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.

Fedorov, Mogilny or Bure

View Poll Results: Which Russian would you pick if you could only choose one?
Sergei Federov: All around player, playmaker, defensively sound 58 77.33%
Pavel Bure: Russian Rocket, pure explosion and goal-scoring threat 13 17.33%
Alexander Mogilny: Not just a goal scoring winger, but playmaker also. 4 5.33%
Voters: 75. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-12-2011, 01:31 AM
  #26
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zytz View Post
As a forever Blackhawk fan, I'm embarrassed to admit that my all-time favorite forward is not Toews or Kane, or Savard, or Roenick, or even Mikita or Hull.

It's Mogilny. You ask me to build a team of all-time greats, he'd be on my first line.
I hope your team likes golf.

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2011, 03:01 AM
  #27
begbeee
Registered User
 
begbeee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Slovakia
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,011
vCash: 500
I picked Fedorov, but to be honest, I thought for a while about Bure. On really strong team, Bure could be better addition than Fedorov. Maybe.

begbeee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2011, 09:36 AM
  #28
11MilesPerJohan
@BeingAHumanBean
 
11MilesPerJohan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: McLean Hospital
Country: United States
Posts: 2,027
vCash: 500
Interesting question...Mogilny was a pure goal scorer, but he was a bit inconsistent, Bure was one of the most explosive players I have ever seen, yet somewhat one dimensional...I think Federov was the most well-rounded player of that bunch, so I would take him.

11MilesPerJohan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2011, 11:40 AM
  #29
the edler
Inimitable
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,479
vCash: 500
you gotta love these seasons from fedorov

199899 77 26+37 63
199900 68 27+35 62
200001 75 32+37 69
200102 81 31+37 68

the edler is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2011, 11:51 AM
  #30
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbeee View Post
I picked Fedorov, but to be honest, I thought for a while about Bure. On really strong team, Bure could be better addition than Fedorov. Maybe.
I don't see Bure being a better addition for a strong team than one of the greatest playoff players ever.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2011, 12:32 PM
  #31
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I don't see Bure being a better addition for a strong team than one of the greatest playoff players ever.
obviously fedorov was one of the greatest playoff producers of his or any era.

it would take a very specifically built team for bure to be more of an advantage than fedorov, but i can see it. with bure, you have guaranteed goals. in terms of purely being able to create offense out of thin air, fedorov, as great as he was, wasn't bure.

i'm thinking last year's canucks, a team that had great depth at every position, consistent scoring ability from the top two lines, at least one puck mover on every d pairing, a vezina candiate, they had everything a team could want except one guy to stand up and say, "enough of this BS. i'm going out there and i'm going to score a demoralizing goal that will turn the momentum." fedorov could do that too but, again, not at bure's level.

in '94, the canucks were down 3-1 to the flames. who scored the crucial first goal in game five? and who drew the defenders' attention to allow courtnall to score the OT winner? watch the goal. it's a weird bounce, but dahl baubles it because he's too busy worrying about bure. courtnall gets sprung because all three guys that are back are staring at bure.



(also notice that bure is the first one in to hug courtnall. i saw every game of that playoff run and i resent the suggestion that bure would rather score a goal and lose than not score and win. maybe in '98 or arguably in florida, but that's not the bure us in vancouver care about and remember fondly.)

note also that bure was not only in on both goals in the crucial game that turned the momentum in that series, but that he was also in on all three game winners in that crazy run of three straight OT wins to take the series.

then there's game five in the finals, which i consider the greatest bure game ever. canucks down 3-1 in the series. canucks go up 3-0 in the first, then rangers storm back with three straight. last year's canucks would have laid down and died (see: three straight series against chicago). they didn't have bure. this is the goal that broke the tie:



he adds another to put the game out of reach (6-3). biggest game in canucks history to that point, and he puts up three in MSG with the cup in the building.

again, we could easily do a highlight reel of fedorov's playoff heroics too. but there are certain kinds of teams-- deep, talented teams that just don't have a go-to, when the chips are down goal scorer-- where you need a guy who scored 50 goals and finished in the league's top five every single season he played 70 games.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2011, 03:05 PM
  #32
Midnight Oil
Registered User
 
Midnight Oil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNuts View Post
Does Bure get career threatening injuries? If so then it's really not close. But if not I'd lean towards him. I don't like the fact that Fedorov was only dominant for 1 season. As for defense, I consider it less important than offense when it comes to top 6 forwards. Give defensive responsibilities to a 3rd liner and let Bure win the Richard trophy every damn year.
He was pretty dominant in 95-96 posting a respectable 107 points plus a Selke.

