| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| I HATE CROSBY |
Posted - 04/18/2008 : 17:55:29
I think the title says it all. Roy was the greatest ever. Brodeur has s*** the bed the last 5 years in the playoffs. Say what you will about the Devils not being as good as they were back in the day, but the overall talent of this team getting owned by the rangers is far better than those 2 Habs teamed Roy carried to the Cup. Brodeur has never won a conne smythe and roy holds the record. Roy's canadians neevr heard of the term "trap" (the style that won the devils all they're cups). The had some lame, box-style defense taught by an il-literate coach and relied on Roy to steal the show night in and night out. Brodeur will break all of roys records (except the conne smythe one), but those are just numbers, and for those of you who saw roy play, you know exactly where I'm coming from......
Oh, and the only thing Price and Roy have in common is the were both 20 once....Even if the Habs win the cup this year, Price took a first place team to the cup....Roy came out of absolutely nowhere, and took a mediocre team to the promised land.
Sugar Ray over Hasek any day! |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Guest4086 |
Posted - 11/10/2008 : 13:15:30
Wow, a lot of hot air being blown around here on this one.
Clearly cases can be made for both goalies being great, and marking their spots in the top 5 of all time. The stats don't lie. But at the same time, the stats don't tell the whole story. The great goalies from back in the 50's and 60's (perhaps even the 70's) didn't have a full 82 game schedule each year. They also didn't have 4 rounds of 7-game playoff series each year. They probably also didn't play for as many years as the goalies do these days. Hence, less opportunity's to get as many wins/shutouts as Roy and Brodeur.
But in a straight up comparison of the two, I would have to say Roy is the better of the two. 4 Stanley Cup rings, with two different teams. Tough to beat that one. And although Brodeur does have 3 rings, I don't think anyone can convince me that he stole as many playoffs games as Roy did. Case in point: How many Cups has Brodeur won since Scott Stevens retired? ZERO! |
| Guest5052 |
Posted - 11/10/2008 : 12:36:07
Roy and Brodeur are both great goalies.
For me the fact that when both were in their prime (more or less in Brodeurs case) Hasek won the Vezina 6 times as judged by the league (and hart twice) over both of them tells you who the best goalie was (not which goalie had the most playoff success, which is a team effort, even if that team is "relatively mediocre" and the goalie is a massive part of that team)... remember in 86 the Habs didn't beat anyone above them in the standings except the flames in the finals , so the whole league save the oilers was probably relatively mediocre and the 93 Habs had a relatively easy run to the Cup esp when the Islanders knocked off the Pens)... This is not to say that Brodeur or Roy aren't great goalies or they didn't deserve their playoff success, but rather that Hasek was judged (and rightly so in my opinion) to be the better goalie in those 8 years (their primes). |
| TimHorton |
Posted - 11/10/2008 : 07:29:11
TROLLING THE INTERENT AND FOUND A FUNNY COMMENT MADE ABOUT BRODEUR WHEN HE GOT HIS 98TH SHUT OUT.
"New Jersey Devils goalie Martin Brodeur recorded his 98th Shutout in a win over the Stars. brodeur said shutouts are easy for him, becasue New Jersey and zeros go hand in hand." |
| fanoleaf |
Posted - 11/08/2008 : 11:24:53
sticking to the topic of goaltending they have both been great for thier teams and for the game of Hockey. Broduer is coming close to the records and likely will set new ones once he returns.
As far as off the ice we know that Roy is a whack job and look at him.... is he all there? But Broduer is not a boy scout either. I remember him making news, that his wife left him after she found out he was BANG'N her sister.
|
| Guest6503 |
Posted - 11/02/2008 : 13:40:02
Definetly Roy is a great goalie but look at there attitudes and I'd have to say that Brodeur is a team player. Brodeur by the way is also going for the wins record and the shut-out record which proves that he isn't just a top 5 goalie. |
| Axey |
Posted - 11/02/2008 : 12:35:15
I don't hate either, but I like Brodeur better even though I'm a huge Habs fan.. and actually for the guy who said Brodeur was spearheading the smaller equipment move .. roy actually did .. Luongo is quoted saying that roy just doesn't want other goalies to break his records..
Chicago Blackhawks GM
Jesus didn't tap. |
| Guest7926 |
Posted - 11/02/2008 : 02:51:38
all you roy haters are all idoits, and for the guy above me, who cares what he told his son to do, the kid can make up his own mind, what was the other goalie thinking? Oh he come the other goalie maybe he wants to have a chat without his mask, blocker, and cathcer on. the other goalie was and still is a idoit to. Brodeur is and always will be a great goalie but Roy is and always will be far better. Even Brodeur has said it himself. Roy haters get over it he better and that's that |
| Guest9615 |
Posted - 11/01/2008 : 16:03:25
hmm, I thought this thread was about goaltending |
| Matt_Roberts85 |
Posted - 10/21/2008 : 10:51:54
Brodeur is better because he never played for the Habs. |
| 99pickles |
Posted - 10/20/2008 : 11:00:23
quote:
Originally posted by OILINONTARIO
Here's an interesting example of how arbitrary statistics can be used to prove a point. At the start of the season, Brodeur was 62 games shy of having accrued the most career losses of all time. Therefore, if he plays four more years, he will almost certainly be considered the worst goaltender ever.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2009.
