Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
He's looked just fine in several games. They've been discussed. Tell me what was wrong in his SO of Nashville (43 shots), or the one against Minnie (31 shots). Against Toronto he was fine and his puckhandling was a big part of the win as well.
For clarity, I feel like I have to include a caveat every time I respond to in this thread, as follows: Smith has generally been bad. He's cost points. I'm not generally defending him, denigrating Rittich or suggesting Smith should be the clear starter. I just dislike debate based on fallacies.
|
Exactly this.
From the start of the season, a group of Smith Haters have merged into a super-group of hate
- I think there's a group that's curious as to what the plan is this year
- I think there's a group that's curious as to what the plan is next year
- I think there's a group that haven't had a lot of confidence in Smith for almost a calendar year
- I think there's a group that didn't see a 36 year old goalie regaining form, and were very frustrated at the games we were giving up
But his recovery was something a lot of us here should be giving him tons of credit for. I gave him back a lot of rope with how he's turned it on as of late, and the mountain of negativity and pessimism he had to climb to get there earns him a lot of respect with me - as well as Peters.
Goal #4 was obviously awful. I was frustrated with Smith as well, as this was too much of what we hoped was behind them. However, he pulled himself from the game and we know something's up.
I think you're reaching to throw shade after 1 bobbled injured/ill/out-of-sorts game in the middle of an upswing. It doesn't seem honest or helpful to be using a game the goalie pulled himself from as your platform for pessimism.
This, for the record, is coming from the '
I'm worried that 36 year old Mike Smith isn't the goalie to lead us to the promise land - especially not past this season' camp.