Midnight Oil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2011, 03:16 PM
  #33
the edler
Inimitable
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,479
vCash: 500
bure is definitely closer to fedorov than some people on the history board likes to pretend

fedorov was a more complete player in the sense that he was a centre with much better defense, and he was also a better playmaker, but he couldn't do things offensively that bure could

fedorov could save his stuff for the playoffs but it's hard to do the same when you have to play with viktor kozlov, marcus nilson and ivan novoseltsev on blown knees and if you have to produce every single night with said guys to keep your glorious florida panthers above the surface

the edler is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2011, 08:20 PM
  #34
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
If anything, Fedorov should get more credit for realizing the playoffs are all that matters if you play on a stacked team, rather than it being seen as a detriment.
No way. It's definitely a detriment.

Being, or at least trying to be great every night is what makes the best of the best.

Fedorov was a very good player, but he had the ability to be an all-timer. He could have been knocking on the door of the top 25 of all-time, and yet he doesn't sniff the top 75.

John Flyers Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2011, 03:56 AM
  #35
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan View Post
No way. It's definitely a detriment.

Being, or at least trying to be great every night is what makes the best of the best.

Fedorov was a very good player, but he had the ability to be an all-timer. He could have been knocking on the door of the top 25 of all-time, and yet he doesn't sniff the top 75.
I think there's a case for Fedorov in the top 75. He's basically Dave Keon plus the Hart trophy winning regular season.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2011, 10:40 AM
  #36
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,399
vCash: 500
thinking of fedorov's career and his place in history, is there any question that he was the greatest center of his age group? another center as good as him wouldn't be born for another 18 years (crosby). before crosby the closest are datsyuk and thornton, born nine and ten years after fedorov, respectively.

it's fuzzy math, but i consider fedorov (born december 1969) among the oldest in the generation born in the 70s, along with modano. thornton's draft would be the end of that generation, lecavalier's draft would be the beginning of the generation born in the 80s. sakic is only five months older than fedorov, but he was drafted two years before fedorov and because of his birthday, he would have been drafted one year before fedorov's true birth year (accounting for the USSR and draft rules for european players at the time).

i think of fedorov's two greatest competitors in his age group, forsberg and lindros. all three didn't have careers as great as they should have. with forsberg, he always gave everything he had and didn't want to hang them up, no matter what toll it took on his body. i think it's safe to say that injuries kept him from being top 70 all-time. (i know he was top 70 in the last HOH top 100 list, but in my opinion that's too high.)

injuries and attitude both held lindros back. but given what he did accomplish, i feel like he's become underrated in an all-time sense because of attitude. we see forsberg and all the comebacks, and the ridiculous will he displayed when he was at his best, and it seems he gets extra points for that. on the flipside, lindros gets points deducted for all the crap he pulled. on some level i agree with that: if i was voting for the HHOF, for example, i would definitely vote for forsberg before lindros even if they had had the exact same resume (which they didn't) because forsberg always wanted to be on the ice no matter what, whereas lindros gave away two prime years of what could have been a top 50 career for reasons that are ultimately unsatisfying. i can't help but wonder that if he enters the league in fall of '91 instead of sleepwalking through the competition in oshawa, then at the WJC and olympics, maybe he would have learned to keep his head up? maybe he could have had a 1,000 game career, multiple hart trophies, cups, etc.?

but for the purposes of an "objective" all-time list, i don't know that there's a place for this kind of moralizing. we're supposed to judge these guys on what they did on the ice, not the decisions they made that affected what they did (or didn't do) on the ice. and so the domination points that lindros gets back in this way of thinking, fedorov gets back too for sleepwalking through numerous regular seasons. what fedorov did do was more than forsberg and lindros did.

fedorov obviously has the longest career, longest prime (even if it was uneven), best playoff record, and best career totals of the three. but i would argue, and i think depending on one's emphases a case could be made for all three, that fedorov was also the most dominant player at his peak. defensively, his separation from the other two is bigger than the gap between him and them offensively. lindros could do basically whatever he wanted out there and definitely was the most physically game-changing, but he was also the easiest to get off his game. forsberg had the greatest offensive vision of any player born in the 70s other than jagr, with thornton not all that far behind him. and because of his determination, you couldn't get him off his game short of rupturing his spleen. but fedorov covered and dominated every inch of the ice. he could and did play all five positions, was probably the best transition forward of his generation, and was no less clutch than forsberg, no less physically stunning than lindros (just with skating and athleticism instead of brute force).

