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.

Best Czech Players Ever?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-29-2007, 07:12 PM
  #101
statistics
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucksfan View Post
I won't debate whether Jagr could play in the 60's or not because we will never know the answer.
I think we know. Jagr is one the best all-time. I think it answers the question.

statistics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2007, 07:15 PM
  #102
canucksfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 22,227
vCash: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by statistics View Post
I think we know. Jagr is one the best all-time. I think it answers the question.
How do we know? You can't say for sure that he would be able to play in the 60's. You have no proof to say whether he can. Just like I can't say, it's almost certain that Jagr would have sucked if he played in the 60's.

canucksfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2007, 07:19 PM
  #103
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zine View Post
Jagr would've destroyed the NHL back then.

A distiction has to be made between being 'tough' and being 'strong'. Original 6 NHLers were easily tougher than players today - but they were also much smaller and far weaker.

Right now Jagr is listed at 6-3 245. Someone that big playing hockey in the 50/60's was unheard of....much less someone of Jagr's skill level.
It doesn't matter how much 'tougher' the league was back then, your average original 6 player would've been absolutely dominated by Jagr physically.

To put it in perspective, Mikita was only 5-8 152 his rookie year. He was obviously tough as nails - but if he played the style he did early in his career against todays NHLers he'd be risking perminant injury.
That's why small players like Martin St. Louis (5'9, 180 pounds) could never win the Hart or Art Ross trophy against today's large, strong players. Brian Gionta (5'7, 175 pounds) is too small and weak to score 48 goals while playing excellent defense. Darcy Tucker (5'10, 170) is too scrawny and injury-prone to play with tenacity every shift, score 60 points per year, and play 76 seasons per game during the past 8 seasons. Theo Fleury is too tiny (5'6, 180) to have a borderline Hall of Fame career as a pest with multiple 100 point seasons. Mark Recchi couldn't score 1,300+ points against modern players, with grit and good two-way play. All of the league's massive defensemen would easily stop Pavel Datysuk (5'10, 168) and Steve Sullivan (5'9, 155) from scoring just under a point per game for the last 4 years.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2007, 07:19 PM
  #104
statistics
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucksfan View Post
How do we know? You can't say for sure that he would be able to play in the 60's. You have no proof to say whether he can. Just like I can't say, it's almost certain that Jagr would have sucked if he played in the 60's.
We can't never be 100% certain, but best players adjust.

statistics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2007, 07:21 PM
  #105
statistics
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
That's why small players like Martin St. Louis (5'9, 180 pounds) could never win the Hart or Art Ross trophy against today's large, strong players. Brian Gionta (5'7, 175 pounds) is too small and weak to score 48 goals while playing excellent defense. Darcy Tucker (5'10, 170) is too scrawny and injury-prone to play with tenacity every shift, score 60 points per year, and play 76 seasons per game during the past 8 seasons. Theo Fleury is too tiny (5'6, 180) to have a borderline Hall of Fame career as a pest with multiple 100 point seasons. Mark Recchi couldn't score 1,300+ points against modern players, with grit and good two-way play. All of the league's massive defensemen would easily stop Pavel Datysuk (5'10, 168) and Steve Sullivan (5'9, 155) from scoring just under a point per game for the last 4 years.

Yes, and Theo Fleury even played almost his whole career in clutch and grab era. Heart matters more than size. I think size is overrated.


Last edited by statistics: 01-29-2007 at 07:28 PM.
statistics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2007, 07:24 PM
  #106
canucksfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 22,227
vCash: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by statistics View Post
We can't never be 100% certain, but best players adjust.
I agree and that's why I said I won't debate it because we will never be certain.

canucksfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2007, 07:25 PM
  #107
statistics
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Theo Fleury is too tiny (5'6, 180) to have a borderline Hall of Fame career as a pest with multiple 100 point seasons.
I think Fleury belongs to hall of fame. I don't care what he does in his free-time.

statistics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2007, 09:59 PM
  #108
Squiffy
Victims, rn't we all
 
Squiffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reks View Post
And how do you rate them among other players, including both Canadians and Russians?
Jagr, Hasek, Stastney and Mikita rank among the elite at their respective positions.

Yes, nothing new from Squiff, just an attempt to get back on topic, intriguing as a Golden era depate versus Modern era is. Perhaps it's own thread all?

