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.

Guy Carbonneau HOF

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-27-2013, 04:59 AM
  #101
PhillyBluesFan
Registered User
 
PhillyBluesFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,668
vCash: 500
The reason he won't get in because Hockey fans evaluate players by counting points which is the dumbest thing ever

PhillyBluesFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 05:44 AM
  #102
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,825
vCash: 500
Drifting

Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Being more valuable than Doug Jarvis doesn't equal being a Hall of Famer or All-Star.



You do realize you compared the 18th man on an NHL team to the 5th man on an NBA team, right?

I understand that guys are able to become first liners. It's like how Steve Nash went from a backup point guard to 2-time MVP. Doesn't mean Gilmour or Nash could make it to an AS team while they were in the fourth line or backup PG spots. They had to move up to a more prominent role.

But no matter how difficult it is to get AS votes in hockey, Ramsay and Roenick got them frequently. Carbonneau didn't. Ever. Not once. I guess competition with the likes of Tom Fergus, Perry Berezan, and random 18th man AHL call-ups was too much for him. Roenick and Ramsay have a ton of these super-rare NHL AS votes though.



Ramsay finished 2nd in Selke voting 3 times before he won once, with the win coming after Luce left and was about as valuable that year as Carbonneau was when he won his 3rd Selke. After Luce left he dropped from 59 to 51 points before being injured, and even then he kept picking up Selke votes. He no longer showed up in AS voting but that's not a disadvantage when compared to Carbonneau who never got a single vote.

Ramsay suffered from stronger Selke competition in Bob Gainey, much like people say Yzerman lost out for coming along when Gretzky and Lemieux were peaking. Ramsay lost more Selkes because he was playing while Gainey was peaking than Yzerman did Hart Trophies. (That should impress the Wings contingent on here.) That cost him the chance to win a Selke as a 71-point guy, which would probably place him above Carbonneau's peak.



So Carbonneau should benefit from lower expectations? Because it seems like you said we should judge Roenick against top-line centres and Carbonneau against 3rd-liners. We shouldn't be so impressed by how Carbonneau excelled in his niche that we start pretending that the 3rd liner is better than the first liner, or ascribe some mythical value to his goal prevention that doesn't seem to be supported by evidence. Gretzky's scoring stayed the same. The other Kings dropped off. (That 93 team could have used a Joe Nieuwendyk or Vincent Damphousse to be their Goring/Messier. Maybe even Jeremy Roenick...)

Carbonneau also had his weaknesses. Forwards are expected to produce offense, and even among the Selke-winners he's a middling offensive player. He's nowhere near as good as a Bobby Clarke or Sergei Fedorov. Adjusting for era, a peak Selke-calibre Carbonneau is about as valuable as a peak Selke-calibre Mike Peca.

If you put Carbonneau out there for 21 minutes a game, you'd be much more disappointed than you would be with Roenick, a good two-way player who actually was one of the top 10 centres in the game in many seasons (perhaps even top 5 at his peak), and got a few Hart, Selke, and post-season AS votes along the way. You may dislike his personality, but as you explicitly said personality was irrelevant with Bobby Jones, I don't know why you'd care.

In short, a team has a much better shot at a Stanley Cup if Jeremy Roenick is their best centre than if Guy Carbonneau is their best centre.
You are drifting into mischaracterizations of what was posted by me. Carbonneau being preferred to Jarvis was not value driven but a recognition that the potential of Guy Carbonneau was much greater than the established prime best of Doug Jarvis. Factor in that Carbonneau was a RHS while Jarvis was a LHS and the choice is easy to understand.

The NBA/NHL comparison was bottom three to bottom three. If in your perception that becomes 5th to 18th so be it.

Roenick's teams went to one SC final and were quickly dispatched by the Penguins since they had no one to play the defensive center role against Mario Lemieux.

Your final assertion is not supported by history or results. Recently, the Bruins with Patrice Bergeron shut down Crosby and Malkin. Toews has more SCs than Crosby and Malkin, Datsyuk has more SCs than the Sedin twins combined. Historically, Keon has more SCs than Phil Esposito, Ted Kennedy has five, more than Ullman and Mikita who have one between them yet were well above average defensively. Henri Richard an elite defensive center has the most SCs of all 11 yet he was never the #1 center on the Canadiens unless Beliveau was injured. He didn't have to be. All he had to do was be better than the center he was facing - B.Hull in 1959, Mikita, Esposito, Ullman, Clarke and others which he did more often than not, 11 times in a 20 season career. Teams hardly win with Roenick type centers alone.Lemieux needed Francis, Gretzky never won a SC when he lacked excellent defensive forwards.

Carbonneau managed to shutdown or reduce the effectiveness of the opposing #1 center. This was his role, it was not his role to be the #1 center and avoid being shut down. Your attempted point is like positing that a screw driver is a bad hammer so it should not be recognized as a necessary piece of construction equipment. Failing to recognize that certain screwdrivers are much better than others and deserve recognition as great construction tools.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 06:48 AM
  #103
Pat Paeplow
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 152
vCash: 500
I also think its misleading to refer to him as a second or third-liner. The scoring line is always referred to as the first line but when the Habs were playing an important game, nursing along a 1 goal lead and a really hairy situation was coming up, maybe a defensive zone face-off with the opponent's goalie pulled in favor of, I don't know, Mike Gartner, I don't think Burns or Demers were behind the bench thinking, "ah, time for third liners."

They were yelling for Guy and the rest of their shutdown players. In hockey, to some degree everybody is a role player, even the scorers. The HOF may run counter to what makes hockey great but if its functioning properly, it should identify the players who played their role the best not decide which roles were more entertaining to watch.

