30
|
|
Post by galaxytrash on Aug 6, 2020 23:57:36 GMT -6
Hopefully that's the case. I was hoping they'd pick him and was surprised when they did. He's got a lot of upside, especially if Toews' face-off skill rub off on him. indeed. I wonder if he is still living with Seabrook? that certainly couldn't hurt, either..... i'm sure i heard when KD went back to chicago for phase 1 camp that he moved back in with the seabrooks. |
|
|
|
Post by Tater on Aug 7, 2020 0:57:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Aug 7, 2020 1:10:32 GMT -6
that second paragraph... I hope he also learned to know his limits and how to be a tough sob from his landlord.... |
|
|
|
Post by mvr on Aug 7, 2020 9:48:02 GMT -6
As everyone here probably remembers, Dach was my pick last spring. You do not pass up on a 6'4" right shot power centre who can play a two-way game and score some. This is by far the most important and difficult position to fill. Dach is proving already that he can dominate in the pressure games and has the needed intensity for playoff hockey. With Dach and Boqvist on board, this team is not that far away. Anyways, do you honestly see much in Boqvist? I haven’t seen much of anything yet. I know he’s a kid, but it really is a young mans game now. I see many many young dmen make an impact. I think if Boqvist was not with Keith, he’d look like a 6th round pick struggling. I think Koekkoek has been much much better than Boqvist. Both are high first rounders. Why does Boqvist have a higher ceiling to most? That’s just me. Good to see you around again my man!!! I see great potential in Boqvist. His offensive potential is obvious already. He plays a positionally sound game on defence, though he needs to put on abut 20 pounds. He does not seem to be afraid of contact, unlike previous kids such as Leddy and to a lesser degree the Jokerman. Right shot defensemen who can potentially run a power play are extremely difficult to find. Rarely do we see a 19 year kid stepping in during playoff hockey intensity and not looking like a major liability. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Aug 7, 2020 10:27:18 GMT -6
Anyways, do you honestly see much in Boqvist? I haven’t seen much of anything yet. I know he’s a kid, but it really is a young mans game now. I see many many young dmen make an impact. I think if Boqvist was not with Keith, he’d look like a 6th round pick struggling. I think Koekkoek has been much much better than Boqvist. Both are high first rounders. Why does Boqvist have a higher ceiling to most? That’s just me. Good to see you around again my man!!! I see great potential in Boqvist. His offensive potential is obvious already. He plays a positionally sound game on defence, though he needs to put on abut 20 pounds. He does not seem to be afraid of contact, unlike previous kids such as Leddy and to a lesser degree the Jokerman. Right shot defensemen who can potentially run a power play are extremely difficult to find. Rarely do we see a 19 year kid stepping in during playoff hockey intensity and not looking like a major liability. I seen him with his head down vs Edmonton coming out from behind the net and Kassian was coming around, he let the puck go to an Oiler and bailed on the hit. Now I don’t blame the kid for not getting run the F*** over. I blame him for being careless in the first place and skating like he can do what he wants. The puck went right to an Oiler in a high scoring area due to this. I think he’s got skill, no doubt. But I’m not sold on him as a minute eater. Remember Sami Vatenen? He was highly regarded as a great puck moving Dman, now he’s moved around quite a bit and he’s just an nhl dman now. I know it’s easy to blame Keith when Boqvist is out of place and cowering from contact. But the truth is Keith is a guy who doesn’t like to lose and he will try to do too much, and at this stage, pairing him with a raw rookie is stupid. But for now, it’s working, vs a team that hits as much as Chicago, but I fear when this squad plays a tougher team. I don’t think he’s useless. Not what I’m getting at. I’m just not sold on him being a top pairing dman!!! |
|
|
|
Post by mvr on Aug 8, 2020 7:40:45 GMT -6
We all recognize that Toews, Kane, Keith and Hossa are the guaranteed Hall of Famers from this era.
But should Crawford now be part of the conversation? I believe so.
With each post-season victory, Crawford's career numbers are becoming more historically impressive.
Crawford has always flown under the radar. He is a gutsy, big game winner who has never been given the credit he deserves.
Grant Fuhr made the Hall of Fame playing behind an Oiler's dynasty. Crawford is this generation's Fuhr.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimakablkhwks918 on Aug 8, 2020 8:58:57 GMT -6
We all recognize that Toews, Kane, Keith and Hossa are the guaranteed Hall of Famers from this era. But should Crawford now be part of the conversation? I believe so. With each post-season victory, Crawford's career numbers are becoming more historically impressive. Crawford has always flown under the radar. He is a gutsy, big game winner who has never been given the credit he deserves. Grant Fuhr made the Hall of Fame playing behind an Oiler's dynasty. Crawford is this generation's Fuhr. With a little luck, and some more performances like last night, Crawford and Rask are going to keep leapfrogging in playoff wins as they pass some heady company: Cheevers, Sawchuk, and head toward Broda. A look at this list, and Corey is indeed among some elite company in terms of his playoff performance. www.quanthockey.com/nhl/records/nhl-goalies-all-time-playoff-wins-leaders.html |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Aug 8, 2020 9:23:05 GMT -6
We all recognize that Toews, Kane, Keith and Hossa are the guaranteed Hall of Famers from this era. But should Crawford now be part of the conversation? I believe so. With each post-season victory, Crawford's career numbers are becoming more historically impressive. Crawford has always flown under the radar. He is a gutsy, big game winner who has never been given the credit he deserves. Grant Fuhr made the Hall of Fame playing behind an Oiler's dynasty. Crawford is this generation's Fuhr. I fully agree here. I think he’s gonna make it at some point. It may take 15 years, but there’ll be some classes that lack the super high end players, and he’ll get in!!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2020 12:35:34 GMT -6
We all recognize that Toews, Kane, Keith and Hossa are the guaranteed Hall of Famers from this era. But should Crawford now be part of the conversation? I believe so. With each post-season victory, Crawford's career numbers are becoming more historically impressive. Crawford has always flown under the radar. He is a gutsy, big game winner who has never been given the credit he deserves. Grant Fuhr made the Hall of Fame playing behind an Oiler's dynasty. Crawford is this generation's Fuhr. With a little luck, and some more performances like last night, Crawford and Rask are going to keep leapfrogging in playoff wins as they pass some heady company: Cheevers, Sawchuk, and head toward Broda. A look at this list, and Corey is indeed among some elite company in terms of his playoff performance. www.quanthockey.com/nhl/records/nhl-goalies-all-time-playoff-wins-leaders.htmlTough to compare the goalies in the pre-expansion era when either there were only 6 teams in the league or there were only 2 rounds of playoffs. So when players such as Crawford and Rask pass goalies like Cheevers and Sawchuck (among others) winning percentage would be a better guide. |
|
|
|
Post by nighbor on Aug 8, 2020 12:53:12 GMT -6
Grant Fuhr made the Hall of Fame playing behind an Oiler's dynasty. Crawford is this generation's Fuhr. Crawford is the better goalie. GAA 2.46 to 3.38 and S% of .917 to .887. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Aug 8, 2020 13:02:01 GMT -6
Grant Fuhr made the Hall of Fame playing behind an Oiler's dynasty. Crawford is this generation's Fuhr. Crawford is the better goalie. GAA 2.46 to 3.38 and S% of .917 to .887. We also must take into account it was a total different era. Plus Grant Fuhr broke the colour barrier of the goalie fraternity. Kind of a big deal for the time. But Fuhr held his team in there just like Crawford does. Never seem to give up that “next goal”. I think it’s far too tough to see who the better goalie was from different eras. Would Brodeur be as effective today as he was in the dead puck era? Too many questions and not enough answers!!! |
|
|
|
Post by nighbor on Aug 8, 2020 17:13:55 GMT -6
Crawford is the better goalie. GAA 2.46 to 3.38 and S% of .917 to .887. We also must take into account it was a total different era. Plus Grant Fuhr broke the colour barrier of the goalie fraternity. Kind of a big deal for the time. But Fuhr held his team in there just like Crawford does. Never seem to give up that “next goal”. I think it’s far too tough to see who the better goalie was from different eras. Would Brodeur be as effective today as he was in the dead puck era? Too many questions and not enough answers!!! Playing in different eras is a crock. Hall, Esposito and Brodeur would still be top echelon goalies because of their athleticism. Dryden could still lie across the goal crease and take away the bottom half of the net. Crawford was under more pressure than Fuhr because Fuhr only had to prevent goal #5.
Vegas next victims.
|
|
|
|
Post by galaxytrash on Aug 8, 2020 19:46:31 GMT -6
We also must take into account it was a total different era. Plus Grant Fuhr broke the colour barrier of the goalie fraternity. Kind of a big deal for the time. But Fuhr held his team in there just like Crawford does. Never seem to give up that “next goal”. I think it’s far too tough to see who the better goalie was from different eras. Would Brodeur be as effective today as he was in the dead puck era? Too many questions and not enough answers!!! Playing in different eras is a crock. Hall, Esposito and Brodeur would still be top echelon goalies because of their athleticism. Dryden could still lie across the goal crease and take away the bottom half of the net. Crawford was under more pressure than Fuhr because Fuhr only had to prevent goal #5.
Vegas next victims.
hall and esposito would crumble under the weight of all the oversized equipment the goalies wear today. : ) |
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Aug 8, 2020 22:18:51 GMT -6
still love Crow, always will, but I'm still not seeing it. if he lead the team to a Cup and won a long overdue Connie? then I could start to see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by nighbor on Aug 9, 2020 10:36:39 GMT -6
Playing in different eras is a crock. Hall, Esposito and Brodeur would still be top echelon goalies because of their athleticism. Dryden could still lie across the goal crease and take away the bottom half of the net. Crawford was under more pressure than Fuhr because Fuhr only had to prevent goal #5.
Vegas next victims.
hall and esposito would crumble under the weight of all the oversized equipment the goalies wear today. : ) With the improvement in training with more emphasis on strength plus the bigger lighter weight equipment it would not be a problem. Did you notice the size of their catchers as opposed to now with the cheaters.
|
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Aug 9, 2020 12:53:43 GMT -6
Players shoot harder these days due to sticks etc. Can’t even begin to argue that, unless you’re.........
Different eras matter a lot. There wasn’t even coaching for goalies until the mid 80s. So it matters immensely. No one could really raise the puck till the late 50s early 60s. Goalies pads would weigh 10x the amount from the beginning of the game till the end.
#Different eras matter!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Aug 9, 2020 20:36:27 GMT -6
still love Crow, always will, but I'm still not seeing it. if he lead the team to a Cup and won a long overdue Connie? then I could start to see it. How I see it. It's going to take a Conn Smythe (assuming he's not screwed out of another one), or a Vezina to break the HoF Barrier. To Wit: Vokun is not in the HHoF. Less hardware but slightly better career stats, and in general Vokun has a similar career: Very high level overall and very little "down" years, but never "the best" of a particular year and thus might be overlooked. |
|
|
|
Post by nighbor on Aug 10, 2020 0:09:52 GMT -6
Players shoot harder these days due to sticks etc. Can’t even begin to argue that, unless you’re......... Different eras matter a lot. There wasn’t even coaching for goalies until the mid 80s. So it matters immensely. No one could really raise the puck till the late 50s early 60s. Goalies pads would weigh 10x the amount from the beginning of the game till the end. #Different eras matter!!! Hall and Esposito were great athletes. You mentioned there were no goaltending coaches until the mid eighties so both goalies were basically self taught, trial and error. Just imagine how good they would have been with the proper coaching. Yes, times have changed and we have better equipment which would have make it easier for Hall and Esposito to play in this era than for Crow and Price to play in theirs.
