HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

How close was Keith Tkachuk to Eric Lindros?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-14-2013, 07:49 PM
  #51
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarmoismyhero View Post
Kariya and Shanahan were both great players so being behind them is not a horrible thing...And seeing how bad you hate Tkachuk and have always been one of his biggest haters on these boards its not shock that you would think LeClair is better.

Tkachuk is the only 500 goal scorer with 1000+ points that gets crapped on and is looked at as being an OK player...Clearly the most underappreciated goal scorer of the era.
LeClair was definitely better than Tkachuk, but I think LeClair will eventually be in the Hall of Fame, while Tkachuk is probably near the top of the Hall of Very Good.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2013, 07:54 PM
  #52
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
Here's a list of players better than Keith Tkachuk who played a significant chunk of their careers between the 94 and 05 lockouts (and I'm not saying this is all-inclusive either, plus I'm leaving out Gretzky, Messier, Coffey, and several others):

Mario Lemieux
Jaromir Jagr
Dominik Hasek
Patrick Roy
Joe Sakic
Nicklas Lidstom
Ray Bourque
Steve Yzerman
Teemu Selanne
Sergei Fedorov
Martin Brodeur
Chris Chelios
Brian Leetch
Al MacInnis
Peter Forsberg
Pavel Bure
Chris Pronger
Eric Lindros
Mike Modano
Mats Sundin
Doug Gilmour
Scott Niedermayer
Mark Recchi
Ed Belfour
Brendan Shanahan

How many of these guys do you want on a Top 100 players list before modern players aren't "underrepresented"?
Well 8 of the guys you listed are from Europe and no one from Europe is realistically on the top 100 list before the 1970's.

4 more are from the states, which produced very little top end, never mind NHL talent in general, before the 80's.

That leaves 13 Canucks that played in well over a 30 year stretch

It's also very debatable on Recchi being "better" than Keith was.

At some point the bar or standard should be more or less the same for everyone right?

a fully integrated league with many top players from other nations should naturally bump that era into being represented slightly higher one would think.

It sure does for the non integrated stars of the late 60's and early 70's as we have seen in the recent goalie and Dman projects.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2013, 07:57 PM
  #53
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the edler View Post
Yeah, but that's a compilers argument. I'm not necessarily saying Tkachuk was a compiler, but that's a compilers argument. We're talking about a player here who, much like Bondra, never was a top 10 scorer in the league. His best years he was 13th, 15th, 11th, 12th, 19th. That's nothing to scoff at, but it's a tier below the best.
Sure but he was known as a goal scorer, the Rocket Richard isn't on many people top 5 lists because of his points is he?

Only 1 Canadian player scored more goals than Tkachuk, that's hardly being a compiler in any sense of the word.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2013, 08:05 PM
  #54
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Well 8 of the guys you listed are from Europe and no one from Europe is realistically on the top 100 list before the 1970's.

4 more are from the states, which produced very little top end, never mind NHL talent in general, before the 80's.

That leaves 13 Canucks that played in well over a 30 year stretch

It's also very debatable on Recchi being "better" than Keith was.

At some point the bar or standard should be more or less the same for everyone right?

a fully integrated league with many top players from other nations should naturally bump that era into being represented slightly higher one would think.

It sure does for the non integrated stars of the late 60's and early 70's as we have seen in the recent goalie and Dman projects.
How on Earth is 1995-2004 a 30 year stretch? If there are 13 better Canadian hockey players who peaked from 1995-2004, you better believe there were at least 100 Canadian hockey players better than Tkachuk.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2013, 09:20 PM
  #55
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Well 8 of the guys you listed are from Europe and no one from Europe is realistically on the top 100 list before the 1970's.

4 more are from the states, which produced very little top end, never mind NHL talent in general, before the 80's.

That leaves 13 Canucks that played in well over a 30 year stretch

It's also very debatable on Recchi being "better" than Keith was.

At some point the bar or standard should be more or less the same for everyone right?

a fully integrated league with many top players from other nations should naturally bump that era into being represented slightly higher one would think.

