View Single Post
08-10-2010, 08:46 AM
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Really, so now even strength goals are the main criteria here? Hart Voting in 1999 clearly indicates who was seen as the better player. I would rather finish second in scoring, than put up 80 points and be solid defensively. The dallas stars of 1999 were a stacked team full of great players, him winning a cup is great but nothing to bow down too.

Joe Sakic and Forsberg were better defensively than Modano and they still outpointed him by a large margin in 1999.

You can make any excuse you want, selanne showed that he had the ability to crack a top 5 scoring list. Modano never came close to doing this even when he was a one dimensional player that didnt focus on defense at all. Selanne cracked the top 5 as a rookie, the same year modano was at the bottom end of the top 30.
Mike Modano was at least as good defensively as Joe Sakic and definitely better than Peter Forsberg. You really have a lot of confidence in making statements about players you barely remember.

I voted Selanne for this one, but I can certainly see the argument for Modano, at least based on primes.

Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
I remember those 1997-1999 years like they were yesterday. After jagr, the conversation for the next best players was always between forsberg, selanne, kariya and whenever lindros was healthy. Modano wasn't even in the discussion.
Weren't you 7 years old in 1997? I'm more than 10 years older than you and I'm not going to pretend that I have clear memories of hockey before 1993 or so.

Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 08-10-2010 at 08:55 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote