189 replies to this topic

[TuckerIntensity1]

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 15 2009, 11:30 AM)

---

Tier 1: Roy, Hasek, Plante, Hall, Dryden, Sawchuk, Tretiak, Benedict, Brodeur, Bower

I have to agree with everything, it's a big jump on the gun to say he's Top 20 when he hasn't even got to the Finals or won the second Smythe.

Question: Are those in order seventies? Just wondering because that first tier is in the exact order I have them until Tretiak. I didn't think you had Dryden at five though, but my memory on your Top Ten is sketchy.

Oh, and boo-urns to leatherface for Nordic.

[TuckerIntensity1]

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 15 2009, 12:28 PM)

---

Nope, that's not exactly in order, but pretty close.

Really though, I haven't decided on an order for the big three and it's possible that I never will.

Neither have I. We've discussed this a bit in another thread in passing, the builder where I got Brodeur to be exact, and that's the same thing I said. Really, you could catch me on any given day and it could alternate between them with Hall not too far behind, but if push came to shove (and it did when I actually put down my list), that's what I'd give you up to Tretriak.

[TuckerIntensity1]

So we've tossed out the Selke in one thread, I forget which other award in another, and I asked, "what's next, Hart trophies don't mean anything?" Apparently, that was correct. Thomas Vokoun is the best player on a crappy team, yet he's not getting a lot of Hart voting.

[TuckerIntensity1]

Just a random tidbit, to the question: "We're you at all concerned about Chris Osgood going into the playoffs?" Steve Yzerman responded "Yes, I was concerned." That was up front on OTR this week. No offense to Chris Osgood, I'd take him on my team if I had a strong team, but if I was taking a goalie to have on my team, I'm not taking him until way down the list. Bobby Lou is easily better, so is Lundvist, so are a lot of guys, but Ozzie is good for the system he is in. I'd take Osgood as my goalie if I built a strong team in front of him, but that doesn't mean he's better than Luongo just because Ozzie has played on Cup teams. Thomas Holmstrom has three or four cups, going to take him over Alex Ovechkin? No. Happy to have Holmstrom on your team if you have a really strong line/team around him? Yes.

[TuckerIntensity1]

QUOTE (spinner @ May 21 2009, 02:00 PM)

---

I never said I would take Osgood over Luongo, I said Osgood gives you far more bang for your buck. Luongo gets all this praise yet hasn't won a damn thing even though he has had good teams in front of him (Canucks, Olympics). Osgood has exactly one less AST than Bobby Lu but also has 3 Cups as a starter and moreover, his team could not win without him, even though they were the best in the league. Say what you want about his regular season play but the guy turns it on the playoffs, there is no question about that, something that Luongo has proven he cannot do yet. Chicago made him look average.

So you'd take Luongo over Osgood, but Osgood is better? Luongo has been ripped for two Vezina's (one in the very least), is the only goalie to finish in the Top 10 in save percentage in at least 7 of the last 8 years, and minus the Game 7, has played very well in the playoffs. Last time he was there he had a .941 for Pete's sake, how is that not turning it on? Without Game 7 against the Hawks Bobby Lou has a .931 these playoffs as well. Ozzie has had bad games before too, it happens. Osgood is bang for your buck, yet he played what, 45 games in the regular season? His save percentage was horrid yet he got nearly 29 wins, he wouldn't have got those wins on a worse team. Imagine him in the Leafs net, yikes. I agree that he has shown he's ready to go in the playoffs, but I also have no doubts they'd be where they are and maybe quicker if Bobby Lou was playing in their net.

A side note, Ozzie doesn't have three as a starter, he has two. Vernon had the Conn Smythe in '97 and Hasek was in net in '02. Osgood is good consistent enough to win in Detroit with a strong team in front of him, if there was no cap, he more than likely would have been supplanted at the trade deadline this year.

