BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,844
- 13,628
On the 4th goal, Chiarot screen Price so he see nothing. You can see him tap Chiarot with his stick so he get out of the wayPrice was the only bright spot aside from Caufield. He made a ton of huge saves. Only the 4th goal he'd like back. Our D scored the first and third. I feel like they should practice not deflecting pucks at morning skates.
Good Lord.About time for Price to choke. He's widely inconsistent
Unless Price wins at least one cup, he’ll never be in the discussion with those “greatest of all time goalies.” There’s no doubt about that. Same with Lundqvist. That’s just how it is, fair or not. I don’t think you’ll get any argument from anyone on that.I started actively watching in 93 - so I can't speak too much of Roy's series from ~89-92. I'll take your word for it that he struggled vs Boston and got outplayed by Vernon in finals. Still - from 1989 to 1992, for goalies with over 20 games played, he's #1 in sv% and gaa in the playoffs, so how inconsistent can the best goalie truly be?
I'm one of the biggest Price supporters you'll find here. In fact - I'd argue I may be his biggest, even giving Lafleur's Guy a run for his money, if you were to read my post history on Price. So you don't have to speak Price up to me. I agree that Roy had deeper teams than Price - but that in itself isn't an argument for whose better. Gretzky as #1C has had deeper teams than Danault has had as a #1c- and Gretzky is still around a billion times better.
Price has certainly suffered from lack of opportunity in the playoffs in his career, due to bad teams. But it is what it is, Roy still has a huge edge on Price for career, peak and prime in playoffs (peak regular season, Price has edge, and Olympics too).
Like it or not, you’re 100 % right even if I’m a BIG Price fan and always wasUnless Price wins at least one cup, he’ll never be in the discussion with those “greatest of all time goalies.” There’s no doubt about that. Same with Lundqvist. That’s just how it is, fair or not. I don’t think you’ll get any argument from anyone on that.
It’s why I separate the conversation from “greatest” to ability. I think capability wise Price and Lundqvist were good enough to have won multiple cups if they’d had better teams. But they didn’t. That qualifies them for the HOF but they’ll never be on a top five of all time list the way cup winners will. Is it fair? No. But that’s the way it goes. Who knows if say Marcel Dionne wouldn’t have been a top ten player ahead of Lafleur if the Habs had chosen him instead? But he wasn’t so he isn’t....Like it or not, you’re 100 % right even if I’m a BIG Price fan and always was
Yep ! And that apply to every sports, at the end of the day, the most important thing is winning. In the NBA MJ is primarily known for his 6 titles, NFL Brady and his 7 Super BowlIt’s why I separate the conversation from “greatest” to ability. I think capability wise Price and Lundqvist were good enough to have won multiple cups if they’d had better teams. But they didn’t. That qualifies them for the HOF but they’ll never be on a top five of all time list the way cup winners will. Is it fair? No. But that’s the way it goes. Who knows if say Marcel Dionne wouldn’t have been a top ten player ahead of Lafleur if the Habs had chosen him instead? But he wasn’t so he isn’t....
it’s harder to win now but you need at least one. Ovechkin for example is talked about as a top ten player of all time now in some discussions. But there’s no way that happens if he doesn’t have at least one cup. It’s just the way it is.
Price was the only bright spot aside from Caufield. He made a ton of huge saves. Only the 4th goal he'd like back. Our D scored the first and third. I feel like they should practice not deflecting pucks at morning skates.
Price had a pretty good game last night overall, and made some classic Price saves. He's far from the reason we lost.
But what the hell is happening here?
How does he not realize the play's on the other side of the ice? Even if the pass release was screen situational awareness is key for a goaltender and he should have realized sooner than he did that the puck moved.
I don't know, not trying to criticize his overall game which was very good but this particular play was odd to me.
1. It's not meaningless. They met twice and Hasek beat Roy while playing on an inferior team in the Olympics and he beat Roy when both were on powerhouses. I agree it's not definitive, but it helps Hasek's case.1. Hasek has a better record than Roy head to head. That's true - but that hardly means anything? We're talking about a sample of ~20 games in a ~20 year career. Goalie head to head matchups are fun to track as fans, but completely meaningless in actuality. If Fleury ends up much better than Price - will you use that as an argument that he's a better goalie, because he happened to be better head to head? It's meaningless. Pretty cool for the player's ego maybe, but that's about it.
2. Hasek had a great run in 1999. Not as good as Roy's playoffs in 1993. Possibly not as good as a few others, such as 1989, 1986, 2001, 1996....yeah Roy is a monster playoff performer. The only player in history who can go head to head with Gretzky for playoffs. You are seriously underrating him.
