Jump to content

rainsilent's Photo


  • 472

  • 5162

    Profile Views
  • 1

  • 368


Posts I've Made

In Topic: NHL discussion

Yesterday, 06:48 PM

I was more referring to the situation/clutch factor than the action itself.  (the action was more like a CF diving for a fly ball).  Rask seems more like a positional guy than the reflex/athletic type.


If I had to rate Rask for GPHM, it would be something like:


REF 85

POS 99

CTL 90

HND 80

ATH 85

END 79

SPI 90


My Tim Thomas ratings:


REF 99

POS 75

CTL 95

HND 80

ATH 95

END 80

SPI 99


Fair enough then.


As for Rask being more positional it is a thing being taught to goalies now and has been the thing for a number of years as well. Focus on your positioning and then use your athleticism only when you have to. That said in regards to your ratings I don't think that they are too far off at all. I would put Rask's ath and ref at 90 and 92 respectively though. Also Thomas' control I would drop to 85-88 area. He was well known for giving big rebounds. It would give him a chance to recover for any rebound chances but it also acted as a double edge sword against him.


Honestly, I see Rask as being a poor man's Lundqvist (I mean this more tongue and cheek as I'm not saying Rask is bad, more that Lundqvist is/was better.  Also not talking about how they play but more the saves they make vs goals they let in).  They are both great goalies who can make unbelievable saves but then the stuff they let in makes you scratch your head.  The Marchand line change goal I'd say was more unstoppable than the O'Reilly tip.  Pietrangelo dangled him and the other defender, that happens.  All playoffs Rask was playing out of his mind and making glorious saves, but the O'Reilly tip was still stoppable imo.  Sure that is a tricky shot to handle as it was tipped, but O'Reilly was high enough in the slot that he at the very least could have played the shot as tho he expected the tip.  He could see ROR and knew the tip was coming.  I think he could have reacted differently than leaving his pads a mile apart for that shot.  His positioning was fine but it was one of the weaker goals he let in during the finals rather than it being a bad goal.  That being said, I am less of a goalie analyst than any other position but there are my 2 cents lol 


This I fully agree actually. That still doesn't change the fact that how he reacted to it meant that it wasn't saveable. Ideally, and only because we know what happened, he would have slid slightly to the blocker side while dropping into a butterfly stance closing off the bottom of the net for any deflections while also getting into position to make the save on the initial shot. That then still leaves him very vulnerable to any high deflections, especially high glove, which him staying upright as he did would be better for. Thus it could be argued that Rask played it for an unknown tip direction, which is what I think he did. However, either way it gets played if the shot has a chance of getting tipped you have to commit to either covering low or as much of the net as you can and either way if you get it wrong you lose as there is no way to recover. It is a no-win scenario for goalies which is why I said earlier that the only defense is not letting the shot get tipped in the first place via the defender tying up the other players stick. While deflection plays can be seen in that the possibility is there it is impossible to read where the puck is going to be deflected. It is very easy to second guess this play seeing what happened however it is also a bit unfair because of how it is impossible to read where the puck is going to be deflected. Had Rask known that it was going to be deflected 5 hole I am sure he would have done something very different to cover the first shot and the deflection. Remember hindsight is 20/20.

In Topic: NHL discussion

Yesterday, 03:02 PM

Name me a sport that requires the goalie to excel with the skills of running 20 years quickly and grabbing something like a dangling leash. I'm not saying what you did wasn't athletic. However, what you did is in no way applicable to playing goalie in any sport. That is what I meant. What you did is more applicable to playing receiver in American football.



I would offer my 2 cents for this Rask debate but I've already had this exact conversation with Rain about the goals Hellebuyck let in, in round 1


Offer it anyways. No harm in it. While I have a fairly good understanding of the goalie position it doesn't make me a hockey goalie guru or what I say 100% fact in any way. It is just my analysis based upon what I know of the position combined with my experience playing goalie in another sport. The fact is you could go to every goalie coach and analyst and get different takes amongst them. If the closest thing to experts on the subject won't agree what does it matter if we do or don't?

In Topic: NHL discussion

Yesterday, 02:08 PM

I didn't take it that way at all.  You made some valid points - and it's cool to have people around to chat hockey whether the opinions differ or not.


I nearly spit my coffee out to your response to the dog story!  LOL.  I threw that in there for some comic relief. 


I probably am bias in my opinion of Rask.  But I remember going through the same emotions with Tim Thomas when BOS fell short a few times in the playoffs, but I never felt like he wasn't clutch or couldn't make the big save.  I always defended him.  I dunno - it's just a different feeling I get with Tuukka.  ...and Thomas playing out of his mind in 2011 doesn't help it either.


