Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Godric · Post by **Godric** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:26 pm

If you could draft a clone of one of those guys... Who do you pick?

mikey287 · Post by **mikey287** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 1:08 am

Hasek. 6 Vezina trophies in 12 NHL seasons. Followed by Roy, clutch as all hell. Followed closely by Brodeur, underrated on all-time scale.

Godric · Post by **Godric** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 1:19 am

mikey287 wrote:Hasek. 6 Vezina trophies in 12 NHL seasons. Followed by Roy, clutch as all hell. Followed closely by Brodeur, underrated on all-time scale.

Agreed

mikey287 · Post by **mikey287** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 1:27 am

Further elaboration possible, but I'm rather intoxicated at this point...might have been better served up for me/others in the historical discussion thread, but little difference...I'm about to do some serious goaler research soon, so this will kick it off rather easily...

André · Post by **André** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 7:24 am

Hasek Hasek Hasek

Post by **Puffymuffin** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 7:36 am

André wrote:Hasek Hasek Hasek

steelhammer · Post by **steelhammer** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 7:44 am

Hasek by a mile. Then Roy. Then lots of other goalies before Brodeur.

Idoit40fans · Post by **Idoit40fans** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:29 am

Brodeur, Hasek, Roy

shoeshine boy · Post by **shoeshine boy** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:31 am

what?? you guys are crazy. Hasek over Roy and Brodeur???? Roy has 4 Cups, Uncle Daddy has 3. Hasek has 2, 2008 where he backed up Osgood and didn't play a single game in the Finals and 2002 with a Wings team so stacked that a shooter tutor could have won.
a truckload of Vezinas is great but what good are they if the guy can't win once you get to the end?

Idoit40fans · Post by **Idoit40fans** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:32 am

That is a horrible argument.

shoeshine boy · Post by **shoeshine boy** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:35 am

4 cups to 2 is a horrible argument? Cups are what you play for not Vezina Trophys.

Idoit40fans · Post by **Idoit40fans** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:42 am

Arguing cups period is a horrible argument.

steelhammer · Post by **steelhammer** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:43 am

shoeshine boy wrote:4 cups to 2 is a horrible argument? Cups are what you play for not Vezina Trophys.

Yes, it is. If cups are the primary determinant of goalie success then Osgood is now in the discussion. Is that really what you want? Osgood?

Lots of above average goalies look elite when playing on a stacked defensive team. How many of those goalies thrived on horrible defensive teams (90's Sabres)? Brodeur wasn't even in the discussion until after Roy & Hasek retired. How many Conn Smythe trophies did Brodeur win? Hell, they even awarded one to the losing goalie (Giguere) one year. {cue Mikey rant} ;)

shoeshine boy · Post by **shoeshine boy** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 9:05 am

Idoit40fans wrote:Arguing cups period is a horrible argument.

brilliant retort. look, I'm not saying that Hasek wasn't a HOF goaltender but when I reach the end of the journey I want to win. I can definitely see an argument for Hasek over UncleDaddy. one of the great unanswered questions will always be "would Brodeur have done this well under another less-smothering system?". I believe the answer to be no but with Roy, he was just as consistent as Hasek with twice as many Cups (ALL as the starter) to show for it. he is a winner at all times, not just the regular season.
note: edited because I decided "because...." wasn't clear enough since the argument being made was "because I said so, that's why."

Idoit40fans · Post by **Idoit40fans** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 9:06 am

If I need to explain it to you, I'm done discussing this with you. I will need to explain it to no one else here.

mikey287 · Post by **mikey287** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 10:51 am

shoeshine boy wrote:4 cups to 2 is a horrible argument? Cups are what you play for not Vezina Trophys.

Jaroslav Pouzar's cups >>> Marcel Dionne's cups

shoeshine boy · Post by **shoeshine boy** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:01 am

that'd be a brilliant point if both of those players had been goalies. apples and oranges.

JoseCuervo · Post by **JoseCuervo** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:22 am

shoeshine boy wrote:4 cups to 2 is a horrible argument? Cups are what teams play for not Vezina Trophys.

Fixd

mikey287 · Post by **mikey287** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:47 am

shoeshine boy wrote:that'd be a brilliant point if both of those players had been goalies. apples and oranges.

So Osgood > Hasek?

Barrasso > Hall?

This really is enlightening...

MRandall25 · Post by **MRandall25** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:48 pm

Are you saying Charlie Batch is a better quarterback than Dan Marino, because Charlie Batch has a Super Bowl ring?

C'mon. Same concept here. We all know the championships argument is terrible.

tfrizz · Post by **tfrizz** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 1:04 pm

Roy, hands down. In my lifetime, I've never seen another goalie single-handedly carry teams like he did.

André · Post by **André** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 1:53 pm

mikey287 wrote:
shoeshine boy wrote:4 cups to 2 is a horrible argument? Cups are what you play for not Vezina Trophys.
Jaroslav Pouzar's cups >>> Marcel Dionne's cups

Enough said.

Championships are in no way the key factor when ranking individual greatness.

Chefpatrick871 · Post by **Chefpatrick871** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 4:54 pm

Hmmm, interesting question considering how the game has changed since Hasek/Roy retired. I'm being a fanboy and saying Hasek because he was a lot of fun to watch and I loved his unorthodox style.

MRandall25 · Post by **MRandall25** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 5:04 pm

[youtube][/youtube]

vs.

[youtube][/youtube]

I can't decide...

IMFC · Post by **IMFC** » Sat Sep 01, 2012 2:28 am

Taking Roy all the way. Competitor.

Hasek? "Good against remotes is one thing. Good against the living? That's something else." Pressure didn't bring out the best in him.

Brodeur is maybe the most boring ever. Totally solid. But you have to play solid, boring hockey in front of him. I'd take him 2nd.

Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek

Re: Roy, Brodeur, or Hasek