[TuckerIntensity1]

QUOTE (spinner @ May 21 2009, 08:27 PM)

---

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said I would take Luongo over Osgood. I said Osgood gives you better value.

rofl, no it's never said you'd take Luongo over Osgood when last post it was you never said you'd take Osgood over Luongo. You taking Lundqvist?

QUOTE (spinner @ May 21 2009, 08:27 PM)

---

My mistake then, I thought it was Osgood in 2002. Apologies to the Dominator.

Funny though, not your mistake, but how Dominator won when he wasn't his ridiculous dominant self like in the 90s.

QUOTE (spinner @ May 21 2009, 08:27 PM)

---

As for being supplanted at the trade deadline, I went through this with dreakmur. Detroit could certainly have made cap space by dumping Osgood himself and a 4th liner. Nik Backstrom was only owed $1M by the trade deadline and that certainly would have been a good fit. Kenny Holland, however, decided not to do anything and went with his guy, Osgood. If he thought for a second that Osgood wasn't the guy, why would he risk his team's fortunes and his own job by not doing anything?

How are they going to resign Nik Backstrom? They have no space beyond this year, not just this year.

[TuckerIntensity1]

QUOTE (spinner @ May 22 2009, 08:05 PM)

---

What I said (for at least the 4th time) is that I would rather take Osgood in the last round than Luongo in the first round. My goaltending would not drop too much + I would have a much better squad in front of him.

Don't make me quote you. Who is the better goalie, flat out? Who would you choose if there was no cap?

QUOTE (spinner @ May 22 2009, 08:05 PM)

---

Re-signing Backstrom was not part of the equation. You've heard of rental players, haven't you? Detroit could certainly have rented Backstrom and if he wins the Cup, heck, sign him to a long term deal and trade away other pieces. If not, let him sign with the highest bidder.

And play with six skaters all next year because you have no goalie? That makes little to no sense. You can't just say "if they wanted to they could've traded for Backstrom" and not think about the future beyond this season. Why on earth would they trade for Backstrom when 1) they can't fit him anyway, 2) they can't resign him, and 3) would have to give up Osgood plus on of their skill players to make room? It makes zero sense.

[TuckerIntensity1]

QUOTE (spinner @ May 23 2009, 02:12 AM)

---

Go ahead and quote me, I have repeated the same thing over and over again. This is not about who the better goalie is, or who I would choose. It was about some poor comparison that dreakmur made. I don't even know how or why you got involved in the first place.

Why are you so afraid to say who you think is a better goalie then?

QUOTE (spinner @ May 23 2009, 02:12 AM)

---

What are you talking about? They would only have to give up one or two roster players to get Backstrom, how do you get six skaters and no goalie?

Think about that again.

QUOTE (spinner @ May 23 2009, 02:12 AM)

---

If Backstrom didn't re-sign, there's a host of other goalies that Holland could have traded for or signed, including one Vesa Toskala, if Burkie manages to sign Gustavsson. And why is giving up Osgood a problem when Osgood is the reason they are bringing in another goalie??? The whole hypothetical situation came about because Osgood apparently wasn't good enough!

Toskala makes more than the space they have. As I've said, because their team is strong they can get away with Osgood, so why would you pay more for a downgrade in Toskala (and have to make space for him by getting rid of better players)? At the end of the day, if there was no cap, Osgood wouldn't be their goalie at this point because of how terrible he was in the regular season. Giving up Osgood when you have zero viable solutions to replace him is a huge problem.

[TuckerIntensity1]

QUOTE (spinner @ May 23 2009, 09:32 PM)

---

I'm not afraid of saying it, in fact, I did say it. When I said that Luongo goes first round and Osgood goes last round, that tells you who I think is the better goalie in a vacuum. That is irrelevant to the point at hand, however, because I have said over and over again that Osgood elevates his game in the playoffs and he fits in well with Detroit. Chemistry counts for a lot when it comes to the Stanley Cup.

