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.

Where do the great Soviets rank?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-03-2010, 09:49 AM
  #201
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doktor2d View Post
Well Kharlamov was doing something to make Clarke feel that he needed to chop off his leg and to make John Ferguson say "THAT guy is killing us". Are you saying Clarke and Ferguson picked the wrong Russian?
Maybe Kharlamov was extremely dominant in games 5 and 6, I'm not sure, and that motivated Canada's extreme tactics. But the blog Black Dog Hates Skunks is tracking scoring chances from the 1972 series, and through the first 4 games Bobby Clarke's numbers are outstanding. The Soviets had only 13 scoring chances in the first 4 games at even strength while Clarke was on the ice, even though Clarke was often put out to take defensive zone draws and was often matched up against Kharlamov. On top of that, Canada had 24 chances themselves, nearly twice as many as the opposition, which shows that Clarke's line was not only shutting down the opposition but very much holding their own.

The USSR had 65 total even strength chances in the Canadian portion of the series, which shows that they were getting their chances, just not against Clarke's unit.

They didn't track Kharlamov's individual numbers from all the games, but in game 4 Canada outchanced the USSR 10-6 with Kharlamov on the ice at even strength, and that was even without Clarke on the ice for most of those events.

These numbers are all influenced by linemates, of course, and rating scoring chances is a subjective exercise. Kharlamov may well have been playing better than some of those numbers show, but I don't think he was killing Canada in games 2-4, and in game one he took advantage of a couple of weak Canadian defensemen that were benched for most of the rest of the series. Kharlamov did set up the game-winner in game 4, but against star players all you can really hope to do is limit the damage. It seems that Canada did a very good job of that while playing at home, especially when Clarke's line was on the ice.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 02:38 PM
  #202
VMBM
Uncool & heavy
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,654
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The results of the Moscow part of the series should be viewed from the standpoint of the complete Kharlamov/Petrov/Mikhailov trio. How much did Petrov and Mikhailov contribute? Very little. Petrov 1G/1A, Mikhailov zero.

Even if lines are split it is a very legitimate question to ask which players had an upward performance trajectory during the Moscow part of the series and who had a downward performance trajectory.
From the Soviet team only Kharlamov and especially Yakushev stood out as second half of the series performers.
Shadrin didn't stand out for you?

I would also include Maltsev and Vikulov to those who were the biggest disappointments, throughout the tournament, in fact; at least Mikhailov and Petrov were very effective in Canada. Kharlamov-Maltsev-Vikulov line dominated at the 1972 World Championships and they all made it to the all-star team.

And yes, Kharlamov played very little with Mikhailov and Petrov in the series. Mikhailov was very inefficient in Moscow, but he did make a great pass to Petrov's stick in the 5th game that lead to Yuri Blinov's goal - Kuzkin getting the credit for the 2nd assist*
And the Mikhailov-Petrov-Blinov line did create a lot of scoring chances in the final game, but - a big but - they just couldn't put it in; even letting PHIL Esposito rob them on the goal-line.

* as I've said many times here, the 1972 Summit Series statistics are full of errors - which anyone with the DVD set, stats and some knowledge can spot - they are almost a rule rather than exception, especially when secondary assists are concerned. Certainly the stats give a decent indication of how a player did in the series, but... *frustrated*


Last edited by VMBM: 09-03-2010 at 03:29 PM.
VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 02:49 PM
  #203
VMBM
Uncool & heavy
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,654
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Center Shift View Post
Maybe Kharlamov was extremely dominant in games 5 and 6, I'm not sure, and that motivated Canada's extreme tactics. But the blog Black Dog Hates Skunks is tracking scoring chances from the 1972 series, and through the first 4 games Bobby Clarke's numbers are outstanding. The Soviets had only 13 scoring chances in the first 4 games at even strength while Clarke was on the ice, even though Clarke was often put out to take defensive zone draws and was often matched up against Kharlamov. On top of that, Canada had 24 chances themselves, nearly twice as many as the opposition, which shows that Clarke's line was not only shutting down the opposition but very much holding their own.
I wouldn't say "extremely dominant", but he was very good in them, alright... IMO the games where he was clearly the best skater on the ice, were g1 and g3. In game 2, he was fairly invisible, in game 4 I think he was only 'good'.

