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
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Neely vs. Nicholls

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-27-2007, 07:58 AM
  #26
Boom Boom Bear
Registered User
 
Boom Boom Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Coast Salish lands
Country:
Posts: 1,654
vCash: 500
I always liked Neely, but I was pretty floored when he got into the Hall of Fame. He did not stand out as one of the best players of his generation, which is what a HOFer should be.

I believe Neely got in because he was the archetype of the "good ol' Canadian boy" that was popular in the late 80s and early 90s as the European invasion was underway in the NHL. Power forwards were en vogue at the time, every team coveted this kind of player. And the other type of player that went over well with Canadian fans were the guys who got the Don Cherry stamp of approval: "that guy's got a lot of heart." Neely happened to exemplify both of these archetypal Canadian hockey qualities, AND he played for an original six team. He was big, he was a leader, he hit, he scored, he risked injury, the fans and media loved him on and off the ice... he had the size of Eric Lindros, the heart of Doug Gilmour, took the chances of Wendel Clark... And I think the "Bobby Orr factor" helped, too. The Bruins saw the careers of too many stars and prospects end early due to injuries, and I think this made people even more sympathetic toward Neely.

Even at Neely's peak, I don't recall thinking, "gee, he's a top 10 guy in the league." And for the guy on this thread who dissed Oates, Oates actually had his best season (142 points in 92-93) when Neely was out of the Bruins lineup (18 points in 13 games.) In my opinion, Oates is a much more credible candidate for the HOF than Neely ever was or should've been.

As for Nicholls...

People seem to forget that, during the 150-point year, Nicholls didn't play alongside Gretzky all the time a la Kurri. The way I recall, Nicholls would team up with Gretzky on the power play, but otherwise spent much of his time centering the second line. Nicholls also outscored Marcel Dionne for three consecutive seasons playing mostly on a different unit long before Gretzky ever came to town. And if there was any doubt as to how good a player he was, he was arguably the best forward playing with the Rangers his short time there, and proved himself a great leader for the Oilers during their 92 playoff run. Nicholls was a great offensive talent, excellent on the power play, indispensable during the playoffs. Quite underrated, in my opinion.

Still, if I was making a run to the finals and had a choice between Neely and Nicholls, I'd probably choose Neely.

But I think the OP makes a very good point.

Boom Boom Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2007, 08:30 AM
  #27
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,872
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
When I was looking at Barry Pederson's stats in another thread, it struck me that his career looks just as good as Neely's on paper, if not better. Just thought I'd throw it out there


Cam Neely best 5 seasons:

76 55 37 92
69 51 40 91
49 50 24 74 (50 in 50)
74 37 38 75
75 36 36 72


Barry Pederson best 5 seasons:

80 39 77 116 (5th in league scoring)
77 46 61 107
80 44 48 92
79 29 47 76
79 24 52 76



Neely dominant playoffs:

21 12 16 28
19 16 4 20
23 9 8 17


Pederson dominant playoffs:

17 14 18 32
11 7 11 18

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2007, 10:57 AM
  #28
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrustInJarmo View Post
Growing up in LA and Nicholls being one of my favorites players when I was younger back in the 80s...I have to say a couple things.

1: Bernie Nicholls is NOT a Hall of Famer.

2: I don't believe Cam Nelly belongs in the Hall either.

Bernie brought very little to the table when it came to leading a hockey club or coming up in big moments. Ones that come to mind are the Devils playoffs in 93 and 94. He had numerous chances to help end that 94 Eastern Conference finals for the Devils but let it slip away to the guy he was traded for a few years earlier, The Messiah.

Bernie also didn't do much in the 93 playoffs as Montreal went on to win the Cup. Bernie leaves and the following year the Devils win it all. Another that comes to mind is how Bernie came to Edmonton after the Oilers won the Cup in 1990 without Gretzky or Bernie...That trade alone for Messier truly showed how he was not only NOT a difference maker but how you could argue he even brought his teams down at times unlike for the man he was traded for. Though Nicholls had a great regular season and playoff run in 92 with the Oilers...But followed up by a bad following year. And though Bernie had a couple good "individual" runs as a Ranger come playoff time...Putting up 7 goals in 10 playoff games in 1990. And again in 91 with 4 goals in 5 playoff games. But he ALWAYS lacked that leadership role. Bernie didn't speak up at all, nor did he makes his teammates better.

