Glenn Anderson

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

Seeing the Andreychuk thread in the main forum made me wonder if Glenn Anderson is a Hall of Famer? Anderson's best seasons were 105, 104, and 102 points on Gretzky's wing. Sure, the guy has 5 Cups, but is he Hall of Fame material?

I'm thinking if Anderson and Ciccarelli are in, why couldn't Andreychuk get in eventually?

Andreychuk's best three years are 99, 99, and 91 with one year being split between the Sabres and Leafs. One and a half years with Gilmour and the rest with Lafontaine.

What do you guys think? Anderson really a Hall of Famer?

Click to read more...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Seeing the Andreychuk thread in the main forum made me wonder if Glenn Anderson is a Hall of Famer? Anderson's best seasons were 105, 104, and 102 points on Gretzky's wing. Sure, the guy has 5 Cups, but is he Hall of Fame material?

I'm thinking if Anderson and Ciccarelli are in, why couldn't Andreychuk get in eventually?

Andreychuk's best three years are 99, 99, and 91 with one year being split between the Sabres and Leafs. One and a half years with Gilmour and the rest with Lafontaine.

What do you guys think? Anderson really a Hall of Famer?

1. Anderson only played on Gretzky's wing for a couple of seasons. For most of his career, he was playing on Messier's wing on the second line that played a more defensive role than Gretzky's line.

2. Anderson was also Messier's wing in the Canada Cups, playing on the unit that went head to head against the KLM line.

3. The main reason Anderson is in the Hall is the playoffs - he has 214 points (4th all time) in 225 games, versus 97 points in 162 games for Andreychuk.

Personally, I think Anderson is a fairly weak induction, but deserving as an important member of both the Edmonton dynasty and the Canada Cups in the 1980s.

Ciccarelli is a better comparable for Andreychuk, and I don't think he should have been inducted either. But even then, Dino had the better peak (4th and 5th in goals, 6th and 9th in points without a center as good as prime Gilmour) and was better in the playoffs (73 goals, 118 points in 141 games vs. 43 goals, 97 points in 162 games for Andreychuk).

 

[mobilus]

Six Cups, he won with the Rangers in '94.

 

[the_speedster]

hey if cam neely got in.....

 

[arrbez]

Anderson is definitely in because of his playoff resume. Which makes him a tough call for a lot of people, myself included. Being the 4th or 5th best player on those Oilers teams gave him playoff opportunities that 99% of players never get. But at the same time, he was dynamite in those opportunities.

Andreychuk didn't get to play with Messier or Gretzky, but he had some great centres over the years (Perreault, Hawerchuk, Lafontaine, Gilmour, etc) and wasn't really a notable playoff performer outside of 1993.

Anderson seems like a more well-rounded player as well. Andreychuk was very good at one thing, but pretty limited in the rest of his game. This, coupled with his penchant for clutch goals is why Anderson was a regular on Team Canada and Andreychuk was never invited.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Yeah I think Anderson is one of the weaker inductions and Andreychuk would definitely be among the weaker ones too if and when he makes it.

It is hard to make a case against any of them now that Ciccarelli and Neely and Federko etc. from that time period have made it, though.. so who knows.

 

[seventieslord]

Yeah I think Anderson is one of the weaker inductions and Andreychuk would definitely be among the weaker ones too if and when he makes it.

It is hard to make a case against any of them now that Ciccarelli and Neely and Federko etc. from that time period have made it, though.. so who knows.

I see a distinct gap from Neely/Federko, to Ciccarelli/Andreycuk personally.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I see a distinct gap from Neely/Federko, to Ciccarelli/Andreycuk personally.

Me too.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I see a distinct gap from Neely/Federko, to Ciccarelli/Andreycuk personally.

I'm not trying to compare them in any way except that they are all weak inductions.

Neely was an outstanding player who burned out very quickly.

Federko was a very good player for a decent amount of time but never truly stood out or accomplished anything of note (unless I'm completely losing my mind).

Ciccarelli and Andreychuk both are examples of guys who were good for a long long time.

Basically those 3 inductions (and Anderson) open the door for almost anyone who was even a star level player during the late 70's to the 90s.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

there are weak inductions, and there are ridiculous inductions. among guys whose careers began post-expansion, anderson is certainly among the weakest players in the hall. but andreychuk would be the weakest player in the hall, bare none.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Anderson is certainly amongst the weakers HHOFers most likely, but he's far from the worst choice.

I'm thinking if Anderson and Ciccarelli are in, why couldn't Andreychuk get in eventually?

