lafleur played in an era when the nhl was devoid of at least 30 taalented nhl players due to the impact of the WHA.
Agreed that the NHL was more watered down when Lafleur played. But it affected all elite player in the NHL equally, and Lafleur still dominated them as much as he did.
Quote:
jagr played during the clutch and grab and nuetral zone trap low scoring nhl.
Irrelevant, when you are comparing players against their peers.
Agreed that the NHL was more watered down when Lafleur played. But it affected all elite player in the NHL equally, and Lafleur still dominated them as much as he did.
Irrelevant, when you are comparing players against their peers.
was their anyone better than jagr during the 90`s outside of the dominator
was their anyone better than jagr during the 90`s outside of the dominator
Early 90s? Definitely Mario Lemieux. Probably Ray Bourque too. Mid 90s? It might not be popular around here, but I would take Mark Messier over Jagr in a playoff series. Late 90s? Regular season goes to Jagr no question. If you include playoffs there are arguments for Peter Forsberg (as there were at the time). Depending on how much you value playoffs, you might take Scott Stevens over Jagr.
See, I don't think this is fair to Lafleur, at all. Why should he be punished for playing on a better team? Lafleur was outscoring his closest teammates by huge margins in the playoffs, and I'm pretty sure it was by a much greater margin than Jagr was outscoring his teammates. (Once hockey reference works again, I can post stats). Were Lafleur's Canadiens really that much better offensively than Jagr's Penguins? Were they better at all? Jagr's Penguins were one of the few teams in the league playing an offensive-first style in the mid-late 90s. The big difference is that the Canadiens had Ken Dryden, Larry Robinson, Serge Savard, and Guy Lapointe, while the Penguins had a garbage defense and inconsistent goaltending. But Guy Lafleur WAS the offensive engine of that team.
I wasn't attempting to punish Lafleur for playing on a strong team. Lafleur was clearly a great player in the playoffs, very likely better than Jagr, as so few players dominated a regular season to the level that Lafleur did and then continued that domination to basically the same degree in the playoffs. I agree that the Canadiens of the 70s were not an overpowering offensive team as well. I have no problem with analysis that involves looking at a player compared to his teammates. My main issue is people heavily weighing the playoffs in the discussion, and by heavily I mean weighing playoff success (generally team playoff success) over their individual play in the regular season and on a per game basis in the playoffs.
See, I don't think this is fair to Lafleur, at all. Why should he be punished for playing on a better team? Lafleur was outscoring his closest teammates by huge margins in the playoffs, and I'm pretty sure it was by a much greater margin than Jagr was outscoring his teammates. (Once hockey reference works again, I can post stats). Were Lafleur's Canadiens really that much better offensively than Jagr's Penguins? Were they better at all? Jagr's Penguins were one of the few teams in the league playing an offensive-first style in the mid-late 90s. The big difference is that the Canadiens had Ken Dryden, Larry Robinson, Serge Savard, and Guy Lapointe, while the Penguins had a garbage defense and inconsistent goaltending. But Guy Lafleur WAS the offensive engine of that team.
Lafleur's 2 best seasons:
76-77 Habs GF: 387 (1st of 18), GA: 171 (1st of 18) Lafleur 136pts.
77-78 Habs GF: 359 (1st of 18), GA: 183 (1st of 18) Lafleur 132pts.
Jagr's 2 best seasons (late 90s-early 00s without Lemieux):
98-99 GF: 242 (4th of 27), GA: 225 (17th of 27) Jagr 127 pts
00-01 GF: 281 (2nd of 30), GAt: 256 (26th of 30) Jagr 121 pts
I think I'd say that Lafleur's teams were just plain better, period. By a lot. Offensively and defensively. In their best prime seasons Jagr scored 9 points less on a team that scored 145 less goals. That 98-99 season and to a somewhat lesser degree his 00-01 season are just phenomenal.
The fact that the Habs were putting up that kind of offense while having the airtight defense they had at the same time makes this argument a non-starter for me at least.
First off, Guy had a 6 year peak. His injuries really hit him hard after 1979-1980. He was limited to 3 playoff games in the playoffs in 1980, but still scored 3 goals and 1 assist after his final 100+ point regular season, so I included that in his peak.
Second off, Guy wasn't specifically horrid in the playoffs outside those 6 years - he just wasn't an elite player, period.
The OP asked for the case for Guy over Jagr - and it's entirely based on peak. Even if their regular season peaks are basically equal (which is what I think), Guy has the higher playoff peak and it's really not debatable.
Okay outside of his peak guy has a 56-7-17-24 line where Jagr is probably close to a PPG outside of his peak (not sure which 6 years to pick).
Basically he was pretty consistent year in year out except for that one dreadful year in 06 for the Rangers.
I'm with Jack Slater on this one Jagr is better overall and the peak difference, even if there is one , is pretty even as Jagr had the better peak in the regular season.
Lafleur's 2 best seasons:
76-77 Habs GF: 387 (1st of 18), GA: 171 (1st of 18) Lafleur 136pts.
77-78 Habs GF: 359 (1st of 18), GA: 183 (1st of 18) Lafleur 132pts.