You can't just give Hasek the edge because he plays on a bad team. His performances have to match/be better too. Otherwise - is McDavid better than Crosby because he's on a worst team? Or - better than Gretzky?
Roy >> Hasek for playoffs. For peak/prime/career.
Hasek has the better regular season record though (though Roy is no slouch there either).
Bottom line - I think you are massively underrating Roy in some of your posts.
Cool story...Price plays great about 3 to 4 weeks every year. Other 6 months of season plays like Red Light Racicot. With .903% save percentage.
Usually plays his great month at start of season but late years done it in playoffs.
Pretty much. Roy was a great goalie on great defensive teams. He had guys like Carbo, Gainey, Skrudland, McPhee up front and guys like Chelios, Robinson in the back. That is a dream team for a goalie to be on. Then he went to Colorado... We shouldn't hold it against him but you have to factor it in if you're going to compare him to Hasek.Roy wasn’t very good from 87-92, he was thoroughly outplayed in the 89 Cup finals by Mike Vernon, and horrendous vs Bruins in 90-92.
Habs don’t win in 86 without Roy and 93 without Roy + luck (OT wins) + DiPietro...I won’t argue that point.
Roy always had teams far deeper than any team Price has been on - this edition is the deepest. Roy also played in an era (w Habs) where there was almost no player autonomy, his GM wasn’t hindered in acquiring players until experiencing the beginning of it in 93 (Bellows)
That’s not Roy’s fault by any means, it just is what it is.
Tough on the D when they're missing Petry. It means more ice for lesser blueliners. Remember how we used to play Benn more when Weber would get hurt? And we used to get totally smoked with him back there.Price was the only bright spot aside from Caufield. He made a ton of huge saves. Only the 4th goal he'd like back. Our D scored the first and third. I feel like they should practice not deflecting pucks at morning skates.
Best player of my viewing time as a Habs fan.Another monster game from him tonight. Great watching him having a laugh about a minute after giving up the second goal. Totally cool under pressure.
His first third round win.
It's almost like he knew they would win that game. It's like he was saying "I gave up a 2nd goal just to give these classless fans hope, now watch them go home all sad".Another monster game from him tonight. Great watching him having a laugh about a minute after giving up the second goal. Totally cool under pressure.
His first third round win.
I noticed you said Roy was inconsistent. I actually came to post that consistency is , IMO, a huge factor in determining which player is better than any other . For example, if you have two goalies who were both starters between let’s say 2000-2005, well if you want to determine who was the better goalie, I would say don’t look at the one with the best stats during one or two of those seasons, but look at the one who had more consistency in those 5 seasons , even if his best season was not as good as the other player. Not sure if you understand my point, but I’d you don’t .. well … too bad, it’s almost 1 a.m1. It's not meaningless. They met twice and Hasek beat Roy while playing on an inferior team in the Olympics and he beat Roy when both were on powerhouses. I agree it's not definitive, but it helps Hasek's case.
2. Hasek's 1999 run is far more impressive than Roy winning in 93. He's beating powerhouses on a totally crap team. And to top it off, he gets boned on the winning goal. You could make a really good argument that he didn't deserve to lose. Roy was on a much better team playing two series that are evenly matched and two that are against scrubs. 1999 might be the best individual effort in playoff history. I'd put Dryden in 71 ahead of it but if Hasek had won, I don't see how it could be denied. Hasek could take inferior teams and win playoff series. Roy never really did that. He could win where his team was even or stronger. And Roy was bad enough sometimes to LOSE his team a series. I don't remember that ever happening with Hasek. To me, it's those two points that seal it for him. Consistency and the ability to beat superior teams. The head to head stuff is more icing on the cake than anything.
You choose Roy? That's fine. I'd like to agree with you. I really hated Hasek. Hated the way he played and thought he was a whiny idiot. But he was a great freaking goalie. I don't see how he's not the better goalie here.
Roy was awesome but inconsistent. Personally, I'd take Ken Dryden over him as well. But I'm less firm on that one because I was too young to personally watch him play.
So, I think you are really annoyed by his D.....I'm annoyed by Price's play so far this round. Every goal he's allowed it seems it's because he hasn't seen the puck - and at the start of game 2, it seems almost every shot, or shot attempt in the first period, he couldn't see what was going on and was reacting a bit late/getting lucky.
He's been spectacular as always, so I'm not blaming him in anyway - but you can't stop what you don't see. I hope his defenders can do a better job of clearing the net/giving him line of sights. When he sees - he stops.