Everything is Elliot's fault, all the time. The shitty defense had zero to do with the goalie letting in 'soft' goals after a turnover turned into a 8 on 0 breakout.
I don't care what the defense does in front. That's irrelevant to my point. If it's a shot a goalie "should" stop 99% of the time, then he better damn well stop it, or else the goal is on him.
There have been a few he should have stopped, but IMO it is nowhere near the 50-50 someone else mentioned. If I have the time to go re-check, I would bet as many as 80% of the goals Elliott allowed were on the defense giving up ridiculous East-West passes with forwards not even trying to get back and help, usually from turnovers high in the offensive zone. Or letting someone get in front of the net completely alone. Yes, Elliott's last game was mostly on him. That, to me, is a consequence of lack of confidence to the defense being so crappy for 4 games in a row.
I didn't go back and check, but I'd bet it's closer to the 50/50 than 80/20. Goals were simply going through him. He allowed a lot of bad goals. Hitch hasn't started him since for that very reason. If most of those goals truly weren't Elliott's fault, he'd have been back in net after one or two starts from Allen. Elliott didn't even backup Allen in the one game. It was Halak on the bench, and he wasn't 100% ready to go.
I like Elliott and I'm confident he'll recover and turn things around. I'm just calling them as I see them. He was very bad during that stretch, and while the team didn't play well in front of him, (and yes, could have prevented some of those goals from happening), far too many goals Elliott allowed should have been stopped. When your team is struggling in front of you, you want your goalie to be solid. And Elliott wasn't.
With that said, I can't stand it when people blame the goalie for every goal. It's the lazy way to break down a play. When you see people blaming a goalie every time a goal is allowed, chances are they don't know what the hell they are talking about. But, obviously, that's not the case here.