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.

Messier overrated?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-02-2011, 08:56 PM
  #201
Unlimited Chequing
Christian Yellow
 
Unlimited Chequing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,553
vCash: 50
I've always considered Messier overrated. However, that's purely based on the fact that I grew up in the 80's as a Flames fan. That also means I find Gretzky overrated hahaha

Unlimited Chequing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 05:01 AM
  #202
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlWinslow View Post
You pimped them as being more offensively gifted than a player like Kovalev which is completely false.
you are again being dishonest.

i said:
kovalev was very talented, but far less effective than you would expect based on his physical talents. very few players in history were as talented as kovalev, but many, many players were better.

it also depends on a person's definition of talent. if talent includes hockey sense, endurance, skating, determination, etc, and not just puck skills, i think several players of the habs (besides beliveau) were more talented than kovalev--richard, cournoyer, backstrom, goyette. but it is not easy to assess.


i also pointed out that kovalev has only scored a point per game 3 times, and 2 were with lemieux. i think you very much exaggerate the role of flashy stickhandling in hockey. and as i said then, many other things besides offensive talent are important in offense.

Quote:
If you will recall the argument started because you guys claimed Jammy was working with peewees basically. When it comes to a player like Cournoyer or Richard, it wasn't their scoring that makes them great. Obviously they were capable but like I said, no more so than Kovalev.
how can players who totally lack offensive talent be capable scorers in the NHL?

i joined that thread to disabuse others of your hilariously wrong statements about the habs of the '60s and early '70s.

i did not make any such statements about jagr's teammates.

Quote:
Oh. You mean 1971 when a 39 year old Jean Beliveau led the Habs to yet another Cup? Yes, they did add Frank. He played a whopping 38 games for them but I suppose he could be responsible for it all instead of the almost 40 year old captain who finished top 10 in league scoring and led the team.
as i said in that thread, frank mahovlich's 27p in the '71 playoffs was a record. i think that is worth mentioning when talking about the habs '71 cup.

your problem here is that you make so many inane and extreme statements like "responsible for it all," instead of having an a serious understanding of the game, and you rely on straw man arguments. beliveau and frank mahovlich were both very important parts of the team, as were many others, and there is no reason to talk about anyone being responsible for it all.

Quote:
Goalies? Rogie Vachon and who? Charlie Hodge for the other years? I'd take Tommy B over either.
you missed 2 HHOFers.

gump worsley was a very good goalie, even when he played for bad NYR teams, which is probably why the habs traded plante for him.

someone named dryden was in net in '71. he was probably good.

i would probably also pick barrasso over hodge and vachon. pittsburgh was a much weaker defensive team than montreal, though, which is more important than the goalies, imo.

Quote:
They didn't win the Cup.
who do you think won in '65?

Quote:
Ah yes, 62. You do realize that not one guy on the team had over a PPG right? Don't "elite scorers" as you label them normally eclipse that fairly modest mark?
you should not put words into others' mouths.

i never said those were elite scorers. i said your statement that they totally lacked offensive talent was completely wrong.


you are also wrong that a point per game was a fairly modest mark at the time. it was rarely reached at the time by non-HHOFers.
in the last 20 years of the O6, '48-'67, only 7 players who had a point per game season were not inducted into HHOF. coincidentally, one of them was bobby rousseau.
others were ed litzenberger, bill hay, bronco horvath, camille henry, tod sloan and ken wharram.

i think of elite scorers as players who are often near the top of the league in scoring.

Quote:
See, ehat you and your friend seem to miss is that I never said they couldn't play. I was simply pointing out to you that Beliveau wasn't flanked by superstars all the time. Even when he wasn't, he led teams to great success, something which Jammy could not do.
i think most people see a very large difference between non-superstars and total lack of offensive talent.

considering your statements about that period (robert lang more talented than henri richard, habs did not win in '65, cournoyer was never an elite scorer, backstrom totally lacked offensive talent), you should probably stop trying to point out anything to anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlWinslow View Post
And yet the best players in the league, the ones whom one would describe as "elite" (like Jean Beliveau) all eclipsed it. Or are you going to label Ralph Backstrom as an elite offensive player like those two are trying to do? After all, they are citing his BEST offensive year and ignoring every other one.
you should not put words into others' mouths.

when did any of us label ralph backstrom an elite offensive player?

but i think backstrom may have been an elite offensive player if he had had a more offensive role with more PPTOI, instead of being usually 3rd line C. he was a big scorer before joining the NHL and was very talented.

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 09:01 AM
  #203
livewell68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
If I had to guess, I would have guessed it came from that idiot.
Apparently if you defend Jagr you're suddenly a "jammy fan".

Apparently only "Jammy fans" think that Jagr was the strongest player ever on the puck, one of the most dominant offensive players of all-time.

Apparently only "Jammy fans" think that neither Messier nor Potvin could beat Jagr in the strength department.

I have no quells with people who disagree with me on certain things but I have quells with someone like CarlWinslow who seems to think that just because they are "old timers hockey players" that they are automatically better than any players that played in the 1990's and beyond.

Every decade and or era had great players and the 1990's, 2000's were no different.

Jagr would have been dominant in any era. He might not have won any Art Ross trophies in the 1980's with Gretzky and Lemieux being there but in any other era Jagr would have been able to be just as dominant.

To me Messier is overrated and none of his intangibles and so-called leadership skills can make up for what he lacks offensively when it comes to Messier vs. Jagr.

livewell68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 09:44 AM
  #204
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 jags6868 View Post
Apparently only "Jammy fans" think that neither Messier nor Potvin could beat Jagr in the strength department.
Just a couple of points. Jagr may well have been stronger. He had an obvious size advantage. But it's not the size of the dog that will win a fight, it's the size of the fight in a dog. That's why a pitbull will always destroy the larger Lab in a fight. Potvin and Messier were pitbulls. Jagr was a lab.

Quote:
To me Messier is overrated and none of his intangibles and so-called leadership skills can make up for what he lacks offensively when it comes to Messier vs. Jagr.
Messier's playoff production is significantly superior to Jagr's. That's where the intangible and leadership and clutch play really were on display and why it's arguable who is the higher ranked player of all-time. Messier's production actually increases in the playoffs, whereas Jagr's drops significantly.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 09:55 AM
  #205
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
Messier's playoff production is significantly superior to Jagr's. That's where the intangible and leadership and clutch play really were on display and why it's arguable who is the higher ranked player of all-time. Messier's production actually increases in the playoffs, whereas Jagr's drops significantly.
I hate comparing people's regular season PPG and playoff PPG when there are obvious gaps in their resumes.

Messier had 7 twilight regular seasons to drag down his regular season PPG and make this look a lot more flattering than it really is.. after all he didn't make the playoffs for those same 7 years that he was fading away.

Not to mention he only had one big playoff outside of the higher scoring 80s where he got to pad up that playoff total quite substantially compared to a player of Jagr's vintage.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 10:08 AM
  #206
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 BraveCanadian View Post
I hate comparing people's regular season PPG and playoff PPG when there are obvious gaps in their resumes.

Messier had 7 twilight regular seasons to drag down his regular season PPG and make this look a lot more flattering than it really is.. after all he didn't make the playoffs for those same 7 years that he was fading away.

Not to mention he only had one big playoff outside of the higher scoring 80s where he got to pad up that playoff total quite substantially compared to a player of Jagr's vintage.
Actually I wasn't taking into account the 7 year fade. Messier's PPG before the 7 year fade = 1.22. His playoff PPG during the exact same period = 1.25. So yes, his production increased, while Jagr's decreased substantially from 1.25 to 1.07PPG.

On average, most players see a drop in production in the playoffs.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 10:13 AM
  #207
livewell68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
Just a couple of points. Jagr may well have been stronger. He had an obvious size advantage. But it's not the size of the dog that will win a fight, it's the size of the fight in a dog. That's why a pitbull will always destroy the larger Lab in a fight. Potvin and Messier were pitbulls. Jagr was a lab.



Messier's playoff production is significantly superior to Jagr's. That's where the intangible and leadership and clutch play really were on display and why it's arguable who is the higher ranked player of all-time. Messier's production actually increases in the playoffs, whereas Jagr's drops significantly.
Messier benefited from being the number 2 center for a large part of his Edmonton career and therefore did not see opposing team's best lines as often as Gretzky did.

