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.

Gilmour compared to Clarke

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-18-2013, 01:10 PM
  #101
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 24,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
You have provided zero evidence of his defensive game in junior being the primary factor of his making that Flyer team, mainly because most guys and teams just played all out offensive back then in junior.
Hv, Im not sure youve got the right end of the stick here. When Clarke was playing Jr. ya he was a playmaker, offensively talented, but like all players who came up through the 60's defensively responsible, he excelling at both ends, forcing turnovers, backchecking. In the 1970's, not so much the late 70's through 80's but earlier in that decade, ya, the Q was indeed a hyper offensively oriented league, reason being that with the breakdown of the old Sponsorship programs, the clubs had to fill seats, sell sponsorship pro-actively, high scoring firewagon hockey the way to do that in the PQ, and so sure, a great many players graduating & Drafted from the early to mid-to-late 70's out of the Q were indeed "defensively challenged". In the OHA & WHL, more of your bruisers, hard rocks, defensively oriented, a culture more of violence actually encouraged to some extent in filling seats. New Westminster Bruins a good example of that philosophy. By the late 70's however, the Q tightened things up, got back to basics, producing more well rounded 2 way players. So no, and the op isnt suggesting that Clarkes defensive game trumped his offensive game, what he's stating is that his defensive game was as solid, one complimenting the other, ham & cheese. It wasnt either or, it was the total package.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2013, 01:13 PM
  #102
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Bobby Clarke did not generate offense of the rush like Denis Savard or Gilbert Perreault did or puck control like Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux did. Bobby Clarke generated offense from his defense - aggressive forecheck, keeping the puck in the opponents zone that were turned into goals. This did not happen suddenly in the NHL but was the result of his junior game.

Trust you can find hilites of Clarke rushing the puck end to end or making tape to tape stretch passes or controlling the puck for stretches while teammates got into positions. Not Clarke's game.

Just like you will not find aggressive forecheck hilites for Gretzky or Lemieux or Savard. Not their game.
Also a very forgotten part of Clarke's game was his ability to set up behind the net. We forget this because Gretzky perfected "his office" better than anyone else. But Gretzky himself has said that his coach would tell him to use the space behind the net the way Clarke did.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2013, 01:20 PM
  #103
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,868
vCash: 500
Exactly

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Also a very forgotten part of Clarke's game was his ability to set up behind the net. We forget this because Gretzky perfected "his office" better than anyone else. But Gretzky himself has said that his coach would tell him to use the space behind the net the way Clarke did.
Exactly.

Clarke from an aggressive forecheck turnover would use the net as a shield or pick to find open teammates. Gretzky would set-up with the puck or use the space behind the net as an unchecked area for teammates to get the puck to him as part of the offensive package..

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2013, 03:10 PM
  #104
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Just like you will not find aggressive forecheck hilites for Gretzky or Lemieux or Savard. Not their game.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFX0dVXNDXw&t=2m56s

Rushes are better highlights, but there's two right here around the 3 minute mark and oddly enough neither involves Jari Kurri who Gretzky used to forecheck with all the time.

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2013, 03:29 PM
  #105
silkyjohnson50*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 9,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galiza_Rules View Post
I have one question, plus minus is not a good statistic and can be misleading comparing between eras and teams, but sometimes can give good information and there is one thing that always bugged me and is Datsyuk -2 in the 2003/04 season. He is the only regular Wing (along Brett Hull -4 and 4th liner Boyd Devereaux -1) to have a negative value. I suppose that they were linemates but who was the other? If he was so good defensively from the first day, was Hull so atrocious defensively that he set back the whole line?
Thank you for your answers
As i've stated, Datsyuk wasn't yet that good defensively at that point in time. Not until post-lockout did he really being to blossom.

Fedorov departed for Anaheim in 03-04, which gave Datsyuk 1st line duties for the first time in his career. Not only was he playing bigger minutes, he was facing tougher competetion. Datsyuk had Hull joined to his hip, and while the two (often with Zetterberg) were magic in the offensive zone, they struggled in the defensive zone. Like I previously stated in the thread, they especially struggled dealing with a cycle, as teams were able to pin them for long stretches.