Look at the Blackhawks when Bernie arrived in 1994...just 2 years earlier the Hawks were in the Cup Finals...they had a great run in Bernie's first year in Chicago, but Nicholls had NOTHING to do with it. Bernie had 1 goal in 16 games as one of the "top forwards" on the team.

Although I will say a few things for Bernie Nicholls...

He had a lot of personal issues that really did take his mind away from the game for many years...which was totally understandable.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C0A965958260

And growing up as a Kings fan...I always wondered what would have happened had the Kings not traded Nicholls away to the Rangers for Granato and Sandstrom...And had he had not had to deal with these terrible personal issues in his playing career...would it all have been different? Would he have been more vocal? More of a leader? Made his teammates better?

Yes, Nicholls had 70 goals with Gretzky. But as a big time Bernie Nicholls fan starting back 25 years ago...not many people are aware that Bernie was lighting it up 5+ years prior to Gretzky even arriving.

Nicholls before Gretzky had arrived:
41 goals in 1984.
46 goals in 1985.

But most importantly, remember how much Jari Kurri benefited from having Gretzky.

Had Kurri been traded after one year with Gretzky, like Bernie did, I bet you anything Kurri would NOT be in the Hall of Fame today. And I bet you if Nicholls played 10 plus years with Gretzky...I think it would be a no brainer that Bernie Nicholls would be in the Hall of Fame like Kurri. Bernie Nicholls had 16 points in 11 playoff games in his only playoff appearance with Gretzky. And I truly believed that was just the start of something magical with Gretz and Bernie. But we will never know for sure.

Gretz didn't need Kurri and Gretz didn't need Bernie. But as their careers progressed...Kurri and Bernie sure as hell needed The Great One.
Kurri was a VASTLY superior player to Nicholls. Kurri would have almost certainly have made the Hall without Gretzky. Federko did, Francis did, Hawerchuk did, Goulet did, Gilmour will. Kurri has more points and goals from being Gretzky's winger... but he also was so good defensively he finsihed as high as second in Selke voting. He excelled in his 2 years without Gretzky in Edmonton. He was a huge big game player. Nicholls may have scored a lot more if he was with Gretzky but it still wouldn't have made him better than Kurri.

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2007, 11:08 AM
  #29
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Yes but should he be rewarded for not playing as long? We project him to have over 600 career goals if he was healthy. But the problem is he didnt. He only had 395. We cant give him goals he didnt even earn. The HHOF should not be there based on assumption. On the surface Neely is a HHOFer based on how we remember him. But if you look at his career it's rather bland. And there are few guys that have done enough to garner a HHOF induction despite a shortened career. Two guys that come to mind are Bossy and Orr. No one would try to keep them out. Becuase in their short time they dominated the game. You cant ignore what they did.

Neely I've always felt is in the "close but no cigar" pile. Guys like Rick Martin. Players that you know would have been in there had they had a longer career. Bure, Lindros are others that wouldnt even be debated if they had longer careers. But you CANT reward players for what they MAY have done.

Oh and in response to an earlier post
Barber > Neely. IMO. Barber did more in his career than Neely. Two Cups, one Canada Cup, at least as good of a playoff performer. And one first team all-star, something Neely didnt have.
Except it is the Hall of Fame not the "Hall of the best stats". Neely wasn't as good as Orr in his shortened career. If Orr is the benchmark for the HHOF then you have about 5 members. If Bossy is the benchmark you might have 30 or 40 players in the Hall. Neely WAS a dominant player. Every player, coach and GM knew it. Neely was down right FEARED... in every other lockerroom in the NHL. Was Neely as good as Bourque? No.... so what?

In his prime.... for about a 5 year period... the number of players that Boston would have swapped Neely for could be counted on one hand.... maybe both hands. In 1990 there is no way at ALL that the Bruins would have swapped Neely for Nicholls.

While I agree his election to the Hall is debatable.... he makes the Hall greater for his inclusion not the opposite.