BTW, it wasn't just the slash; Kharlamov was being brutalized right from the start in game 6. I think the colour commentator (Brian Conacher?) noticed & said "they are giving Kharlamov a lot of attention tonight" or something similar.


Last edited by VMBM: 09-03-2010 at 02:57 PM.
VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 03:55 PM
  #204
Up the Irons
Registered User
 
Up the Irons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,298
vCash: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
If we can judge NHLers based on how they perform in the playoffs, we can judge old Soviet and European players based on how they performed in tournaments.

I have never seen a coherent argument that any of the Soviet greats were top 10 worthy. At best, Kharlamov was close to Lafleur (not a top 10 player), though he dominated the Soviet league to a lesser degree than Lafleur dominated the NHL. Tretiak had a long, distinguished career, playing behind a powerhouse team with plenty of ups and downs in international tournaments. I can see Martin Brodeur (not a top 10 player) as a possible comparison. It's highly highly unlikely that Tretiak was as great as Hasek (who barely missed out on the Top 10). Fetisov? At best Ray Bourque (barely a top 10 player) without nearly as much longevity (so well behind Bourque in other words).
farely solid. the top 10 is tough to crack; Hasek and Jagr maybe. But, from 11 to 20 there is probably room for 2 Soviets; 21 to 50 three or four more. that's 6 in the top 50. Which is 6 more than many of these tatooed Maple Leafers will admit too.

Up the Irons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 04:04 PM
  #205
Up the Irons
Registered User
 
Up the Irons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,298
vCash: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by doktor2d View Post
Or to give you a more direct answer ...
Before Russians (etc) and North Americans regularly played in the same league ... who's to know? A good tournament here, a bad one there, and impressions are made on a small data set.
I do know this ... there were Soviets so good in 1972 that Bobby Clarke had to break an ankle. Bobby Clarke. The man could shut down opponents, but not this one.
And there's no way that a system produces players like Fedorov, Bure and Mogilny without having marvelous players in the previous generation.
We know how good those three were. But can anyone really say how good Fetisov or Kharlamov were?
I can't. It's a fun debate though ... but totally subjective. They didn't play in the same league. So you could make an argument that no Russian can crack the top 10. You can make an argument that one or more could. It's all banter and all for for fun.
No one knows.
bang on. It was Canada needed to resort to such questionable tactics. why? Because the Soviets were too skillfull!!! Too skillfull for Canada's best. think that over a little bit.

I said it before, your eyes don't lie. On all the occasions that I watched Canada vs Russia, only twice would I say that Canada was better: in 76 when Russia did not have their best lineup and 2010 in Vancouver. Every other time it was too close to say one side was simply better than the other. Well, I said it earlier, Russia was the better team in 72.

Up the Irons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 04:23 PM
  #206
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,614
vCash: 500
Shadrin

Quote:
Originally Posted by VMBM View Post
Shadrin didn't stand out for you?

I would also include Maltsev and Vikulov to those who were the biggest disappointments, throughout the tournament, in fact; at least Mikhailov and Petrov were very effective in Canada. Kharlamov-Maltsev-Vikulov line dominated at the 1972 World Championships and they all made it to the all-star team.

And yes, Kharlamov played very little with Mikhailov and Petrov in the series. Mikhailov was very inefficient in Moscow, but he did make a great pass to Petrov's stick in the 5th game that lead to Yuri Blinov's goal - Kuzkin getting the credit for the 2nd assist*
And the Mikhailov-Petrov-Blinov line did create a lot of scoring chances in the final game, but - a big but - they just couldn't put it in; even letting PHIL Esposito rob them on the goal-line.

