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.

Round 2, Vote 7 (2009 update)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-12-2009, 02:07 PM
  #101
Stonefly
Registered User
 
Stonefly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
So as an All Star Peter Forsberg was considered better than Yashin, Lindros, Modano, Thornton, in Hart voting he was not viewed favourably to Yashin or Lindros. Fourth in Selke after Lehtinen, Madden, Walz. Regular season PPG between P. Stastny and Kent Nilsson. Playoff PPG grouped with Perreault, Statsny, Federko.

Top 100?
You'd really shake your head if you ever saw where I would rank him.
Quite simply one of the most dominant hockey players I have ever seen. I don't much care about stats and career length or injuries so any list I made would look significantly different than most here. Very very few who could take over a game when on the ice. He could.

Stonefly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 02:16 PM
  #102
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Certain perceptions have to be adjusted. Left wing is simply harder to play than RW. LW does not have the favourable shooting angles(vast majority of goalies catch left) that a RW does and it is very rare that you see a RHS (Cashman) play LW whereas you regularly see LHS play RW. A LHS or RHS can play center but RHS are harder to find and all things being equal carry a premium.A LW who can play defense equal to a center and score at the same rate is worth significantly more to a team than the center - imagine Bob Gainey as an 80 point LW and you have your answer.

Simply adjusted for length of season Dickie Moore in 1958-59, one of his two Art Ross years beats Forsberg in his Art Ross year as well as beating St.Louis, Iginla and Jagr. Given that Moore was a left winger this is even more impressive.
A scoring title as a LW, C, or RW is the same thing as far as I'm concerned. There are many other variables aside from shooting angles, etc. that can positively or negatively affect a players scoring total or placement in the season scoring race.

Bob Gainey as an 80 point LW...no better than say, Dave Keon, as an 80 point center IMO. Both provide approximately equal on-ice contributions in both offense and defense. That Gainey may be a more covetted commodity due to a scarcity of similar players at his position doesn't make him a superior hockey player in my books. You see things differently, so we'll agree to disagree.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 02:24 PM
  #103
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonefly View Post
You'd really shake your head if you ever saw where I would rank him.
Quite simply one of the most dominant hockey players I have ever seen. I don't much care about stats and career length or injuries so any list I made would look significantly different than most here. Very very few who could take over a game when on the ice. He could.
I disliked Forsberg intensely when he was playing, but this is spot on. For several years it was generally accepted that, when healthy, Peter Forsberg was the best player in the world. I think I ranked Forsberg around 80th on my list, because he did miss so much time, but players with similarly short careers like Lindros, Bure, and Neely did not crack my top 120. Forsberg was just that good (much to my shagrin).

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 02:45 PM
  #104
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
From my "consistency in goalscoring" thread and its sister thread, "consistency in playmaking" -

(I'll throw in Nighbor too, just for fun)

Goalscoring: top-2, top-5, top-10, top-15, top-20
Stewart 3-8-13-14-14
Denneny 3-5-8-9-11
Joliat 1-3-4-9-12
Nighbor 1-4-6-7-8

Playmaking: top-2, top-5, top-10, top-15, top-20
Stewart 0-0-1-6-8
Denneny 2-3-5-6-6
Joliat 0-4-6-7-8
Nighbor 2-5-7-8-11
Honestly, that looks like Joliat is pretty clearly the "least great" of the bunch to me. He has a few great seasons in there, but for the most part, seems like a guy who was very good but not great for a long time.

Top 15s and Top 20s don't impress me that much, especially when he got to ride shotgun with Morenz, and especially prior to World War 2, when I question whether the depth of talent was anything like it was in the O6 era when hockey had become Canada's national sport. (When did hockey become Canada's National sport and start attracting all the best athletes? It certainly wasn't in Lalonde's era, when he made more money playing lacrosse than hockey). Yes, stars are stars no matter the era, and Top 2 and Top 5 finishes are impressive no matter what. But if the depth of talent is lower as it likely still was in the Morenz/Joliat era, once you get down to Top 15s and Top 20s, maybe even Top 10s, it's less impressive.

And yes, the ability to attract the best athletes absolutely matters in discussing the quality of the talent pool. There's a reason that the US with more than 10 times the population of Canada is much worse at hockey - most of the best US athletes are attracted to other sports.

