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
11-12-2012, 05:14 PM
  #101
JackFr
Registered User
 
JackFr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,460
vCash: 500
I am strongly in favour of Theo making the Hall of Fame.

- PPG over his career, with more impressive top-10 finishes than Sundin
- Excellent international player with a Gold Medal in the WJC, CC, and Olympics as well as a silver in the IHWC and WCH.
- Arguably the best small player of all-time, played with the kind of heart and grit that exemplifies excellence in hockey
- After his retirement dedicated his life to helping children who face the same issues he did, molestation and addiction, especially in hockey. The disgraceful way he left the game in 2003 would have been my only quarrel I had with his induction, but since 2009 the way he's turned his life around has been an inspiration and I think the capper on a HHoF career.

People forget that it's the Hockey Hall of Fame, not the Hockey Hall of Stats. That said, he does have the stats to back him up, and his PPG and final point totals are cut down by his addiction problems throughout the last couple years.

JackFr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 06:08 PM
  #102
Bring Back Bucky
Registered User
 
Bring Back Bucky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Delicieux!
Country: Heard and McDonald Islands
Posts: 7,824
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackFr View Post
I am strongly in favour of Theo making the Hall of Fame.

- PPG over his career, with more impressive top-10 finishes than Sundin
- Excellent international player with a Gold Medal in the WJC, CC, and Olympics as well as a silver in the IHWC and WCH.
- Arguably the best small player of all-time, played with the kind of heart and grit that exemplifies excellence in hockey
- After his retirement dedicated his life to helping children who face the same issues he did, molestation and addiction, especially in hockey. The disgraceful way he left the game in 2003 would have been my only quarrel I had with his induction, but since 2009 the way he's turned his life around has been an inspiration and I think the capper on a HHoF career.

People forget that it's the Hockey Hall of Fame, not the Hockey Hall of Stats. That said, he does have the stats to back him up, and his PPG and final point totals are cut down by his addiction problems throughout the last couple years.
That may very well be true, but you can't change history or speculate on what might have been. It's the same argument that got Cam Neely in the Hall of Fame, and I've never bought that one. Likewise, Paul Kariya looked like a dandy until the first couple of bell-ringings. Eric Lindros can buy a ticket if he wants admission, too.

On a side note, I absolutely loathed Fleury as a player, which is a complement to what a dandy he was. I have rooted for him since he was with the Backhawks, I have also been told by sources very close to him at his lowest that he is a lovely guy.

I must say that when I watched his movie recently, I don't really believe he owns up fully to the **** he caused to the lives of others. That doesn't in any way take away from what he suffered himself, or diminish the way that hockey and so many people failed the poor kid. I do think he reverts pretty quickly to the victim when it is time to fess up to his own misdoings. That said, he is 50000% better than his parents, who seemed like the world's worst pair for accountability.

Anyway, didn't mean to ramble. Fleury was a beauty of a hockey player, and it really is too bad that we don't know what else he could have accomplished. But like the rest of us, he played the cards he was dealt and probably could have played em a little better.

Bring Back Bucky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 06:23 PM
  #103
JackFr
Registered User
 
JackFr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Bucky View Post
That may very well be true, but you can't change history or speculate on what might have been. It's the same argument that got Cam Neely in the Hall of Fame, and I've never bought that one. Likewise, Paul Kariya looked like a dandy until the first couple of bell-ringings. Eric Lindros can buy a ticket if he wants admission, too.
You're misinterpreting what I said. I didn't mean that he should get in based on hypotheticals. Paul Kariya is my favourite player of all time but I can't see him in the hall.

My point is that Theo had the numbers DESPITE that. Not that he could have been much better (despite the fact that he could have). I think based on his career as well as the work he's done post-career and his redemption he should get in. I definitely see him over a guy like Turgeon or Nicholls or Damphousse. Theo was an elite scorer, a prolific international player, and on top of that everything he's done since 2008.

JackFr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:00 PM
  #104
Bring Back Bucky
Registered User
 
Bring Back Bucky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Delicieux!
Country: Heard and McDonald Islands
Posts: 7,824
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackFr View Post
You're misinterpreting what I said. I didn't mean that he should get in based on hypotheticals. Paul Kariya is my favourite player of all time but I can't see him in the hall.

