HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Messier overrated?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-01-2011, 03:27 PM
  #151
CarlWinslow
@hiphopsicles
 
CarlWinslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Jagr is however, one of the most difficult players ever to knock the puck away from - better at that than Messier for sure, though Messier was at a high level in that department.

Jagr was better offensively in peak, prime and career than Messier - no doubt about it. Messier makes up a lot of ground with playoffs, all-around play and intangibles but I'm not sure it is enough to close that offensive gap, which is ultimately the most weighted factor for a forward.
That's the point though. The Jammy fans come along and proclaim Jagr as some sort of puck holding god. A guy like Messier, whom I don't even rate that highly to begin with, was at an elite level too. They give him no credit though.

CarlWinslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2011, 03:29 PM
  #152
CarlWinslow
@hiphopsicles
 
CarlWinslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jags6868 View Post
Being a top 25 player does not mean you can automatically hold on the puck.

Jagr is considered by many to be the toughest player of all time to knock off the puck.

It wasn't just his stickhandling but his shielding of the puck along the boards that allowed him to always hold on the puck.

He would use his strong lower body to do so.

http://forecaster.thehockeynews.com/...player.cgi?343

It's not only "jammy fans" as you like to call them that say this about Jagr. It's pretty much anybody that watched him play.
Nobody ever contended that Jagr couldn't hold the puck. Everyone agrees he could. You, however, do not give any credit to other players for being able to do the same at an elite level.

CarlWinslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2011, 04:40 PM
  #153
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,804
vCash: 500
Why do Jagr detractors call him Jammy?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2011, 04:52 PM
  #154
Briere Up There*
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Žďár nad Sázavo
Posts: 2,868
vCash: 500
Beats me, kind of reminds me of Scipio Africanus calling Ray Bourque "Ray Ray."

Briere Up There* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2011, 08:35 PM
  #155
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jags6868 View Post
Not many players took the abuse and physical punishment that Jagr took in the 1990's and he was still the premier offensive player of the 90's.
Very true. I've stated repeatedly here that he was the hardest player to knock off the puck that I've ever seen...and I've been watching hockey for several decades.

Now, ready to admit the inaneness of your previous comments about Denis Potvin?

You know. "Overrated based on playing on a dynasty in a higher scoring era"? Did you ever watch the player ONCE? Best we speak to topics of which we are at least remotely familiar.


Last edited by Trottier: 02-01-2011 at 08:58 PM.
Trottier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2011, 08:37 PM
  #156
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I think it is pretty clear to most poeple that you really don't seem to like posts that disagree with your take on things, which on a couple of occassions your respsonse was kinda childish.
First, you really need to stop with the "us against you," "most people" crap. If you want to make this a popularity contest based on hockey insight, I'll take my chances on who between us will be voted off the island, sport.

Next, you are wrong. I engage regularly and respect with those with opposing points of view. Informed points of view. True, I do not suffer fools easily. Make the differentiation.

Trottier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2011, 08:41 PM
  #157
finchster
Registered User
 
finchster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: St Petersburg
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 7,412
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to finchster
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Why do Jagr detractors call him Jammy?
Don Cherry called him Jammy Jager

finchster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2011, 08:47 PM
  #158
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
well, i think that's a question of methodology.

personally, i'm not too concerned with what-ifs, though i don't completely disregard them either. but then my interest in hockey history is not about "objectively" knowing who the greatest players of all time are, 1 through 200, so much as i like to think about who did what under the circumstances that actually existed. to me, what did happen is always more important that what could have happened.

so maybe, in an alternate universe where brodeur was drafted by hartford, he may not have had a hall of fame career. but on the other hand, if calgary and new jersey hadn't traded picks that year, maybe he would have gone to that flames team with fleury, macinnis, roberts, et al., and they could have won another cup before that group was torn apart. who knows?

in the end, fortuitous circumstances don't diminish for me what brodeur did, which is put together one of the ten best careers in goaltending history. i don't count cups and put him ahead of hasek obviously, but i do have him ahead of belfour. i mean, brodeur does get credit for not only for his on-ice performance but also for being a good team guy who bought into what new jersey was doing and never making it about him-- even this year when they started hedberg ahead of him. how long would belfour have lasted with lou?

and that's not even getting into how brodeur, with his puck-playing ability and ability to perform at the same level whether he faces 20 shots or 40 shots, was also the perfect goalie for those great devils teams.
Amen. Everything the detractors state about Brodeur's circumstances could be correct. You know, simply riding the coattails of teams for 15+ years.