__________________
bWo: If you don't know, you should know... Buds WORLD Order Constitution
Adj: "Squiffy" - stupefied by a chemical substance (esp. alcohol)

R.I.P. Darryl buddy... it was too soon.. too soon
Squiffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2007, 12:58 AM
  #109
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
That's why small players like Martin St. Louis (5'9, 180 pounds) could never win the Hart or Art Ross trophy against today's large, strong players. Brian Gionta (5'7, 175 pounds) is too small and weak to score 48 goals while playing excellent defense. Darcy Tucker (5'10, 170) is too scrawny and injury-prone to play with tenacity every shift, score 60 points per year, and play 76 seasons per game during the past 8 seasons. Theo Fleury is too tiny (5'6, 180) to have a borderline Hall of Fame career as a pest with multiple 100 point seasons. Mark Recchi couldn't score 1,300+ points against modern players, with grit and good two-way play. All of the league's massive defensemen would easily stop Pavel Datysuk (5'10, 168) and Steve Sullivan (5'9, 155) from scoring just under a point per game for the last 4 years.
All your examples are the exception to the norm......it's not difficult to notice there aren't many players under 180lbs in today's game.

My point is an average NHLer of small stature could play in the league back then because players were much weaker ---- that's simply not the case today.

Could those players succeed in today's game? Probably, but they'd be much less dominant b/c their own dominance came at the expense of much worse competition. In fact, many would probably have to change their styles a bit. I just couldn't imagine Ted Lindsay (all 163 pounds of him) making off the ice in 1 piece if he stepped up to some of today's heavyweights.


Last edited by Zine: 01-30-2007 at 01:21 AM.
Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2007, 01:47 AM
  #110
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zine View Post
I just couldn't imagine Ted Lindsay (all 163 pounds of him) making off the ice in 1 piece if he stepped up to some of today's heavyweights.
Lindsay was absolutly the type who would be an exception now. Camille Henry would struggle though.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2007, 03:48 AM
  #111
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,358
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucksfan View Post
I don't think it matters where the Sharks finished the year before. The key point is that that season they were struggling. Who knows, if Thornton doesn't go to them they might make the playoffs. No one will ever know that. However, we do know that the Sharks weren't a playoff team last year, until Thornton got traded to them.
The Sharks were still a very talented team, as shown by their play the previous season. Even if you give Thornton the bulk of the credit for their turnaround (and plenty of teams struggle early and still make the playoffs), Jagr led a much less talented team to the playoffs. I don't think you'd find many people who would favor the Rangers without Jagr over the Sharks without Thornton.

Quote:
A couple of things affected Jagr. First, his play down the stretch. Jagr wasn't as good as he was during the last half of the season as he was in the first half. Second, the Rangers were first in their division for much of the year. I believe they ended up finishing 6th. Third, he lost the Art Ross Trophy. I don't think it was that big of a deal anyways but it still would have affected some people's votes. Finally, the play of Lundqvist. No one expected him to play as well as he did last season. Lundqvist was one of the top goalies in the league last year. The play of Lundqvist probably took some votes away from Jagr.
Jagr played well down the stretch, scoring in 17 of the last 19 games. The Rangers just ran out of gas the final 5 games, although they were tiring well before that. I think the Ross was a factor in the Hart voting, but I agree it shouldn't have been much of a factor, given that Jagr had 25 more goals on a weaker team. Without Lundqvist, the Rangers don't make a run at the division. Without Jagr, they struggle to score 2 goals per game and don't make the playoffs. Still, you're right that Lundqvist's play may have hurt Jagr in the Hart voting.

Quote:
Two things that aren't a factor are Thornton's play in the Olympics and his being traded to San Jose. If he played one more game than Jagr, then yes it would be a factor. The fact is even if you include those two games, they have the same number of points. Again though, Thornton winning the Art Ross wasn't that important to the votes IMO.
The way each played in the Olympics is irrelevant to an NHL award. However, the compressed schedule and extra games Jagr played in the Olympics (after a brutal hit that would have been a legitimate reason to sit out) were likely a factor in Jagr's performance after the Olympics. Thornton didn't PLAY more games, but if he hadn't been traded, he would have played two less than he actually did. It is an advantage to have the option of playing two more games than you normally would.