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2007, 02:09 PM
  #30
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cup 2008 Sens Rule View Post
Except it is the Hall of Fame not the "Hall of the best stats". Neely wasn't as good as Orr in his shortened career. If Orr is the benchmark for the HHOF then you have about 5 members. If Bossy is the benchmark you might have 30 or 40 players in the Hall. Neely WAS a dominant player. Every player, coach and GM knew it. Neely was down right FEARED... in every other lockerroom in the NHL. Was Neely as good as Bourque? No.... so what?

In his prime.... for about a 5 year period... the number of players that Boston would have swapped Neely for could be counted on one hand.... maybe both hands. In 1990 there is no way at ALL that the Bruins would have swapped Neely for Nicholls.

While I agree his election to the Hall is debatable.... he makes the Hall greater for his inclusion not the opposite.
That last part there I dont know which way you are going. You say his election is debatable but the Hall is greater for his inclusion? I'm not following which way you're swinging there.

But anyways when I say Orr/Bossy are the benchmarks I mean that if you have a career THAT short you have to do something remarkable in that short time. Neely did not do enough to merit a Hall induction. If he wasnt injured okay then we'll talk but he was, end of story. In 1990 I'd want Neely over Nicholls too. But then again in 2003 I'd want Naslund over Scott Niedermayer too. You see what I mean?

Orr isnt the benchmark for a short career neither is Bossy. A guy like Barber or Lafontaine are the benchmarks for short careers. They both had careers about as long as Neely's but did more in that short time span than he did to merit an inclusion. It's hard for a lot of us to not think of Neely as a sentimental choice for the Hall because there isnt a lot that goes in his favour.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2007, 11:45 PM
  #31
Kimota
CONTROL THE BEAST
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 24,802
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Yes but should he be rewarded for not playing as long? We project him to have over 600 career goals if he was healthy. But the problem is he didnt. He only had 395. We cant give him goals he didnt even earn. The HHOF should not be there based on assumption. On the surface Neely is a HHOFer based on how we remember him. But if you look at his career it's rather bland. And there are few guys that have done enough to garner a HHOF induction despite a shortened career. Two guys that come to mind are Bossy and Orr. No one would try to keep them out. Becuase in their short time they dominated the game. You cant ignore what they did.

Neely I've always felt is in the "close but no cigar" pile. Guys like Rick Martin. Players that you know would have been in there had they had a longer career. Bure, Lindros are others that wouldnt even be debated if they had longer careers. But you CANT reward players for what they MAY have done.

Oh and in response to an earlier post
Barber > Neely. IMO. Barber did more in his career than Neely. Two Cups, one Canada Cup, at least as good of a playoff performer. And one first team all-star, something Neely didnt have.
The Hockey Hall of Fame is not like the Baseball Hall of Fame wich is strickly about numbers. The Hockey Hall of Fame has a lot of intangibles. Like what the player meant to the sport.

And who said Barber shouldn't be there?

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2007, 02:13 PM
  #32
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
The Hockey Hall of Fame is not like the Baseball Hall of Fame wich is strickly about numbers. The Hockey Hall of Fame has a lot of intangibles. Like what the player meant to the sport.

And who said Barber shouldn't be there?
No one said Barber shouldnt be there, but there was a post earlier that suggested he had the same type of career. Barber is in the Hall of Fame because of his contribution to Cup wins. Neely has never won. In a brief career like he had you need to do something that stands out in a way that its impossible to overlook you. Neely doesnt have that type of career.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2007, 02:45 PM
  #33
raleh
Registered User
 
raleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Dartmouth, NS
Posts: 1,764
vCash: 500
Arrbez, between this and our discussions about him in the last minor league draft I'm starting to think you're the biggest Pederson fan out there!

Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
When I was looking at Barry Pederson's stats in another thread, it struck me that his career looks just as good as Neely's on paper, if not better. Just thought I'd throw it out there


Cam Neely best 5 seasons:

76 55 37 92
69 51 40 91
49 50 24 74 (50 in 50)
74 37 38 75
75 36 36 72


Barry Pederson best 5 seasons:

80 39 77 116 (5th in league scoring)
77 46 61 107
80 44 48 92
79 29 47 76
79 24 52 76



Neely dominant playoffs:

21 12 16 28
19 16 4 20
23 9 8 17


Pederson dominant playoffs:

17 14 18 32
11 7 11 18

raleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2007, 03:14 PM
  #34
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by willus3 View Post
Who says a player has to play 20 years to get in th HHOF? That's your interpretation or belief.
There are some players who do not have to play a lengthy career for anyone to recognize how talented they are. Injury shortened career? So? How did he play the game? Neely could score by running guys over or dangling around them. He could fight and check with the best of them. He played with passion and that influenced his teammates immeasurably. A cheapshot artist ended his career but we all saw what Neely was capable of. Where does the line get drawn for length of career? I don't know, I guess it's subjective and has to be taken case by case but I saw enough of Neely to know that he was a special player and belongs in the Hall.
I don't care what Nicholls numbers say, he was half the player Neely was. 18 year career be damned.
The perfect post that sums the proper answer up nicely.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2007, 03:36 PM
  #35
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Neely. It's not even close. Nichols was underrated in a lot of ways. He played most of his career in anonymity. Nobody realized how good he was until Gretzky arrived in LA. He was a really productive player late in his career, scoring above a point-per-game clip in the lockout-shortened season, when scoring dipped below six goals per game. (For all you stats freaks out there). And he brought a physical dimension. Wasn't afraid to hit or play dirty.

But Nichols didn't define his role. Neely did. Every power forward who comes along for years to come will be judged against Cam Neely. Neely wasn't the first power forward (Charlie Conacher was a power forward 50 years before Neely was drafted), but Neely defined the power forward position.

Neely was a much better PLAYER than Nichols. The only argument for Nichols is the statistical smoke.

Neely was a Hall-of-Fame player, a unique, special player who combined goal scoring, physical play and clutch performances at a level that nobody has. I'll look at how the guy played, what he did when it mattered most.

Neely was viewed as one of the game's best in the late 80s and early 90s. Nichols never was. Underrated prior to Gretzky's arrival, but he never cracked a top 10 list.

The only people opposed to Neely being in the Hall are the stats freaks. They say his career numbers aren't good enough. Those who cite longevity as the reason he shouldn't be in the HHOF should also start a campaign against Joe Primeau's place in the HHOF, as he only played seven seasons.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2007, 06:02 PM
  #36
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
Neely was a Hall-of-Fame player, a unique, special player who combined goal scoring, physical play and clutch performances at a level that nobody has. I'll look at how the guy played, what he did when it mattered most.
See that right there bugs me to no end. This is how Neely gets way overrated around here. He combined goal scoring and hitting and clutch performances in a way no one ever has? How is it that a guy who never won a Cup, never scored more than 51 goals in a season and never had more than 2-3 good post seasons considered to be the best combo of that?

What about Gordie Howe? Mark Messier? They won at least and were integral parts of it. Neely never did. If you listen to some people you'll be convinced that he won a pair of Conn Smythe Trophies but he didnt. Richard did all of these things better than Neely. Charlie Conacher would be in that category too. And if you want to include Lindros go ahead. Brendan Shanahan is at least on par in all categories as well.

Look I like Neely. If he plays longer you can justify his HHOF induction but he didnt and we need to stop gushing over a guy that could have been. Kevin Stevens in my mind is right on par with Neely as a HHOFer. Most people wouldnt put him in. I dont quite have him up there, but his peak was better than Neely's he won two Cups, his playoff numbers are just as good and he actually had maybe 4-5 very good seasons. Maybe 2-3 GREAT seasons. Is this any different than Neely? No. Neely needed a Cup to cement his status, other than that you jsut cant get in by having 2-3 great seasons that are borderline top 10 players in the game.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2007, 08:59 PM
  #37
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
See that right there bugs me to no end. This is how Neely gets way overrated around here. He combined goal scoring and hitting and clutch performances in a way no one ever has? How is it that a guy who never won a Cup, never scored more than 51 goals in a season and never had more than 2-3 good post seasons considered to be the best combo of that?