I love this!
(for the humour though because I choose Brodeur in this debate)
|
| Guest4910 |
Posted - 10/19/2008 : 17:01:43
I think it's hard to compare 2 goalers of 2 different generations...
but if i have to decide who's best, i would say Roy. Roy won 2 stanley cup with Montreal by himself....those in Colorado were because of stacked team. At the end of the 80s and beginning of 90s, Roy was way ahead of all the others. The good goalies back then were Mike Vernon, Ed belfour, Pete Peters, Ron Hextall, Kirk McClean and Grant Fuhr, but they were a big step below Roy.
For Brodeur, he is good, but is he that good compare to Luongo, Hasek, Turco, Lundqvist, Kipprusoff...
Roy played with those tiny pads when he started, and with those pads, goalies needed great reflexes and a great technic. Roy was one of the first to use the butterfly style.
In recent years, NHL was talking about reducing goalies' equipment, and who's the first to fight that idea? Yes, Brodeur... |
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 10/19/2008 : 04:00:09
Here's an interesting example of how arbitrary statistics can be used to prove a point. At the start of the season, Brodeur was 62 games shy of having accrued the most career losses of all time. Therefore, if he plays four more years, he will almost certainly be considered the worst goaltender ever.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2009. |
| Guest5549 |
Posted - 10/19/2008 : 03:10:37
BRODEUR is by far the better goaltender, I think Roy was the king of over sized pads and very very much over rated, while he had some good years in the beginning, I have seen many many goaltenders have some good years, and some great playoff performances. You allways talk about the Devils and thier trap, if you really watch allot of Avs games, you will see, there is not allot of quality shots lets thru, mostly difficult angle shots, the Avs D is set up that way so you could not get to many quality chances, I have seen many Avs games in Denver, and my god, the puck could hit him in the chest without him even moving or seeing it coming and they are yelling what a save, what a save. Roy was a positional goaly, and the Avs D would only allow shots from the side angle 90% of the time, I dont know how many times I have seen a 5 hole shot thru his legs, I think the media tried to hype him up to promote the game, but the man was not in any sense worthy of it. I have pictures of his earlier days and his days with Colorado, you would be amazed at the Pad size difference, I do know his was a topic of discussion when the changed the rules for limiting pad size, and I do know the rules were getting stricter the year he retired. You look at his game 7 records the last 5 or so years, he was the MAN you did NOT want in there, Roy allways blamed others for his shortcomings, Brodeur did not, Personally I like most people cant wait till Brodeur, beats his record, At least it will belong to someone who loves the game, instead of himself, someone who puts the team winning in front of personal records. Good luck Martin
|
| Guest6475 |
Posted - 05/26/2008 : 17:13:17
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6678
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Let's look at the roster again. Although I admit the '86 team was "good" (rather than "mediocre"), when I look at the group below, I don't think it's so far fetched to say that, compared to other championship teams of the last 40 years, this group was, relatively speaking, "mediocre".
WELL PAST HIS PRIME Bob Gainey
Rick Green
Ryan Walter
WELL PAST HIS PRIME Mario Tremblay
Bobby Smith
WELL PAST HIS PRIME Larry Robinson
Guy Carbonneau
Chris Chelios
Petr Svoboda
Mats Naslund
Claude Lemieux
Mike McPhee
Brian Skrudland
Stephane Richer
So Roy led a good (but arguably the most "mediocre") group of guys in the last 40 years to the Cup in '86. I mean, don't get me wrong, these are good players above, some very good. But line them up against just about any other Cup team and I think you'll see what I mean. And the fact that they went 7 games against Hartford in the second round that year shows on the one hand that they were no powerhouse, and on the other hand the importance of Roy again (as in 5 out of those 7 games, the Whalers were held to two or less goals!).
Sorry Hab fans - but come to grips with it - in '86 a gem of a goalie helped in a big way to bring you (or your brothers, sisters, parents) a lot of joy. On this night of all nights, perhaps some of you can understand this fact. Or more to the point, you can cherish and APPRECIATE this fact.
Edit - oh yes, one team that perhaps rivals this group for the "good but, relatively speaking, mediocre" title is the '93 Habs (with a WELL past his prime Denis Savard by the way!) - who was their goalie again?
Yeah but you are ignoring the players were in their prime and the future rising talent...Chelios (future Norris defensemen) Lemieux (proved to be one of the greatest playoff performers of all time), Carbonneau (three-time Selke winner) Richer (2-time 50 goal scorer and pretty good goal scorer over his career) Naslund (scored over 100 points in 85-86 an averaged 90 points per season in his 7 year NHL career) Bobby Smith (1036 points in in only 1077 games).
And even Robinson had 82 points in a year he was supposedly well past his prime and he played 6 more years after that one!!!
The 93 Habs had a pretty good collection of players too, they were just badly underestimated (even this year's Wings were underestimated by some people so go figure). The 93 Habs were not mediocre unless you consider 6th overall out of 24 teams to be mediocre.
I agree the Habs would not have won the 86 and 93 Cups without Roy but a team not winning the Cup without their goalie can be said about almost ANY Cup winning team...the Wings of the 90s were upset a few times until they got Vernon, the Devils would have won their Cups without Brodeur (and really the 95 Devils were just as badly overlooked as the 93 Habs).
STRONGLY disagree.
Any of the Canadiens teams who won in the 70's, the early 80's Islanders, the mid 80's Oilers, the early 90's Penguins, the late 90's Red Wings. They all could have and would have won the Cup with just about any other goalie. In fact, I can think of only the Devils, Stars, Avalanche, and the 86 and 93 Candiens that would not have won without their goalie. Pretty much any other Cup winner in the past 30 years could have been replaced with a different goalie. Some of them could have won with a shooter tutor in net.
Roy was the absolute largest reason, and therefore only reason that the Candiens have any Cups in the 80's or 90's.
the comparison is to broduer not teams of 70s no team can andyhack said in the last 40 yrs go back ans see where montreal finished in standings i stand by no 1 goalie of all time should set at least one record aside from playing 20 yrs. he has most playoff games so that means his team was usually good eough to make play offs . Question how many wins did his team average and the a year or two e before roy the great penny took the cdns far |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/19/2008 : 05:36:16
Just read our distinguished Guest's posts (busy last week).
This topic goes on and on (sorry!). But one of the reasons I keep coming back to it is that, perhaps more than any other topic, this one has led to an unfair myth in my opinion - the myth that Patrick Roy played on "great" teams in Montreal. And I am NOT saying the teams were "mediocre". This was a fine point by me, so I understand that people might have misread it, but you'll see that I never used the word "mediocre" by itself to describe those Habs teams. I used "relatively mediocre". And there is a huge difference. The point, as Sir Beans mentioned, is that compared to Ken Dryden's Habs, and Billy Smith's Islanders, and Grant Fuhr's Oilers and Tommy Barraso's Penguins, and not only that, whoever's Red Wings and, yes, Marty's Cup-winning Devils, those Habs teams were in a lower class. And that is not to say that any of the goalies I just mentioned didn't contribute significantly to their team's wins. It is just saying that their teams were better, and if you had to throw the label "great" on one team or the other, you would throw it on their teams rather than the '86 and '93 Habs.
Also, three quick points on the Guest's points (good posts by the way):
1. Robinson had a great year in '85/86 and played 6 more years after that yes, but let's put it into context - the 35 year old Robinson of that season was nowhere near the Robinson of the mid to late '70s. It was his last hurrah I guess, and it was a very admirable one, but he was far from an elite player by then. And the 6 years after were basically twilight years for him.
2. Chelios - same point but in the opposite way I guess. He was developing into a great defenceman, but was he "great" yet? In my view, it was in the next couple of years after that where he really took off to the "great" level. Having said that, he was already playing at a high level, I'll give you that.
3. I disagree with you on the '95 Devils. This was a team that came very close in '94, before succombing to Messier's Rangers in the famous 7 game semi-final. They had been building towards that Cup for a few years. The '86 and '93 Hab wins were much more surprising.
Anyway, as I've said before, those Hab teams were good. I am not blind to that. You are right. Naslund, Smith and others - this was not a collection of mediocre hockey players (Edit - and they obviously played very well that year - I do NOT think it was JUST Roy). And the '93 team had some very good players too. BUT, listen to THEIR COACH! He said it before me Guest. They were "good". They were NOT "great".
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 10:16:08
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6678
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Let's look at the roster again. Although I admit the '86 team was "good" (rather than "mediocre"), when I look at the group below, I don't think it's so far fetched to say that, compared to other championship teams of the last 40 years, this group was, relatively speaking, "mediocre".
WELL PAST HIS PRIME Bob Gainey
Rick Green
Ryan Walter
WELL PAST HIS PRIME Mario Tremblay
Bobby Smith
WELL PAST HIS PRIME Larry Robinson
Guy Carbonneau
Chris Chelios
Petr Svoboda
Mats Naslund
Claude Lemieux
Mike McPhee
Brian Skrudland
Stephane Richer
So Roy led a good (but arguably the most "mediocre") group of guys in the last 40 years to the Cup in '86. I mean, don't get me wrong, these are good players above, some very good. But line them up against just about any other Cup team and I think you'll see what I mean. And the fact that they went 7 games against Hartford in the second round that year shows on the one hand that they were no powerhouse, and on the other hand the importance of Roy again (as in 5 out of those 7 games, the Whalers were held to two or less goals!).
Sorry Hab fans - but come to grips with it - in '86 a gem of a goalie helped in a big way to bring you (or your brothers, sisters, parents) a lot of joy. On this night of all nights, perhaps some of you can understand this fact. Or more to the point, you can cherish and APPRECIATE this fact.
Edit - oh yes, one team that perhaps rivals this group for the "good but, relatively speaking, mediocre" title is the '93 Habs (with a WELL past his prime Denis Savard by the way!) - who was their goalie again?
Yeah but you are ignoring the players were in their prime and the future rising talent...Chelios (future Norris defensemen) Lemieux (proved to be one of the greatest playoff performers of all time), Carbonneau (three-time Selke winner) Richer (2-time 50 goal scorer and pretty good goal scorer over his career) Naslund (scored over 100 points in 85-86 an averaged 90 points per season in his 7 year NHL career) Bobby Smith (1036 points in in only 1077 games).