Pat Paeplow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 07:31 AM
  #104
mrinsane
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,059
vCash: 500
He deserve to be in the HoF not because for his offensive stats but in the defensive zone simply the best.

GP1*318 260G 403A = 663PTS in a defensive role.. 3 Stanley Cups and former captain. You can't compare guys like Essa Tikanen and Mike Peca to Guy Carbonneau ask people who knows hockey well who's Peca or guy like Lehtinen and who's Carbo the answer you're going to have.

mrinsane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 08:21 AM
  #105
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrinsane View Post
He deserve to be in the HoF not because for his offensive stats but in the defensive zone simply the best.

GP1*318 260G 403A = 663PTS in a defensive role.. 3 Stanley Cups and former captain. You can't compare guys like Essa Tikanen and Mike Peca to Guy Carbonneau ask people who knows hockey well who's Peca or guy like Lehtinen and who's Carbo the answer you're going to have.
Well said.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 09:17 AM
  #106
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,825
vCash: 500
Previously

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopamine Fiend View Post
I also think its misleading to refer to him as a second or third-liner. The scoring line is always referred to as the first line but when the Habs were playing an important game, nursing along a 1 goal lead and a really hairy situation was coming up, maybe a defensive zone face-off with the opponent's goalie pulled in favor of, I don't know, Mike Gartner, I don't think Burns or Demers were behind the bench thinking, "ah, time for third liners."

They were yelling for Guy and the rest of their shutdown players. In hockey, to some degree everybody is a role player, even the scorers. The HOF may run counter to what makes hockey great but if its functioning properly, it should identify the players who played their role the best not decide which roles were more entertaining to watch.
Only in the last generation or so. Previously lines were defined by the center or a nickname - Punch Line, Production Line, Scooter Line, Million Dollar Line, etc.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 10:50 AM
  #107
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyBluesFan View Post
The reason he won't get in because Hockey fans evaluate players by counting points which is the dumbest thing ever
Good thing baseball, football and basketball don't do that eh?

Last time I checked scoring goals was the primary reason for forwards.

I love 2 way guys but there are plenty of elite 2 way guys more deserving of the HHOF than Guy IMO.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 10:55 AM
  #108
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrinsane View Post
He deserve to be in the HoF not because for his offensive stats but in the defensive zone simply the best.

GP1*318 260G 403A = 663PTS in a defensive role.. 3 Stanley Cups and former captain. You can't compare guys like Essa Tikanen and Mike Peca to Guy Carbonneau ask people who knows hockey well who's Peca or guy like Lehtinen and who's Carbo the answer you're going to have.
The gap in terms of value and defensive play between guy and guys like Peca and Lehtinen is really really small.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 11:02 AM
  #109
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
1993 was before I really started paying attention to non-local hockey, but I have seen people say that they thought Guy was the 2nd most important member of that Cup-winning team.

Edit: I guess it's pretty hard to argue him over Damphousse, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
It's hard to argue him over Keane as well. In 93 it was Roy by a mile over the 2nd guy IMO.

After Roy and then Damphousse and Keane there is a cluster of players that Guy might be in the mix with including Bellows, Muller, Desjardins and heck even Paul DiPietro with his team leading 8 ES. goals.
as i said earlier, it's a toss-up for #s 2 and 3 after roy. the players in that group are muller, desjardins, damphousse, and carbonneau.

people are free to correct me if i'm misremembering these 20 year old memories, but i followed that run very closely (at, admittedly, a pretty young age) and there was no question among anyone that those guys were all easily ahead of keaner and dipietro, and even bellows, no matter what the 20 year old stats sheet says. odelein would have been ahead of those guys too.

but in that group, i think the majority would say muller was #2. he was getting some serious "poor man's gilmour" plaudits.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 01:59 PM
  #110
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Your final assertion is not supported by history or results. Recently, the Bruins with Patrice Bergeron shut down Crosby and Malkin. Toews has more SCs than Crosby and Malkin, Datsyuk has more SCs than the Sedin twins combined. Historically, Keon has more SCs than Phil Esposito, Ted Kennedy has five, more than Ullman and Mikita who have one between them yet were well above average defensively. Henri Richard an elite defensive center has the most SCs of all 11 yet he was never the #1 center on the Canadiens unless Beliveau was injured. He didn't have to be. All he had to do was be better than the center he was facing - B.Hull in 1959, Mikita, Esposito, Ullman, Clarke and others which he did more often than not, 11 times in a 20 season career. Teams hardly win with Roenick type centers alone.Lemieux needed Francis, Gretzky never won a SC when he lacked excellent defensive forwards.
Those bolded guys are all better than Carbonneau. They are defensively strong and produce offense.

Jeremy Roenick was not a one-dimensional player. He was a very good defensive player who's kind of like a poor man's Toews. Not that Toews would have a lot of fun with Mario Lemieux circa 1992. If Roenick had Patrick Roy and two centres ahead of him who were better than him, Chicago would have been a little better off too.

Few teams win Cups without solid defensive guys, but it's just as true that few teams win without players who can score goals. We can't just take it for granted that Muller/Damphousse will score goals because it's their job. The value of a two-way centre who can score goals should easily eclipse the value of a checking centre who doesn't, because even if he's great at being a 1-way checking centre the actual value provided over an average 1-way checking centre is marginal.