Quote:
The thing is though when you have six teams you face outstanding goalies every game. Imagine only having six teams now. Look at how many great goalies you would face each night. I think most people that have some knowledge about the history of hockey put Howe Hull and Beliveau in the top ten.
Admittedly, this is a factor, just as dilution of offensive talent, rules and their enforcement, styles of play, etc. are as well. Most people who saw them play seem to consider Howe, Hull, and Beliveau among the top 10 forwards ever. I don't have a problem with those players being regarded highly, but don't know how a player who dominated today's deeper talent pool can not be considered a top 10 forward.

Quote:
In the 95-96' season they were over 6 goals a game. During the puck era yes there wasn't many goals. However, when comparing players from different eras, I don't think it's important how many goals were scored per/game in a season. The only reason why I mentioned that was because some people seem to think that there was only one dead puck era which wasn't true. Likewise, they think that soon as 1990 hit goal scoring dropped, which again isn't true.
You don't think it's important how many goals/game were scored in a season? I'm not saying it's a perfect way to adjust for era, but it's far from irrelevant. I agree there wasn't just one "dead puck" era. '94 & '96 seem like "run n gun" hockey by later standards, but this just shows how stifling the play has been since mid-90s. The scoring level in '94 was higher than any year since, yet lower than any year before that since early '70s.

Quote:
Today's NHL whether people like to admit it or not is probably the least roughest era of the NHL's history. Reading books and articles it seems like the 30's and 40's were absolutely brutal. People were using sticks as weapons quite frequently. When Stan Mikita played it you had to fight your own battles. People tested you to see if you could be pushed around. If you backed down then they really went after you. I won't debate whether Jagr could play in the 60's or not because we will never know the answer.
Today's NHL may not be the roughest overall, but players like Lemieux and Jagr were incessantly harrassed. If hockey was like ultimate fighting or a prison brawl, then that's a problem with hockey in that era IMO, not a problem of players today, least of all one of Jagr's size and strength. While the physical element of hockey is absolutely unnecessary, the dirty/fighting element is absolutely unnecessary to me.


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 01-30-2007 at 03:49 AM. Reason: n
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2007, 04:15 AM
  #112
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,358
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
That's why small players like Martin St. Louis (5'9, 180 pounds) could never win the Hart or Art Ross trophy against today's large, strong players. Brian Gionta (5'7, 175 pounds) is too small and weak to score 48 goals while playing excellent defense. Darcy Tucker (5'10, 170) is too scrawny and injury-prone to play with tenacity every shift, score 60 points per year, and play 76 seasons per game during the past 8 seasons. Theo Fleury is too tiny (5'6, 180) to have a borderline Hall of Fame career as a pest with multiple 100 point seasons. Mark Recchi couldn't score 1,300+ points against modern players, with grit and good two-way play. All of the league's massive defensemen would easily stop Pavel Datysuk (5'10, 168) and Steve Sullivan (5'9, 155) from scoring just under a point per game for the last 4 years.
You bring up some good counterpoints to this argument. Certainly players like Lemieux, Jagr and Lindros used their size and skill to often dominate when healthy, but many average or smaller players have succeeded as well.

Fleury was in his prime before the clutch n grab era. Recchi isn't a midget and averaged 110 points over 4 years from '91-94, then surpassed 80 points only once since then. None of the rest of those players you mentioned are likely HOFers.

The real question to me is how can modern players have been so often injured, if it's been such a "soft" league? Players like Jagr and Yzerman are considered injury-prone by many fans, but they are actually two of the more durable modern stars (and probably played through tons of injuries). Lemieux, Lindros, Bure, Selanne, Kariya, Forsberg, Fedorov, Sakic, Leclair, Kevin Stevens... the list of stars who missed a lot of time to injury goes on and on.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2007, 04:35 AM
  #113
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,671
vCash: 500
St. Louis has a good shot at the hall, only two Hart winners aren't in, so he has a I believe every Art Ross winner is in. He could buck tradition, but he'd have to be playing alot worse than he is this year.

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2007, 07:06 PM
  #114
canucksfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 22,227
vCash: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
The Sharks were still a very talented team, as shown by their play the previous season. Even if you give Thornton the bulk of the credit for their turnaround (and plenty of teams struggle early and still make the playoffs), Jagr led a much less talented team to the playoffs. I don't think you'd find many people who would favor the Rangers without Jagr over the Sharks without Thornton.