could he have been top 25 all time? even under ideal circumstances, i doubt it. that's jagr/lidstrom territory, two guys whose game did not depend on things young men can do, and so they have not only the ridiculous prime/peak domination but also great longevity at the highest level. i don't see fedorov being that good that old, because he didn't have the high end offensive vision that could compensate when the wheels slowed down. and one wonders how good he could have been defensively without his physical gifts. to get to that top 25 level without a crazy extended prime would mean he had to have a peak like bossy. fedorov was an elite offensive player, but he wasn't going to set any scoring records.

but the suggestion that he doesn't even "sniff" the top 75 i think is equally hyperbolic. i think he's ahead of forsberg, and even granted that forsberg shouldn't be so high (i think 80, around say makarov and parent, is about right), i could go either way on fedorov vs. stastny. that's solidly in the 75 range.

(for the record, lindros doesn't crack the top 100 for me. but he's also not that far off.)

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2011, 10:52 AM
  #37
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,140
vCash: 500
How is Federov's playoff record better than Forsberg?

DisgruntledGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2011, 11:06 AM
  #38
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,399
vCash: 500
four straight 20 point playoff runs?

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2011, 11:14 AM
  #39
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
four straight 20 point playoff runs?
Leading the playoffs in scoring without making the finals?

Without looking, I bet Forsberg wins the PPG battle.

DisgruntledGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2011, 11:28 AM
  #40
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
thinking of fedorov's career and his place in history, is there any question that he was the greatest center of his age group?
Joe Sakic ? He was also born in 1969.

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2011, 11:37 AM
  #41
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
Joe Sakic ? He was also born in 1969.
read further than the first sentence?

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2011, 12:16 PM
  #42
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
read further than the first sentence?
Yeah but I did not understand how did you devise your age group (to not have 2 persons born the same year in different age group), why do you use totally random cut point like the 70, 80, do define age group ?

Every player born 1, 2 years before a player or 1,2 year after will be historically in the same age group (how they cannot ?), much more a player born the same year.

So Sakic and Federov are in the same age group, thus is there any question that he was the greatest center ?

I will say yes absolutely.

P.s. Federov was drafted 2 year's before Forsberg and Lindros and you put them in his generation, but not Sakic born the same year and drafter 2 year's before Federov ?

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2011, 01:28 PM
  #43
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,399
vCash: 500
well that's a question of methodology, i guess. how do we define a generation or age group?

i was going by draft age, not actual age. as far as i know, the cut off for draft eligibility is in mid-september. so sakic about as old as you can be and still be draft eligible for '87. sergei is about as young as you can be and still be ineligible for that same draft.

but as for why i cut it off there, i see a clear generational shift from the group of sakic, shanahan, turgeon, fleury, and glen wesley to the group of fedorov, modano, selanne, and roenick. i think most of us can see some kind of shift there... even though a guy like trevor linden ('88 draft) may have literally begun his career in the 80s, you think of him as a guy who began in the 90s. conversely, one thinks of the guys in the first group as beginning their careers in the 80s, even if (in the case of andrew cassels) he wasn't a rookie until the '90-'91 season.

also, choosing the 1970 birth year or the 1990 season as a rookie year cut off isn't totally arbitrary, though i do see what you're saying. the turn of the decade ('89/'90) was a real watershed in the league. you had the immediate aftermath of the gretzky trade, two consecutive hart trophy winners not named wayne or mario, the fall of the iron curtain and the influx of european talent, the fall from elite status by classic 80s superstars like stastny, savard, goulet, and even hawerchuk who was still very good.

you're right. sakic was greater than fedorov. easily. but for the record, here's where i see the generational fault lines: '59/'60 to '65 (from gretzky, messier, and bourque-- all from the weird three ages draft-- to hull and yzerman), '65 to '69 (from roy and lemieux-- just months older than yzerman but a different draft age-- to sakic, shanny, etc.) then we have the generation from fedorov to pronger/kariya. after that, the lost generation of the '94-'99 drafts (jovo to the sedins, including thornton, iginla, lecavalier, datsyuk, MSL). then the rebirth (heatley to ovechkin/malkin), and the newest crop (crosby to present). seems weird to have ovie and malkin not in the same generation as crosby, because they all entered a very different league post-lockout-- maybe that historical circumstance artificially made that heatley generation a little shorter, and the cut off would be the ridiculous '03 draft (which ovechkin was born something like two days too late to be eligible for).

