2012 Stanley Cup Finals: Why Jonathan Quick Will Win the Cup for the Kings
Jonathan Quick went from an unknown goalie to a solid goalie to a Vezina trophy finalist.
And throughout his run, he's led the Kings to the Stanley Cup Finals.
Los Angeles, the eighth seed in the West, beat the Canucks, Blues and Coyotes (the top three teams in the West) en route to a West title. Now, the Kings have the sixth seed in the East, the New Jersey Devils, ahead of them.
New Jersey also has a top-notch goaltender in Martin Brodeur, who is looking to win his fourth Stanley Cup. The goalie battle will likely determine the Cup, and Quick is determined to win.
His 1.54 GAA and his 94.6 save percentage throughout the playoffs show no reason not to believe in him.
Quick hasn't given up more than three goals in his past 15 games, 12 of which have been won by the Kings. Brodeur has been consistent as well, but he has been aided by New Jersey's offense.
Los Angeles has played great offense so far in the playoffs, and in all five games against the Coyotes, the Kings out-shot the Coyotes. However, LA had the second-to-worst offense in the NHL during the regular season, and they will need a good performance from Quick.
New Jersey took just 17 shots on goal in Game 5, yet they finished with five goals (although one was an empty-netter). In Game 6, they took just 26 shots, yet they scored three goals and won both games.
Even though the Devils struggle at getting shots off, they know how to convert on their opportunities. Against LA, they'll need every goal.
The Devils are fantastic at scoring off rebounds, so catching or covering up the puck will be key for the Kings. As long as Quick continues his streak and continues to stop the puck, I see no reason why the Devils can beat the Kings.
Martin Brodeur may be a top-tier goalie, but the Kings should get enough shots off to score a couple goals per game, enough for Quick to seal a LA win.
When it's all said and done, Quick will have four more wins, a Conn Smythe trophy, and a Stanley Cup victory to add to his rapidly improving resume.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?