* as I've said many times here, the 1972 Summit Series statistics are full of errors - which anyone with the DVD set, stats and some knowledge can spot - they are almost a rule rather than exception, especially when secondary assists are concerned. Certainly the stats give a decent indication of how a player did in the series, but... *frustrated*
Shadrin was solid throughout the series.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 08:23 PM
  #207
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 12,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustE View Post
farely solid. the top 10 is tough to crack; Hasek and Jagr maybe. But, from 11 to 20 there is probably room for 2 Soviets; 21 to 50 three or four more. that's 6 in the top 50. Which is 6 more than many of these tatooed Maple Leafers will admit too.
On the current list here, there are 3 Russian (Kharlamov, Fetisov and Tretiak) in the top 50 and 2 more (Makarov and Mikhailov) in the top 70.

5 in the top 70 isn't really that far off from 6 in 50.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2010, 12:15 AM
  #208
Starchild74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
When was Yzerman way better defensively than Jagr? In his prime or when he was racking up 69 points, lol this just shows your true bias right here. While your at it, why dont we rank jari kurri, henri richard and peter forsberg above Jagr. I mean they were way better defensively.

Yzerman above jagr is a complete joke, bt why am i surprised that you came to this conclusion.

You love to make assumptions that Yzerman was a two way player his whole career like trottier or schmidt, sorry that aint the case at all. As a matter of fact, Bowman was ready to trade him for Yashin if he didn't improve his defense, lol that would have been hilarious.
Yzerman was always decent defensively but it was when Bowman became a coach and he teached Yzeramn that he could racking up points or focus more on beiing a two way center. You can not argue that Yzerman was way better defensively then Jagr. Jagr is one of my favourites players ever and watched Penguins games just to see him as I hate the Penguins. But he was hortrible defensively. He had more offensive skill then Yzerman. He coud stick handle through 5 guys in a phonebooth. One of my favourtie goals of all time is Jagr's goal against Chicago in the Finals. But Yzerman was no slouch offensively either. Like I said he was the best centre if not th ebest player not named Gretzky, Lemieux for a 3 or 4 years period. Now you might not think so but nobody in the history of the NHL has scored more points in a season that was not named Lemieux, and Gretzky and was a captian from the age of 22 and beld Red Wings. I would pick Yzerman any time to build my team because he did so much as a player.

Just because you have made some statements that were not able to back up and were totally fabricated now you are trying to bring in Jari Kurri and others against Jagr. That is seriously something a 4 year old would do.

I never said Yzerman was a two center like Trottier or Schmidt. He wsa a decent two way forward and then when Bowman became coach and was able to teach him more abou tht edefensive part of the game then he became one of the best two way forwards in the NHL. Also one thing you forget is that in order for the Red Wings in the late 80's and early 90's to have any success it rested on the shoulder of Yzerman. Once Detroit started to get better and better players. The offence was not all on the shoulders of Yzerman.

Once again you are makng things up. Scotty Bowman had a deal on the table according to speculation that was Yashin for Yzerman. Bowman thought about it but never pulled the trigger. He never gave Yzerman an ultimatum. He knew that Yzerman was already a better all round center then Yashin and knew that all he needed was more time and push Yzerman and he could be a great two way Center. Scotty Bowman has already stated that even though the offer was on the table it was never close to the trade coming through. Now you can try and say what you want. Or make things up if you wish but Boman never gave Yzerman an ultimatum.

Starchild74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2010, 01:03 AM
  #209
Starchild74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Why would I care if you think it's a mornic statement? Phil Esposito certainly thought Kharlamov, Petrov, Mikhailov, Maltsev and Yakushev were all great players. Sure he doesn't think much of tretiak, but he always praises the other guys in interviews that I have read and seen. Rangers GM Emile francis always wanted Vaclav Nedomansky on his team. Ken Dryden always praised valeri kharlamov.

I dont need a biased guy like you telling me if i should stop watching hockey. I just find it hilarious how so many people have a bias towards a player because they are 'canadian', really it amazes me. Mix politics with sports. I dont know where you have been but the NHL has been dominated by international players for like the last 12 years. Heck you say it even started since 1994. Just name the 10 best forwards and at least 4 or 5 of them will be euros, oh wait I would be asking for your opinion, you would probably rank Towes above Ovechkin.

If the hockey hall of fame was truly based on greatness. Guys like mullen, laparde, gartner, cicarelli, mcdonald, etc would not be in the hall of fame. I have seen them play many times, they were what they are, good players, far from great. I will never believe in a million years that Cicarelli is better than firsov, mikhailov or petrov.
It's a moronic statement because you are saying every Russian and Czech i s a great Player. That is not true. You named a few of the greats but not every single player is great just because of what nationality they are or where they play. You make statements that are insane. If you disagree with my opinions great. But do not come back with an argument that all Russian and Czech's in the 70's and 80's were great. By the way I am not saying that all Canadian players are all great either in case you do not understand

Yes Esposito praised the Soviet players as a matter of fact after 1972 th eSoviet players and for that matter Europens players were viewed a lot differently. I think you are trying to read into things that I am not saying. I have never once said that there were no great SOviet players so I do not understand why you are naming players that were great or examples of coaches or NHL players wishing to play with Soviet Players

Where have I had a biased towards a player or against a player. I never continued to say a player is better then another that I can not make an argument for. You might not agree with me but I give arguments why I believe something. If it offends you I do not care. I will not pick a player based on who they played for or where they were born. Whether I like a player or not is not important to me. Actually if you look into the history of hockey starting from the 1980's. There si alwasy a Eropean that is ranked pretty high at their position for being really good. Now that all players from all over the world can now compete in the same league at the same time it is better and we get to see the best against the best every night in the NHL. However sayin gthat I will not appoligize for Canada having some of the great playersevery year. But it seems you are biased towards Europens as you seem to be arguing for anyone who is European. Or bringing up Russia and comparing them to Canadians. Like Toews and Ovechkin. No person in their right mind would compare these two. I imagine you would pick any Sergei Samsonov over Patrick Marleau becasue Samsonov is Russian right?

This was and is not a discusion on how Russian or any Europen is compared to a North American today it is about in the past when they did not play in the NHL and was harder for some to see them

Lanny MCdonald is one of the all time greats and belongs in the HHOF. Joe Mullen belongs there for he was the first American born player to achieve milestones in the NHL that is why he is there. If Joe Mullen was Canadian he might not have made it in however he was as you said good and one of the border line players in the HHOF. there. Just like Mogilny should be in the HHOF for being the first Soviet player to defect that truly was an elite player and skilled. Mind you he has more skill then Mullen but he is along the same lines of a Joe Mullen to a degree was the first to prove that Soviets and Russian could score at an elite level in the NHL. Mike Gartner belongs in the HHOF only because technisaly he was one of the most consistent goal scorers ever over a long period of time. He had great speed and even though he was a one dimensional player he belongs there. Ciccarelli is the toughest one He scored alot of goals in from of the net. Was a clutch performer and had some skill it is more of how he made a career of standing in from of the net and taking punishments to score goals. Before that it was not seemed as a skill. For example Tomas Holstrom might have never been given the chance if it was not for Ciccarelli showing people that it can be a very important part to the game. Now he was not the first to do this but he did make it famous to a degree. As far as Laprade goes. I thnk that is what you meant. I never saw play and is one of the old time hockey players that some felt he belonged and other didn't. This is not a pro Canadian thing it is about the old time hockey.

I have always believed that they should have 3 categories in the HHOF. One is for pre expansion. There are som eplayers that might never get into the HHOF because it is getting harder to select them because of new players being available. Two is NHL. Players that excelled in the NHL using the standards that some try to talk abou ton here. Third is International. This is for the Europeans, Soviets and even a few North Americans. who were great in international play or made hockey big in their respective countries. I mean there are players that I have never heard of or at least seen that have played for countries and shaped their game that should be in it. So if you are saying their is not enough Europens in the HHOF I will agree with you however when there is a voting proccess you can not compare their leagues with the NHL it is not fair for any of the players.