Jagr played well down the stretch, scoring in 17 of the last 19 games. The Rangers just ran out of gas the final 5 games, although they were tiring well before that. I think the Ross was a factor in the Hart voting, but I agree it shouldn't have been much of a factor, given that Jagr had 25 more goals on a weaker team. Without Lundqvist, the Rangers don't make a run at the division. Without Jagr, they struggle to score 2 goals per game and don't make the playoffs. Still, you're right that Lundqvist's play may have hurt Jagr in the Hart voting.



The way each played in the Olympics is irrelevant to an NHL award. However, the compressed schedule and extra games Jagr played in the Olympics (after a brutal hit that would have been a legitimate reason to sit out) were likely a factor in Jagr's performance after the Olympics. Thornton didn't PLAY more games, but if he hadn't been traded, he would have played two less than he actually did. It is an advantage to have the option of playing two more games than you normally would.



Admittedly, this is a factor, just as dilution of offensive talent, rules and their enforcement, styles of play, etc. are as well. Most people who saw them play seem to consider Howe, Hull, and Beliveau among the top 10 forwards ever. I don't have a problem with those players being regarded highly, but don't know how a player who dominated today's deeper talent pool can not be considered a top 10 forward.



You don't think it's important how many goals/game were scored in a season? I'm not saying it's a perfect way to adjust for era, but it's far from irrelevant. I agree there wasn't just one "dead puck" era. '94 & '96 seem like "run n gun" hockey by later standards, but this just shows how stifling the play has been since mid-90s. The scoring level in '94 was higher than any year since, yet lower than any year before that since early '70s.



Today's NHL may not be the roughest overall, but players like Lemieux and Jagr were incessantly harrassed. If hockey was like ultimate fighting or a prison brawl, then that's a problem with hockey in that era IMO, not a problem of players today, least of all one of Jagr's size and strength. While the physical element of hockey is absolutely unnecessary, the dirty/fighting element is absolutely unnecessary to me.
Like I said though, the Sharks were a very talented team. However, there have been a lot of talented teams that haven't made the playoffs. There is no question about it Thornton turned that team around.

The main reason I believe, that Jagr didn't win was because of the Rangers play down the stretch and more importantly his play. Thornton was on fire, where Jagr wasn't playing as good as he was in the first half of the year.

Jagr wasn't forced to go to the Olympics. If he didn't want to risk an injury and hurt his team he could have rested. In addition, Jagr was the one that wore that helmet that doesn't give the proper protection.

I'm pretty sure that the voters knew that Thornton had the 'option' of playing more games than Jagr.

I don't think it's that important, to know how many goals were scored per season in a game. I am not one of those people that say oh player A has 5 50 goal season and player B only has one therefore, player A was the better goal scorer. I like to see how they dominated against their peers. How many times they led the league in goals and how amy times they were in the top ten.

Jagr was harrased at the beginning of his career but not as much now. I think you meant that physical play is necessary but correct me if I am wrong. Whether you like it or not fighting is a part of the game. If a player was a good fighter in the 60's not many players would touch him. Red Kelly who won Lady Byng Trophies was a great fighter I believe in junior. No one really challenged him in the NHL because they knew he was a great fighter. Larry Robinson is another example of that. Larry didn't fight often but when he did he rarely lost.

canucksfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2007, 07:09 PM
  #115
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,671
vCash: 500
If anyone got robbed last year, it was Kipprusoff.

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2007, 11:57 PM
  #116
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
You bring up some good counterpoints to this argument. Certainly players like Lemieux, Jagr and Lindros used their size and skill to often dominate when healthy, but many average or smaller players have succeeded as well.

Fleury was in his prime before the clutch n grab era. Recchi isn't a midget and averaged 110 points over 4 years from '91-94, then surpassed 80 points only once since then. None of the rest of those players you mentioned are likely HOFers.

The real question to me is how can modern players have been so often injured, if it's been such a "soft" league? Players like Jagr and Yzerman are considered injury-prone by many fans, but they are actually two of the more durable modern stars (and probably played through tons of injuries). Lemieux, Lindros, Bure, Selanne, Kariya, Forsberg, Fedorov, Sakic, Leclair, Kevin Stevens... the list of stars who missed a lot of time to injury goes on and on.
Actually, Fleury was named to the second all-star team in 1995 (which featured some of the worst clutch-and-grab/neutral zone trap action in NHL history), he was brilliant for Calgary in 1995-96, and he single-handedly kept the Flames in the playoff race in 1998-99 until he was traded to Colorado. And he was a guy who consistently took his play to another level in the playoffs.

