What Bobrovsky Winning the Vezina Would Mean For The Flyers
View Single Post
05-17-2013, 07:16 PM
Grave Before Shave
Join Date: Sep 2009
Originally Posted by
GTD just laid out, point by point, why what Bob did in his time in Philly is rare and something special...something that showed amazing potential for the future, especially considering his circumstances...and your rebuttal is basically "nah, that's no big deal."
I thought I responded in a fair manner. I'm not really sure how else I could have responded. His argument basically is Bob was young, had raw talent, no coaching and was able to succeed, thus he had amazing potential. I said that I didn't see it that way for the reasons discussed above. Couldn't I say that GTD's rebuttal to my argument is basically, "nah, it is a big deal." (I'm not saying that, but I think it would be the same thing).
Originally Posted by
Giroux tha Damaja
Look no further than me. I did think Bryz was going to struggle here (and I was not alone btw). I also thought Bob was going to be better than Bryzgalov in less than a season's time at the point when the trade to get Bryz was made, and I said as much. The rest of the assertions you make above are more or less true, which make the trade look at least defensible. My basic point however is that it was a foresee-ably bad idea to get Bryz.
Well then it looks like you were right. I certainly didn't see it coming, and I think the majority was in the same corner. IIRC, the people who didn't like it were not upset about Bryz getting signed because he was going to suck. It was his contract, the fact that they wanted a different goalie, or the fact they wanted to stick with Bob.
The Flyers didn't foresee it, and that's an issue for me. Not because it's not okay to occasionally guess wrong on how a situation or player will turn out (as I said before time makes fools of us all). This wasn't one of those situations though. Bob had already shown you everything you needed to see to know that he wasn't going to be that headcase that couldn't put it all together. Combined with physical talent he was also showing, they should've known better than to ever let him go.
It's their job to see this ****. Many of us saw it easily even from a distance. And I understand that you didn't see amazing potential there (and apparently you still disagree about whether or not it was there to see). Here's the thing though, whether or not you saw amazing potential is one thing, whether or not it was there is pretty much closed to debate given how much ass he kicked this year. The proof is in the pudding, and the evidence of this past season isn't on your side my friend.
Yeah with hindsight the evidence is not on my side. Clearly with the benefit of hindsight the move has not worked. But again, at the time I think it was the safest bet. You can talk all the amazing potential in the world that you saw and a couple other posters on here saw apparently, but as you said, the proof was in the pudding. Bryz was a recent Vezina nominee and Bob was a guy who played well for most of 60 games. I know I keep saying this but I think it is a good analogy, they took the bird in hand rather than the two in the bush.
MacKinnon and Stamkos played in juniors. You say later in this post that the KHL is probably the second best hockey league in the world. Bob played in the KHL...with no coaching. He also played on the worst team in the KHL, a league with for less parity than the NHL, and was top ten in save percentage for goalies the year before he signed here. He was a pretty damn good.
Also, I don't really see how killing it in juniors can be amazing, but playing well for a full
stretch in the NHL isn't even impressive. That makes no sense. To reference your example, Stamkos' first 60 games in the NHL weren't amazing.
I think you are misunderstanding the argument I made. I wasn't saying that he didn't have potential because he played in the KHL or something like that. I was saying that I don't think your reliance on the fact that he had no "formal goalie training" in his career doesn't really hold the weight when the guy has been a professional in the second best league in the world for 4 years prior to coming to the NHL. If he was 17 and playing with no training and he came over after the draft and made the NHL, then that argument would be a lot weightier. But at age 21 (or was he 22 when he got here?) after playing against some of the best players in the world for four years, I just don't see the lack of "formal goalie training" as something to hang your hat on in this context.
So if I follow your argument here, experience against KHL competition is more or less the same as formal training, and thus I am wrong to bring it up as something that suggested Bob still had a much higher ceiling than what we'd seen?
That's silly, and if it were the case he would not have brought all of the technical flaws into the NHL that he did. He succeeded in the KHL the same way he succeeded here, on athleticism.
Spending four years relying on your athleticism doesn't teach you how to be a good technical goaltender. It teaches you have to rely on your athleticism. So if anything the fact that he'd been playing for so long, developing certain habits, actually strengthens my argument that his lack of a technical foundation was a very big issue. An issue that, once resolved, would allow him to be one of the better goalies in the league. Again, the proof is in the pudding here.
That actually makes and I see where you are coming from. But again, it doesn't really change anything. He's doing it for four years at the pro level against some of the best players in the world. I understand what you are saying about technical flaws and such, but if you are playing there for years, you may have some technical flaws, but you know what you are doing. You are learning through experience. It may not be what Jeff Reese is saying, but you are learning. It's not like he played those years over there and was just flailing around like Dominik Hasek in a crazy scrum. Someone scores on you, you adjust, etc. Like anyone doing anything without formal training. And I do see what you are talking about in saying that makes his potential higher, and that may be the case, but again, I wouldn't couch it as amazing. Like I said earlier, MacKinnon, Stamkos, etc have (had) amazing potential. When you say amazing you are talking about someone being amazing. I know that you say you saw this coming, but you are in the minority. For the most part, unless I am completely forgetting something or missed something, no one was saying, "there goes Bob, he's going to win a Vezina or two" when this whole ordeal started.
Fair enough. If you proceed from the premise that Bryzgalov looked like a far safer bet at the time (which was an understandable opinion to have held), then you can argue that it wasn't a trade made out of impatience. I have a hard time getting there however, because when I look at what the two goalies bring to the table (and indeed this was my opinion at the time of the trade as well), the only thing Bryz had on Bob was that he'd already established himself a bit more (although a full season as a starter is establishing yourself in my book).
But if you don't agree that Bryz looked like a safer bet, rather if you share my appraisal of each goalie's abilities (an the Flyers may well have not) then the only advantage to trading for Bryz is that he is already developed into what he will be, i.e. you don't have to wait for him. Even that I find a little silly because I thought the gap between the two was not that big back then, and Bob only had room to grow.
Fair enough. I think we have fleshed this out to the maximum (both now and in the past with other posters). I just wanted to respond and not leave the argument out there hanging.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DrinkFightFlyers