My point is that Theo had the numbers DESPITE that. Not that he could have been much better (despite the fact that he could have). I think based on his career as well as the work he's done post-career and his redemption he should get in. I definitely see him over a guy like Turgeon or Nicholls or Damphousse. Theo was an elite scorer, a prolific international player, and on top of that everything he's done since 2008.
I agree with you, but don't think that any of the rest of those guys are getting near the hall.

As well, he's either a builder or a player. What he has done since 2008 or what he did as a player. I don't see the Hall as being a shrine to a blend of your hockey career and your post career community service.

Bring Back Bucky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:32 PM
  #105
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Nicholls 1127GP, 475-734-1209

Career best 70-80-150.

He ha a pretty strong case above Fleury and IMHO belongs in the Hall.
Nicholls best seasons are 1.90 PPG, 1.60 then 1.25 with others around 1.20 (His 1.45 rookie burst is in only 22 games)

Besides being in the high flying 80's the 2 outliers are with Wayne.

If you really want to use counting stats then I can't wait to hear how great Dino and Dave are all time compared to Guy and Mike.

Put simply Fluery has a much stronger case than Nicholls.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 01:21 PM
  #106
zeus3007*
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Red Deer, Alberta
Posts: 13,228
vCash: 500
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.
You don't see how Neely was better than Fleury? Really? He was one of the best scorers in the world, and essentially created the power forward role. Bure was the single best goal scorer in the world for a time. Both guys had injuries that derailed their success. Fleury had strippers and blow to derail his success. Fleury isn't even close to the same level as Neely or Bure.

zeus3007* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 05:15 PM
  #107
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,160
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
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.
It hurts Bure a lot that after 1995 he only played in 4 postseason games. That's just poor in that regards. Whether it was holding out, playing on poor teams or playing on underacheiving teams he just never won a postseason game after 1995 when he was 24. Compare that to Fleury and while he had several disapointments in the postseason he always brought his team there and there isn't a time you would ever think Fleury was the cause of his team being knocked out. Granted, Fleury's resume could be better in the postseason too. Both could use some better raw stats, but it is certainly comparable. Even if you did a poll back then and even today on who you would want on your team for a playoff run would it be that crazy to pick Fleury knowing what you'll get?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeus3007 View Post
You don't see how Neely was better than Fleury? Really? He was one of the best scorers in the world, and essentially created the power forward role. Bure was the single best goal scorer in the world for a time. Both guys had injuries that derailed their success. Fleury had strippers and blow to derail his success. Fleury isn't even close to the same level as Neely or Bure.
Well I am not making excuses for Fleury at all, but he was sexually abused a million times as a teenager by an influential hockey coach. You have to understand what kind of psychological damage that does to a young kid. How do you ever cope with this? You aren't going to let it effect your career and you certainly don't want to have a stigma about this while you are in a locker room full of guys. Sad to say, the only way to deal with this could be alcohol and drugs. So I think in many ways what he had was worse and less self imposed.

But onto the response, I certainly can see how Fleury is above Neely on an all-time level.

Fleury - 1088 points in 1084 games
Neely - 694 points in 726 games

Give Cam a bit of a playoff edge but nothing earth shattering. Cam was never top 10 in points but Fleury was better in that category than someone elected to the HHOF yesterday (Sundin). As far as top 10 in goals go it's pretty close:

Neely - 2, 3, 8, 9
Fleury - 2, 6, 7

Fleury had far more productive seasons in the NHL and that is what counts most. Neely falls into a "what if" factor while Fleury does to an extent but still has the stats to back it up. If you want to give Neely a pass for injuries then why not give Fleury a pass in 2001 when he was 3rd in scoring 2/3 of the way through the season only to go to rehab? Either way, the guy had a better career than Neely.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 05:40 PM
  #108
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
It hurts Bure a lot that after 1995 he only played in 4 postseason games. That's just poor in that regards. Whether it was holding out, playing on poor teams or playing on underacheiving teams he just never won a postseason game after 1995 when he was 24. Compare that to Fleury and while he had several disapointments in the postseason he always brought his team there and there isn't a time you would ever think Fleury was the cause of his team being knocked out. Granted, Fleury's resume could be better in the postseason too. Both could use some better raw stats, but it is certainly comparable. Even if you did a poll back then and even today on who you would want on your team for a playoff run would it be that crazy to pick Fleury knowing what you'll get?
"Hurts" Bure compared to whom? Certainly not Fleury, who himself might not have played another playoff game after '96 unless he had joined the 2nd seeded in the West Avalanche midway through the '98/99 season (Calgary went on to miss the playoffs until '03/04, which is past Fleury's retirement, to save you from checking). And think, without those 17 points in 18 games playing on the Avs, how well would Fleury's playoff record stack up to Bure's then? And don't forget, Fleury didn't bring squat to the Rangers in terms of post season appearances over 3 consecutive seasons... or do you see what I did there.