I think I'm going to rate the three guys available this round as:
1. Denneny (going to try to put him in my top 5)
2. Stewart (going to try to put him in middle 5)
3. Joliat (going to try to put him i bottom 5)

Denneny and Stewart were both elite offensively, but Denneny wasn't nearly as much of a black hole on defense. As for Nighbor, he was definitely behind Denneny and Stewart offensively, but he was also elite defensively - I see why many think he should be above them, but there's at least it's not totally crazy to have him below them due to their significantly superior offenses. These stats show that in addition to being the best defensive player of the four, Nighbor is also better offensively than Joliat, so there is no way Joliat at least should be over Nighbor.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 09-12-2009 at 02:59 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 03:21 PM
  #105
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 8,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Forsberg career +242 vs Stastny career -12 would be a good starting point. Adjust all you want but a top 100 player with a minus 12 is hard to accept. Forsberg actually played defense instead of going thru the motions like Stastny. Watched Stastny play regularly with the Nordiques and was always amazed by the momentary lapses, especially defensively, even when he was having a good game.

Statsny looked great with very good players around him but Forsberg would make ordinary or above average players look better - Milan Hejduk, Alex Tanguay, etc. Also a couple of Stanley Cups favour Forsberg.
A very fluffy argument against Stastny, especially considering that Milan Hejduk is better than any of Stastny's regular linemates. I have nothing to say to your regurgitation of awful +/- arguments every time you don't have a more meaningful statistical point to make. It was expected, and is duly ignored.

Actually, I think Forsberg's defense is often quite overrated. It was Joe Sakic who was always sent against opponents' top lines at even strength, not Forsberg, and Forsberg was not a special penalty killer. Forsberg was good at playing keepaway with the puck and was a "reliable" 2-way player, but then again, so was Stastny. Neither were great checkers.

As far as Stanley Cups go, do you think those Avs wouldn't have won their Cups with Peter Stastny playing 2nd line center? Let's not forget that of the two Cups Forsberg has his name on, one came in his rookie NHL season and really he wasn't that great in the playoffs that year, and the other came in a year in which he didn't make it past the 2nd round of the playoffs. Forsberg is lionized for having great playoffs in losing efforts, but he was a bit player in the two Cups that the Avs actually won, far less important to Colorado's victories than were Roy and Sakic. Stastny's playoff record is also extremely impressive in losing efforts. But I know you like counting Cups, so just go on doing it.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 03:23 PM
  #106
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,662
vCash: 500
Canadiens 1958, your posts are so pathetically biased. Ever consider the fact that Moore was playing with Beliveau and Geoffrion, while Forsberg was playing with Hejduk during thier best years. Ever consider that Forsberg has a hart trophy and 3 first all star teams at the most stacked position. Forsberg twice lead the playoffs in scoring, and you are trying to deny him a top 100 spot. Hasek isnt even in your top 50 and Jagr isnt in your top 30. Your bias is absurd towards montreal canadien players. Thats the only reason you even care about dickie moore.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 03:27 PM
  #107
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 Canadiens1958 View Post
So as an All Star Peter Forsberg was considered better than Yashin, Lindros, Modano, Thornton, in Hart voting he was not viewed favourably to Yashin or Lindros. Fourth in Selke after Lehtinen, Madden, Walz. Regular season PPG between P. Stastny and Kent Nilsson. Playoff PPG grouped with Perreault, Statsny, Federko.

Top 100?
Because scoring in the playoffs PPG in the dead puck era compared to the high scoring 70's and 80's was remotely close...........

It was much harder to score in the dead puck era when Forsberg was at his peak. Hence, the lower PPG.

Among all players between 1995-2008, Forsberg was 2nd overall in playoff scoring, and 3rd overall in playoff PPG(Was 3rd overall in Regular season PPG as well) and he did all this while being considered a stalwart two way forward. Generational talent and certainly top 100 material.

We can nitpick the all star voting and Hart voting. Many Hart voters vote for the trophy in the traditional sense. "Most valuable to his team", not "Best player". If the team is a weak team, carried by a single player, that player will often get more consideration the Hart voting. They fluctuate by year.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 03:36 PM
  #108
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 ushvinder View Post
Canadiens 1958, your posts are so pathetically biased. Ever consider the fact that Moore was playing with Beliveau and Geoffrion, while Forsberg was playing with Hejduk during thier best years. Ever consider that Forsberg has a hart trophy and 3 first all star teams at the most stacked position. Forsberg twice lead the playoffs in scoring, and you are trying to deny him a top 100 spot. Hasek isnt even in your top 50 and Jagr isnt in your top 30. Your bias is absurd towards montreal canadien players. Thats the only reason you even care about dickie moore.
The fact that I agree wholeheartedly with ushvinder....

Keep his slandering of non Habs Original 6 players in mind Ushvinder the next time you agree with him about Hull being a "Compiler"(Which he most certainly was not)

Not only a pro-Habs bias, but a visible vehement anti-European bias.

In either case, it does not really matter since FF banned him from the project a page or two back for his continual insulting and belittling of the process.


Last edited by Dark Shadows: 09-12-2009 at 03:42 PM.
Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 03:37 PM
  #109
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 Sturminator View Post
A very fluffy argument against Stastny, especially considering that Milan Hejduk is better than any of Stastny's regular linemates. I have nothing to say to your regurgitation of awful +/- arguments every time you don't have a more meaningful statistical point to make. It was expected, and is duly ignored.

Actually, I think Forsberg's defense is often quite overrated. It was Joe Sakic who was always sent against opponents' top lines at even strength, not Forsberg, and Forsberg was not a special penalty killer. Forsberg was good at playing keepaway with the puck and was a "reliable" 2-way player, but then again, so was Stastny. Neither were great checkers.

As far as Stanley Cups go, do you think those Avs wouldn't have won their Cups with Peter Stastny playing 2nd line center? Let's not forget that of the two Cups Forsberg has his name on, one came in his rookie NHL season and really he wasn't that great in the playoffs that year, and the other came in a year in which he didn't make it past the 2nd round of the playoffs. Forsberg is lionized for having great playoffs in losing efforts, but he was a bit player in the two Cups that the Avs actually won, far less important to Colorado's victories than were Roy and Sakic. Stastny's playoff record is also extremely impressive in losing efforts. But I know you like counting Cups, so just go on doing it.
I will have to say that they would never have won their second cup, or gotten out of the second round if not for Forsberg's herculean efforts before busting his spleen.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 03:47 PM
  #110
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 28,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Canadiens 1958, your posts are so pathetically biased. Ever consider the fact that Moore was playing with Beliveau and Geoffrion, while Forsberg was playing with Hejduk during thier best years. Ever consider that Forsberg has a hart trophy and 3 first all star teams at the most stacked position. Forsberg twice lead the playoffs in scoring, and you are trying to deny him a top 100 spot. Hasek isnt even in your top 50 and Jagr isnt in your top 30. Your bias is absurd towards montreal canadien players. Thats the only reason you even care about dickie moore.
If you're to bring out facts, at least, bring good ones.
And C wasn'T exactly stacked during Forsberg's prime.

Considering the number of people with anti-hab bias - and you might be the worst in that regards, considering you're whining with the ranking/the consideration of EVERY DAMN Hab since you came here - you're probably the last one who should talk about bias.

I clearly remember C1958 stating Geoffrion might have gotten in a little too high (or at least, that he should be BELOW Moore : "Most important dynasty Habs exists" certainly didn't relate to Bob Turner...), so that's not exactly what I'd call Habs bias.

And considering Moore was ranked 33 by the THN Top-100 (ahead of many players that are already ranked, INCLUDING Geoffrion!), considering Moore was ranked 11th best Hab by Ken Campbell (ahead of Geoffrion, Durnan, Dyrden and Joliat...), it would certainly not be far-fetched to consider him the BPA for this round, or to consider him better than Forsberg (which I do, by the way). Granted, they aren't really far from each other, but there is absolutely no need to call out a voter - as controversial as he might be - because he thinks a former dynasty player is superior to..well, a more recent, semi-dynasty player. Especially if the guy "calling out" the other came up with some of the most outrageous stuff I've ever read here.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 03:48 PM
  #111
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 28,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
The fact that I agree wholeheartedly with ushvinder....

Keep his slandering of non Habs Original 6 players in mind Ushvinder the next time you agree with him about Hull being a "Compiler"(Which he most certainly was not)

Not only a pro-Habs bias, but a visible vehement anti-European bias.