And I understand why DF doesn't like me saying Carbonneau was a 2nd/3rd liner, but what am I supposed to do when confronted with Cup Counting to say 2nd/3rd liners are better than first liners? Is Henri Richard > Beliveau? No! (Although again, Richard provided offense, unlike Carbs. Perhaps you want to compare Ralph Backstrom?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Carbonneau managed to shutdown or reduce the effectiveness of the opposing #1 center. This was his role, it was not his role to be the #1 center and avoid being shut down. Your attempted point is like positing that a screw driver is a bad hammer so it should not be recognized as a necessary piece of construction equipment. Failing to recognize that certain screwdrivers are much better than others and deserve recognition as great construction tools.
Sure, if by "reduce the effectiveness" you mean the #1 centre scored at the exact same rate. The series was won even though Gretzky scored at the same pace. When he was off the ice the Kings were less effective, as non-Gretzky Kings goals dropped from 12 in 7 games vs Toronto to 5 in 5 games vs Montreal. When you're stuck producing >50% of your team's offense while playing ~35% of the minutes, you have issues with your teammates not the opposition's 3rd best centre.

And they're not construction tools, they are hockey players who have to perform multiple functions. Even we did use the construction tool analogy, the DatsyukDriver is a comparable screwdriver to the CarboDriver model, and Dats also functions as a very good hammer. So he is much more valuable than the screwdriver who is only a screwdriver like David Backes or Jay McClement.

Datsyuk, Bergeron, and Toews all brought offense to the table and ruin your screwdriver analogy. Because unlike Carbs, they're not one-dimensional. Carbo is not Toews. He's Frolik or Bolland. At his best he's about as valuable Mikko Koivu.

I want Begeron and Toews on Team Canada (Datsyuk has the wrong passport). Carbonneau was never invited to Team Canada, not even the defensively-focused 1991 team. Because a 2-way Steve Larmer is better than a 1-way Carbonneau who wasn't even invited to camp. Not a "need-to-have" guy.

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 02:29 PM
  #111
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Datsyuk, Bergeron, and Toews all brought offense to the table and ruin your screwdriver analogy. Because unlike Carbs, they're not one-dimensional. Carbo is not Toews. He's Frolik or Bolland. At his best he's about as valuable Mikko Koivu.
Nice hatchet job. Is a franchise leading 27 career leading short handed goals "one dimensional"? Coming out of Junior, your talking about a player who racked up 435 points in 273 games, 171 of which were goals. Back then when Drafted by the Habs you apprenticed, Guy learning the defensive game in Nova Scotia, finishing school with the big club.

He potentially couldve become a sort of next Guy Lafleur, had the wheels, the soft hands & hockey IQ to do so, but he decided to become the next Bob Gainey instead, putting team first. In 20 post season games, in addition to shutting down the big guns, always out there on 5-4 or 5-3's, scores 7X's for 12pts in total, a not unimpressive stat. 2X Selke runner-up, 3X winner. Then theres the "ex-Hab Factor" in Dallas in 1999. Gainey & Carbonneau etc. Heres what Mike Modano had to say about that;

Theres a lasting effect on people who learned how to play the game for the old Montreal Canadiens teams. Theres the tradition of winning, attitude. It carries over wherever they go. It gets in your blood and it trickles down to everyone else around them. The experience, the values theyve learned rub off on you. How to be unselfish, to be patient, to play with passion....

Guy Carbonneau belongs, has earned his place in the HHOF. Dastyuk for sure has, Toews well on his way to getting there.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 03:17 PM
  #112
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
I want Begeron and Toews on Team Canada (Datsyuk has the wrong passport). Carbonneau was never invited to Team Canada, not even the defensively-focused 1991 team. Because a 2-way Steve Larmer is better than a 1-way Carbonneau who wasn't even invited to camp. Not a "need-to-have" guy.
this has been discussed before, but two factors here:

1. keenan consistently went with guys he knew: crossman in '87 over any number of better guys (macinnis, stevens, wilson, reinhart, etc.); dirk graham in the defensive specialist role in '91, hawerchuk over yzerman in the same year.

2. carbonneau, as a defensive center, was never really competing with larmer, who was a two-way winger. nor was he really competing with graham, also a winger. if carbonneau was considered for a spot on that team, it would have been brent sutter's spot-- sutter was, of course, a keenan guy from the '87 team, and a guy he loved and whom he acquired in chicago soon after the CC tournament ended.


but those are just details. i think the main thing to address is that we're not really debating how good guy carbonneau was here. i think most of us are pretty close to accurately gauging what carbonneau was (a pure defensive center who was the best of his generation at that role); whether peca or lehtinen or craig ramsay were as good as him, or whether they were close, or whether it's even a fair comparison between lehtinen and ramsay (wingers, more offense) and carbonneau is pretty small potatoes at this point in the discussion. the real crux here is our criteria for HHOF induction.

blogogmike, judging from your roenick comparison, you seem to be hinging a lot (maybe everything) on a specific definition of value that i don't think is as universal or self-evident as you think it is. if i'm starting a team, of course i'd rather have prime jeremy roenick than carbonneau. in an absolute my-roster-is-a-blank-slate sense, a center who can crack the top 30 in scoring while also providing very good but sub-selke-level defense (say, philly-era brind'amour or vinnie damphousse or prime linden) is almost certainly more valuable than the very best pure defensive center.

