Busting The Patrick Roy Myth

[PhillyBluesFan]

If that is your opinion, then there's no point reasoning with you. Most of those teams had vastly superior rosters than the 86 Canadiens and all them are at the very least on par.

It's like you're completely ignorant of era. Chelios of 86 was not Chelios of 89 and beyond. Larry Robinson of 86 had nice point totals, but this was not the Larry Robinson of the 70s. Naslund had his best season in 86, but still only finished eighth in scoring and that was his only top 10 finish. He was not a superstar. Lemieux, Smith, Carbonneau, and Gainey were nice secondary players. How does that roster, minus Roy stack up against:

89 Flames were completely stacked
Gilmour, Nieuwendyk, MacInnis, Loob, Mullen, McCrimmon, Vernon

90 Oilers were much better than the Canadiens minus Roy
Messier, Kurri, Anderson, Lowe, Tikkanen, Ranford in his big year, Simpson, plus young guys Beukeboom, Graves, Gelinas, etc

92 Penguins were stacked
Lemieux, Francis, Jagr, Mullen, Stevens, Barrasso, Murphy

94 Rangers were stacked
Messier, Leetch, Zubov, Richter, Graves, Kovalev, Tikkanen, Larmer, Beukeboom, Lowe

95 Devils were at very least comparable to the 86 Canadiens with Roy
Brodeur, Stevens, Niedermayer, Rolston, Guerin, Lemieux, Daneyko

96 Avalanche were stacked
Sakic, Forsberg, Roy, Foote, Ozolinsh, Deadmarsh, Lemieux

99 Stars were quite good
Modana, Nieuwendyk, Hull, Zubov, Belfour, Hatcher, Lehtinen,

04 Lightning were comparable and vastly superior offensively
St. Louis, Richards, Lecavalier, Boyle, Khabibulin

I don't see how you even make an argument for the 86 Canadiens against any of these teams other than the Lightning.

1. Why are you mentioning other goalies? The comparison is how good the Habs were "out of net" compared to the other teams.

2. A past prime Robinson was still one of the top 5 defensemen in the NHL. Chelios at 25 is as good or better than MacInnis or Suter at the same age on the 89 Flames. Naslund in 86 was comparable to Mullen in 89. And I'll take Gainey, Lemiuex, Carbonneau, and Smith over Nieuwendyk, Gilmour and Loob every day of the week. And thats the Flames who are much better then most of those other championship teams I listed

We couldn't have been watching the same games.

 

[green lantern]

1. Why are you mentioning other goalies? The comparison is how good the Habs were "out of net" compared to the other teams.

2. A past prime Robinson was still one of the top 5 defensemen in the NHL. Chelios at 25 is better than MacInnis or Suter at the same age on the 89 Flames. Naslund in 86 was comparable to Mullen in 89. And I'll take Gainey, Lemiuex, Carbonneau, and Smith over Nieuwendyk, Gilmour and Loob every day of the week. And thats the Flames who are much better then most of those other championship teams I listed

We couldn't have been watching the same games.

With all due respect, we're onto page 3 in the thread and not a single poster is in your corner on this issue. I'm all for an open discussion but it's been obvious your points have been refuted. And Roy is no Steve Yzerman or Joe Sakic, he had a lot of haters out there but seems most (myself included) can acknowledge just how good he was.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

PBF, you seem very passionate about this. If you want to sway others' opinions, you might try doing something better than just repeating "every single person in this thread must not have watched the games that I watched".

(I also find it curious that you keep ignoring my posts).

 

[PhillyBluesFan]

With all due respect, we're onto page 3 in the thread and not a single poster is in your corner on this issue. I'm all for an open discussion but it's been obvious your points have been refuted. And Roy is no Steve Yzerman or Joe Sakic, he had a lot of haters out there but seems most (myself included) can acknowledge just how good he was.

I will freely admit that I think players are extremely overrated like Lidstrom and Crosby. Roy isn't one of those players, he's one of the top 3 goalies ever. My only issue is the myth that "Roy carried teams to the cup".

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

It's certainly possible to argue that the 1986 Habs rank among the best Cup winners purely in terms of team defence. Roy faced just 24.9 shots against/60 in the playoffs during a year where the regular season average was 31.0 and the postseason average excluding Roy was 30.4. That places Roy 5th in the official save percentage era in lowest adjusted shots against rate per 60 minutes (adjusted to 2012's scoring environment using regular season averages):

1. Osgood, 2008: 22.8
2. Brodeur, 1995: 23.0
3. Vernon, 1989: 23.3
4. Brodeur, 2000: 23.7
5. Roy, 1986: 23.9

That said, Roy's ranking is probably a bit overstated because of the weak competition that the '86 Habs faced in that playoff season, and of course Roy had a pretty major impact on goal prevention himself given his terrific save percentage.