Datsyuk was on the ice for 66 goals against that year, which is a lot for him. Only in 08-09 was he on the ice for more during his career (08-09 was simply due to Detroit's awful regular season goaltending from Osgood and Conklin; Datsyuk still had a great Corsi and low shots against).

silkyjohnson50* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2013, 03:58 PM
  #106
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country: United States
Posts: 31,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galiza_Rules View Post
I have one question, plus minus is not a good statistic and can be misleading comparing between eras and teams, but sometimes can give good information and there is one thing that always bugged me and is Datsyuk -2 in the 2003/04 season. He is the only regular Wing (along Brett Hull -4 and 4th liner Boyd Devereaux -1) to have a negative value. I suppose that they were linemates but who was the other? If he was so good defensively from the first day, was Hull so atrocious defensively that he set back the whole line?
Thank you for your answers
I think by 2003-04, Zetterberg was getting playing time with Hull and Datsyuk on the second iteration of the Two Kids and a Goat line. (I'll try to find the line pairings, unless beaten to it.) In fact, Hull went on to say he never had more fun as a player than playing with those two and credits them both with the scoring knack he had there at the end. Zetterberg was +15.

Edit: @Silky, explain Z's plus/minus.

But, yes, Hull didn't play defense. He also hated dump-ins, and once to make a point to Lewis who wanted more dump & chase hockey, on a 2-on-1 situation, pulled up before the blue line and dumped the puck in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post

Sean Avery made the same Red Wing team so it was not very difficult for a rookie either.
Avery was used on the 4th line as an agitator, energy guy. They like having 1-2 of these types of players around (Drake, Tootoo, Abdelkader more recent examples).


Quote:
Yet Pavel Datsyuk was drafted in the 6th round, overlooked by Russian hockey for WJC teams, passed at least 5 times by most NHL teams including the Red Wings.

So effectively this international pool reflects the residue of many missed evaluations by European and NHL scouts/evaluators. Especially true for the drafts from the 1990s.
There's an interesting story about Datsyuk and scouting. No other NHL team had actually seen him play after Hakan Andersson made it out. The story is that a St. Louis scout was spotted by Andersson on the same flight one day, but the flight was canceled. The St Louis bloke either didn't have time to go the next day, or figured it wasn't worth it, but Andersson kept the date, something having intrigued him enough to do it. They also knew no one else was looking at him, hence the 6th round selection. He was described as very scrawny. In fact, during his prospect camp, Holland was asking if "that skinny kid" was supposed to be this much touted Russian kid, not convinced the guy could get big enough to play in the NHL. The team had the prospects doing shoot-out scrimmages, and well, Dats kind of convinced everyone after that there 'might' be something there.

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2013, 04:04 PM
  #107
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country: United States
Posts: 31,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silkyjohnson50 View Post
As i've stated, Datsyuk wasn't yet that good defensively at that point in time. Not until post-lockout did he really being to blossom.

Fedorov departed for Anaheim in 03-04, which gave Datsyuk 1st line duties for the first time in his career. Not only was he playing bigger minutes, he was facing tougher competetion. Datsyuk had Hull joined to his hip, and while the two (often with Zetterberg) were magic in the offensive zone, they struggled in the defensive zone. Like I previously stated in the thread, they especially struggled dealing with a cycle, as teams were able to pin them for long stretches.

Datsyuk was on the ice for 66 goals against that year, which is a lot for him. Only in 08-09 was he on the ice for more during his career (08-09 was simply due to Detroit's awful regular season goaltending from Osgood and Conklin; Datsyuk still had a great Corsi and low shots against).

There's something else going on, Silky. Dats was +26 in 2005-06, at roughly 18 min/gm, which is comparable to the 2003-04 season.

In 2002-03, he was +20 with 15:27 min/gm.

That's a weird kinda blossoming to me.

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2013, 04:36 PM
  #108
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 24,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
That's a weird kinda blossoming to me....
He has that fairly rare & innate ability to hang on to the puck for a lot longer than normal, draw players to him then beat them either himself or with a break out pass to a team mate left unchecked. In comparison to Bobby Clarke superior in that regard, a lot more creative. Clarke would release the puck a lot sooner. Not nearly the puck carrier thats Datsyuk.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2013, 05:28 PM
  #109
silkyjohnson50*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 9,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
There's something else going on, Silky. Dats was +26 in 2005-06, at roughly 18 min/gm, which is comparable to the 2003-04 season.

In 2002-03, he was +20 with 15:27 min/gm.

That's a weird kinda blossoming to me.
Datsyuk was a strong + player in 02-03 because he had Fedorov and Draper taken on most defensive responsibilities against top lines. The Z-Datsyuk-Hull line was able to play a prominently offensive role.

