Goaltending Duo

[189lb enforcers?]

3 hours ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

There is another way to look at it. The team is winning - at the moment - and destroying a lot of longstanding, negative narratives. We're also healthy with guys like Sutter, Schaller, Leivo, Tanev doing well. Eriksson isn't playing and the new additions are paying off. If we were 3-6 instead of 6-3, these boards would be lighting up like a Christmas tree.

Agreed, there are various ways to view the content in this forum, but I disagree with why, or at least the premise surrounds losing/rebuilding. 

 

The team was a winner for several or more seasons prior to the R-thingy and the negativity surrounding it.

 

During those winning years, these boards were not the morgue they are today, IMO, anyways. So, I disagree that it’s a result of winning or losing seasons. Meh, not a hill to die on, just saying. 

 

 

[Dr. Crossbar]

1 hour ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Agreed, there are various ways to view the content in this forum, but I disagree with why, or at least the premise surrounds losing/rebuilding. 

 

The team was a winner for several or more seasons prior to the R-thingy and the negativity surrounding it.

 

During those winning years, these boards were not the morgue they are today, IMO, anyways. So, I disagree that it’s a result of winning or losing seasons. Meh, not a hill to die on, just saying. 

 

 

Yeah, not a hill to die on. I think there are several contributing factors, including both of our perspectives. This place is also a series of recurring and circular behavioral patterns and language, which leads me back to ...

 

Luongo and Schneider! 

Woohoo!

#carryon

 

 

[IBatch]

Potvin Essenssa and it’s not even close ..: ha ha 

[IBatch]

14 hours ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

It’s tough to say.   I think the 2006-2009 Luongo was absolutely amazing and was the best goalie that we ever had.    The way that he stonewalled Dallas in that 2007 playoff series was unreal.    Unfortunately, I don’t think he ever really fully recovered after the 2009 playoff loss to Chicago.   Luongo was still a terrific goalie and had all of the stats to back that up, but he often became vulnerable and shaky when we needed him the most.     
 

Luongo should have been remembered as the Martin Brodeur/Dominik Hasek of our generation, but I think he’ll now be remembered as this generation’s version of Curtis Joseph.  Still very very good, but not the cream of the crop.

 

While we’ll have to wait and see what Markstrom is made out of when the playoffs hit, I get a real sense of security and stability with him back there now.   The players in front of him seem to feed off of his confidence as well.   
 

As far as Schneider and Demko go, I think we need a bigger sample size to see what we have in Demko (although I really love what I see so far).

 

 

My decision:    I’d probably still lean towards Luongo and Schneider due to the fact that we already know what Luongo is like come playoff time while Markstrom is an unknown.   The sample size for Demko, much like his manhood, is a little too small for my liking.

Ok.  From a long time fan all I’m going to say is Luongo is by far the best goalie we’ve ever had and it’s really not even close.   Followed him in Florida before we got him, because if you watched sports news you couldn’t help it - every game he played he made highlight reel saves, and not because he was out of position, but because he was getting pelted with 40-50 shots a game and making 3-4 saves on play after play.  Seriously nobody saw as much rubber as him, and he still managed to keep those teams close to .500.  

 

 He came exactly as advertised - he’s considered as the best player ever to play a game for the Canucks (best game all-time) by THN, they just had a hard time picking which one (best game ever by a Canuck - not best player). 

 

Dont by that he dropped in production after losing to CHI...didn’t he start each series with a SO in 2011 and have two in the final?  Some people think he’s a goat for not winning us a cup, but he did everything he could for us, 2 SOs in a seven game series and we only scored what was it again 7 or 8 goals?  We wouldn’t have made it past five if he wasn’t in net.

 

Yes  JM is playing well.   He’s had a good stretch of 9 months or so including the off-season.   Luongo did that for his entire career, remarkably consistent, yes maybe a few years were better then others but not by much, and his worst years were still top ten when he played.  And what does that Demko crack mean anyways?  I met him last year he seems to have a good head on his shoulders, he’s old enough to do something if he’s going to do it at all.   Barasso won the Vezina as an 18 year old after playing high school hockey.  You don’t have to be 24-26 to start an NHL hockey career as a goalie despite recent trends.  