Recchi did manage to finish third in scoring in 1999-2000 season, and he was in the top 20 in 2003-04.

HO wasn't arguing for HHOF status. (As much as I love Theo, I wouldn't vote him in). He was just making a point that small players can thrive in today's NHL, since some ignoramus made the comment that Mikita, at his size, wouldn't last in today's NHL.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2007, 11:58 PM
  #117
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
If anyone got robbed last year, it was Kipprusoff.
Agreed. Jagr got what he deserved: the Pearson. But nobody meant more to his team's success than Kiprusoff. The Flames are drafting Toews if not for Kipper.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2007, 04:04 AM
  #118
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,358
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucksfan View Post
Like I said though, the Sharks were a very talented team. However, there have been a lot of talented teams that haven't made the playoffs. There is no question about it Thornton turned that team around.
Do you really think the Rangers without Jagr could even compete with the Sharks without Thornton?

Quote:
The main reason I believe, that Jagr didn't win was because of the Rangers play down the stretch and more importantly his play. Thornton was on fire, where Jagr wasn't playing as good as he was in the first half of the year.
Thornton did play very well down the stretch, but so did Jagr. If anything, Jagr was penalized for playing well the whole year and playing through injuries. Perhaps if the Rangers had been without him the first third of the season, that would make Jagr a better player than Thornton?

Quote:
Jagr was harrased at the beginning of his career but not as much now. I think you meant that physical play is necessary but correct me if I am wrong. Whether you like it or not fighting is a part of the game. If a player was a good fighter in the 60's not many players would touch him. Red Kelly who won Lady Byng Trophies was a great fighter I believe in junior. No one really challenged him in the NHL because they knew he was a great fighter. Larry Robinson is another example of that. Larry didn't fight often but when he did he rarely lost.
I don't believe fighting or dirty play has any part in hockey. I understand tempers flare and may cause an occasional fight, but this belief that a player should be able to fight to play hockey is crazy IMO. Should a player be able to skate to be a boxer?

I've seen a lot of (deserved) praise for Brendan Shanahan's grit and toughness.

I thought some of you might find interesting his comments about Jagr and the refs (and this is typical of Jagr's entire prime, even more so in the playoffs):

"I don't know what the deal is," an angry Shanahan said. "Guys hit him late, guys hit him high, guys hook his hands. He doesn't complain. He just goes out and plays and plays and plays. The referees just seem to have a different set of rules about the way people get to play against him.

"Not since (Slava) Fetisov came over from Russia have I ever seen a star player get ignored by the referees, and I know the reason why they were ignoring him back then."

"I just have a tough time sitting there throughout the game, especially in the second period, watching the calls against one of the best players in the league. The NBA didn't let people grab (Michael) Jordan by the waist every time he went up for a jump shot. Jags has to play through that all season long.

"It's not just tonight's refs, it's every night. I have played with other superstar players and they get a whole lot more respect than this guy, and I am trying to eliminate the reasons why that's the way it is."

Note: Shanahan took a large role in getting the NHL to tighten up its rules on clutching and grabbing once the lockout was settled before last season. During the year off, Shanahan formed a panel of hockey experts who made several recommendations that the league adopted.

-----

I'm all for physical hockey, but not for fighting or often letting serious fouls go unpenalized. Jagr's fought his own battles throughout his career, not by fighting, but by playing through injuries and uncalled penalties to try to help his mostly mediocre teams as best he can. I don't think Jagr should get any kind of special treatment (ala NBA or even certain NHL players). However, he also shouldn't be villified in the media for being honest or not speaking perfect English, and other players shouldn't be able commit penalties that they would call if committed against Gretzky or Crosby, just because Jagr is bigger, stronger, or European.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2007, 06:36 PM
  #119
canucksfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 22,227
vCash: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Do you really think the Rangers without Jagr could even compete with the Sharks without Thornton?

Thornton did play very well down the stretch, but so did Jagr. If anything, Jagr was penalized for playing well the whole year and playing through injuries. Perhaps if the Rangers had been without him the first third of the season, that would make Jagr a better player than Thornton?

I don't believe fighting or dirty play has any part in hockey. I understand tempers flare and may cause an occasional fight, but this belief that a player should be able to fight to play hockey is crazy IMO. Should a player be able to skate to be a boxer?