You can believe whatever you want to believe about whomever however you can not use the argument that it is biased by Canadians or whomever. Players shoul dnot be compared by nationlity. It is once again judgement based on who you have seen play and feel is better according to each standards. If you can not handle that then you will forever be angry as there will always be a player that you like that is ranked so low compared to another

Starchild74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2010, 01:20 AM
  #210
Starchild74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
So what you are trying to say that Makrov loved his coach and he was given first line ice minutes, lol. It is well known that he fueded with his coach, what do you want me to do? Go phone makarov and ask him? Or go look for newspapers from 1990?

Did you ever think about why Gilmour's production all of a sudden skyrocketed when he came to Toronto? Because he saw increase in ice time smartguy. As soon as he was traded in the 92 season, his scoring went up right away.
A lot of players feud with their coaches. That does not mean anything. Listen You can make any accusation you want however. Sergei Priakin who I think we can agree is not anywhere near th eplayer as Makarov never complained or mentioned about the pure hatred by the Calgary Flames players when it came to Soviet players. Now if he was not hated then why would they hate makarov being a soviet player when he could only help them repeat as Cup champions

So because he was not given first line minutes that means he was discriminated against becasue he was Soviet. He was a RW and Joe Mullen was their top RW, He was the guy who helped the Flames win the cup. Now why woul dyou take him off the first line for. Sergei was a second line player and got quite a bit of minutes and played with some very good players

Yes Doug Gilmour's points went up because of minutes to a degree in Toronto. It was also because for the first time in his career Gilmour was the main guy. In St Louis he was always under Federko and when he went to Calgary he was behind Niewendyk. However Gilmour was always a very good player offensively never great but once again to make it seem like makarov had no one to play with is absurd.

Makarov did see some time on the number 1 PP unit at times and a few times not often did play with Niewendyk but once again not often. Makarov did not get all his points by himself and you know what. You might not ike to admit it but makarov had help fromo his teamates and helped his transition to the NHL easy. Did he make them a better team? Yes in the regular season and on paper but not in the playoffs though

Starchild74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2010, 01:36 AM
  #211
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starchild74 View Post
It's a moronic statement because you are saying every Russian and Czech i s a great Player. That is not true. You named a few of the greats but not every single player is great just because of what nationality they are or where they play. You make statements that are insane. If you disagree with my opinions great. But do not come back with an argument that all Russian and Czech's in the 70's and 80's were great. By the way I am not saying that all Canadian players are all great either in case you do not understand

Yes Esposito praised the Soviet players as a matter of fact after 1972 th eSoviet players and for that matter Europens players were viewed a lot differently. I think you are trying to read into things that I am not saying. I have never once said that there were no great SOviet players so I do not understand why you are naming players that were great or examples of coaches or NHL players wishing to play with Soviet Players

Where have I had a biased towards a player or against a player. I never continued to say a player is better then another that I can not make an argument for. You might not agree with me but I give arguments why I believe something. If it offends you I do not care. I will not pick a player based on who they played for or where they were born. Whether I like a player or not is not important to me. Actually if you look into the history of hockey starting from the 1980's. There si alwasy a Eropean that is ranked pretty high at their position for being really good. Now that all players from all over the world can now compete in the same league at the same time it is better and we get to see the best against the best every night in the NHL. However sayin gthat I will not appoligize for Canada having some of the great playersevery year. But it seems you are biased towards Europens as you seem to be arguing for anyone who is European. Or bringing up Russia and comparing them to Canadians. Like Toews and Ovechkin. No person in their right mind would compare these two. I imagine you would pick any Sergei Samsonov over Patrick Marleau becasue Samsonov is Russian right?

