Doctor No
Registered User
I think he is probably the most over-rated player in history.
Go on...
I think he is probably the most over-rated player in history.
I think he is probably the most over-rated player in history.
That might explain it, yes. The back-up generally gets "easier" opponents.
I'm trying to remember the public perception of Roy at the time. He obviously felt the pressure; hence, his little meltdown against Detroit that night.
Yes, of course you're right; he was part of the big trade.Jocelyn Thibault was not Patrick Roy's backup.
Martin Brodeur holds all the important records. Unpopular opinion: Brodeur better than Roy.
I was gone when we decided that playoff records were unimportant.
The main help in 93 was that the Islanders beat the Pens. But without Roy I doubt the Habs win against Quebec - they fell down 0-2 in that series and Roy willed a win in game 3 - put the team on his back. So without Roy the Habs probably don't get to take advantage of the Pens losing in round 2.
Not really. The habs badly outplayed Québec in that game and only Hextall kept it close. And Roy was actually not that good the first two games either.
He was insane the last 3 rounds for sure. But he wasn't dominant in the first round.
Yes this doesn't stand to scrutiny neither, but I was arguing against "the very stacked team" comment.To me a very stacked team is not the 1993 Montreal Canadiens, but perhaps people have a different definition than me.
They were a good team no doubt, but they weren't Colorado of the late 90s.
Hasek didn't win against Dallas in 99 with Peca as his best teammate and Pronger didn't win against Carolina in 06 with Peca as his best teammate. Roy in 93 had a Peca like/calibre player in Guy Carbonneau plus players like Desjardins, Damphousse, Bellows, Muller, Keane. Dallas Stars in 1999 was a significantly better team than any team the Canadiens beat en route to their 1993 Stanley Cup victory.
That 1993 club does get underrated in the grand scheme of things. They got 102 points despite roy having a poor regular season. They also happened to finish 3rd in the division, I believe. That sounds mediocre, but it was still the 6th best in the entire league.
But consider that through March 3rd, his .899 save percentage was right there with Vezina nominees Joseph and Belfour’s .904 and Barrasso’s .896. He was also two wins (28) behind Belfour (30), and very much in the Vezina conversation, as the Montreal Canadiens held a 4-point lead over the Pittsburgh Penguins for the President’s Trophy.
The Canadiens then went 7-10 to finish the season, and Roy’s statistics reflected it.
You can’t say the Canadiens got 102 points “despite” something Roy did when 88 of those points where from the first 67 games of the season when Roy was playing great.
The 3.02 goals-per-game in the playoffs for a Stanley Cup champion in a season when teams scored 3.63 on average is kinda mediocre though.
I'm comparing roy to roy. It was a volatile year for him, and the critics were on him.
It got to the point where Demers had to take him aside and reassure him that no matter what happens, he's going to stick with him. Roy has mentioned that himself.
Yes, Demers said that following Game 2 vs. Quebec.
But understand that if you say they earned 102 points “despite” Patrick Roy, that’s a claim that doesn’t really hold up under scrutiny, particularly when checking the strength of schedule in deployment relative to Racicot.
And there’s a difference between having a season that isn’t to the level of the high standard he set from 1988-1992 and having “a poor regular season”. If you meant the former, that’s perfectly valid, but you said the latter.
He wasn’t the only reason Montreal was 4 points ahead of Pittsburgh through March 3rd, but he was still the most important individual player to their success. And I can’t think of better supporting evidence than the fact that their fade down the stretch coincided with a dip in Roy’s performance - and their subsequent 16-4 playoff run coincided with his elevated performance despite (there’s that word again) Montreal posting arguably the worst offensive numbers of a Stanley Cup champion since 1967 expansion.