KoZed Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 AS of Saturday, the right answer was YES. blowing up a 4-1 lead... :puke: Not sure being run over and tackled without any protection from the refs or your D's counts as "choking". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bar Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 He really needed to save the last two goals, backing up D or no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habitforming Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 (edited) I don't think he has choked yet, the refs had a hand in the last "let Ovechkin do anything" game, But he will. I'd rather lose this series with Price learning what it takes, rather than wait for JM to get off his hands and lose the series with Halak anyway. Edited April 19, 2010 by Habitforming Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycing Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 One bad game for sure. Impossible not to against Washington. It will take two bad games before Price gets a shot though. Who's this smart guy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsy Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 I wouldn't use the word choke, but I think he's done here. Just my opinion. I think he'll be signed and traded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 That's Montreal for you. If Price comes up big in Game 4, suddenly we will collectively return to thinking of him as The Goalie. Weird, but understandable. Jaro has not stepped up like we need him to. Maybe he's the second coming of Huet - smallish goalie who looks great for 35 games a season, and not so hot after that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 Halak's size has always been a concern. The elite goalies are all 3 inches or more bigger. It helps a lot at this level. Doesn't mean Price will be better, just projecting Halak compared to the best in the biz. It's probably a major reason why Halak's trade value hasn't changed much from the start of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 Halak yay! Price boo. Halak yay! Price boo. Halak yay. Price boo. Halak with a tough two starts against by far the most explosive team in the game... under the bus with you! Price saviour again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsfan Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 I still don't think we can say that Halak was the reason why we lost games 2 and 3. Anyone notice the 1st capitals goal yesterday. Once again, one of our D-men crashed into our goalie. I don't care who you are, but when your d-man crashes into you and pushes you into the net, your name could be Brodeur, Hasek, Luongo, Miller or Patrick fvc.king Roy, it doesn't matter, that puck is going in the net. Yeah, Halak might have let in a few goals that he'd like to see again (maybe 2 of them) but he IS NOT The reason why we're behind. Let's wait and see if Price will do better. Maybe his size will help, but the way our d-men keep backing up and giving up the blue line, i doubt Price will do much better! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalhabs Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 Id love to see Price pull a Cam Ward for us now... Ive defended Halak and still do but 11 goals allowed on 2 games is a bit to much and Price should get a shot at it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 I still don't think we can say that Halak was the reason why we lost games 2 and 3. Anyone notice the 1st capitals goal yesterday. Once again, one of our D-men crashed into our goalie. I don't care who you are, but when your d-man crashes into you and pushes you into the net, your name could be Brodeur, Hasek, Luongo, Miller or Patrick fvc.king Roy, it doesn't matter, that puck is going in the net. Yeah, Halak might have let in a few goals that he'd like to see again (maybe 2 of them) but he IS NOT The reason why we're behind. Let's wait and see if Price will do better. Maybe his size will help, but the way our d-men keep backing up and giving up the blue line, i doubt Price will do much better! Hee hee...well, I have no strong opinion on the whole Price vs. Halak debate. I'm not a scout. Which one will be better in three years? You got me. (I'm guessing Price, but that's just an educated speculation). But as for this series: the results are not Halak's fault per se, and he did stand on his head in the first period of Game One. However, we can certainly say that we knew going in the we would need our goalie to be exceptional if we wanted to win. Halak has not been exceptional. He has not stunk out the joint, but neither has he come up especially big. (And he did let in at least one critical weak goal in Game Two, which was a turning point in the series). Should we throw him under a bus? No. Should we take these results as indicative of his possible ceiling as a starting goalie in the NHL? Quite possibly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 Oh, there's no way you can blame Halak for the first goal when Spacek backed into him and Hamrlik failed to keep the puck in the zone causing a 2 on 1 (and were Markov-Bergeron that tired that it had to be Hamrlik-Spacek for the first wave PP? Hamrlik sucks on the PP in every regard, but I digress). The second one is the kind of goal that a bigger body might have gotten. The third was on the D for sure for letting Fehr barge right in without a touch. Maybe Price would've stopped that second goal just by virtue of his size. And maybe he stops that but allows another shot that Halak had stopped. I don't know. We're trying to turn the tide in this series. We're trying to find ways we can win a couple games, even if it's outright stealing games from the Caps. O'Byrne has to be in next game. They've exposed Bergeron for sure. It worked for most of the first two games, but now we need to make the switch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 Oh, there's no way you can blame Halak for the first goal when Spacek backed into him and Hamrlik failed to keep the puck in the zone causing a 2 on 1 (and were Markov-Bergeron that tired that it had to be Hamrlik-Spacek for the first wave PP? Hamrlik sucks on the PP in every regard, but I digress). The second one is the kind of goal that a bigger body might have gotten. The third was on the D for sure for letting Fehr barge right in without a touch. Maybe Price would've stopped that second goal just by virtue of his size. And maybe he stops that but allows another shot that Halak had stopped. I don't know. We're trying to turn the tide in this series. We're trying to find ways we can win a couple games, even if it's outright stealing games from the Caps. O'Byrne has to be in next game. They've exposed Bergeron for sure. It worked for most of the first two games, but now we need to make the switch. This is one of the most understated part in this battle moving forward. Next season the NHL is going to crack down on the size of equipment. It will be based on proportion to the goaltender. Halak is 5'11" and 182 lbs. Price is 6'3" and 220 lbs 40 lbs and 4 inches will be significant next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 Price is 6'3" and 220 lbs ??????????????? Fatass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 This is one of the most understated part in this battle moving forward. Next season the NHL is going to crack down on the size of equipment. It will be based on proportion to the goaltender. Halak is 5'11" and 182 lbs. Price is 6'3" and 220 lbs 40 lbs and 4 inches will be significant next season. It was already significant after the lockout when they did a 1st crackdown on equipment. That's also when Theodore (a small goalie) fell from grace. As big a fan as I am of Halak, when push comes to shove big goalies have an edge. Price's size was always part of his intangibles. However, a bigger goalie doesnt automatically negates the whole crease-crowding tactic. Price is the kind of player who easily gets thrown off his game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 It was already significant after the lockout when they did a 1st crackdown on equipment. That's also when Theodore (a small goalie) fell from grace. As big a fan as I am of Halak, when push comes to shove big goalies have an edge. Price's size was always part of his intangibles. However, a bigger goalie doesnt automatically negates the whole crease-crowding tactic. Price is the kind of player who easily gets thrown off his game. Nothing negates crease crowding except physical defensemen who make you pay a physical price to be there. The advantage to the 4" and 40 lbs is the mass of net he covers when he cannot see the puck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 This is one of the most understated part in this battle moving forward. Next season the NHL is going to crack down on the size of equipment. It will be based on proportion to the goaltender. Halak is 5'11" and 182 lbs. Price is 6'3" and 220 lbs 40 lbs and 4 inches will be significant next season. Didn't Price lose a lot of this weight before last season? I thought he was something like 205 now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafikz Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 Didn't Price lose a lot of this weight before last season? I thought he was something like 205 now. His face does look a bit thinner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyhasbeen Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 I guess not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.