It sure does for the non integrated stars of the late 60's and early 70's as we have seen in the recent goalie and Dman projects.
What doesit freakin matter how many non-Canadians there were before the 70‘s?
They werent good enough yet to matter.
So basically u want to punish anyone that played prior to your “fully integrated NHL“.
What were they supposed to do? Wait around, play down to their level until they caught up?

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2013, 11:17 PM
  #56
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 36,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Well 8 of the guys you listed are from Europe and no one from Europe is realistically on the top 100 list before the 1970's.

4 more are from the states, which produced very little top end, never mind NHL talent in general, before the 80's.

That leaves 13 Canucks that played in well over a 30 year stretch

It's also very debatable on Recchi being "better" than Keith was.

At some point the bar or standard should be more or less the same for everyone right?

a fully integrated league with many top players from other nations should naturally bump that era into being represented slightly higher one would think.

It sure does for the non integrated stars of the late 60's and early 70's as we have seen in the recent goalie and Dman projects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
How on Earth is 1995-2004 a 30 year stretch? If there are 13 better Canadian hockey players who peaked from 1995-2004, you better believe there were at least 100 Canadian hockey players better than Tkachuk.
This and

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
What doesit freakin matter how many non-Canadians there were before the 70‘s?
They werent good enough yet to matter.
So basically u want to punish anyone that played prior to your “fully integrated NHL“.
What were they supposed to do? Wait around, play down to their level until they caught up?
this.

A 30 year stretch? Tkachuk retired in 2010. A 30 year stretch includes every player since 1980 onwards: the Oilers' dynasty players, the Islanders' dynasty players, guys who peaked int he early 1980s (Rod Langway, etc.), plus all the guys I mentioned, and plenty more.

With regards to Recchi being better than Tkachuk, I don't even see how it's remotely close once playoffs are taken into consideration, but if someone wants to make the argument then go ahead.

I'd be surprised if Tkachuk was on my Top 200 list of all-time.

Epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 12:25 AM
  #57
Mad Max
Registered User
 
Mad Max's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DDO, Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 222
vCash: 500
He was always one notch below guys like Lindros, Fedorov, and Jagr. Very good player though and probably didn't get as much credit as he should have. He had back-to-back 50 goal seasons and was in the 40s in 2 other seasons. He was a very consistent player with great longevity. Even at 37, he was still scoring 25 goals.

But with that being said, he just didn't have the dominance players like Lindros, Fedorov, and Jagr showed year in and year out. But 538 goals is nothing to sneeze at. Bryan Trottier, Jean Beliveau, Glenn Anderson, and Doug Gilmour all scored fewer goals and all are in the HOF.

Mad Max is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 12:26 AM
  #58
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,890
vCash: 500
Tkachuk was a consistent all-star level player.
Lindros was an occasionally MVP level player.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 09:29 AM
  #59
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
How on Earth is 1995-2004 a 30 year stretch? If there are 13 better Canadian hockey players who peaked from 1995-2004, you better believe there were at least 100 Canadian hockey players better than Tkachuk.
That's if one buys the list as all of them being better.

Bourque was listed so that's why the 30 years. As was Yzerman and Chelios.

That's a side issue anyways, we saw how Keith stacked up against his peers in goal scoring.

My main point still stands, there is no way any Canadian guy with the "06" advantage scoring 2nd in goals against his peers during his career doesn't make the HHOF, and quite likely the top 100, in the history section.

As it is Keith was 4th in goals, against his peers for his career and he brought toughness to the game as well. He played on weak teams, has a poor playoff performance and gets the Dionne treatment, despite not just being a guy who scores.

Maybe it's because everyone remembers how he looked at the end with the picture that was posted.

Playoffs and legend aside, Richard gets ranks 5th all time, despite his highest goal scoring season in a weak war year and it's considered a joke to mention Keith as a top 100 player of all time?

Different standards for different eras is the problem here IMO.


