HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

greatest Players biggest weakness??

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-20-2012, 04:17 PM
  #51
Syckle78
Registered User
 
Syckle78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Redford, MI
Country: Belgium
Posts: 7,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Gretzky - small, weak, wouldn't battle in corners, terrible at faceoffs, became worse defensively as injuries caught up to him
Lemieux - lazy and poorly conditioned, especially early in his career, always a defensive nonfactor
Jagr - low compete level and essentially uncoachable, not a backchecker
Messier - huge ego, became a big problem late in his career when his play could no longer live up to it
Joe Sakic - not physical at all
Steve Yzerman - needed to sacrifice much of his offense to became great defensively
How much was it sacrifice and how much was it being slowed from his injuries? Besides that how is sacrificing individual stats for what is best for the team a weakness? How many players in the history of the game have been able to be elite offensively and defensively at the same time? Not many,for sure.

Syckle78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 04:28 PM
  #52
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
There is a strong argument that his ego cost him the Stanley Cup in 2002. Instead of the simple save he does the "Statue of Liberty" in Game 6 and the Red Wings score with the loose puck. The Avs lose that game and then get blown out for Game 7. In the final it would have been a relatively easy Canes team for the picking.
No, there isn't - and no, the save was not simple. His "ego" stopped a breakaway with the same flashy glove save at the very beginning of the next period (less than a minute later on the game clock). And what happened after that? The Avalanche controlled the play for most of the rest of the game, netting 20 shots when they had been getting outshot 11-4. But they didn't score.

How does letting in just the first goal of a 2-0 game that Yzerman should have buried in the first place cost the Avalanche two wins in which they were shutout? Please, make your "strong argument," because they played better in the forty minutes that followed that goal and Roy's subsequent second glove save than they did in the twenty minutes that preceded them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I think adding to it you'd have to think Roy has an Olympic Gold medal around his neck in 2002 had he played. (I won't get into the debate about why he didn't want to play but it is hard to imagine ego not being a big part of the reason)
That's because in order to get into that debate, you'd have to have something to back up that claim that has been refuted by multiple sources and the logic that dictates that he would have started over Curtis Joseph.


Instead of continually perpetuating two myths (1. Roy costing the Avalanche in 2002, 2. Roy refusing to play for Canada because of his ego), why don't you bother looking into the facts surrounding both circumstances (all of which have been made available to you in the last year)? Or at the very least, don't bring up those same two myths while simultaneously saying that you "won't get into the debate" about why they're completely asinine. The recent Conn Smythe winner with a save percentage over .020 higher is worried about Curtis Joseph getting the start - despite attending an orientation camp after it was made clear that he'd have to play for the start? You don't think he would have backed out then instead of when his stock was at its absolute highest if his ego was the concern?

There was a reason why he backed out specifically when the Colorado Avalanche were sitting outside of the playoffs, and if you think that putting club and Cup before country and Gold is ego, then I don't think too many GMs would complain. Same thing if you think returning from injury against Quebec and Boston in 1993 and 1994 may be considered ego. Same thing if you consider "No more rats" in 1996 to be ego.


And yet despite having the word "ego" on the tip of your tongue, all you could think of for Hasek was that maybe he was an enigma? He played doctor more times than Mark Recchi.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 12:30 AM
  #53
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 29,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePuckBaron View Post
I don't think health should be considered as a weakness...Mario cant control whether he gets cancer or not...but he can control how he plays in his own end.
...ya, thats a valid argument in terms of establishing criteria with respect to what constitutes a "weakness" in a player. So if we eliminate "Health" as the "Greatest Weakness" for Lemieux then is it as you suggest that he was left wonting in terms of his defensive game?. You could say the same of Gretzky. As for Orr, if we remove "Health", then Id insert occasional lack of self control & discipline. He could snap, foolishly wind up in the box. So maybe if we remove health, we should also remove size. As in what were/are Marcel Dionnes or Martin St.Louis' greatest weaknesses and so on.

I like it. New Rule. Health/Size irrelevant handicaps.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 12:31 AM
  #54
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
No, there isn't - and no, the save was not simple. His "ego" stopped a breakaway with the same flashy glove save at the very beginning of the next period (less than a minute later on the game clock). And what happened after that? The Avalanche controlled the play for most of the rest of the game, netting 20 shots when they had been getting outshot 11-4. But they didn't score.

