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.

Theo Fleury Should Be in the Hall of Fame

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-05-2012, 06:10 PM
  #76
thom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,980
vCash: 500
How Fleury was able to have such a long and productive career is nothing more than incredible considering what he had to go through.He deserves everyone's respect.And how the directors of the Junior teams he was involved in should be ashamed for not doing more

thom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 08:42 PM
  #77
TheMoreYouKnow
Registered User
 
TheMoreYouKnow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Eire
Posts: 8,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
but that's exactly my point. what misconception?

was fleury not a warrior? did he not outwork every single one of his elite peers except chelios and maybe gilmour and vlady?

i want to think about fleury beyond the "rudy" narrative where he overcomes his physical stature to score 100 points in the league and become the leader of a team with multiple hall of famers in their primes.

i want to think about fleury for what he legitimately was. to themoreyouknow, watch some youtube clips of fleury. imagine him being average sized. you don't think you could see the difference between how fleury played and how turgeon or craig janney played? hell, how fleury played and how a competitive winner like steve yzerman played?

sure, watching little fleury bouncing around the ice like a pinball and hurling himself at giants like dana murzyn was memorable. but you don't think that a 5'11, 195 pound fleury hurling himself at murzyn and destroying him wouldn't also have been stood out? because i think wendel clark stood out just fine.

and i submit that a hypothetical normal-sized fleury would still look more like a warrior than a fellow undersized, hyper-competitive maniac like gilmour. fleury was that special. i saw it.
It's funny you mention him because I thought of him as well, but Wendel Clark is *not* a Hall of Fame player no matter how big a star he was for the Leafs or how popular he was with the fans etc.

TheMoreYouKnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 09:28 PM
  #78
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,942
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
I think that heart and effort aren't Hall of Fame characteristics unless they are also backed up by elite production. That appeal to subjective impressions etc. opens the door for a lot of guys while closing it on others who might be more deserving on pure hockey terms.
fleury routinely outscored mats sundin, for example, before fleury's life completely fell apart. he never got out of the first round of the playoffs except in his first and last trips, but no less than gretzky, messier, and pat quinn all publicly call him a playoff warrior. the three guys who were beating him in the first round every year all called him one of the league's very best big game players and all insisted on him being on their teams when it came time to choose team canadas.

his career was cut short, but he was elite. i'll use sundin as an example because if i recall correctly, you think highly of sundin.

top ten finishes in goals: three each-- 2, 8, 10 for sundin; 2, 6, 7 for fleury.
assists: one for sundin (10), two for fleury (6, 7)
points: two for sundin (4, 7), three for fleury (6, 7, 8)

looking a little more closely at sundin's 4th, he beats sakic (in a weaker year nearing the end of his career), jagr (in washington, didn't give a crap), modano (his lowest scoring season in a five year stretch), adam oates (old as dirt), francis (old as dirt), and pavol demitra. the guys in front of sundin had very good years, but none had all time great seasons (iginla, naslund, bertuzzi).

compare that to fleury's 6th: one point behind francis (jagr assisted), tied with coffey (an MVP type year), renberg and leclair (lindros assisted), and rounding out the top ten are messier (still playing at a very high level and would be a hart finalist the following year), and oates (prime). the guys in front of fleury: jagr and lindros in their breakthrough years, zhamnov in a crazy career year, and prime sakic.

or look at fleury's 8th: other than john cullen having a ridiculous career year with recchi, an emergent kevin stevens, and paul coffey, the guys in front of fleury are all hall of famers in their primes (except for a still super-dominant gretzky). hull, oates, and recchi are all at their peaks.

fleury had generally better offensive finishes, usually outscored sundin when they were both playing, generally did better in the playoffs, and most of his offensive exploits were in a much more competitive era. in 2001, coked up, leaving the team for days on end fleury tied a 29 year old sundin in points while playing 20 fewer games than him.

none of this is to say that fleury was greater or had a better career than sundin, but to establish that if you count sundin as an elite player, then comparing fleury to wendel clark (see below) is ridiculous.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
It's funny you mention him because I thought of him as well, but Wendel Clark is *not* a Hall of Fame player no matter how big a star he was for the Leafs or how popular he was with the fans etc.
obviously not. but i trust you can now see the difference between fleury and his accomplishments, and wendel's?