but what i want to suggest, and what i think C1958 is getting at, is that just ranking the top 150-odd players and saying "that's the cut off" might not be the ideal way to gauge a player's HHOF candidacy. relative to how a team works, i think winning teams need to have specialists, and i think the very best of the specialists deserve to be remembered over your jack-of-all-trades-great-at-none-type players. which is to say that i specifically disagree with your argument that you could exchange carbonneau from the '93 habs team for a lesser defensive player who put up more points (say, a second damphousse) and still get the same or better results. within the context of a championship team, or at least within the context of that championship team, having carbonneau there are your defensive horse was very important. i haven't seen any icetime figures, but i wouldn't be surprised that there were many games in that run where carbonneau, and not muller or damphousse, had the highest icetime among centers. did carbonneau "single-handedly" shut down gretzky? of course not; of course muller, odelein, keaner, and many other players played important roles. picking on that "single-handedly" line, wherever it came from, replaces the issue with a straw man. was carbonneau by far the most important non-goalie in that series from a stopping-gretzky standpoint? that's the real issue.

and the bigger issue, in my mind, is whether carbonneau's pure defensive game was replaceable. i don't think it was, anymore than you couldn't replace tikkanen for a higher scoring but less tenacious winger on those oilers teams (say, a LW version of steve larmer). and, following that logic, and thinking about a more nuanced set of criteria for the HHOF, a guy like roenick (and i was a fan of his) is dime-a-dozen; ditto damphousse, brind'amour, nieuwendyk, and countless other scoring centers with above-average-to-very good defensive games. carbonneau was a unique and special player; neely was a unique and special player; theo fleury was a unique and special player; claude lemieux, bure, gilmour, you get the point. if the HHOF is, as i think it should be, about remembering remarkable moments and figures in the game's history as opposed to just "objectively" ranking the best players of all time, carbonneau belongs.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 03:44 PM
  #113
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,825
vCash: 500
1992 Hawks

Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Those bolded guys are all better than Carbonneau. They are defensively strong and produce offense.

Jeremy Roenick was not a one-dimensional player. He was a very good defensive player who's kind of like a poor man's Toews. Not that Toews would have a lot of fun with Mario Lemieux circa 1992. If Roenick had Patrick Roy and two centres ahead of him who were better than him, Chicago would have been a little better off too.

Few teams win Cups without solid defensive guys, but it's just as true that few teams win without players who can score goals. We can't just take it for granted that Muller/Damphousse will score goals because it's their job. The value of a two-way centre who can score goals should easily eclipse the value of a checking centre who doesn't, because even if he's great at being a 1-way checking centre the actual value provided over an average 1-way checking centre is marginal.

And I understand why DF doesn't like me saying Carbonneau was a 2nd/3rd liner, but what am I supposed to do when confronted with Cup Counting to say 2nd/3rd liners are better than first liners? Is Henri Richard > Beliveau? No! (Although again, Richard provided offense, unlike Carbs. Perhaps you want to compare Ralph Backstrom?)



Sure, if by "reduce the effectiveness" you mean the #1 centre scored at the exact same rate. The series was won even though Gretzky scored at the same pace. When he was off the ice the Kings were less effective, as non-Gretzky Kings goals dropped from 12 in 7 games vs Toronto to 5 in 5 games vs Montreal. When you're stuck producing >50% of your team's offense while playing ~35% of the minutes, you have issues with your teammates not the opposition's 3rd best centre.

And they're not construction tools, they are hockey players who have to perform multiple functions. Even we did use the construction tool analogy, the DatsyukDriver is a comparable screwdriver to the CarboDriver model, and Dats also functions as a very good hammer. So he is much more valuable than the screwdriver who is only a screwdriver like David Backes or Jay McClement.

Datsyuk, Bergeron, and Toews all brought offense to the table and ruin your screwdriver analogy. Because unlike Carbs, they're not one-dimensional. Carbo is not Toews. He's Frolik or Bolland. At his best he's about as valuable Mikko Koivu.

I want Begeron and Toews on Team Canada (Datsyuk has the wrong passport). Carbonneau was never invited to Team Canada, not even the defensively-focused 1991 team. Because a 2-way Steve Larmer is better than a 1-way Carbonneau who wasn't even invited to camp. Not a "need-to-have" guy.
Your appreciation of the 1992 Blackhawks is rather unique. Compared to the 1993 Canadiens we have in goal Ed Belfour and Dominik Hasek vs Patrick Roy and Andre Racicot. Dmen Hawks were led by Chris Chelios, Canadiens by Eric Desjardins, edge Chicago. Both teams had one Selke winner - Dirk Graham vs Guy Carbonneau.
Hawks had one high scoring center - Roenick, supported by Brent Sutter at center both were RHS which negated other advantages they may have had since there was a major drop to the third center, Mike Hudson a LHS, so if they needed a LHS center to neutralize/or benefit from Lemieux - RHS, in certain faceoff situations they were seriously handicapped. Canadiens did not have a high end scoring but they had depth and versatility. At least six multiple position forwards and nine that could take faceoffs with a nice RHS/LHS mix.

Yet the Canadiens won in five while the Hawks were swept in four.

You are the one who introduced goal counting into a thread that was about an outstanding defensive center. The litmus test then becomes the object of the game - winning the Stanley Cup as opposed to the Richard Trophy. Roenick while counting more goals won neither.

A few other corrections. Ralph Backstrom was the Canadiens third best defensive center behind Henri Richard and Jean Beliveau. Weaker on faceoffs, less anticipation. He did lead the Canadiens in scoring one season. No comparison to Carbonneau in terms of a best defensive center over a defined twenty season period.

The screwdriver analogy is about being able to properly finish a house or any construction project = winning the SC.Hammers and nails will get you close(the elite scorers and two way players) but you need the specialty of a screwdriver to put in the locks, doorhandles, electrical fixtures, outlets, etc. Try adapting hammers for such jobs.

Up 4-1 with 10 minutes to go in game 7 who do you choose Guy Carbonneau or a first line center(using modern terminology) like Tyler Bozak as your need to have player?