How does letting in just the first goal of a 2-0 game that Yzerman should have buried in the first place cost the Avalanche two wins in which they were shutout? Please, make your "strong argument," because they played better in the forty minutes that followed that goal and Roy's subsequent second glove save than they did in the twenty minutes that preceded them.
Well, I'll post the video. It's really basic. I am not saying it should define his career, but there are times to be humble and at a time when Roy should have just hung onto dear life and thanked his lucky stars he made a save I think you can say he dropped the ball on that one. The Avs win that game and they win the Cup. That was the game winning goal. It just stings and you have to wonder if being a braggart had anything to do with it.



Quote:
That's because in order to get into that debate, you'd have to have something to back up that claim that has been refuted by multiple sources and the logic that dictates that he would have started over Curtis Joseph.


Instead of continually perpetuating two myths (1. Roy costing the Avalanche in 2002, 2. Roy refusing to play for Canada because of his ego), why don't you bother looking into the facts surrounding both circumstances (all of which have been made available to you in the last year)? Or at the very least, don't bring up those same two myths while simultaneously saying that you "won't get into the debate" about why they're completely asinine. The recent Conn Smythe winner with a save percentage over .020 higher is worried about Curtis Joseph getting the start - despite attending an orientation camp after it was made clear that he'd have to play for the start? You don't think he would have backed out then instead of when his stock was at its absolute highest if his ego was the concern?

There was a reason why he backed out specifically when the Colorado Avalanche were sitting outside of the playoffs, and if you think that putting club and Cup before country and Gold is ego, then I don't think too many GMs would complain. Same thing if you think returning from injury against Quebec and Boston in 1993 and 1994 may be considered ego. Same thing if you consider "No more rats" in 1996 to be ego.
Here's the issue though. Two Red Wings won the Gold and the Cup that year. One with a knee as banged up as Bobby Orr's. They won the Cup at Roy's expense. It didn't slow them down at all. As for Joseph? He made the 3rd round in 2002, same as Roy. When everyone else in the NHL was salivating at the chance to play in the Olympics despite still gunning for a Cup two months after that it just seems out of place that Roy didn't. Yes we heard his reasoning. Maybe you can take it all at face value but we're talking about a tournament that would have been three months away from November when Roy's announcement was made. Hard to believe the Avs are out of a playoff picture in February huh?

Also, remember one thing. Publicly Gretzky and co. said the goalies would have to earn a spot. Publicly. That was the right thing to say. Privately, there is no way Roy is not picked on that team and to top it off is not the starter either. You can't just tell one goalie he is a lock to make the team, you WANT him to earn it. Even Patrick Roy. But privately, Gretzky is a smart man, let's go back to the 2001-'02 season and study the big 4 goalies for Canada. To me, it is obvious who would have started.

Belfour - Great goalie, got the monkey off his back with some long playoff runs, but was always considered an inferior goalie to Roy, even then
Brodeur - Despite 2 Cups under his belt at that time the truth is people were nervous about Brodeur in the big game since it was commonly believed (falsely) that he was more a product of the Devils' system. Honestly, until his big save on Brett Hull in the Gold medal game I too had my reservations
Joseph - Couldn't win a game under immense pressure if his life depended on it. Didn't do well in the 2001 playoffs. Would never have gotten the start over Roy
Roy - Three time Conn Smythe winner as recent as 2001. Having among the best seasons of his career in 2001-'02

I may not know this for sure, but I don't know this any less or more than anyone posting on here, but if Roy is literally told he has the #1 job to lose does he still back out? I doubt it. That being said, I don't know how anyone picking the team, fan or management, wouldn't have given Roy the start.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 12:56 AM
  #55
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 29,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I may not know this for sure, but I don't know this any less or more than anyone posting on here, but if Roy is literally told he has the #1 job to lose does he still back out? I doubt it. That being said, I don't know how anyone picking the team, fan or management, wouldn't have given Roy the start.
Bingo. Thing is though, it was just that sort of self entitlement or "arrogance" if you will, belief in himself, that made him so great. He wasnt about to leave it up to Team Canadas' Coaching Staff, in his mind (and indeed in almost everyones elses on the planet at the time who knew the game) he'd earned a bye to the starting role and if they were even going to question it, see ya, good luck, keep yer heads up & sticks on the ice. No guarantee, not playing your game. Personally Im OK with that. He was the best at that time & the Coaching staff had no business telling him he'd have to earn the starting position.