OK, now that we have that out of the way, it's also not as simple as saying, "Ozzie is better to get in the last round than Luongo in the first." Given the same team, you'd rather have Luongo, so what did you do in the drafting other than those guys to make it so certain that Ozzie in the last is better than Bobby Lou in the first? Say you push back your centres and get Mike Richards and Olli Jokinen/Stamkos instead of Eric Staal and Sedin or Bergeron, which goalie three players would to rather have, Richards/Jokinen/Luongo or Staal/Sedin/Osgood? And the "chemsitry" argument is silly, there is zero evidence to suggest Luongo would hurt a team's chemistry.

QUOTE (spinner @ May 23 2009, 09:32 PM)

---

OK, I did. I still don't see how you arrived at that conclusion.

They aren't trading six guys, they are playing six skaters and no goalie because they couldn't resign Backstrom and have no other viable option. Obviously they'd play Howard or someone, but it was for effect, apparently didn't work.

QUOTE (spinner @ May 23 2009, 09:32 PM)

---

Shhh, not so loud, the Vesku lovers might hear you!

rofl... seriously, who would want him though?

QUOTE (spinner @ May 23 2009, 09:32 PM)

---

Here's what you're not getting:
- dreakmur said Osgood sucked but Ken Holland had no other options
- I countered that Holland actually did have options but stood by Osgood because he had faith in him
- giving up Osgood then, from dreakmur's perspective, would be a no-brainer to get a better goalie, yes? If Osgood is as crappy as dreakmur made him out to be then Osgood himself was not a "viable" option, therefore, you are making a big stink for no reason because you are not understanding where I am coming from

I am getting what you are saying there, I have even said I'd take Ozzie as my goalie if I built a strong team in front of him. I still don't think Holland had any viable options and Yzerman openly admitted they were concerned about Ozzie going into the playoffs as well. I got into it because of this reply after just dropping a few tidbits about the two and what Yzerman had said:

QUOTE (spinner @ May 21 2009, 02:00 PM)

---

I never said I would take Osgood over Luongo, I said Osgood gives you far more bang for your buck. Luongo gets all this praise yet hasn't won a damn thing even though he has had good teams in front of him (Canucks, Olympics). Osgood has exactly one less AST than Bobby Lu but also has 3 Cups as a starter and moreover, his team could not win without him, even though they were the best in the league. Say what you want about his regular season play but the guy turns it on the playoffs, there is no question about that, something that Luongo has proven he cannot do yet. Chicago made him look average.

Luongo was stellar last time around and his team failed him, you can't pin that on him. He was very good minus one game this year, but the blame got pinned on him because it was the last game. He's been jobbed out of Vezina's, which is why "he hasn't won anything." And his save percentage in the playoffs is actually better than his regular season by ten points (using only playoff years and career numbers.)

I don't fully agree with taking Ozzie in the last over Luongo in the first, but you'd have to see the entire draft to determine that, I do agree that may work, especially in a cap era. I certainly strongly disagree with the last quote.

[TuckerIntensity1]

QUOTE (spinner @ May 23 2009, 11:47 PM)

---

Getting into such specifics for a totally made-up scenario is a waste of time. Obviously, if you draft a goalie first round, the rest of your team will take a hit. If you wait until the last round to draft a goalie, chances are you will have a better squad in front of him. We both agree on this so let's move on.

I don't fully agree though. In theory it works, but I just built a team and chose a goalie in the fifth round and had I waited and taken Osgood late, my team would not have been as good as it would've looked quite close to the exact same minus the Brodeur to Ozzie drop. But whatever.

QUOTE (spinner @ May 23 2009, 11:47 PM)

---

As for chemistry, I wasn't talking about Luongo specifically, but more so Osgood. There is a comfort level there and if it ain't broke, why fix it?

It was broke though. Collective Detroit fans were filling their collective pants around here because of their situation and many wanted Conklin the starter for much of the year.

QUOTE (spinner @ May 23 2009, 11:47 PM)

---

Regardless, there are many viable options for a team like Detroit. They let Osgood go before and he came back, who's to say it couldn't happen again? How many times did Wendel Clark come back?