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 07-27-2013 at 03:51 PM.
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 04:46 PM
  #114
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Your appreciation of the 1992 Blackhawks is rather unique. Compared to the 1993 Canadiens we have in goal Ed Belfour and Dominik Hasek vs Patrick Roy and Andre Racicot. Dmen Hawks were led by Chris Chelios, Canadiens by Eric Desjardins, edge Chicago. Both teams had one Selke winner - Dirk Graham vs Guy Carbonneau.
Hawks had one high scoring center - Roenick, supported by Brent Sutter at center both were RHS which negated other advantages they may have had since there was a major drop to the third center, Mike Hudson a LHS, so if they needed a LHS center to neutralize/or benefit from Lemieux - RHS, in certain faceoff situations they were seriously handicapped. Canadiens did not have a high end scoring but they had depth and versatility. At least six multiple position forwards and nine that could take faceoffs with a nice RHS/LHS mix.

Yet the Canadiens won in five while the Hawks were swept in four.

You are the one who introduced goal counting into a thread that was about an outstanding defensive center. The litmus test then becomes the object of the game - winning the Stanley Cup as opposed to the Richard Trophy. Roenick while counting more goals won neither.

A few other corrections. Ralph Backstrom was the Canadiens third best defensive center behind Henri Richard and Jean Beliveau. Weaker on faceoffs, less anticipation. He did lead the Canadiens in scoring one season. No comparison to Carbonneau in terms of a best defensive center over a defined twenty season period.

The screwdriver analogy is about being able to properly finish a house or any construction project = winning the SC.Hammers and nails will get you close(the elite scorers and two way players) but you need the specialty of a screwdriver to put in the locks, doorhandles, electrical fixtures, outlets, etc. Try adapting hammers for such jobs.

Up 4-1 with 10 minutes to go in game 7 who do you choose Guy Carbonneau or a first line center(using modern terminology) like Tyler Bozak as your need to have player?
Carbonneau actually having won a Cup doesn't mean he was superior to a legitimate two-way player who didn't. Carbonneau being traded to Chicago to be their 3rd line centre doesn't stop Pittsburgh from winning a Cup in 1992.

Many "houses" were finished without a Selke winner as a third line centre, and merely having Carbonneau on your team was no guarantee of team success. Many defensive centres have shown an ability to be effective on the other end of the ice as well.

Up 4-1 the difference between a Carbonneau and Bozak is negligible. After all, it's not like Carbonneau was guaranteed to prevent a goal. (Although everyone should admit Carbonneau is best in situations where you can take goals for granted.) Really the best thing to hope for when up 4-1 is that the best forward on the other team is Guy Carbonneau, because a legitimate 2-way player like Patrice Bergeron might cause problems.

Given Bergeron's superior offense and the fact that Crosby was ACTUALLY shut down (0 Crosby points vs 7 for Gretzky), I can't see why anyone would want a peak Carbonneau over a 2013 Bergeron. But again, we're choosing between a first line player and a 2nd/3rd liner.

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 05:23 PM
  #115
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
blogogmike, judging from your roenick comparison, you seem to be hinging a lot (maybe everything) on a specific definition of value that i don't think is as universal or self-evident as you think it is. if i'm starting a team, of course i'd rather have prime jeremy roenick than carbonneau. in an absolute my-roster-is-a-blank-slate sense, a center who can crack the top 30 in scoring while also providing very good but sub-selke-level defense (say, philly-era brind'amour or vinnie damphousse or prime linden) is almost certainly more valuable than the very best pure defensive center.

but what i want to suggest, and what i think C1958 is getting at, is that just ranking the top 150-odd players and saying "that's the cut off" might not be the ideal way to gauge a player's HHOF candidacy. relative to how a team works, i think winning teams need to have specialists, and i think the very best of the specialists deserve to be remembered over your jack-of-all-trades-great-at-none-type players. which is to say that i specifically disagree with your argument that you could exchange carbonneau from the '93 habs team for a lesser defensive player who put up more points (say, a second damphousse) and still get the same or better results. within the context of a championship team, or at least within the context of that championship team, having carbonneau there are your defensive horse was very important. i haven't seen any icetime figures, but i wouldn't be surprised that there were many games in that run where carbonneau, and not muller or damphousse, had the highest icetime among centers. did carbonneau "single-handedly" shut down gretzky? of course not; of course muller, odelein, keaner, and many other players played important roles. picking on that "single-handedly" line, wherever it came from, replaces the issue with a straw man. was carbonneau by far the most important non-goalie in that series from a stopping-gretzky standpoint? that's the real issue.
Making a case for Carbonneau getting in because the HHOF wants to recognize that defense is important is the best argument.

Quote:
and the bigger issue, in my mind, is whether carbonneau's pure defensive game was replaceable. i don't think it was, anymore than you couldn't replace tikkanen for a higher scoring but less tenacious winger on those oilers teams (say, a LW version of steve larmer). and, following that logic, and thinking about a more nuanced set of criteria for the HHOF, a guy like roenick (and i was a fan of his) is dime-a-dozen; ditto damphousse, brind'amour, nieuwendyk, and countless other scoring centers with above-average-to-very good defensive games. carbonneau was a unique and special player; neely was a unique and special player; theo fleury was a unique and special player; claude lemieux, bure, gilmour, you get the point. if the HHOF is, as i think it should be, about remembering remarkable moments and figures in the game's history as opposed to just "objectively" ranking the best players of all time, carbonneau belongs.
Building a team full of similar players is probably going to limit your success regardless of the role, but Carbonneau excelled at the most replaceable role. Finding solid defensive forwards is easier than other roles. And what's the difference in team GA after 80 games by playing Carbonneau vs playing a non-Selke winner like Peter Zezel?

Carbonneau was on a few Cup winners, but is his role more worthy of recognition than a Butch Goring?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Nice hatchet job. Is a franchise leading 27 career leading short handed goals "one dimensional"? Coming out of Junior, your talking about a player who racked up 435 points in 273 games, 171 of which were goals. Back then when Drafted by the Habs you apprenticed, Guy learning the defensive game in Nova Scotia, finishing school with the big club.
Thanks! I'm judging his pro performance. Lots of pros were offensive stars before the NHL. And the SHG total is good, but doesn't distinguish him from a Dave Poulin who built up better SHG totals. The franchise record part is trivia, and may have to do with guys like Beliveau, Henri Richard, and Guy Lafleur not seeing much PK time. Also with 544 goals for Rocket Richard, there may be 27 shorties in there.


Last edited by blogofmike: 07-27-2013 at 07:05 PM.
blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 05:38 PM
  #116
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,649
vCash: 500
^^^ that last quote in your post there mike?, not mine. Important it be ascribed to the author. Thanking you in advance for your attention to & correction of that omission, administrative issue. Edit & fixee upee plz... Now, as for your response to my post, your welcome. Like I said, nice hatchet job. I do enjoy lookin at chainsaw art from time-time. Obviously I dont agree with your assertions & suggestions, comparisons but hey, your entitled to your opinions. If we all agreed on everything pretty boring World.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 06:18 PM
  #117
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,825
vCash: 500
Not the Issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Carbonneau actually having won a Cup doesn't mean he was superior to a legitimate two-way player who didn't. Carbonneau being traded to Chicago to be their 3rd line centre doesn't stop Pittsburgh from winning a Cup in 1992.

Many "houses" were finished without a Selke winner as a third line centre, and merely having Carbonneau on your team was no guarantee of team success. Many defensive centres have shown an ability to be effective on the other end of the ice as well.

Up 4-1 the difference between a Carbonneau and Bozak is negligible. After all, it's not like Carbonneau was guaranteed to prevent a goal. (Although everyone should admit Carbonneau is best in situations where you can take goals for granted.) Really the best thing to hope for when up 4-1 is that the best forward on the other team is Guy Carbonneau, because a legitimate 2-way player like Patrice Bergeron might cause problems.

Given Bergeron's superior offense and the fact that Crosby was ACTUALLY shut down (0 Crosby points vs 7 for Gretzky), I can't see why anyone would want a peak Carbonneau over a 2013 Bergeron. But again, we're choosing between a first line player and a 2nd/3rd liner.
Real issue is whether Guy Carbonneau is HHOF worthy not whether he is superior to a flavour of the month scoring center.

You missed the the Carbonneau / Bozak analogy. Neither played in game 7 of the Leafs / Bruins series in 2013. Leaf center with the most minutes was Mikhail Grabovski, an offensive center with little defense.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/boxs...305130BOS.html

Your Carbonneau / Bergeron comparison is interesting. Did you fact check your claim before submitting it? Rather important to do so.

You are stuck with the claim that Bergeron is a #1 center and your assertion that Carbonneau is mainly a #3 center. To date Patrice Bergeron has played 579 regular season games with a 0.75PPG result:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...bergepa01.html

Guy Carbonneau in his first 622 NHL regular season generated app. 0.67PPG:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...carbogu01.html

As a first line center Patrice Bergeron sees more PP time plus at ES and on the PP he plays with better offensive players.Evidenced by Bergeron's PP numbers to date 46G and 90A = 136 PTS. Slighly more than 33 1/3% of Bergeron's offense comes from the PP. Conversely at roughly the same point of his career Carbonneau had 6G and 14A = 20PTS on the PP or less than 5% of Carbonneau offensive numbers were the result of PP opportunities..

So now the key question which center Guy Carbonneau or Patrice Bergeron produced more offense at ES? Answer is rather obvious = Guy Carbonneau.

Your characterization of Guy Carbonneau as a third line defensive center with no offensive skills is simply wrong. He had better ES offensive skills than Patrice Bergeron while surrounded with lesser offensive talent and confined to greater defensive responsibilities.

Guy Carbonneau is a definite HHOFer while Patrice Bergeron is a possibility. Hopefully his defense and ES offense improves to Guy Carbonneau levels.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 06:39 PM
  #118
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Your characterization of Guy Carbonneau as a third line defensive center with no offensive skills is simply wrong.
Yes I agree that such characterizations and assumptions are wholly incorrect. Why people discount a players amateur & junior career without giving some time to consider, pause for thought as to why they then seemed to veer left when everything appeared to be going right or up the centre, how they'd innately played, issues of hockey IQ and how they were so obviously thinking the game, which organization drafted. All kinds of factors. Taken in totality, Carbonneau was so effective a defensive Centre as clearly he understood the offensive game himself and was beyond capable of excelling within that milieu, if ever typecast to be so straight out of Jr., but instead, got lucky, winds up with les Canadiens. Alters his game. Re-invents himself. Still thinks like a 60+ goal scorer, able to ameliorate, neuter the the best the opposition can throw at him including Gretzky & Lemieux. The best of his generation over 20yrs. I mean c'mon here. Really not even debatable.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 08:19 PM
  #119
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
^^^ that last quote in your post there mike?, not mine. Important it be ascribed to the author. Thanking you in advance for your attention to & correction of that omission, administrative issue. Edit & fixee upee plz... Now, as for your response to my post, your welcome. Like I said, nice hatchet job. I do enjoy lookin at chainsaw art from time-time. Obviously I dont agree with your assertions & suggestions, comparisons but hey, your entitled to your opinions. If we all agreed on everything pretty boring World.
Whoops. Hopefully fixed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Real issue is whether Guy Carbonneau is HHOF worthy not whether he is superior to a flavour of the month scoring center.
Then why not ask whether you'd want Carbonneau over an HHOF-worthy player? Someone like an Adam Oates who had issues making the Hall.

Quote:
You missed the the Carbonneau / Bozak analogy. Neither played in game 7 of the Leafs / Bruins series in 2013. Leaf center with the most minutes was Mikhail Grabovski, an offensive center with little defense.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/boxs...305130BOS.html
Why keep drawing the line with players like Bozak and Jarvis? They're not HHOF-calibre. I'd take Peter Zezel over Bozak to defend a lead. Doesn't mean we should enshrine him.

Quote:
Your Carbonneau / Bergeron comparison is interesting. Did you fact check your claim before submitting it? Rather important to do so.

You are stuck with the claim that Bergeron is a #1 center and your assertion that Carbonneau is mainly a #3 center. To date Patrice Bergeron has played 579 regular season games with a 0.75PPG result:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...bergepa01.html

Guy Carbonneau in his first 622 NHL regular season generated app. 0.67PPG:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...carbogu01.html
So we're judging Carbonneau by raw point totals from the 1980s. You do know by this method Dale Hawerchuk is leaps and bounds ahead of Gordie Howe.

But hey, you got me. In Guy Carbonneau's highest scoring Selke season he was the offensive equivalent of Dave Ellett. Actually Guy is slightly behind him since Ellett played fewer games, but close enough.

Quote:
As a first line center Patrice Bergeron sees more PP time plus at ES and on the PP he plays with better offensive players.Evidenced by Bergeron's PP numbers to date 46G and 90A = 136 PTS. Slighly more than 33 1/3% of Bergeron's offense comes from the PP. Conversely at roughly the same point of his career Carbonneau had 6G and 14A = 20PTS on the PP or less than 5% of Carbonneau offensive numbers were the result of PP opportunities..

So now the key question which center Guy Carbonneau or Patrice Bergeron produced more offense at ES? Answer is rather obvious = Guy Carbonneau.

Your characterization of Guy Carbonneau as a third line defensive center with no offensive skills is simply wrong. He had better ES offensive skills than Patrice Bergeron while surrounded with lesser offensive talent and confined to greater defensive responsibilities.

Guy Carbonneau is a definite HHOFer while Patrice Bergeron is a possibility. Hopefully his defense and ES offense improves to Guy Carbonneau levels.
Not playing on the PP is a sign he wasn't that great offensively. It's not like Pat Burns ever said Doug Gilmour couldn't have a defensive role and play on the PP.

At his best, Carbonneau never was close to the team scoring leader (I believe 10 ES points back of Naslund in 89 is his best), barely cracked the top 100 in points (T93 in 1989, T99 in 1986) and I don't think he ever made the top 100 in PPG. In spite of Boston rolling lines and not giving him first line minutes, Bergeron has managed to beat Carbonneau in every one of those regards.

Furthermore, Bergeron was possibly the best player on a Cup finalist. I don't think Carbonneau was ever a Conn Smythe contender.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Still thinks like a 60+ goal scorer, able to ameliorate, neuter the the best the opposition can throw at him including Gretzky & Lemieux. The best of his generation over 20yrs. I mean c'mon here. Really not even debatable.
In reality both Gretzky and Lemieux were around 2 PPG against the Habs, when Carbo played, during 88-89 to 91-92 (his Selke era). So if by "neuter" you mean "held to their usual scoring levels that only Gretzky and Lemieux have ever achieved" then sure. I hate to see the verb used for Crosby vs the Bruins.

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 08:47 PM
  #120
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Id hate to see the verb used for Crosby vs the Bruins.
You probably would. An adjective. No verbs involved... and I see you played the Peter Zezel card for the 2nd time. Graduate of my old alma mater, the Don Mills Flyers. After my time but sure, a decent player. How you can compare him to Guy Carbonneau I have no idea. Love to be able to stick up for someone who wore the orange, black & white with red dot but know what? Not seeing it. Don Mills produced one hell of a lot of great players over the years, Rick Tocchet, John Madden, Behn Wilson, Larry Murphy & Kirk McLean amongst others, but Peter Zezel, sorry, not in the same class as Guy Carbonneau and that pains me to have to admit such, but better we be honest than revisionist.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 09:31 PM
  #121
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 17,994
vCash: 500
Carbonneau belongs in the same breath as a Langway: defensively elite but offensively challenged.

Langway went into the Hall in 2002. Carbonneau in 2014!

A defensive forward is no less worthy than a defensive defenseman.

Harvey Pulford is in the Hall for being a premiere defensive defenseman for the early era dynasty Ottawa Silver Seven. Bob Gainey was elected to the Hall in 1992 despite never being top-10 in goals, assists or points.

Elect Carbo before the generations after him overlook his greatness because of the intangibles of the role.