When Bobby Hull played with his ancient wooden stick his slapshot had been clocked at 120 miles/hr and his wrist shot at 105. Imagine how astronomical those number would be with the new fangled high tech stick.
|
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Aug 10, 2020 15:37:50 GMT -6
Players shoot harder these days due to sticks etc. Can’t even begin to argue that, unless you’re......... Different eras matter a lot. There wasn’t even coaching for goalies until the mid 80s. So it matters immensely. No one could really raise the puck till the late 50s early 60s. Goalies pads would weigh 10x the amount from the beginning of the game till the end. #Different eras matter!!! Hall and Esposito were great athletes. You mentioned there were no goaltending coaches until the mid eighties so both goalies were basically self taught, trial and error. Just imagine how good they would have been with the proper coaching. Yes, times have changed and we have better equipment which would have make it easier for Hall and Esposito to play in this era than for Crow and Price to play in theirs.
When Bobby Hull played with his ancient wooden stick his slapshot had been clocked at 120 miles/hr and his wrist shot at 105. Imagine how astronomical those number would be with the new fangled high tech stick.
Hahahahaha. You’re proving my point. It’s too tough to compare eras. There’s too many “what if’s”. Remember, I think you’re assuming that I don’t value players of yesteryear. All I said was can’t compare eras. It’s very tough to think of what could of been. Would Brodeur have been as successful in the 80s? Roy was good in the 80s and the 90s when scoring was at an all time high. Garth Snows numbers were pretty damn good for a fringe NHLer. Was Gilbert Perrault better than Hossa? Bernie Nichols? Etc. It’s tough, cuz I think Hossa would have been amazing 20 years earlier. He’s a special player!!! |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Aug 11, 2020 8:23:54 GMT -6
I still see the issue with the HHoF inductions as it being somewhat of a popularity contest as opposed to pure, unadulterated merit.
To wit: Kevin Lowe got in by being a member of 5 Cup-winning teams. Meanwhile Larmer is still not in.
In Crawford's case I think that works against him...he may have 2 shared Jennings and 1 was behind one of the tightest D's the 'hawks ever iced (the other one he definitely earned). Even though his numbers are indeed top-10 over his career timeline--and with his best numbers coming when our D was trash, he was never "the best". Meanwhile you have Holtby, who has worse numbers but a Vezina in his pocket because he got a win record in spite of wins being a team stat--and he'll likely have a better shot into the HHoF. Holtby's number were far more up/down, but he had higher highs.
That being said anyone who is really paying attention knows what Crawford's value is/was. In that respect I think he's like Seabrook/Hjammer: Missing the HHoF but will be considered one of the 'hawk greats.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature on Aug 11, 2020 9:58:19 GMT -6
I still see the issue with the HHoF inductions as it being somewhat of a popularity contest as opposed to pure, unadulterated merit. To wit: Kevin Lowe got in by being a member of 5 Cup-winning teams. Meanwhile Larmer is still not in. In Crawford's case I think that works against him...he may have 2 shared Jennings and 1 was behind one of the tightest D's the 'hawks ever iced (the other one he definitely earned). Even though his numbers are indeed top-10 over his career timeline--and with his best numbers coming when our D was trash, he was never "the best". Meanwhile you have Holtby, who has worse numbers but a Vezina in his pocket because he got a win record in spite of wins being a team stat--and he'll likely have a better shot into the HHoF. Holtby's number were far more up/down, but he had higher highs. That being said anyone who is really paying attention knows what Crawford's value is/was. In that respect I think he's like Seabrook/Hjammer: Missing the HHoF but will be considered one of the 'hawk greats. You can make a case for Ken Morrow of the Isle not being in there also. An Olympic gold medal and 4 Stanley Cups in 4 years and still not in it? Kinda hard to believe. |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Aug 11, 2020 10:24:27 GMT -6