Last edited by Hardyvan123: 03-15-2013 at 09:37 AM.
Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 09:34 AM
  #60
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
What doesit freakin matter how many non-Canadians there were before the 70‘s?
They werent good enough yet to matter.
So basically u want to punish anyone that played prior to your “fully integrated NHL“.
What were they supposed to do? Wait around, play down to their level until they caught up?
It's the double standard, especially for Dmen in our top 60 project, those in the 70's got the benefit of the doubt.

In the 70's the league wasn't integrated, plus the NHL was really weak and top heavy, but both Canadians and Europeans got the benefit of the doubt when in fact had the league been integrated not all 10 guys could have been top 5 right?

Look one group of Canadians had to play against basically a whole set of themselves (US and European players) post early 90's while the others "06" didn't.

But not acknowledging that fact we are punishing one group over the other one plain and simple.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 09:39 AM
  #61
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,058
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Epsilon;61683797]This and



this.

A 30 year stretch? Tkachuk retired in 2010. A 30 year stretch includes every player since 1980 onwards: the Oilers' dynasty players, the Islanders' dynasty players, guys who peaked int he early 1980s (Rod Langway, etc.), plus all the guys I mentioned, and plenty more.

[QUOTE]With regards to Recchi being better than Tkachuk, I don't even see how it's remotely close once playoffs are taken into consideration, but if someone wants to make the argument then go ahead.

Quote:
I'd be surprised if Tkachuk was on my Top 200 list of all-time.

I'd love to see that list and see how many guys can compete with Keith on a goal scoring and toughness basis.

No doubt it would include many 06 players who were top 5 year in year out quite a bit right?

It's like Keith is the US forward version of Housley here on these boards sometimes.


Last edited by Hardyvan123: 03-15-2013 at 08:12 PM.
Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 12:49 PM
  #62
the edler
Inimitable
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
Tkachuk was a 2nd team all-star twice and a 3rd team all-star twice, at a position that was the weakest/shallowest in the NHL during the meat of his career. Among his contemporaries at left-wing:

Paul Kariya was a 1st team all-star 3 times and a 2nd team all-star twice.

John Leclair was a 1st team all-star twice, a 2nd team all-star 3 times, and a 3rd team all-star once.

Brendan Shanahan was a 1st team all-star 3 teams, a 2nd team all-star once, and a 3rd team all-star twice, in addition to being a monster in the playoffs.
Another LW from around this era who's arguably better than Tkachuk is Markus Näslund. Yeah, Tkachuk accumulated more goals and points through longevity but Näslund's three or four year peak beats out Tkachuk handidly. So it's probably a wash.

the edler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 01:02 PM
  #63
DLR1970
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 43
vCash: 500
Not close IMO. Lindros, though I was never a fan, was just flat out better. Tkachuk wasn't a bad player by any stretch. Strong career. But not in Lindros' league

DLR1970 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 01:11 PM
  #64
BigKing
Spot Picker
 
BigKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Belmont Shore, CA
Posts: 3,452
vCash: 500
Correct me if I am wrong, but the First Team, Second Team voting is by writers, correct? Tkachuk was not well liked by the media. His issues in Winnipeg are well documented. It seems the only people who liked the guy were at The Hockey News.

As for the Naslund argument, I'd have no problem saying Keith would of had awesome numbers playing for those Canucks teams as well.

Think he's more talented than Shanahan. If Tkachuk gets traded to Detroit, Keith is in the HHOF.

As for complimentary player on the '96 WC team...guy wore an "A" and was THE premier physical force on a team with some toughness in Hatcher, Guerin, Deadmarsh etc... Really can't say enough about the fight in front of the US bench when he broke Lemieux's nose. Game changer for a team/country that hadn't really been able to challenge Canada up to that point. That tournament was the closer in terms of me putting hockey at the top of my list and becoming an obsession. Of course, he could have been tossed from the tourney for the baseball sswing slash on Adam Foote so there is an argument to be made that, prior to being traded to St. Louis, his temper could be more of a detriment than a positive.