In either case, it does not really matter since FF banned him from the project a page or two back for his continual insulting and belittling of the process.
WWWWHHHAAAATTT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 03:50 PM
  #112
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,774
vCash: 500
Oh Well...............

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
A very fluffy argument against Stastny, especially considering that Milan Hejduk is better than any of Stastny's regular linemates. I have nothing to say to your regurgitation of awful +/- arguments every time you don't have a more meaningful statistical point to make. It was expected, and is duly ignored.

Actually, I think Forsberg's defense is often quite overrated. It was Joe Sakic who was always sent against opponents' top lines at even strength, not Forsberg, and Forsberg was not a special penalty killer. Forsberg was good at playing keepaway with the puck and was a "reliable" 2-way player, but then again, so was Stastny. Neither were great checkers.

As far as Stanley Cups go, do you think those Avs wouldn't have won their Cups with Peter Stastny playing 2nd line center? Let's not forget that of the two Cups Forsberg has his name on, one came in his rookie NHL season and really he wasn't that great in the playoffs that year, and the other came in a year in which he didn't make it past the 2nd round of the playoffs. Forsberg is lionized for having great playoffs in losing efforts, but he was a bit player in the two Cups that the Avs actually won, far less important to Colorado's victories than were Roy and Sakic. Stastny's playoff record is also extremely impressive in losing efforts. But I know you like counting Cups, so just go on doing it.
Second year not his rookie year. See that you are counting cups as well only to denigrate a players contributions. Interesting approach.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 03:55 PM
  #113
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
If you're to bring out facts, at least, bring good ones.
And C wasn'T exactly stacked during Forsberg's prime.

Considering the number of people with anti-hab bias - and you might be the worst in that regards, considering you're whining with the ranking/the consideration of EVERY DAMN Hab since you came here - you're probably the last one who should talk about bias.

I clearly remember C1958 stating Geoffrion might have gotten in a little too high (or at least, that he should be BELOW Moore : "Most important dynasty Habs exists" certainly didn't relate to Bob Turner...), so that's not exactly what I'd call Habs bias.

And considering Moore was ranked 33 by the THN Top-100 (ahead of many players that are already ranked, INCLUDING Geoffrion!), considering Moore was ranked 11th best Hab by Ken Campbell (ahead of Geoffrion, Durnan, Dyrden and Joliat...), it would certainly not be far-fetched to consider him the BPA for this round, or to consider him better than Forsberg (which I do, by the way). Granted, they aren't really far from each other, but there is absolutely no need to call out a voter - as controversial as he might be - because he thinks a former dynasty player is superior to..well, a more recent, semi-dynasty player. Especially if the guy "calling out" the other came up with some of the most outrageous stuff I've ever read here.
Yeah because the center position was so weak from 1997-1999. I mean Sakic, Lindros, Modano, Sundin, Gretzky, what bums they were. Even in 2003 his comp for ast at center was Joe Thornton, Mario Lemieux, Mike Modano and Sergei Fedorov, yeah bums.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 04:01 PM
  #114
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 28,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Yeah because the center position was so weak from 1997-1999. I mean Sakic, Lindros, Modano, Sundin, Gretzky, what bums they were. Even in 2003 his comp for ast at center was Joe Thornton, Mario Lemieux, Mike Modano and Sergei Fedorov, yeah bums.
Other than Gretz and Lemieux being post-prime... Pretty much only Sakic is Top-100 material. Actually, Fedorov is, but he isn't... let's say, Ted Lindsay?

Thanks for giving me arguments in regards to Moore's competition at LW being actually BETTER than Forsberg at C. Never thought about it before you wrote about it. You know... Mahovlich, Hull, Lindsay, Bucyk...
Pretty much the only three better LW's than Dickie Moore, with a pretty good one.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 04:04 PM
  #115
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,774
vCash: 500
Usual Silliness.........

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
The fact that I agree wholeheartedly with ushvinder....

Keep his slandering of non Habs Original 6 players in mind Ushvinder the next time you agree with him about Hull being a "Compiler"(Which he most certainly was not)

Not only a pro-Habs bias, but a visible vehement anti-European bias.