When Fedorov left in 03-04, Datsyuk became the #1 center and was now playing minutes and competetion that he hadn't yet seen. Draper was still playing the checking role, but Fedorov wasn't there to form the 1-2 defensive punch. Thus Datsyuk's line spent more time in the defensive zone and gave up more goals.

05-06 was the beginning of the defensive blossoming. This was 2 years since 03-04 so he had grown both physically and in knowledge since he now understood what playing tougher minutes was like (from 03-04). He still wasn't elite, but he was now above average defensively. I think the new rules also helped since his skill level allowed him to play a defensive game that most could not. The following year was he real coming out party defensively though. That's when he became the disruptive machine.

silkyjohnson50* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2013, 07:20 PM
  #110
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country: United States
Posts: 31,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silkyjohnson50 View Post
Datsyuk was a strong + player in 02-03 because he had Fedorov and Draper taken on most defensive responsibilities against top lines. The Z-Datsyuk-Hull line was able to play a prominently offensive role.

When Fedorov left in 03-04, Datsyuk became the #1 center and was now playing minutes and competetion that he hadn't yet seen. Draper was still playing the checking role, but Fedorov wasn't there to form the 1-2 defensive punch. Thus Datsyuk's line spent more time in the defensive zone and gave up more goals.

05-06 was the beginning of the defensive blossoming. This was 2 years since 03-04 so he had grown both physically and in knowledge since he now understood what playing tougher minutes was like (from 03-04). He still wasn't elite, but he was now above average defensively. I think the new rules also helped since his skill level allowed him to play a defensive game that most could not. The following year was he real coming out party defensively though. That's when he became the disruptive machine.

I think that's only part of the story. I think Hull was a year further along in age, declining, while Zetterberg and Dats were ascending overall. Yzerman played nearly the entire season, 75 GP, +10, 17:32 TOI/G; in 2005-06, was really a shadow of himself (61 GP, 12-13 TOI/G). Lang was acquired at the deadline in 2003-04, btw, ostensibly as the Fedorov replacement.

May be that the entire team was trying to adjust to Feds' departure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
He has that fairly rare & innate ability to hang on to the puck for a lot longer than normal, draw players to him then beat them either himself or with a break out pass to a team mate left unchecked. In comparison to Bobby Clarke superior in that regard, a lot more creative. Clarke would release the puck a lot sooner. Not nearly the puck carrier thats Datsyuk.

I don't think I've ever seen someone shape-shift like him either.

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2013, 07:58 PM
  #111
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 24,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I don't think I've ever seen someone shape-shift like him either.
Indeed not. Positively Alien in that regard.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2013, 09:04 PM
  #112
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Bobby Clarke did not generate offense of the rush like Denis Savard or Gilbert Perreault did or puck control like Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux did. Bobby Clarke generated offense from his defense - aggressive forecheck, keeping the puck in the opponents zone that were turned into goals. This did not happen suddenly in the NHL but was the result of his junior game.

Trust you can find hilites of Clarke rushing the puck end to end or making tape to tape stretch passes or controlling the puck for stretches while teammates got into positions. Not Clarke's game.

Just like you will not find aggressive forecheck hilites for Gretzky or Lemieux or Savard. Not their game.
Aggressive foredeck and hitting in the offense zone are generally recognized as offensive type of plays, coming back 200 feet and blocking shots in one's one zone would be a defensive play.

Your interpretation of aggressive forechecking makes is too liberal and makes the terms offensive and defensive play irrelevant.

It's the Gilbert Perrault argument that the best defense is a good offense, and Gilbert was hardly what we call a defensive player.

I've already mentioned that I'm too young to ahve seen Clarke play in junior as I wouldn't be able to remember it but did you travel west to Flin Flon to ever see a Clarke junior game?

Even in his NHL days Clarke was largely a set up guy and not a goal scorer.

Even Trottier, who scored well over 150 more goals than Clarke, is widely known as the same as Clarke and that's as a top defensive center who was a very good playmaker.

Or is Trotts really a goal scorer who Bossy changed as well?

I'm very familiar with the WCJHL in the 70's and the style of play probably didn't change much from when Clarke played.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2013, 09:19 PM
  #113
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Hv, Im not sure youve got the right end of the stick here. When Clarke was playing Jr. ya he was a playmaker, offensively talented, but like all players who came up through the 60's defensively responsible, he excelling at both ends, forcing turnovers, backchecking.
First of all , not all players who came up in the 60's were defensively responsible, I saw lots of those players in the 70's NHL and either they lost what they learned or there is some slight exaggeration going on here between you and C1958.