[Wayne Glensky]

Felix Potvin / Bob Essensa 

[Dr. Crossbar]

Irbe/McLean

 

 

[IBatch]

On 10/25/2019 at 1:08 AM, Dr. Crossbar said:

Irbe/McLean

 

 

McLean was a throwback, one of the last stand up goaltenders.   Most of those guys didn’t save as many pucks as the new wave of goalies that came in using the butterfly and just playing the percentages (9 out of ten goals were scored along the ice at the time - so just drop down whenever someone’s in your zone and you get a .900 goalie, even though the eye test is like “why is this guy even in the league?” ...

 

Those that weren’t around wouldn’t have seen the acrobatic and great kick saves those guys made, and great glove hands (Vernon - Furh) , a lot of these guys were small sub-six footers and were amazing athletes.  Sawchuck was the Hasek of his time.   Famous quote about his is  you could throw a handful of rice at him and he’d stop every single grain.   And he was pairtly disabled with one arm shorter then the other.   Still considered the best ever - his SO per game is ridiculous, and he did it standing up, with smaller equipment and leather pads (they get heavier as the game goes on, absorb water). 

 

The main advantage stand up guys had was their rebound control.  It’s a lost art - some were so good at it they could “pass” the puck to their defenseman and  help get it out of the zone.   The goalies are not better then they used to be athletically, but they do cover up to 50% more of the net given their increased size and equipment , and all of them use the butterfly as part of their arsenal (and why not it works great).    When a good GAA was below 4 in the 80’s hockey was almost always interesting.   A 0-0 tie was a rarity - now ties become OT Ls or a W on the stat sheet.   Take away those and make them ties and it makes a lot of sense why 400 wins used to be the benchmark to the HHOF and greatness. 300 wins used to be pretty exceptional too and KM was almost  part of that group.  Two time Vezina finalist and I think three time all-star...

 

Lundqvist, Luongo and Fleury all padded their stats (Lundqvist the most over 80 extra wins that would have been ties).  That said it will become very rare to have a goalie play more then 15 years now given when they get the chance ... Fleury was the last teenager.  Price had his chance pretty early too but his shine has diminished.   Hart is 20 and breaking the trend a bit but has struggled and veteran Elliot is playing great.   Jones was young too but the writing is on the wall for him.   

 

Even with the extra Ws, I doubt we will see many goalies playing now or in the future get to 400 that have started their careers recently or are about to (Demko, Samsonov, Hutton, Hart etc)... it’s a huge hill to climb when you get your chance at 24-26 which seems to be the trend now.

 

KM had a few years where he was a Vezina quality goalie,  and was our best ever goalie until Luongo arrived.  We should be proud (of both these guys) with his record tying 48 win season (Parent) and because of some of the legendary series/games he played in his career (Dallas/Turco show-down and Gold Medal as a starter, best goalie in Canada - ahead of Broduer) ... that said THE SAVE still reverberates in the hockey community as one of the very best ever - and KM was amazing throughout the 94 playoffs...the first game against NYR we should have lost but he won it almost on his own and forever will be remembered for those two things.

 

As well the 94 final is still considered the best final in the modern era (since expansion).  We should be proud of that, we almost beat the best team in the league at the time (the second best was NJ who Messier and his team came from behind and beat).   I wasn’t a fan of Messier coming once Linden was given the boot and the rest of his faithful, but I did appreciate what he had to say to us at the time “the best part about winning the cup was the quality of our opponent” ...KM was a HUGE part of that.   I’d have him in his prime back on the team anytime.

Edited October 26, 2019 by IBatch

[Kevin Biestra]

20 minutes ago, IBatch said:

McLean was a throwback, one of the last stand up goaltenders.   Most of those guys didn’t save as many pucks as the new wave of goalies that came in using the butterfly and just playing the percentages (9 out of ten goals were scored along the ice at the time - so just drop down whenever someone’s in your zone and you get a .900 goalie, even though the eye test is like “why is this guy even in the league?” ...