Maybe he could, but I'd be against it. We shouldn't compare guys to weaker HHOFers to determine whether or not they are deserving; otherwise, the standards of the hall I think most question will never improve.

 

[Jumptheshark]

hey if cam neely got in.....

this




Neely was the weakest entry in awhile and I think Dave A should get in if Neely is in

it should be mentioned that since Neely got in they have tighten things up a bit

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

this




Neely was the weakest entry in awhile and I think Dave A should get in if Neely is in

it should be mentioned that since Neely got in they have tighten things up a bit

Cam Neely was a defining player of his era, just like Pavel Bure was for his. I'd take a guy who was absolutely elite for 7-8 years over a guy who was pretty good for 20 like Andreychuk or Ciccarelli.

Neely was a 2nd Team All Star 4 times and played in 5 All Star games. Andreychuk was never a post-season All Star, despite playing at the weaker LW position, and played in 2 All Star Games.

And don't the playoffs matter?

Neely = 57 goals, 89 points in 93 playoff games.
Andreychuk = 43 goals and 97 points in 162 games.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I'm not trying to compare them in any way except that they are all weak inductions.

Neely was an outstanding player who burned out very quickly.

Federko was a very good player for a decent amount of time but never truly stood out or accomplished anything of note (unless I'm completely losing my mind).

Ciccarelli and Andreychuk both are examples of guys who were good for a long long time.

Basically those 3 inductions (and Anderson) open the door for almost anyone who was even a star level player during the late 70's to the 90s.

It comes back to playoffs though. Out of those five you mention, Andreychuk is pretty clearly the weakest playoff performer.

Anderson is in the Hall due to outstanding playoff achievements, no question there.

There's no way Neely makes it unless playoffs are factored quite heavily into the equation (and why shouldn't they be?). One of the best goals-per-game averages of all time in the post-season.

Federko managed to lead the playoffs in scoring in a year in which his team didn't reach the final. His individual playoff results are quite strong , even though the unspectacular Blues were usually done early.

Ciccarelli set the record for playoff goals by a rookie. For some reason he has been branded as a poor playoff performer in some circles, even though he scored at a 40-goal pace for the duration of his playoff career.

Andreychuk has the feather in his cap of captaining the Lightning to the Cup at the end of his career. Is that enough though? He was pretty much a point-per-game player during a very high scoring era, who hung around for a significant length of time past his prime to pad his career totals. (No, I'm sure that isn't actually the reason, but you know what I mean). I'd say his regular season resume falls short of being HOF-caliber, and the playoffs don't put him over the top like they do the others.

Ciccarelli is probably the closest comparable. But I'd say his regular season and playoffs are both a little bit better than Andreychuk's. Since Dino is a guy most people consider a bottom-rung inductee, I see little justification for Andreychuk.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

If there was a postseason category for "absolutley backbreaking and demoralizing goals", Anderson would be the leader, or at least the top-3.

I personally don't like it when guys are penalized for simply playing on great teams.

Anderson was a money player and a winner at almost every level.


As for Andreychuk, he certainly lacked Neely's "wow" factor, but he was a pretty imposing force when he wanted to be.

That being said, he was just too inconsistent throughout his career, wasn't a guy who changed the pace or dynamic of any given game, and was a notorious playoff underachiever.

Zero All NHL selections, zero post season awards and two ASG appearances in over 20 years of NHL service?

No way does he get in.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Cam Neely was a defining player of his era, just like Pavel Bure was for his. I'd take a guy who was absolutely elite for 7-8 years over a guy who was pretty good for 20 like Andreychuk or Ciccarelli.

Neely was a 2nd Team All Star 4 times and played in 5 All Star games. Andreychuk was never a post-season All Star, despite playing at the weaker LW position, and played in 2 All Star Games.

And don't the playoffs matter?

Neely = 57 goals, 89 points in 93 playoff games.
Andreychuk = 43 goals and 97 points in 162 games.

thought Neely was a RW

Using your guidelines BURE should be in the hall already then as well

Neely was a very good player--but injures hurt him bog time

he topped 90 pts just twice

When you talk hall of famers--the words Only if he stayed healthy should never be mentioned.

 

[BraveCanadian]

thought Neely was a RW

Using your guidelines BURE should be in the hall already then as well

Neely was a very good player--but injures hurt him bog time

he topped 90 pts just twice

When you talk hall of famers--the words Only if he stayed healthy should never be mentioned.

Agreed. If Neely is in Bure is automatic.

That is the problem with weak candidates being put in.. it opens the door.