That being said, he would dominate in today's game at his peak. Years of abuse from standing in front of the net took its toll on him. You can stand in front of the net now and build a small village if you want to. Even though he is known for his front net presence, he could walk around defenseman no problem and had a great pair of hands.

It's no surprise that the usual suspects around here are crapping on Tkachuk. The one thing they have in common is most do not like fighting and guys who play on the edge.

BigKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 01:32 PM
  #65
Yamaguchi
Registered User
 
Yamaguchi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
They're both marvelous players but not as great as Bob Nystrom.

Yamaguchi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 01:49 PM
  #66
vadim sharifijanov
Rrbata
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigKing View Post
Correct me if I am wrong, but the First Team, Second Team voting is by writers, correct? Tkachuk was not well liked by the media. His issues in Winnipeg are well documented. It seems the only people who liked the guy were at The Hockey News.

As for the Naslund argument, I'd have no problem saying Keith would of had awesome numbers playing for those Canucks teams as well.

Think he's more talented than Shanahan. If Tkachuk gets traded to Detroit, Keith is in the HHOF.

As for complimentary player on the '96 WC team...guy wore an "A" and was THE premier physical force on a team with some toughness in Hatcher, Guerin, Deadmarsh etc... Really can't say enough about the fight in front of the US bench when he broke Lemieux's nose. Game changer for a team/country that hadn't really been able to challenge Canada up to that point. That tournament was the closer in terms of me putting hockey at the top of my list and becoming an obsession. Of course, he could have been tossed from the tourney for the baseball sswing slash on Adam Foote so there is an argument to be made that, prior to being traded to St. Louis, his temper could be more of a detriment than a positive.

That being said, he would dominate in today's game at his peak. Years of abuse from standing in front of the net took its toll on him. You can stand in front of the net now and build a small village if you want to. Even though he is known for his front net presence, he could walk around defenseman no problem and had a great pair of hands.

It's no surprise that the usual suspects around here are crapping on Tkachuk. The one thing they have in common is most do not like fighting and guys who play on the edge.
1. i'm quite certain scotty bowman would have sent tkachuk packing in a millisecond.

2. tkachuk's st. louis teams during naslund's prime afforded him far better offensive teammates than naslund had: pronger and macinnis (and sometimes both at the same time), doug weight, pavol demitra, and pierre turgeon. not to mention scott young, scott mellanby, cory stillman, and dallas drake. naslund had: bertuzzi, jovanovski, brendan morrison, mattias ohlund, sami salo, and a pile of garbage.


all that said, he was a beast. i don't argue with that, just the what ifs.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 01:55 PM
  #67
Tkachuk4MVP
23 Years of Fail
 
Tkachuk4MVP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 9,463
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
LeClair was definitely better than Tkachuk, but I think LeClair will eventually be in the Hall of Fame, while Tkachuk is probably near the top of the Hall of Very Good.

I'd say it's debatable that Leclair was better than Tkachuk, and I certainly wouldn't say either was "definitely" better than the other. Stats are of course not the end-all-be-all, but career-wise they all favor Tkachuk, both in averages and in totals. He was every bit as good as Leclair when they were both in their primes, but with Craig Janney/post-prime Roenick centering him as opposed to Eric freaking Lindros.


I'll admit I'm biased because Tkachuk is my all-time favorite player, but the criticisms I'm seeing in here seem to be mostly based on playoff performance and attitude (I think the former is overblown a bit, but the complaints about the latter are justified). People seem to forget how much of a force he was in his prime playing in the dead-puck era with almost no all-star caliber players on his teams. He was big, fast (a lot more so than most remember), mean as hell, and with incredible offensive instincts and goal scoring ability. I hate to pull the "watch him play" card, but find some old Yotes game (they're out there) for evidence as to how good he was.

Tkachuk4MVP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 02:01 PM
  #68
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
It's the double standard, especially for Dmen in our top 60 project, those in the 70's got the benefit of the doubt.