I still see the issue with the HHoF inductions as it being somewhat of a popularity contest as opposed to pure, unadulterated merit. To wit: Kevin Lowe got in by being a member of 5 Cup-winning teams. Meanwhile Larmer is still not in. In Crawford's case I think that works against him...he may have 2 shared Jennings and 1 was behind one of the tightest D's the 'hawks ever iced (the other one he definitely earned). Even though his numbers are indeed top-10 over his career timeline--and with his best numbers coming when our D was trash, he was never "the best". Meanwhile you have Holtby, who has worse numbers but a Vezina in his pocket because he got a win record in spite of wins being a team stat--and he'll likely have a better shot into the HHoF. Holtby's number were far more up/down, but he had higher highs. That being said anyone who is really paying attention knows what Crawford's value is/was. In that respect I think he's like Seabrook/Hjammer: Missing the HHoF but will be considered one of the 'hawk greats. You can make a case for Ken Morrow of the Isle not being in there also. An Olympic gold medal and 4 Stanley Cups in 4 years and still not in it? Kinda hard to believe. Exactly. Things can always change, of course. The way I think it stands now is that in spite of the statistical evidence to the contrary, the prevaling perception of Crawford is that he's a good-to-great goaltender who's numbers were inflated by the team D in front of him. I feel the voting committee will see that as opposed to the fact that Crawford's numbers were the best when the team D in front of him sucked. |
|
|
|
Post by creature on Aug 11, 2020 11:59:09 GMT -6
You can make a case for Ken Morrow of the Isle not being in there also. An Olympic gold medal and 4 Stanley Cups in 4 years and still not in it? Kinda hard to believe. Exactly. Things can always change, of course. The way I think it stands now is that in spite of the statistical evidence to the contrary, the prevaling perception of Crawford is that he's a good-to-great goaltender who's numbers were inflated by the team D in front of him. I feel the voting committee will see that as opposed to the fact that Crawford's numbers were the best when the team D in front of him sucked. People must have forgotten 2013. Maybe if they rightly gave Crow the Connie instead of Kane they would. Hopefully the voting committee doesn't overlook that like others do. |
|
|
|
Post by Tater on Aug 11, 2020 12:12:05 GMT -6
Imagine if Crow got to play on N.J. with the trapping system they played when Marty was around.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature on Aug 11, 2020 12:18:40 GMT -6
Imagine if Crow got to play on N.J. with the trapping system they played when Marty was around. 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Aug 11, 2020 13:44:15 GMT -6
Exactly. Things can always change, of course. The way I think it stands now is that in spite of the statistical evidence to the contrary, the prevaling perception of Crawford is that he's a good-to-great goaltender who's numbers were inflated by the team D in front of him. I feel the voting committee will see that as opposed to the fact that Crawford's numbers were the best when the team D in front of him sucked. People must have forgotten 2013. Maybe if they rightly gave Crow the Connie instead of Kane they would. Hopefully the voting committee doesn't overlook that like others do. the only thing that annoys me about The Run..... he deserved it that year. he was great against the mild. he let in 1 softie in game 6, but otherwise he was fantastic the final 4 games of the wangs series. he was solid against LA. and he was damn good against Boston, too. if not for the bs "glove hand" in game 4, he might win it, but i still doubt it. it is a popularity contest now (see Crosby vs Murray/2016) Kaner did him right at the rally, though. we all know here who the mvp was that year and that is all that matters... or so I tell myself. 😅 |
|
|
|
Post by nighbor on Aug 11, 2020 15:26:17 GMT -6
Hall and Esposito were great athletes. You mentioned there were no goaltending coaches until the mid eighties so both goalies were basically self taught, trial and error. Just imagine how good they would have been with the proper coaching. Yes, times have changed and we have better equipment which would have make it easier for Hall and Esposito to play in this era than for Crow and Price to play in theirs.
When Bobby Hull played with his ancient wooden stick his slapshot had been clocked at 120 miles/hr and his wrist shot at 105. Imagine how astronomical those number would be with the new fangled high tech stick.
Hahahahaha. You’re proving my point. It’s too tough to compare eras. There’s too many “what if’s”. Remember, I think you’re assuming that I don’t value players of yesteryear. All I said was can’t compare eras. It’s very tough to think of what could of been. Would Brodeur have been as successful in the 80s? Roy was good in the 80s and the 90s when scoring was at an all time high. Garth Snows numbers were pretty damn good for a fringe NHLer. Was Gilbert Perrault better than Hossa? Bernie Nichols? Etc. It’s tough, cuz I think Hossa would have been amazing 20 years earlier. He’s a special player!!! I disagree with your assertion that I made your point. Equipment makes a difference but elite athletes adjust to their surroundings and conditions. Just because it would have been harder for Crow and Price to play before this era of monster equipment it was possible.