How is that fixing the problem though? Trading assets to a get a goalie that isn't that much better because they don't have room only to have the same one back next year?

QUOTE (spinner @ May 23 2009, 11:47 PM)

---

First of all, Stevie Y is not Ken Holland but that aside, trading for Backstrom was certainly a possibility for Detroit. They had the assets, they had the cap space if they wanted to make room, and they were banking their playoff hopes on a guy who was replaced by a career backup during the season. To an outsider, it looked like Chris Osgood was the weak link in the red and white chain, and he may prove to be yet, however, if you are Kenny Holland, why do you roll the dice with Osgood unless you have faith in him? Osgood was in net for them last season and won it, why couldn't he do it again?

No one is saying they couldn't do it again with a below average goalie in net, we're saying he isn't the best option a team could have, but under their cap situation he was the only option they had.

[TuckerIntensity1]

Just for a reference, Ozzie's save percentage in the playoffs with the Wings is 10 points higher than with other teams. Doesn't really matter much unless you have the average's of those years for the league as well, but he is what he is, good enough to backstop a great team, not good enough to steal you a series. I did find some numbers that show Osgood's save percentage before this year was actually one point below the league average for his career in the playoffs, but I didn't work them myself, so I don't know if they are fully accurate or not. It's not that Ozzie is bad, he's just not that good. He gets the job done for a great team and is rarely close to the most valuable person on the ice for his team.

[TuckerIntensity1]

QUOTE (Armster @ May 25 2009, 10:58 AM)

---

Kind of like Grant Fuhr who is so revered

In Fuhr's defense, his post-season save percentage was above the league average by five points I believe. Not in Fuhr's defense, I liken him to Osgood, good enough to get the job done on a great team. Again in his defense, he does have the Vezina, twice the amount of Cups (one more in a few weeks), and a runner up for a Hart (an a second Top 10 in the 90s.) I think his Vezina finishes are a win, four Top 5's and 8 Top 10's, that's pretty solid, especially when put up against one runner up and two other Top 10's from Ozzie.

But yes, I would tend to agree that Fuhr's career benefited greatly from the team he played much of his career for.

[TuckerIntensity1]

QUOTE (Armster @ May 25 2009, 11:42 AM)

---

Exactly. Fuhr and Osgood were cut from the same cloth. I personally, and I may lose credibility for this, couldn't care less about Fuhr's Vezina.....really he won it as the best of the worst and he certainly was't even the best goalie in the league that year. There's no real difference, put many goalies on that Oilers team and they boast the same Cups. Sure we can sit back and say well Fuhr shut it down when the score was 6-5 Oilers, but seriously should the other team have even scored 5 goals in the first place...lots of times after seeing some of the goals I would say no. But he was able to bounce back from bad goals and games, just like Osgood.

In his Vezina year Fuhr was ahead of Gretz in Hart voting. I agree with the sentiment that Fuhr and Ozzie are the same types, definitely, like dreak said, they were both good enough to get the job done, but Fuhr was better than Osgood is. But, that's not saying an incredible amount.

QUOTE (Armster @ May 25 2009, 11:42 AM)

---

That said, another credibility potential loser here but again I couldn't care less, I would take Osgood over Luongo in the playoffs but obviously I wouldn't take Roy over Osgood.
Why? Give the goalie who has got it done especially in late moments when the game is on the line and does make the huge saves - something Luongo for exampel hasn't done. If you want to talk regular season that's a different story but even then in his prime, Osgood was no slouch in the regular season.

Luongo compared to the league average is much better save percentage wise than Osgood while facing more shots. If Luongo was in the Wings net and Ozzie was in the Canucks net, we'd see the same thing as we do now; Vancouver out and Detroit looking like they are going to win a Stanley Cup yet again. There's no doubt who the better goalie is straight up, playoffs or not, one has just played for a much better team. Other than his last game Bobby Lou had a strong playoffs again this year, goalies have bad games, Osgood has had his as well.