And even Robinson had 82 points in a year he was supposedly well past his prime and he played 6 more years after that one!!!
The 93 Habs had a pretty good collection of players too, they were just badly underestimated (even this year's Wings were underestimated by some people so go figure). The 93 Habs were not mediocre unless you consider 6th overall out of 24 teams to be mediocre.
I agree the Habs would not have won the 86 and 93 Cups without Roy but a team not winning the Cup without their goalie can be said about almost ANY Cup winning team...the Wings of the 90s were upset a few times until they got Vernon, the Devils would have won their Cups without Brodeur (and really the 95 Devils were just as badly overlooked as the 93 Habs).
STRONGLY disagree.
Any of the Canadiens teams who won in the 70's, the early 80's Islanders, the mid 80's Oilers, the early 90's Penguins, the late 90's Red Wings. They all could have and would have won the Cup with just about any other goalie. In fact, I can think of only the Devils, Stars, Avalanche, and the 86 and 93 Candiens that would not have won without their goalie. Pretty much any other Cup winner in the past 30 years could have been replaced with a different goalie. Some of them could have won with a shooter tutor in net.
Roy was the absolute largest reason, and therefore only reason that the Candiens have any Cups in the 80's or 90's. |
| Guest6678 |
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 00:49:34
I suppose this could be said of any Cup winnig goalie...but Roy did NOT win the Cup more times than he did...if he was so good that he could singlehandedly lift mediocre teams to the Cup than why did he not win the Cup every single year he was in the playoffs...The Avalanche had some pretty stacked teams and they lost with Roy...so clearly the team in front of Roy was just as important as Roy himself. |
| Guest6678 |
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 00:45:49
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6678
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Let's look at the roster again. Although I admit the '86 team was "good" (rather than "mediocre"), when I look at the group below, I don't think it's so far fetched to say that, compared to other championship teams of the last 40 years, this group was, relatively speaking, "mediocre".
WELL PAST HIS PRIME Bob Gainey
Rick Green
Ryan Walter
WELL PAST HIS PRIME Mario Tremblay
Bobby Smith
WELL PAST HIS PRIME Larry Robinson
Guy Carbonneau
Chris Chelios
Petr Svoboda
Mats Naslund
Claude Lemieux
Mike McPhee
Brian Skrudland
Stephane Richer
So Roy led a good (but arguably the most "mediocre") group of guys in the last 40 years to the Cup in '86. I mean, don't get me wrong, these are good players above, some very good. But line them up against just about any other Cup team and I think you'll see what I mean. And the fact that they went 7 games against Hartford in the second round that year shows on the one hand that they were no powerhouse, and on the other hand the importance of Roy again (as in 5 out of those 7 games, the Whalers were held to two or less goals!).
Sorry Hab fans - but come to grips with it - in '86 a gem of a goalie helped in a big way to bring you (or your brothers, sisters, parents) a lot of joy. On this night of all nights, perhaps some of you can understand this fact. Or more to the point, you can cherish and APPRECIATE this fact.
Edit - oh yes, one team that perhaps rivals this group for the "good but, relatively speaking, mediocre" title is the '93 Habs (with a WELL past his prime Denis Savard by the way!) - who was their goalie again?
Yeah but you are ignoring the players were in their prime and the future rising talent...Chelios (future Norris defensemen) Lemieux (proved to be one of the greatest playoff performers of all time), Carbonneau (three-time Selke winner) Richer (2-time 50 goal scorer and pretty good goal scorer over his career) Naslund (scored over 100 points in 85-86 an averaged 90 points per season in his 7 year NHL career) Bobby Smith (1036 points in in only 1077 games).
And even Robinson had 82 points in a year he was supposedly well past his prime and he played 6 more years after that one!!!
The 93 Habs had a pretty good collection of players too, they were just badly underestimated (even this year's Wings were underestimated by some people so go figure). The 93 Habs were not mediocre unless you consider 6th overall out of 24 teams to be mediocre.
I agree the Habs would not have won the 86 and 93 Cups without Roy but a team not winning the Cup without their goalie can be said about almost ANY Cup winning team...the Wings of the 90s were upset a few times until they got Vernon, the Devils would have won their Cups without Brodeur (and really the 95 Devils were just as badly overlooked as the 93 Habs).
the Devils would "NOT" have won |
| Guest6678 |
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 00:42:07
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Let's look at the roster again. Although I admit the '86 team was "good" (rather than "mediocre"), when I look at the group below, I don't think it's so far fetched to say that, compared to other championship teams of the last 40 years, this group was, relatively speaking, "mediocre".
WELL PAST HIS PRIME Bob Gainey
Rick Green
Ryan Walter
WELL PAST HIS PRIME Mario Tremblay
Bobby Smith
WELL PAST HIS PRIME Larry Robinson
Guy Carbonneau
Chris Chelios
Petr Svoboda
Mats Naslund
Claude Lemieux
Mike McPhee
Brian Skrudland
Stephane Richer
So Roy led a good (but arguably the most "mediocre") group of guys in the last 40 years to the Cup in '86. I mean, don't get me wrong, these are good players above, some very good. But line them up against just about any other Cup team and I think you'll see what I mean. And the fact that they went 7 games against Hartford in the second round that year shows on the one hand that they were no powerhouse, and on the other hand the importance of Roy again (as in 5 out of those 7 games, the Whalers were held to two or less goals!).
