View Single Post
12-28-2012, 11:50 AM
redbull's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,408
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Ag925 View Post
What a guy of Palffy's stature was able to achieve in the clutch-and-grab Dead Puck Era remains one of the most underappreciated accomplishments of the last 25 years in the NHL.

5'10", 180 LBS

1993-2006: 708 GP - 338 G - 394 A - 732 PTS

He has no trophies or even All Star Team selections, but he's a Hockey Hall Of Famer to me.
I always felt there was a "comfort" with Palffy playing on losing teams. Didn't really see any competitive fire in him, no willingness to win. Just a very slick, superior offensive player who could score points from the perimeter as well as anyone in his time. And again, it's not that Mogilny was Ryan Smyth but in the rare moments when Mogilny was on his game, he was superior to Palffy.

I think your last sentence (bolded) makes the point that I've tried making - that Palffy did well in obscurity, offensively. A little like Marcel Dionne (except not nearly as good), comfortable in a losing

Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I think it is a bit of a trick question. I still took Mogilny, but as we all know he could have off seasons, in fact he did all the time. There is no way I take Palffy over a Mogilny in a contract year though.

I still would take the risk with Mogilny. Palffy was more consistent but never reached Mogilny's heights at his best. He also has more of a Marc Savard syndrome. He was a great "bad team" player. He had little substance to his game. He was a point collector and that's where it would end. He never really helped his team win despite how hard it would be on NYI
To continue from my earlier point (in this post) in that Palffy never showed any leadership, passion, winning mentality at all. He showed little emotion and seemed content to put up points and continue losing. I understand there's no way to prove this and being on such a lousy team didn't make it easy for him, but I find it odd that such a great scorer (playing at time when there was player movement) was never added to a contending team for a late season push, the final piece for a winning team.

I hate arguing against Palffy because I happen to think he was a very good hockey player, underrated and underappreciated in his time. He was deceptively good defensively, at least with his positioning and somewhat responsible in back-checking (surprisingly) and had so little offensive support, was a great passer (better vision than Mogilny) and could create offense with an "ease" about it.

But Mogilny, at his peak, was explosive, could play with more emotion and fire and was deadly in the offensive zone (or neutral zone with speed) with a rocket shot that could beat any goalie from the top of the circles. That's where the difference lies.

Neither would be my first choice to win a playoff series but if I had to add one piece to a playoff team, I'd choose Mogilny.

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post

I think the correct answer here is that Mogilny was better at his best, but Palffy was at his best more often.

It's easy to forget just how little help Palffy had most of the time. Check out the 2002-03 LA Kings:
well put.

redbull is offline   Reply With Quote