 

Those that weren’t around wouldn’t have seen the acrobatic and great kick saves those guys made, and great glove hands (Vernon - Furh) , a lot of these guys were small sub-six footers and were amazing athletes.  Sawchuck was the Hasek of his time.   Famous quote about his is  you could throw a handful of rice at him and he’d stop every single grain.   And he was pairtly disabled with one arm shorter then the other.   Still considered the best ever - his SO per game is ridiculous, and he did it standing up, with smaller equipment and leather pads (they get heavier as the game goes on, absorb water). 

 

The main advantage stand up guys had was their rebound control.  It’s a lost art - some were so good at it they could “pass” the puck to their defenseman and  help get it out of the zone.   The goalies are not better then they used to be athletically, but they do cover up to 50% more of the net given their increased size and equipment , and all of them use the butterfly as part of their arsenal (and why not it works great).    When a good GAA was below 4 in the 80’s hockey was almost always interesting.   A 0-0 tie was a rarity - now ties become OT Ls or a W on the stat sheet.   Take away those and make them ties and it makes a lot of sense why 400 wins used to be the benchmark to the HHOF and greatness. 300 wins used to be pretty exceptional too and KM was almost  part of that group.  Two time Vezina finalist and I think three time all-star...

 

Lundqvist, Luongo and Fleury all padded their stats (Lundqvist the most over 80 extra wins that would have been ties).  That said it will become very rare to have a goalie play more then 15 years now given when they get the chance ... Fleury was the last teenager.  Price had his chance pretty early too but his shine has diminished.   Hart is 20 and breaking the trend a bit but has struggled and veteran Elliot is playing great.   Jones was young too but the writing is on the wall for him.   

 

Even with the extra Ws, I doubt we will see many goalies playing now or in the future get to 400 that have started their careers recently or are about to (Demko, Samsonov, Hutton, Hart etc)... it’s a huge hill to climb when you get your chance at 24-26 which seems to be the trend now.

 

KM had a few years where he was a Vezina quality goalie,  and was our best ever goalie until Luongo arrived.  We should be proud (of both these guys) with his record tying 48 win season (Parent) and because of some of the legendary series/games he played in his career (Dallas/Turco show-down and Gold Medal as a starter, best goalie in Canada - ahead of Broduer) ... that said THE SAVE still reverberates in the hockey community as one of the very best ever - and KM was amazing throughout the 94 playoffs...the first game against NYR we should have lost but he won it almost on his own and forever will be remembered for those two things.

 

As well the 94 final is still considered the best final in the modern era (since expansion).  We should be proud of that, we almost beat the best team in the league at the time (the second best was NJ who Messier and his team came from behind and beat).   I wasn’t a fan of Messier coming once Linden was given the boot and the rest of his faithful, but I did appreciate what he had to say to us at the time “the best part about winning the cup was the quality of our opponent” ...KM was a HUGE part of that.   I’d have him in his prime back on the team anytime.

I can't think of anything to add to this historically accurate poetry...

 

Maybe, since you mentioned the athleticism of the old guard, a nod to Richard Brodeur and John Garrett as our best inch-for-inch tandem in history...two fine goalies at 5'7" and 5'8".

[Tornado]

It's Luongo/Schneider. And it's not even close.

[IBatch]

3 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said:

I can't think of anything to add to this historically accurate poetry...

 

Maybe, since you mentioned the athleticism of the old guard, a nod to Richard Brodeur and John Garrett as our best inch-for-inch tandem in history...two fine goalies at 5'7" and 5'8".

Absolutely....yeah maybe they got scored on one more goals a game  on average compared today’s game - but they did some cool stuff and didn’t drop down into the butterfly as soon as an opposing player got the puck in the offensive zone either - and man was there a lot more space to shoot the puck behind them too.  From previous posts I can tell your a kindred spirit.  I love hockey and always will no matter what changes occur / but wasn’t it different back then before the instigator penalty (bench clearing brawls seem like a dream now) red line made things way tougher to get the puck out - no adds on the boards (just pure white like the ice) and if you wanted to watch a game you’d better go see it live because good luck trying to find it on your 22” inch low definition TV unless it was Saturday.  