Jagr never had that opportunity during his years without Lemieux.

Jagr actually is tied for the highest PPG during the "dead puck era" with Forsberg.

Jagr was always the opposing team's main target in games, so he faced the toughest checking lines and best defensemen and defensive schemes.

Also Messier's twilight years were still during a time when scoring was higher (1992-1997) than when it was Jagr's twilight years (2001-2007).

Jagr was always a huge playoff performer and scored more overtime goals and game winning goals than Messier did.

livewell68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 10:32 AM
  #208
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
Actually I wasn't taking into account the 7 year fade. Messier's PPG before the 7 year fade = 1.22. His playoff PPG during the exact same period = 1.25. So yes, his production increased, while Jagr's decreased substantially from 1.25 to 1.07PPG.

On average, most players see a drop in production in the playoffs.
Yes, but one played on the highest scoring dynasty in hockey history and one peaked on a largely mediocre team during the dead puck era.. I'm not so certain its a fair comparison.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 10:36 AM
  #209
livewell68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Yes, but one played on the highest scoring dynasty in hockey history and one peaked on a largely mediocre team during the dead puck era.. I'm not so certain its a fair comparison.
Exactly. Just look at my post above your's.

livewell68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 10:40 AM
  #210
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jags6868 View Post
Exactly. Just look at my post above your's.
I'd still take Messier in the playoffs 10 times out of 10 over Jagr, I just don't think the gap in production is as big as the numbers make it look.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 10:47 AM
  #211
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 BraveCanadian View Post
Yes, but one played on the highest scoring dynasty in hockey history and one peaked on a largely mediocre team during the dead puck era.. I'm not so certain its a fair comparison.
I'm talking more about the change in production from what they did in the regular season, rather than raw numbers.

I think it's pretty clear that the patterns show that Messier was the better playoff performer, and Jagr the better regular season performer. Never said Jagr was bad in the playoffs. His decline in production is not abnormal by any means since scoring does tend to go down in the playoffs. My only issue with him in the playoffs is not being able to lead a team to the 3rd round.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 10:52 AM
  #212
livewell68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
I'm talking more about the change in production from what they did in the regular season, rather than raw numbers.

I think it's pretty clear that the patterns show that Messier was the better playoff performer, and Jagr the better regular season performer. Never said Jagr was bad in the playoffs. His decline in production is not abnormal by any means since scoring does tend to go down in the playoffs. My only issue with him in the playoffs is not being able to lead a team to the 3rd round.
We can never really do a "swap players" and see how that team performs .

Jagr's teams were never good enough to make it to the playoffs without him, they did get in with him and they were usually 6-8 seeded teams and would pull off first round upsets on many occasions. Injuries played a big part in Jagr not being able to lead his teams past the 2nd round (1998, 1999 and 2006 are the biggest examples).

In the first 2 mentioned seasons, Jagr was playing out of his mind regular season and playoffs but injuries diminished his play down the stretch because of the fact that he was so targeted and faced so much physical abuse.

As for the 2005-06 playoffs, had Jagr not dislocated his shoulder who knows how deep his team might have gone.

In 2007-08 Jagr scored 15 pts through the first 2 rounds in just 10 games but against Pittsburgh the whole New York team did nothing and it was basically Jagr vs Pittsburgh. If not for Jagr stealing game 4, the Penguins would have swept them.

livewell68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 10:56 AM
  #213
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
I'm talking more about the change in production from what they did in the regular season, rather than raw numbers.

I think it's pretty clear that the patterns show that Messier was the better playoff performer, and Jagr the better regular season performer. Never said Jagr was bad in the playoffs. His decline in production is not abnormal by any means since scoring does tend to go down in the playoffs. My only issue with him in the playoffs is not being able to lead a team to the 3rd round.
Well.. look at what each had to work with and that explains that in a pretty big hurry. Not that Messier wasn't a big influence on his cup wins or anything.. he was.. but..