I got the comic part of the dog story but it just isn't applicable. Not because dog dying but performance in sports, specifically goalie skills here, doesn't translate into out of sports things like that pretty much at all. Maybe in catching china that fell off of a table.


I like Thomas more than Rask too but I am more than willing to concede that while Thomas was a great goalie Rask is considered world class for a reason.

In Topic: NHL discussion

June 16, 2019 - 09:43 PM

Everyone believes in the timely save thing and Rask does have it. If he didn't the Bruins wouldn't have made it past the 1st round this offseason. We also do disagree and that is ok. I don't know how intimate your knowledge about the goalie position is but I know that you also view things from a B's fans perspective. Thus you are going to have a natural bias on things in certain ways. Some right and some wrong. There isn't anything wrong with that either.


I don't think any save Binnigton was asked to make was nearly as hard as those two shots on Rask. Binnington was asked to come up with some very difficult saves but none of them were bordering on impossible. Using your scale Binnington only faced a handful 9s at worst whereas Rask faced 3 10s to go with a handful of 9s at least. He even saved one of the 10s. St. Louis created better quality chances than the Bruins throughout the entirety of the game and the Bruins only created 4 to St. Louis' 2 after the 1st with the 2 by St. Louis being the best chances created all game.


All that said that dog story is not applicable at all.


Edit: After thinking about this post I realized that the wording of it can make it look like I am trying to discredit you. That was never my intent as I was only trying to point out what I thought were the origins of why we disagreed.  If you took this post to be aggressive or negative in a manner like that than I do apologize as it was not my intent whatsoever. This entire discussion between us was over a difference of opinion. An opinion that frankly neither of us can be proven right on.

In Topic: NHL discussion

June 16, 2019 - 01:07 PM

An add on to the last part in regards to paying top goalies. The same goes for top skaters too. It is about getting the best and most consistent players that you can. While Sam Gagner and Conner McDavid are both fully capable of putting up a lot of points a night which is more likely to do it on a more regular basis? Same goes for goalies. While someone like McElhinney might be able to outduel Rask once every ten games it is once every ten games. A majority of times with NHL teams in front of them Rask is winning that matchup. That is why you pay Rask the money. Also, no the NHL isn't going in that direction at all. Outside of the Hurricanes, Avs and Sharks every team that made the playoffs had a great goalie. Yes, even the Islanders and Flames.


Lehner doesn't get the credit he deserves for what he did in Buffalo. Ok, it was one great season followed by a bit of a dud but remember that he was dealing with very serious personal distractions and a really bad team in front of him and still managed to pull out a somewhat respectable season. He then goes to a much better defensive team while getting his life under control and we got to see what he is capable of. Next year I am honestly expecting around 2.30GAA and .925% from him as he has the talent to do it and maintain that for most of his career. He was seen as the next Lundqvist when he was coming into the league. He has the talent.


Ok, I grant that Mike Smith is very likely over the hill at this point of his career so it might be a bit unfair to call him great now but what he did in the playoffs makes me more than willing to still tag him as great for the time being. That is very tentative though and I am more than willing to quickly rescind that if he doesn't have another good season. I will be honest though. I am not expecting it. Neither are other analysts which is why they don't call him great anymore which is more than fair. However, for the majority of 6 seasons, he was backstopping what was arguably the worst team in the NHL every year and ending most seasons with around 2.65 and 915. Above the NHL average. Allowing the team to flirt with the playoffs almost every year. When he did drag that team to the playoffs he turned in a world-class 2.21 930 effort. Which is why I am still rather upset at how the Coyotes got knocked out right after a horrible non-call. Proof that NHL refs have been badly missing calls in the playoffs for years.


The only teams out of the playoffs with great goalies is Montreal and Anaheim. I am willing to give asterisks to Chicago, Florida, NJ, and LA though. All teams with goalies that were either great or world class but have been hampered by injuries or age just catching up to them. I'm not willing to give Schneider, Quick or Luongo the status that they once had as great/world class goalies because I do think those days are now behind them however I want to see if Crawford can still provide the goaltending he once was capable of. Lundqvist used to be great too but age has caught up to him. That said the Rangers may have brought in the next Russian great that is looking to have the potential to be world class. I'm not going to hype him into generational like I have heard a few others say however Shesterkin might create some fun issues for the Rangers. Hart and Demko are the other young goalies looking like they might become great goalies soon.


Basically, unless you have a great goalie you aren't likely to make the playoffs and if you do without having one you typically don't go far in the playoffs.


Also, I am willing to bet that Carolina resigns Mrazek to 4+ mil a year. I don't know if they resign McElhinny too but I wouldn't resign Mrazek and if I did it would be to trade him. I would resign Mc and see what Nedeljkovic can do or look for something better than Mrazek in FA or via trade.