Personally, I think Lafluer's greatest individual season is 78-79. He clearly dominated his own teammates in a matter that he never did before. The raw numbers are lower, but winning a team scoring title by 52 pts on a cup winner, is IMO his greatest individual accomplishment. He just didn't have the same type of supporting cast performance he had in his Hart/Pearson years.
Being by far the best offensive forward on the best team I've ever seen trumps anything Jagr accomplished in his career.
Interesting that people who saw both their entire careers, tend to pick Lafleur, whereas people who use stats as their bible, tend to pick Jagr. It's close, but to be honest, I never thought of Jagr as the 'Man' during his career, whereas I did think of Lafleur in that manner for 5 years. Most of the top players during Jagr's era main focus was winning games and cups, whereas Jagr always seemed more than happy to pad his stats, without regard to what it took to win and lose hockey games. Much like Dionne in that regard. Believe it or not, Lafleur actually had a leash on him by Scotty Bowman, who thought it more important to win games, rather than see his star get points. Eddie Johnston certainly didn't put that type of leash on Jagr.
Being by far the best offensive forward on the best team I've ever seen trumps anything Jagr accomplished in his career.
Interesting that people who saw both their entire careers, tend to pick Lafleur, whereas people who use stats as their bible, tend to pick Jagr. It's close, but to be honest, I never thought of Jagr as the 'Man' during his career, whereas I did think of Lafleur in that manner for 5 years. Most of the top players during Jagr's era main focus was winning games and cups, whereas Jagr always seemed more than happy to pad his stats, without regard to what it took to win and lose hockey games. Much like Dionne in that regard. Believe it or not, Lafleur actually had a leash on him by Scotty Bowman, who thought it more important to win games, rather than see his star get points. Eddie Johnston certainly didn't put that type of leash on Jagr.
Jagr was never "the man"? Seriously? When Mario was out, he was the man. No one (ok maybe Orr) would be the man over Mario.
Lafleur did nothing outside his 6 year prime. Nothing. Even if you give him the edge in peak, which is arguable at best, Jagr's longetivity is just much, much better.
Lafleur's and Jagr's main goal is to score. And Jagr was just better at that.
It's just ridiculously wrong to say that Jagr padded his stats and did not care about the team. That's first grade bullsh1t right here. That's like saying Ray Bourque just compiled goals and points in Boston, and then won the Cup on a stacked team while not being the man. But for some reason, this just never happens with Ray.
Jagr was never "the man"? Seriously? When Mario was out, he was the man. No one (ok maybe Orr) would be the man over Mario.
Lafleur did nothing outside his 6 year prime. Nothing.
Most lists have Lafleur ahead and they are compiled by people who've seen both play.
That said, if not for injuries, Lafleur would have had 2 or 3 more 100+ pt seasons based on his PPG those years, so he actually was more than nothing outside his peak.
You can call Jagr the 'Man' all you want, but to be honest, I personally never feared a team led by Jagr. He was allowed to play pond hockey by the Pens, but unfortunately, unless you have an all-timer like Gretzky or Lemieux on your side, pond hockey does not win championships. But watching players play and reading up on stats are two completely different things.
Quote:
It's just ridiculously wrong to say that Jagr padded his stats and did not care about the team. That's first grade bullsh1t right here. That's like saying Ray Bourque just compiled goals and points in Boston, and then won the Cup on a stacked team while not being the man. But for some reason, this just never happens with Ray.
Bourque got two mediocre teams to the finals and lost against dynasty teams. Jagr never carried a team in the playoffs in that matter. What a truly foolish analogy.
Jagr's main focus his entire career was padding stats, and for that he was great. Winning was secondary.
Agreed that the NHL was more watered down when Lafleur played. But it affected all elite player in the NHL equally, and Lafleur still dominated them as much as he did.
Irrelevant, when you are comparing players against their peers.
It is relevant because this era featured leass scoring all together and a player's creativity and space on the ice was completed limited due to the clutch and grab.
The fact is Jagr still won 4 straight Art Ross tophies during "the clutch and grab" era so he clearly dominated his peers.
It is relevant because this era featured leass scoring all together and a player's creativity and space on the ice was completed limited due to the clutch and grab.
The fact is Jagr still won 4 straight Art Ross tophies during "the clutch and grab" era so he clearly dominated his peers.
He was allowed to play pond hockey by his coaches. This peers were not. Forsberg or Sakic, for example, being allowed to play pond hockey during the same era would have put up better raw numbers, but they would certainly have won far less games.
Most lists have Lafleur ahead and they are compiled by people who've seen both play.
That said, if not for injuries, Lafleur would have had 2 or 3 more 100+ pt seasons based on his PPG those years, so he actually was more than nothing outside his peak.
You can call Jagr the 'Man' all you want, but to be honest, I personally never feared a team led by Jagr. He was allowed to play pond hockey by the Pens, but unfortunately, unless you have an all-timer like Gretzky or Lemieux on your side, pond hockey does not win championships. But watching players play and reading up on stats are two completely different things.
If not for injuries? What kind of argument that is?