In the all-time drafts on the ATD sub-board of the HfBoards he goes about exactly where he belongs, in terms of value to a team:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATD 2013
Round 8

225 Johnny Engine - Yekaterinburg Automobilist - Si Griffis, D
226 JFA87-66-99 - Pittsburgh Bankers - Herb Gardiner, D
227 BillyShoe1721 - Philadelphia Flyers - Lionel Hitchman, D
228 MadArcand - Hartford Whalers - Theo Fleury, RW
229 TheDevilMadeMe - New Jersey Swamp Devils - Daniel Alfredsson, RW
230 Hawkey Town 18 - Chicago Shamrocks - Paul Thompson, LW
231. vecens24 & Dreakmur - Mystery Alaskans - Sergei Gonchar, D
232 BubbaBoot - Boston Mules - Claude Provost, RW
233 EagleBelfour & DaveG - Les Nordiques de Québec - Rick Martin, LW
234 Darth Yoda - Viking Maniacs - Guy Carbonneau, C
235 nik jr. - University of Alaska Nanooks - Ott Heller, D
236 overpass & bluesfan94 - Ottawa Senators - Marian Hossa, RW
237 ck26 - Dallas Black Hawks - Jere Lehtinen, LW/RW
238 Dwight - West Island Lions - Bob Baun, D
239 vecens24 & Dreakmur - Mystery Alaskans - Russell Bowie - C
240 BraveCanadian - Guelph Platers - Rod Brind'Amour - C/LW
241 tony d - Baltimore Blades - Red Horner - D
242 monster_bertuzzi - Vancouver Millionares - Gordon Keats, C
243 jkrx & KingForsberg - Philadelphia Firebirds - Esa Tikkanen, LW/RW
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/fo...play.php?f=181

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 10:43 PM
  #122
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,825
vCash: 500
Comparables

Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Carbonneau belongs in the same breath as a Langway: defensively elite but offensively challenged.

Langway went into the Hall in 2002. Carbonneau in 2014!

A defensive forward is no less worthy than a defensive defenseman.

Harvey Pulford is in the Hall for being a premiere defensive defenseman for the early era dynasty Ottawa Silver Seven. Bob Gainey was elected to the Hall in 1992 despite never being top-10 in goals, assists or points.

Elect Carbo before the generations after him overlook his greatness because of the intangibles of the role.



In the all-time drafts on the ATD sub-board of the HfBoards he goes about exactly where he belongs, in terms of value to a team:


http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/fo...play.php?f=181
Rod Langway showed definite offensive skills with the Canadiens - 5 PP goals and 12 PTS one season:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...langwro01.html

Similar to Scott Stevens in NJ starting with the 1994-95 season. Stevens' role changed as did the Devils success.

Their is an presumption that a team or a coach has to play a player in certain roles for the player to be considered capable of specific attributes. Prime example being Henri Richard. Great defensive center yet he hardly ever played on the PK. Zero SH goals in the last 12 seasons of his career.Previously the stat was not tracked. Not how the Canadiens played defense in SH situations. Yet this in no way detracts from Richard as a defensive player. Just optimized his TOI in key ES situations.Likewise for Langway, Stevens, Carbonneau.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 10:59 PM
  #123
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Rod Langway showed definite offensive skills with the Canadiens... Similar to Scott Stevens in NJ starting with the 1994-95 season. Stevens' role changed as did the Devils success.
He did, but he wasnt schooled properly. Scott Stevens same. Insofar as Im concerned forever an asterisk beside his name. Dozens of them. Carbo the last of a Generation. When things were actually done properly. Players you know, "developed". Whats followed pathetic. Beyond pathetic.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 11:12 PM
  #124
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Nice hatchet job. Is a franchise leading 27 career leading short handed goals "one dimensional"? Coming out of Junior, your talking about a player who racked up 435 points in 273 games, 171 of which were goals. Back then when Drafted by the Habs you apprenticed, Guy learning the defensive game in Nova Scotia, finishing school with the big club.
Part of this is true but it's also true that many players racked up huge points in the Q whenguy was there.

Quote:
He potentially couldve become a sort of next Guy Lafleur, had the wheels, the soft hands & hockey IQ to do so, but he decided to become the next Bob Gainey instead, putting team first.
I admire your passion but could have been the next guy Lafleur? Come on now.

That's a huge stretch with little to support it iMO.

Quote:
In 20 post season games, in addition to shutting down the big guns, always out there on 5-4 or 5-3's, scores 7X's for 12pts in total, a not unimpressive stat.
Let's also put it into context as he wasn't a lone wolf out there in terms of defensive play.

Bob Gainey was still a very serviceable 32. On the back end some guy named Larry (34) still patrolled and another young upstart named Chris (24) wasn't have bad himself.

Oh ya some guy named Patrick was starting his legacy of possibly being the best playoff goalie of all time as well.

Quote:
2X Selke runner-up, 3X winner. Then theres the "ex-Hab Factor" in Dallas in 1999. Gainey & Carbonneau etc. Heres what Mike Modano had to say about that;

Theres a lasting effect on people who learned how to play the game for the old Montreal Canadiens teams. Theres the tradition of winning, attitude. It carries over wherever they go. It gets in your blood and it trickles down to everyone else around them. The experience, the values theyve learned rub off on you. How to be unselfish, to be patient, to play with passion....
No doubt Guy provided leadership to that team but let's not exaggerate his role on that Dallas team winning the SC either here.

In terms of actual importance and value and contribution to that Dallas team winning the SC is there even a reasonable argument for Guy being the 10th most important factor or player on that team?

Quote:
Guy Carbonneau belongs, has earned his place in the HHOF. Dastyuk for sure has, Toews well on his way to getting there.
My bet is that the other 2 guys get in and guy needs to buy a ticket a very good player he was but the HHOF should be a special place.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 11:38 PM
  #125
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
In terms of actual importance and value and contribution to that Dallas team winning the SC is there even a reasonable argument for Guy being the 10th most important factor or player on that team?
Thats pretty harsh Hv. Here you have a player that straddles the 06 & 70's Habs & you & your generation are still, STILL tearing him apart? I dont know what to say to you, but if thats genuinely the way ya'll feel?

Killion 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 05:34 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.