View Single Post
11-26-2010, 05:38 PM
Goalie Guru*
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Durham
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by brianscot View Post
Ross Brooks was a dedicated career minor leaguer mostly with Providence in the AHL.

He was 36 when he finally made the Bruins and obviously benefited from Cheevers leaving, Johnston getting injured, and playing on a powerhouse team.

It goes without saying that if Brooks had been a gem, he would have made it sooner.

I'd have to credit his record to playing on the Orr/Esposito Bruins. If he had been that good, they wouldn't have traded for the over 40 Plante.

Nor would they have traded a very good second line center (Fred Stanfield) in order to get Gilles Gilbert.
With all do respect here is where the problem lays and why the 'star' goalies are over rated. I'll try and explain.

When a backup does well or a rookie or a guy in the league for short periods of time it's because he was "playing on a powerhouse team". When Brodeur, Dryden, and Sawchuck do it, it's because they were great goalies.

If Ross Brooks played for this same Boston team when he was 21 years old and not 36, or young like Brodeur, Dryden and Sawchuck, when they played for powerhouses, then he would "have been a gem". Timing and reputation is everything as a goalie.

"If he had been that good", he was that good! You don't get that lucky over 54 starts in the NHL. You have totally judged him because he played on crappy teams and you automatically assumed he couldn't have been any good. Tim Thomas!

"I'd have to credit his record to playing on the Orr/Esposito Bruins", and so why can't we do that with Dryden, Brodeur and Parent?

See the double standards here. This is usually in the debates I have with people that the 'consitancy' word starts to fly around the room.
Thes egoalies were great Guru because they did it for many years. Well, the teams were great for many years.

Goalie Guru* is offline   Reply With Quote