 

The radio was what we used more then anything (brother and I - mostly my brother with his little ghetto blaster his enthusiasm got me off the Gretzky infatuation) ... and the paper was what we had to look at if we missed the radio to check the stats.   Love the improvements but you really had to be interested back then if you wanted to follow the season.   And the radio was so good we’d often watch the game when it was on with the radio on and the volume off.   It was a different time.   Now I make all my posts on my cell phone - it’s like Star Trek but for real.

[Nuxfanabroad]

Maybe it's time to revisit the '2 min for the butterfly!' pioneering(lol?) thread I started to punish today's 'tenders? They all kinda' look the same, & everything has become overcoached.

[Dr. Crossbar]

4 hours ago, IBatch said:

McLean was a throwback, one of the last stand up goaltenders.   Most of those guys didn’t save as many pucks as the new wave of goalies that came in using the butterfly and just playing the percentages (9 out of ten goals were scored along the ice at the time - so just drop down whenever someone’s in your zone and you get a .900 goalie, even though the eye test is like “why is this guy even in the league?” ...

 

Those that weren’t around wouldn’t have seen the acrobatic and great kick saves those guys made, and great glove hands (Vernon - Furh) , a lot of these guys were small sub-six footers and were amazing athletes.  Sawchuck was the Hasek of his time.   Famous quote about his is  you could throw a handful of rice at him and he’d stop every single grain.   And he was pairtly disabled with one arm shorter then the other.   Still considered the best ever - his SO per game is ridiculous, and he did it standing up, with smaller equipment and leather pads (they get heavier as the game goes on, absorb water). 

 

The main advantage stand up guys had was their rebound control.  It’s a lost art - some were so good at it they could “pass” the puck to their defenseman and  help get it out of the zone.   The goalies are not better then they used to be athletically, but they do cover up to 50% more of the net given their increased size and equipment , and all of them use the butterfly as part of their arsenal (and why not it works great).    When a good GAA was below 4 in the 80’s hockey was almost always interesting.   A 0-0 tie was a rarity - now ties become OT Ls or a W on the stat sheet.   Take away those and make them ties and it makes a lot of sense why 400 wins used to be the benchmark to the HHOF and greatness. 300 wins used to be pretty exceptional too and KM was almost  part of that group.  Two time Vezina finalist and I think three time all-star...

 

Lundqvist, Luongo and Fleury all padded their stats (Lundqvist the most over 80 extra wins that would have been ties).  That said it will become very rare to have a goalie play more then 15 years now given when they get the chance ... Fleury was the last teenager.  Price had his chance pretty early too but his shine has diminished.   Hart is 20 and breaking the trend a bit but has struggled and veteran Elliot is playing great.   Jones was young too but the writing is on the wall for him.   

 

Even with the extra Ws, I doubt we will see many goalies playing now or in the future get to 400 that have started their careers recently or are about to (Demko, Samsonov, Hutton, Hart etc)... it’s a huge hill to climb when you get your chance at 24-26 which seems to be the trend now.

 

KM had a few years where he was a Vezina quality goalie,  and was our best ever goalie until Luongo arrived.  We should be proud (of both these guys) with his record tying 48 win season (Parent) and because of some of the legendary series/games he played in his career (Dallas/Turco show-down and Gold Medal as a starter, best goalie in Canada - ahead of Broduer) ... that said THE SAVE still reverberates in the hockey community as one of the very best ever - and KM was amazing throughout the 94 playoffs...the first game against NYR we should have lost but he won it almost on his own and forever will be remembered for those two things.

 

As well the 94 final is still considered the best final in the modern era (since expansion).  We should be proud of that, we almost beat the best team in the league at the time (the second best was NJ who Messier and his team came from behind and beat).   I wasn’t a fan of Messier coming once Linden was given the boot and the rest of his faithful, but I did appreciate what he had to say to us at the time “the best part about winning the cup was the quality of our opponent” ...KM was a HUGE part of that.   I’d have him in his prime back on the team anytime.

All awesome points here. McLean was indeed a throwback. And it's really interesting to see how far into the 90s he went. When writing Irbe/McLean above, I was actually shocked that McLean was still on the team with Irbe into 1997-98. I simply forgot after the 94 run. So many years later, if you asked me who was the other goalie when Irbe was around, I would have guessed Snow, Hirsch, Weekes, or Burke.

