jigglysquishy
Registered User
Like 90% of the people disagreeing with him being top 3 all time are doing so specifically because they are considering Plante/Sawchuk/Hall/Dryden/Tretiak.
What happened to Brodeur's legacy?
- Thread starter 895
- Start date
-
HFBoards is well aware that today is election day in the US. We ask respectfully to focus on hockey and not politics.
blundluntman
Registered User
- Jul 30, 2016
- 3,142
- 3,421
Words/phrases actually have meanings. If you mean post-90s, just say that. But claiming somebody's top 3 all-time while ignoring nearly 70% of the league's history will rightfully attract some backlash.
- Aug 24, 2011
- 28,669
- 13,674
Doctor No
Registered User
If when discussing "of all time", the poster means anything other than "of all time", then I don't really care what else he has to say about it.
it's the internet, The place where people skip over details because they assume everyone understands things the same as them. Why bring up something when its so obvious.
Older hockey watchers automatically include the players they watched "back in the day"
Younger watchers only really care about recent history.
Hockey historians want wait in the shadows ready to say "ACKTUALLY".
minibrodeur
Registered User
- May 17, 2022
- 275
- 478
I think the impact Brodeur's intangibles had on the game and the way his team played will always be challenged due to how difficult it is to measure and how statistically driven everything is now. Many of Brodeur's teammates always said how vocal he was, how he would coordinate positioning from the net. His skills with the puck were implemented into his playing style and personally, I take this into consideration when comparing him to the other top netminders. This style factored into his longevity, the aforementioned penalty suppression, shot suppression and even his opponents strategy. All those things impact his career statistics but tend to get overlooked if you're not watching him play. In the Athletics recent top 99 Brodeur was ranked #21 (3rd behind Hasek, then Roy).
Doctor No
Registered User
Yeah, it's those nerd historians who are the problem when wanting precision in language when discussing THE BEST OF ALL TIME. Screw them.
Everyone else clearly means "since the Outdoor Life Network got the TV contract".
ricky0034
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2010
- 15,468
- 7,937
Suntouchable13
Registered User
He is one of the best I have seen. I only started watching around the year 2000 but for sure since then he is easily top 5 for me.
PolishPrince21
Registered User
To me is number 3 after Hasek and Roy. marty played behind a trap with hof defensemen. I remember back in the 90s i would skip devil games at the coliseum, not because the isles were bad and the devs were good it's just that i didn't want to see 1-0 snoozefests and i have been to plenty of 1-0 games that were very exciting.
blundluntman
Registered User
- Jul 30, 2016
- 3,142
- 3,421
It's not as obvious as you think. Expecting people to assume where you're coming from instead of just saying it yourself is kinda lazy. Things would be much easier if people didn't just skip over those details.it's the internet, The place where people skip over details because they assume everyone understands things the same as them. Why bring up something when its so obvious.
Older hockey watchers automatically include the players they watched "back in the day"
Younger watchers only really care about recent history.
Hockey historians want wait in the shadows ready to say "ACKTUALLY".
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 31,191
- 20,100
Odd comparison as Beliveau is 30 years older than Gretzky, whereas Brodeur was very much a peer to Roy and Hasek (despite being 7 years younger).
Back to the Brodeur talk!
I think longevity is being heavily discounted here. He was a great goalie from 1994 to 2012. He went from taking the Rangers to the brink to going battling a young Jonathan Quick to two overtimes and won two games when he was 40 years old.
I think longevity is being heavily discounted here. He was a great goalie from 1994 to 2012. He went from taking the Rangers to the brink to going battling a young Jonathan Quick to two overtimes and won two games when he was 40 years old.
My intent is not to say that its obvious, Just that its part of the human condition and the internet exacerbates it and that we should be aware of that.
If something someone says/posts sounds crazy then people should ask for clarification. Assuming is lazy but so is assuming that someone is just crazy instead of digging deeper.
As I mentioned, the Arnott years were fun.
1993-94: 306 (2/26)
1994-95: 136 (13/26)
1995-96: 215 (25/26)
1996-97: 231 (16/26)
1997-98: 225 (9/26)
1998-99: 248 (2/27)
1999-00: 251 (2/28)
2000-01: 295 (1/30)
2001-02: 205 (20/30)
2002-03: 216 (14/30)
2003-04: 213 (14/30)
Again, I'm just pointing out that people believed a general caricature that the Devils were always like the 2000 Baltimore Ravens. If you want to call the 2003 Devils boring, I wouldn't disagree with you. But I just point out that there was that pocket of time when the Devils had a better amount of skill than the typical fan gives them credit for. It's almost like they had it predetermined that it was boring.
Doctor No
Registered User
I mean, the thread starter is still here and reading the thread. Why is the onus on us when they can just say "hey hold on a minute, when I said ALL TIME I clearly meant since I started watching hockey."?
blundluntman
Registered User
- Jul 30, 2016
- 3,142
- 3,421
That’s a fair point. For me, I wouldn’t necessarily assume the person was crazy , I’d just assume they were evaluating players historically in a way I didn’t agree with. Either way, it’d be a worthwhile discussion
Wierzbowski426
Registered User
Turco (and even DiPietro) seemed even more aggressive in trying to play the puck. The Turco grip is interesting, I could see it having advantages with playing the puck on the backhand as he demonstrates in the video.
Ace Card Bedard
Back in Black, Red, and White
- Feb 11, 2012
- 9,058
- 4,046
Wierzbowski426
Registered User
So many weird takes.
You are completely ignoring his puck handling ability, not to mention many other factors.
Turco was also great. Not disputing that.
For sure, quantifying puckhandling can be difficult. The beer league goalie nerd in me found the video interesting. Although I'm pretty sure I'd flub the puck trying to use Turco's grip, definitely seems like something I'd need months of practice to erase the muscle memory.
- Apr 27, 2005
- 35,236
- 33,744
How is that weird? It's pretty objectively clear that on a per game basis, his workload was pretty manageable in comparison to other goalies. He only faced 50 shots once in his entire career, and it took 17 years.
MartyOwns
thank you shero
- Apr 1, 2007
- 24,667
- 19,265
yeah, marty was a douche. he should’ve stuck to DUI’s like belfour, domestic violence like roy, racism like vanbiesbrouck, etc.
Wierzbowski426
Registered User
Agreeing that he's overrated because he wasn't peppered with shots for his entire career is an odd take. From a devils fan.
He also played 70+ games on a routine basis, when no other goalies were doing that. In fact, he had a stretch of 70+ games in 12 out of 14 seasons. Thats way way more impressive than "he didnt face alot of shots" detracts from his career imo.