Regardless, the question remains: so what?

Will leave it to greater minds to seek out for higher praise that imaginary goaltender who puts up fabulous personal stats (not wins, of course, because winning doesn't matter when evaluating goaltenders ), on inferior teams. Because that is what impresses some.

The Gilles Meloche/Tomas Vokoun Persecuted Netminder Fan Club.

Trottier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2011, 08:49 PM
  #159
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
I said he was always considered a top 10 player for a decade and a half. You do realize there is more to being a top 10 player or a great hockey player than just where you end up on a score sheet do you not?

Again, it's quite clear you never saw the man at his best.

As for the 1996 MVP, why is that relevant and why do you keep bringing up Jagr in posts related to me in this thread? I've never said anything in this thread regarding Messier being better than Jagr. That said, I think both are rightfully slotted in the top 25 and are in the same category of stars. A good argument could be made for either player being ahead of the other guy.
Small quibble but Messier played in only 55,63 and 53 games in the 85,86 and 91 seasons, pretty hard to be a top 10 guy in the league during those seasons but your overall point is well taken he was much more than just his stats.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2011, 09:13 PM
  #160
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite Vision View Post
Solid post ^
I agree EagleBelfours post is really solid (how much time did that take overall btw).

I realize that he was the best Dman and one of the best players in his time.

There are always two problems I have when evaluating players that I have never seen play (pre 1970ish players).

The first is the most obvious one in never having seen him and his competition play is that it is really hard to tell exactly how good and competitive the 06 era really was.

This isn't a problem in evaluating how good he was against his peers but becomes one when comparing him against players who played in different eras under different conditions. It's obvious that he was quite a bit better than his peers but how much of it was due to his greatness and how much due to the quality of player at the time.

The written accounts are also a problem in that almost no one was writings with a critical eye back then in sports and it was almost like a cheer leading section for most beat writers who followed the various teams at the time.

what I can tell is that the quality of play wasn't nearly as good as I have seen in my lifetime 9early 70'2 to today) and I know that it's easier to be a big fish in a small pond and vice versa so I'm always conflicted to ranking guys like him but at the end of the day I think too much credit is given to stars of the past compare to most stars of today who play in a much more competitive environment and thus it makes it harder for them to dominate the same way as in the past.

The quality of the 4 guys on the 1st and 2nd all star teams also gives us an indication of how overrated the 06 era is by some (Canadiens 1958 for example) but that in itself is unfair because players can only play when they are born in certain years and it will always be something that i will look at and ponder.

As of now he is in my top 10 (probably around 5th, maybe higher) but it is really a lot harder to rank these guys than simply counting a Norris or all star advantage from one player to the next.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2011, 09:43 PM
  #161
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
time.

There are always two problems I have when evaluating players that I have never seen play (pre 1970ish players).

The first is the most obvious one in never having seen him and his competition play is that it is really hard to tell exactly how good and competitive the 06 era really was.

This isn't a problem in evaluating how good he was against his peers but becomes one when comparing him against players who played in different eras under different conditions. It's obvious that he was quite a bit better than his peers but how much of it was due to his greatness and how much due to the quality of player at the time.

The written accounts are also a problem in that almost no one was writings with a critical eye back then in sports and it was almost like a cheer leading section for most beat writers who followed the various teams at the time.

what I can tell is that the quality of play wasn't nearly as good as I have seen in my lifetime 9early 70'2 to today) and I know that it's easier to be a big fish in a small pond and vice versa so I'm always conflicted to ranking guys like him but at the end of the day I think too much credit is given to stars of the past compare to most stars of today who play in a much more competitive environment and thus it makes it harder for them to dominate the same way as in the past.

