oh, Stupid in a good way. that makes sense, then. That's also a stupid 3rd line then, while we're at it.
Assuming we call Cyclone Taylor a center, I think Nighbor's 11th at best, and I'm probably one of his top-3 fans. That's in the average "range", anyways.
After Gretzky, Lemieux, Beliveau and Mikita, I think Nighbor might be the best center of all time. I think he is definitely in the conversation, at least. If forced to make a list, I would probably put him 7th, after the four mentioned above, Esposito, and Morenz. I am not at all convinced that Clarke was better. In fact, I strongly suspect that he was not. Nighbor played a style of defense which was extraordinarily dominant, which no one has ever been able to replicate. He had, like Wayne Gretzky, unique skills. There were other players who could hook check, but there were no other Frank Nighbors, much like there are other players who can pass, but there are no other Wayne Gretzkys.
Clarke was simply an extremely good checker, but I do not think he was as disruptive to other offenses as Nighbor, who was known to regularly break up entire line attacks...like for periods at a time. Hell, I'm not sure Nighbor isn't the 3rd best center of all time, after Mario. He certainly could be, if you think about it. Frank Nighbor in the 40's is probably the single worst and most persistent underrating of an ATD superstar that there is. Honestly, there is absolutely no reason that this guy should get drafted behind guys like Yzerman and Schmidt. He was the backbone of hockey's first great dynasty, and a player who held the entire hockey world in awe.
After Gretzky, Lemieux, Beliveau and Mikita, I think Nighbor might be the best center of all time. I think he is definitely in the conversation, at least. If forced to make a list, I would probably put him 7th, after the four mentioned above, Esposito, and Morenz. I am not at all convinced that Clarke was better. In fact, I strongly suspect that he was not. Nighbor played a style of defense which was extraordinarily dominant, which no one has ever been able to replicate. He had, like Wayne Gretzky, unique skills. There were other players who could hook check, but there were no other Frank Nighbors, much like there are other players who can pass, but there are no other Wayne Gretzkys.
Clarke was simply an extremely good checker, but I do not think he was as disruptive to other offenses as Nighbor, who was known to regularly break up entire line attacks...like for periods at a time. Hell, I'm not sure Nighbor isn't the 3rd best center of all time, after Mario. He certainly could be, if you think about it. Frank Nighbor in the 40's is probably the single worst and most persistent underrating of an ATD superstar that there is. Honestly, there is absolutely no reason that this guy should get drafted behind guys like Yzerman and Schmidt. He was the backbone of hockey's first great dynasty, and a player who held the entire hockey world in awe.
Much easier to singlehandedly break up entire line attacks when everybody on that line is prohibited from passing the puck forward, right?
I'm still not sure I agree with the conclusion, but...
if it was easier, more players would have done it.
Well, obviously Nighbor was the best at it by a wide margin, but there is no way a single player could possibly cover the entire neutral zone by himself if the other team had the option of passing the puck behind him.
Well, obviously Nighbor was the best at it by a wide margin, but there is no way a single player could possibly cover the entire neutral zone by himself if the other team had the option of passing the puck behind him.
Forward passing was allowed in the neutral zone starting in the 1918-19 season. The neutral zone is where Nighbor did his work (and it wouldn't make a difference to Nighbor's defensive game that teams couldn't pass forward in the offensive zone until 29-30, as the blueline even today makes forward passing from the neutral zone to the forward zone very difficult), and he was not slowed, at all, by the rule change.
Much easier to singlehandedly break up entire line attacks when everybody on that line is prohibited from passing the puck forward, right?
While I think that's a dangerous sentiment. It is precisely the reason no one has been able to duplicate Nighbor's effectiveness in neutral zone defence. Offences changed, Nighbor couldn't do what he did now.
On the flipside, Clarke having a season where he was playing 20+ minutes a night and only being on the ice for one goal against every 4 games is utterly ridiculous and probably more dominant than Nighbor.
And lets not overlook Nighbor's offence. His finishes are: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 8th, 9th. In a split league era. Any first line where Frank Nighbor is the best scoring forward on it is a flat out bad first line.
__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Well, obviously Nighbor was the best at it by a wide margin, but there is no way a single player could possibly cover the entire neutral zone by himself if the other team had the option of passing the puck behind him.
