Some of you will say Brett Hull because of his 3 70 goal season including an incredible 86goals but for me its Modano thers more to hockey than goals.Mike is an essential part of long term success and stanley cup.Edge goes to Mike its close.I could go into detail why i think Mike is ahead but Ill leave it to others
Tough one for me, Modano being my favorite of all-time but I'm also a huge Brett Hull supporter. I appreciate immensely what both players brought. Hull goes down as one of the greatest few goal scorers of all-time and essentially the point of hockey is to put the puck in the nest. Modano on the other hand after his first few years became an elite two-way center and matched right up head-to-head with the likes of Joe Sakic, Steve Yerman, Peter Forsberg, etc etc. I'm sure he could have put up more points somewhere else, he certainly had the talent.
To me they're so different yet both great at what they did that its tough to choose.
I'd say Hull was better but Modano was more crucial to the Cup run and prolly should have won the Smythe over Nieuwendyk.
It's certainly arguable. I think it's a year where it could have gone to any of 3 or 4 guys, including Belfour and probably Hatcher. It's a good example though of how just a few guys voting opinions on one day can change the way people view a player forever. They're doing the top centers list as we speak and with that on his resume he'd be ranked much higher. The fact that he certainly did enough to get it goes unnoticed, had he been awarded it his rep around here would be bolstered immensely.
Hard to compare the two. If I was starting a team from scratch, I'd probably choose Modano. Center is arguably a more important position and Modano in his prime was everything you could possibly want in a first line center.
But on the all-time list? I'd go with Hull. What he accomplished over his career was simply ludicrous. That 1990-91 season is still, to me, the greatest goal-scoring season of all time.
As prolific a goal scorer as he was & entertaining to boot on & off the ice, Id go with Mike Modano on this one. More erudite, brought a lot of intangibles to the rink in terms of playmaking ability, general hockey IQ, to the dressing room itself. Very classy player, individual.
Hull, easily for me. His goal scoring prowess is too hard to ignore. Not to mention it was Hull who put the Stars over the top in 1999, and helped to do the same to the Wings in 2002.
Throw in the fact that Hull is by a noticeable margin the better playoff performer and I can't see how anyone picks Modano here.
While that may be somewhat true (I'd say the addition of Belfour the season prior was bigger), if you were to take Modano away they'd be less of a team than they would have been without Hull. Hull was a final piece, but that doesn't mean he was the biggest.
No trying to take anything away from him, I love the guy.
Modano is great and all, but like stated before, he just simply wasn't as good as Brett Hull. Modano may have been a more all-around player, but Hull was simply an all-world sniper and one of the better ones in the last twenty or so years.
Okey then, Hull was a great scorer. Not as great as some like to think simply becouse Adam Oates was a better playmaker than Hull was a scorer, but he did had a Steven Stamkos quality to him. As i usually do not hold Modano as high as some others do, i can certainly live with people thinking Hull was better. What i end up with is simply that none of them was the best american ever, wether it's Chelios, Brimsek, or even Howe or Leetch is up for debate. Hull was not an all-time great player, nor was Modano.