The quality of the 4 guys on the 1st and 2nd all star teams also gives us an indication of how overrated the 06 era is by some (Canadiens 1958 for example) but that in itself is unfair because players can only play when they are born in certain years and it will always be something that i will look at and ponder.

As of now he is in my top 10 (probably around 5th, maybe higher) but it is really a lot harder to rank these guys than simply counting a Norris or all star advantage from one player to the next.
You need to take into consideration how hard it was to make and stay in the Original 6. Essentially 6 goalies, 30 defencemen and about 60 forwards were regulars. Now there are 60 goalies, 180 D-Men and 360 forwards. If you screwed up you were in the AHL and might never get another chance. Sure there were no Europeans and few Americans but there was a very large pool of players from Canada. There were NO weak players, NO bad players. The competition was fierce to stay in the NHL.

If you assume like I do that stars are stars in any era all you do is end up with less star players then then there are now, but less teams. What is a star player? I don't know exactly but if there are 30 now maybe there was 10-15 in the NHL in the 50's, 60's. And there were no really poor players like we see in the 70's and 80's and even today.

Look at Howe and Hull for example. They got more points after expansion even though they were past their primes and then in the WHA they were among the very best players, Hull in his later 30's and Howe in his mid to late 40's. If Howe was good enough at like 37 or 38 or something to get 100 points and be third in NHL in scoring, how good was he 15 years earlier when he led the NHL with 80 or 90 points? He faced far tougher competition in the Original 6. The worst players were like elite 3rd liners or good 2nd pairing D-Men today. There were only 6 goalies, the best 6 goalies in the world to score on. I have to think the Richard's, Beliveau, Geoffrion, Keon, Bathgate, Mikita, Hull and so on were comparable to Crosby, Stall, St. Louis, Ovechkin and so on today.

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2011, 09:44 PM
  #162
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier View Post
Amen. Everything the detractors state about Brodeur's circumstances could be correct. You know, simply riding the coattails of teams for 15+ years.

Regardless, the question remains: so what?

Will leave it to greater minds to seek out for higher praise that imaginary goaltender who puts up fabulous personal stats (not wins, of course, because winning doesn't matter when evaluating goaltenders ), on inferior teams. Because that is what impresses some.

The Gilles Meloche/Tomas Vokoun Persecuted Netminder Fan Club.
That's right, it doesn't matter how good his teammates were, he still had to make the saves. Let's not take ANY steps whatsoever to attempt to understand who the true greats are, let's just rank them all by cup victories and/or career wins and then we'll still have time for basketball later!

(Meloche may be underrated, but he didn't have good stats)

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2011, 09:49 PM
  #163
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier View Post
First, you really need to stop with the "us against you," "most people" crap. If you want to make this a popularity contest based on hockey insight, I'll take my chances on who between us will be voted off the island, sport.

Next, you are wrong. I engage regularly and respect with those with opposing points of view. Informed points of view. True, I do not suffer fools easily. Make the differentiation.
First point, I was only referring to your most recent and obvious post which was a poor attempt at humour at best or rude at worst.

You seem like a smart guy make the counter argument instead of coming off like an arrogant and more important person.

2nd point is that your disregard of adjusted stats (in that post at least) makes you look like you are engaging in the exact thing that you despise so much (lack of an informed opinion).

3rd I don't watch "reality" shows like Survivor and see no island around these parts. I don't see any "us" or "them" going on all I see are posts and I respond to the posts and don't assume guys ages or stuff like that, if you want to know how old someone is just ask them (not that it really matters).

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2011, 10:19 PM
  #164
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
You need to take into consideration how hard it was to make and stay in the Original 6. Essentially 6 goalies, 30 defencemen and about 60 forwards were regulars. Now there are 60 goalies, 180 D-Men and 360 forwards. If you screwed up you were in the AHL and might never get another chance. Sure there were no Europeans and few Americans but there was a very large pool of players from Canada. There were NO weak players, NO bad players. The competition was fierce to stay in the NHL.

