Chicago Blackhawks First Quarter Grades: Goaltenders

Corey Crawford

The first quarter of the 2013 season is over for the Chicago Blackhawks, and we’ve graded the forwards and defensemen already.

So, now let’s turn our attentions to the goaltenders.

ACorey Crawford
9 games, 7-0-2, 1.62 GAA, .935 save percentage, 1 shutout
Where do we begin with Crawford’s performance this year? After listening to four extra months of offseason chatter about how he wasn’t good enough to take the Blackhawks to the next level, he has emphatically answered the bell with a fantastic start. He’s among the league’s leaders in every major statistical category.

BRay Emery
3 games, 3-0-0, 2.59 GAA, .920 save percentage
Emery had a rough first start against Phoenix, but his play has been stronger with each subsequent start. Certainly there are those that will question aspects of his game, but he was certainly good enough in Calgary to compensate for a mediocre offensive performance.

This entry was posted in Here come the Hawks... and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Chicago Blackhawks First Quarter Grades: Goaltenders

  1. Jake says:

    How is ray emery getting a B? He faced 45 shots against the flames and they only had 2 goals to show for it…. And it wasn’t all his fault I’m pretty sure all if not most hawks fans would say the team played terrible minus ray. Like coach Q said it was robbery. He may not be a starter but he’s got us a W when it was all said and done. He did his part as a backup

  2. db says:

    ..And I’d say that if your backup goaltender is getting a ‘B’, you’re doin alright.

  3. Brad Stevenson says:

    I would also say a “B” for Emery as he had one bad start, one outstanding start and one good start…the good news, is that the bad start was his first game of the season, and he has been outstanding since.

    CC has answered the critics for now…I still remember back to the Vancouver playoff series 2 years ago and how good CC was…I know that he can play at this level…I think the biggest thing for CC was learning how to let a bad goal go…he has already demonstrated that in San Jose this year…if this continues, we will be favourites to win it all once again.

  4. wall says:

    To all: Both Goalies get B’s or even incompletes-
    Why you ask?

    Cuz, right now the Hawks Team (D and Forwards backchecking are the reasons)- is the reason the goalies look so great!!!

    example) does Yotes Mike Smith suddenly suck ( vs. Hawks 2013 – 7.5 gaa vs. last year’s playoffs) or is the Yotes system and team the reason??? I think the latter.

    Just as I always contended that Keith did not win the Norris 2010… The Hawks Team did!!!

    Yes Emery faced a boatload of shots vs. Flames… but really the shots (several from Glenncross) were from some so close you could have just laid a Goalie pad in front of net- and the pad would have stopped them! Yes, Emery did not panick and belly-roll like Turco would have…

    The Hawks are not giving up too many odd man rushes and rebounds are being pounces on!

    The HAWKS are keeping the Puck out of their D-Zone!!!! This is not the Goalies doing!

    I am not Being negative on Goalies… Just saying!!!

  5. Negzz says:

    I have been (and continue to be), one of Crawfords biggest skeptics. BUT, you can’t argue with his results, on stats alone he’s deserving of an A grade to date. Bottom line, although he’s not been THE reason the Hawks are winning, he’s been much better than expected and if he continues to play this well (and if the TEAM continues to play so well in front of him), he may prove to be Niemi-like in pursuit of the cup in ’12-’13.. Still waiting for CC to show he can win a game on his own (ala Emery in Calgary), as he’ll need to in the playoffs when things get tighter… Hoping he continues to hang tough and his self confidence continues to grow…

  6. Mike says:

    You could argue, for many of the reasons above, that RE gets the A and CC gets a B. I think RE’s play play so far is helping Crawford. Success can be a huge motivator. Crawford has been around for a while but did not (has not) matured quickly. In the end CC is a solid NHL goalie made better by RE.

  7. Vinnie says:

    I totally agree with wall on this one, I have been one of the few Crawford fans even through his spell of well, garbage plays and soft goals, but I truly believe in a sophmore slump and when everyone was ready to throw him to the wolves I was really glad they didn’t. With all that being said this start has been absolutely amazing, and I am so proud to be a hawks fan right now, but outside of a couple good saves, his numbers are really coming from a great team game. That is not a bad thing at all, I would much rather have a whole team playing well with a goalie who will be there almost every time rather than a team who makes their goalie attempt to make 40-45 saves a game because the D is terrible.

    As for the grades themselves, regardless of how people think he is playing, how can you not give an A to a goalie who is 7-0-2, 1.62 GAA, .935 save percentage, and getting the hawks their first shutout in 2 years(maybe more, honestly the last one I remember was Niemi, but I am sure I am wrong on that one). I think he hasn’t been tested enough but I am certain, he could use the confidence boost after a whole season and summer of people putting him down and trade rumors. I believe he could be the Crawford that showed up 1st round in Vancouver 2 years ago, and this is the start he needed.

    As for emery, 3 good wins, good numbers, how can you complain? But he was not nearly tested enough to give him an A or showed anything less than a B. I totally agree with that grade.

  8. Tab Bamford says:

    You know what’s nice? We’re arguing over whether or not Crawford and Emery deserve an A or a B, and not who might be available on the trade market. Kudos to both of them for showing up ready to go when the season started.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>