I didn't see Clarke play in the 60's in junior and I doubt you or C1958 did either but lots of top end junior guys could simply score like crazy because the talent and ability to stop goals in the Western junior hockey leagues wasn't particularity good at that point.

Maybe Clarke was playing the same way in junior but I highly doubt it as he wouldn't need to to get the results he did.

We simply don't have enough evidence to say exactly how far advanced and how much Clarke played defensively in his junior days.

What we do know is that he was an elite offensive player, especially in setting up goals.




Quote:
In the 1970's, not so much the late 70's through 80's but earlier in that decade, ya, the Q was indeed a hyper offensively oriented league, reason being that with the breakdown of the old Sponsorship programs, the clubs had to fill seats, sell sponsorship pro-actively, high scoring firewagon hockey the way to do that in the PQ, and so sure, a great many players graduating & Drafted from the early to mid-to-late 70's out of the Q were indeed "defensively challenged". In the OHA & WHL, more of your bruisers, hard rocks, defensively oriented, a culture more of violence actually encouraged to some extent in filling seats. New Westminster Bruins a good example of that philosophy. By the late 70's however, the Q tightened things up, got back to basics, producing more well rounded 2 way players. So no, and the op isnt suggesting that Clarkes defensive game trumped his offensive game, what he's stating is that his defensive game was as solid, one complimenting the other, ham & cheese. It wasnt either or, it was the total package.
C1958 clearly hinted that Clarke was in the NHL due to his advanced defensive game in the 70 season and that it was better defensively than established defensive stars like Henri and lil Davey Keon and brought up his metric for that POV.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2013, 09:52 PM
  #114
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,868
vCash: 500
Traveling to Flin Flon

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Aggressive foredeck and hitting in the offense zone are generally recognized as offensive type of plays, coming back 200 feet and blocking shots in one's one zone would be a defensive play.

Your interpretation of aggressive forechecking makes is too liberal and makes the terms offensive and defensive play irrelevant.

It's the Gilbert Perrault argument that the best defense is a good offense, and Gilbert was hardly what we call a defensive player.

I've already mentioned that I'm too young to ahve seen Clarke play in junior as I wouldn't be able to remember it but did you travel west to Flin Flon to ever see a Clarke junior game?

Even in his NHL days Clarke was largely a set up guy and not a goal scorer.

Even Trottier, who scored well over 150 more goals than Clarke, is widely known as the same as Clarke and that's as a top defensive center who was a very good playmaker.

Or is Trotts really a goal scorer who Bossy changed as well?

I'm very familiar with the WCJHL in the 70's and the style of play probably didn't change much from when Clarke played.
Defensive play is about being pro active. You do not have to worry about stopping the attack in your zone or blocking shots in your zone if the opportunity to take away the attack or shot is taken away in the neutral zone or up ice.

Ah the travel to Flin Flon argument. Very interesting. Trust you realize that I was Montreal born and based until retiring to a nearby lake community. Trust you also know the history of the NHL annual meetings and NHL Drafts. Held in Montreal from the fifties until about a generation ago.

So why would anyone from Montreal travel to Flin Flon when all the western scouts, hockey management and coaches plus certain players would come to Montreal for the NHL annual meetings. Also Montreal or the province of Quebec hosted all or some of the Memorial Cup games in 1968,1969,1970,1973,1976,1979. with full western representation.Also Montreal featured teams in Quebec and Ontario leagues. Western people were just as curious about eastern hockey as we were about western hockey. Information flowed freely. Contacts have been retained to this day. Just a "send" away.

So what was missed in Flin Flon?

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2013, 10:24 PM
  #115
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Defensive play is about being pro active. You do not have to worry about stopping the attack in your zone or blocking shots in your zone if the opportunity to take away the attack or shot is taken away in the neutral zone or up ice.

Ah the travel to Flin Flon argument. Very interesting. Trust you realize that I was Montreal born and based until retiring to a nearby lake community. Trust you also know the history of the NHL annual meetings and NHL Drafts. Held in Montreal from the fifties until about a generation ago.

So why would anyone from Montreal travel to Flin Flon when all the western scouts, hockey management and coaches plus certain players would come to Montreal for the NHL annual meetings. Also Montreal or the province of Quebec hosted all or some of the Memorial Cup games in 1968,1969,1970,1973,1976,1979. with full western representation.Also Montreal featured teams in Quebec and Ontario leagues. Western people were just as curious about eastern hockey as we were about western hockey. Information flowed freely. Contacts have been retained to this day. Just a "send" away.

