Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71
Do me and yourself a favour in the future and look up what actually went on before posting something in ignorance.
A post of mine in to response to another poster spouting the same ignorant BS about Roy in '87...
|
one quick note: chelios was in his FOURTH year in 1987, not his second. everything else you say i totally agree with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tombombadil
the way i see it - Roy had 3 playoff runs where he was the man, and 1 where he did his job, and his team won. Hasek had won where he did his job, and his team won, one where he was the man, but his team was unwinnable with. I give Hasek the credit for the Olympics as the man who carried the win.
All this leaves Roy with one trump card in the playoffs over Dom.
Whether or not this triumph means more than the 6 Vezinas and two Harts is what it comes down to for me. You know from my posts that I support Hasek, but i do like to be open-minded. There IS an argument for either guy. I will simply not support any votes for Brodeur.
|
i think you're underselling roy here. in '96, i don't think he just "did his job." and having watched both runs, i think it was clear that roy was the second most important av that year. hasek was no better than the third most important/best wing that year.
plus, as rhiessan notes above, he was the conn smythe favourite going into the finals in '89. plus he came within a game of the finals three other times, and within two games of the finals two more times.
he has the fuller career, higher high points, more high points, and the record for conn smythes won. more than simply one trump card, i think.