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.

What is the case for Lafleur over Jagr?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-17-2011, 12:17 PM
  #76
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 27,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jags6868 View Post

He still had a good 4 or 5 other Hall of Famers on that team.
Which is damn good.

Might have been a little harsh for Lemaire -- he might have been going there anyways. But Shutt? Not exactly.


Last edited by Bear of Bad News: 01-17-2011 at 12:20 PM. Reason: QEP
MXD is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 12:22 PM
  #77
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
You really think a team will win 3 cups in 4 years if you remove a player who is winning his team scoring titles by an average of 35 pts a year for that 4 year run?

If you look at all the great dynasty teams, other than Gretzky, has an offensive player ever dominated his team scoring titles to a greater degree? .
amony dynasties? I don't know, probably not.

But the team had more than enough scoring to win with Dryden and the big three and of course Gainey and Jarvis.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jags6868 View Post
Difference is they made the Hall of Fame. They had to be good on their own to do so.

The fact of the matter is that Jagr after Lemieux and Francis never played with Hall of Fame players unless you count Oates (near the end of his career) and Shanahan 9the same thing as Oates).

Lafleur might have been the most gifted offensive player on the Montreal dynasty but he is nowhere as dominating as you perceive him to be.

He still had a good 4 or 5 other Hall of Famers on that team.
No, he's absolutely right. Those guys are in the hall mostly thanks to Lafleur.

my point still stands though. And Jagr just never played with anyone good enough for long enough to make them a HHOFer (you can never make a HHOFer out of German Titov or Jan Hrdina, but perhaps he would have put, say, Bernie Nicholls over the hump or Jeremy Roenick, or one of a few LWs like Andreychuk, Roberts, LeClair, Demitra, Kamensky)


Last edited by Bear of Bad News: 01-17-2011 at 12:33 PM. Reason: QEP
seventieslord is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 09:27 PM
  #78
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
FWIW, I think that even though Lafleur was their best player, those Habs teams would have won at least 3 of those 4 cups with him completely removed and a replacement-level player in his place.
I assume the fourth cup is where the 70s Habs lose? The 3rd period of Game 7 of the 79 Conference Finals (they weren't called that back then, but still) is one of those qualitatively good Lafleur moments that I don't think Jagr can match.

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin....cgi?O19790040

Just imagine what Guy Lafleur could have done with all the Too Many Men calls made in last year's playoffs.

blogofmike is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 09:30 PM
  #79
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
I assume the fourth cup is where the 70s Habs lose? The 3rd period of Game 7 of the 79 Conference Finals (they weren't called that back then, but still) is one of those qualitatively good Lafleur moments that I don't think Jagr can match.

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin....cgi?O19790040

Just imagine what Guy Lafleur could have done with all the Too Many Men calls made in last year's playoffs.
Yes, my assumption is that not having Lafleur in 1979 would make a big enough difference against Boston. Cracks were starting to show... they were certainly not as flawless as they had been before.

You are right, Lafleur was simply the difference that game and that corroborates what I'm saying.

seventieslord is offline  
Old
01-18-2011, 07:39 AM
  #80
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Yes, my assumption is that not having Lafleur in 1979 would make a big enough difference against Boston. Cracks were starting to show... they were certainly not as flawless as they had been before.

You are right, Lafleur was simply the difference that game and that corroborates what I'm saying.
Without Lafleur I see them as almost equivalent to the early 70's Habs that won 2 out of 4. Certainly a contender, with the ability to beat anybody, but hardly a lock for the cup with the Isles, Bruins, Sabres and Flyers having about the same shot at those Cups. They might win 1 or 2, but 3 or 4 is a stretch. You just aren't the same team when you lose a guy who is dominating your team scoring lists in the manner Lafleur did.


Last edited by Psycho Papa Joe: 01-18-2011 at 08:01 AM.
Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
01-18-2011, 09:17 AM
  #81
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
Without Lafleur I see them as almost equivalent to the early 70's Habs that won 2 out of 4. Certainly a contender, with the ability to beat anybody, but hardly a lock for the cup with the Isles, Bruins, Sabres and Flyers having about the same shot at those Cups. They might win 1 or 2, but 3 or 4 is a stretch. You just aren't the same team when you lose a guy who is dominating your team scoring lists in the manner Lafleur did.
Just match up the personnel, player for player. They had the 2nd-best #1 defenseman in the league, the best #2, the best #3, one of the two best checking LWs, and one of the two best checking centers. On paper this was the best team in the NHL, pretty easily, and the most likely scenario is that those three cups that they won easily, they still win, maybe not just as easily.

seventieslord is offline  
Old
01-18-2011, 09:31 AM
  #82
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Just match up the personnel, player for player. They had the 2nd-best #1 defenseman in the league, the best #2, the best #3, one of the two best checking LWs, and one of the two best checking centers. On paper this was the best team in the NHL, pretty easily, and the most likely scenario is that those three cups that they won easily, they still win, maybe not just as easily.
Given this, would you still say that Lafleur's team success & playoff scoring is enough to push him past Jagr in comparing the two of them individually?

