Which player is more HOF worthy: Jonathan Quick or Marc-André Fleury?

[I am not exposed]

I personally think Quick, but what do you reckon?

Click to read more...

 

[jigglysquishy]

Fleury will make it in but I don't think he should.

Put together stinker after stinker in the playoffs from 2010 to 2016. He was often the reason the Penguins lost games and a few series can be put on his shoulders.

His post 2017 career does more for me than his 2006 - 2016 career does.

 

[Recipe Unlimited]

Isn't this question the same as "Who has had a better career?"

I'd say Fleury

 

[Cubs2024wildcard]

Both belong

 

[Painful Quandary]

Fleury seems like a lock, especially after the Vezina with Vegas. Quick is a 50/50 to get in due to some injury laden seasons.

 

[Frolov 6'3]

Neither.

 

[JaegerDice]

If I had to choose, I’d say Quick simply because he was more integral to the Cups he won.

I think Quick gets a bit overrated by some, and a bit underrated by others. He’s had stretches of average or even below average play, and very well-timed stretches where he was very simply ****ing unbeatable.

At the end of the day, there was a 2-3 year period you could argue he was a top 5 PLAYER in the league, let alone GOALIE. If the HHOF is supposed to be a museum of the greats throughout history, I think you’d be amiss to skip him.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

If I had to choose, I’d say Quick simply because he was more integral to the Cups he won.

I think Quick gets a bit overrated by some, and a bit underrated by others. He’s had stretches of average or even below average play, and very well-timed stretches where he was very simply ****ing unbeatable.

At the end of the day, there was a 2-3 year period you could argue he was a top 5 PLAYER in the league, let alone GOALIE. If the HHOF is supposed to be a museum of the greats throughout history, I think you’d be amiss to skip him.

I think the first sentence is where I stand. Fleury's had the better regular seasons in terms of wins/trophies, but I think Quick was much more crucial to his team's success come playoff time where you could argue they'd have zero championships without him.

 

[thekernel]

Great comparison. Neither are individually talented enough to be worthy of the Hall, but they are both too decorated to miss it. Even their career SV% is identical.

Quick backstopped two Cup runs in full, including a Conn Smythe year. Fleury's got one Cup as a starter, a Vezina trophy, and currently sits 3rd on the all-time wins leaderboard. Quick gets the edge for me purely because I believe him to be the superior goaltender.

 

[Mrb1p]

Quick, what the hell. He's the 2nd best goaltender of this generation on accolades and also had the second best peak.

 

[HugeInTheShire]

Fleury will forever get the Brodeur treatment, aka winning games means less if you're on a team expected to win games.

 

[Boreal01]

Quick

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

If I had to choose, I’d say Quick simply because he was more integral to the Cups he won.

I think Quick gets a bit overrated by some, and a bit underrated by others. He’s had stretches of average or even below average play, and very well-timed stretches where he was very simply ****ing unbeatable.

At the end of the day, there was a 2-3 year period you could argue he was a top 5 PLAYER in the league, let alone GOALIE. If the HHOF is supposed to be a museum of the greats throughout history, I think you’d be amiss to skip him.

Quick never won a Vezina, was never 1st AST, only had 2 Vezina nominations in his career (which were separated by 4 seasons), never had consecutive top 5 Vezina finishes, only 1 top 20 hart finish. He was never a top 5 player and never close either.

 

[um]

Fleury will forever get the Brodeur treatment, aka winning games means less if you're on a team expected to win games.

Well, wins are a team stat.

But I got no problem with MAF making it, mainly because of how great he was in Vegas.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Quick never won a Vezina, was never 1st AST, only had 2 Vezina nominations in his career (which were separated by 4 seasons), never had consecutive top 5 Vezina finishes, only 1 top 20 hart finish. He was never a top 5 player and never close either.

I was AST wasn't used as a criterion for HHOF. Voted on by the fans + quotas per team. Igor Shesterkin with one of the best statistical seasons of all time didn't make the AST last year but Jack Campbell I believe did.

 

[Backlund]

Neither.

If we're being honest. But by the standard the HHOF has we'll probably see both make it.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I was AST wasn't used as a criterion for HHOF. Voted on by the fans + quotas per team. Igor Shesterkin with one of the best statistical seasons of all time didn't make the AST last year but Jack Campbell I believe did.

You know he's referring to end of year All Star teams. Not fan voted.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

You know he's referring to end of year All Star teams. Not fan voted.

Never mind then.

 

[Ivo]

The argument for Quick is playoff performance, especially the first Cup run in ‘12. But he only played in 8 playoffs in his career and not all of them great. While Fleury played in 16 playoffs, and sure put up some real stinkers mid-career, he also had strong playoff runs, esp. ‘08 with Pens and ‘18 with Vegas.
Their Vezina record is similar: 1-4-5 (MAF) and 2-3-5 (Quick), but MAF has 160 more wins, so I pick him.

 

[Took a pill in Sbisa]

Quick had a higher peak than Fleury, and I associate the HHOF with the peak players of every era

 

[jetsforever]

Fleury, but Quick peaked higher I think

 

[Voight]

The argument for Quick is playoff performance, especially the first Cup run in ‘12. But he only played in 8 playoffs in his career and not all of them great. While Fleury played in 16 playoffs, and sure put up some real stinkers mid-career, he also had strong playoff runs, esp. ‘08 with Pens and ‘18 with Vegas.
Their Vezina record is similar: 1-4-5 (MAF) and 2-3-5 (Quick), but MAF has 160 more wins, so I pick him.

MAF also spent the majority of his career on the same team with 2 of the top 3 players of his era. No wonder he has so many wins.

 

[Ivo]

MAF also spent the majority of his career on the same team with 2 of the top 3 players of his era. No wonder he has so many wins.

It’s partly that, but more importantly he managed to be an NHL starter goalie for like 17 seasons which is in itself an impressive feat.

I was against him going to the Hall, but since he won the Vezina, he checks most of the boxes.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Quick was better but Fleury has a better chance because of the career numbers he has run up.

 

[HugeInTheShire]

Well, wins are a team stat.

But I got no problem with MAF making it, mainly because of how great he was in Vegas.

You're right, they should stop giving goalies wins. It's a team stat lol.
This way of thinking is just plain and simply wrong, goalies can singlehandedly win and lose games, no other player has as much riding on their every play.
I just hate the you win as a team, and lose as a goalie mentality many people seem to have.