In the 70's the league wasn't integrated, plus the NHL was really weak and top heavy, but both Canadians and Europeans got the benefit of the doubt when in fact had the league been integrated not all 10 guys could have been top 5 right?

Look one group of Canadians had to play against basically a whole set of themselves (US and European players) post early 90's while the others "06" didn't.

But not acknowledging that fact we are punishing one group over the other one plain and simple.
6 teams vs 30 teams!
The only time your argument has any validity is during the early 70's, for the first few years of the WHA but even then, the O6 teams were still loaded with talent and it didn't take long for XP teams like Buffalo, St. Louis and Philly to catch up.

Not to mention that the mid 70's was when the Euro invasion started, culminating in the early 90's.

Point being that the O6 NHL housed the best players in the world and that there were very, very few non-Canadians that could have cracked into the top 120-140 players in the world then.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 03-15-2013 at 02:11 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 05:43 PM
  #69
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the edler View Post
I get that he was good at making room for himself on the ice but isn't it possible to do that without 228 PIMs? Especially when you have a linemate in Roenick who himself had 100+ PIMs? John LeClair was pretty good at making room for himself on the ice and he only had 64 PIMs at most in a season. LeClair had Lindros though who was on pace for a few 200+ seasons. But Todd Bertuzzi made a lot of room for himself and Näslund and he never had 150+ PIMs. Cam Neely made a lot of room for himself and had 175 and 190 at most. It's the lovefest for the number 200 that's a bit annoying.

Tkachuk's 96–67 season was very good but he "only" had 86 points in 81 games and didn't finish top 10 in points or even top 3 for LWs so it wasn't exactly like he set the league, or the world, on permanent fire.
hehe, yeah. You've pretty much got Tkachuk down to a tee now. He took a lot of senseless penalties. And I agree, I look at a player like Clark Gillies. Yes Gillies gets a lot of flack for being a controversial HHOFer. However, one thing he did right was intimidate without having to do much. The fight he had with Schultz in 1975 gave him all the room he needed on the ice. No one wanted to fight him and he had a season high of only 98 PIM. Gillies knew his role was to ensure Bossy was protected and he didn't need 228 PIM for that either.

I loved Tkachuk's passion, but his hockey IQ wasn't the greatest either.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 06:02 PM
  #70
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
6 teams vs 30 teams!
The only time your argument has any validity is during the early 70's, for the first few years of the WHA but even then, the O6 teams were still loaded with talent and it didn't take long for XP teams like Buffalo, St. Louis and Philly to catch up.

Not to mention that the mid 70's was when the Euro invasion started, culminating in the early 90's.

Point being that the O6 NHL housed the best players in the world and that there were very, very few non-Canadians that could have cracked into the top 120-140 players in the world then.
I have sort of given up trying to explain how irrelevant the whole "There were only Canadians in that particular NHL so it was easier" argument is. However some posters use this as gospel in a debate. In the original 6 there were 120 spots. No other country was producing great players like Canada. Russia didn't actually win the gold in the Olympics against our amateurs until 1956. That's not very long ago when you think of it. There just weren't great players from other countries churning out in the 1950s, mostly Canada. But the talent was there and made even more daunting was cracking an original 6 roster with hardline coaches, GMs and owners that could relegate you to the minors with the flick of a wrist. There were no patsies in the original 6.

Then expansion coincided with the explosion of talent coming from other countries and even our own. It continued into the 1990s and I personally think NHL expansion has run rather parallel to the talent pool making each era having relatively the same difficulty cracking a roster.

What was harder, cracking an original 6 roster with 120 spots open in a predominantly Canadian league or cracking a roster spot with 750 spots in 2013 in a league with 55% Canadians and other countries churning out talent? It's pretty much the same.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 06:54 PM
  #71
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I have sort of given up trying to explain how irrelevant the whole "There were only Canadians in that particular NHL so it was easier" argument is. However some posters use this as gospel in a debate. In the original 6 there were 120 spots. No other country was producing great players like Canada. Russia didn't actually win the gold in the Olympics against our amateurs until 1956. That's not very long ago when you think of it. There just weren't great players from other countries churning out in the 1950s, mostly Canada. But the talent was there and made even more daunting was cracking an original 6 roster with hardline coaches, GMs and owners that could relegate you to the minors with the flick of a wrist. There were no patsies in the original 6.