It's really quite remarkable that McLean was able to have that type of longevity since he was hardwired as a stand up goalie. But he entered the league just as the position was about to evolve with Roy and the butterfly. But if you look at old clips of McLean, he's a feet first, stack the pads type of goalie. You rarely see that nowadays.

I really see the evolution away from stand up style intrinsically tied to the evolution of the goalie mask. Much of the stand up was derived from movements to protect the head from the early days of no masks. Even when masks began to evolve - ala from Plante to Giacomin, Gerry Cheevers, Davidson, Dryden, etc - they still weren't that safe, so shots were still kept somewhat low right into the early 80s. Fuhr was the last goalie I can think of that wore an older style mask or hybrid of a 70s style mask before the cage.

So if you think of a guy like McLean, he was goalie who grew up within a stand up era with traditional masks but actually came in during the early mainstream evolution to the cage, which he had. But to me it didn't inform or change his style quite like Roy who I'd say used the cage as leverage in going low with the butterfly and taking risks style wise. And from the cage, we next saw the evolution to bigger gear, pads, etc, which Roy was also a part of in his career. With all of that gear, there's no way a stand up style could work.

It's interesting that you mention Sawchuck and Hasek. Arguably the two very best of all time. I see the real link between the two is their level of fearlessness, confidence and unconventionality in very different ways. They were both next level, imo, in all three. Certainly a next level of unorthodoxy in their styles but also a next level of talent aligned with their mental and internal make-up.

Sawchuck was also a forerunner in the crouch style as well, which gave him another dimension. Hasek also used the butterfly as a gateway to flopping but could also stack the pads conventionally in such an unconventional manner. So they both had different dimensions and experimentation in their styles.

With McLean, though, I will say that even back in his prime, and the 94 run, you could see the limitations of his style at the time within a changing game. Because of his style, there was always a feeling that he had to play over his head in order for us to win. Looking back, I'd say now that he had to play over his inherent style, which was a throwback. He was way more athletic and skilled than a lot of people give him credit for, even back then.

McLean had to work a lot harder as a goalie, imo, especially in that 94 run. To large degree, I think that team fed off McLean's efforts and it inspired the team to work just as hard. A lot of the efforts in overcoming adversity in that run were rooted in McLean overcoming his own limitations and playing beyond his ceiling.

I met him a couple of years ago and the first thing I said to him was, "Man, I'm still not over that 94 run. You guys were so great!" He said to me, "If you still feel that way, how do you think we feel?"

Forever a fan of McLean!!
 

[Kevin Biestra]

52 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Absolutely....yeah maybe they got scored on one more goals a game  on average compared today’s game - but they did some cool stuff and didn’t drop down into the butterfly as soon as an opposing player got the puck in the offensive zone either - and man was there a lot more space to shoot the puck behind them too.  From previous posts I can tell your a kindred spirit.  I love hockey and always will no matter what changes occur / but wasn’t it different back then before the instigator penalty (bench clearing brawls seem like a dream now) red line made things way tougher to get the puck out - no adds on the boards (just pure white like the ice) and if you wanted to watch a game you’d better go see it live because good luck trying to find it on your 22” inch low definition TV unless it was Saturday.  

 

The radio was what we used more then anything (brother and I - mostly my brother with his little ghetto blaster his enthusiasm got me off the Gretzky infatuation) ... and the paper was what we had to look at if we missed the radio to check the stats.   Love the improvements but you really had to be interested back then if you wanted to follow the season.   And the radio was so good we’d often watch the game when it was on with the radio on and the volume off.   It was a different time.   Now I make all my posts on my cell phone - it’s like Star Trek but for real.

 

Those white boards were a thing of beauty.  Now the boards look worse than a Spengler Cup jersey.

 

The radio was great.  Good old Jim saying hi to the pensioners, the blind.  I got completely used to just catching games on audio since there were only about five televised a year.  I'm still fine just listening to a game on the radio while I do other stuff.

 

Damn right you had to be interested to keep up.  Was it every Saturday or Sunday that they would publish the team by team scoring for the entire league in the newspaper, and only then could you check up on old Randy Carlyle or whoever to see if he was having a decent season.

