Shareefruck
Registered User
For my money, even Jovo's 3-4 best seasons were not as good as Ohlund's 3-4 best seasons. I love the guy, but he loses out to Ohlund both in longevity and peak.
Ed Jovanovski
- Thread starter Eye of Ra
- Start date
Ed Jovanovski was one of my favorite players growing up and was the perfect metaphor for those early 2000's Canucks teams that always won you and broke your heart every year. Like Naslund, Bertuzzi and others (to some extent guys like Sopel and Cooke), they peaked around the same time and were so dominant when they were on the top of their games. I always thought Jovanovski was one of those players who the fans would appreciate more in retrospect as you looked back in memory. People forgot how good Jovanovski could be - he was fast and smooth, could shoot and pass; and could hit and fight. On top of an occasional mean streak, he was in the same vein (albeit worse) as guys like Pronger and Blake who could take over games in almost every facet every once in a blue moon.
Nonetheless, despite his promise Jovanovski never lived up to his billings (whether your context is of him being a first overall pick who only began playing hockey at 11, or the main counterpart to the Pavel Bure trade, or of him potentially becoming Vancouver's best all-time defenseman). It took him awhile to really hit his stride in Vancouver and his peak was fairly short (very short, when you consider the fact that many of his early 2000 contemporaries were guys like Chelios, MacInnis and Lidstrom who played robustly into their late 30's). Most importantly however, Jovanovski never put it together with consistency nor did he deliver in the most important games. There were too many games where he made simple mistakes, frequently and frustratingly. You loved having him when you are a goal down as the 8th seed but he was never fitting for a top team's #1 who was expected to soak up steady minutes in all situations.
At the end of the day, I still don't think Vancouver has ever had a true #1 defenseman though Jovanovski and Ohlund came close. They were so good but yet also so different from guys like the Pronger's, Lidstrom's and MacInnis', not to mention the Bourque's, Blake's, Neidermayer's during the early 2000's. 10+ years later though, I don't think I am disappointed nor should any Vancouver fan be. Although some think those teams and players underachieved (i.e. 2003), they really were an entertaining bunch to watch and came together for a city that really needed a jolt of inspiration after the deflating late 1990's. None of Naslund, Bertuzzi nor Jovanovski had particular bright early careers nor sustaining late careers - but for a city that really only ever had Bure up until that point, their short and memorable peaks gave the city a taste of how truly wonderful it was having elite forwards and a dominant defenseman.
Nonetheless, despite his promise Jovanovski never lived up to his billings (whether your context is of him being a first overall pick who only began playing hockey at 11, or the main counterpart to the Pavel Bure trade, or of him potentially becoming Vancouver's best all-time defenseman). It took him awhile to really hit his stride in Vancouver and his peak was fairly short (very short, when you consider the fact that many of his early 2000 contemporaries were guys like Chelios, MacInnis and Lidstrom who played robustly into their late 30's). Most importantly however, Jovanovski never put it together with consistency nor did he deliver in the most important games. There were too many games where he made simple mistakes, frequently and frustratingly. You loved having him when you are a goal down as the 8th seed but he was never fitting for a top team's #1 who was expected to soak up steady minutes in all situations.
At the end of the day, I still don't think Vancouver has ever had a true #1 defenseman though Jovanovski and Ohlund came close. They were so good but yet also so different from guys like the Pronger's, Lidstrom's and MacInnis', not to mention the Bourque's, Blake's, Neidermayer's during the early 2000's. 10+ years later though, I don't think I am disappointed nor should any Vancouver fan be. Although some think those teams and players underachieved (i.e. 2003), they really were an entertaining bunch to watch and came together for a city that really needed a jolt of inspiration after the deflating late 1990's. None of Naslund, Bertuzzi nor Jovanovski had particular bright early careers nor sustaining late careers - but for a city that really only ever had Bure up until that point, their short and memorable peaks gave the city a taste of how truly wonderful it was having elite forwards and a dominant defenseman.
I'm sure it has been said, but Ohlund was so close to be that #1. If it weren't for that eye injury he would have been able to put up a vouple of 50+ point seasons and from 2001-2004 would have been considered a true # 1..
Jovo was capable of the SHIFT though...where he left you want ing more because he was able to muster that top gear once in awhile. It sure was exciting when he was on his game.
Jovo was capable of the SHIFT though...where he left you want ing more because he was able to muster that top gear once in awhile. It sure was exciting when he was on his game.
Balls Mahoney
2015-2016 HF Premier League World Champion
Believe it or not, they were great friends off the ice which is why they constantly went at each other.
In his prime he was the best canucks dman of all time. It's too bad his prime didn't last too long.
Shareefruck
Registered User
huntison
Registered User
- Aug 12, 2008
- 4,899
- 30
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,907
- 16,445
well he scored 30 points as a rookie, then improved to 35 in his second year, so he was trending upwards. he wasn't a gonchar-level powerplay guy but he looked very good in transition and on those crawford teams i think he could have put up jovo-level points just from outlets and secondary guy on the PP duty.
Shareefruck
Registered User
Boy, to me, that sounds like a helluva leap to make based on a five point increase over two seasons.
Like you said, it's not like he had elite offensive ability or anything.
I mean, it's possible, but I would never frame it as probable/expected.
Jovanoski was a great skater. That's what elevated his game. He could make a mistake and still get back to cover.
Offensively, above average. Defensively, slightly above average because of his skating. Very strong and tough. Game intelligence, poor. Maybe because he started at such a late age.
My memory of him is jumping up and down in the penaltybox like a five year old at Christmas when Morrison tied it with seconds to go to put the playoff game against Calgary into OT. And still being in the box at the start of the next period when Calgary scored to win it.
Sums it all up for Jovanoski to me.
Offensively, above average. Defensively, slightly above average because of his skating. Very strong and tough. Game intelligence, poor. Maybe because he started at such a late age.
My memory of him is jumping up and down in the penaltybox like a five year old at Christmas when Morrison tied it with seconds to go to put the playoff game against Calgary into OT. And still being in the box at the start of the next period when Calgary scored to win it.
Sums it all up for Jovanoski to me.
- Jun 25, 2007
- 2,373
- 2,495
Sums it up for me too. Jovocop and Special Ed were both well earned nicknames.
Hollywood Burrows
Registered User
He never played a game of hockey until he was 11! Awfully rare for a guy like that to make the NHL. I always loved watching him play, he was a swashbuckler of a defenseman. Getting him took a bit of the sting out of losing Bure.
His best games and his best stretches of games were probably the best of any defender in team history. When he was motivated and confident and moving his feet, he was a force and a sight to behold. Few defenders in NHL history could cover the amount of ground he covered and do it with the physicality and skill that he did. Could take chances and drive the play because his skating ability allowed for phenomenal recovery.
Unfortunately, his good stretches were offset by more common, longer stretches where he seemed to drift out of games mentally and emotionally, and his lack of hockey sense limited his effectiveness as a top-pairing defender during these periods.
And during the playoffs, he was generally awful. Would try and do way too much, and end up making stupid pinches, get caught out of position constantly, and take heaps of stupid penalties.
Very mixed legacy here. Was a terrific player but (aside from Cloutier) nobody embodied the failings of those 2002-2004 WCE-era teams more than Jovanovski.
Unfortunately, his good stretches were offset by more common, longer stretches where he seemed to drift out of games mentally and emotionally, and his lack of hockey sense limited his effectiveness as a top-pairing defender during these periods.
And during the playoffs, he was generally awful. Would try and do way too much, and end up making stupid pinches, get caught out of position constantly, and take heaps of stupid penalties.
Very mixed legacy here. Was a terrific player but (aside from Cloutier) nobody embodied the failings of those 2002-2004 WCE-era teams more than Jovanovski.
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
Paul Reinhart was the best PP QB we've ever had, and put up an absurd percentage of his points there. And was maybe the most skilled defender in Canuck history.
But there is quite a bit of revisionist history on Reinhart and romanticizing of his legacy. He wasn't the #1 defender during his time here (Doug Lidster was) and didn't play tough ES minutes, and scored the vast majority of his points on the PP.
Garth Butcher outscored Reinhart at ES in Reinhart's best season here.
Jovanovski would have 5-10 game stretches where he was simply all-world and looked like he could win a Norris ... but could just never sustain it.
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
No argument to the last points, for sure. He was an excellent player.
But I think that somewhere along the way 'best PP QB' and 'most skilled defender we've ever had' morphed into 'best defender we ever had' ... when that makes limited sense given that he wasn't even the #1 defender on those Canuck teams and was basically Jeff Brown 5 years before we got Jeff Brown.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,907
- 16,445
Boy, to me, that sounds like a helluva leap to make based on a five point increase over two seasons.
Like you said, it's not like he had elite offensive ability or anything.
I mean, it's possible, but I would never frame it as probable/expected.
ok, reading over again the post (not mine) that you were responding to, 50+ is a bit much. but i do think ohlund could have been in the 40s and flirted with 50 in his best season or two, just like jovo did.
if he could score 30-35 as he was adjusting to the league, and if he could later routinely score 30-35 with his vision significantly compromised, then i don't see why he couldn't have scored at the level that good but not great offensive guys like jaro spacek were scoring at. watching the young ohlund, i certainly didn't think that he had peaked offensively.
Never a big fan of his because of how many stupid things he did and how fans always seemed to ignore them while blaming everything on other players. Took one of the worst penalties I can ever remember against Calgary and it cost them the series, but fans praised him because he "celebrated in the penalty box" when the Canucks scored short-handed to tie it, and blamed the ultimate GWG on Malik, as was the norm.
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
Am I remembering it right?.....Jovo was working over a Flame in front of the net; ref let Jovo have at least one free shot (eg., crosscheck to the Flamers back) but he proceeded to give the player (forgot who the Flame was) one or a couple more shots to the back - that's when the ref 'raised his arm'....
Shareefruck
Registered User
I think it's within the realm of possibility if the stars aligned, but I would guess that he'd hover around the 40-45 point mark. Considering that he was pretty much the sole shutdown/defensive rock on the team, I think that makes it even less likely.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,907
- 16,445
yeah that's my range too. i went back and looked at which guys were at the 50+ mark and which guys were below it and i'd forgotten just how high 50 was back then. i mean, jovo never even hit 50 (before the lockout).
LOL, "Dangerous at both ends of the rink". Best way to put it.
Probably one of the best examples of someone with elite tools in almost every aspect, but was called "Special Ed" for a reason.
thenextone
Registered User
Jack Tripper
Vey Falls Down
yep exactly (the youtube video of naslund's goal i believe also shows jovo's penalty and it's pretty blatant)
having jovo in front of the net during man advantage situations was a great asset, but he'd often be over aggressive when doing so and that incident was a prime example
really really dumb penalty given the circumstances and how hard the canucks worked to come back in that series
Ad
Upcoming events
-
To Advance Marseille @ Atalanta - 2nd leg. 1st leg result: 1-1Wagers: 4Staked: $1,863.00Event closes- Updated:
-
To Advance Olympiakos vs Aston Villa - 2nd leg. 1st leg result: Olympiakos 4-2Wagers: 3Staked: $308.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
GAME 1 - Drummondville Voltigeurs @ Baie Comeau DrakkarWagers: 3Staked: $290.00Event closes- Updated:
-