If you assume like I do that stars are stars in any era all you do is end up with less star players then then there are now, but less teams. What is a star player? I don't know exactly but if there are 30 now maybe there was 10-15 in the NHL in the 50's, 60's. And there were no really poor players like we see in the 70's and 80's and even today.

Look at Howe and Hull for example. They got more points after expansion even though they were past their primes and then in the WHA they were among the very best players, Hull in his later 30's and Howe in his mid to late 40's. If Howe was good enough at like 37 or 38 or something to get 100 points and be third in NHL in scoring, how good was he 15 years earlier when he led the NHL with 80 or 90 points? He faced far tougher competition in the Original 6. The worst players were like elite 3rd liners or good 2nd pairing D-Men today. There were only 6 goalies, the best 6 goalies in the world to score on. I have to think the Richard's, Beliveau, Geoffrion, Keon, Bathgate, Mikita, Hull and so on were comparable to Crosby, Stall, St. Louis, Ovechkin and so on today.
I agree that the 1967 expansion watered down the 06 NHL but to say that there were no weak players isn't at all apparent when when looks at the video and game clips from the time where the "stars" are flying by everyone and have stopped skating and are gliding.

One thing though is that I wonder when the actual peak in overall talent and quality of play was in the 06 era and after expansion how long did it take to get back to that point?

Entirely subjective I know but I'd hazard to guess until the WHA left the scene.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2011, 10:25 PM
  #165
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
You seem like a smart guy make the counter argument instead of coming off like an arrogant and more important person.
I'll post whatever I please (within the rules of this board); I do not need your counsel, so best to spare it. Rest assured, I'll never lecture you how to improve the quality of your posts (be thankful).


Last edited by Trottier: 02-01-2011 at 11:20 PM.
Trottier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2011, 10:33 PM
  #166
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I agree that the 1967 expansion watered down the 06 NHL but to say that there were no weak players isn't at all apparent when when looks at the video and game clips from the time where the "stars" are flying by everyone and have stopped skating and are gliding.

One thing though is that I wonder when the actual peak in overall talent and quality of play was in the 06 era and after expansion how long did it take to get back to that point?

Entirely subjective I know but I'd hazard to guess until the WHA left the scene.
I would say that it took well into the mid to later 1980's to even approach the overall level of talent and play. Not equal just approach.

North American Hockey went from 6 top level teams teams to 32 teams competing for players in about 7 years with no real new source of players. 21 teams in 79/80 in the NHL, with increased talent from Sweden and Finland and the USA started to see a deeper talent base. By the late's 80's there were more Europeans, by the early 90's there were Eastern Europeans but also more teams. I think right now there is a lot closer to the Original 6 depth of talent and overall play then there has been since there were 6 teams.

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2011, 10:39 PM
  #167
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
I would say that it took well into the mid to later 1980's to even approach the overall level of talent and play. Not equal just approach.

North American Hockey went from 6 top level teams teams to 32 teams competing for players in about 7 years with no real new source of players. 21 teams in 79/80 in the NHL, with increased talent from Sweden and Finland and the USA started to see a deeper talent base. By the late's 80's there were more Europeans, by the early 90's there were Eastern Europeans but also more teams. I think right now there is a lot closer to the Original 6 depth of talent and overall play then there has been since there were 6 teams.
So let me get this straight.

You think we are still behind the 06 era?

All those players from Europe and the States, never mind the increased emphasis on elite player development, in Canada and elsewhere, largely after our poor showing in the late 80's world Jr's hasn't bridged that gap yet?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2011, 10:43 PM
  #168
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
That's right, it doesn't matter how good his teammates were, he still had to make the saves. Let's not take ANY steps whatsoever to attempt to understand who the true greats are, let's just rank them all by cup victories and/or career wins and then we'll still have time for basketball later!

(Meloche may be underrated, but he didn't have good stats)
Yep, the "true greats". Brodeur is not one of them, eh?