So what was missed in Flin Flon?

That's an a lot of words to say that you never saw Clarke play in Flin Flon.

My bet is that you often heard praise and the term can't miss for Western guys you never saw but indeed end up missing as well.

Back to the OP though, someone suggested that Clarke was a top 15 guy of all time and that Gilmour was a top 90ish guy, that really is too much of a gap unless one is really giving credit for Clarke and his 2 Hart's. Unfortunately those that praise Clarke for his Hart's don't lower the level of Orr's legendary status which doesn't square the circle very well.

The problem is that Clarke really only "deserves' 1 Hart, in which Orr was injured, if the criteria for Hart was to remain constant and consistent over time.

I'm already wincing at the "well he won 3 Harts" argument that will be front and center for Calrke in the top 60 centers of all time project when in reality there is very little separating Calrke, Gilmour and Forsberg in terms of overall value their respective careers bring.

Clarke is a bit better defensively than Gilmour and his offensive peak is a little bit better, although Clarke probably never was at the level Doug was in those 2 first Toronto years.

Gilmour has the offensive prime and longevity factor and the definite edge in playoff play as well.

Why, other than looking not very critically at those 3 Harts, would Clarke be in the top 15 and Gilmour 90th?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2013, 01:58 AM
  #116
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Clarke is a bit better defensively than Gilmour and his offensive peak is a little bit better, although Clarke probably never was at the level Doug was in those 2 first Toronto years.

Gilmour has the offensive prime and longevity factor and the definite edge in playoff play as well.

Why, other than looking not very critically at those 3 Harts, would Clarke be in the top 15 and Gilmour 90th?
He had better seasons than either of them. Gilmour has a couple of elite seasons, maybe 3. Forsberg was hurt a lot and didn't string them together like Clarke. Also wasn't as good defensively. Clarke had several good years and Gilmour for whatever reason had some very questionable years in between his good ones. Clarke was simply better for longer than either of these two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
First of all , not all players who came up in the 60's were defensively responsible, I saw lots of those players in the 70's NHL and either they lost what they learned or there is some slight exaggeration going on here between you and C1958.

I didn't see Clarke play in the 60's in junior and I doubt you or C1958 did either but lots of top end junior guys could simply score like crazy because the talent and ability to stop goals in the Western junior hockey leagues wasn't particularity good at that point.

Maybe Clarke was playing the same way in junior but I highly doubt it as he wouldn't need to to get the results he did.

We simply don't have enough evidence to say exactly how far advanced and how much Clarke played defensively in his junior days.

What we do know is that he was an elite offensive player, especially in setting up goals.

C1958 clearly hinted that Clarke was in the NHL due to his advanced defensive game in the 70 season and that it was better defensively than established defensive stars like Henri and lil Davey Keon and brought up his metric for that POV.
It is generally a consensus that Clarke would have won Selkes had the award existed prior to 1978 (although he did win one in 1983). I know that he was playing the way he was known for playing during the 1972 Summit Series. So while I didn't see any of his junior career, it was obvious Clarke was always a strong defensive presence in his NHL career.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2013, 11:46 AM
  #117
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 3,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Forsberg was hurt a lot and didn't string them together like Clarke. Also wasn't as good defensively.
I don't admire Forsberg nearly as much as some here, but you are off here.

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2013, 11:47 AM
  #118
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
I don't admire Forsberg nearly as much as some here, but you are off here.
What's he off about? There's a good argument that Forsberg wasn't even the best defensive center on his own team, let alone the best defensive center of his era like Clarke was

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2013, 12:04 PM
  #119
King Forsberg
21 68 88 16 44 28
 
King Forsberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 5,674
vCash: 500
As a major Forsberg fan I think Forsberg was great defensively but yeah he's not on Clarkes level at all.