 

[seventieslord]

Agreed. If Neely is in Bure is automatic.

That is the problem with weak candidates being put in.. it opens the door.

from a goal-scoring perspective the people who look at things really simply are going to say their equal. And then Bure's critics will say "but Bure wasn't a power forward and Neely was!!!" and Bure will keep being overlooked.

I agree it's crazy. I'm not sure he's even in my top-10 of guys who should be in, but he definitely should be in.

 

[Starchild74]

The only reason that Cam Neely is in the HHOF in my opinion is because he changed hockey to a degreee. I am not saying that he wasn't good or that he wasn't a good goal scorer or anything. I mean Cam Neely was awesome. It is just that some players come around every once in a while an dchange hockey and Cam Neely did that.

He wasn't the first big hockey player that could score, had skill, could hit, and fight. But he was the most prolific of his kind. He was the "first" power forward. Now every team in the NHL wants one. Every time a player like Todd Bertuzzi or a John Leclaire etc... come into the league they are compared to Neely and to a degree are measured to him. When a player is big like a Dustin Penner hockey people label them as power forwards even though truly Penner isn't

That is the main reason. You can argue his stats which of course honestly don't merit induction into the HHOF. He did okay in the playoffs but not super great. It was more of what he brought to game that to some had never been seen before or at the very least been talked about.

At least that is what I believe of the main reason Neely made into the HHOF.

As for Glenn Anderson does he belong into the HHOF. I think he does based soley on his playoffs. He wasn't that bad in the regular season and rarely ever played with Gretzky and it can be argued that for his first few seasons in a way he carried or helped Messier become better.

In the playoffs because the Oilers were so stacked as a team alot of the credit and rightfully so went to Gretzky, Messier, Kurri and Coffey. What alot of people might forget is that Anderson scored alot of big goals for the Oilers and when the game was on the line he was usally the one guy that could be counted on. Even when he was getting up in age with the Rangers he still produced pretty good in their 94 run.

He won 6 cups and was not just along for the ride. He was a key part of the wins. He had a pretty short career as opposed to some and when you look at his regular season stats once again another player that doesn't belong there based on regular season stats. However if you look at his playoff stats and yes they are in the 80's and early 90's but they are still very impressive. When you have a dynasty that wins alot of cups guys like Clarke Gillies and Glenn anderson are inducted in the hHOF because in part they were key guys that helped the dynasty win. That might not be fair to some other great players who never played on a dynasty however in order to have a Dynasty you do need alot of great and pretty great players. Would the Islanders have won the 4 cups without Gillies or would the Oilers have won their 5 cups without Anderson? Who knows but one thing is for sure it would have been alot harder and I like to think that the answer is No on both counts

 

[BraveCanadian]

The only reason that Cam Neely is in the HHOF in my opinion is because he changed hockey to a degreee.

No. He didn't.

Gordie Howe is the prototypical power forward. Not Cam Neely.

 

[BamBamCam*]

No. He didn't.

Gordie Howe is the prototypical power forward. Not Cam Neely.

If that's the case then why does the hockey world recognise Neely as the prototypical power forward?

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/36015-THNcom-Top-10-Alltime-power-forwards.html

It is widely agreed upon Neely was the first power forward as it is defined, you can talk about how tough and hard nosed guys like Howe was but the true defination of power foward starts with Neely. There is a distinction and Starchild explained why Neely is a power forward as opposed to Howe.

 

[BraveCanadian]

If that's the case then why does the hockey world recognise Neely as the prototypical power forward?

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/36015-THNcom-Top-10-Alltime-power-forwards.html

It is widely agreed upon Neely was the first power forward as it is defined, you can talk about how tough and hard nosed guys like Howe was but the true defination of power foward starts with Neely. There is a distinction and Starchild explained why Neely is a power forward as opposed to Howe.

Perhaps if you read your own linked article you'd find that Neely was just the first player the label was applied to.

 

[BamBamCam*]

Perhaps if you read your own linked article you'd find that Neely was just the first player the label was applied to.

That's why I worded this sentence as I did:

It is widely agreed upon Neely was the first power forward as it is defined

 

[BraveCanadian]

That's why I worded this sentence as I did:

It is widely agreed upon Neely was the first power forward as it is defined

Except that isn't true.

Gordie Howe is generally thought to be the first power forward. Neely was just the first to be called a power forward.

 

[Big Phil]

If that's the case then why does the hockey world recognise Neely as the prototypical power forward?