Nighbor spent most of his time with strong defensive right wings and defensemen who moved up into the play. I believe those Sens were essentially a trapping team with Denneny as the lone forechecker most of the time. Nighbor was the lynchpin of the first trap, I believe. The talents that he had, in a trapping system where play could be funneled to the middle of the ice, would be devestating.
Forward passing was allowed in the neutral zone starting in the 1918-19 season. The neutral zone is where Nighbor did his work (and it wouldn't make a difference to Nighbor's defensive game that teams couldn't pass forward in the offensive zone until 29-30, as the blueline even today makes forward passing from the neutral zone to the forward zone very difficult), and he was not slowed, at all, by the rule change.
This is a good point, but they still couldn't pass between zones until 29-30, correct? No passing the puck out of the defensive zone, no dumping the puck in from the neutral zone.
Considering one of the best ways to deal with a trap is to dump the puck in rather than skating it in, the Ottawa trap must have been particularly devastating.
Not being able to pass the puck from the defensive zone to the neutral zone would also make it easier to set up the trap, because Nighbor would know exactly where the puck would enter the zone.
And lets not overlook Nighbor's offence. His finishes are: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 8th, 9th. In a split league era. Any first line where Frank Nighbor is the best scoring forward on it is a flat out bad first line.
You forget that Nighbor was primarily a playmaker in an era where assists were counted maybe less than half of the modern rate. Nighbor tying Joe Malone in goals almost certainly means that he was the best offensive player in the league that season.
But anyway, you are correct, but that is true of Bobby Clarke, as well, who is offensively behind quite a few second line centers in the ATD.
You forget that Nighbor was primarily a playmaker in an era where assists were counted maybe less than half of the modern rate. Nighbor tying Joe Malone in goals almost certainly means that he was the best offensive player in the league that season.
But anyway, you are correct, but that is true of Bobby Clarke, as well, who is offensively behind quite a few second line centers in the ATD.
I agree on both points. Frank Nighbor was indisputably the best player in the 1916-17 season. But to be better than Mikita one great year is not going to cut it. And Clarke is definitly questionable offensively. Especially depending on how you feel about the era.
But I struggle to accept the great playmaker claims without any hard evidence. There is anecdotal evidence that Keats was better. There's statistical evidence that Boucher was better. I need more than has been shown.
This is a good point, but they still couldn't pass between zones until 29-30, correct? No passing the puck out of the defensive zone, no dumping the puck in from the neutral zone.
No...dumping the puck up ice was always allowed. There just wasn't allowed to be anyone on the receiving end of the play, but players have been allowed to clear or loft (but not pass) the puck down ice since the very beginning of hockey, I believe. As far as "dump in passes" are concerned, I believe they were legal, and were used as a sort of grey area (much like Benedict's "praying") in an era when the rules weren't fully fleshed out yet, but it is not clear. The papers of the time have scant reference to the specifics of penalties called and wouldn't use terms like "dump in", anyway, so even if they referred to such an event, we might not understand their meaning.
No...dumping the puck up ice was always allowed. There just wasn't allowed to be anyone on the receiving end of the play, but players have been allowed to clear or loft (but not pass) the puck down ice since the very beginning of hockey, I believe. As far as "dump in passes" are concerned, I believe they were legal, and were used as a sort of grey area (much like Benedict's "praying") in an era when the rules weren't fully fleshed out yet, but it is not clear. The papers of the time have scant reference to the specifics of penalties called and wouldn't use terms like "dump in", anyway, so even if they referred to such an event, we might not understand their meaning.
Oh right, and "lifting" the puck from your own defensive end was considered a key part of being a defenseman. Seems like the only help Nighbor would have gotten by the rules is the inability to pass out of the defensive zone to another player on your team - which is a pretty big deal.
I agree on both points. Frank Nighbor was indisputably the best player in the 1916-17 season. But to be better than Mikita one great year is not going to cut it. And Clarke is definitly questionable offensively. Especially depending on how you feel about the era.
But I struggle to accept the great playmaker claims without any hard evidence. There is anecdotal evidence that Keats was better. There's statistical evidence that Boucher was better. I need more than has been shown.
I definitely believe that Boucher was better. We know that Nighbor's NHL finishes in assists are 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, and that this excludes 3 peak seasons spent in the NHA/PCHA, including probably his best offensive season. That is already a playmaking resume which makes him the second best playmaker of his era, and only because the best was an all-time great playmaker in Taylor. I think he was as good offensively as Clarke, and a better goalscorer.