As for the hotdogging, the Statue of Liberty Save, the Winking, the on ice Yapping that most fans never heard, the notorious incident in Montreal when he was pulled, again, all part n' parcel of the guys make-up. In the dressing & on the ice where it counted, the guy was a player. A leader. Fierce competitor & fiercely proud. Im no fan of GrandStanding, overt displays after scoring a goal or decking an opponent in a fight, goalies, from Palmateer to Luongo making the mundane appear sensational quite deliberately, but it is what it is. If your gonna do it, better be able to back it up in Money Games. Roy did that, and more.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 02:27 AM
  #56
tombombadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Kelowna, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padan View Post
Forsberg, if anything, was pretty weak in the face-off circle. That has to count since he was a center.
yup, average at best. and injuries, obviously.

tombombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 03:49 AM
  #57
the edler
Cory Schneider fan
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiss The Ring View Post
Jaromir Jagr - No real weakness
oh come on, jagr was mediocre defensively at best, plus he was a diva

also, except in his first two years when he played on super stacked teams offensively as a teenager, and was the 4th best scorer at best, he never carried a team to the finals

the edler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 09:11 AM
  #58
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Bingo. Thing is though, it was just that sort of self entitlement or "arrogance" if you will, belief in himself, that made him so great. He wasnt about to leave it up to Team Canadas' Coaching Staff, in his mind (and indeed in almost everyones elses on the planet at the time who knew the game) he'd earned a bye to the starting role and if they were even going to question it, see ya, good luck, keep yer heads up & sticks on the ice. No guarantee, not playing your game. Personally Im OK with that. He was the best at that time & the Coaching staff had no business telling him he'd have to earn the starting position.

As for the hotdogging, the Statue of Liberty Save, the Winking, the on ice Yapping that most fans never heard, the notorious incident in Montreal when he was pulled, again, all part n' parcel of the guys make-up. In the dressing & on the ice where it counted, the guy was a player. A leader. Fierce competitor & fiercely proud. Im no fan of GrandStanding, overt displays after scoring a goal or decking an opponent in a fight, goalies, from Palmateer to Luongo making the mundane appear sensational quite deliberately, but it is what it is. If your gonna do it, better be able to back it up in Money Games. Roy did that, and more.
I see, and I agree that Roy was #1 at that time. I provided my reasons in the other post. But he was still competing against 3 other goalies, two who are among the greatest all-time and another one a borderline HHOFer. He wasn't just competing against Sean Burke. I think Gretzky and co. had it pencilled in their heads who was going to be the starter but chose not to say anything. Whether that would be because of distractions for their NHL team or whatever I don't know, but 2002 was a serious tournament. If Canada loses this one there is no excuse whatsoever, so you couldn't screw it up and I think the goalies always being hungry was a good thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the edler View Post
oh come on, jagr was mediocre defensively at best, plus he was a diva

also, except in his first two years when he played on super stacked teams offensively as a teenager, and was the 4th best scorer at best, he never carried a team to the finals
First paragraph you are right about Jagr. But second paragraph I am not so sure. Which team should Jagr have carried to the Cup final? I am talking about a non-Lemieux team, as I assume you are

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 09:25 AM
  #59
Hasbro
Can He Skate?!
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 35,704
vCash: 500
Forsberg was a notorious pass-first player for the first half of his career. Hartley got him to shoot a bit more.

Has there been a mentally stable goalie? Roy had an ego, Sawchuck and Plante alienated teammates, Belfour was a drunk, Brodeur had soap opera off the ice, Fuhr had a coke problem, Smith would slash anyone...

Hasbro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 09:30 AM
  #60
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro View Post
Forsberg was a notorious pass-first player for the first half of his career. Hartley got him to shoot a bit more.