my thinking is that not only can you see different generations reflecting changes in the NHL game, but also roughly five year cycles in minor league development. that generation from the '94 to '99 draft, then the huge jump in NHL-ready talent in the next few drafts (heatley, gaborik, kovalchuk, spezza, nash, bouwmeester, staal, etc.) illustrates this nicely. how many top picks were ready to jump right into the league and contribute in the lost generation? bonk, thornton, and lecavalier looked lost-- doan and marleau may have been the only ones who stepped in and really deserved their icetime. gaborik, kovalchuk, nash, bouwmeester, fleury, and staal all played a regular shift, to varying levels of dominance but all were legit NHLers at 18.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2011, 01:46 PM
  #44
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,212
vCash: 500
Good explanation of your point of view.

Anyway if you have Federov a generation after Sakic (in a draft year's logic) the question will still be there to know if he is the best of his generation, Lindros is a monster and Forsberg too. The question will be there IMO, Federov is not not even close of those two. I give you that you can consider him clearly ahead of Sundin and not name him.

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2011, 04:15 PM
  #45
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Almost no love for Mogilny here. Granted he doesn't have the trophy case of the other two, but on an all round skill level I think he beats them both. HE could score as good as Bure, and was easily as good if not better passer than Federov.

AlMo had magic hands and could "stickhandle in a phone booth", and then put the puck any where he wanted.

Now granted he had so many nagging injuries that even Bure had more injury free seasons, and he wasn't the defensive player that Federov was, but I think on draft day, not knowing the future, I would have to take Mogilny.

charliolemieux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2011, 04:19 PM
  #46
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliolemieux View Post
Almost no love for Mogilny here. Granted he doesn't have the trophy case of the other two, but on an all round skill level I think he beats them both. HE could score as good as Bure, and was easily as good if not better passer than Federov.

AlMo had magic hands and could "stickhandle in a phone booth", and then put the puck any where he wanted.

Now granted he had so many nagging injuries that even Bure had more injury free seasons, and he wasn't the defensive player that Federov was, but I think on draft day, not knowing the future, I would have to take Mogilny.
But knowing the future, Mogilny is easily third out of the three.

Outside of 1992-93, he was not on Bure's level as a goal scorer.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2011, 04:45 PM
  #47
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
But knowing the future, Mogilny is easily third out of the three.

Outside of 1992-93, he was not on Bure's level as a goal scorer.
A quick look at the stats shows that statement to be false.

charliolemieux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2011, 04:51 PM
  #48
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliolemieux View Post
A quick look at the stats shows that statement to be false.
Bure top 10 finishes in goals: 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 5th.

In Pavel's best season (1999-00), he led the league in goals by a lopsided margin of 58-44 over second place.

Mogilny top 10 finishes in goals: 1st, 3rd, 6th.

In Mogilny's best season (1992-93), he tied with Teemu Selanne for 1st in goals at 76. 3rd place had 69 and 4th place had 63.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2011, 05:10 PM
  #49
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Bure top 10 finishes in goals: 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 5th.

In Pavel's best season (1999-00), he led the league in goals by a lopsided margin of 58-44 over second place.

Mogilny top 10 finishes in goals: 1st, 3rd, 6th.

In Mogilny's best season (1992-93), he tied with Teemu Selanne for 1st in goals at 76. 3rd place had 69 and 4th place had 63.
Well Bure had more full seasons so ofcourse he will have more top finishes.

Just for debate-sake:

Selanne 's top 3 years avg. 58g
Bure's top 3 years avg. 60g

He could score as good as Bure. His carreer high is 16 more than Bure's.

charliolemieux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2011, 05:15 PM
  #50
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliolemieux View Post
Well Bure had more full seasons so ofcourse he will have more top finishes.
Seasons of 75+ games: Mogilny 4; Bure 3
Seasons of 60+ games: Mogilny 10; Bure 8


Quote:
Just for debate-sake:

Selanne 's top 3 years avg. 58g
Bure's top 3 years avg. 60g

He could score as good as Bure. His carreer high is 16 more than Bure's.
Skewed by the fact that 1992-93 was so high scoring compared to later seasons.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:40 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.