Then expansion coincided with the explosion of talent coming from other countries and even our own. It continued into the 1990s and I personally think NHL expansion has run rather parallel to the talent pool making each era having relatively the same difficulty cracking a roster.

What was harder, cracking an original 6 roster with 120 spots open in a predominantly Canadian league or cracking a roster spot with 750 spots in 2013 in a league with 55% Canadians and other countries churning out talent? It's pretty much the same.

Yeah, it's a silly argument.
I mean in 40 years, will the argument then be that prior players didn't have Cyborbs in the league?

The best of the best is the best of the best.
It's not the newest is always the best.

I don't think anyone will argue that certain players flourished more/had a little help in certain environments.
Gretzky's numers were certainly helped by the 80's but the argument is still out there that he was one of the main players responsible for creating that environment in the first place.
Mario...don't think it mattered, he showed that he could dominate well above anyone else is any.
Orr might have been the first D-man to really take over an offense but that still doesn't explain how he was able to dominate other top FORWARD HoFer's like Dionne and Lafleur.
Jagr's production would have been great at any time as well but his separation from the pack was definitely helped by the DPE he played in.
Same with Crosby, he's benefiting from the post-LO rules. Does he put up the same kind of recent production and stay close to Jagr in the middle of the DPE, doubtful IMO.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 03-15-2013 at 07:05 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 07:47 PM
  #72
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the edler View Post
Another LW from around this era who's arguably better than Tkachuk is Markus Näslund. Yeah, Tkachuk accumulated more goals and points through longevity but Näslund's three or four year peak beats out Tkachuk handidly. So it's probably a wash.
I am not sure Naslunds peak is handily better then Tkachuks but Tkachuks career was better...At some point longevity has to matter...Hockey is one of the only sports where a players longevity is held against him...And I am not directing this at you...Its really most of HFBoards that dismisses a players longevity as simply being a compiler.

Also Naslunds playoffs were horrible as well which seems to be the thing that makes Tkachuk not even a top 200 player in the NHL.

jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 07:50 PM
  #73
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
This and



this.

A 30 year stretch? Tkachuk retired in 2010. A 30 year stretch includes every player since 1980 onwards: the Oilers' dynasty players, the Islanders' dynasty players, guys who peaked int he early 1980s (Rod Langway, etc.), plus all the guys I mentioned, and plenty more.

With regards to Recchi being better than Tkachuk, I don't even see how it's remotely close once playoffs are taken into consideration, but if someone wants to make the argument then go ahead.

I'd be surprised if Tkachuk was on my Top 200 list of all-time.
Ok I know you do not think highly of Tkachuk at all but not making top 200? Really?

jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 08:16 PM
  #74
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarmoismyhero View Post
Tkachuk is the only 500 goal scorer with 1000+ points that gets crapped on and is looked at as being an OK player...Clearly the most underappreciated goal scorer of the era.
Say hello to Pat Verbeek, not to mention scoffed-at HHOFers Joe Nieuwendyk, Michel Goulet and 600-goal scorer Dino Ciccarelli. Lanny McDonald too.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 08:19 PM
  #75
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarmoismyhero View Post
Ok I know you do not think highly of Tkachuk at all but not making top 200? Really?
Eric Lindros didn't even make the Top 100 list that this board completed in 2008. Would he make the list if it were completed today now that this board seems to give dead puck era players more credit, for better or worse? Maybe. But I still think he'd be borderline.

And then there are 3 left wings who played in the same era as Tkachuk - Kariya, Shanahan, and LeClair, who I think most people would have above Tkachuk, and I find it unlikely any of them would make the top 100.

I think there's a very good case that Tkachuk is not a Top 200 player.

TheDevilMadeMe 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 05:04 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.