Has there been a mentally stable goalie? Roy had an ego, Sawchuck and Plante alienated teammates, Belfour was a drunk, Brodeur had soap opera off the ice, Fuhr had a coke problem, Smith would slash anyone...
Dryden perhaps. Brodeur has that little wife swap incident from 2003 but that isn't a weakness. Hall I would say was mentally stable if he didn't vomit in the middle of the game because of bad nerves.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 09:45 AM
  #61
Saku11
Registered User
 
Saku11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TasteofFlames View Post
Forsberg did play his heart out every game, but a pissed Forsberg would score three points, stare you straight in the eye, and turn you into bloody pulp. Peter was one of those guys that was an incredible player, but even better with the emotions running high.
First of all i think you are exaggerating.Second, that must be weakness then if he needs someone to give him motivation be playing physical on him.He would be under performing in always every game then.I think if what you said were true, the opposing teams would have left him alone, which they obviously didnt do...

Saku11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 09:56 AM
  #62
85highlander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 282
vCash: 500
Bobby Orr -- TEMPER

If speaking of on-ice weaknesses, I would say Orr's temper was a greater "weakness" than his injuries. I am NOT saying that his knee injuries were less consequential...only that if the discussion is about a player's game on the ice, then his injuries are a non sequitur ...

Obviously, his knee injuries were devastating, robbing hockey fans of many more years of hockey brilliance. And his brittle knees were never the same post 1972, though he still was a supremely dominant force until his Chicago days. He mostly played through the knee stuff until there was no more juice.

But Orr's temper was always a wildcard. His tenacity was usually focused for the good of the team, but he could occasionally be baited into taking stupid penalties with lesser foes that would take him off the ice.

There are many who aren't aware that Bobby Orr lead the Big, Bad Bruins in PIMs for the cumulative period of his time with the Bruins, as well as having been involved in more fights than the other "Big Four" combined (Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe).

I personally loved the tenacity and edginess he brought to the game, but also realize that this would occasionally put the Bruins at a disadvantage - a trade-off I would gladly take every day of the week.

85highlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 11:46 AM
  #63
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 29,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Dryden perhaps.
... ya, but even he was an outlier, an oddball. Took the Road Less Travelled. An eccentric. Ask him the time, he'll proceed to build you a watch, all the while explaining why every spring, sprocket & whirligig is dependent upon the other in quiet, religiously sonorous tones. Appropriate to a Presbyterian Ministers Sermon perhaps, all very interesting Im sure.... but look Bud, gotta a plane ta catch, WTF is the time already? I think he missed his true calling in life Phil. Shoulda signed on with the Seminary, yer Flying Fathers instead of wasting his time at Cornell, Naders Raiders, his "sabbatical" from the game etc. What a dope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I see, and I agree that Roy was #1 at that time. I provided my reasons in the other post. But he was still competing against 3 other goalies, two who are among the greatest all-time and another one a borderline HHOFer.
.. now, just a minute here. Thats one of my favorite phrases, "I see". Always use it as an opener when Im about tear someone a new one. I can actually relate & empathize with Roy's decision to tell Gretzky & the rest of them to go take a flying jump off the dock. "Im the greatest God damn goaltender on the planet at this moment in time and you expect me to compete for the starting position"?!!!. Excuse me?. What part of my game have you missed?. Brodeur was still a question mark; Joseph was spotty' & Belfour could be, well, erratic?. As in blow into this before you strap those pads on Mister. Yet here you are questioning my resume', my bona fides'?.

The moment such a question formed in your brain was the moment I decided I wasnt about to play your silly little game. I can relate to that. I was always the starter. From Pee Wee to Junior. My backup's, no matter how good they thought they were just basically meat sticks who in 1000 years couldnt possibly ever become the goaltender that I was. And they never did, even though a couple of em' went on to have lengthy careers in the NHL. To my mind, they were still losers, weaknesses in their games, their mental capacities, inability to dress with any sense of style or elan, whatever, and therefore forever inferior to yours truly. Yes indeed. Call it arrogance, call it hubris or whatever else. Thou shalt kneel before thy God's Cap'n Phil, and that includes you, Wayne Gretzky and anyone else who has the temerity to question thine owns greatness...

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 12:14 PM
  #64
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,979
vCash: 500
Forsberg's temper led to him diving, whining to the refs, and slamming his stick on the bench as often as it did to him putting up three points and dominating a game.

DisgruntledGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 12:36 PM
  #65
TasteofFlames
Registered User
 
TasteofFlames's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Athens, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saku11 View Post
First of all i think you are exaggerating.
Sure that was hyperbolic; Forsberg didn't literally turn people into bloody pulp, but he would put you on your ass, and you would KNOW he hit you.

Quote:
Second, that must be weakness then if he needs someone to give him motivation be playing physical on him.
It's not like he went from playing soft to physical. Playing the body was a large part of his game, but he normally used it in the more traditional sense, i.e. separate the player from the puck and make some space for yourself. A pissed Forsberg hit to hurt.

Quote:
He would be under performing in always every game then.I think if what you said were true, the opposing teams would have left him alone, which they obviously didnt do...
I'd like you to find me a player who played every game exactly the same. Better yet, find me a person in any profession that doesn't have some days at work better than others. Guess what, ya can't. Why, well because humans aren't perfect. It sounds nice to say that Forsberg should have played angry every game, but he wasn't conjuring some past demon to give him motivation, he was reacting the game at hand. Its not like Forsberg went from being an also ran to all-star based on his anger. He went from being one of the best players in the league to being someone you hoped wasn't on the ice against you. Just ask those oft lauded 90s/00s Red Wings, they never had an answer for him.

If anything, Forsberg's ability to channel his emotions into playing his game should be considered one of his best traits. How often do we see pests buzzing around, trying to take stars off their games, getting in their heads, making life hell, and how often do these stars buckle? Forsberg was the opposite, he was an amazing player who was capable of using opponents' mind games against them.

If you want to find holes in Forsberg's game, the mental aspect is the wrong place to look. His shot wasn't exactly high end, and he didn't shoot often enough. He was a passer first and rarely varied his approach. His physical style of play (and some bad luck) cost him a boatload of game played, and that, in turn, hurt his team. Those are his weaknesses.

TasteofFlames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 01:13 PM
  #66
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
.. now, just a minute here. Thats one of my favorite phrases, "I see". Always use it as an opener when Im about tear someone a new one. I can actually relate & empathize with Roy's decision to tell Gretzky & the rest of them to go take a flying jump off the dock. "Im the greatest God damn goaltender on the planet at this moment in time and you expect me to compete for the starting position"?!!!. Excuse me?. What part of my game have you missed?. Brodeur was still a question mark; Joseph was spotty' & Belfour could be, well, erratic?. As in blow into this before you strap those pads on Mister. Yet here you are questioning my resume', my bona fides'?.

The moment such a question formed in your brain was the moment I decided I wasnt about to play your silly little game. I can relate to that. I was always the starter. From Pee Wee to Junior. My backup's, no matter how good they thought they were just basically meat sticks who in 1000 years couldnt possibly ever become the goaltender that I was. And they never did, even though a couple of em' went on to have lengthy careers in the NHL. To my mind, they were still losers, weaknesses in their games, their mental capacities, inability to dress with any sense of style or elan, whatever, and therefore forever inferior to yours truly. Yes indeed. Call it arrogance, call it hubris or whatever else. Thou shalt kneel before thy God's Cap'n Phil, and that includes you, Wayne Gretzky and anyone else who has the temerity to question thine owns greatness...



The Avalanche were in legitimate trouble though, Big Phil, and I think you're overlooking that. Had he been offered the job in 2001 when the thought of potentially missing the playoffs in 2002 wasn't on his mind, I don't think he rescinds his acceptance, but had the Avalanche been firmly on track in November 2001, I don't think he backs out of the running either.

Remember that big run the Avalanche had when Roy dropped out of the one-sided race against Curtis Joseph, Ed Belfour, and Martin Brodeur? Colorado went 8-0-2 starting with Roy's next start, and they climbed out of last place:

Nov 24
31 EDM
30 CAL
22 VAN
22 MIN
22 COL

Dec 12
39 COL
38 EDM
36 CAL
30 VAN
27 MIN


If you're Roy, and you care more about the Stanley Cup than the Gold Medal (and he does), and you've been witness to an Olympic having a negative impact on your club in the past (1998 - Sakic injury; Roy's SPCT drops from .921 to .902; Colorado goes 10-13-1), and you have bad knees and don't know if you can play out the rest of the three-year contract you just signed (he didn't), and your team is playing terrible, do you risk it? Do you continue to let anything other than the Colorado Avalanche cloud your mind? Maybe no one from Detroit ended up being sent home injured in 2002, but the Avalanche weren't as lucky in 1998, and Roy knew it first-hand.

