John Maclean in Today's NHL: better, same, not as good?
Slow Devs week for next few days, so I was pondering this while I was on the throne. How would John Maclean do if say he was just going into his prime now: same, better, not as well?
You could take into account playing with the current roster, of course the rule changes and anything else to make your argument.
Last edited by Semak: 12-23-2009 at 07:41 PM.
Reason: grammar
Slow Devs week for next few days, so I was pondering this while I was on the throne. How would John Maclean do if say he was just going into his prime now: same, better, not as good?
You could take into account playing with the current roster, of course the rule changes and anything else to make your argument.
I don't think MacLean could surpass his point production from 88-89, but I do think he could match it. He was basically super-Langenbrunner in some ways.
I actually had my brain tell me the other day that Langenbrunner was MacLean, it was really strange. I saw fifteen and the first thing I thought was MacLean. It was truly odd.
I don't think MacLean could surpass his point production from 88-89, but I do think he could match it. He was basically super-Langenbrunner in some ways.
I actually had my brain tell me the other day that Langenbrunner was MacLean, it was really strange. I saw fifteen and the first thing I thought was MacLean. It was truly odd.
Funny, when I put this together, I thought only the vet fans might be able to comment, but everyone should have fun with this.
Super-Langs makes sense. Johnny Mac had a better shot but they both have that umph as poor man power forwards.
I think he would be about the same. The game was more wide open in his prime, but he was not the type of player who would shy away from contact or need a lot of room to do his thing. His numbers would be diminished in the clutch and grab era, and nowadays I think he would be just as effective as he was back then.
If you put him on the RW of Parise/Zajac he's potting WAY more goals then Langs is. His shot was better IMO.
Or, if you put him on the side of a line like Clarkson/Elias, he's getting super high assist numbers.
__________________
"Why I'll be a Devil forever [...] two words. Trust and respect." - Mr. Pat Burns
"I learned not to question Cowbell's willingness to ban." - Brian Boyle
Athletes have gotten tremendously better so if we're talking the same skill set he had, he'd be worse. Also goalies are 20x better than they used to be.
More importantly, would he recover from the injury better? Better diagnostics, surgery...sports medicine has advanced a lot in the last 15-20 years. He might have been able to come back faster, and just as good as new almost.
The Super-Langs comment is interesting, and I like it...but it does come up a bit short. I think JohnnyMac's shot puts him in an entirely different category than Langs could ever be in. He was also better at finding seams in the defense to get open than Jamie ever has been. Jamie's a little more chippy and agressive than in-his-prime JohnnyMac too. That said, I can't think of a better parallel to give.
I voted the same. His skillset does not require run-and-gun hockey to survive. He was a corner guy, great in front with a wicked shot he could release from anywhere. Plus he was pretty intense and tough to stop. He would fit this Devils team quite well.
I figure he'd be better too!
