View Single Post
Old
04-07-2013, 05:33 PM
  #338
Cake or Death
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glen Sathers Cigar View Post
Only get compared because Richter is the all time winning goalie for NYR and he delivered us a cup. Richter was amazing in 94, without him playing as well as he did, we never make it past the Devils, let alone win the cup. Richter was a true money goalie..the bigger the game, the better he played. Multiple Rangers from 94 (Messier, Leetch, Graves as well as Keenan) have said if they could pick any goalie to have in net for a game 7 with the cup on the line they all would pick Richter.

That's why people compare. Richter has his number retired, won us our 94 cup and is beloved.
I understand all that. I've been watching the team since the mid 70s, and I know who Richter is. He was very good, I just think comparing him to Lundqvist is insane. Richter made some inexplicable saves, but was also prone to give up some really bad goals. His overall playoff resume and career resume is good, but not great, and in my humble opinion he isn't in the same stratosphere as Lundqvist.

Telling me Richter's teammates and coach praised him? No disrespect, but what do you expect them to say? Show me someone from another team back then who says they'd pick him over Roy, Brodeur or Hasek in a game 7. Honestly, Richter was generally not regarded as even one of the 5 best goalies in the league in his career (he had one instance of reaching the 5 spot in Vezina voting, and that was the only time he hit the top 5).

Richter had a great run in 94, for sure. On a very stacked team. Leetch and Mess, along with Graves top 5 in goals, Zubov top 5 in assists and like 90 points that season. I personally think that VBK carrying the under .500 '85-86 Rangers on his back in the playoffs was stronger than anything I'd seen Richter do. That '85-86 season, with a team whose top scorer had 60 some odd points in the high scoring 80s, VBK was 31-21-5, won the Vezina, and the other 3 Rangers' goalies were a combined 5-17-1.

  Reply With Quote