I don't think it matters how old he was before he came here or how washed up some folks think Chris Stewart is at his age.ecbm wrote:Well, I'll answer that now-so you can't say that about me anymore.cprice12 wrote:You mean his first few years in the league?
Why people want to hold that to him when that is when he was younger and not as experienced, I'll never know.
That 2010-11 season I pointed out where Elliott finished with 3.19/.894 in 43 games was his third full season in the league and fourth after his first call up. He was 26 years old when it ended. The next season in Colorado, he posted 3.83/.891 in 12 games as a backup. At 26/27 he wasn't some prospect-Chris Stewart is 27 and some people are saying he's already done and this after he posted two 28-goal seasons. In Halak's third full season, 2009-2010 (at the end of which he was 25), he played in 45 games posting 2.40/.924 with 5 shutouts in the regular season and then played 18 playoff games to the tune of 2.25/.923. Note that I'm not comparing Elliott to Roy or Rask or Rinne, who are all gold standard and were great right out of the box. I'm comparing him to Halak, who nobody here seems to think deserves national attention or superstar status. You've got to earn that. I'm much less irritated by a lack of recognition for Elliott than the ridiculous overrating of guys like Fleury, Howard and Crawford who are just passable goalies who have benefitted from being on great teams.
Every player is different and it just looks to me that Elliott has found his game and is flourishing. It just took a bit longer than some other guys.
I'd be less inclined to debate this if this was Elliott's first year with us and first year playing well because if that was the case, you could make a good case to write this season off as a fluke season or a season where he benefits from playing for a good team or whatever. But he has done this for the 4th season in a row now and he has been an all-star in two of those years. The years in which he struggled are long gone and I really don't think they should apply to him when analyzing how good he is now. Why should it?
Elliott > Halak...it's not even close really. And I said the same thing when Halak was here if you care to go back and find comments I have made. Elliott simply played better than Halak did every season they were here together.
Halak can look quite good, but he can also look quite bad...and he tends to give up some really bad goals. And the fact that he can't hold on to the puck in his trapper, he can't stick handle worth a damn, nor can he seem to ever cover up the puck during a goal-mouth scramble, just make me want to say no to Halak. I was excited when we got him, but it didn't take long at all for me to get really uncomfortable with him in net...which was very disappointing. I never really had that feeling with Elliott. I was always much more at ease with him between the pipes.