[IBatch]

36 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

All awesome points here. McLean was indeed a throwback. And it's really interesting to see how far into the 90s he went. When writing Irbe/McLean above, I was actually shocked that McLean was still on the team with Irbe into 1997-98. I simply forgot after the 94 run. So many years later, if you asked me who was the other goalie when Irbe was around, I would have guessed Snow, Hirsch, Weekes, or Burke.

It's really quite remarkable that McLean was able to have that type of longevity since he was hardwired as a stand up goalie. But he entered the league just as the position was about to evolve with Roy and the butterfly. But if you look at old clips of McLean, he's a feet first, stack the pads type of goalie. You rarely see that nowadays.

I really see the evolution away from stand up style intrinsically tied to the evolution of the goalie mask. Much of the stand up was derived from movements to protect the head from the early days of no masks. Even when masks began to evolve - ala from Plante to Giacomin, Gerry Cheevers, Davidson, Dryden, etc - they still weren't that safe, so shots were still kept somewhat low right into the early 80s. Fuhr was the last goalie I can think of that wore an older style mask or hybrid of a 70s style mask before the cage.

So if you think of a guy like McLean, he was goalie who grew up within a stand up era with traditional masks but actually came in during the early mainstream evolution to the cage, which he had. But to me it didn't inform or change his style quite like Roy who I'd say used the cage as leverage in going low with the butterfly and taking risks style wise. And from the cage, we next saw the evolution to bigger gear, pads, etc, which Roy was also a part of in his career. With all of that gear, there's no way a stand up style could work.

It's interesting that you mention Sawchuck and Hasek. Arguably the two very best of all time. I see the real link between the two is their level of fearlessness, confidence and unconventionality in very different ways. They were both next level, imo, in all three. Certainly a next level of unorthodoxy in their styles but also a next level of talent aligned with their mental and internal make-up.

Sawchuck was also a forerunner in the crouch style as well, which gave him another dimension. Hasek also used the butterfly as a gateway to flopping but could also stack the pads conventionally in such an unconventional manner. So they both had different dimensions and experimentation in their styles.

With McLean, though, I will say that even back in his prime, and the 94 run, you could see the limitations of his style at the time within a changing game. Because of his style, there was always a feeling that he had to play over his head in order for us to win. Looking back, I'd say now that he had to play over his inherent style, which was a throwback. He was way more athletic and skilled than a lot of people give him credit for, even back then.

McLean had to work a lot harder as a goalie, imo, especially in that 94 run. To large degree, I think that team fed off McLean's efforts and it inspired the team to work just as hard. A lot of the efforts in overcoming adversity in that run were rooted in McLean overcoming his own limitations and playing beyond his ceiling.

I met him a couple of years ago and the first thing I said to him was, "Man, I'm still not over that 94 run. You guys were so great!" He said to me, "If you still feel that way, how do you think we feel?"

Forever a fan of McLean!!
 

Interesting take.  For sure goalies used to stand up to and actually stop pucks on purpose and reflex (see the puck - stop the puck) because going down meant you could get a puck in the teeth. Way back in the day when Shore was finished his career and owned a semi-pro team, he’d string his goalies up with a rope to keep them from dropping down - it was more then just getting a puck to the head it was frowned upon because once you go down you it’s a lot harder to make the second and third save (that was the conventional thinking back then at least).   Roy wasn’t the first to use the butterfly - Hall used it quite a bit too, and was good enough to not be as criticized for it.  Roy mastered it and turned into a goalie revolution.   After 86 all the young guys wanted to be him.   And we saw an influx of goalies mimicking his style in the early nineties - Broduer, Belfour and even Hasek.   