fleury was the rare elite player (not star player, like clark or linden sometimes were, but elite player) who played like a fourth line energy guy. who played like if he loafed even one shift, they'd send him down to the AHL. and on top of being an elite performer in the NHL, the way he played also made him one of the most memorable players of his era, and at the very worst the second most beloved player to ever play in calgary. like cam neely, like pavel bure, the way he played the game captured the hockey world's imagination and that's what puts him above statistically similar players and gives him a hall of fame case. neely is more than keith tkachuk. bure is more than alex mogilny.

wendel is wendel and not, say, kevin dineen because of the way he played. jump a few tiers and fleury is fleury and not, say, joe mullen because of the way he played. whole other ball game.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 10:41 PM
  #79
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
I don't think you want him being small being the core of the argument but I think it is, because if he had been indeed in the body of a Turgeon etc. his competitiveness and effort wouldn't have stood out as much. I remember Fleury quite well and quite liked him, he was like the archetypical small firey forward who just never stopped skating. But I think this "he never quits, he's a warrior" aspect was quite considerably influenced by the visual effect of seeing Fleury on the ice at his size.

I think that heart and effort aren't Hall of Fame characteristics unless they are also backed up by elite production. That appeal to subjective impressions etc. opens the door for a lot of guys while closing it on others who might be more deserving on pure hockey terms.
His production is actually pretty good if you look at it.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

10th in goals ans 13 in points among all players from his 1st season to his last.

He is also a PPG player in the playoffs over that time in a pretty large sample as well.

Plays in a CC and WC plus 2 Olympics for the strongest country in the world is enough icing on the cake to make him a viable candidate for the Hall IMO.

As well his heart as my fellow city mate pointed out will probably help his case as well.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 10:47 PM
  #80
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
It's funny you mention him because I thought of him as well, but Wendel Clark is *not* a Hall of Fame player no matter how big a star he was for the Leafs or how popular he was with the fans etc.
But that's not the biggest reason why Fleury is considered for the Hall and Clark is not. Fluery actually produced at an extremely high rate in his career, Wendel had flashes but that's all.

Intangibles are the icing on the cake and Fleury had a well baked cake with enough icing IMO.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 12:23 PM
  #81
TheMoreYouKnow
Registered User
 
TheMoreYouKnow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Eire
Posts: 8,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
His production is actually pretty good if you look at it.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

10th in goals ans 13 in points among all players from his 1st season to his last.

He is also a PPG player in the playoffs over that time in a pretty large sample as well.

Plays in a CC and WC plus 2 Olympics for the strongest country in the world is enough icing on the cake to make him a viable candidate for the Hall IMO.

As well his heart as my fellow city mate pointed out will probably help his case as well.
If you adjust it to per game, he drops to 27th behind guys like Palffy, Mogilny, Nicholls and Roenick. That was actually the basis of my question above. Fleury's stats were very good but not elite.

TheMoreYouKnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 03:37 PM
  #82
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
Yeah but Nieuwendyk was let in on "intangibles" as well, other intangibles but still intangibles nevertheless.

If you put Fleury in, never mind the classic Lindros/Forsberg question, what about indeed Pierre Turgeon or for that matter Bernie Nicholls, Alexander Mogilny, Brian Propp, Tim Kerr, Steve Larmer or Jeremy Roenick? Or even guys like Damphousse, Janney or Tocchet?

It might seem unfair that Nieuwendyk is in there but two wrongs don't make a right.
Yes I am aware of Nieuwendyk's "intangibles" as well. Find me one person who can bring up his induction though without talking about the "three Cups on three different teams" accomplishment. When that is the core of putting a guy in the HHOF then that's a problem. He stood out on one of those Cup wins (1999) and the other two were mediocre. There was never a time in Nieuwendyk's career when it overlapped Fleury's best years that anyone would want Nieuwy over Fleury. So I think it is safe to say that the overall package favours Fleury, and that includes intangibles as well.