I agree on both points. Frank Nighbor was indisputably the best player in the 1916-17 season. But to be better than Mikita one great year is not going to cut it.
I said I would rate him after Mikita. Nighbor could be better (because I think the defensive gap is very wide), but if I was drafting between them, I would pick Mikita first.
I definitely believe that Boucher was better. We know that Nighbor's NHL finishes in assists are 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, and that this excludes 3 peak seasons spent in the NHA/PCHA, including probably his best offensive season. That is already a playmaking resume which makes him the second best playmaker of his era, and only because the best was an all-time great playmaker in Taylor. I think he was as good offensively as Clarke, and a better goalscorer.
IMO, if anyone has the credentials to rise to 3rd or 4th best centre ever, Taylor is the man. There just needs to be more work done on proving he played centre regularly.
Oh right, and "lifting" the puck from your own defensive end was considered a key part of being a defenseman. Seems like the only help Nighbor would have gotten by the rules is the inability to pass out of the defensive zone to another player on your team - which is a pretty big deal.
Yes, this would make pressure in the attacking zone particularly effective. I imagine Frank Nighbor could make it very hard to move the puck up ice, at all.
I agree on both points. Frank Nighbor was indisputably the best player in the 1916-17 season. But to be better than Mikita one great year is not going to cut it. And Clarke is definitly questionable offensively. Especially depending on how you feel about the era.
But I struggle to accept the great playmaker claims without any hard evidence. There is anecdotal evidence that Keats was better. There's statistical evidence that Boucher was better. I need more than has been shown.
wouldn't the assist totals constitute hard evidence?
IMO, if anyone has the credentials to rise to 3rd or 4th best centre ever, Taylor is the man. There just needs to be more work done on proving he played centre regularly.
Taylor, Nighbor and Morenz are the only players in the argument for best center before Beliveau, chronologically. Personally, I think it could go either way with those three, and that the only reason they go in the order they do is because Morenz is a Hab, Taylor is exotic (and you did a great job of selling him), and Nighbor is sort of hard to understand.
Do Clarke's numbers say amazing playmaker in a way that Nighbor's do not?
No, I actually expected them to be better. Beyond his two first place finishes, he plunges rather quickly. I guess that's why I have never brought myself to draft him even when tempted.
No, I actually expected them to be better. Beyond his two first place finishes, he plunges rather quickly. I guess that's why I have never brought myself to draft him even when tempted.
Yeah...I have tended to shy away from Bobby where he is normally drafted, as well, but that is not because I don't think Bobby is worth it there. More a case of thinking Nighbor is consistently much better value and being in the market for defensemen when I'm in the range to pick Clarke.
I actually think it is easier to build an offensive line around Nighbor, because Frank is a dangerous goal-scorer in a way that Clarke is not.
Yeah...I have tended to shy away from Bobby where he is normally drafted, as well, but that is not because I don't think Bobby is worth it there. More a case of thinking Nighbor is consistently much better value and being in the market for defensemen when I'm in the range to pick Clarke.
I actually think it is easier to build an offensive line around Nighbor, because Frank is a dangerous goal-scorer in a way that Clarke is not.
#16 patrik elias - #99 wayne gretzky - #9 lanny mcdonald
#17 wendel clark - #18 denis savard - #19 jean pronovost
#2 louis berlinquette - #11 steve kasper - #17 mike foligno
#14 geoff courtnall - #15 billy reay - #27 alex kovalev
spares: #10 barry pederson , #30 chris nilan
#5 nicklas lidstrom - #16 vladimir konstantinov
#20 gary suter - #20 dallas smith
#26 dave langevin - #34 al iafrate
spares: #26 mike milbury
spares: Craig conroy , andre dupont , jason spezza , curt fraser
atd leafcentral 12 teams (Championship Team):
Quote:
THE UNIVERSE GALAXIES
Head Coach: Scotty Bowman
Valeri Kharlamov - Mark Messier - Charlie Conacher
Toe Blake - Syl Apps Sr. - Boom Boom Geoffrion
Henrik Zetterberg - Dave Keon - Daniel Alfredsson
Wayne Cashman - Joe Thornton - Cecil Dillon
Earl Seibert - Red Kelly
Slava Fetisov - Carl Brewer
Lester Patrick - Eric Desjardins