What about Gordie Howe? Mark Messier? They won at least and were integral parts of it. Neely never did. If you listen to some people you'll be convinced that he won a pair of Conn Smythe Trophies but he didnt. Richard did all of these things better than Neely. Charlie Conacher would be in that category too. And if you want to include Lindros go ahead. Brendan Shanahan is at least on par in all categories as well.

Look I like Neely. If he plays longer you can justify his HHOF induction but he didnt and we need to stop gushing over a guy that could have been. Kevin Stevens in my mind is right on par with Neely as a HHOFer. Most people wouldnt put him in. I dont quite have him up there, but his peak was better than Neely's he won two Cups, his playoff numbers are just as good and he actually had maybe 4-5 very good seasons. Maybe 2-3 GREAT seasons. Is this any different than Neely? No. Neely needed a Cup to cement his status, other than that you jsut cant get in by having 2-3 great seasons that are borderline top 10 players in the game.
A cup is completely irrelevant. Its a team trophy, and if you were screwed into playing with bad teams like the one line Bruins with Ray Bourque being the only consistent element that Neely had to work with. Back in the early 80's it was a factor. now there are so many teams that cup wins will be a rarity for many players, regardless of how good they are.

Ray Bourque would have been a top 5 all time defender regardless of him getting a cup in his final season or not.

In any case, if you want a good stat for Neely, look at goals per game, where he is a top 10 guy, despite him not playing with much help. If he had not had a leg blown out, he would have several Brett Hull years with Oates. 70+ goals, etc

Injuries should not keep great players out of the hall. its meant for great hockey talents. Not only the greatest talents. Bossy and Orr are the absolute best when it comes to shortened careers, and in no way shape or form should they be "The bar' everyone measures great players by. They were phenomenal talents.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2007, 09:32 PM
  #38
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton_19 View Post
In any case, if you want a good stat for Neely, look at goals per game, where he is a top 10 guy, despite him not playing with much help. If he had not had a leg blown out, he would have several Brett Hull years with Oates. 70+ goals, etc

Injuries should not keep great players out of the hall.
Okay right there is the problem with the Hall of Fame. You just basically gave him credit and automatically assumed he'd have gotten 70+ goals a few times. He never had more than 51 but he would get 70 on a consistent basis? I can think of guys that would have been locks for the Hall of Fame if they were healthy. Rick Martin, Pavel Bure and Eric Lindros. Bure and Lindros may still get in but Martin ended his career because of his knees at exactly the same age that Neely did. Martin had 385 career goals and had a better GPG than Neely and a better PPG. It isnt far fetched to assume he would have gotten over 600 goals in his career if he was healthy. But he wasnt. I prefer judging a player on what he did rather than what could have been. Neely's induction really lowered the bar for future inductions.

Basically if the majority of the NHL loved you and the fans loved your style you're a lock for the Hall even if you fall short in your accomplishments. Even Gillies didnt lower the bar this badly because there simply isnt players out there that fit his bill that were part of a dynasty. Maybe a guy like John Tonelli is similar but that's about it.

If Neely is in, its now harder to keep out Lindros. If you think Neely deserves it than you think Lindros really deserves it. Bure is another one that will be tough to keep out. You see guys with shortened careers and no Cups are now more likely to get in. Dont tell me Lindros' career was worse than Neely's because it wasnt. Neely didnt garner enough in his career to get in. We cant base projection on whether a guy should get in the Hall because it will never end.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2007, 10:22 PM
  #39
Punk
Registered User
 
Punk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 522
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Punk
Nicholls Sucks!!!
Neely Is Da Man

Punk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2007, 11:35 PM
  #40
TrustInJarmo*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punk View Post
Nicholls Sucks!!!
Neely Is Da Man
I don't know how Nicholls "Sucks". But I will agree he does NOT belong in the Hall of Fame.

I don't think anyone that has almost 500 goals in the National Hockey League really "sucks".

As we compared Kurri to Nicholls in this thread...

Kurri only had 126 more career goals than Bernie Nicholls. And Kurri only played with the greatest hockey player ever for the majority of his career. And Kurri also played in 124 MORE games than Nicholls in his career.