As for the other players, it is hard for any of those players (minus Lindros and Forsberg) to have a case as having a better career than Fleury. Maybe Roenick is the only one. Damphousse, Janney or Tocchet definitely not. Mogilny was too much of an enigma and you never knew what you'd get season from season. Propp, Kerr and Larmer just never had a noticeable peak year. Nicholls is similar to Turgeon where they collected points but didn't offer a lot of other intangibles.

Roenick and Fleury are close career wise. Both are at or near a HHOF resume. Both had a little more flair they brought to the game. They both did well in the postseason (not legendary but nothing to complain about). I would put Nieuwendyk below both of them, more like a Damphousse type.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 03:46 PM
  #83
Kloparren
Hth
 
Kloparren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,449
vCash: 500
You can't say this with guys who played decades and decades and decades ago but now we can watch players and from what I remember of Theo Fleury, he was an elite notable player when I saw him play who had a couple 100 pt seasons and often scored at or above a gpg while bringing a lot of other stuff to the ice. Basically if you look that good when you play and stand out plus have the stats to back it up then you should be in the HOF.

Here's part of a game with Fleury (and Bure)


Full game, great quality:

89 conf final:

Kloparren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2012, 08:41 AM
  #84
ot92s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
You can't say this with guys who played decades and decades and decades ago but now we can watch players and from what I remember of Theo Fleury, he was an elite notable player when I saw him play who had a couple 100 pt seasons and often scored at or above a gpg while bringing a lot of other stuff to the ice. Basically if you look that good when you play and stand out plus have the stats to back it up then you should be in the HOF.

Here's part of a game with Fleury (and Bure)


Full game, great quality:

89 conf final:

This is, of course, the proper way to evaluate players.


Last edited by ot92s: 11-07-2012 at 09:52 AM.
ot92s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 02:22 PM
  #85
zeus3007*
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Red Deer, Alberta
Posts: 13,228
vCash: 500
Loved the way he played the game, but no. Not only because of his self destructive behaviour, but because the latter part of his career wasn't actually that spectacular. If Fleury gets in, then guys like Bernie Nicholls and Vincent Damphousse need to go in as well.

zeus3007* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 05:46 PM
  #86
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeus3007 View Post
Loved the way he played the game, but no. Not only because of his self destructive behaviour, but because the latter part of his career wasn't actually that spectacular. If Fleury gets in, then guys like Bernie Nicholls and Vincent Damphousse need to go in as well.
I think it's clear that in Fleury's prime a GM wouldn't have traded him for Damphousse or Nicholls. Or Nieuwendyk either.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 05:52 PM
  #87
zeus3007*
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Red Deer, Alberta
Posts: 13,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I think it's clear that in Fleury's prime a GM wouldn't have traded him for Damphousse or Nicholls. Or Nieuwendyk either.
Players don't get in the Hall of Fame because they had a good prime, unless they were among the best in the world (Bure, Neely). Fleury was never as good as those kind of players and had a shorter career (self inflicted, I might add). His career was no more impressive than Bernie Nicholls' or Vincent Damphousse.

zeus3007* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 05:58 PM
  #88
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeus3007 View Post
Players don't get in the Hall of Fame because they had a good prime, unless they were among the best in the world (Bure, Neely). Fleury was never as good as those kind of players and had a shorter career (self inflicted, I might add). His career was no more impressive than Bernie Nicholls' or Vincent Damphousse.
He was a better individual player than Damphousse or Nicholls. Those players weren't chokers or anything, but I don't think they could match the heart of Fleury either.

I also see no case for Neely having a better career than Fleury. Neely had a shorter career and never went past 92 points while Fleury did it regularly. I'm not one of those people who says "well he got in so he should too" but I will point out that both Bure and Neely supporters would have a hard time providing evidence that Fleury had a worse career.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 09:35 PM
  #89
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeus3007 View Post
Players don't get in the Hall of Fame because they had a good prime, unless they were among the best in the world (Bure, Neely). Fleury was never as good as those kind of players and had a shorter career (self inflicted, I might add). His career was no more impressive than Bernie Nicholls' or Vincent Damphousse.
I think a case can be made for Fleury over Bure. HF fetish for Bure not withstanding.

DisgruntledGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 08:32 AM
  #90
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
If you adjust it to per game, he drops to 27th behind guys like Palffy, Mogilny, Nicholls and Roenick. That was actually the basis of my question above. Fleury's stats were very good but not elite.
Sorry but PPG over 1084 games compared to guys with less games distorts the actual question.

Others have pointed out his top 10 finishes that puts him in elite or near elite (depending on one definition) over his career as well.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 08:50 AM
  #91
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeus3007 View Post
Players don't get in the Hall of Fame because they had a good prime, unless they were among the best in the world (Bure, Neely). Fleury was never as good as those kind of players and had a shorter career (self inflicted, I might add). His career was no more impressive than Bernie Nicholls' or Vincent Damphousse.
Except that it was.

Nicholls is closer but Vinny was a good scorer but never great.

One might think that Nicolls was the better scorer but I would disagree as his peak and prime are in the high flying 80's. His 1 and 1/2 years with Wayne also bumps up his counting career stats.

Vinny is a step down from Theo in every way offensively and it's a cake walk with intangibles for Theo as well. Why his name even came up is a mystery to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
He was a better individual player than Damphousse or Nicholls. Those players weren't chokers or anything, but I don't think they could match the heart of Fleury either.

I also see no case for Neely having a better career than Fleury. Neely had a shorter career and never went past 92 points while Fleury did it regularly. I'm not one of those people who says "well he got in so he should too" but I will point out that both Bure and Neely supporters would have a hard time providing evidence that Fleury had a worse career.
Bure probably has a case with his incredible peak and international play but Fleury quite clearly had a better career than Neely IMO.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:15 AM
  #92
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,942
vCash: 500
bure and neely? i don't know what argument can be made for fleury over bure. i can see the argument for fleury being as good as neely, though i think neely was even more of a game changing force (see: '90 and '91 playoffs) when he was on.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:44 AM
  #93
Anton13
Registered User
 
Anton13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Country: Finland
Posts: 103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeus3007 View Post
Players don't get in the Hall of Fame because they had a good prime, unless they were among the best in the world (Bure, Neely). Fleury was never as good as those kind of players and had a shorter career (self inflicted, I might add). His career was no more impressive than Bernie Nicholls' or Vincent Damphousse.
Shorter career than who? He played over 1000 games. I think he definitely belongs in the Hall of Fame. If you make a poll among people who grew up during the 90's (like myself) about who is their all time favorite hockey player I'm pretty sure Theo comes out very near the top. He was one of those players that every kid idolized and wanted to be like. I don't know anyone who wanted to be Bernie Nicholls. It's also very telling that he was chosen so many times to represent Team Canada in best on best tournaments.

I'd say his career value is definitely above Neely and maybe a notch below Bure.


Last edited by Anton13: 11-12-2012 at 10:53 AM.
Anton13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 11:31 AM
  #94
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Sorry but PPG over 1084 games compared to guys with less games distorts the actual question.

Others have pointed out his top 10 finishes that puts him in elite or near elite (depending on one definition) over his career as well.
Nicholls 1127GP, 475-734-1209

Career best 70-80-150.

He ha a pretty strong case above Fleury and IMHO belongs in the Hall.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 11:58 AM
  #95
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,592
vCash: 500
Fleury was a damn good player, but most of the other players mentioned in this thread who are still awaiting induction deserve to go in before him, imo. He's a borderline guy for me, who probably ultimately deserves it mostly because of the bump from his international play. His NHL resume, while not necessarily the worst among those not yet enshrined, is really kinda 'meh' everything considered.

Raw numbers sometimes convince us not to consider much else though, I suppose. Raw numbers put him in competition with guys like Larmer, and I'd say Larmer's iron man streak, coupled with his production and more extensive playoff resume, puts him over the top in a head-to-head match-up with whatever intangibles helped build the legend of Fleury in Calgary.