It's not a fault. And I think you value Hockey Canada too much to see that it's not a fault that he had different priorities that were still team hockey.


And, Phil, if you still think the goal in Game 6 cost the Avalanche two games (if that's even possible), I give you the rest of the game after the goal:





The team clearly was not demoralized after one goal. They played better than they did before it even happened. Blaming him for 2002 is ridiculous. Was he going to score goals in Game 6 and Game 7? They don't let him skate past center ice. He knows; he tried.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 01:41 PM
  #67
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 29,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
...Big Phil, and I think you're overlooking that.
... Say What? I dont "over-look" anything. Im perfect, and never wrong. I thought I made that crystal in my previous post.
Sight to the blind. You may now arise from your position of prostration before thee. Or do you still hafta tinkle?.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 05:30 PM
  #68
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,823
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the edler View Post
oh come on, jagr was mediocre defensively at best, plus he was a diva

also, except in his first two years when he played on super stacked teams offensively as a teenager, and was the 4th best scorer at best, he never carried a team to the finals
Mario made the playoffs in 1/8 seasons and won a single series w/o Jagr. Jagr made the playoffs in 9 of 11 seasons w/o Lemeiux, and that doesn't even count the years where Mario was injured most of the year. He also won 6 playoff series w/o Lemieux.

It's revisionist history to say/imply that those Penguins teams were overwhelming favorites and coasted to 2 straight Cups strictly due to Lemieux's dominance. If Jagr doesn't score that OT GWG in game 2 of the first round in '91, they might not even make it back from Jersey (they were already down 0-1 and lost 2/3 in NJ afterwards). It still took some luck and Jiri Hrdina's two goals in game 7 to win that series. In '92, Lemieux was injured in game 2 of the second round and they went down 2-1 to the Rangers. It was mainly players like Francis and Jagr that led them back in that series. Jagr's famous goal vs. Chicago tied the game with under 5 minutes left in the third period of game 1, so it wasn't exactly a "fluff" goal, and he scored some other important ones in that playoffs. That's why he led the playoffs in even strength goals and was second to Lemieux in GWG (5-4). Remember, he was only 20 at that time.

He led some really mediocre teams to the playoffs and big series wins, even helping the Flyers to beat the Pens last year. He's one point away from having as many playoff points as any non-Oiler in history. I'd say he had a bigger part in that '92 playoffs than Forsberg did in either of his Cups, and Foppa played on a perpetual contender for almost his entire career.

If you really want to see the story of the Pens' '92 Cup, start with part 2 (below) of this 7-part series, which has a ton of highlights from the playoffs (part 1 is a historical recap of Pens):


Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 05:32 PM
  #69
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
.. now, just a minute here. Thats one of my favorite phrases, "I see". Always use it as an opener when Im about tear someone a new one. I can actually relate & empathize with Roy's decision to tell Gretzky & the rest of them to go take a flying jump off the dock. "Im the greatest God damn goaltender on the planet at this moment in time and you expect me to compete for the starting position"?!!!. Excuse me?. What part of my game have you missed?. Brodeur was still a question mark; Joseph was spotty' & Belfour could be, well, erratic?. As in blow into this before you strap those pads on Mister. Yet here you are questioning my resume', my bona fides'?.

The moment such a question formed in your brain was the moment I decided I wasnt about to play your silly little game. I can relate to that. I was always the starter. From Pee Wee to Junior. My backup's, no matter how good they thought they were just basically meat sticks who in 1000 years couldnt possibly ever become the goaltender that I was. And they never did, even though a couple of em' went on to have lengthy careers in the NHL. To my mind, they were still losers, weaknesses in their games, their mental capacities, inability to dress with any sense of style or elan, whatever, and therefore forever inferior to yours truly. Yes indeed. Call it arrogance, call it hubris or whatever else. Thou shalt kneel before thy God's Cap'n Phil, and that includes you, Wayne Gretzky and anyone else who has the temerity to question thine owns greatness...
I truly believe Gretzky had him pencilled in for the team and as a starting job to lose. I don't see how Roy couldn't see that he'd be the front runner since everyone else seems to agree he would have been.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
The Avalanche were in legitimate trouble though, Big Phil, and I think you're overlooking that. Had he been offered the job in 2001 when the thought of potentially missing the playoffs in 2002 wasn't on his mind, I don't think he rescinds his acceptance, but had the Avalanche been firmly on track in November 2001, I don't think he backs out of the running either.

