In retrospect, how good of a goalie was Brian Elliott?
- Thread starter Bjornar Moxnes
- Start date
-
HF Sportsbook has been reset for the new season - Click here to play. It's Back - NHL Survivor 2024-25 is now open - Monday 10/14 is last day to join Click here to join.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
I thought of him in the same vein as a Craig Anderson. Not top tier goalies, but hung around in the league a long time as a solid option and occasionally went on a heater where they could hold their own against the best.
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
Bjornar Moxnes
Registered User
Craig Anderson never truly played for a strong team though and has constantly stepped up in the playoffs. Anderson in 2011 and 2012 singlehandily gave his lower seed team a chance to upset a top seed. Whereas even with the Blues, outside of a great 2016 playoffs, Elliott always shat the bed. Elliott was awful outside of the Blues in the playoffs.
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
I like Brian Elliott but Craig Anderson was much better.
He provided stability at a position that traditionally was extremely chaotic in Ottawa and outduelled some very good goalies in the post-season such as Carey Price.
He provided stability at a position that traditionally was extremely chaotic in Ottawa and outduelled some very good goalies in the post-season such as Carey Price.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
I agree that Andersen was the better and more stable goalie, just saying think of them in similar terms as far as their place in the league.
Xspyrit
DJ Dorion
Voted "Average goalie that depended a lot on his team"
And it's not a negative, you have to be extremely good to be an average NHL goalie... There's only ~70 jobs like that
I watched them both play a lot of NHL games and Craig Anderson was easily in a tier above.
And it's not a negative, you have to be extremely good to be an average NHL goalie... There's only ~70 jobs like that
I watched them both play a lot of NHL games and Craig Anderson was easily in a tier above.
Took a pill in Sbisa
2showToffoliIwascool
retrospect changed nothing for me. I always thought he was an average goalie.
Every goalie that played in St. Louis during that time had success there and almost no where else.
Every goalie that played in St. Louis during that time had success there and almost no where else.
low tier starter, or a good 1B guy
depends what constitutes "average" in the poll. if we classify it as a bottom end starter in the league at any given point, i think he was below that for most of his career
if its that there's 60 goalie positions in the league (while he played), he's on the better half of the 20 to 40 range.
depends what constitutes "average" in the poll. if we classify it as a bottom end starter in the league at any given point, i think he was below that for most of his career
if its that there's 60 goalie positions in the league (while he played), he's on the better half of the 20 to 40 range.
I think I'll vote good goalie, he's in that area between average and good. I don't know if I'd want him as #1 but if he's your #2 you're probably in really good shape in goal.
IWantSakicAsMyGM
Registered User
After we traded Anderson for him, Elliott was probably the worst goalie I had ever seen play for the Avs up to that point. As a result, I've always looked at his couple of good regular seasons in St Louis as a result of being the 1B behind a very good defensive team. There wasn't an option for "he sucks, but did OK behind a good team", but I guess calling him Average isn't that far off.
Felidae
Registered User
- Sep 30, 2016
- 11,846
- 14,836
Not every "average" goalie posts the numbers he had playing on a top 3 defensive team, which ST Louis was for his entire tenure.
That being said, it's hard to ignore the stark difference between his stats in ST Louis and outside of it.
So I think average to good goalie is about right.
That being said, it's hard to ignore the stark difference between his stats in ST Louis and outside of it.
So I think average to good goalie is about right.
jetsforever
Registered User
- Dec 14, 2013
- 27,926
- 24,270
Played behind an elite defensive team and was just good enough to not sabotage it for them, those stats don't belong to him they belong to the Blues defense. That's all anyone can ask for though, just good enough to not sabotage the team. 75% of winning goalies since the salary cap fall into that category.
PainForShane
formerly surfshop
- Dec 24, 2019
- 2,802
- 3,252
biturbo19
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2010
- 27,075
- 12,214
I'd say "Medium Okay" with some ups and downs as he was largely a "system" goalie who depended on the guys in front of him giving him the sort of help he needed. But if you could give him predictability and controlled chances against, he was a pretty reliable stopper of the puck.
I always liked him more than that, largely because he always had really slick gear. But he was always the sort of 1b type guy in the right system fit, occasionally leaky 2a in the wrong situation. There's a reason he was such a journeyman. Both good and bad. At the high end, he just never really offered a high enough level to justify committing to permanently over a long period - so teams would move on after a while in search of greener pastures. But he was also a pretty dependable asset, which served him well in that teams would continually pick him up and give him a little run as a starter because you at least mostly knew what you were gonna get.
He's also kind of hurt by being judged against the last remnants of a bygone era of that "workhorse superstar goalie" around him. He was bouncing around as a sort of tandem/1b type guy...at a time where the last of the true classic #1 studs were playing out the last of their careers. His "profile" as a player would look a lot different, if his prime were contrasted more with the goaltending landscape today...where it's far more common to have these sort of "tandem guys" and journeymen, and guys who bounce around from place to place a fair bit.
I always liked him more than that, largely because he always had really slick gear. But he was always the sort of 1b type guy in the right system fit, occasionally leaky 2a in the wrong situation. There's a reason he was such a journeyman. Both good and bad. At the high end, he just never really offered a high enough level to justify committing to permanently over a long period - so teams would move on after a while in search of greener pastures. But he was also a pretty dependable asset, which served him well in that teams would continually pick him up and give him a little run as a starter because you at least mostly knew what you were gonna get.
He's also kind of hurt by being judged against the last remnants of a bygone era of that "workhorse superstar goalie" around him. He was bouncing around as a sort of tandem/1b type guy...at a time where the last of the true classic #1 studs were playing out the last of their careers. His "profile" as a player would look a lot different, if his prime were contrasted more with the goaltending landscape today...where it's far more common to have these sort of "tandem guys" and journeymen, and guys who bounce around from place to place a fair bit.
Did he start in 2012 against the Rangers? He lost that series by the skin of his teeth.
Bjornar Moxnes
Registered User
He did and I think the Sens were basically considered to the worst team in the playoffs that entire year, many people thought Rangers had the easiest 1st round opponent. Sens were able to take it to 7 games, heck even had a chance of winning it in 6 games as they actually took a 3-2 series lead. That was with Alfredsson missing a few games and Karlsson being completely neutralized by the Rangers.
