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. Click the report to download a PDF version.

“PLAYING WITH A LEAD: During the regular season, Quick allowed just 17 goals when trailing by one goal and only eight (8) goals when trailing by two. But when he was leading by one, he allowed 33 goals. And when leading by two, he allowed 12 goals. Furthermore, he allowed 42 goals in the first period, 52 in the second, but only 37 in the third. This reveals that Quick is prone to losing focus in non-pressure or comfortable situations. He doesn’t seem to be as mentally sharp when the Kings are up by one or two goals, and he doesn’t play as sharp in the middle frame.”

In the first period, Quick allowed just one goal on 84 shots (.988 %). In the second frame, he allowed 12 goals on 73 shots (.836 %). In the third, he allowed just four goals on 54 shots for a .926 save percentage. In overtime he stopped 14 of 17 shots. Overall, Quick ended with 209 saves on 229 shots for a .913 save percentage and 3.16 goals-against average.

Within that breakdown, Quick surrendered five goals in the second period of Game 3 and three goals in the second period of Game 4. The only goal he allowed in Game 5 also came in the second period.

But don’t be fooled by Quick’s basic stats. He was way more effective and timely than they will show. But something is clearly going on during the second period, and it’s not easily defined by simply watching the games. Most of the second-period goals that he allowed were not weak or considered his fault. This could be a dynamic tied to team performance, or it could be all mental. Nobody knows except him.

Yet in the playoffs, regardless of situation or blame, a goaltender must stop every puck fired his way. It didn’t happen for Quick in this series, but I can safely say that he’s rapidly evolving into an elite starter. There’s no reason why he can’t win 40 games next season and earn recognition as a possible Vezina Trophy finalist.

It was very interesting for me to see this regular season trend spill over into the playoffs. As such, it becomes a dynamic to watch next season, one where Quick will surely look to build upon a tremendous and underrated season for the Los Angeles Kings.