Sorry Hab fans - but come to grips with it - in '86 a gem of a goalie helped in a big way to bring you (or your brothers, sisters, parents) a lot of joy. On this night of all nights, perhaps some of you can understand this fact. Or more to the point, you can cherish and APPRECIATE this fact.
Edit - oh yes, one team that perhaps rivals this group for the "good but, relatively speaking, mediocre" title is the '93 Habs (with a WELL past his prime Denis Savard by the way!) - who was their goalie again?
Yeah but you are ignoring the players were in their prime and the future rising talent...Chelios (future Norris defensemen) Lemieux (proved to be one of the greatest playoff performers of all time), Carbonneau (three-time Selke winner) Richer (2-time 50 goal scorer and pretty good goal scorer over his career) Naslund (scored over 100 points in 85-86 an averaged 90 points per season in his 7 year NHL career) Bobby Smith (1036 points in in only 1077 games).
And even Robinson had 82 points in a year he was supposedly well past his prime and he played 6 more years after that one!!!
The 93 Habs had a pretty good collection of players too, they were just badly underestimated (even this year's Wings were underestimated by some people so go figure). The 93 Habs were not mediocre unless you consider 6th overall out of 24 teams to be mediocre.
I agree the Habs would not have won the 86 and 93 Cups without Roy but a team not winning the Cup without their goalie can be said about almost ANY Cup winning team...the Wings of the 90s were upset a few times until they got Vernon, the Devils would have won their Cups without Brodeur (and really the 95 Devils were just as badly overlooked as the 93 Habs).
|
| Guest6678 |
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 00:16:56
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Absolutely, without question is was all Roy in 86. You could take any player off that team and they don't change. Take Roy off that team and they don't even get to sniff the mug.
Come on now "all" Roy? How many goals did Roy score in the 86 playoffs? |
| Guest7418 |
Posted - 05/12/2008 : 12:15:15
I just watch the 1986 game 1 of the Calgary/Montreal series on HNIC Classic last night.. and all I have to say is that i'm astonished by several things.
1. It was such bad hockey
2. How slow everyone was
3. I forgot how the refs used to put the whistle away in the playoffs. It was down-right embarassing all the things that they go. The literal muggings and tackling that went on... It was hard to watch.
4. Convinced me even more that Roy did nothing special. At least not in game 1, since that is fresh in my mind.
|
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/09/2008 : 07:00:19
quote:
Originally posted by Guest2047
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
I'm just trying to battle this myth put out there by guys who infer that Roy's place in history has so much to do with the teams he played on, particularly when the inference is referring to the '86 and '93 Montreal teams. That's just 100% percent false.
That's certainly an opinion. But you havent provided anything but subjective input. I certainly don't agree.
Well, okay, I'll insert the magical words "in my opinion". How's this?
In my opinion, the Habs in '86 and '93 were good, but not great teams. As support for this admittedly entirely subjective opinion, for the '93 team anyway, I give you Jacques Demers, the coach of the Habs that year, who said,
"The 1993 Canadiens were a good team but not a great team."
In my opinion, if the coach of the team says that the team was "good" but NOT "great", that tells you something.
So the next time someone says something like "Put Roy on anoher team and see how he does" (thereby implying that he played on "great" teams), I hope people will see that comment for the nonsense that it is. That is, in my opinion, of course. |
| Guest2047 |
Posted - 05/07/2008 : 11:43:39
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
I'm just trying to battle this myth put out there by guys who infer that Roy's place in history has so much to do with the teams he played on, particularly when the inference is referring to the '86 and '93 Montreal teams. That's just 100% percent false.
That's certainly an opinion. But you havent provided anything but subjective input. I certainly don't agree. Roy was really good, sometimes really really great, but that still doesnt make him not overrated in general.
There were lots better.... also.. I'd take Brodeur over Roy in a heartbeat. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 21:31:07
I'm getting bored tonight with CNN and all the non-stop back and forth on Obama-Clinton, so I decided to go fishing on the internet on this Roy topic.
What I found was this quote from Jacques Demers (coach of the '93 Habs):
"He made me a very good coach," Demers said. "I'm honest and I tell the truth. The truth is I would not have a Stanley Cup ring if not for Patrick Roy."
Also, below is a telling article by Demers:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/columnist/2003-05-28-demers_x.htm
I certainly can understand why some people don't like Patrick Roy (though personally I don't see him as such a bad guy, and I think there are good sides to him too).
I'm just trying to battle this myth put out there by guys who infer that Roy's place in history has so much to do with the teams he played on, particularly when the inference is referring to the '86 and '93 Montreal teams. That's just 100% percent false. |
| Guest4803 |
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 16:56:29
ya patrick roy what a stand up guy, my fav roy moment was in montreal when he let in what was it 8-9 goals spazzed at everyone then demanded out. Now hes teaching his son how to assault people..classy. |
| Guest7418 |
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 11:25:27
I was never a Roy hater... I grew to be a Roy hater solely based on his overratedness and inflated ego. |
| Guest6796 |
Posted - 05/06/2008 : 10:46:45
I like Marty's Personality better.