You, of course, are entitled to your numerical-centic approach. However, it does come off humorous when, in your own words, those who do not subscribe to your methodology are not taking any steps to "understand". For some of us, number crunching AND playing AND coaching AND observing enhance one's perspective.


Last edited by Trottier: 02-01-2011 at 10:52 PM.
Trottier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2011, 10:47 PM
  #169
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I agree EagleBelfours post is really solid (how much time did that take overall btw).

I realize that he was the best Dman and one of the best players in his time.

There are always two problems I have when evaluating players that I have never seen play (pre 1970ish players).

The first is the most obvious one in never having seen him and his competition play is that it is really hard to tell exactly how good and competitive the 06 era really was.

This isn't a problem in evaluating how good he was against his peers but becomes one when comparing him against players who played in different eras under different conditions. It's obvious that he was quite a bit better than his peers but how much of it was due to his greatness and how much due to the quality of player at the time.

The written accounts are also a problem in that almost no one was writings with a critical eye back then in sports and it was almost like a cheer leading section for most beat writers who followed the various teams at the time.

what I can tell is that the quality of play wasn't nearly as good as I have seen in my lifetime 9early 70'2 to today) and I know that it's easier to be a big fish in a small pond and vice versa so I'm always conflicted to ranking guys like him but at the end of the day I think too much credit is given to stars of the past compare to most stars of today who play in a much more competitive environment and thus it makes it harder for them to dominate the same way as in the past.

The quality of the 4 guys on the 1st and 2nd all star teams also gives us an indication of how overrated the 06 era is by some (Canadiens 1958 for example) but that in itself is unfair because players can only play when they are born in certain years and it will always be something that i will look at and ponder.

As of now he is in my top 10 (probably around 5th, maybe higher) but it is really a lot harder to rank these guys than simply counting a Norris or all star advantage from one player to the next.
I've actually seen two full games of Harvey both in 1959. In the games I've seen he controlled the puck better, defended better (specifically, he would routinely strip the puck off players in his own end, spin behind his net, control it, and make the safe pass out of his zone, even carrying it very well from time to time) and passed better than any other players in those games. Also I'm not sure if this is just because of the choppy film, but the overall pace and tempo of the game seemed to be noticeably faster than 70's and even 80's games? Could any older posters answer why this is?

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2011, 10:49 PM
  #170
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
So let me get this straight.

You think we are still behind the 06 era?

All those players from Europe and the States, never mind the increased emphasis on elite player development, in Canada and elsewhere, largely after our poor showing in the late 80's world Jr's hasn't bridged that gap yet?
I think the NHL has finally become comparable to the overall depth of the O6 era within the past decade. The 80s were weaker and the 70s were ridiculously weaker.

Essentially, the worldwide hockey playing population has increased by 5-fold since the 50s, and so has the number of teams. This is the first time since original expansion that the addition of expansion team's has slowed to a degree that allows the overall talent pool to reach the competitive degree of the Original 6.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2011, 10:51 PM
  #171
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
So let me get this straight.

You think we are still behind the 06 era?

All those players from Europe and the States, never mind the increased emphasis on elite player development, in Canada and elsewhere, largely after our poor showing in the late 80's world Jr's hasn't bridged that gap yet?
Still behind the Original 6 in terms of the worst player on each team being worse than the worst player on an Original 6 team? Which is I guess my point. I am not sure if we are there. Maybe we are or maybe we are not but we are as close to that kind of depth of talent and performance of the lower tier vs upper tier players as we saw in the original 6. The worst 10% of players are far more able to compete vs the top 10% of players now then in the 70's or 80's or even the 90's I think.

A player is a player. Give him better equipment and coach him better and he will be better. I am not saying in a time machine take the worst Hawk or Bruin from 1955 and throw him onto the bottom line of Columbus and see how he performs. I am saying that all players are going to play in the NHL that existed at the time. If players take 1 and a half or 2 minute shifts and don't wear helmets or hard plastic pads they are going to play differently. Not block shots the same. Not play in a sprint their entire shifts. AND LOOK CRAPPIER ON OLD TV CLIPS. But generally very good players (and due to the fact their were so few top level NHL spots almost all of the Original 6 players were likely in this class) are going to be good players.