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 02:04 PM
  #214
CarlWinslow
@hiphopsicles
 
CarlWinslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
you are again being dishonest.

i said:
kovalev was very talented, but far less effective than you would expect based on his physical talents. very few players in history were as talented as kovalev, but many, many players were better.

it also depends on a person's definition of talent. if talent includes hockey sense, endurance, skating, determination, etc, and not just puck skills, i think several players of the habs (besides beliveau) were more talented than kovalev--richard, cournoyer, backstrom, goyette. but it is not easy to assess.


i also pointed out that kovalev has only scored a point per game 3 times, and 2 were with lemieux. i think you very much exaggerate the role of flashy stickhandling in hockey. and as i said then, many other things besides offensive talent are important in offense.
If you will recall, the primary argument I had was with Jags6868. It was he who insinuated that Jagr player with scrubs while every other all-time great played with offensive dynamos. Did he use those exact words? No. He has made that point about pretty much every player being compared to Jagr though. He has also attributed that to other players team success while implying that these scrubs were responsible for Jagr lack of the same.

The Beliveau example vs. Jagr was simply to dispel that notion as Jagr clearly did not play with scrubs. Alexei Kovalev is a gifted offensive player. He is simply used as an example. Certainly there is more to the game than stickhandling and no doubt other factors have prevented him from perhaps fulfilling the talent he has but he is not a scrub and is plenty to work with. He also isn't just a stickhandler.

Quote:
how can players who totally lack offensive talent be capable scorers in the NHL?
There it is. They are capable scorers. So is Kovalev, so was Straka, so was Francis etc. That is the whole point. Both players had capable scorers.

Quote:
i joined that thread to disabuse others of your hilariously wrong statements about the habs of the '60s and early '70s.

i did not make any such statements about jagr's teammates.
I don't really much care whether you make a statement or Jags6868 does as you essentially share a brain. You are in the same camp so dissecting which one of you said what is really of little significance to me.

Quote:
as i said in that thread, frank mahovlich's 27p in the '71 playoffs was a record. i think that is worth mentioning when talking about the habs '71 cup.
Of course it is but how significant is it when the guy led the team to what, 5 cups in that decade? This is your problem. Most of the wins don't support your argument so you pick the one that does and focus solely on it. Mahovlich played with Beliveau for ONE year. The overall impact Frank had on Beliveau's career is minimal.

Quote:
your problem here is that you make so many inane and extreme statements like "responsible for it all," instead of having an a serious understanding of the game, and you rely on straw man arguments. beliveau and frank mahovlich were both very important parts of the team, as were many others, and there is no reason to talk about anyone being responsible for it all.
The responsible for it all business starts with the Jagr camp. Never did I say Beliveau was responsible for it all, only that he led his team, which he did. Again though, that is your problem. Frank Mahovlich was there for only ONE year before Beliveau retired.

Quote:
you missed 2 HHOFers.
Jacques Plante for two years after most of the 50s Habs were gone. Okay, fine, if Jacques Plante counts against Beliveau, a guy like Francis counts against Jagr.

Quote:
gump worsley was a very good goalie, even when he played for bad NYR teams, which is probably why the habs traded plante for him.

someone named dryden was in net in '71. he was probably good.
And Tom Barrasso was a very good goalie too. So what?

Ken Dryden... Yeah, your right, I missed the year that Ken Dryden played a WHOPPING 6 GAMES!!! OH MY! Certainly we can conlude he was the sole reason for Beliveau's succes!

Quote:
i would probably also pick barrasso over hodge and vachon. pittsburgh was a much weaker defensive team than montreal, though, which is more important than the goalies, imo.
Sure. Obviously Montreal was stronger defensively but it didn't matter. Even when Jagr played on better teams, they still went nowhere. The point was that Beliveau led his team to far greater success even when he had less to work with than previously in his career. 5 cups carries a lot more weight than any sort of defensive advantage Beliveau had. It's not like Jagr even came close either.

Quote:
who do you think won in '65?
65' was left off because Beliveau didn't play much that year. You know what's funny about the Washington Capitals. Before Jagr showed up, they won there division and got 96 points. After he showed up, they dropped 11 points in the standings.


Quote:
you should not put words into others' mouths.

i never said those were elite scorers. i said your statement that they totally lacked offensive talent was completely wrong.
You shouldn't either. And again, it was implied by your compadre. I'm still not going to separate you two as you have the same point of view.


Quote:
you are also wrong that a point per game was a fairly modest mark at the time. it was rarely reached at the time by non-HHOFers.
in the last 20 years of the O6, '48-'67, only 7 players who had a point per game season were not inducted into HHOF. coincidentally, one of them was bobby rousseau.
others were ed litzenberger, bill hay, bronco horvath, camille henry, tod sloan and ken wharram.

i think of elite scorers as players who are often near the top of the league in scoring.
Coincidentally there were far less players in the O6 which would therefore make a PPG less common.

Quote:
i think most people see a very large difference between non-superstars and total lack of offensive talent.
Just like most people see a difference between NO HELP and Kovalev, Lang, Francis etc.

Quote:
considering your statements about that period (robert lang more talented than henri richard, habs did not win in '65, cournoyer was never an elite scorer, backstrom totally lacked offensive talent), you should probably stop trying to point out anything to anyone.
Put Lang head to head vs. Richard and who scores more? Lang. Richard had other gifts as I said. Cournoyer wasn't an elite scorer. He never led the leagues in scoring and has no individual accolades apart from the single Conn Smythe. He was a very good player but to attribute Beliveau's numbers to him is silly. Backstrom hovered around the 40 point in 70 games mark for most of his career. Explain to me how he is any more gifted as a scorer than Martin Straka?

Quote:
when did any of us label ralph backstrom an elite offensive player?

but i think backstrom may have been an elite offensive player if he had had a more offensive role with more PPTOI, instead of being usually 3rd line C. he was a big scorer before joining the NHL and was very talented.
If if if if if if if if. Kovalev would have won several Ross's had he been less lazy. Straka would have been an elite scorer had he not been hurt during a freak accident. The Capitals would have won the Cup had Jagr not been such a cancer.

We can talk ifs all day.

CarlWinslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 03:17 PM
  #215
livewell68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlWinslow View Post
If you will recall, the primary argument I had was with Jags6868. It was he who insinuated that Jagr player with scrubs while every other all-time great played with offensive dynamos. Did he use those exact words? No. He has made that point about pretty much every player being compared to Jagr though. He has also attributed that to other players team success while implying that these scrubs were responsible for Jagr lack of the same.

The Beliveau example vs. Jagr was simply to dispel that notion as Jagr clearly did not play with scrubs. Alexei Kovalev is a gifted offensive player. He is simply used as an example. Certainly there is more to the game than stickhandling and no doubt other factors have prevented him from perhaps fulfilling the talent he has but he is not a scrub and is plenty to work with. He also isn't just a stickhandler.



There it is. They are capable scorers. So is Kovalev, so was Straka, so was Francis etc. That is the whole point. Both players had capable scorers.



I don't really much care whether you make a statement or Jags6868 does as you essentially share a brain. You are in the same camp so dissecting which one of you said what is really of little significance to me.



Of course it is but how significant is it when the guy led the team to what, 5 cups in that decade? This is your problem. Most of the wins don't support your argument so you pick the one that does and focus solely on it. Mahovlich played with Beliveau for ONE year. The overall impact Frank had on Beliveau's career is minimal.



The responsible for it all business starts with the Jagr camp. Never did I say Beliveau was responsible for it all, only that he led his team, which he did. Again though, that is your problem. Frank Mahovlich was there for only ONE year before Beliveau retired.



Jacques Plante for two years after most of the 50s Habs were gone. Okay, fine, if Jacques Plante counts against Beliveau, a guy like Francis counts against Jagr.



And Tom Barrasso was a very good goalie too. So what?

Ken Dryden... Yeah, your right, I missed the year that Ken Dryden played a WHOPPING 6 GAMES!!! OH MY! Certainly we can conlude he was the sole reason for Beliveau's succes!



Sure. Obviously Montreal was stronger defensively but it didn't matter. Even when Jagr played on better teams, they still went nowhere. The point was that Beliveau led his team to far greater success even when he had less to work with than previously in his career. 5 cups carries a lot more weight than any sort of defensive advantage Beliveau had. It's not like Jagr even came close either.



65' was left off because Beliveau didn't play much that year. You know what's funny about the Washington Capitals. Before Jagr showed up, they won there division and got 96 points. After he showed up, they dropped 11 points in the standings.




You shouldn't either. And again, it was implied by your compadre. I'm still not going to separate you two as you have the same point of view.




Coincidentally there were far less players in the O6 which would therefore make a PPG less common.



Just like most people see a difference between NO HELP and Kovalev, Lang, Francis etc.



Put Lang head to head vs. Richard and who scores more? Lang. Richard had other gifts as I said. Cournoyer wasn't an elite scorer. He never led the leagues in scoring and has no individual accolades apart from the single Conn Smythe. He was a very good player but to attribute Beliveau's numbers to him is silly. Backstrom hovered around the 40 point in 70 games mark for most of his career. Explain to me how he is any more gifted as a scorer than Martin Straka?



If if if if if if if if. Kovalev would have won several Ross's had he been less lazy. Straka would have been an elite scorer had he not been hurt during a freak accident. The Capitals would have won the Cup had Jagr not been such a cancer.

We can talk ifs all day.
Straka was healthy for the most part and when he was healthy put up his best seasons playing with Jagr.

Kovalev had one good year playing with Jagr.

If I recall Jagr scored 96 Pts in 1999-00 in just 63 games while Kovalev who played all 82 games finished 2nd in team scoring only had 66 Pts.

Francis only played with Jagr for one season after Lemieux left.

Jagr was already scoring at a 1.22 PPG pace during the "Dead Puck Era" in the playoffs. What else did you want him to do? Score at a 2 PPG pace? The guy was the freaking leading scorer of that low scoring era in the playoffs.

You cannot compare Jagr vs Beliveay directly while using linemates without looking at the context.

Jagr's teams were far inferior to teams like Colorado, New Jersey, Dallas, Detroit, Philadelphia during the late 90's so that is why his teams could not win the Stanley Cup.

Beliveau's teammates were still better than what Jagr played with.

BTW this a Messier thread.


Last edited by livewell68: 02-03-2011 at 03:22 PM.
livewell68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 03:32 PM
  #216
CarlWinslow
@hiphopsicles
 
CarlWinslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jags6868 View Post
Straka was healthy for the most part and when he was healthy put up his best seasons playing with Jagr.

Kovalev had one good year playing with Jagr.

If I recall Jagr scored 96 Pts in 1999-00 in just 63 games while Kovalev who played all 82 games finished 2nd in team scoring only had 66 Pts.

Francis only played with Jagr for one season after Lemieux left.

Jagr was already scoring at a 1.22 PPG pace during the "Dead Puck Era" in the playoffs. What else did you want him to do? Score at a 2 PPG pace? The guy was the freaking leading scorer of that low scoring era in the playoffs.

You cannot compare Jagr vs Beliveay directly while using linemates without looking at the context.

Jagr's teams were far inferior to teams like Colorado, New Jersey, Dallas, Detroit, Philadelphia during the late 90's so that is why his teams could not win the Stanley Cup.

Beliveau's teammates were still better than what Jagr played with.

BTW this a Messier thread.
I know it is but your boy nik jr derailed it.

CarlWinslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 05:09 PM
  #217
Up the Irons
Registered User
 
Up the Irons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,298
vCash: 408
not a chance is the Moose over rated. simply, one of the most complete hockey players ever. right up there with Howe. He had every hockey prowess you can hope for in a player. the template for the genetically perfect player.

I'll tell you who is over rated: Lafleur and Yzerman. both great but rated higher than they others who were better (Clarke, Trottier, Jagr) because they were/are very popular and likeable.

Up the Irons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 05:54 PM
  #218
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 12,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustE View Post
not a chance is the Moose over rated. simply, one of the most complete hockey players ever. right up there with Howe. He had every hockey prowess you can hope for in a player. the template for the genetically perfect player.

I'll tell you who is over rated: Lafleur and Yzerman. both great but rated higher than they others who were better (Clarke, Trottier, Jagr) because they were/are very popular and likeable.
Did you ever see Lafleur play? Or Howe?