BraveCanadian is offline  
Old
01-18-2011, 09:43 AM
  #83
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,773
vCash: 500
Lafleur/Lemaire

Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Which is damn good.

Might have been a little harsh for Lemaire -- he might have been going there anyways. But Shutt? Not exactly.
Point could be made that as a player,Lemaire helped Lafleur more than Lafleur helped Lemaire. Lemaire was on a HHOF trajectory before Lafleur even joined the Canadiens.

After Lemaire retired as a player the Canadiens with Lafleur did not come close to winning a cup. When Lemaire returned as coach, Lafleur eventually bailed and Lemaire set the foundation for the 1986 SC team coached by Jean Perron publically with the unseen hand of Lemaire in the background.

Canadiens1958 is offline  
Old
01-18-2011, 10:02 AM
  #84
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Given this, would you still say that Lafleur's team success & playoff scoring is enough to push him past Jagr in comparing the two of them individually?
what do you mean, "would you still say..."? I don't say that. I think Jagr's better. Team success can only be a reflection of an individual to an extent. Jagr's individual dominance trumps it. Lafleur's playoffs only narrow the gap.

seventieslord is offline  
Old
01-18-2011, 10:24 AM
  #85
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,773
vCash: 500
Too Many Men

Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
I assume the fourth cup is where the 70s Habs lose? The 3rd period of Game 7 of the 79 Conference Finals (they weren't called that back then, but still) is one of those qualitatively good Lafleur moments that I don't think Jagr can match.

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin....cgi?O19790040

Just imagine what Guy Lafleur could have done with all the Too Many Men calls made in last year's playoffs.
Lafleur would have been seriously hampered since the flow and variety would have been removed from his game.

"Too many men" penalties are bench management issues and the growing number of such calls are a function of the short shift game.

Canadiens1958 is offline  
Old
01-18-2011, 11:56 AM
  #86
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
what do you mean, "would you still say..."? I don't say that. I think Jagr's better. Team success can only be a reflection of an individual to an extent. Jagr's individual dominance trumps it. Lafleur's playoffs only narrow the gap.
That is pretty much my view of it as well.

For some reason I thought you were giving Lafleur the edge because of his big playoffs on the dynasty.

BraveCanadian is offline  
Old
01-18-2011, 11:57 AM
  #87
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Just match up the personnel, player for player. They had the 2nd-best #1 defenseman in the league, the best #2, the best #3, one of the two best checking LWs, and one of the two best checking centers. On paper this was the best team in the NHL, pretty easily, and the most likely scenario is that those three cups that they won easily, they still win, maybe not just as easily.
That still doesn't make a late-70's Lafleurless team better than the early 70's teams that won 2, one a huge upset. They'd be a contender without a doubt, but not a lock like they were the 1st 3 years of the dynasty. You just don't take away the best player in the game, and expect to be the same team.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
01-18-2011, 12:10 PM
  #88
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,773
vCash: 500
Ken Dryden

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
That still doesn't make a late-70's Lafleurless team better than the early 70's teams that won 2, one a huge upset. They'd be a contender without a doubt, but not a lock like they were the 1st 3 years of the dynasty. You just don't take away the best player in the game, and expect to be the same team.
Take away Ken Dryden and what do you have? 1973-74 Dryden sat out the year and 1974-75 was his comeback year.

In 1971 pre Lafleur the Canadiens were going nowhere 1973-75 without or not in peak form Dryden they do not win. 1979 after Dryden and Lemaire retire they did not win.

Lemaire and Dryden were the two constants 1971-79 with Guy Lapointe. Cournoyer and Savard missed time due to injuries.

Canadiens1958 is offline  
Old
01-18-2011, 12:19 PM
  #89
steve141
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 868
vCash: 500
So after four pages noone is really defending Lafleur's place above Jagr on the ranking, except for playoff peak maybe? Yet another reason to redo the Top 100 list then.

steve141 is offline  
Old
01-18-2011, 01:10 PM
  #90
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
That still doesn't make a late-70's Lafleurless team better than the early 70's teams that won 2, one a huge upset. They'd be a contender without a doubt, but not a lock like they were the 1st 3 years of the dynasty. You just don't take away the best player in the game, and expect to be the same team.
I don't expect them to be the same team.

