Glenn Anderson

[Leafs Forever]

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.

Charlie Conacher is probably a good choice for first power forward, Bill Cook may have a case too; he is essentially described as a mini-Howe in that physicality, tough, power-forward kind of game. Though he and Conacher emerged at close to the same time.

The only other guy I can think of before those two off the top of my head would be Cy Denneny, though I'm not sure he fits the typical power forward mould.

Point being, however, there were certainly a number of forwards before Cam Neely came along that fit the "power forward" mould, even if they weren't called it back then.

 

[Starchild74]

No. He didn't.

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

Gordie Howe changed hockey no question about it. In my post I put first in quotations as to mean first as in the first to be called or labelled as one. There have been many "power forwards" in the history of the NHL.

However the difference is that when Neely came around he made it fasionable. He made it common place that every GM wanted a Cam Neely type player. I never heard the term power forward ever until it was used to describe Cam Neely. It might not be fair to others but it is the truth.

To this day at a draft when a player is big they use the term power forward. Even if he isn't that big but hits alot and can score they call him a power forward. Now the term is probably over used. But it is over used because Cam Nelly made it popular.

Boom Boom Geoffrion is credited with inventing the slap shot however to this day people compare a winger who can shoot to Hull. Or if a defenceman has a blast from the point they compare him to MacInnis. Hull was not the first to have a good shot and MacInnis was not the first defenceman to have a cannon for a shot. However every once in a while a player will come around that will make every GM or coach want that kind of player.

I never meant to say Cam Neely changed the game like Eddie Shore, Gordie Howe, Rocket Richard, Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky etc... but he did change the NHL in his own way. Just like Jacgue Lemaire did not really invent the neutral zone trap but he gets alot of credit for it. Players can change the NHL in there own way. Some do it a little bit and oters in a major way. To some writers and experts in hockey Cam Neely did change the NHL enough to warrant being considered in the HHOF

 

[Hardyvan123]

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).

I have to agree here Anderson is in because of his playoff, both personal and team, success.

If we take away his playoffs then he would not be in, as is he is one of the weaker inductions as was pointed out but the HHOF loves a winner over everything else.

Frankly I'm surprised that Lowe isn't in given that Anderson is, not that either truly deserve to be there IMO.

 

[Big Phil]

I have to agree here Anderson is in because of his playoff, both personal and team, success.

If we take away his playoffs then he would not be in, as is he is one of the weaker inductions as was pointed out but the HHOF loves a winner over everything else.

Frankly I'm surprised that Lowe isn't in given that Anderson is, not that either truly deserve to be there IMO.

I think Lowe was a clear example of a guy extremely lucky to be where he was. He didn't do anything spectacular in his career. You didn't notice him all that much in the dynasty and while he was a steady prescence he wouldn't be any more deserving than Adam Foote. Not close enough.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

I have to agree here Anderson is in because of his playoff, both personal and team, success.

If we take away his playoffs then he would not be in, as is he is one of the weaker inductions as was pointed out but the HHOF loves a winner over everything else.

Frankly I'm surprised that Lowe isn't in given that Anderson is, not that either truly deserve to be there IMO.

So, for you, Stanley Cup wins and your personal performance in the playoffs is not enough of an edge to get in HHOF?

Even though it is during those games that you are playing night after night against the best of your contemporaries? That, to me is the definition of a great player. When the $$$ is on the line against the best teams in the league night after night, a player is able to shine brightly-that is a GREAT player.

 

[jkrx]

I think Lowe was a clear example of a guy extremely lucky to be where he was. He didn't do anything spectacular in his career. You didn't notice him all that much in the dynasty and while he was a steady prescence he wouldn't be any more deserving than Adam Foote. Not close enough.

I would argue that Lowe was better than Foote in the playoffs.

 

[tony d]

Andreychuk will probably get in someday because of the 640 career goals scored. Still a ppg of 0.81 over his career plus neither 100 point season would make him a weak inductee.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Anderson didn't play much on Gretzky's wing. That being said, I would not have put him in the HOF - the bar is way too low.

Anderson was an excellent player but, the HOF's image is tarnished by having the likes of Anderson, Duff, Gillies, Ciccarelli and Federko elected.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Anderson didn't play much on Gretzky's wing. That being said, I would not have put him in the HOF - the bar is way too low.

Anderson was an excellent player but, the HOF's image is tarnished by having the likes of Anderson, Duff, Gillies, Ciccarelli and Federko elected.

Truth.

 

[Hardyvan123]

So, for you, Stanley Cup wins and your personal performance in the playoffs is not enough of an edge to get in HHOF?

Even though it is during those games that you are playing night after night against the best of your contemporaries? That, to me is the definition of a great player. When the $$$ is on the line against the best teams in the league night after night, a player is able to shine brightly-that is a GREAT player.

