NHL Playoffs 2012: Kings' Jonathan Quick Putting Name in Conn Smythe Talk
The "new" NHL prides itself on being more open as far as scoring goals is concerned.
Well, playoff season is here, and Los Angeles Kings goaltender Jonathan Quick has other ideas.
The 2012 NHL playoffs find Quick doing the same thing that he has been doing all regular season: giving his team a chance to win, night in and night out.
Quick stymied the Vancouver Canucks offense in the first round, holding the Canucks to eight goals in five games.
His stellar performance against Vancouver earned the Kings franchise their first trip to the second round of the playoffs since the 2000-01 season, when they knocked off the Detroit Red Wings in six games.
Quick has submitted his vote for the Conn Smythe Trophy after Round 1, and has continued to impress pundits and regular fans alike with his play on the ice.
Quick's regular-season play earned a Vezina Trophy nomination, but is looking for a bigger piece of hardware to add to his collection: the Stanley Cup.
The old saying is that "defense wins championships." This is no less true in hockey than in any other sport.
The Kings helped out their goaltender by blocking 95 shots in their series with the Canucks, and 12 in Game 1 in St. Louis against the Blues.
How Far Will the Kings Go in the Playoffs?
While Quick is getting great help from his team defensively, to say that he has had an easy go of things would be misleading.
The 26-year-old Connecticut native faced 182 shots in the first round, stopping 174 of them.
After Saturday night's game (his sixth playoff outing), Quick has a 1.49 GAA, a 95.5 save percentage, and a shutout. But most importantly, Quick has won five of those six games.
If the LA Kings win the 2012 Stanley Cup, Jonathan Quick will without undoubtedly win the Conn Smythe Trophy.
So, the big question remains: can Quick continue his astonishing run in form for the next month-and-a-half?
His team's success depends on it.
For more article updates, Follow @isaacesmith91
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?