 

On Hasek - I believe him, Roy and Parent are the best goalies to ever play since expansion - and Hasek is the best I’ve ever seen.  His string of Vezinas and Hart trophies were much deserved / and what he did in the 98 Olympics in the middle of his reign of terror was something else.   He never gave up on pucks - KellyRudhy has the record for most saves ever - but when he went down he flopped around like a fish - and often was scored on like most back then, when Hasek went down he’d save the puck with his skate if he had to... Korn the legendary goalie coach said it best when talking about Hasek - he said that there are 1000 variables of the puzzle when it comes to stopping pucks - most of them maybe have half - Hasek had 900 of them and  plus ones that aren’t included.   I never saw Sawchuk but have read enough about him and seen the rankings that still happen every couple years by THN (and they’ve been doing it since the 80’s, one of their rules is once a guy is ranked ahead of another after retirement, it’s permanent - and they used guys that are old enough and know enough about hockey to add a lot of credibility), which he still leads, to have a ton of respect.  Some of his playoff series were mind boggling (like Luongo and Turco but even better), posting sub- 1.00 GAA etc for an entire playoff.   Plus his stats are eye popping. 

 

That said Hasek and Roy (1993 was his greatest performance IMO) were remarkable talents.  Got a bit side tracked - but if I had to rank the best goalies I’ve ever seen those two would be at the top of the list.

 

As an aside Hasek comes in at 6th best all-time by THN most recent goalie rankings.  Roy at 2.  Luongo at 28.

[IBatch]

37 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

Those white boards were a thing of beauty.  Now the boards look worse than a Spengler Cup jersey.

 

The radio was great.  Good old Jim saying hi to the pensioners, the blind.  I got completely used to just catching games on audio since there were only about five televised a year.  I'm still fine just listening to a game on the radio while I do other stuff.

 

Damn right you had to be interested to keep up.  Was it every Saturday or Sunday that they would publish the team by team scoring for the entire league in the newspaper, and only then could you check up on old Randy Carlyle or whoever to see if he was having a decent season.

Hockey pools were done the old fashioned way with pencils and paper.  Local rag the Times Colonist had a sports section and every day they would print out the boxscore with goals assists and penalties - however they had an early print cut-off and often the third period was missing on some western games and have the ones they missed from the previous day listed.    They’d also print out a list of the top fifty  or so scorers once a week (which helped with keeping track of the pool a bit).  No internet to check your math though ha ha.   Yeah didn’t get much TV games at all, so used to the radio like I said we’d turn the volume off and listen to the radio - seemed better.

 

The only time you could see a lot of games was playoff time.  Then all the games were televised, problem was the Canucks didn’t usually last long if we were even in it... 89 against Calgary was one of the best I’ve ever seen and my initiation as a fan.   Before that the Oilers were my other team, but it was more about Gretzky then the team - every kid grew up dreaming of being like him back then.   Otto kicked it in.   After that I watched every final and every playoff game the Canucks have ever played pretty much.  Was still a Gretzky fan and died a little when they lost in 93, that TO series was memorable, my hero shut Cherry up and his love affair with Gilmour.   Them 94 happened and I’m still proud of that team, and became a true fan of the team with no mistress.   My favourite Canucks by far, love every one them even Lafayette. 

[awalk]

Dan Cloutier / Dan Sabourin because you cant go wrong with two Dans. 

 

Also memories of backup Bob... (bobb-ee bobb-ee bobb-ee)

[awalk]

On 10/26/2019 at 4:27 PM, IBatch said:

Hockey pools were done the old fashioned way with pencils and paper.  Local rag the Times Colonist had a sports section and every day they would print out the boxscore with goals assists and penalties - however they had an early print cut-off and often the third period was missing on some western games and have the ones they missed from the previous day listed.    They’d also print out a list of the top fifty  or so scorers once a week (which helped with keeping track of the pool a bit).  No internet to check your math though ha ha.   Yeah didn’t get much TV games at all, so used to the radio like I said we’d turn the volume off and listen to the radio - seemed better.

 

The only time you could see a lot of games was playoff time.  Then all the games were televised, problem was the Canucks didn’t usually last long if we were even in it... 89 against Calgary was one of the best I’ve ever seen and my initiation as a fan.   Before that the Oilers were my other team, but it was more about Gretzky then the team - every kid grew up dreaming of being like him back then.   Otto kicked it in.   After that I watched every final and every playoff game the Canucks have ever played pretty much.  Was still a Gretzky fan and died a little when they lost in 93, that TO series was memorable, my hero shut Cherry up and his love affair with Gilmour.   Them 94 happened and I’m still proud of that team, and became a true fan of the team with no mistress.   My favourite Canucks by far, love every one them even Lafayette. 