Roy was a bit of a spaz |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 20:48:29
quote:
mediocre are you kidding you also forgot bellows muller dipetro dionne richer
Muller, Bellows, Dipietro and Dionne were on the '93 team, not the '86 team.
Richer did turn into a 50 goal scorer in the late 80s. In '86 he was a 20 goal scorer. He was a good, strong and fast player though, no question.
Bobby Smith was an 86 point guy in '86. He was a pretty good player too, I'll admit. I wouldn't call him a "great" though.
You make Carbo sound like some type of God. He was good defensively, yes, but even with his strong effort, the guy between the pipes still had to shine big-time very often in '86, including a 7th game overtime against the Whalers. Guy did not come anywhere near totally shutting down the top guys on other teams. There were still loads and loads of great chances. You say you watched the games. Maybe you should go back and watch them again.
But again, I wouldn't use the word "mediocre" to describe that team. I know they had good players and that they won as a team. I'm just saying that compared to the '70s Habs, the '80s Isles, the '80s Oilers, the 90s Penguins and the more recent Wings, Devils and Avs teams, I think they were, relatively speaking, "mediocre". And don't forget that the '89 Flames beat a probably better version of that Habs team in the final that year.
Of course you are right, you don't have to like Roy. Just appreciate his contribution, whatever it was. If you do, great. if not, well, as I said, it's hard for a long-time Cupless Boston fan like me to understand. Even at the percentage you have attributed to his contribution (20%), it's still a pretty significant contribution, worthy of appreciation.
As for Roy being overrated, I think it's just the opposite on this site. A lot of people seem to simply forget or ignore things in this discussion just because they don't like the guy. This Brodeur debate for instance. When these two guys were up against one another in the biggest of stages in the 2001 final, it was CLEARLY Roy, not Brodeur, who came up huge for his team. The Avs had some great defencemen, yes, but for the first half of Game 6 of that series, the Devils were all over them. Of course Roy didn't win that, or any, Cup all on his own, but if you go back and watch that Game 6 again, I think you'll agree with me that he basically stole that game (and therefore the Cup) from the Devils that night.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 20:24:20
I am not a Patrick Roy fan. Never really have been. I alway though he was a bit of a fruit cake. However, not being a fan and respecting the game he played is two totally different things.
Anyone who can disagree that Patrick Roy was the biggest reason that the Habs won that year is, in my opinion, one of two things.
A) Not old enough to remember
B) A pure hater of Patrick Roy.
Seriously, if 86 wasn't enough, what was 93???
Getting back to the origins of this thread, please explain the rationale behind taking Brodeur ahead of Roy for a playoff series?? |
| Guest2047 |
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 17:39:04
Roy *IS* completely overrated. Top 20 goalie of all time? Yes. Top 10? d e b a t a b l e. |
| Guest6443 |
Posted - 05/04/2008 : 17:19:20
the only records roy has relates to longetivity most playoff wins yes but also most playoff games and most playoff lossess as with most games played reg season but he (dosent have most shotouts) which is a golaie ultimate job. He revoloutiionized the way goalies play and i beleive is responsible in prt for scoring going down as thousands of kids emulate him. |
| Guest6443 |
Posted - 05/04/2008 : 17:09:40
WELL PAST HIS PRIME Bob Gainey
Rick Green
Ryan Walter
WELL PAST HIS PRIME Mario Tremblay
Bobby Smith
WELL PAST HIS PRIME Larry Robinson
Guy Carbonneau
Chris Chelios
mats naslund
Claude Lemieux
Mike McPhee
Brian Skrudland
Stephane Richer
mediocre are you kidding you also forgot bellows muller dipetro dionne richer50 goal bobby smith 100 pt guy backchecking chelios naslund 90 to100 pts i appreciate what roy did as a fan dosent have to mean i love him its a gameeeeeeeeeee never saved my life gave me a kidney he didnt play for me he played for himself as a montreal fan it is annoying you assume he won it by himself no goalie has won a stanley cup from start to finish since expansion im going by the saves and difficulty of saves he is amazing but why wasnt he picked for canada when he never made palyoffs or was out early and his dropped puck vs detroit showboatin didddddddddd cause them the cup that year And i dont beleive at win at all cost i like the 1986 win as he wasnt full of himeself like he became in colorado how many vezinas did he win and he usualyy only played 50 percent or 40 to 48 games a yr not 60 to70 games which do you think its easier to maintain a level of excellence. to say he was best hds down is a disservice to other goalies. Lundquist just got boucned from playoffs is he a bad goalie or ny defence non existent or penguins or fluey better. Fluery didnt beat lundquist pens did |
| Guest6443 |
Posted - 05/04/2008 : 16:51:56
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Absolutely, without question is was all Roy in 86. You could take any player off that team and they don't change. Take Roy off that team and they don't even get to sniff the mug.
sorry i disagree take anyone off that team and you dont win it takes a team to win a championship ask any member of stanlely cup champion thats why they put all the players name on the cup you play one shift score a goal or prevent one and you helped win that cup. Idont disagree that roy was a big part but he was probably 20 percent of reason not 100 percent as people say and these people past their prime you didnt watch the games ie charbonneau shutting down top line and getting points i think roy is in the top 5 maybe even 1 but brodeur deserves credit compare that roster to new jerseys besides stevens niedermayer who else will go into hall |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/03/2008 : 21:29:31
Absolutely, without question is was all Roy in 86. You could take any player off that team and they don't change. Take Roy off that team and they don't even get to sniff the mug.
|
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/03/2008 : 20:40:28
Let's look at the roster again. Although I admit the '86 team was "good" (rather than "mediocre"), when I look at the group below, I don't think it's so far fetched to say that, compared to other championship teams of the last 40 years, this group was, relatively speaking, "mediocre".
