This is an interesting look at a scouting report of our very own Jonathan Quick. The Goalie Guild conducted this scouting report and gave it to the San Jose Sharks. Now that the series is over, they have published it. It provides their insight into Quick’s strengths and weaknesses.
Here is a snippet from the article. Click on the link for more.
Prior to the start of the Los Angeles Kings vs. San Jose Sharks series, I offered up a scouting report on Jonathan Quick to a staff member of the Sharks. Now that the Kings have been eliminated from the Stanley Cup Playoffs thanks to Joe Thornton’s overtime goal in Game 6, I am able to post the report for my loyal readers.
Despite losing the series, I hope Quick skated away with his head held high. For me, it’s not the second-period meltdown in Game 3 that will be remembered, but rather his ability to suddenly turn two losses into a memorable 51-save victory in an elimination game.
As goaltenders always say, it’s not the bad goal you give up or bad game you play that matters, it’s how you respond. And boy, did Quick ever respond.
Simply put, Jonathan was otherworldly in Game 5. His precise focus and intricate attention to detail with his angles, positioning and rebound control proved to the hockey world that he’s only getting better as time goes on. His flexibility, foot speed and reactions was in another dimension and watching him get into the zone was a terrific learning experience.
It makes the series loss a tough one for him to stomach, but let’s chalk it up as a valuable learning experience. He will only become mentally tougher as a result and it’s just another proud hole to punch into his utility belt.
As you will read below, I think the only thing missing from Quick’s game was a heightened sense of situational awareness. Pay close attention to the final paragraph (seen below in red), where I discuss playing with a lead. He proved during the regular season that he’s prone to taking his foot off the gas and suffering from a slight lack of focus in non-intense moments.
Unfortunately, the same issue came to fruition in this series.
I asked the author of the report what he prefers…head or gut? I am waiting for a response.