I guess by your standards, "Kurri sucks too"??

TrustInJarmo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2007, 07:41 AM
  #41
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Okay right there is the problem with the Hall of Fame. You just basically gave him credit and automatically assumed he'd have gotten 70+ goals a few times. He never had more than 51 but he would get 70 on a consistent basis? I can think of guys that would have been locks for the Hall of Fame if they were healthy. Rick Martin, Pavel Bure and Eric Lindros. Bure and Lindros may still get in but Martin ended his career because of his knees at exactly the same age that Neely did. Martin had 385 career goals and had a better GPG than Neely and a better PPG. It isnt far fetched to assume he would have gotten over 600 goals in his career if he was healthy. But he wasnt. I prefer judging a player on what he did rather than what could have been. Neely's induction really lowered the bar for future inductions.

Basically if the majority of the NHL loved you and the fans loved your style you're a lock for the Hall even if you fall short in your accomplishments. Even Gillies didnt lower the bar this badly because there simply isnt players out there that fit his bill that were part of a dynasty. Maybe a guy like John Tonelli is similar but that's about it.

If Neely is in, its now harder to keep out Lindros. If you think Neely deserves it than you think Lindros really deserves it. Bure is another one that will be tough to keep out. You see guys with shortened careers and no Cups are now more likely to get in. Dont tell me Lindros' career was worse than Neely's because it wasnt. Neely didnt garner enough in his career to get in. We cant base projection on whether a guy should get in the Hall because it will never end.
Obviously, the people who vote for who gets in disagree with you. In the end, they are the knowledgeable hockey minds, and they decide what is good for the hall and what is bad, while we, are just disgruntled fans on a hockey forum.
They think Neely deserved to get in. A poll we conducted here where our opinion actually matters agreed that the majority thought Neely should get in. Similar polls elsewhere confirmed that the majority wanted him in.

Lump it while the majority likes it.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2007, 07:53 AM
  #42
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrustInJarmo View Post
I don't know how Nicholls "Sucks". But I will agree he does NOT belong in the Hall of Fame.

I don't think anyone that has almost 500 goals in the National Hockey League really "sucks".

As we compared Kurri to Nicholls in this thread...

Kurri only had 126 more career goals than Bernie Nicholls. And Kurri only played with the greatest hockey player ever for the majority of his career. And Kurri also played in 124 MORE games than Nicholls in his career.

I guess by your standards, "Kurri sucks too"??
Kurri also scored 45 goals and 102 points without Gretzky with Jimmy Carson centering him. Nichols was a 30 goal scorer when not playing with Gretzky or a prime Dionne. 30 goals is good. But in the 80's, that made you a "Solid citizen".

Neely was scoring 55 goals with other "Solid citizen" playmakers. When Oates arrived, Despite playing on one leg all the time, and missing most of the season, Neely scored 50 in 44 games.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2007, 09:25 AM
  #43
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton_19 View Post
Kurri also scored 45 goals and 102 points without Gretzky with Jimmy Carson centering him. Nichols was a 30 goal scorer when not playing with Gretzky or a prime Dionne. 30 goals is good. But in the 80's, that made you a "Solid citizen".

Neely was scoring 55 goals with other "Solid citizen" playmakers. When Oates arrived, Despite playing on one leg all the time, and missing most of the season, Neely scored 50 in 44 games.
Craig Janney while his reputation has takn a beating was actually a great passer. Neely always had a good centreman in his big years. But that's how it goes I guess. I just think the Hall has truly lowered their standards in recent years and now we have guys like Andreychuk considered. The way the Hall should be, Neely shouldnt be in, plain and simple

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2007, 09:35 AM
  #44
TrustInJarmo*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton_19 View Post
Kurri also scored 45 goals and 102 points without Gretzky with Jimmy Carson centering him. Nichols was a 30 goal scorer when not playing with Gretzky or a prime Dionne. 30 goals is good. But in the 80's, that made you a "Solid citizen".

Neely was scoring 55 goals with other "Solid citizen" playmakers. When Oates arrived, Despite playing on one leg all the time, and missing most of the season, Neely scored 50 in 44 games.
I really don't see your point on what Kurri scoring 45 goals without Gretz has to do with it??