WELL PAST HIS PRIME Bob Gainey
Rick Green
Ryan Walter
WELL PAST HIS PRIME Mario Tremblay
Bobby Smith
WELL PAST HIS PRIME Larry Robinson
Guy Carbonneau
Chris Chelios
Petr Svoboda
Mats Naslund
Claude Lemieux
Mike McPhee
Brian Skrudland
Stephane Richer
So Roy led a good (but arguably the most "mediocre") group of guys in the last 40 years to the Cup in '86. I mean, don't get me wrong, these are good players above, some very good. But line them up against just about any other Cup team and I think you'll see what I mean. And the fact that they went 7 games against Hartford in the second round that year shows on the one hand that they were no powerhouse, and on the other hand the importance of Roy again (as in 5 out of those 7 games, the Whalers were held to two or less goals!).
Sorry Hab fans - but come to grips with it - in '86 a gem of a goalie helped in a big way to bring you (or your brothers, sisters, parents) a lot of joy. On this night of all nights, perhaps some of you can understand this fact. Or more to the point, you can cherish and APPRECIATE this fact.
Edit - oh yes, one team that perhaps rivals this group for the "good but, relatively speaking, mediocre" title is the '93 Habs (with a WELL past his prime Denis Savard by the way!) - who was their goalie again?
|
| Guest4416 |
Posted - 05/03/2008 : 13:26:47
I agree that Brodeur has not had a good playoffs, but this debate has gone on for a long time... now. I agree with the side that believes that Roy was one of the most overrated goalies in NHL history. Great goalie, yes. One of the all time elite? Not even close. Okay, okay... Yes, I must at least agree that it's close. Put him on a medicre team and he quickly shows his true colors. Of course everyone has their opinion and most of my highly hockey knowledgeable brethren agree with me more than disagree, I'm sure there are other circles who believe the exact opposite. But Roy is certainly not in the category of other all time NHL greats where the vast vast majority all agree on their greatness. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/03/2008 : 13:01:45
quote:
im a habs fan who actually watched those games in 86 it is a huge disservice to hall of famersssssssssss robinson chelios savard smith maybe charbonneau bellows etc thta roy won cup
Is the above post from Chooch? Sounds a bit like Chooch.
I have never said the '86 Habs were not a good team. I just don't think they were a great team. Robinson, Tremblay, Gainey and others were well past their prime. They still played well obviously, but the guy with the 1.92 G.A.A. and the Conn Smythe was the key.
Guest 6400 - I watched all the games too. Having also watched the Habs of the '70s, I was already at that time all too familiar with the exploits of your favorite team. What I saw, more than the admittedly strong defensive work of Carbo, more than the admittedly uncanny clutchness of Claude Lemieux, more than the admittedly blossoming into greatness of Chelios, was the steady and sometimes (a lot of times) spectacular goaltending of the guy between the pipes. In my opinion if you replace that guy with any of Joseph, Brodeur, or Hasek, you Hab fans don't have an '86 Cup to talk about now.
BUT, even if I am wrong about that last opinion, here is THE main point. Guest - you are a Habs fan. You were therefore, I assume, very happy in '86 and '93. And I think even you would admit that the goalie played at least, let's say, "pretty well", for the team you were cheering for in those years. So you experienced the feeling of joy of having cheered for a team which won the Cup and yet instead of choosing to be very thankful for the contribution of that goalie, you, and many Hab fans like you, choose to emphasize some arguably not so good things about him. Some of you guys even say things like, "he was a suck". Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but it would seem to me that the "thankful" or "appreciative" side should far outweigh the "he was a suck" side for a Habs fan.
I don't know, maybe you have to be a long suffering Bruins fan to get this point. Some of you Hab fans take for granted the good fortune that has landed in your backyard. The way you don't show your appreciation for Roy's contribution is proof postive of this. That's my main point. |
| Guest6400 |
Posted - 05/03/2008 : 10:51:12
what about Cam ward tell me that was a expected cup or giguere with the ducks i found usually the best goalie loses ie joseph playing for st louis one year belfour chicago ,one year hextall hate to say vs oilers was by far the better goalie if he was in edmontons net it would have been four game sweep. Everyone is alowwed an opinion best goalies ive seen play esposito fuhr belfour roy dryden and even joseph for more than one season oh yeah tretiak and espo are the best ive seen russia didnt start losing world championships until he retired and havent had replacement since. |
| Guest6400 |
Posted - 05/03/2008 : 10:37:18
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0001
New jersey's current team is nothing compared to the teams Roy ever played for, yet Brodeur has kept the devils in the playoffs season after season.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, here we go again! It's weird that a Boston fan like me, today of all days, actually can't help but get a bit pissed off again when he hears things like this. And it's not that I don't think Brodeur is/was a great goalie. I think a hell of a lot of Marty. But this line above again shows a complete and utter misunderstanding as to the NOT THAT GREAT teams Roy played for. They were good teams, sure (as Axey indicated in his post, the '93 team did have some offense), BUT, Guest 0001, Axey and others, come on, let's at least agree on this - those Hab teams in '86 and '93 were far from great and Roy deserves HUGE amounts of credit for leading them to their Cups.
