Elliott or Leclaire - Who's Number 1?

SpezDispenser wrote:Tee hee, was that your comment PKC?

SpezDispenser wrote:Tee hee, was that your comment PKC?

SpezDispenser wrote:

Michallica wrote:There are more votes for Pat Buchanan than there are for elliott

Despite the crap job on Saturday, Leclaire did come up big in the third. And Elliott looked razor sharp in the first period against the rangers. They both obviously have the tools but this inconsistency is just too much already.

Leclaire is what he is. He'll be hovering around .900 all year (hopefully) and that should be enough for us to have some success. Elliott should be looking to improve on his .909, but I'm not sure if he can pull himself up to a .915 - which is pretty much where I expect NHL goaltending to be.

Leclaire has one more year here, I assume we'll have to grin and bear it. Elliott's the one who has the chance to improve - and frankly he's been much, much better than Leclaire. He's let in a stinker per game, but bounced back in those games to provide pretty good tending. That said, I'm not after 'good tending', I want someone, as Roche et. all are saying - who'll finally make me feel comfortable with our netminding. Is it too much to ask? I can't see Murray staying here forever, his wife probably is loathe for him to come back as GM for much more than another year - and he's positioned us to really contend in 2-3 years (thank you so much for Lehner, Wiercioch, Cowen, Hoffman, Gryba etc.), but it'll be a real shame when he can't deliver the Cup as a GM. It'll end what will be nearly a lifetime of work. And it ISN'T happening with Leclaire - period - I'd love for someone to dispute me on that and I'll listen to the reasoning, but I've seen a lot watching hockey the way I do, I watch closely. Leclaire is Gerber v.2.0 - I'd also love someone to dispute that. The quicker we're done with his style of goaltending - which is, flop around and use athleticism to try to stop pucks - the better we are. I keep bringing up Clemmenson, but he's a guy who STANDS up in his net, looks big and always deliver +.900 numbers - and I'd take someone like that 1000 times over a "shot in the dark" goalie like Leclaire.

So...the question is....we see it here in a little hockey forum, undoubtedly others see it too, but Murray can't do much because Leclaire has close to negative value and he made a bold move to acquire him AND it's 'too early' to tell.

No it is NOT too early to tell. Leclaire is the old school goalie, the one who relies almost solely on his reflexes - which truthfully are nothing to write home about anyway. So...what the Cuss do we have?

Bring me Pat Buchanon, maybe he'll be an improvement.

Same old damn song and dance every year. Soooooo frustrating to the people who aren't fooled into thinking Leclaire can help us - only make the guys play scared in front of him.

Elliott! You NEED to step up!

Michallica wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Tee hee, was that your comment PKC?

no

Flo The Action wrote:i still think you guys have your hand on the panic button. cockroche, you bring up alot of valid arguments but personaly i don't know that you can't come back from those types of injuries. if the GM and goalie coaches think he can then i tend to believe that he can.
if wamsley has been trying to get leclaire to change his style and he hasen't yet, i'm not sure it's time to panic.
it's one thing to practice something and to put it in practice is another. under pressure it might be easier to succumb to old and more comfortable ways. give it time. like i said 10 games should paint a better picture of what we can expect from leclaire. other then that i totaly agree with your analysis of his style. but i do not see how he cannot make some adjustements. i mean if we're talking about him staying in position and protecting the nets by blocking, i think it can be done.

and yes, it seems like i'm the only one left with faith in leclaire.

SpezDispenser wrote:Let me get this straight: Leclaire is a goalie who depends on athleticism to make saves.

But he's not athletic at all according to the boot camp training...

Good stuff.

Flo The Action wrote:

shabbs wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:and yes, it seems like i'm the only one left with faith in leclaire.

The poll suggests otherwise...

yeah i see that, but it seems people have little faith or believe he'll get the job but won't get it done.

Hoags wrote:Is it really out of the realm of possibility that Elliott takes us to the playoffs (and beyond) ? I'm talking past the first round ....

He's been great for us so far and while he struggled in the playoffs he's still pretty new to the NHL. He won the NCAA Championship so he knows what it's like to go far and win.

5 shutouts last year I don't see why he can't take his game up a notch this year, regardless what happens with Leclaire.

CockRoche wrote:
Elliott is a proven winner and will continue to improve. He has that kind of determination, you can just sense that quiet confidence.

marakh wrote:Wow, are you guys really panicking before the drop of the puck?

PKC wrote:
Those bootcamps are based on strength more than athleticism. I don't think they had any flexibility contests while they were there, is what I'm trying to say.

Hoags wrote:The thinking seems to be that only Leclaire has the potential to backstop this team to the playoffs and beyond. You don't need elite goaltending to win but you do need solid and competent goaltending.

I'd say it's unlikely but possible that Wamsley can fix the issues with Leclaire's game. Leclaire is also going to need to get into a groove, if he sucks or gets injured that won't happen. We didn't really have a good steady goalie coach last year. I don't know if Eli Wilson was a bad coach but it wasn't working out. So there's some hope that Wamsley (who has a history with Leclaire) can get results.

Elliott isn't getting enough credit, he was great last year he struggled in the playoffs but it was his first time and his first full season. Roche you should post a few thoughts on Elliott someday, I love your input on this forum. I'm not too worried about Elliott, I think he'll be solid, only a question if he can improve on last year. So far he's been improving his game with us.

With all the Vokoun talk, I have to wonder should we really pay big money for a 3-4 year NMC contract for a #1 goalie ? What if Lehner is ready before then ? We'll have a situation like Boston and Thomas.

Bottom Line: There's good reason to be concerned about our goaltending, but no reason to panic yet.

PKC wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Let me get this straight: Leclaire is a goalie who depends on athleticism to make saves.

But he's not athletic at all according to the boot camp training...

Good stuff.

Those bootcamps are based on strength more than athleticism. I don't think they had any flexibility contests while they were there, is what I'm trying to say.