If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle?
Yeah, and these lists are flawless and unbiased. As evidenced by you calling Jagr stat compiler. This is just ridiculous.
Most lists have Lafleur ahead and they are compiled by people who've seen both play.
That said, if not for injuries, Lafleur would have had 2 or 3 more 100+ pt seasons based on his PPG those years, so he actually was more than nothing outside his peak.
You can call Jagr the 'Man' all you want, but to be honest, I personally never feared a team led by Jagr. He was allowed to play pond hockey by the Pens, but unfortunately, unless you have an all-timer like Gretzky or Lemieux on your side, pond hockey does not win championships. But watching players play and reading up on stats are two completely different things.
Bourque got two mediocre teams to the finals and lost against dynasty teams. Jagr never carried a team in the playoffs in that matter. What a truly foolish analogy.
Jagr's main focus his entire career was padding stats, and for that he was great. Winning was secondary.
Tell me did Greztky and Lemieux ever lead a team to the Cup without any Hall of Famers on their team?
What's this pond hockey talk? I don't recall Jagr playing pond hockey because if I recall he was playing against players like Bourque, Chelios, Stevens, Pronger, Niedermayer, Lidstrom, Leetch, MacInnis, those are some pretty darn good defensemen that Jagr made look foolish on numerous occasions.
How about the goalies he played against, Hasek, Roy, Brodeur, Belfour, Cujo... all legitimate Hall of Fame goaltenders playing in their prime and still very dominant in an era that favoured goalies and defensemen in general.
He was allowed to play pond hockey by his coaches. This peers were not. Forsberg or Sakic, for example, being allowed to play pond hockey during the same era would have put up better raw numbers, but they would certainly have won far less games.
Do you know why Jagr was allowed this so-called pond hockey? Because he was far and away more talented than most players in the NHL.
His talent alone is probably only 3rd to none to Orr and Lemieux.
Didn't Lemieux play pond hockey? Or was he winning Selke awards?
The point of the matter is that Jagr took usually average teams to the playoffs every year.
Jagr never had the chance to play on dominant teams like New Jersey, Dallas, Detroit, Colorado, Philadelphia in the late 90's, in fact if I remember he played against them.
Forsberg and Sakic had Roy, Foote, Blake, Bourque (later on), Drury (still on the up and was pretty darn good then), Hejduk...
Do I even need to mention who Yzerman played with?
Tell me did Greztky and Lemieux ever lead a team to the Cup without any Hall of Famers on their team?
What's this pond hockey talk? I don't recall Jagr playing pond hockey because if I recall he was playing against players like Bourque, Chelios, Stevens, Pronger, Niedermayer, Lidstrom, Leetch, MacInnis, those are some pretty darn good defensemen that Jagr made look foolish on numerous occasions.
How about the goalies he played against, Hasek, Roy, Brodeur, Belfour, Cujo... all legitimate Hall of Fame goaltenders playing in their prime and still very dominant in an era that favoured goalies and defensemen in general.
Jagr and the Pens were allowed to play pond hockey. He got some pretty numbers out of it, but unfortunately, not wins and cups on teams he led.
That's fine. A good case can certainly be made for Jagr, but I disagree. I think in a more win focused environment, his numbers would be lower.
Yes, if Jagr played in higher scoring era, like Lafleur, his scoring would be lower, because Habs did not play pond hockey. They played the W.I.N.* system. Lafleur had no freedom for his creativity, he had to stick to the plan and always put aside his own style.
Yes, if Jagr played in higher scoring era, like Lafleur, his scoring would be lower, because Habs did not play pond hockey. They played the W.I.N.* system. Lafleur had no freedom for his creativity, he had to stick to the plan and always put aside his own style.
Exactly, I didn't know that Lafleur was a perinnial Selke winner-nominee.
I didn't know that Montreal was only good because of Lafleur's will to drop his offensive ability for overall team success.
Pittsburgh was sub-par 500 team in the late 90's, they never made the playoffs and Jagr's offense took away from his team's ability to win a Stanley Cup because Kovalev, Straka, Lang, Hedberg, Kaspiritis, Slegr, Roszival were all Hall of Famer players!!
Here I thought the Montreal Canadiens of the 1970's were the greatest hockey dynasty of all-time, boy was I wrong!!
I guess that Lafleur was one darn good hockey player to lead his team every year to the Cup.
Gainey, Robinson, Dryden all played for the Montreal farm team.
Jacques Lemaire, Bod Gainey, Cournoyer didn't play a two-way game to allow Lafleur more offensive freedom!!!
Last edited by livewell68: 01-17-2011 at 09:15 AM.
He was allowed to play pond hockey by his coaches. This peers were not. Forsberg or Sakic, for example, being allowed to play pond hockey during the same era would have put up better raw numbers, but they would certainly have won far less games.
The Penguins in Jagr's time were definitely more offensively minded than the average team. That being said, I don't really think this is a valid criticism of Jagr. If he was just playing all out offensive pond hockey he would obviously put up higher point totals, but his team would also be scored on quite a bit when he was on the ice, and I do not believe that was the case during Jagr's prime years.