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/36015-THNcom-Top-10-Alltime-power-forwards.html

It is widely agreed upon Neely was the first power forward as it is defined, you can talk about how tough and hard nosed guys like Howe was but the true defination of power foward starts with Neely. There is a distinction and Starchild explained why Neely is a power forward as opposed to Howe.

Except Neely wasn't the first power forward. Actually I wouldn't say Howe was either. My best bet would be Charlie Conacher. Now did they call it a "power forward" back then? No they didn't but just because someone coined the phrase sometime in the 1990s it doesn't mean that generation was the first. Gord Drillon (the last Leaf to win the scoring title in 1938) is another example. Clark Gillies would be a power forward for any era. Messier preceded Neely as well.

If there was a postseason category for "absolutley backbreaking and demoralizing goals", Anderson would be the leader, or at least the top-3.

I personally don't like it when guys are penalized for simply playing on great teams.

Anderson was a money player and a winner at almost every level.

Totally agree with this. After all there are a lot of players who are spoonfed the opportunities to succeed and don't do it. Alexei Yashin, Joe Thornton, Evgeni Nabokov, Curtis Joseph, etc are all players who were put into some great situations and laid an egg. Thornton can redeem himself, but Anderson was NEVER that type of player. Watch an Oiler game from the 1980s or even 1990. When it was playoff time Anderson was always clutch. He had that defining move coming in off the right and cutting inside towards the net. How many goals did he score like that?

Plus even if you ignore the overtime playoff goals there are plenty of times when he stepped up with big goals. Game #7 of the 1987 Cup final, Game 1 of the Canada/Russia 1987 Canada Cup series, Game 1 of the 1990 Cup final, Game 5 of the 1990 final. If you focus on that Oiler dynasty Anderson's name comes up a lot and he stands out on the ice. That's a HHOFer. Plus he was good in the regular season as well.

And who cares if you are the 5th-6th best on a dynasty? This is arguable as well since Anderson was there for all 5 of them. Yeah he's behind Gretzky, Messier, Kurri for sure. He's close with Fuhr and Coffey was only around for 3 Cups so.........

Besides, this is the 1980s Oilers. If you are the 6th best on that team (at worst) you have good company. This isn't the 2006 Hurricanes or even the 2010 Hawks. Patrick Sharp (I'm guessing) would be 6th or so on that team. He isn't a HHOFer.

1950s Habs - Beliveau, Richard, Geoffrion, Moore, Richard, Harvey, Plante
1950s Wings - Howe, Lindsay, Kelly, Sawchuk, Delvecchio
1980s Isles - Potvin, Bossy, Trottier, Smith, Gillies
1970s Habs - Lafleur, Robinson, Gainey, Dryden, Lemaire, Savard, Lapointe etc........
1990s Pens - Lemieux, Francis, Jagr, Stevens, Murphy, Mullen, Barrasso, Recchi/Coffey for 1 each
1990s Wings - Yzerman, Fedorov, Lidstrom, Shanahan, Vernon, Osgood

Even some good teams recently:
2001 Avs - Sakic, Roy, Forsberg, Bourque, Blake
2007 Ducks - Pronger, Niedermayer, Selanne, Getzlaf, Giguere, Perry
2009 Pens - Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, Gonchar, Staal

All of those dynasty or near dynasty teams at the top either already have or are likely to have 5 HHOFers at the very least. Yes Gillies is controversial, but Anderson is a clear notch above him. I know Stevens isn't a HHOFer but he played like one. Other than that you'd think Vernon gets in eventually, Osgood I'm not so sure though, I wouldn't. Once Jagr is eligible that'll be 5 for the Pens (who played both years) and Barrasso is another name that never goes away.

And the recent Cup winning teams are stacked too. The 2001 Avs will have 5 HHOFers. The 2007 Ducks will have no less than 3 and I would bet that Getzlaf will be in there, longshot for Giguere and Perry though. The 2009 Pens will have Crosby, Malkin and probably Fleury. Gonchar always is in the mix and while it is very early who knows with Staal.

So you see, being the 5th best on a dynasty almost always gets you in, and there is no shame in that. Even non-dynasty Cup winners usually have 3-4 minimum.

As for Andreychuk, he certainly lacked Neely's "wow" factor, but he was a pretty imposing force when he wanted to be.

That being said, he was just too inconsistent throughout his career, wasn't a guy who changed the pace or dynamic of any given game, and was a notorious playoff underachiever.

Zero All NHL selections, zero post season awards and two ASG appearances in over 20 years of NHL service?

No way does he get in

Agreed. Did too little in his career. Is the epitome of a compiler, and come to think of it he isn't even the best compiler out there