Stanley Cup Playoffs 2012: Jonathan Quick Makes LA Kings Favorites to Win It All
The Los Angeles Kings have gone from the final seed to reach the playoffs in the Western Conference to the favorites to win the Stanley Cup. While everyone on the roster has stepped up, the Kings are in this position because of one man: goalie Jonathan Quick.
Quick has been sensational during the playoffs. He has posted a ridiculous 11-1 record, with a 1.41 goals-against average and a mind-boggling save percentage of 95.1. He has been all over the ice making amazing save after amazing save to help propel the Kings thus far in the playoffs.
The Kings knocked off the top-seeded Vancouver Canucks in five games, then swept the second-seeded St. Louis Blues. Entering Sunday they have a 3-0 lead on the third-seeded Phoenix Coyotes and have completely dominated the series.
While guys like Dustin Brown, Anze Kopitar, Drew Doughty and Dwight King have stepped up their games in the postseason, Quick has been this good all season long. He is a finalist for the Vezina Trophy, given to the NHL's best goaltender, and this is nothing new, he has been great between the pipes for years.
Even if the Kings don't finish off a sweep of Phoenix on Sunday, they have still dominated the series and I really can't see any way the Coyotes can get back into it. That means Los Angeles will be heading into the Stanley Cup Finals with the league's hottest goalie.
Quick already has two shutouts during the postseason, that adds to his league-best 10 from the regular season. He has been sensational all season.
The Milford, Connecticut native gets himself into perfect position on almost every shot he faces, and also has the ability to change direction and sprawl all over the ice to make saves. With a guy like that manning the net it shouldn't surprise many that the Kings have been successful.
Thanks to Quick's incredible ability in goal, the Los Angeles Kings look like Stanley Cup favorites right now.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?