Pavel Bure vs Mats Sundin
View Single Post
01-01-2013, 01:17 PM
Join Date: Jul 2010
Originally Posted by
Also, Bure played on a line with Greg Adams and Anatoli Semenov that year. Compared to Sundin's linemates on the stacked Nordiques squad, Bure's linemates were very underwhelming. Sundin played with Joe Sakic and Owen Nolan.
The Nords were not stacked, they were still very young, many players would go on to have great careers but Sundin and Ricci were 21, nolan 20 and Sakic 23.
Sundin also had the best year 9 points ahead of Sakic and I don't remember the lines that year but pretty sure Sundin didn't play all year with Sakic and Nolan either.
Semenov only played 62 games that year and Adams 53
There is no comparison. Bure made all sorts of plays and created all sorts of chances for his linemates. If he had played with Sakic and Nolan instead, he would have surpassed 114 points with ease. Not to mention Sakic's above average playmaking abilities would have elevated Bure to another level entirely.
Bure was very much like AO, a guy who wanted the puck and drove to the net, not much of a setupman at all, not sure he scores any better with those Nords teams as there is only 1 puck to go around and with all of that talent why do you suggest that Bure would score more?
It's neither here or there, Sundin simply outscored him.
Based on his desire to play
and the injuries he suffered in that short span, one might say Pavel was not anywhere near 100% in 1996-97. By 1997-98, he had returned to form.
If Pavel hadn't been injured in 1995-96, and
had not refused to play in 1998-99
, Pavel's resume may very well have shown 10 years of consistent output. He didn't become "average" at any point during that ten-year period; poor, unfortunate circumstances simply robbed him of those years. With Pavel's ability to play hockey, those would have been an excellent ten years for him had he been a bit luckier with injuries. Pavel's prime never really ended during his career. Injuries destroyed his chance to play during those years and ultimately ended his career.
Wait a second here if you want to give Pavel Brownie points for his desire to play you have to take them away for not wanting to play and holding out as well.
A relatively healthy Bure would have played consistently at peak level throughout the entire 1990s and into the 2000s. He would have had a fairly lengthy, consistent prime. When he retired, he was still playing in top form. It's unfortunate what happened. He is a "what if" player. On a team with above-average linemates, enjoying a healthy career, Pavel would have reached incredible milestones, and we would be making much greater comparisons right now than Bure vs Sundin.
So if Bure had had the better 5-7 year straight prime, with all of those ifs, he would have been better than Sundin in his best 5-7 year run?
Originally Posted by
One of his linemates would go on to play in five NHL all-star games, the other in thirteen. His centerman,
, would become one of the greatest centermen of all time.
The same can not be said about Anatoli Semenov, an aging Murray Craven, or even Cliff Ronning. Unsurprisingly, Semenov and Ronning had career numbers that year centering Bure. Additionally, while the opposition could always pit their top defensemen against Bure, the Nordiques had four stars (Sakic, Sundin, Ricci, Nolan) playing in their top six, making defense much more difficult for the opponent.
you are really pumping up that avs team and we were talking about who they were and what they did in 93 not after Sundin was traded to the desert in Toronto.
It's pretty obvious that prime is not consecutive with you so that's fair, Bure is by far the better goal scorer but I'd still take Sundin's best 7 seasons (you know the ones were I can pick and choose the best arguments for age, linemates, team support ect...) over Bure's with his complete game and the center position and the responsibilities that come with it.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Hardyvan123