IMO...we won despite Luongo not because of Luongo

Roberto is frustrating to watch, he makes the first save and appears to be a very good goalie but then does not seem to be in great position for the second or third shot off of his intial save.

the goal they got off of his rebound is a great example, and then there are all the examples of him making a save and being on his but for the next shot. Scary, sure he is used to facing 40 shots a night but i think he creates alot of those shots because he puts his rebounds in danger zones.

I thought Theodore would have been better, no he does have Luongo's size but i find Jose footwork to be better and i find theodore goes from post to post better, neither back up can handle the dump in like Brodeur and that made the game tough as well.

Congrats to Canada and lets hope for the best against Finland even though the Finns are a great story.

Should be a great game and then the Lock-out EH!

:deadhorse

Again, it proves that Luongo is overrated.

He does handle low shots well I have to say. Despite low rebound control, he does make some nice saves. I think he played pretty well yesterday. He stood on his head a few times.

But yeah, Luongo does create more shots for himself, which runs up his save %. And the stickhandling ability of Brodeur will never show up on a statsheet.

While i agree Luongo didn't play great hockey, I wouldn't go as far as saying we won despite the way he played. I don't think i am alone in this saying that the Czech's really outplayed Canada. Our defense clearly had lapses and the czech's were frustrating our forwards in the neutral zone for the majority of the game. In all honesty if Canada had played like they had played like they had in previous games that game really wouldn't have been as close as it was.

God, it was one game - his first in how long? And really, who cares? They won.

I'd take Luongo on my team anytime.

Luongo is very bad at rebounds. From watching his World Championship performances I pretty much expected this. He did make some pretty huge saves though.

40 shots and 3 goals is excellent in my opinion..

40 shots and 3 goals is excellent in my opinion..
If you look on paper, yea. Luongo looked a bit shaky to me though, sometimes not knowing where the puck was and if he saved it or not. Always when the Czechs shot I had to hope he saved it, he didn't win my trust, he would need to look confident on the saves for that. Anyway he still did make some nice key saves, no one can deny that.

He let in 3 goals he definetly should have had, he saved about 5 goals he didn't have a chance on.

God, it was one game - his first in how long? And really, who cares? They won.

I'd take Luongo on my team anytime.

I agree...I think we are looking at him this way because of how AMAZING Brodeur was in the net. I mean, give him some slack, all we should really be concerned about is that we're not out of the tournament. However come Tuesday, we need some really solid goaltending if we're facing the Finns and Kiprusoff.

Luongo was helped because Canada's offense could keep it close and Vokoun played worse. Kiprusoff will be a different story.

While i agree Luongo didn't play great hockey, I wouldn't go as far as saying we won despite the way he played. I don't think i am alone in this saying that the Czech's really outplayed Canada. Our defense clearly had lapses and the czech's were frustrating our forwards in the neutral zone for the majority of the game. In all honesty if Canada had played like they had played like they had in previous games that game really wouldn't have been as close as it was.


IMO the Czech's should have won that game but not because of Luongo. Yes he had a couple bad rebounds but Canada's Defence sucked during that game. Nieds was out of place way to often and had to many giveaways and miss passes. The Czech's out played Canada without a doubt.

You can't blame Loungo for skate redirects and screened shots. He did manage to keep one of the best goal scorers of the sheet.

40 shots and 3 goals is excellent in my opinion..

yeah but I've seen lots of scoresheets with roughly the same stats...except for the score (3-0, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3 ring a bell??)

Stats tell richard!!!! :joker: or almost!

The reason I agree with you is best reflected by one play in particular. The play where Luongo lost his stick. The puck came back to the point and Luongo was sitting there thinking he had the puck. two thirds of the net was open and they hit him with the puck and then they hit him again with the rebound. I guage a goalie's performance based on the "cringe" factor. Do I close my eyes when the opoosing team comes down for a shot for fear of a bad goal? Roy and Brodeur = no cringe at all. Joseph= clutching pillows over the eyes. Luongo= looking away in horror. As a Habs fan, Theodore has had his cringe moments also and I'm not sure he would have played any better.

The reason I agree with you is best reflected by one play in particular. The play where Luongo lost his stick. The puck came back to the point and Luongo was sitting there thinking he had the puck. two thirds of the net was open and they hit him with the puck and then they hit him again with the rebound. I guage a goalie's performance based on the "cringe" factor. Do I close my eyes when the opoosing team comes down for a shot for fear of a bad goal? Roy and Brodeur = no cringe at all. Joseph= clutching pillows over the eyes. Luongo= looking away in horror. As a Habs fan, Theodore has had his cringe moments also and I'm not sure he would have played any better.

I'm sorry but this cringe factor makes no sense. If I'm correct in remembering the play, didn't it end with Luongo making that amazing pad stack save? Or are you talking about the time where he made a stop on a point shot because he was in perfect position and didn't give up a rebound?

I'm also hearing other arguments that don't make sense. People say he gives up too many rebounds so it runs up his save %, while at the same time they say rebound control lead goals. How can his % be so high while giving up so many juicy rebounds that lead to a goal??

I'm sorry but this cringe factor makes no sense. If I'm correct in remembering the play, didn't it end with Luongo making that amazing pad stack save? Or are you talking about the time where he made a stop on a point shot because he was in perfect position and didn't give up a rebound?

I'm also hearing other arguments that don't make sense. People say he gives up too many rebounds so it runs up his save %, while at the same time they say rebound control lead goals. How can his % be so high while giving up so many juicy rebounds that lead to a goal??


He's saying that Luongo looked shaky, especially on the play where he lost his stick. If you think different, you've got your head in the sand.

Yeah, and the barrage of amazing saves on that play were created by him not hanging on to the puck. You get yourself out of position, you have to make an amazing save.

He's saying that Luongo looked shaky, especially on the play where he lost his stick. If you think different, you've got your head in the sand.


If I remember the play your talking about, Luongo was great. Canada was running around, the Czechs were taking it to us, a Czech player stepped in from the point and Luongo made a save without a stick and without giving up a rebound. How is that shaky?

[QUOTE=Jacques Plante]I'm sorry but this cringe factor makes no sense. If I'm correct in remembering the play, didn't it end with Luongo making that amazing pad stack save? Or are you talking about the time where he made a stop on a point shot because he was in perfect position and didn't give up a rebound?

It makes tons of sense. Luongo scared me all game. The play I referred to was the play where he was flopping around like a fish out of water (take your pick, there were a few). Bottom line is they won, but if they had lost, Luongo would have worn the goat horns with many, many Canadian fans even if he would have made 100 routine saves look spectacular.

If I remember the play your talking about, Luongo was great. Canada was running around, the Czechs were taking it to us, a Czech player stepped in from the point and Luongo made a save without a stick and without giving up a rebound. How is that shaky?


And what I'm saying is that if Luongo would have hung on to the puck on the play when he lost his stick (remember, he thought he had it, he ended up losing his stick and the puck instead) , there would have been no need for any heroics, saving the scrambling defense. There would have been the same faceoff that they had, without the 2-3 scoring chances before.

Good goalies don't have to make heroic saves that many times in a game, they are sound positionally and control rebounds. Luongo was poor at both last night. He had to save his own ass with the big saves.

I don't understand why everyone is jumping on Luongo. He isn't Martin Brodeur and we all know that Brodeur is by far the best goalie right now in the NHL. Few goalies come close to him so why are we expecting that Luongo play exactly like Martin Brodeur?

Luongo is young, and yesterday's game was the first real game action since April. What goalie doesn't have troubles with handling rebounds? That's one of the hardest aspects of the game for a goalie and since he isn't Martin Brodeur we can't expect him to control rebounds like Brodeur.

Nonetheless, it was him that allowed Canada to win by stopping some huge shots.. of course, he also put canada in that position by letting in a couple of weak goals. But don't get on him because he didn't play like Brodeur. Luongo was solid considering that was his first game since April.

I thought he played fine. We all talk about how good Brodeur is (and I think he's better than Loungo), but how much better would Marty have done in this game? He might have saved one or two, but there were a few that Loungo's size saved for him that Marty might not have nabbed. Brodeur has not been tested in this tournament the way Loungo was last night. This was the first game of the tournament that the Canadian goalie was routinely hung out to dry. Marty's had the good fortune of standing up to vastly inferior teams. He certainly hasn't faced a team better than his (like the Czechs). IMO, he wouldn't have been much better.

I thought he played fine. We all talk about how good Brodeur is (and I think he's better than Loungo), but how much better would Marty have done in this game? He might have saved one or two, but there were a few that Loungo's size saved for him that Marty might not have nabbed. Brodeur has not been tested in this tournament the way Loungo was last night. This was the first game of the tournament that the Canadian goalie was routinely hung out to dry. Marty's had the good fortune of standing up to vastly inferior teams. He certainly hasn't faced a team better than his (like the Czechs). IMO, he wouldn't have been much better.

