View Single Post
03-15-2013, 08:29 AM
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
How on Earth is 1995-2004 a 30 year stretch? If there are 13 better Canadian hockey players who peaked from 1995-2004, you better believe there were at least 100 Canadian hockey players better than Tkachuk.
That's if one buys the list as all of them being better.

Bourque was listed so that's why the 30 years. As was Yzerman and Chelios.

That's a side issue anyways, we saw how Keith stacked up against his peers in goal scoring.

My main point still stands, there is no way any Canadian guy with the "06" advantage scoring 2nd in goals against his peers during his career doesn't make the HHOF, and quite likely the top 100, in the history section.

As it is Keith was 4th in goals, against his peers for his career and he brought toughness to the game as well. He played on weak teams, has a poor playoff performance and gets the Dionne treatment, despite not just being a guy who scores.

Maybe it's because everyone remembers how he looked at the end with the picture that was posted.

Playoffs and legend aside, Richard gets ranks 5th all time, despite his highest goal scoring season in a weak war year and it's considered a joke to mention Keith as a top 100 player of all time?

Different standards for different eras is the problem here IMO.

Last edited by Hardyvan123: 03-15-2013 at 08:37 AM.
Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote