HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Philadelphia Flyers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
-   -   Giroux not a finalist for the Hart Trophy? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1178965)

pelts35.com 04-27-2012 10:09 AM

Giroux not a finalist for the Hart Trophy?
 
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=629858

Seems to me that the Lightning still wouldn't have made the playoffs without Stamkos so how is he more "valuable" than Giroux?

Alchemy 04-27-2012 10:11 AM

Another flyer snubbed.

markzab 04-27-2012 10:11 AM

I don't disagree with this. The reason the Flyers did so well this year was because we were getting scoring from areas of our line up that nobody had expected. Giroux is not the reason we made the playoffs, and I'd even dare say had he not been here we still make them without him. Our forwards were amazing this year.

PS. Love Giroux. No disrespect.

SnS 04-27-2012 10:42 AM

You need to ask yourself, where Tampa would actually be without Stamkos.

He's not the reason their team is so bad.

Flyersfan1493 04-27-2012 10:45 AM

This may be selfish of me, but I kinda like it when our players don't win individual awards. It's something the players don't have when they negotiate for a new contract.

This is funny for me as well, because I'm almost always pro-players in many CBA related issues.

Vikke 04-27-2012 10:47 AM

Doesn't matter really, Malkin will win it anyway. Sure, I agree G deserves it more than Stamkos, but who cares?
G has his sights set on two other shiny objects, the Conn Smythe and the Stanley Cup. Stamkos is shining his iron set.

ICAPNASTYI 04-27-2012 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markzab (Post 48922087)
I don't disagree with this. The reason the Flyers did so well this year was because we were getting scoring from areas of our line up that nobody had expected. Giroux is not the reason we made the playoffs, and I'd even dare say had he not been here we still make them without him. Our forwards were amazing this year.

PS. Love Giroux. No disrespect.

:laugh: You think we would have made the playoffs without Giroux? That's ridiculous.

Prongo 04-27-2012 10:52 AM

https://twitter.com/#!/BroadStBull/s...01623640399873

Quote:

Giroux on Hart snub: "At the end of the day, that's not the trophy I want."
The kid doesn't care and I don't care. Just win that other trophy!

FlyersMania2 04-27-2012 10:57 AM

Someone on twitter made a great point...

If Homer isn't a nominee for GM of the Year, Read isnt a nominee for Calder and Giroux isn't a nominee for Hart, who should be credited for Flyers' success?

flyerfanish 04-27-2012 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICAPNASTYI (Post 48923869)
:laugh: You think we would have made the playoffs without Giroux? That's ridiculous.

agreed

Protest 04-27-2012 11:01 AM

Malkin had the most points, Stamkos had 60 goals, and Lundqvist was the most important part of the #1 team in the conference.

The only person you could argue him being there over is the goalie because they have a separate award, but I don't think this was that big of a snub. If he had played a full season and hit 100 points, then it would be different.

FlyersMania2 04-27-2012 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Protest (Post 48924309)
Malkin had the most points, Stamkos had 60 goals, and Lundqvist was the most important part of the #1 team in the conference.

The only person you could argue him being there over is the goalie because they have a separate award, but I don't think this was that big of a snub. If he had played a full season and hit 100 points, then it would be different.

eh...idk I think quick is a stronger argument than Lundqvist. Quick had 10 shutouts...thats ten wins directly related to him...without those ten wins, Kings don't make the playoffs.

Hank is a spectacular goaltender but the Rags' shotblocking is def a key to their success as well. Plus, you could argue that without Hank's shutouts then Rangers would undoubtedly still make the playoffs.

Ryker 04-27-2012 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyersMania2 (Post 48924103)
Someone on twitter made a great point...

If Homer isn't a nominee for GM of the Year, Read isnt a nominee for Calder and Giroux isn't a nominee for Hart, who should be credited for Flyers' success?

Bad logic is bad.

On topic, while I don't think Giroux is undeserving of a nomination, I also see nothing wrong with the choice presented. He could easily be there, and if there's anyone I think he could replace, it's Lundquist. But like I said, no terrible injustice has been done by him not being there, either.