I've seen a lot of (deserved) praise for Brendan Shanahan's grit and toughness.

I thought some of you might find interesting his comments about Jagr and the refs (and this is typical of Jagr's entire prime, even more so in the playoffs):

"I don't know what the deal is," an angry Shanahan said. "Guys hit him late, guys hit him high, guys hook his hands. He doesn't complain. He just goes out and plays and plays and plays. The referees just seem to have a different set of rules about the way people get to play against him.

"Not since (Slava) Fetisov came over from Russia have I ever seen a star player get ignored by the referees, and I know the reason why they were ignoring him back then."

"I just have a tough time sitting there throughout the game, especially in the second period, watching the calls against one of the best players in the league. The NBA didn't let people grab (Michael) Jordan by the waist every time he went up for a jump shot. Jags has to play through that all season long.

"It's not just tonight's refs, it's every night. I have played with other superstar players and they get a whole lot more respect than this guy, and I am trying to eliminate the reasons why that's the way it is."

Note: Shanahan took a large role in getting the NHL to tighten up its rules on clutching and grabbing once the lockout was settled before last season. During the year off, Shanahan formed a panel of hockey experts who made several recommendations that the league adopted.

-----

I'm all for physical hockey, but not for fighting or often letting serious fouls go unpenalized. Jagr's fought his own battles throughout his career, not by fighting, but by playing through injuries and uncalled penalties to try to help his mostly mediocre teams as best he can. I don't think Jagr should get any kind of special treatment (ala NBA or even certain NHL players). However, he also shouldn't be villified in the media for being honest or not speaking perfect English, and other players shouldn't be able commit penalties that they would call if committed against Gretzky or Crosby, just because Jagr is bigger, stronger, or European.
With both of those players gone, the Sharks would have the better team on paper. However, that's on paper and games aren't played on paper. The Sharks would probably win but no one can say for sure.

Thornton did out play Jagr down the stretch. That's one important aspect where the voters probably voted for Thornton. Likewise, the Rangers losing the division. They had it for the longest time and Jagr not playing like he did at the beginning of the year, got penalized for that. If Rangers would have won their divison Jagr IMO gets the Hart.

It doesn't matter that you don't like fighting. The fact is it is apart of the game. Has been for decades and will continue to be there. If you have two players that are equal and one can fight and can can't, the one that can fight is better.

You make it seem Jagr is the only player that gets targeted. Look at Crosby. He gets high sticked all time, he gets cross-checked and roughed up. It's apart of the game. I watched the game last night and Hal Gill completly took Jagr off his game. Jagr should be able to fight through that. Lemieux got roughed up far worse than Jagr does. Nothing Gill did last night should have been called.

How is Jagr villified by the media? Ovechkin can't speak good english and the media love him.

canucksfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2007, 09:18 AM
  #120
Rocky
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus-74 View Post
From ´60s to present (Czechs=Czechs & Slovaks):

1. Jagr
2. Hasek
3. P. Stastny
4. Nedomansky
5. Martinec
6. Holecek
7. Hlinka
8. Pospisil
9. Novy
10. Suchy

If guys like Nedo, Martinec and Hlinka had played in the NHL in their primes, the list might be slightly different. Who knows?


I Think you have a pretty good list. however, I consider Jan Suchy to be the best d-man ever played for the Czechs, so he should be a little higher as do Holecek. And maybe there should be room for Malecek, who was like a Czech´s Bobrov. I am not sure that Hlinka, Pospisil and Novy a the right players for that list. There were others like Jiri Holik and Vladimir Dzurilla, whom one could as easily put that list.

Rocky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2007, 05:13 AM
  #121
debil
Registered User
 
debil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Nitra, Slovakia
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
I Think you have a pretty good list. however, I consider Jan Suchy to be the best d-man ever played for the Czechs, so he should be a little higher as do Holecek. And maybe there should be room for Malecek, who was like a Czech´s Bobrov. I am not sure that Hlinka, Pospisil and Novy a the right players for that list. There were others like Jiri Holik and Vladimir Dzurilla, whom one could as easily put that list.
Guys,I understand that for canadiens it might be a bit confusing all that stuff with countries and nationalities but just to make things clear Dzurilla, Stan Mikita and Peter Stastny are Slovaks, not Czechs. Stan Mikita is slovak-canadian, of course.

debil 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 05:30 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.