But hey, as long as you've gone from claiming Bure can't compare to Fleury in the playoffs to saying it's comparable, I can assume message received.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 05:53 PM
  #109
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
It hurts Bure a lot that after 1995 he only played in 4 postseason games. That's just poor in that regards. Whether it was holding out, playing on poor teams or playing on underacheiving teams he just never won a postseason game after 1995 when he was 24. Compare that to Fleury and while he had several disapointments in the postseason he always brought his team there and there isn't a time you would ever think Fleury was the cause of his team being knocked out. Granted, Fleury's resume could be better in the postseason too. Both could use some better raw stats, but it is certainly comparable. Even if you did a poll back then and even today on who you would want on your team for a playoff run would it be that crazy to pick Fleury knowing what you'll get?



Well I am not making excuses for Fleury at all, but he was sexually abused a million times as a teenager by an influential hockey coach. You have to understand what kind of psychological damage that does to a young kid. How do you ever cope with this? You aren't going to let it effect your career and you certainly don't want to have a stigma about this while you are in a locker room full of guys. Sad to say, the only way to deal with this could be alcohol and drugs. So I think in many ways what he had was worse and less self imposed.

But onto the response, I certainly can see how Fleury is above Neely on an all-time level.

Fleury - 1088 points in 1084 games
Neely - 694 points in 726 games

Give Cam a bit of a playoff edge but nothing earth shattering. Cam was never top 10 in points but Fleury was better in that category than someone elected to the HHOF yesterday (Sundin). As far as top 10 in goals go it's pretty close:

Neely - 2, 3, 8, 9
Fleury - 2, 6, 7

Fleury had far more productive seasons in the NHL and that is what counts most. Neely falls into a "what if" factor while Fleury does to an extent but still has the stats to back it up. If you want to give Neely a pass for injuries then why not give Fleury a pass in 2001 when he was 3rd in scoring 2/3 of the way through the season only to go to rehab? Either way, the guy had a better career than Neely.
fleury vs. neely, i see the argument for sure. i'm not sure i agree with it (and i'm a huge fleury supporter), but i'm not 100% on neely's side either.

as for fleury vs. bure in the playoffs, i don't think you can say that bure ever didn't bring it in the playoffs or was the reason his team lost. you can say that his sample after 1995 is tiny, which it certainly is, but is there any single year where you wanted bure to do more? his one playoff trip in florida, it was him against scott stevens and the rest of the devils in the year they had probably their best ever lineup-- plus they won the cup that year, knocking off the defending champs in the finals. the next two best offensive forwards on the team (whitney and kozlov) scored 2 points combined (and bure factored on both of those goals). whitney was riding an eight game scoring streak going into the playoffs, and 14 points in his final 15 games. then he completely disappeared.

the team was awful and absolutely no match for the devils and stevens in his conn smythe year. the team was swept and scored only three goals in the final three games of the series, all three of which bure got a point on. it was certainly a better performance than fleury against chicago in '96, when fleury was totally overmatched as his awful team's only threat and chelios was to fleury what stevens was to bure.

and if you look at bure in vancouver in the years that weren't '94, he certainly always did his part. he and russ courtnall in '95 were amazing together. before '94, sure bure got shut down by the oilers in the second round his rookie year, and the kings in the second round the year after. but he also destroyed winnipeg in games 5 and 6 when the canucks were down 3-1 in the series his rookie year, and he ate winnipeg for lunch the year after. point is, bure was an extremely good, and one year beyond legendary, playoff performer. fleury had a legendary spike too, and that was a three year stretch, but as ohashi mentions above you can add those three years up and fleury still plays four less games than bure did in his ridiculous playoff year (fleury has five more points if you add those three years up, but they were all first rounds. sledding gets tougher as you go deeper).

that said, i agree: it wouldn't be crazy to pick fleury at any point in the 90s, but it would be equally sane to pick bure. both guys were dynamite in the playoffs, but bure was the better regular season performer when healthy. weighing that against fleury's greater longevity, even with the significantly better all round game, i still go with the guy who finished top three in points twice, top five in points three times, and led the league in goals three times over fleury, who never finished top five in points and finished second in goals once and has no other top fives in that category either (bure has five top fives in goals). i think ultimately, both guys are franchise players (neely never was, but yes he has the best playoff record of the three and i find it hard not to take that into very high consideration) but they were on different levels of franchise player.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 03:49 PM
  #110
zeus3007*
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Red Deer, Alberta
Posts: 13,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
It hurts Bure a lot that after 1995 he only played in 4 postseason games. That's just poor in that regards. Whether it was holding out, playing on poor teams or playing on underacheiving teams he just never won a postseason game after 1995 when he was 24. Compare that to Fleury and while he had several disapointments in the postseason he always brought his team there and there isn't a time you would ever think Fleury was the cause of his team being knocked out. Granted, Fleury's resume could be better in the postseason too. Both could use some better raw stats, but it is certainly comparable. Even if you did a poll back then and even today on who you would want on your team for a playoff run would it be that crazy to pick Fleury knowing what you'll get?



Well I am not making excuses for Fleury at all, but he was sexually abused a million times as a teenager by an influential hockey coach. You have to understand what kind of psychological damage that does to a young kid. How do you ever cope with this? You aren't going to let it effect your career and you certainly don't want to have a stigma about this while you are in a locker room full of guys. Sad to say, the only way to deal with this could be alcohol and drugs. So I think in many ways what he had was worse and less self imposed.

But onto the response, I certainly can see how Fleury is above Neely on an all-time level.

Fleury - 1088 points in 1084 games
Neely - 694 points in 726 games

Give Cam a bit of a playoff edge but nothing earth shattering. Cam was never top 10 in points but Fleury was better in that category than someone elected to the HHOF yesterday (Sundin). As far as top 10 in goals go it's pretty close:

Neely - 2, 3, 8, 9
Fleury - 2, 6, 7

Fleury had far more productive seasons in the NHL and that is what counts most. Neely falls into a "what if" factor while Fleury does to an extent but still has the stats to back it up. If you want to give Neely a pass for injuries then why not give Fleury a pass in 2001 when he was 3rd in scoring 2/3 of the way through the season only to go to rehab? Either way, the guy had a better career than Neely.
As someone who looks at the game beyond the stat line, you are very, very wrong. Even IF you only look at stats, you have to consider that Neely was cut down at the beginning of his prime. Fleury lost some of his prime years too, but not as many.

You need to consider the legacy left more than stats. Neely was the first true power forward and changed the game. Fleury was a very good scorer who left a legacy of shame on the league. Its unfortunate what happened to him, but you can't give him a pass because of it, the drug and alcohol abuse got him suspended from the league. He didn't choose to leave, he was kicked out. A guy like that doesn't belong in the Hockey Hall of Fame.

zeus3007* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 03:55 PM
  #111
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,160
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
fleury vs. neely, i see the argument for sure. i'm not sure i agree with it (and i'm a huge fleury supporter), but i'm not 100% on neely's side either.

as for fleury vs. bure in the playoffs, i don't think you can say that bure ever didn't bring it in the playoffs or was the reason his team lost. you can say that his sample after 1995 is tiny, which it certainly is, but is there any single year where you wanted bure to do more? his one playoff trip in florida, it was him against scott stevens and the rest of the devils in the year they had probably their best ever lineup-- plus they won the cup that year, knocking off the defending champs in the finals. the next two best offensive forwards on the team (whitney and kozlov) scored 2 points combined (and bure factored on both of those goals). whitney was riding an eight game scoring streak going into the playoffs, and 14 points in his final 15 games. then he completely disappeared.

the team was awful and absolutely no match for the devils and stevens in his conn smythe year. the team was swept and scored only three goals in the final three games of the series, all three of which bure got a point on. it was certainly a better performance than fleury against chicago in '96, when fleury was totally overmatched as his awful team's only threat and chelios was to fleury what stevens was to bure.