There is every reason to believe that Brodeur would have because they both played in the NHL from 1993/94 until the 2002/03 seasons where Brodeur had a 2.21 GAA to Roy's 2.42 GAA. Over their careers Brodeur played 1266 games with a 2.24 GAA and his 912 S% compared to Roy with 1029 games 2.54 GAA and his .910 S%. We do not seen to agree on much but I believe we can agree that Brodeur and Roy were two dam good goalies. So far the 2000's are no slouch when it comes to goal scoring neither.
I try not to assume as I heard that it makes an ass of u and me. I am positive that you hold past players in high esteem as they are responsible for the game we love so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by galaxytrash on Aug 11, 2020 15:39:36 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Aug 11, 2020 16:18:26 GMT -6
Exactly. Things can always change, of course. The way I think it stands now is that in spite of the statistical evidence to the contrary, the prevaling perception of Crawford is that he's a good-to-great goaltender who's numbers were inflated by the team D in front of him. I feel the voting committee will see that as opposed to the fact that Crawford's numbers were the best when the team D in front of him sucked. . Maybe if they rightly gave Crow the Connie instead of Kane they would. Hopefully the voting committee doesn't overlook that like others do. Kind of...they look at the smothering D that year, equate it to 2010 when the D carried Neimi and carried Huet's carcass, and figured that they did the same for Crawford especially since Crawford was not that good in 2012. In reality, Crawford was lights-out, and so was the D. The result? We ran roughshod over everyone. IMHO no goalie walks into a .925+ SV% on the year if they're merely average irrespective of the D in front of them. That's effectively stopping 37 of every 40 shots. Whether that's done in a single game or over the course of 2, those numbers eventually add up and all anomalies average out. But what happens is that narratives stick and people tend to see the narrative rather than the on-ice play--for good or for bad. IMHO Crawford never completely got out of the shadows of his 2012 campaign and that has been the narrative. Couple that with the narrative Toews/Hossa/Keith/Seabrook/Hjammer being defensive juggernauts and it's hard for many people to shift the narrative from those 5 being so good they can carry anyone to Crawford needing to carry them (which he did--in 2016 and in 2018 less Hossa and Hjammer). At least that's how I see it, but I'm not on the HHoF voting committee. |
|
|
|
Post by creature on Aug 11, 2020 17:02:31 GMT -6
People must have forgotten 2013. Maybe if they rightly gave Crow the Connie instead of Kane they would. Hopefully the voting committee doesn't overlook that like others do. Kind of...they look at the smothering D that year, equate it to 2010 when the D carried Neimi and carried Huet's carcass, and figured that they did the same for Crawford especially since Crawford was not that good in 2012. In reality, Crawford was lights-out, and so was the D. The result? We ran roughshod over everyone. IMHO no goalie walks into a .925+ SV% on the year if they're merely average irrespective of the D in front of them. That's effectively stopping 37 of every 40 shots. Whether that's done in a single game or over the course of 2, those numbers eventually add up and all anomalies average out. But what happens is that narratives stick and people tend to see the narrative rather than the on-ice play--for good or for bad. IMHO Crawford never completely got out of the shadows of his 2012 campaign and that has been the narrative. Couple that with the narrative Toews/Hossa/Keith/Seabrook/Hjammer being defensive juggernauts and it's hard for many people to shift the narrative from those 5 being so good they can carry anyone to Crawford needing to carry them (which he did--in 2016 and in 2018 less Hossa and Hjammer). At least that's how I see it, but I'm not on the HHoF voting committee. Oh Hell the D looked good and tight because everyone forgets the roles the 3rd and 4th lines played. Puck possession played a huge role in every SC win. I've seen too many times over them years when they had a 2-3 goal lead and the forwards forgot to come back and help out on D. It was now about highlights for them and a shooting range on the goalies. And I'm sorry still am a big fan of Huet. He had 30 wins and that meant a lot to me. He was thrown under the bus and left for dead. Do I have regrets? No we won a Cup with Niemi. Would we have won another if Q left Darling in? Don't know and never will same applies to Huet. |
|