In either case, it does not really matter since FF banned him from the project a page or two back for his continual insulting and belittling of the process.
Conveniently overlooking my critiques of Maurice Richard, Dick Irvin Sr. all O6 Habs plus Guy Lafleur and the "deer in the headlights" critique of J.C.Tremblay trying to defend against Bobby Hull that you have since adopted as one of your favourite expressions.

Also overlooking that various posters (six and counting) have made similar or harsher critiques of the process with impunity since yesterday. The strength of any process is that it can withstand criticism.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 04:04 PM
  #116
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 MXD View Post
Other than Gretz and Lemieux being post-prime... Pretty much only Sakic is Top-100 material. Actually, Fedorov is, but he isn't... let's say, Ted Lindsay?

Thanks for giving me arguments in regards to Moore's competition at LW being actually BETTER than Forsberg at C. Never thought about it before you wrote about it. You know... Mahovlich, Hull, Lindsay...
Pretty much the only three better LW's than Dickie Moore.
Thornton is quite likely to be top 100 Material by the end of his career.

Lemieux and Gretzky post prime were still top scorers in the league.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 04:05 PM
  #117
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Other than Gretz and Lemieux being post-prime... Pretty much only Sakic is Top-100 material. Actually, Fedorov is, but he isn't... let's say, Ted Lindsay?

Thanks for giving me arguments in regards to Moore's competition at LW being actually BETTER than Forsberg at C. Never thought about it before you wrote about it. You know... Mahovlich, Hull, Lindsay, Bucyk...
Pretty much the only three better LW's than Dickie Moore.
Why should that matter anyways, Forsberg is the 3rd best player from 1995-2004 after Jagr and Sakic anyways. He also produced his own playoff points. Every hab during that era was a playoff god, i mean the team had nothing to do with his success right. Moore is overrated.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 04:07 PM
  #118
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 28,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Why should that matter anyways, Forsberg is the 3rd best player from 1995-2004 after Jagr and Sakic anyways. He also produced his own playoff points. Every hab during that era was a playoff god, i mean the team had nothing to do with his success right. Moore is overrated.
Oh, and you too have Hasek below 50th?

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 04:09 PM
  #119
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Oh, and you too have Hasek below 50th?
Geez i never knew Hasek was a player, i always thought he was a goalie. You bash kurri yet praise moore, despite the fact that he was what with 5 more hall of famers. At least forsberg still produced when he was on philly and nashville, Moore's numbers were a joke after 1963. Whats your excuse, his injuries?

Forsberg can comeback next year and he'll still produce better results than what dickie did with st. louis and toronto. His stats in those seasons were a joke. His overall playoff record is 110 points in 135 games. If he was on another team he probably wouldnt even have those credentials.


Last edited by ushvinder: 09-12-2009 at 04:15 PM.
ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 04:11 PM
  #120
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 28,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Thornton is quite likely to be top 100 Material by the end of his career.

Lemieux and Gretzky post prime were still top scorers in the league.
That still makes him a lesser player than Forsberg, no matter how you put it. ... And a smaller gap between him and Forsberg than, let's say, Moore and Bucyk.

Which is, between you and me, one of the reasons why Forsberg is still up for voting.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 04:14 PM
  #121
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 28,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Geez i never knew Hasek was a player, i always thought he was a goalie. You bash kurri yet praise moore, despite the fact that he was what with 5 more hall of famers. At least forsberg still produced when he was on philly and nashville, Moore's numbers were a joke after 1963. Whats your excuse, his injuries?
Damn, I hope they were a joke, the guy shouldn't have played a single game past 1963.

And his numbers were actually pretty decent in the '68 while riding shotgun with .... euh... Who?

Kurri? Well, first, I saw him play.
Good, very good, even great player. He's sandwiched between two HHOF'ers in my list. Terrific two-way player and all. He's just a lesser player than Moore. And Forsberg.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 04:25 PM
  #122
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 Canadiens1958 View Post
Conveniently overlooking my critiques of Maurice Richard, Dick Irvin Sr. all O6 Habs plus Guy Lafleur and the "deer in the headlights" critique of J.C.Tremblay trying to defend against Bobby Hull that you have since adopted as one of your favourite expressions.

