Fleury Question

No Quarter
11-05-2003, 05:10 PM
I know this is a dumbass question but honestly what's everybodies gut feeling so far, Is this kid gonna be the next Roy or Hasek?
Myself by seeing his mechanics, glove hand and, cat like quickness and also so far the icewater flowing threw his viens, I'll go out on a limb and say, to quote Stone Cold Steve Austin, OH HELL YEAH!!!
The only weakness I've noticed, and it isn't even a weakness, he's average at it is his stickhandling. But I do think he's the kind of player that will work on that aspect and become great at it.

JDB3939
11-05-2003, 05:14 PM
Roy could barely hold a stick when he came into the league.

Koltsov71
11-05-2003, 05:27 PM
I don't think it's fair to make comparisons.

All that I know is that he's 18 and playing very well. He should only improve from here on out. The sky is the limit for Fleury.

tom_servo
11-05-2003, 05:29 PM
Fleury is going to be one of the league's elite. Possibly, or even probably, becoming the best goaltender in Pittsburgh's history.

Don't compare him to Roy, or anyone else. That leads to disappointment or foolish elation. He'll become his own model, and follow his own path.

No Quarter
11-05-2003, 05:35 PM
Fleury is going to be one of the league's elite. Possibly, or even probably, becoming the best goaltender in Pittsburgh's history.

Don't compare him to Roy, or anyone else. That leads to disappointment or foolish elation. He'll become his own model, and follow his own path.

I know, Maybe it was wrong to compare him with legends.
I just basically wanted to know what everybodies gut feelings were that if he was gonna become one those legends.

The Tang
11-05-2003, 05:41 PM
there's a chance, but always good not to get your hopes up. from the times i've seen him, his skills are insane for an 18 year old goalie. i do think he is destined for greatness though

No Quarter
11-05-2003, 05:45 PM
I would agree.

AEKaki
11-05-2003, 06:19 PM
Fleury is going to be one of the league's elite. Possibly, or even probably, becoming the best goaltender in Pittsburgh's history.



That's it?
He's already the best goalie in Pittsburgh history.
You mean NHL history.

tom_servo
11-05-2003, 06:33 PM
That's it?
He's already the best goalie in Pittsburgh history.
You mean NHL history.

No, I don't mean NHL history.

If you recall, Barrasso had quite an NHL debut himself, not to mention tremendous playoff success. Don't sell him short.

Granted, our history of "good" goaltenders is indeed quite shallow, with Barrasso, and, say, Les Binkley, but give some respect to Tommy.

No Quarter
11-05-2003, 06:38 PM
No, I don't mean NHL history.

If you recall, Barrasso had quite an NHL debut himself, not to mention tremendous playoff success. Don't sell him short.

Granted, our history of "good" goaltenders is indeed quite shallow, with Barrasso, and, say, Les Binkley, but give some respect to Tommy.


Even though Barrasso was a jackass I still think he's a shoe-in hall of famer.

tom_servo
11-05-2003, 06:40 PM
Even though Barrasso was a jackass I still think he's a shoe-in hall of famer.

Well, I don't know about that. Certainly no shoe-in.

I'm not sure he had the individual numbers or accomplishments. But he was very good in his prime.

The Tang
11-05-2003, 07:11 PM
i think his chance of getting in is bettre than not. his accomplishments are over shadowed by the fact he was an ass and got a lot of people to hate him. it really detracts from hisa ccomplishments, even though it shouldnt. i hate him as a person, but he was a damn good goalie for us.

Der Schweinehund
11-06-2003, 12:20 AM
300 wins doesn't make u a shoe-in for hall of fame?

Not even getting the Vezina and Calder the same year?

What about 2 Stanley cups?


Don't sell Tom Barrasso short, as much of an ass he was, the guy was a solid goalie, i could understand why he was such an ass most of the time with his daughter's situation but still, the guy is a Pittsburgh legend also.

If Bernie Federko is a hall-of-famer, then Barrasso is definitely a hall of famer. THe only issue I see is the 'questionable' voting committee, which is manned by a great deal of media types who probably have some strong opinions on Barrasso.

Ultimately, the 'where's the stats' argument has come up for Grant Fuhr too given his numbers are significantly worse than other HOF goalies. I personally agree with Fuhr's selection though.

kutdacheez
11-06-2003, 03:23 AM
THe only issue I see is the 'questionable' voting committee, which is manned by a great deal of media types who probably have some strong opinions on Barrasso.
Good point. It was led in Pittsburgh by Dave Molanari who took it to a personal crusade IMHO. Allegedly caused by Barrasso's threat to punch him out in the locker room.
TOMMY BOY was the difference here just as Grant Fuhr was in Edmonton when they both faced break-a-way after break-a-way. It took a certain demeanor to play goal for both those teams . . . and that is why STATS 9any STATS) usually don't ever tell the real story.
Was Barrasso an "ass" as other posters seem to present with authority in their postings. It's funny, I've seen almost every game he played . . . and Der Schweinehund, if you remember, I was pretty active (on the old boards) trying to promote the Penguins make a deal to get him from Buffalo when most fans could see the missing link for a Stanley Cup was a good goalie here . . . yet, I know nothing except what I read from the media in regard to he was an "ass". Maybe some of those calling him an "ass" have some personal experiences they'd like to relate to all of us. If not, then I'd say they (the posters) are just repeating the words from some reporter. Sort of like the stereotype of gabbing, gossipy women.
Ultimately, the 'where's the stats' argument has come up for Grant Fuhr too given his numbers are significantly worse than other HOF goalies. I personally agree with Fuhr's selection though.
The mental outlook and attitude when either Fuhr or Barrasso were in net in an important game was a large reason for their success as their personal physical ability. Both always appeared nerveless. Both never seemed affected by bad goals or bad performances and adjusted to the level required by whoever the competition was. Both of them had the confidence that really is needed to be a good goalie . . . and a lot of the media type (especially with Barrasso critics) may have mistook some of the confidence for cockiness.

tom_servo
11-06-2003, 10:30 AM
If Bernie Federko is a hall-of-famer, then Barrasso is definitely a hall of famer. THe only issue I see is the 'questionable' voting committee, which is manned by a great deal of media types who probably have some strong opinions on Barrasso.

Ultimately, the 'where's the stats' argument has come up for Grant Fuhr too given his numbers are significantly worse than other HOF goalies. I personally agree with Fuhr's selection though.

Fair enough. But what I consider a shoe-in is someone who's inducted in his first or second year of eligibility. Barrasso will probably make it in within the decade.

No Quarter
11-06-2003, 11:30 AM
Fair enough. But what I consider a shoe-in is someone who's inducted in his first or second year of eligibility. Barrasso will probably make it in within the decade.


Yeah, I'd agree with that but I think the chances that he WON'T make it are slim and none.

The Tang
11-06-2003, 11:51 AM
i think he will easily make it within a decade. i'd say 2-3 eyars after eligibility