[TuckerIntensity1]

QUOTE (Armster @ May 25 2009, 12:10 PM)

---

I know, I realize this but how do you measure composure when it counts statistically? Dare I say in that very important game where Luongo let in the game tying goal with under 2 mins to go, that there is a good chance that Osgood or Fuhr could have stopped that goal? Or how about the year Cloutier was in goal for the playoffs for the Canucks, could they have gone further?

I know it seems ridiculous to compare Luongo and Osgood and put them in the same league b/c for the most part you can't, but if there are 2mins on the clock and I am up by one, I will take Osgood at this point today 7 days a week. You hve been watching the Wings series as much as I have, and Osgood has made more than his share of game savers or game changers.

The point I am trying to make, is that people are making Osgood to be an average goalie, where I am saying he is above average.

Give me Detroit's defensive system with Luongo in net any day of the week. I don't think Ozzie is bad, but I don't think he's that much above average either. If I'm ranking the starters from 1-30, he's coming in somewhere on the wrong side of 15. If I'm ranking them in terms of who I'd want behind a good team in the playoffs, I still am not certain I'd take him any higher than 10th, so to me that says he's somewhere in the middle.

If Luongo was in net instead of Cloutier, I bet that goal from center ice doesn't go in, which might change the entire series as that moment is believed by many to swing the momentum back to Detroit. At the time Luongo would've been a lot younger, 22 or 23 maybe, even at that age I think he carries them farther than Cloutier did, Luongo of today, no doot aboot it.

[TuckerIntensity1]

Those shutouts were quite the team effort. I don't see how Ozzie makes the HHOF considering who isn't in across the board. He just hasn't done enough for me. Hank got the CS he deserved last year and at this point, I don't see how Ozzie picks one up when they... I mean if they win. He's a goalie that'd I'd happily take as my starter with a team like the Wings, but he certainly wouldn't be in my top ten of choices if I one.

[TuckerIntensity1]

Again, who do you want Alex Ovechkin or Cory Stillman?

[TuckerIntensity1]

It's not a trapping question, it's a legitimate alternative to the idea you take the guy who has been there over the guy who hasn't. It's not always the case. As for Morrow or Thornton, give me the better player, Thornton. He's still even outproduced Morrow in the playoffs.

[TuckerIntensity1]

The Sharks loss this year is quite overblown. Their goalie played poor, the opposing goalie played unbelievably well. It was J.S. Giguere all over again and they damn near pulled it out against Detroit. Nobody wanted to play Anaheim. It's not a knock against Morrow either, I'd take him any day of the week on my team. The skill level between him and Thornton is much closer than that between Ozzie and Luongo.

[TuckerIntensity1]

Evgeni Nabokov: .890, 25.70 shots per 60 minutes
Jonas Hiller: .943, 39 shots per 60 minutes (this is for the playoffs, his save percentage was higher for the first series, around the same shots a bit less IIRC.)

Although I agree Thornton hasn't been what most would expect in his career in the playoffs (usually seeing a drop off in the post-season from the regular season), him getting the square blame for San Jose not beating Anaheim is a bit sickening to me. He has actually been pretty strong for the Sharks in the playoffs, but his reputation from Boston is what is remembered. The Sharks only had one major issue that series and it was their goalie playing very sub par and the opposing goalie playing ridiculously well (and which one had the experience?)

[TuckerIntensity1]

You just told me that the goalie is the most important position and now you want me to believe that when the difference in how poor Nabokov played and how well Hiller played is so great, it is the team's leading playoff scorers fault his team didn't advance to the second round? Interesting. The Sharks had to major problems in their series, the first being the ridiculous play of Hiller in the net opposite them and the second being not getting even an average performance from their own goalie. But of course, Thornton not being the reason San Jose lost has nothing to do with why Luongo is a better bet than Osgood in your net.