and if you look at bure in vancouver in the years that weren't '94, he certainly always did his part. he and russ courtnall in '95 were amazing together. before '94, sure bure got shut down by the oilers in the second round his rookie year, and the kings in the second round the year after. but he also destroyed winnipeg in games 5 and 6 when the canucks were down 3-1 in the series his rookie year, and he ate winnipeg for lunch the year after. point is, bure was an extremely good, and one year beyond legendary, playoff performer. fleury had a legendary spike too, and that was a three year stretch, but as ohashi mentions above you can add those three years up and fleury still plays four less games than bure did in his ridiculous playoff year (fleury has five more points if you add those three years up, but they were all first rounds. sledding gets tougher as you go deeper).

that said, i agree: it wouldn't be crazy to pick fleury at any point in the 90s, but it would be equally sane to pick bure. both guys were dynamite in the playoffs, but bure was the better regular season performer when healthy. weighing that against fleury's greater longevity, even with the significantly better all round game, i still go with the guy who finished top three in points twice, top five in points three times, and led the league in goals three times over fleury, who never finished top five in points and finished second in goals once and has no other top fives in that category either (bure has five top fives in goals). i think ultimately, both guys are franchise players (neely never was, but yes he has the best playoff record of the three and i find it hard not to take that into very high consideration) but they were on different levels of franchise player.
No, it isn't insane to pick either one over their career. That is really all I was saying originally. I think my exact quote was "Bure and Neely supporters would have a hard time proving Fleury had a worse career." I'll acknowledge that at the top of his game Bure was better than Fleury but when we are talking career wise there isn't a whole lot to choose from. Fleury did more when the puck wasn't on his stick, which counts in this form of debate. Bure was just injured so much of the time that it hurts him in the long run. We weren't able to see him do this over a prolonged time like even Mike Bossy. It was staggered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
"Hurts" Bure compared to whom? Certainly not Fleury, who himself might not have played another playoff game after '96 unless he had joined the 2nd seeded in the West Avalanche midway through the '98/99 season (Calgary went on to miss the playoffs until '03/04, which is past Fleury's retirement, to save you from checking). And think, without those 17 points in 18 games playing on the Avs, how well would Fleury's playoff record stack up to Bure's then? And don't forget, Fleury didn't bring squat to the Rangers in terms of post season appearances over 3 consecutive seasons... or do you see what I did there.

But hey, as long as you've gone from claiming Bure can't compare to Fleury in the playoffs to saying it's comparable, I can assume message received.
I wouldn't bring up the scenario if I didn't know the stats. I also don't remember where I said Bure couldn't compare to Fleury in the postseason, just that it is comparable. Let's look at raw numbers:

Bure - 70 points in 64 games
Fleury - 79 points in 77 games

Looks about as even as we can possibly get. And while Fleury too has warts in the postseason (you would have seen me say that in the message) he certainly wasn't any worse than Bure. And yeah it does hurt Bure for his own benefit that he didn't win a postseason game after the age of 24. That isn't a great thing by any means. If you want to praise a guy when he does something good (1994 playoffs) be prepared to criticize him when it's deserved as well. I'd be interested in seeing why Bure's playoff record would be significantly better than his.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 03:58 PM
  #112
thom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,955
vCash: 500
Are we God were in no postion to judge Fleury.We should ask the whl are all individuals who knew what was going on with Fleury's life as a junior banned?If not why?Read Kennedy's book and according to Kennedy himself there is more to fleury's ordeal than even you can imagine

thom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 04:02 PM
  #113
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,160
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeus3007 View Post
As someone who looks at the game beyond the stat line, you are very, very wrong. Even IF you only look at stats, you have to consider that Neely was cut down at the beginning of his prime. Fleury lost some of his prime years too, but not as many.

You need to consider the legacy left more than stats. Neely was the first true power forward and changed the game. Fleury was a very good scorer who left a legacy of shame on the league. Its unfortunate what happened to him, but you can't give him a pass because of it, the drug and alcohol abuse got him suspended from the league. He didn't choose to leave, he was kicked out. A guy like that doesn't belong in the Hockey Hall of Fame.
That's the thing I am doing, I am going beyond stats as well. Because just looking at stats Fleury blows Neely out of the water. Sorry, but he does. Neely has no more than 3 elite seasons and one of them counted is 1994 where he played 49 games so take it or leave it. Fleury was his own worst enemy, but I also think since we've been told the details of what started his demons it makes a little more sense. It doesn't mean that he should get inducted into the HHOF out of sentiment because we saw that in 2005 rather than actually looking at the whole picture, in my opinion. So I don't give him extra credit, but at the same time his actions during his substance abuse days make a little more sense now.

