Players that are UNDERRATED when talking about their contributions to Cup wins

[Nalyd Psycho]

Vincent Damphousse is probably the most unheralded leading scorer of a Cup Champion.

Another Hab might give him a run for his money, Mats Naslund.

 

[nik jr]

bobby rousseau

habs won the cup in both '65 and '66.

rousseau scored 21p in the 23 games of those 2 playoffs.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Fleury was better and several other goalies on weaker teams that were taken out early were better, just on worse teams. Game savers and game winners.

I'm just going to butt in and disagree with you here. He let in some real softies during the finals. His best two games were 5 and 3. He let in a weak Hudler shot and let in two weak goals in game 6. And let a guy like Samuelsson score 3 not very difficult goals on him.

I can understand Vezina finalists playing better and maybe Fluery during the regular season (I didn't watch all the games he played) but in the finals Fluery was sub-par.

 

[Randall Graves*]

Travis Moen in 2007 for the ducks, night in and night out he was really good and scored some huge huge goals while being on one of the best checking lines the league has seen in a few years.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I'm just going to butt in and disagree with you here. He let in some real softies during the finals. His best two games were 5 and 3. He let in a weak Hudler shot and let in two weak goals in game 6. And let a guy like Samuelsson score 3 not very difficult goals on him.

I can understand Vezina finalists playing better and maybe Fluery during the regular season (I didn't watch all the games he played) but in the finals Fluery was sub-par.

First off, his defense was nowhere near as competent. The pens were a team that won by trying to outscore you, not the stop you from scoring puck possession hybrid the wings play.

Games 1 and 2 his team just did not show up in front of him. A team chalk full of kids playing in their first playoff. Those first 2 games inflated Osgood's save% for the finals considering how badly the wings outplayed the Pens. 2 of Samuelsson's goals were due to Lax play by the pens in game 1. They let him walk around and backhand it in, and then Malkin gift wrapped a giveaway for Samuelsson trying to look pretty. Osgood made 1 nice save on Crosby that game, and Hossa hit the post a few times, but otherwise it was nothing great on Osgood's end.

Second, Fleury had some phenomenal games, and unlike Osgood, actually won some games near single handedly. The triple overtime game 5 you mentioned, Detroit outshot the pens 58 to 32 and Fleury managed to outplay Osgood behind an inferior defense and team system.

In the end, Fleury faced 222 shots in those finals, Osgood faced 142, and I would still say Fleury won games for the Pens, and that Osgood did not win any(His defense did. he did not "Keep them in games"). he was not tested at all, and certainly not to the level Fleury was.

Swap their teams and Fleury wins a cup, Osgood goes home in 4-5.

 

[norrisnick]

norrisnick, did you not see the first couple games of the Cup finals last year? Pittsburgh was clearly a green team getting a first taste of the Cup and had never been in this territory before. Osgood had two shutouts in the first two games but arguably didnt make a save that you or I couldnt have made. The Wings played extraordinary defense in front of him. If Dan Cloutier is in the net for Detroit in Game #1-2 I dont see the score changing. Sorry to burst your bubble but Osgood has really rode the coattails of a great team for a long time and has never really shown many glimpses of being a game stealer throughout his career. You'd think a goalie with 3 Cup wins would have cemented some type of legacy but he hasnt. We just dont remember him for being a great playoff goalie in the hockey world.

I suggest you re-watch the series.

 

[norrisnick]

I feel that is an accurate description of their play. The wings allowed the fewest shots against by no small margin, an Osgood was never tested more than a few times. Certainly he was not challenged or in any kind of danger most goalies face in the playoffs. Solid, but not special or memorable or truly tested.


He is. Just about any non red wings fan(And most red wings fans) will tell you. He is not elite. Never has been.

Doctor No, a man who works with goalies for a living, just said it best. Osgood is basically the definition of average league starting goaltender. That is as accurate a portrayal as you are like to get.


Neither did I. See that is your problem Nick. Someone makes a sincere statement that Osgood is not top 10 in the league, and that he is average, and you equate it with "Omg, you are saying a folding chair could do his job!"

I stated that Osgood was nothing particularly special, and that 10+ other goaltenders could have done his job or better with that squad in front of them. Almost Every analyst who were commenting on the playoffs during the run said the same.

There were analysts that felt Osgood would have been a more than justified Conn Smythe recipient.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I suggest you re-watch the series.

We suggest you remove the biased goggles.

There were analysts that felt Osgood would have been a more than justified Conn Smythe recipient.

And they were outnumbered by quite a bit considering the talk I saw from the Analysts

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

Jeff Friesen for the 2003 Devils cup win.

 

[Big Phil]

I suggest you re-watch the series.

That's kind of what I was suggesting to you, Osgood barely had any work at all in the first two games, as a Wings fan I can only assume you watched the Cup finals last year and as a guy that was cheering for the Penguins my thought was how frustrating it was that Pittsburgh could not get any shots on net, and when they did they were not quality ones. Goaltending was not what won the Cup for Detroit because if you put Fleury in there in Osgood's place the score is the same if not better for Detroit. Dont know how much easier I can explain it

 

[ArGarBarGar]

First off, his defense was nowhere near as competent. The pens were a team that won by trying to outscore you, not the stop you from scoring puck possession hybrid the wings play.

I'm not talking about why he couldn't win the series. I'm talking about specific goals.

Games 1 and 2 his team just did not show up in front of him. A team chalk full of kids playing in their first playoff. Those first 2 games inflated Osgood's save% for the finals considering how badly the wings outplayed the Pens. 2 of Samuelsson's goals were due to Lax play by the pens in game 1. They let him walk around and backhand it in, and then Malkin gift wrapped a giveaway for Samuelsson trying to look pretty.

That doesn't change the fact that the goals he let in weren't that difficult to stop. He committed too far on the first goal and let in a slow five hole goal (I think it was five hole) for the second. The third was even from a bad angle. You are talking about something completely different here. I never compared stats or S% or different styles of play. I just said that Fluery let in some softies, regardless of defensive breakdowns.

Hudler's goal was terrible as well.

 

[Big Phil]

1997 was still close enough to the end of the Cold War that there was a definite anti-Russian bias (which in the NHL expressed itself as "Russians are lazy, selfish, soft, bad leaders, etc").

If the 1997 playoffs happened 10 years later, Fedorov would have won the Smythe.

That's arguable at best. Fedorov was a good choice and wouldnt have been a wrong choice for 1997 but he wasnt THE choice. Shanahan, Yzerman were good too. Vernon had a 1.76 GAA playing against some of the highest scoring teams in the NHL that year. Konstantinov could have won it as well. It was a full team effort that year and no one really stood out.

Besides Fedorov won the '94 Hart Trophy. This was 3 years prior to '97. If there is all this anti-Russian bias he wouldnt have won that. There were plenty of players like Hasek, Gilmour, Bure, Bourque, Stevens or even Gretzky that were close enough to garner Hart votes, although I dont have the numbers on me. Fedorov deserved it in '94 and that's why he got it. He was a much more clearer choice as a Hart winner than he was as a Smythe winner in '97

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Jeff Friesen for the 2003 Devils cup win.

seconded. nowadays, no one gives him the credit that we give niedermayer, brodeur, or langenbrunner for that win. in the foggy memories of a lot of people, nieuwendyk did more than friesen, which is the farthest thing from the truth.

but i remember 2003, when people were saying that friesen had finally made that step and had become a heart and soul deadmarsh type of player (in terms of determination and clutch, not physical presence). but what the hell happened to him afterwards?