Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Rock Pile

Bobby Holik Comments On Luongo

Recommended Posts

I also fail to see how him winning the Stanley Cup gives him the right to talk about goaltending, a position he has never played at all.

I respect the fact that he's using his freedom to express his opinion, but he's a doofus for trying to run his mouth about something that he blatantly knows little to nothing about.

See, if Martin Brodeur said something about Luongo, that would have more merit. I think even Brodeur would disagree completely with his former teammate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 1300 NHL games and you don't think he can assess a goalie? You can only assess a goalie if you are a goalie?

His career NHL points would place him tied with Henrik for 2nd all time in our franchise.

His career goals would place him 2nd all time in our franchise behind Naslund.

I would say he's quite qualified to comment on goaltending. Even if you don't like it, in the end it is just his opinion. Although I'd wager there are other NHL "non-goalies" that share the same opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that he's an NHL veteran - the problem is, he's running his mouth talking about a goalie being "bad" when he's never played that position.

See, if Glenn Healy or Kelly Hrudey said it, that would be more legitimate.

It's basically asking Don Cherry on his opinion on hockey. Are you actually saying just because Don Cherry is a veteran that he has credibility to talk about all positions of hockey?

Absolutely not.

What Bobby Holik did was mudslinging.

Edit: Also, I did say that I respected his opinion but I also respectfully disagreed with it. You must have missed that.

Luongo is not as bad as Holik says he is and I'm a Calgary fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mud slinging? Did you even listen to the little blurb? He said Lou has had unreasonable criticism here. That certainly isn't saying Lou's "bad". He does say he doesn't think Lou is as good as many think. Which also isn't calling him "bad". You need to learn the difference between "bad" and "overrated". They are not one and the same. At no time did he call Lou "a bad goalie".

So you ARE actually saying ONLY a goalie can assess a goalies play. Well a whole bunch on this board better shut the hell up. Even a guy that's played 1300+ NHL games could not assess the difference in play between a Cloutier and a Brodeur. After all he's only played a lot of hockey but never goal. So they look just the same to him in style and ability. All he knows about goalies is they're the guys that stand in front of the net in huge padding and his knowledge of the position ends there. This is what you actually believe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is saying Luongo is unworthy of the praise, yet Luongo has a few legitimate achievements under his belt. Who is he to say that he is "overrated"?

How many goalies in the league THAT IS CURRENTLY PLAYiNG has the following?:

Franchise wins/shutouts

Vezina finalist

Jennings

Team Canada/Gold Medalist

How is he "overrated"? Explain.

I'm not even that big of a fan of Luongo but you have to give credit where it's due.

Not sure why you bring up Cloutier when he's not even in the discussion.

Well, it's true - in reality, some "fans" on this board, as you call it, really should shut up because this board has some of the whiniest bunch of "fans" in the league. Of course most here are not that bad. The minority seems to be the loudest. Comparing this board to the other team boards and you'll realize the "fans" here are not like other rival team fans.

Fortunately, I know a lot of Canuck fans that are much more down to earth. I've ran into a few over here and they just sorta shrugged off these playoffs while not being cocky. But historically, I found that Canuck fans as a whole (not on this board) are not deserving of the bad reputation.

And yes, a veteran player calling out a goalie as being "overrated" is mudslinging in my books. Sure he might not have said he was a "bad" goalie. It was an unnecessary comment and a comment he is not qualified to make, even if he does have the right to speak his mind.

You have a right to make an ignorant statement too - all power to you. It doesn't mean you are "right" to say it.

People on this board cry about how another so-and-so talks bad about their own player (i.e. Ron MacLean) but when that so-and-so talks bad about another player (i.e. Crosby), it's totally okay. Right now, because everyone here seems to expect Luongo is on his way out, it seems that mudslinging Luongo is totally okay.

Remember Milbury? He was the guy that called the Sedins "Thelma and Louise". I never agreed with his statement then and I still don't now. Are you telling me that Mike Milbury was "qualified" (because he too is an NHL veteran) to make that statement about the Sedins?

Like I said above, Milbury can speak his mind but that doesn't mean he is "right" to say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

going out of your way to go to the media to "speak your thoughts" on a team and player you know nothing about when you've been retired for years. don't really buy it. if he mentioned what he heard to some friends of his is one thing.

he should just keep his mouth shut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He said "not as good as everyone thinks he is". How is that mudslinging?

Also, Milbury was harsh in calling the Twins Thelma and Louis, but it's his way of trying to be clever/funny, and a lot of people, not Canucks fans, thought it was funny. And to tell youn the truth, as much as Milbury drives me up a tree, his point about the Twins stands - they do not play the physical kind of game that many believe they need to play come playoff time. That much Milbury got right. Again, as much as I want to sock him in the nose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's just him saying "he's not that good", which, last time I checked, was not a compliment.

Why?

Why is a Calgary fan defending YOUR goalie with the aforementioned accolades which Luongo legitimately earned?

Holik has NO basis for saying Luongo is "not as good as everyone thinks". I honestly don't care if he was an NHL veteran. He is wrong. If he had said it to a goalie like Bryzgalov or Howard, that would have made more sense since neither of those goalies have achieved what Luongo had achieved in the past. However, it is not his prerogative to go around telling people about a goalie not being as good as what everyone thinks. Does he have experience being a goalie? No. Has he achieved any PERSONAL accolades besides the Stanley Cup which he earned with the team? No, not really.

I would argue that he knows nothing about what he's talking about (whether you agree with me or not is beside the point) and I can back that up. Holik cannot.

I would argue the exact same way if he said it to a goalie like Kiprusoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that he actually has experience playing against Luongo don't you? That alone would give him a basis to comment on Lou's ability. Honestly. I don't think Lou is as good as many seem to think and never did. I've also called him overrated. I've never called him a bad goalie though. I don't see that as mud slinging. It's just an opinion.

Ultimately I completely disagree with you. Now I never played goal, but I can tell the difference between Cloutier and Loungo. Wouldn't that be the ability to assess a goalie? Holik's lengthy experience as a player and actually playing against Lou, along with a plethora of other NHL goalies over his lengthy career, does qualify him to have an opinion on Lou's abilities. And really all the guy basically said was Lou is underrated buy some and overrated by others. Which I believe is quite true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.