And then realize that Larmer isn't even near the list of players that most people around here are talking about as "serious"/"legitimate" candidates for the next few rounds of induction.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 01:11 PM
  #96
Kloparren
Hth
 
Kloparren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,449
vCash: 500
^ Larmer played his whole career in one of the highest scoring modern NHL eras.

Kloparren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 03:31 PM
  #97
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
^ Larmer played his whole career in one of the highest scoring modern NHL eras.
Hall of famers during Larmer's career with comparable PPG from 80-81 to 94-95, combined:

Doug Gilmour
Joe Nieuwendyk
Joey Mullen
Dino Ciccarelli
Bryan Trottier
Mike Gartner
Glenn Anderson
Cam Neely

Raymond Bourque
Al MacInnis

Other notables:

Charlie Simmer
Brian Propp
Dave Andreychuk
Tim Kerr

Of note? The only listed forwards with any kind of defensive game are Gilmour and Trottier. Larmer was as good a defensive forward as those two.

Larmer belongs. Definitely more than Andreychuk. Career PPG+ with quality defense is excellent IN ANY ERA. His adjusted stats are usually in the 70-75 range with a 90 point peak for 90-91. That makes the former Hawk basically comparable to current Hawk Jonathan Toews, at both ends of the ice. And Toews is on track for HHOF if he plays as long as Larmer did and plays mostly at his current level.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 04:49 PM
  #98
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
^ Larmer played his whole career in one of the highest scoring modern NHL eras.
Well, I think it's significant enough that they played half of their careers together, and that they each got their career high in points in the same season ('90/91) - within mere points of each other. They were also relatively equal as contributors on the international stage at that point in their respective careers. So it's an interesting bit of overlap there.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 04:50 PM
  #99
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
bure and neely? i don't know what argument can be made for fleury over bure. i can see the argument for fleury being as good as neely, though i think neely was even more of a game changing force (see: '90 and '91 playoffs) when he was on.
Well we can agree all three players had a shortened career with Fleury being the one who lasted the longest. Bure had 5 great seasons and very little else along the way. He had that big playoff year in 1994 but not a whole lot otherwise. As far as playoffs go I don't think Bure is any better than Fleury for sure.

Neely might have had the best overall resume in the postseason of the three but he has the worst regular season resume. Fleury essentially scored about 400 more points than him. That's a lot of mustard there. I don't think Neely could lay claim to being better all-time.

Bure you have to remember was also very one sided. Fleury was more well rounded and his overall game trumps Bure's. If there is an overall offensive edge in favour of Bure you'd have to say that Fleury wins as a better all around player and beats him in longevity as well. This makes the Fleury/Bure comparison interesting.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 05:07 PM
  #100
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Well we can agree all three players had a shortened career with Fleury being the one who lasted the longest. Bure had 5 great seasons and very little else along the way. He had that big playoff year in 1994 but not a whole lot otherwise. As far as playoffs go I don't think Bure is any better than Fleury for sure.
Really, that certain? I've had to think about it, and first of all you have to realize that these guys are separated all time in playoff points by what, 9 points or something? Now, I know Theo had a few playoffs in a row there where he was pretty much GPG, but adding all those post seasons together, you barely top Bure's production from that one playoff that we're supposed to disregard as "preposterously good". I think Bure's career GPG is top 10 all-time, and I'm pretty sure Fleury's isn't. I think Bure has him on PPG, too, despite Fleury's couple of 2 PPG series'.

And considering how big some of those goals were, as opposed to how "big" any of Fleury's really could have been in those years (given that I don't remember them ever winning a series), where does the extra and insurmountable divide come between them? The Cup ring thing, from a year when he probably played the smallest (no pun intended) role of any other post season he'd see? I dunno, I don't see it as a clear decision in Fleury's favour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Bure you have to remember was also very one sided. Fleury was more well rounded and his overall game trumps Bure's. If there is an overall offensive edge in favour of Bure you'd have to say that Fleury wins as a better all around player and beats him in longevity as well. This makes the Fleury/Bure comparison interesting.
Bure's one side was pretty damn good, though. Ultimately, I suppose, as of tonight, one has been deemed worthy while the other awaits.

Ohashi_Jouzu 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 09:47 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.