Remember that big run the Avalanche had when Roy dropped out of the one-sided race against Curtis Joseph, Ed Belfour, and Martin Brodeur? Colorado went 8-0-2 starting with Roy's next start, and they climbed out of last place:

Nov 24
31 EDM
30 CAL
22 VAN
22 MIN
22 COL

Dec 12
39 COL
38 EDM
36 CAL
30 VAN
27 MIN
Fine. But what I always admire about the greats is their ability to be unflinching in their approach to any game. Grant Fuhr played every game in the 1987 Canada Cup. His summer was cut short, the training camp was long and he performed in one of the most high octane high pressured series of all-time. The season before he won a Cup. The season after he won a Vezina and a Smythe. Why could Fuhr, among others, concentrate on both and not Roy?





Quote:
And, Phil, if you still think the goal in Game 6 cost the Avalanche two games (if that's even possible), I give you the rest of the game after the goal:





The team clearly was not demoralized after one goal. They played better than they did before it even happened. Blaming him for 2002 is ridiculous. Was he going to score goals in Game 6 and Game 7? They don't let him skate past center ice. He knows; he tried.
I don't have a crystal ball. But in a game where it was a 2-0 score the goal that made it 1-0 does have a lot of bearing on the game, right? What happens if that goal never happens? I don't know, and neither do you. If it's a 6-1 game no one cares. But a tight 2-0 game? It had some bearing. I don't think that goal cost them the game, or game 7, but when speaking of Game 7, that is clearly Roy's low point of his career.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 05:53 PM
  #70
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I don't think that goal cost them the game, or game 7
How do you reconcile the above with the below?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
There is a strong argument that his ego cost him the Stanley Cup in 2002.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Why could Fuhr, among others, concentrate on both and not Roy?
Because in 1987, Fuhr wasn't looking three months into the future with his team in last place with a set of bad knees and uncertainty as to whether or not it was his last year.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I don't see how Roy couldn't see that he'd be the front runner since everyone else seems to agree he would have been.
Of course he knew it. That's why I'm saying it had nothing to do with his ego and everything to do with preserving himself for a stretch of hockey that would determine whether or not he even qualified for the playoffs.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 06:47 PM
  #71
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
How do you reconcile the above with the below?
Because we can't "prove" that the Statue of Liberty goal actually cost them the game, it wasn't in overtime. However there is a strong argument that it did, or at started them down the wrong path. But I cannot say it "cost" them the game solely.



Quote:
Because in 1987, Fuhr wasn't looking three months into the future with his team in last place with a set of bad knees and uncertainty as to whether or not it was his last year.
No. He was only looking into the potential of losing the Oilers best defenseman (which they did) and not having his reliable and sometimes great back up to cover for him (Moog). It isn't as if the 1987-'88 Oilers weren't going to have some big changes coming up that may or may not alter things.


Quote:
Of course he knew it. That's why I'm saying it had nothing to do with his ego and everything to do with preserving himself for a stretch of hockey that would determine whether or not he even qualified for the playoffs.
Again, that was the reason we were given by him. I am skeptical and have a right to be. Martin Brodeur in his autobiography seems to think that Roy wasn't too generous in giving up a #1 spot as it happened in the 1998 Olympics after Roy lost. This is why Brodeur hated losing to him in the 2001 final. I too believe Roy was the favourite, but I also know all 4 goalies were playing very well at that time and despite some reservations about some of them had Roy pulled a Joseph in 2002 and been tossed after the first game there wouldn't have been much of a downgrade in choosing one of the others. It was still a tight race. It wasn't exactly, "Roy and it isn't even close." I figure Roy had played hockey long enough to know that November is a poor time to know how the season will end up. So yeah, there is some skepticism on my part

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 07:29 PM
  #72
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
No. He was only looking into the potential of losing the Oilers best defenseman (which they did) and not having his reliable and sometimes great back up to cover for him (Moog). It isn't as if the 1987-'88 Oilers weren't going to have some big changes coming up that may or may not alter things.
Because the possibility of an injury in a tournament in August and September derailing a team's season is the same as one in February when the team is already behind the eight-ball and missing their best player? Ask the 2006 Ottawa Senators how an Olympic injury worked out for them when they lost Hasek for two weeks (turned four months). Or, again, the 1998 Colorado Avalanche.