Excellent Post! :handclap:

I don't understand why everyone is jumping on Luongo. He isn't Martin Brodeur and we all know that Brodeur is by far the best goalie right now in the NHL. Few goalies come close to him so why are we expecting that Luongo play exactly like Martin Brodeur?

Luongo is young, and yesterday's game was the first real game action since April. What goalie doesn't have troubles with handling rebounds? That's one of the hardest aspects of the game for a goalie and since he isn't Martin Brodeur we can't expect him to control rebounds like Brodeur.

Nonetheless, it was him that allowed Canada to win by stopping some huge shots.. of course, he also put canada in that position by letting in a couple of weak goals. But don't get on him because he didn't play like Brodeur. Luongo was solid considering that was his first game since April.


I'll agree with your post, for the most part.

Edit: How do I start a poll? I'd like to start a poll on Luongo's performance.

I think Canada was just used to having Brodeur in net handling the puck, passing, and clearing it out himself through out this tourney that they didn't expect they would have to work especially hard last night to retrieve, pass, and make clears out of their own zone (which they clearly were struggling with last night from the very start to finish) regardless of who was in net between Luongo and Theodore, because their styles are completely different than that of Brodeur.

Plus they might have seriously overestimated this Czech squad. Playing physical against them like they did verse the Slovaks did not shutdown the Czech's attack. The Czech defense and goaltending (minus the Draper goal) was also superb in stopping Canada's deadly offensive arsenal.

Just wondering, since so many people here seem to be experts on goaltending--why is that teams continually pile up shots on Luongo? Why is he always "hung out to dry" and why is the defense in front of him always "mediocre"? Why is he always forced to make a spectacular save?

Yes, I know that the Luongo bashing has gone somewhat overboard, but so has the PRAISING. When you watch Canada with Brodeur in net you can feel the confidence that they have in him--period.

Is it just me or did Cole make Luongo looke like he was breathtaking or something?

Are you guy's nuts?Luongo comes in cold in a situation where Brodeur has been
great( but not tested that much)and everyone expects Brodeur to backstop them
to the championship including Luongo.His team gets outplayed for the first time in the tournament(and it had nothing to do with rebounds),he made several great saves and was named second star of the game.Looks to me like a great back-up
performance in an immpossibly high pressure situation.

Just wondering, since so many people here seem to be experts on goaltending--why is that teams continually pile up shots on Luongo? Why is he always "hung out to dry" and why is the defense in front of him always "mediocre"? Why is he always forced to make a spectacular save?

Yes, I know that the Luongo bashing has gone somewhat overboard, but so has the PRAISING. When you watch Canada with Brodeur in net you can feel the confidence that they have in him--period.It means Luongo is extremely talented, but due to inexperience is still not very fundamentally sound. He creates work for his defense because he doesn't stickhandle as well as other goalies and has mediocre rebound control. Luckily he has so much natural skill, he can compensate for his mistakes. A guy like Brodeur on the other hand, just doesn't make many mistakes and makes life extremely easy for his defense. In the gold medal game, I would rather have a healthy Belfour or Brodeur, but Luongo is still a great third option.

I was scared when the game began and I saw Luongo. He was shaky. He gave bad rebound all game long, gave 3 goals that should have been stop. Was sitting on his fat butt on a play and doesnt look like he was even trying to get up in position. After the 3rd goal they showed him and he was taking a couple of big breath to chase the pressure. That surely doesnt look like someone who is in control.

If Roberto is in goal again Tuesday, I gonna be scared again.

gave 3 goals that should have been stop.

CZE Goal 1: Deflected shot that surprised everybody. Those happen, not Luongo's fault.

CZE Goal 2: Beautiful powerplay setup by the Czechs. Luongo's options were to either let in the original shot from the point, or kick it out, giving the inevitable rebound that the defence should have been there to clear away.

CZE Goal 3: Horrible defensive breakdown that resulted in a well-placed screen shot. If you can't see it, you can't stop it unless it hits you.

None of the Czech goals were Luongo's fault. He played magnificently and is the reason the Czechs did not score 6 goals last night.

I will freely admit that Luongo let in a pair of suspect goals (first and third goals). Those are pucks he normally stops. However, Canada doesn't win that game without him. He made two stellar save in overtime. He made a few others in the third period when the game was tied at 2-2, and again at 3-3.

No matter what Luongo did last night, he can do no good in the eyes of some ignorant Canadian fans. Eric Brewer and Kris Draper have suffered the same heat. It's too bad that some fans watch with only preconceived notions, instead of basing opinions on facts.