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2011, 10:54 PM
  #172
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
I think the NHL has finally become comparable to the overall depth of the O6 era within the past decade. The 80s were weaker and the 70s were ridiculously weaker.

Essentially, the worldwide hockey playing population has increased by 5-fold since the 50s, and so has the number of teams. This is the first time since original expansion that the addition of expansion team's has slowed to a degree that allows the overall talent pool to reach the competitive degree of the Original 6.
You really see it with say Germany and Switzerland and even lesser teams being able to play vs Canada or Sweden or Russia and not get ridiculously blown out. 10, 15 or 20 years ago these were 12-1 games now they are often 4-2 games or occasionally wins for the teams outside the Big 7 Countries.

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 12:28 AM
  #173
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlWinslow View Post
Bobby Rousseau is an all-time great, Henri Richard and Yvan Cournoyer are amongst the elite of all-time when it comes to purely offensive players.
i think this probably refers to an argument between CW vs me and The_Eck. but CW is dishonest about it.

CW's original post: http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=3...&postcount=479
Quote:
Nope they weren't. Let's look at other players who have had lean casts too.

How about Jean Beliveau since you like to talk about him so much...

63-64 - Bobby Rousseau, Henri Richard and a basically done Boom Boom. They make the playoffs, lose in round 1 of 3.

65-66 - Bobby Rousseau, Claude Provost, Gilles Tremblay, Henri Richard. They win the cup.

67-68 - Add Yvon Cournoyer who was not an elite offensive guy. They win the Cup.

68-69 - Same roster as the year before basically, they win the Cup.

70-41 - Add Pete Mahovlich... HOORAY. They win the Cup.

Beliveau led all of these teams in the twilight of his career. In fact, in70-71, the guy was 39. So here is a total lack of offensive talent around Beliveau and he leads the team to 4 cups.

Perhaps you should not be thinking Jagr got screwed with a weaker supporting cast but asking yourself why he couldn't take them farther if he is so elite?
no one in that thread said anything about rousseau as an all time great (other than CW in straw man arguments), or that cournoyer or richard were among the best ever offensively, but The_Eck and i disagreed with CW's ridiculous statement that they totally lacked offensive talent.

also omitted the very important addition in '71 of frank mahovlich, clearly an elite offensive player. CW later said that frank mahovlich was past his prime, which is not true.

The_Eck and i said that players like henri richard, cournoyer, provost, rousseau, backstrom, goyette, etc were skilled scorers and in some cases elite players. i also pointed out the goalies and d-men, which were as important as the F's in the cups.

i am not sure why '65 was omitted.


in '62, this total lack of offensive talent set a record for goals by a team (259) that lasted for 5 seasons. beliveau only played 43 games and doug harvey had been traded before the season.

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 02:14 AM
  #174
finchster
Registered User
 
finchster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: St Petersburg
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 7,412
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to finchster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite Vision View Post
I've actually seen two full games of Harvey both in 1959. In the games I've seen he controlled the puck better, defended better (specifically, he would routinely strip the puck off players in his own end, spin behind his net, control it, and make the safe pass out of his zone, even carrying it very well from time to time) and passed better than any other players in those games. Also I'm not sure if this is just because of the choppy film, but the overall pace and tempo of the game seemed to be noticeably faster than 70's and even 80's games? Could any older posters answer why this is?
Fewer teams and fewer jobs meant original six teams were more talented than the 70’s or 80’s. Players who were full time NHLer’s in the 70’s would have been career minor leaguers during the 50’s or 60’s.

finchster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 05:26 AM
  #175
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Small quibble but Messier played in only 55,63 and 53 games in the 85,86 and 91 seasons, pretty hard to be a top 10 guy in the league during those seasons but your overall point is well taken he was much more than just his stats.
Just to clarify, being one of the 10 best players in the NHL and having one of the 10 best seasons are two different things. For instance, the year Crosby missed a ton of games, he was still considered one of the best players in the game, he just didn't have one of the 10 best seasons.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:20 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.