We used to mute the TV and put on the radio as well. Announcers were much better. Now there's a signal delay so can't do that anymore but I can still listen to a game while driving and visualize the action.

 

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, awalk said:

We used to mute the TV and put on the radio as well. Announcers were much better. Now there's a signal delay so can't do that anymore but I can still listen to a game while driving and visualize the action.

 

You bet - even then it wasn’t quite right but close enough that it wasn’t noticeable...different times.   Sometimes I listen to the games on my phone now - it’s better then nothing and you can feel the action even when you can’t see it.  Best radio game ever - game seven against Calgary in 94.    Watched it later (recoded on VHS was camping at the time) but will never forget the reaction around the campfire though one of the best moments as a fan I’ve ever had and it was a radio experience.   We didn’t know but some other campers were maybe three hundred feet done the beach from us also listening to the game, we cheered back and forth for five minutes ... 

[Kevin Biestra]

On 10/28/2019 at 6:54 PM, IBatch said:

You bet - even then it wasn’t quite right but close enough that it wasn’t noticeable...different times.   Sometimes I listen to the games on my phone now - it’s better then nothing and you can feel the action even when you can’t see it.  Best radio game ever - game seven against Calgary in 94.    Watched it later (recoded on VHS was camping at the time) but will never forget the reaction around the campfire though one of the best moments as a fan I’ve ever had and it was a radio experience.   We didn’t know but some other campers were maybe three hundred feet done the beach from us also listening to the game, we cheered back and forth for five minutes ... 

 

Heh, I was camping for a Canucks vs Leafs game in 94.  We all crowded around the back of this rich girl's truck.  She had a bloody satellite TV.

[Guest]

On 10/24/2019 at 2:37 AM, Hindustan Smyl said:

It’s tough to say.   I think the 2006-2009 Luongo was absolutely amazing and was the best goalie that we ever had.    The way that he stonewalled Dallas in that 2007 playoff series was unreal.    Unfortunately, I don’t think he ever really fully recovered after the 2009 playoff loss to Chicago.   Luongo was still a terrific goalie and had all of the stats to back that up, but he often became vulnerable and shaky when we needed him the most.     
 

Luongo should have been remembered as the Martin Brodeur/Dominik Hasek of our generation, but I think he’ll now be remembered as this generation’s version of Curtis Joseph.  Still very very good, but not the cream of the crop.

 

While we’ll have to wait and see what Markstrom is made out of when the playoffs hit, I get a real sense of security and stability with him back there now.   The players in front of him seem to feed off of his confidence as well.   
 

As far as Schneider and Demko go, I think we need a bigger sample size to see what we have in Demko (although I really love what I see so far).

 

 

My decision:    I’d probably still lean towards Luongo and Schneider due to the fact that we already know what Luongo is like come playoff time while Markstrom is an unknown.   The sample size for Demko, much like his manhood, is a little too small for my liking.

Luongo in his first year was probably the best goalie we ever had. In that first year, he literally won games on his own. His glove hand was the best I had ever seen in a Canuck goalie. His lateral movements were unreal. 

 

Then the groin injury happened. 

After his groin injury he was never the same.

 

Don’t get me wrong, he was still very good but not at the level he was in his first year. I feel like if he never had that groin injury he would have had a MUCH better career. 

 

That first year he was very entertaining to watch and he got nominated for the vezina and had 47 wins. He also got nominated again in 2011. And won the Jennings trophy with Schneider in 2011. 

 

Compare that to Markstrom and Demko. Although they might get to that point in the future, but as of right now, not even close. 

 

(Luongo was so good in his first season with us, that it was what got me interested in this team. He was THAT good. I wish I could show you guys video of him during that time but none seem to do him justice.)

 

He set the bar so high during his first season, that imo he never came back to that level (because of groin injury) and that when he had those meltdowns in later years he would get criticized by fans and media alike. It wasn’t that they didn’t like him it’s just that they all knew what he was capable of. 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 30, 2019 by Guest