They had the best player - they also had players who you might say were the 3rd-best, 5th-best, (Dryden/Robinson), as well as 5 players who you might argue were 10th-15th-best (Lapointe, Savard, Gainey, Shutt) - having arguably 6 of the best 15 players in the game at the time would make you an overwhelming cup favourite.

there are contenders, there are winners, and there are locks. With Lafleur, in 76, 77, and 78 they are locks. Without him, they are still surely winners. In 79, they were winners, without, merely contenders.

seventieslord is offline  
Old
01-18-2011, 01:47 PM
  #91
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,773
vCash: 500
Expand

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
amony dynasties? I don't know, probably not.

But the team had more than enough scoring to win with Dryden and the big three and of course Gainey and Jarvis.




No, he's absolutely right. Those guys are in the hall mostly thanks to Lafleur.

my point still stands though. And Jagr just never played with anyone good enough for long enough to make them a HHOFer (you can never make a HHOFer out of German Titov or Jan Hrdina, but perhaps he would have put, say, Bernie Nicholls over the hump or Jeremy Roenick, or one of a few LWs like Andreychuk, Roberts, LeClair, Demitra, Kamensky)
Your point seems to be lost in the example(s).

If we look at the Canadiens and the relationship between Lafleur, Lemaire and Shutt then it seems that what you are indicating is that Lemaire and Shutt adapted their games to Lafleur's resulting in maximum effectiveness for the team, and each player. Conversely players like Pierre Larouche, Pete Mahovlich, even though they were very talented won SCs with Lafleur on the Canadiens were never able to mesh in a similar fashion. They were never able to fit elsewhere either or perform at a HHOF level or win SCs without Lafleur. Lemaire contributed to SCs without Lafleur and Shutt was a solid performer without Lafleur.

Conversely Jagr in his prime or post prime had a greater variety of linemates, from Ron Francis level on down to the Titov and Hrdina talent level.This raises the old chicken and egg question. Why did Jagr have so many linemates? Was it a function of the linemates being found wanting or Jagr not being able to adapt?

Great hockey players have/had the ability to make the most out of questionable teammates - short list would include Gretzky/Blair McDonald, Lemieux/Brown, Beliveau/Roberto, Howe - that would be a long list.

Lafleur and Jagr both come up short in this regard.

Canadiens1958 is offline  
Old
01-18-2011, 02:08 PM
  #92
canucksfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 30,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve141 View Post
So after four pages noone is really defending Lafleur's place above Jagr on the ranking, except for playoff peak maybe? Yet another reason to redo the Top 100 list then.
One thing that I do not believe that has been mentioned is Jagr's play in the playoffs. I could be wrong, but later in his career when Jagr was relied upon more, his play in the playoffs decreased. When I watched Jagr in the playoffs I always wanted more.

Another factor that hurts Jagr his his attitude. He quit in Washington. He admitted that he didn't try his best.

canucksfan is online now  
Old
01-18-2011, 02:11 PM
  #93
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Lemaire contributed to SCs without Lafleur and Shutt was a solid performer without Lafleur.
Neither of those two things constitite greatness on their own, though. Understanding the fact that they are the same players whether they played with Lafleur or not, it's impossible to deny that playing with Lafleur helped the perception of each player, to the point that they both got in the hall. Imagine Lemaire and Shutt, with the same GP, playoff GP, and cups, but 20% fewer regular season and playoff points - and it's doubtful that they get in.

seventieslord is offline  
Old
01-18-2011, 02:14 PM
  #94
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,535
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Your point seems to be lost in the example(s).

If we look at the Canadiens and the relationship between Lafleur, Lemaire and Shutt then it seems that what you are indicating is that Lemaire and Shutt adapted their games to Lafleur's resulting in maximum effectiveness for the team, and each player. Conversely players like Pierre Larouche, Pete Mahovlich, even though they were very talented won SCs with Lafleur on the Canadiens were never able to mesh in a similar fashion. They were never able to fit elsewhere either or perform at a HHOF level or win SCs without Lafleur. Lemaire contributed to SCs without Lafleur and Shutt was a solid performer without Lafleur.

Conversely Jagr in his prime or post prime had a greater variety of linemates, from Ron Francis level on down to the Titov and Hrdina talent level.This raises the old chicken and egg question. Why did Jagr have so many linemates? Was it a function of the linemates being found wanting or Jagr not being able to adapt?

Great hockey players have/had the ability to make the most out of questionable teammates - short list would include Gretzky/Blair McDonald, Lemieux/Brown, Beliveau/Roberto, Howe - that would be a long list.