 

[JackSlater]

I feel the need to get in on it too.

2. A past prime Robinson was still one of the top 5 defensemen in the NHL.

Highly debatable. Bourque, Coffey and Howe were clearly ahead and there would be several players competing against Robinson for those last two spots. Keep in mind that by 86 Robinson's defence was not at the level it had been in the late 70's.

Chelios at 25 is as good or better than MacInnis or Suter at the same age on the 89 Flames.

MacInnis was clearly better, having made two post season all star teams and having a dominant, Conn Smythe winning playoffs in 89. Suter is quite comparable with Chelios in this timeframe.

Naslund in 86 was comparable to Mullen in 89.

Yes.

And I'll take Gainey, Lemiuex, Carbonneau, and Smith over Nieuwendyk, Gilmour and Loob every day of the week.

Even though you listed three Calgary players compared to four from Montreal, the Calgary group is still better. I would take each of those Calgary players in 89 over any of the Montreal players in 86.

And thats the Flames who are much better then most of those other championship teams I listed

Yep... and much certainly better than those Montreal teams too, especially when you don't consider goaltending.

 

[canucks4ever]

I think both Roy and hasek should be ranked ahead of eddie shore on the all time lists. Shore's hart record was a complete product of the era. Roy was a very dominant regular season goalie in his own era and his playoff resume is top 5 all times, roy should be above shore all time. If i'm starting a team from scratch I would take hasek and roy over players like shore and mikita any day of the week.

 

[Rhiessan71]

(I also find it curious that you keep ignoring my posts).

You too eh

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I think both Roy and hasek should be ranked ahead of eddie shore on the all time lists. Shore's hart record was a complete product of the era. Roy was a very dominant regular season goalie in his own era and his playoff resume is top 5 all times, roy should be above shore all time. If i'm starting a team from scratch I would take hasek and roy over players like shore and mikita any day of the week.

A bit of a radical thought around here, but I am inclined to agree. Just because there is no clear consensus of the top goalie of all-time (like there generally is for top forward and defensemen), does not inherently mean their great peaks are lessened.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I will freely admit that I think players are extremely overrated like Lidstrom and Crosby. Roy isn't one of those players, he's one of the top 3 goalies ever. My only issue is the myth that "Roy carried teams to the cup".

Listen, I agree with you that the 86 and 93 Canadiens were good teams even outside of goal. But when you say things like "they could have won no matter who was in goal," when their goalie won the Conn Smythe both seasons, it's hard to take you seriously.

 

[GuineaPig]

The OP's argument could have provided interesting discussion if it had been argued intelligently... but it was not.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think both Roy and hasek should be ranked ahead of eddie shore on the all time lists. Shore's hart record was a complete product of the era. Roy was a very dominant regular season goalie in his own era and his playoff resume is top 5 all times, roy should be above shore all time. If i'm starting a team from scratch I would take hasek and roy over players like shore and mikita any day of the week.

Count me as one of those who doesn't think Shore over Roy/Hasek is clear cut.

I mean, we just ranked Bourque over Shore, and I don't think Bourque over Hasek/Roy is clearcut

But then I rank Howie Morenz over Eddie Shore, so what do I know?

 

[Killion]

A bit of a radical thought around here, but I am inclined to agree. Just because there is no clear consensus of the top goalie of all-time (like there generally is for top forward and defensemen), does not inherently mean their great peaks are lessened.

... honestly RD, I dont think Defenceman & Forwards should be rated or ranked against Goaltenders at all, or is that what your suggesting as well? Its such a unique & unusual position that to compare say Shore to Sawchuk does neither one justice.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

... honestly RD, I dont think Defenceman & Forwards should be rated or ranked against Goaltenders at all, or is that what your suggesting as well? Its such a unique & unusual position that to compare say Shore to Sawchuk does neither one justice.

You might be right... But we try it. It's fun to do and certainly makes for interesting conversations/flame wars

And Sawchuk vs. Shore is a legitimate comparison, IMO.

 

[ot92s]

roy was the youngest conn smyth winner during his first cup win.

he won 10 straight overtime games during his second win.

no myth kid, the guy is a badass.

 

[Ivan13]

The Avalanche team of 1996 played a very exciting brand of hockey. It was also wide-open, and without Roy they do not win that cup. Stephane Fiset would not have gotten it done. Roy was spectacular in that season and playoffs. The 2001 team was defensive, and Roy did OT need to be as good. Still, the years in-between when they lost out in the playoffs, Roy committed some epic gaffes that helped them fail. I was of the opinion that he was nothing but the product of a defensive system in Montreal until he came to Colorado. Seeing him live for 60 games that year convinced me that he was an exclellent goaltender.

01 Avs weren't a defensive team, they started to transform into a defense first team in 2001/2002 season.

 

[PhillyBluesFan]

Listen, I agree with you that the 86 and 93 Canadiens were good teams even outside of goal. But when you say things like "they could have won no matter who was in goal," when their goalie won the Conn Smythe both seasons, it's hard to take you seriously.