Also overlooking that various posters (six and counting) have made similar or harsher critiques of the process with impunity since yesterday. The strength of any process is that it can withstand criticism.
The Process is just fine. You are sniping at it because it allows for equality of opinions and freedom of choice.

The fact of the matter is, most people do not agree with you, thus, the results are not coming out the way you want them to, or see them, and so, you are attacking the process as well as the voters who disagree with you, when in fact, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the process at all.

Making little sniping remarks about the process itself to a guy who is doing all the work for nothing out of the wish to provide a good fair list where everyone can have a say like it is his fault just about everyone disagrees with your myopic opinion is classless.

For the record, Big Phil been using the "Deer in the headlights" line for years, long before you were ever around, and it is not some fancy original line from you. Ego much?

Your minor critiques or Richard and Irvin Jr do not excuse some of the other ridiculous obvious pro Habs, Anti-European rankings that you have mentioned.

Hasek not in the top 50?(In fact, No euro over 37th)? Hainsworth over Sawchuk? Lemaire over Dionne? Henri Richard over Bossy?

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 04:26 PM
  #123
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Denneny's offensive numbers are really remarkable. He is 2nd all time in goals per game with a .756 percentage to Bossy's .762. However, in his last 2 seasons (at age 36 & 37) he had 4 goals in 67 games. If those 2 years are dropped, his percentage is an incredible .935, 244 goals in 261 games. In the playoffs he had 16 goals in 25 games, but if the 2 years are dropped again its 16 in 21 games.
Don't get carried away with the high per-game totals. higher scoring and smaller rosters meant that every player was bound to have a higher per-game ratio. the important thing to know is that Denneny was in the top-4 in goals in the NHL (which was a half-league at the time) eight times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon
A scoring title as a LW, C, or RW is the same thing as far as I'm concerned. There are many other variables aside from shooting angles, etc. that can positively or negatively affect a players scoring total or placement in the season scoring race.

Bob Gainey as an 80 point LW...no better than say, Dave Keon, as an 80 point center IMO. Both provide approximately equal on-ice contributions in both offense and defense. That Gainey may be a more covetted commodity due to a scarcity of similar players at his position doesn't make him a superior hockey player in my books. You see things differently, so we'll agree to disagree.
I agree, and so does everyone else. This is why there are more centers on last year's top-100 list than LW and RW combined. (32 to 25, not counting Abel/Delvecchio who were C/LW)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder
Canadiens 1958, your posts are so pathetically biased. Ever consider the fact that Moore was playing with Beliveau and Geoffrion, while Forsberg was playing with Hejduk during thier best years. Ever consider that Forsberg has a hart trophy and 3 first all star teams at the most stacked position. Forsberg twice lead the playoffs in scoring, and you are trying to deny him a top 100 spot. Hasek isnt even in your top 50 and Jagr isnt in your top 30. Your bias is absurd towards montreal canadien players. Thats the only reason you even care about dickie moore.
...pro Montreal, pro cups, anti-old players, anti-european.

Can't wait to see his top-120 list.

Or will it even be released now? As I understand it, he's not part of the process anymore.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 04:33 PM
  #124
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Also overlooking that various posters (six and counting) have made similar or harsher critiques of the process with impunity since yesterday.
You're referring to me, apparently, and who else?

And I don't recall anyone having a problem with the points I brought up, or the way I brought them up.

Would anyone care to speak up if they thought that, perhaps, my post from 11:26 EST yesterday was a harsh critique of the process? Maybe I want too far and didn't realize it.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 04:35 PM
  #125
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 seventieslord View Post
Don't get carried away with the high per-game totals. higher scoring and smaller rosters meant that every player was bound to have a higher per-game ratio. the important thing to know is that Denneny was in the top-4 in goals in the NHL (which was a half-league at the time) eight times.



I agree, and so does everyone else. This is why there are more centers on last year's top-100 list than LW and RW combined. (32 to 25, not counting Abel/Delvecchio who were C/LW)



...pro Montreal, pro cups, anti-old players, anti-european.

Can't wait to see his top-120 list.

Or will it even be released now? As I understand it, he's not part of the process anymore
.
FF will release everyone's aggregate list as he did last year, even if they were sacked from the process midway through because of insulting talk.

I am 100% sure he will want to release Canadiens1958's list. It will fall in(As it should have to begin with) with these two lists
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=539270

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:30 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.