Lafleur and Jagr both come up short in this regard.
Do you think any of this has to do with playing the wing instead of center? It seems that a player would have more opportunity to influence/elevate his linemates playing center? It's obviously not impossible, as you said, Howe did it many times, but he is also on a completely different level than anyone but Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr.

What do the other all-time great wingers look like in this regard such as Hull, Richard, Bossy, Lindsay? (Not sure if these guys are the best comparables)

Hawkey Town 18 is online now  
Old
01-18-2011, 02:17 PM
  #95
Reds4Life
Registered User
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Your point seems to be lost in the example(s).
Conversely Jagr in his prime or post prime had a greater variety of linemates, from Ron Francis level on down to the Titov and Hrdina talent level.This raises the old chicken and egg question. Why did Jagr have so many linemates? Was it a function of the linemates being found wanting or Jagr not being able to adapt?

Great hockey players have/had the ability to make the most out of questionable teammates - short list would include Gretzky/Blair McDonald, Lemieux/Brown, Beliveau/Roberto, Howe - that would be a long list.

Lafleur and Jagr both come up short in this regard.
Jagr's linemates changed, because the team changed and they needed to adjust the lines. He certainly made the most out of Titov and Hrdina.

Reds4Life is offline  
Old
01-18-2011, 02:24 PM
  #96
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
Jagr's linemates changed, because the team changed and they needed to adjust the lines. He certainly made the most out of Titov and Hrdina.
Yeah the reasons have changed a lot more recently.

Pittsburgh was going bankrupt during Jagr's prime and teams today have to worry about the cap.

Montreal in the 70s with Lemaire and Lafleur et al. never had a concern that way at all.

Not only was Lafleur in a better team situation, the team itself was in a better situation off the ice too.

BraveCanadian is offline  
Old
01-18-2011, 02:28 PM
  #97
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,773
vCash: 500
Wingers

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
Do you think any of this has to do with playing the wing instead of center? It seems that a player would have more opportunity to influence/elevate his linemates playing center? It's obviously not impossible, as you said, Howe did it many times, but he is also on a completely different level than anyone but Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr.

What do the other all-time great wingers look like in this regard such as Hull, Richard, Bossy, Lindsay? (Not sure if these guys are the best comparables)
Wingers managed this as well. Maurice Richard with Henri Richard and Dickie Moore facilitaed their adaptation into the NHL by creating more ice for them. He also helped Ken Moadell at center once Lach retired.

Hull with Murray Balfour and Chico Maki to name a couple.

Today to an extent you see it with players like Ovechkin, St,Louis with Stamkos,

Just a short list without any research.

Canadiens1958 is offline  
Old
01-18-2011, 02:37 PM
  #98
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,773
vCash: 500
Well Done

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
Jagr's linemates changed, because the team changed and they needed to adjust the lines. He certainly made the most out of Titov and Hrdina.
You just managed to explain why Hrdina's best offensive season, 2001-02, came AFTER Jagr had been traded from the Penguins. One of your classics.

Canadiens1958 is offline  
Old
01-18-2011, 02:46 PM
  #99
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,773
vCash: 500
Seriously.................

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Neither of those two things constitite greatness on their own, though. Understanding the fact that they are the same players whether they played with Lafleur or not, it's impossible to deny that playing with Lafleur helped the perception of each player, to the point that they both got in the hall. Imagine Lemaire and Shutt, with the same GP, playoff GP, and cups, but 20% fewer regular season and playoff points - and it's doubtful that they get in.
Two of the three seasons Lemaire scored 90+ points were without Lafleur as a linemate. Some powerplay time may have overlapped. Basically 92,95, 97- with Lafleur points. Effectively no imagination is required Lemaire definitely is a stand alone HHOFer as the point differential is nowhere near your hypothetical.

Previously I have shown that Shutt when paired with Henri Richard in the 1974 playoffs was extremely effective and this prepped him for the level of performance he enjoyed with Lemaire and Lafleur.

Canadiens1958 is offline  
Old
01-18-2011, 02:59 PM
  #100
Reds4Life
Registered User
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
You just managed to explain why Hrdina's best offensive season, 2001-02, came AFTER Jagr had been traded from the Penguins. One of your classics.
Yeah, 2 more points in one more game. WOW.

After Jagr left, Penguins ended up dead last in their division with -50 GF/GA ration. Missed playoffs.

The last Jagr's season with Pens: Penguins 3rd in their division, made playoffs, +25 GF/GA ratio.

Clearly, Jagr made the most out of his linemates.

Reds4Life is offline  
Closed Thread

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 03:51 PM.

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.