King Forsberg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2013, 01:43 PM
  #120
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
I don't admire Forsberg nearly as much as some here, but you are off here.
Off on what? The fact he was injured too much or the fact that he wasn't as strong defensively as Clarke? I've never heard someone suggest that Forsberg had a better career than Clarke, all things considered.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2013, 03:57 PM
  #121
LeBlondeDemon10
BlindLemon Haystacks
 
LeBlondeDemon10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,171
vCash: 500
Another thing about Clarke is that he was able to maintain his ferocious intensity for a longer time than Gilmour. Now Gilmour may have been one of the most intense players I've seen play...for a 2-3 year period. He was just unreal for the Leafs. But I think he burnt out. Carrying the fortunes of that franchise on his back for a couple of years were really hard on him. So much pressure. Clarke did it in a much different environment. Nothing to lose, everything to gain. The fans in Philly really just beginning to embrace hockey in his era. In a city where baseball, football and basketball were first, not to mention college level sports. Plus, Clarke's coach was the level headed Shero. Gilmour had Burns who may be one of the most intense and ferocious coaches in history. He must have been extremely demanding and hard to play for. No wonder players tuned him out after 2-3 years.

LeBlondeDemon10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2013, 04:18 PM
  #122
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 24,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBlondeDemon10 View Post
Another thing about Clarke is that he was able to maintain his ferocious intensity for a longer time than Gilmour. Now Gilmour may have been one of the most intense players I've seen play...for a 2-3 year period. He was just unreal for the Leafs. But I think he burnt out.
Well, Gilmour really broke out & away from the pack in 85/86 with his original team, the St.Louis Blues during that seasons Playoffs. The following season putting some serious numbers, selected to Team Canada 87, arguably the best player in that series. Though somewhat over-shadowed in Calgary, he was a player I paid attention to as certainly enjoyed his intensity & 2 way play, major contributor to the Flames Stanley Cup on a team stacked with 2 way players. After his Contract dispute with Calgary winds up in Toronto and yeah, generation of Leaf fans think he's the Greatest Ever despite the short tenure & in some respects hard not to agree on some levels I suppose. Then we had the 94 Lockout, thereafter neither he (age, injuries) re-gaining full form, organization still & forever flux through the Stavros to Teachers Pension turnover & so on. As great he was however, and me a Leafs fan, Id still go with Bobby Clarke on this one.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2013, 05:49 PM
  #123
LeBlondeDemon10
BlindLemon Haystacks
 
LeBlondeDemon10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Well, Gilmour really broke out & away from the pack in 85/86 with his original team, the St.Louis Blues during that seasons Playoffs. The following season putting some serious numbers, selected to Team Canada 87, arguably the best player in that series. Though somewhat over-shadowed in Calgary, he was a player I paid attention to as certainly enjoyed his intensity & 2 way play, major contributor to the Flames Stanley Cup on a team stacked with 2 way players.
Yeah, I agree. Overshadowed. My dad pointed him out to me when he played for the Flames saying something along the lines of 'he's one helluva hockey player'. However, he never really achieved that number one status on a team until he got to Toronto. He took the bull by the horns for sure. Clarke was number one from day one until he retired.

LeBlondeDemon10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2013, 06:51 PM
  #124
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
What's he off about? There's a good argument that Forsberg wasn't even the best defensive center on his own team, let alone the best defensive center of his era like Clarke was
Sakic wasn't always the Selke candidate he was later in his career.

Also over the same period of time their careers overlapped in the playoffs Foppa was like a plus 47 to Sakic's plus 8 or something.

Plus minus isn't a direct indicator of "defensive" play but overall Foppa was a 200 foot player and every bit, if not more, the force and value as Sakic when he was on the ice.

Foppa actually played in a lot of games but missed NHL regular season time, if we include his international and playoff resume he actually played a lot of hockey.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2013, 07:09 PM
  #125
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBlondeDemon10 View Post
Yeah, I agree. Overshadowed. My dad pointed him out to me when he played for the Flames saying something along the lines of 'he's one helluva hockey player'. However, he never really achieved that number one status on a team until he got to Toronto. He took the bull by the horns for sure. Clarke was number one from day one until he retired.
He also was not really given a shot at that until Toronto, even though he was fully capable of it.

In the 80's, coaches tended to think in terms of offense first and not every coach would let their players double and triple shift(Which was often where a large portion of their scoring came from).

Gilmour was passed up at the draft due to his size, and only went in the second year he was eligible for draft in the 7th round. Had to fight for every second of time he got and had to continually prove himself to disbelievers. Very limited power play time as everyone wanted him out against the other teams top forwards and they wanted him rested(he later proved he could do both in Toronto)

In Calgary, they definitely appreciated him more than St Louis did, but he was still not getting the icetime he deserved(Mostly due to the team being stacked).

Crazy as everyone makes it sound, being the "guy" on a less star filled team is usually a blessing to a player in terms of icetime and numbers.

In Toronto he got to put that team on his back and he made everyone better.

Dark Shadows 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 12:06 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.