Now, were they better than this year's version of the Devils. I suppose you could argue that they were, maybe a little anyway (this years Devils clearly had problems in the defensive zone which the previous Stevens/Neidermeyer led teams didn't have) BUT, believe me, those Montreal teams were not THAT much better, and regardless of that point, Roy's goaltending in those two playoff years was so absolutely spectacular that any comment which suggests that the Cups had more to do with the teams he played for is beyond silly.
So , yes, this year's (and last year's) version of the Devils were not so great and Marty deserves credit for their good regular season records for sure, but, as IHC points out, they haven't done much in the playoffs. Roy, on the other hand, took teams that maybe were marginally better to the Cup. And as for Marty's Cup years, in my opinion Marty's teams were at least a couple of steps up from Roy's teams.
But, you know, I'll say it again - COME ON! Let's get past this thing already! The two most surprising Cup Champions of the last 40 years were primarily due to Patrick Roy! It's that simple. Do I think he is a God? No. Do I think Guest 0001, and many others on this site, including a surprsiing number of unappreciative Habs fans, have no idea of the extent of his great performances in '86 and '93? Yes.
im a habs fan who actually watched those games in 86 it is a huge disservice to hall of famersssssssssss robinson chelios savard smith maybe charbonneau bellows etc thta roy won cup claude lemiex scored approx 7 or 8overtine they where in first the first 40 games than roy started sucking they came through goale can only do so much charboneea shut down the other team top lines and to compare nj team with any roy played for except the last cdn team that he bailed out on is riduculous they had elias gionta no d no d relly that would be ahlthats it check out rosters for roy sakic ring a bell forsberg foote bourque etc who has more cups more shoutouts soon roy is amazing but not as good as he thinks give the team in front credit it takes team to win without guys like lemieux dipietro mike keane benoit brunet sean hill lecair heard of him kirk muller rob ramage dionne roy wouldnt have his name on anything roy is also king of taking credit unless shoe is on other foot how many time was goals someon else fault he played better in playoff because defence is tighter no second shots he stole some games for montreal he had to his backup was red light racciot AGAINin in case you missed it they where running away with it early first 40 games it wasnt a surprise to us unappreciative fans they had a underrateed team same as broduer for his first cup. any olympic gold in roys past no he did not play for bad teams has rumoured he walked out on the bad ones |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/27/2008 : 08:58:47
quote:
Originally posted by Axey
Ok so what about the years he didnt win the cup(Roy) ... I'm sure eveyone was having this conversation about him
Well, to answer your question, in 1989 the Habs did not win the Cup but made it to the final. As I recall Roy played quite well in that run. In 1994 the Habs did not win the Cup, but Roy had that famous great Game 4 after getting his appendix removed, and then had an absolutely spectacular Game 5 against the Bruins. They still lost that series but really were only in it because of Roy's heroics.
Here's the thing that bugs me Axey and all you other unappreciative Hab fans out there. As I have mentioned many times, you guys have been QUITE fortunate over the years. Even you youngsters at least have all types of stories from your parents and all types of youtube highlights of Hab Cup victories to cherish. Unquestionably THE main reason for the fortune which Hab fans received in '86 and '93 was Patrick Roy. Yet, because he is a bit of a fruitcake sometimes (I admit that) you NOT ONLY knock him, but ALSO basically spit on him and what he brought you (or your parents), showing your complete lack of appreciation for what so many other fans of so many other cities long for (just ONE Cup would be VERY nice for many of us too). That, to me, is an indication of a certain lack of appreciation for what you have received. A lack of understanding of your good fortune. A lack of sensitivity for how much others have longed for that which you have received. So Hab fans who trash and cut loose even the guy who got them there because the guy is far from perfect are simply arrogant in my book. Some Hab fans were all over Guy Lafleur for this recent family mess for instance. Like you Hab fans of the '70s shouldn't be saying a HUGE thank you every time you have a chance to Guy for what he helped (very much) to bring you in the '70s. The same goes for Patrick!
Here's a prediction if the Habs win the Cup this year. And remember that I said this now! If the Habs win this year (likely with a big contribution from Kovalev) a couple years from now, I'm not sure when, Kovalev is going to do or say something that is also a bit "fruity" (cause let's face it, talented he may be, but he is also a bit of a fruitcake), and when that happens, Kovalev's contribution to the happiness and joy of Habs fans this year (if they win it all) will all be forgotten and he will be cut loose and trashed by a number of Hab fans in the same unfair and unappreciative way as Roy is by those same Hab fans now. And, unfortunately, unless some really (and truly) good and nice story comes to some other city, some Philly, Blues, Leafs, Canucks, Sabres, Bruins... fan who is still longing for a Cup is going to have to listen to that arrogance one more time.
|
|
|