Spongolium* 04-27-2012 11:21 AM

Clearly should have been Giroux, Quick and Malkin

EvilAsh 04-27-2012 11:22 AM

Is anybody really surprised by this? He will be recognized next year. It always takes a couple of dominant seasons before a player get noticed by the NHL higher ups.

FlyersMania2 04-27-2012 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryker (Post 48925095)
Bad logic is bad.

On topic, while I don't think Giroux is undeserving of a nomination, I also see nothing wrong with the choice presented. He could easily be there, and if there's anyone I think he could replace, it's Lundquist. But like I said, no terrible injustice has been done by him not being there, either.

He could replace Stamkos...let's be honest. Stamkos is amazing...but does he really make the people around him better? His value to the team is that he scores more than the rest of his team but is he doing the other things?

DrinkFightFlyers 04-27-2012 11:34 AM

No qualms with this at all. I love Giroux, but it is hard to argue that he had a better season than Stamkos or Lundqvist. Obviously Malkin gets the nod and will likely win (though I don't think it is out of the question to give it to Lundqvist). But Stammer had 60 goals, ten more than anyone else. If you are ten goals ahead of second place, you are going to get nominated every year, especially in this NHL where 50 goals is becoming less and less common. Lundqvist also put up some monster numbers with the Rangers, if anyone should be labeled a snub it should be Jon Quick. He had .001 less save percentage, lower GAA, and more shutouts than Lundqvist.

Ryker 04-27-2012 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyersMania2 (Post 48925435)
He could replace Stamkos...let's be honest. Stamkos is amazing...but does he really make the people around him better? His value to the team is that he scores more than the rest of his team but is he doing the other things?

Yeah, I agree, there'd be nothing wrong with it, and I think the only lock on that list is Malkin.

ORYX 04-27-2012 12:00 PM

I don;t know why people get so hell bent when these nominations come out. If you think Giroux, Holmgren and Read are the only 'Snubs' lets get serious.

Each one of them is boarderline within their respective categoies, and I bet each one of them finished in voting just outside of the top 3.

Who do you credit for the teams success? Oh, I don't know, how about the collective efforts of everyone from the top down?

Theres a trophy for that, it's called Lord Stanley's Mother ****in' Cup!

Lets get the one that matters, the only one which is dependent on the teams performance, not some hack media personnel....To say that many members of the voting media are more educated on the game of hockey thus get a vote over a smart fan is absurd, but hey, thats a rant for another day.

Beef Invictus 04-27-2012 12:01 PM

Realistically, Giroux is probably 5th behind Quick as well.

Damaged Goods 04-27-2012 12:13 PM

If Lundqvist, why not Smith or Quick?

Edit: Smith got snubbed for the Vezina as well.

RJ8812* 04-27-2012 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh0otnSc0re (Post 48923421)
You need to ask yourself, where Tampa would actually be without Stamkos.

He's not the reason their team is so bad.

Without Stamkos they would score 60 less goals, but also give up 60 less goals

I've never been a Stamkos fan because the guy is always looking to pad his offensive stats while blowing defensive coverages.

I will take Giroux over Stamkos any day of the week

Teezax 04-27-2012 12:18 PM

So stupid that goalies are involved in this.
Whatever, gives G more to prove in the playoffs, i'll settle for him taking home Conn Smythe and a stanley cup ring.

phillyfanatic 04-27-2012 12:32 PM

I can't even fathom how you think Stamkos and Malkin are more valuable than Giroux. Lundquist I get, but there is already a goalie trophy, so he shouldn't be there either.

Think about it:
Malkin - led the league in points.
Stamkos - led the league in goals
Giroux - third in points, second in assists, first in PP points. The difference is, Giroux actually plays all areas. Plays first PK, first PP, plays against the other teams best when needed, etc.

Malkin - outstanding offensive player. Best offensive player in the league
Stamkos - outstanding goal scorere. Best scorer in the league (Rocket Richard)
Giroux - Most Valuable Player in the league.

The only guys I think compare to Giroux for value to their teams are guys like Toews, Datsyk, etc. IMHO

Bryz4shiz 04-27-2012 12:55 PM

I'm not really surprised at all. Stamkos willed his team into the playoff discussion. I see G as being behind Quick too, who I think should've gotten to nomination of Lundqvist


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:45 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.