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 06:02 PM
  #219
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 12,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
If I had to guess, I would have guessed it came from that idiot.
This must be our real source of conflict. No wonder we disagree on Brodeur. I'm a huge Don Cherry fan.

Or maybe because you're a Devils fan and I'm a Bruins fan?

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 08:54 PM
  #220
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
Actually I wasn't taking into account the 7 year fade. Messier's PPG before the 7 year fade = 1.22. His playoff PPG during the exact same period = 1.25. So yes, his production increased, while Jagr's decreased substantially from 1.25 to 1.07PPG.

On average, most players see a drop in production in the playoffs.
What's more important here?

Did Moose take it easy in the regular season or step it up in the playoffs, it can be taken 2 ways.

1.07 PPG over 169 playoff games from 91-08 isn't exactly chump change either.

The Moose was a great playoff performer and had more intangibles as well but he takes a backseat (in a stretch limo) to Jagr overall, in terms of offensive production including both the regular and playoffs.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 09:01 PM
  #221
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
I'm talking more about the change in production from what they did in the regular season, rather than raw numbers.

I think it's pretty clear that the patterns show that Messier was the better playoff performer, and Jagr the better regular season performer. Never said Jagr was bad in the playoffs. His decline in production is not abnormal by any means since scoring does tend to go down in the playoffs. My only issue with him in the playoffs is not being able to lead a team to the 3rd round.
The whole "Jagr couldn't lead his team past the 3rd round" thing is overrated, if one wanted to go that route Jagr made the playoffs in 15 of his 17 seasons while Messier made it in 17 out of 25.

Overall point is that teams make playoffs and advance based more on the makeup of the teams rather than any one player.

Gretzky never won the Cup outside of Edmonton but everyone sees him, and rightly so, as a winner.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 09:47 PM
  #222
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
Is he the best at stopping pucks? Probably not. Roy, Hasek and Parent were better amongst guys I've seen.

Did he bring more to the position than any goalie in NHL history? Maybe.

His stickhandling really made it easy on his defense and forwards. Hasek, Roy et al just don't have that skill at nearly the same level.

The stickhandling, combined with his ability to stop pucks, is why he just might be the most valuable goalie to his team in NHL history.
To add to this, Brodeur's stickhandling is what allowed the Devil's trap to be so airtight. The normal way to beat a trapping defense is to abandon the rush and dump the puck in - but Brodeur's puck handling singlehandedly killed the opponent's dump and chase game.

I still don't think he was quite as valuable as Roy or Hasek, though.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 09:55 PM
  #223
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
This must be our real source of conflict. No wonder we disagree on Brodeur. I'm a huge Don Cherry fan.

Or maybe because you're a Devils fan and I'm a Bruins fan?
I'm a Devils fan and I realize that Brodeur was the Devil's regular season MVP (as do all the players of the team who constantly voted him team MVP). Stevens was definitely their playoff MVP, but Brodeur wasn't all that far behind. If you mostly watched the team in the playoffs, I don't blame you for thinking Stevens was much more important.

I'll save my Cherry rant for another thread because I don't feel like getting an infraction now.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 10:51 PM
  #224
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unlimited Chequing View Post
I've always considered Messier overrated. However, that's purely based on the fact that I grew up in the 80's as a Flames fan. That also means I find Gretzky overrated hahaha
You think you had it bad.

I'm a Leaf fan (although sometimes I wonder why)

They blew up the Leafs so bad every game I was convinced they were just showboating half the game..


BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2011, 10:53 PM
  #225
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
To add to this, Brodeur's stickhandling is what allowed the Devil's trap to be so airtight. The normal way to beat a trapping defense is to abandon the rush and dump the puck in - but Brodeur's puck handling singlehandedly killed the opponent's dump and chase game.

I still don't think he was quite as valuable as Roy or Hasek, though.
In the Devils system he might have been because of the puckhandling ability you mentioned. Roy and Hasek handled the puck like a bomb.

How many times did you hear in a Devils game back then "He's like a third defenseman back there!"

I hated the boring trap hockey but I give full marks to the Devils for making the most of the parts they had.

Brodeur was both a big part and a beneficiary of the system in my opinion.

BraveCanadian 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 04:09 AM.

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.