It's hyperbole. All I am saying is the vast majority of the time the Habs and Avs beat teams that they were better than outside and inside of net. Here's a stat for you. The Habs and Avs won 34 playoff series with Roy and a whooping 4 of them came against division winners.

 

[MXD]

Why do Hockey fans still believe the myth that Roy won with undermanned teams?

The 86 Habs were ridiculously talented with:
2 HOF defensemen(Chelios and Robinson)
3 great forwards(Lemiuex, Naslund and Smith)
2 of the greatest defensive forwards ever(Gainey and Carbonneau)

and on top of that Roy lucked out and didn't have to play a single division winner in the playoffs

Not repeating(or at least getting back to the Cup Finals) in 87 should of been considered a travesty. Roy got lit up like a Christmas tree against the Flyers in the playoffs.

The 93 Habs probable had the easiest road to the Cup in NHL history beating:
104 point Nords
86 point Sabres
87 point Isles
88 point Kings

Roy also got great goal support

The 96 Avs The most glaringly stupid of all the "Roy carried them on his back" narratives.

The 96 Avs were the highest scoring Stanley cup winner of the last 20 seasons.

The 01 Avs do I even have to go in to this? They were basically an all star team.

In conclusion we can say not only were none of the championship teams Roy played on were undermanned but they were so great that they probable could of won without a HOF caliber goalie. Roy also blew it on another team that should of at least played for a Stanley Cup(87 Habs)

... Lemieux, Naslund and Smith were pretty good forwards. None of them were great. In the great scheme of things, those three were actually inferior to Vincent Damphousse.

Second thing, the "easy" road argument always baffles me, considering that, in each and every case, they could have ended up with the toughest road ever (1993 would have been a no contest with Quebec, Boston and Pittsburgh...). So, yeah, easier than what could have been, but 1993, had it gone like it should, would have the hardest road to Cup by five country miles.

 

[Sinter Klaas]

Roy's Montreal Cup rated teams tend to get underrated by those who like to pump up Roy.

They had some excellent players and were playing in the Forum which was hallowed ground if there ever was any in the NHL.

 

[JackSlater]

I think both Roy and hasek should be ranked ahead of eddie shore on the all time lists. Shore's hart record was a complete product of the era. Roy was a very dominant regular season goalie in his own era and his playoff resume is top 5 all times, roy should be above shore all time. If i'm starting a team from scratch I would take hasek and roy over players like shore and mikita any day of the week.

I would definitely put Hasek ahead of Shore. Roy is a decent possibility as well.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It's hyperbole. All I am saying is the vast majority of the time the Habs and Avs beat teams that they were better than outside and inside of net. Here's a stat for you. The Habs and Avs won 34 playoff series with Roy and a whooping 4 of them came against division winners.

As Taco said, please leave the hyberbole to the NHL General Talk section. Maybe your original post wouldn't have been so universally shot down if presented differently

 

[pigpen65]

The worst thing to happen for the Roy supporters was for Hasek to get traded to Detroit and win a cup. They never thought it would happen so for the entire time he was in Buffalo they always got to say that Roy was clearly the better player since he had won a cup and Hasek hadn't. Then Hasek actually went to a good team the way Roy played for his entire career, won a cup barely trying, and all of a sudden that argument was gone. I'm sure they were crushed.

 

[dr robbie]

This thread gave me a headache reading through it.

How could anyone alive at the time that watched hockey argue that Roy wasn't a big part of his cup runs? The man was a beast in net and was clutch in the playoffs. I just don't know what else to say except look up some videos and watch the man play.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

This thread gave me a headache reading through it.

How could anyone alive at the time that watched hockey argue that Roy wasn't a big part of his cup runs? The man was a beast in net and was clutch in the playoffs. I just don't know what else to say except look up some videos and watch the man play.

Well, I don't know what else to say except it astounds me that people can argue that a player isn't "as big of part" as someone else claims, and another person can read that as "wasn't a big part... period". If that's what you're interpreting here, then no wonder reading gives you headaches.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The worst thing to happen for the Roy supporters was for Hasek to get traded to Detroit and win a cup. They never thought it would happen so for the entire time he was in Buffalo they always got to say that Roy was clearly the better player since he had won a cup and Hasek hadn't. Then Hasek actually went to a good team the way Roy played for his entire career, won a cup barely trying, and all of a sudden that argument was gone. I'm sure they were crushed.

Funny, I think the common argument for Roy is more about how important he was to those Cup teams. And are you seriously trying to say that Roy played on teams as stacked as the 2002 Red Wings his entire career?

I think there are good reasons to pick Hasek over Roy, but the arguments by Hasek fans on hfboards just keep getting worse and worse