Also, Neely was not the first power forward. He was more or less the player playing that style once that term was coined. Just because no one used the term "power forward" in the 1950s (Gordie Howe for example) doesn't mean no one played that way. Another great example was Messier. Plenty of players were "power forwards" before the term was invented. Neely did do it very good I agree, but can you say that with all his injuries and all those missed seasons that he physically had a better career than Fleury?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 04:23 PM
  #114
SmellOfVictory
Registered User
 
SmellOfVictory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,745
vCash: 114
I know taking penalties tends to hurt your team more than help it, but the fact that Fleury ended up with such an extensive number of PIM in addition to his scoring is a bonus, I think. There aren't a ton of players who are that greasy while being that good offensively. Combine that with his size, and he's like a freaking hockey unicorn (and on the basis of his unicorn status alone, he deserves HHoF entry).

SmellOfVictory is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 04:30 PM
  #115
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
No, it isn't insane to pick either one over their career. That is really all I was saying originally. I think my exact quote was "Bure and Neely supporters would have a hard time proving Fleury had a worse career." I'll acknowledge that at the top of his game Bure was better than Fleury but when we are talking career wise there isn't a whole lot to choose from. Fleury did more when the puck wasn't on his stick, which counts in this form of debate. Bure was just injured so much of the time that it hurts him in the long run. We weren't able to see him do this over a prolonged time like even Mike Bossy. It was staggered.
i was responding to your statement: "Compare that to Fleury and while he had several disapointments in the postseason he always brought his team there and there isn't a time you would ever think Fleury was the cause of his team being knocked out." which i took to imply that bure was at times at fault for his teams losing in the playoffs. but now that i have reread it, i think i misunderstood what you were saying.

that said, i do think bure's playoff record is a *bit* better than fleury's, for the reasons outlined in my last post (one great long run to the finals trumps a handful of short runs; hence, beezer over cujo in my books). but yes, as you say, it's not *significantly* better.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 04:31 PM
  #116
Kloparren
Hth
 
Kloparren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeus3007 View Post
You need to consider the legacy left more than stats. Neely was the first true power forward and changed the game. Fleury was a very good scorer who left a legacy of shame on the league.
There were players other than Cam Neely who were big and put up pts. In fact Eric Lindros was probably even more skilled and rougher than Neely.

But there was absolutely no one in that time period I can think of who was tiny like Fleury and put up the amount of pts Fleury did.

Now when a team drafts a small player they know that at least he can produce in the modern NHL.

But in truth, no small player has done the same as Fleury since then....Gerbe is feisty but not as offensively talented, St. Louis and maybe Ennis eventually are as offensively talented but not as rough to play against, and guys like Desharnais and Ronning aren't as feisty or as offensively talented.

But nowadays you can draft a Rocco Grimaldi without the assumption that he'll be a bust because of his size.

Kloparren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 04:58 PM
  #117
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,160
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
i was responding to your statement: "Compare that to Fleury and while he had several disapointments in the postseason he always brought his team there and there isn't a time you would ever think Fleury was the cause of his team being knocked out." which i took to imply that bure was at times at fault for his teams losing in the playoffs. but now that i have reread it, i think i misunderstood what you were saying.

that said, i do think bure's playoff record is a *bit* better than fleury's, for the reasons outlined in my last post (one great long run to the finals trumps a handful of short runs; hence, beezer over cujo in my books). but yes, as you say, it's not *significantly* better.
No, not much you can fault Bure with. Well, 2000 I guess. The Panthers had a 98 point season so they weren't a bunch of scrubs. I won't hold a lot of weight on that one because he was a major player for all of Vancouver's early playoff runs. I guess it would have been nice to see him contribute a bit more on the other side of the ice. That Vancouver team in 1998 should never in any NHL season miss the postseason, but they did. By then it was obvious he didn't care so I guess that's a point in Bure's career that bothers me a bit. You'd have to look long and hard to find Fleury mailing it in at any point.

Big Phil 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 12:24 AM.

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.