Nicholls scored over 400 goals without Gretzky on his team.

Nicholls had over 40 goals or more in 3 different seasons...Neely only did it 4 times. Not much of a difference there.

Again, I have said what Nicholls wasn't good at and that he does NOT belong in the Hall of Fame...but for people to say Bernie flat out "Sucked" is very inaccurate.

TrustInJarmo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2007, 09:40 AM
  #45
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Craig Janney while his reputation has takn a beating was actually a great passer. Neely always had a good centreman in his big years. But that's how it goes I guess. I just think the Hall has truly lowered their standards in recent years and now we have guys like Andreychuk considered. The way the Hall should be, Neely shouldnt be in, plain and simple
Nah. The hall is making its choices right. you can disagree all you want though. He is still in the hall, and deserves to be there

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2007, 11:20 AM
  #46
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton_19 View Post
Nah. The hall is making its choices right. you can disagree all you want though. He is still in the hall, and deserves to be there
Dont remind me about the Hall's low standards.

But seriously if Neely is a legit Hall of Famer then I'm assuming you have no beef with Bure being in there? If Neely gets no controversy then Bure shouldnt either right?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2007, 11:22 AM
  #47
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 28,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Dont remind me about the Hall's low standards.

But seriously if Neely is a legit Hall of Famer then I'm assuming you have no beef with Bure being in there? If Neely gets no controversy then Bure shouldnt either right?
Out of the ice issues notwithstanding, Bure is in.
This said, ice issues are considered.

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2007, 11:24 AM
  #48
Stonefly
Registered User
 
Stonefly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Dont remind me about the Hall's low standards.
Is Neely the worst player in the Hall?

Stonefly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2007, 11:38 AM
  #49
CamDegs13
Nose Face Killah
 
CamDegs13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UMass
Country: United States
Posts: 4,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
Neely. It's not even close. Nichols was underrated in a lot of ways. He played most of his career in anonymity. Nobody realized how good he was until Gretzky arrived in LA. He was a really productive player late in his career, scoring above a point-per-game clip in the lockout-shortened season, when scoring dipped below six goals per game. (For all you stats freaks out there). And he brought a physical dimension. Wasn't afraid to hit or play dirty.

But Nichols didn't define his role. Neely did. Every power forward who comes along for years to come will be judged against Cam Neely. Neely wasn't the first power forward (Charlie Conacher was a power forward 50 years before Neely was drafted), but Neely defined the power forward position.

Neely was a much better PLAYER than Nichols. The only argument for Nichols is the statistical smoke.

Neely was a Hall-of-Fame player, a unique, special player who combined goal scoring, physical play and clutch performances at a level that nobody has. I'll look at how the guy played, what he did when it mattered most.

Neely was viewed as one of the game's best in the late 80s and early 90s. Nichols never was. Underrated prior to Gretzky's arrival, but he never cracked a top 10 list.

The only people opposed to Neely being in the Hall are the stats freaks. They say his career numbers aren't good enough. Those who cite longevity as the reason he shouldn't be in the HHOF should also start a campaign against Joe Primeau's place in the HHOF, as he only played seven seasons.
I think that pretty much sums it up right there. Extremely well said.

As for the longevity part, if that was indeed the case of why he should not be in the HHOF, then we might as well bring up the arguement that Bobby Orr (12 seasons), argueably the best player in NHL history, should not be included.

Many people know that Neely did indeed define the power-forward position. He played 110% ever single night, with so much passion and desire, he fought, he was a punishing hitter, stuck up for his teammates, and was a sensational scorer.

CamDegs13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2007, 11:50 AM
  #50
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Dont remind me about the Hall's low standards.

But seriously if Neely is a legit Hall of Famer then I'm assuming you have no beef with Bure being in there? If Neely gets no controversy then Bure shouldnt either right?
I have no problem with Bure getting in the hall. IMO, its a place where superstars get their names recorded, Not just the super mega types like Bossy. I say Lindros gets in as well. Its not low standard. These guys were the apex of the hockey world in their times

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 10:02 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.