This was and is not a discusion on how Russian or any Europen is compared to a North American today it is about in the past when they did not play in the NHL and was harder for some to see them

Lanny MCdonald is one of the all time greats and belongs in the HHOF. Joe Mullen belongs there for he was the first American born player to achieve milestones in the NHL that is why he is there. If Joe Mullen was Canadian he might not have made it in however he was as you said good and one of the border line players in the HHOF. there. Just like Mogilny should be in the HHOF for being the first Soviet player to defect that truly was an elite player and skilled. Mind you he has more skill then Mullen but he is along the same lines of a Joe Mullen to a degree was the first to prove that Soviets and Russian could score at an elite level in the NHL. Mike Gartner belongs in the HHOF only because technisaly he was one of the most consistent goal scorers ever over a long period of time. He had great speed and even though he was a one dimensional player he belongs there. Ciccarelli is the toughest one He scored alot of goals in from of the net. Was a clutch performer and had some skill it is more of how he made a career of standing in from of the net and taking punishments to score goals. Before that it was not seemed as a skill. For example Tomas Holstrom might have never been given the chance if it was not for Ciccarelli showing people that it can be a very important part to the game. Now he was not the first to do this but he did make it famous to a degree. As far as Laprade goes. I thnk that is what you meant. I never saw play and is one of the old time hockey players that some felt he belonged and other didn't. This is not a pro Canadian thing it is about the old time hockey.

I have always believed that they should have 3 categories in the HHOF. One is for pre expansion. There are som eplayers that might never get into the HHOF because it is getting harder to select them because of new players being available. Two is NHL. Players that excelled in the NHL using the standards that some try to talk abou ton here. Third is International. This is for the Europeans, Soviets and even a few North Americans. who were great in international play or made hockey big in their respective countries. I mean there are players that I have never heard of or at least seen that have played for countries and shaped their game that should be in it. So if you are saying their is not enough Europens in the HHOF I will agree with you however when there is a voting proccess you can not compare their leagues with the NHL it is not fair for any of the players.

You can believe whatever you want to believe about whomever however you can not use the argument that it is biased by Canadians or whomever. Players shoul dnot be compared by nationlity. It is once again judgement based on who you have seen play and feel is better according to each standards. If you can not handle that then you will forever be angry as there will always be a player that you like that is ranked so low compared to another
If you think Lanny mcdonald, Mike Gartner and Joe Mullen are hall of famers, then your standards for induction are obviosuly low, you dont have to tell me what they accomplsihed, i'm well aware of what they did okay professor.

Since you would rather have Yzerman instead of Jagr, i'll take what you say with a grain of salt.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2010, 01:41 AM
  #212
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starchild74 View Post
A lot of players feud with their coaches. That does not mean anything. Listen You can make any accusation you want however. Sergei Priakin who I think we can agree is not anywhere near th eplayer as Makarov never complained or mentioned about the pure hatred by the Calgary Flames players when it came to Soviet players. Now if he was not hated then why would they hate makarov being a soviet player when he could only help them repeat as Cup champions

So because he was not given first line minutes that means he was discriminated against becasue he was Soviet. He was a RW and Joe Mullen was their top RW, He was the guy who helped the Flames win the cup. Now why woul dyou take him off the first line for. Sergei was a second line player and got quite a bit of minutes and played with some very good players

Yes Doug Gilmour's points went up because of minutes to a degree in Toronto. It was also because for the first time in his career Gilmour was the main guy. In St Louis he was always under Federko and when he went to Calgary he was behind Niewendyk. However Gilmour was always a very good player offensively never great but once again to make it seem like makarov had no one to play with is absurd.

Makarov did see some time on the number 1 PP unit at times and a few times not often did play with Niewendyk but once again not often. Makarov did not get all his points by himself and you know what. You might not ike to admit it but makarov had help fromo his teamates and helped his transition to the NHL easy. Did he make them a better team? Yes in the regular season and on paper but not in the playoffs though
I'm not the first person on this board to say the Soviets were discriminated against when they first came into the league. You can write big paragraphs and pretend it never happened, but it did.

By the way, i came across a very interesting stat:
for the 1990-91 season
Al MaCinnis took 305 shots on net
Theo Fluery took 249 shots on net
Joe Nieuwendyk took 222 shots on net
Doug Gilmour took 135 shots on net

Sergei Makarov on the other hand took a whooping 93 shots on net and still scored 30 goals. Yeah i'm sure all players were given the puck evenly right?lol.