Why do you think so many veteran players have been skipping All-Star Games too? Jonas Hiller could tell you all about that one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Martin Brodeur in his autobiography seems to think that Roy wasn't too generous in giving up a #1 spot as it happened in the 1998 Olympics after Roy lost.
I forgot - you, Brodeur, and Damien Cox thought that Roy's .962 save percentage following his loss warranted a goalie change. Hasek had a .957 save percentage and was 4-1 going into the Gold Medal game - just like Roy. I wonder if Roman Cechmanek wrote a book about wanting to start against Russia since they had already bested Hasek?

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 12:49 AM
  #73
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Because the possibility of an injury in a tournament in August and September derailing a team's season is the same as one in February when the team is already behind the eight-ball and missing their best player? Ask the 2006 Ottawa Senators how an Olympic injury worked out for them when they lost Hasek for two weeks (turned four months). Or, again, the 1998 Colorado Avalanche.

Why do you think so many veteran players have been skipping All-Star Games too? Jonas Hiller could tell you all about that one.
I can't blame them for skipping the all-star game. It is basically an exhibition game. Roy was a healthy player at the time of the Olympics. This is the Olympics on North American soil. No Canadian turned down playing in that tournament. Just Roy. I can assure you the 23 players on that team wanted so badly to win the Cup 4 months later. Two of them did. In fact, Yzerman's knee was killing him during the Olympics let alone the postseason. Roy was a competitive guy, but there are lots of competitive guys and they all want to win and take every opportunity to do so. Every other guy on that team still wanted the best for their NHL team. But the once in a lifetime opportunity of playing for their country came calling and who wants to miss that one? Only Roy in 2002. So really, even if his excuse was truthful it was still lame.

Quote:
I forgot - you, Brodeur, and Damien Cox thought that Roy's .962 save percentage following his loss warranted a goalie change. Hasek had a .957 save percentage and was 4-1 going into the Gold Medal game - just like Roy. I wonder if Roman Cechmanek wrote a book about wanting to start against Russia since they had already bested Hasek?
Well, we have discussed this and my stance on the issue is that a fresh goalie in there has a little more incentive to win than the one who just lost a heartbreaking game. Hey, I didn't care. I'm Canadian. We treat the Bronze medal like a stray cat but how hungry can you possibly be if you were just involved in a game where you lost the chance at gold?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 07:46 AM
  #74
Hobnobs
Pinko
 
Hobnobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Sweden
Posts: 4,992
vCash: 500
Gordie How - No weaknesses
Bobby Orr - No weaknesses
Mario Lemieux - Arrogance, lazy.
Wayne Gretzky - No show physically.
Nicklas Lidström - Physical, sometimes you need to be physical.
Joe Sakic and Yzerman - No real weaknesses
Mark Messier - Managements friend
Crosby - Whining
Malkin - Dirty
Oveckin - Dirty

Hobnobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 08:37 AM
  #75
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I can't blame them for skipping the all-star game. It is basically an exhibition game. Roy was a healthy player at the time of the Olympics. This is the Olympics on North American soil. No Canadian turned down playing in that tournament. Just Roy. I can assure you the 23 players on that team wanted so badly to win the Cup 4 months later. Two of them did. In fact, Yzerman's knee was killing him during the Olympics let alone the postseason. Roy was a competitive guy, but there are lots of competitive guys and they all want to win and take every opportunity to do so. Every other guy on that team still wanted the best for their NHL team. But the once in a lifetime opportunity of playing for their country came calling and who wants to miss that one? Only Roy in 2002. So really, even if his excuse was truthful it was still lame.
So then make it an issue about Patrick Roy caring more about the Stanley Cup Playoffs than a Gold Medal and say that his weakness is that Hockey Canada doesn't mean much to him - just don't make up some BS story about his ego making him insecure about how many of the six starts he would get (based upon Brodeur/Cox conspiracy theories).

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.