagued by weak goals in the playoffs.
- Jsaquella

true, I made that point in my original comment "not so much in the 90s"
The goal he gave up to Lemieux in 1995 still haunts me

I'm keeping an open mind with him. He's put himself in the discussion and has his name on the Cup already.
- bradleyc4

and a conn smythe. the kings don't win the cup without him last year. he was that dominant.

and he's been brilliant so far in this year's pos-season, minus his first round OT gaffe.

interesting that you categorize a 39, 35, and 35 win season (2010, 2011, and 2012) as poor. Gaa of 2.48, 2.54, and 2.24. Sv pct. .914, .907, .918. none of those numbers are poor. greatest ever? no. poor? hardly.

and to be fair, this was his 4th season as the full time starter. lundqvist has been in the league since 2005-06. he's got 4 more years of material. let's see where quick is in 4 years time.
- hammarby31

I think even-strength save percentage is better indicator of a goalie's "talent"

and those save %'s you quoted aren't really all that great. slight better than league average for .914 and .918. .907 is Bryzgalovian.

I think even-strength save percentage is better indicator of a goalie's "talent"

and those save %'s you quoted aren't really all that great. slight better than league average for .914 and .918. .907 is Bryzgalovian.
- bradleyc4

i didn't say they were great. i'm saying your characterization of his regular season work as poor is inaccurate.

i'm not a big numbers guy. i've watched a lot of kings games in the last few years, and imo, he's improved his game each year, played better in the playoffs each year. for my money, right now, i'd take quick over lundqvist. you disagree. that's fine. i'm not out to change your mind.

i didn't say they were great. i'm saying your characterization of his regular season work as poor is inaccurate.

i'm not a big numbers guy. i've watched a lot of kings games in the last few years, and imo, he's improved his game each year, played better in the playoffs each year. for my money, right now, i'd take quick over lundqvist. you disagree. that's fine. i'm not out to change your mind.
- hammarby31

that's fine, i'm not trying to change your opinion either. just pointing out stats.

like i said earlier, i agree that he's been a phenomenal playoff goaltender.

i didn't say they were great. i'm saying your characterization of his regular season work as poor is inaccurate.

i'm not a big numbers guy. i've watched a lot of kings games in the last few years, and imo, he's improved his game each year, played better in the playoffs each year. for my money, right now, i'd take quick over lundqvist. you disagree. that's fine. i'm not out to change your mind.
- hammarby31

I'd just like to be in a position to choose between Lundqvist and Quick. Honestly, I think that a Goalie as good as Lundqvist is, hasn't been on a Championship team, or even gone to the Finals, shows that a Goalie can't do it alone. No matter how good he is.

who is better than the king?
- aightwebang17

Right now, I'd say Quick has shown to be a better performer in the playoffs than Henrik although I'd take either on the Flyers.

Not sold on Quick, not even in the playoffs. Last 2 years, he's played the Canucks (sans Daniel), St. Louis, Phoenix, New Jersey, and St. Louis again. None of those teams had any type of offensive acumen, but relied on good team defense to compensate for their low goal totals, with the exception of Vancouver, but losing your top (and basically only) scoring winger will throw any offense into a tailspin.

He takes up so little of the top half of the net, I'd like to see if his flopping can beat a team known for their scoring, like Chicago or Pittsburgh, before I declare him among the best in the league.

I'd just like to be in a position to choose between Lundqvist and Quick. Honestly, I think that a Goalie as good as Lundqvist is, hasn't been on a Championship team, or even gone to the Finals, shows that a Goalie can't do it alone. No matter how good he is.
- MJL

it would be a wonderful problem to have. and i agree, a goalie can't do it alone.

Not sold on Quick, not even in the playoffs. Last 2 years, he's played the Canucks (sans Daniel), St. Louis, Phoenix, New Jersey, and St. Louis again. None of those teams had any type of offensive acumen, but relied on good team defense to compensate for their low goal totals, with the exception of Vancouver, but losing your top (and basically only) scoring winger will throw any offense into a tailspin.

He takes up so little of the top half of the net, I'd like to see if his flopping can beat a team known for their scoring, like Chicago or Pittsburgh, before I declare him among the best in the league.
- rhornsburg

quick is hardly a flopper. not in the slightest. he's extremely technical and plays the bottom part of the net better than anyone in the game. all goalies are vulnerable up top. all of them. it's how goals are scored in today's game.

i love the "he hasn't played anyone good" argument.

quick is hardly a flopper. not in the slightest. he's extremely technical and plays the bottom part of the net better than anyone in the game. all goalies are vulnerable up top. all of them. it's how goals are scored in today's game.

i love the "he hasn't played anyone good" argument.
- hammarby31

Quick is as solid as it gets technically. His butterflly slide lateral movement is amazing to watch. He's crazy flexible and battles very hard. I wouldn't be shocked if the Kings win again and he's the reason for it.

Quick is as solid as it gets technically. His butterflly slide lateral movement is amazing to watch. He's crazy flexible and battles very hard. I wouldn't be shocked if the Kings win again and he's the reason for it.
- Hextall271

this.

After his NHL season and his performance in the Worlds, I can no longer see any reason to spent $5.66MM/year on Bryz. The first excuse is always "The Flyers' D is not good enough." But he was no better than average with Russia's D, either. He just can't play an "A" game consistently, which a starter making that money should do regularly. Bye Byrz, hello Bernier, Miller, Thomas, whoever.

quick is hardly a flopper. not in the slightest. he's extremely technical and plays the bottom part of the net better than anyone in the game. all goalies are vulnerable up top. all of them. it's how goals are scored in today's game.

i love the "he hasn't played anyone good" argument.
- hammarby31

It's percentages. And you rely on tight checking and solid D zone coverage to take away time and space, to allow players to make the harder shots to beat the goalie upstairs. It's how the game is played.

Quick is as solid as it gets technically. His butterflly slide lateral movement is amazing to watch. He's crazy flexible and battles very hard. I wouldn't be shocked if the Kings win again and he's the reason for it.
- Hextall271

Bobrovsky is very similar, no?

After his NHL season and his performance in the Worlds, I can no longer see any reason to spent $5.66MM/year on Bryz. The first excuse is always "The Flyers' D is not good enough." But he was no better than average with Russia's D, either. He just can't play an "A" game consistently, which a starter making that money should do regularly. Bye Byrz, hello Bernier, Miller, Thomas, whoever.
- danham92

Bernier and Miller play an "A" game consistently?

Bobrovsky is very similar, no?
- bradleyc4

he is. explosive down low. great coverage. battles hard.

and i think bob has the potential to be better than quick.

Bernier and Miller play an "A" game consistently?
- MJL

It's percentages. And you rely on tight checking and solid D zone coverage to take away time and space, to allow players to make the harder shots to beat the goalie upstairs. It's how the game is played.
- MJL

nail. head.