Last edited by ushvinder: 09-04-2010 at 06:24 PM.
ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2010, 01:44 AM
  #213
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starchild74 View Post
Yzerman was always decent defensively but it was when Bowman became a coach and he teached Yzeramn that he could racking up points or focus more on beiing a two way center. You can not argue that Yzerman was way better defensively then Jagr. Jagr is one of my favourites players ever and watched Penguins games just to see him as I hate the Penguins. But he was hortrible defensively. He had more offensive skill then Yzerman. He coud stick handle through 5 guys in a phonebooth. One of my favourtie goals of all time is Jagr's goal against Chicago in the Finals. But Yzerman was no slouch offensively either. Like I said he was the best centre if not th ebest player not named Gretzky, Lemieux for a 3 or 4 years period. Now you might not think so but nobody in the history of the NHL has scored more points in a season that was not named Lemieux, and Gretzky and was a captian from the age of 22 and beld Red Wings. I would pick Yzerman any time to build my team because he did so much as a player.

Just because you have made some statements that were not able to back up and were totally fabricated now you are trying to bring in Jari Kurri and others against Jagr. That is seriously something a 4 year old would do.

I never said Yzerman was a two center like Trottier or Schmidt. He wsa a decent two way forward and then when Bowman became coach and was able to teach him more abou tht edefensive part of the game then he became one of the best two way forwards in the NHL. Also one thing you forget is that in order for the Red Wings in the late 80's and early 90's to have any success it rested on the shoulder of Yzerman. Once Detroit started to get better and better players. The offence was not all on the shoulders of Yzerman.

Once again you are makng things up. Scotty Bowman had a deal on the table according to speculation that was Yashin for Yzerman. Bowman thought about it but never pulled the trigger. He never gave Yzerman an ultimatum. He knew that Yzerman was already a better all round center then Yashin and knew that all he needed was more time and push Yzerman and he could be a great two way Center. Scotty Bowman has already stated that even though the offer was on the table it was never close to the trade coming through. Now you can try and say what you want. Or make things up if you wish but Boman never gave Yzerman an ultimatum.
No it was well known back then that Bowman wanted yzerman out of detriot because he at first wasn't willing to change his ways and become a two way player, but when bowman proposed for the trade than managment told scotty flat out that they were not going to trade Yzerman. You can try and twist it as much as you want, so you can think that your right, but thats how it went down. I dont even care anymore, why are your bringing up things mentioned 2-3 days ago?

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2010, 11:20 PM
  #214
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
If you think Lanny mcdonald, Mike Gartner and Joe Mullen are hall of famers, then your standards for induction are obviosuly low, you dont have to tell me what they accomplsihed, i'm well aware of what they did okay professor.

Since you would rather have Yzerman instead of Jagr, i'll take what you say with a grain of salt.
All 3 guys are borderline HHOF's but are viewed as great guys which probably help push them in IMO.

There are guys in the Hall who are worse and guys not in the hall who should be there ahead of these 3.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2010, 09:55 PM
  #215
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
No it was well known back then that Bowman wanted yzerman out of detriot because he at first wasn't willing to change his ways and become a two way player, but when bowman proposed for the trade than managment told scotty flat out that they were not going to trade Yzerman. You can try and twist it as much as you want, so you can think that your right, but thats how it went down. I dont even care anymore, why are your bringing up things mentioned 2-3 days ago?
Sorry, that is absolutely not true. Bowman brought up the idea, but it was squashed by Ilitch - and that was the end of it. And that story did not come out until quite a while after it occurred.

Yzerman was pretty good defensively back then when he was given the opportunity --- which is more than you think ---he killed a lot of penalties back then, and was often double-shifted on a checking line to cover the other team's top line. But yes, during his regular firs-line shifts he was not doing much back-checking. So much of Detroit's offense went through him.

RabbinsDuck 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 03:02 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.