No I take the entire body of work that player brings to evaluate if he deserves to be in the Hall or not.

Stanley Cup wins and performance in the playoffs brings up two problems that I have not totally sorted out yet (and probably never will) for 2 reasons.

1) As the number of teams increase over time to the 30 we have now, it becomes harder statistically to repeat or have dynasties, so how do we deal with players winning cups in a 06 league to today?

2) The same goes with playoff performance, great teams go farther in the playoffs and Anderson might be the exceptional case of a support player who executed tot eh highest degree in the playoffs ever.

Not every player gets the chance to do that so there is no way to compare the "what if" player B had the chances that Anderson had.

it is easier fro players like Gretzky or Messier that have more direct and obvious impact in being the best or 2nd best player on a cup team but less clear for a guy like Anderson who is the 3rd(if he even was that high on any SC team) to 5,6or 7th best in that team winning the Stanely Cup.

At the end of the day Anderson doesn't look like a HHOF player if we look at his regular season play but does with his playoff record.

I can see why he got in with that playoff record but to me he is still one of the weaker inductees overall and the lack of "star play" in the regular season is what troubles me about his getting in.

If his team situation had been different ie. starting his career with another team I think it's highly unlikely that he makes the hall but it's just speculation on my part and a gut feeling based on what kind of player he was in the regular season.

 

[Big Phil]

I would argue that Lowe was better than Foote in the playoffs.

I can agree with that. It still puts Lowe on the outside of the HHOF though

Anderson didn't play much on Gretzky's wing. That being said, I would not have put him in the HOF - the bar is way too low.

Anderson was an excellent player but, the HOF's image is tarnished by having the likes of Anderson, Duff, Gillies, Ciccarelli and Federko elected.

I agree with the likes of Duff, Gillies, Ciccarelli and Federko, although out of the 4 you mentioned there Federko is the one who I think was the best talent and the actual "best" individual player out of all 4.

Anderson I disagree with though. It isn't as if he was a dead fish in the regular season either.

His highest finishes in the scoring race were: 9, 11, 12, 13

Sure, nothing legendary and nothing that jumps out at you.

It is his playoff exploits that seal the deal. He was instrumental in that Oilers dynasty. Yes that is what I said. I didn't call him "Messier's winger" I didn't call him a "leech" I didn't call him "fortunate" to be on such a great team. He is on a short list of greatest playoff performers of all time. Even with a guy like Claude Lemieux he had some bright postseasons, but he fell to the face of the earth other times and hurt his team. Plus Anderson had far better regular seasons.

You can score a game winning goal here and there and it can be said that you got a lucky break or two. But when it happens time and time again you eventually find the common denominator. That was Anderson. He was the guy who scored so many great goals for the Oilers. Eventually it isn't just a coincidence anymore.

Also the list I did showing that the 5-6th best players from a dynasty usually get in the HHOF helps his cause.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

No I take the entire body of work that player brings to evaluate if he deserves to be in the Hall or not.

Stanley Cup wins and performance in the playoffs brings up two problems that I have not totally sorted out yet (and probably never will) for 2 reasons.

1) As the number of teams increase over time to the 30 we have now, it becomes harder statistically to repeat or have dynasties, so how do we deal with players winning cups in a 06 league to today? You don't, you just use the eye test. Was the player a playoff great or wasn't he? If you didn't see it personally, you have no basis to compare eras.

2) The same goes with playoff performance, great teams go farther in the playoffs and Anderson might be the exceptional case of a support player who executed tot eh highest degree in the playoffs ever.

Glenn Anderson was not a support player, yes he did excel in the playoffs

Not every player gets the chance to do that so there is no way to compare the "what if" player B had the chances that Anderson had.

No reason for what if, either he did it or he didn't.

it is easier fro players like Gretzky or Messier that have more direct and obvious impact in being the best or 2nd best player on a cup team but less clear for a guy like Anderson who is the 3rd(if he even was that high on any SC team) to 5,6or 7th best in that team winning the Stanely Cup.

At the end of the day Anderson doesn't look like a HHOF player if we look at his regular season play but does with his playoff record.

I can see why he got in with that playoff record but to me he is still one of the weaker inductees overall and the lack of "star play" in the regular season is what troubles me about his getting in.

If his team situation had been different ie. starting his career with another team I think it's highly unlikely that he makes the hall but it's just speculation on my part and a gut feeling based on what kind of player he was in the regular season.Of course if he had a different career path, the outcome might be different.

Glenn Anderson was a great player with great speed, who crashed the net like no other and had a sphincter that relaxed the brighter the lights got. Support player? hardly!

 

[Hardyvan123]

Glenn Anderson was a great player with great speed, who crashed the net like no other and had a sphincter that relaxed the brighter the lights got. Support player? hardly!

As listed by Phil

His highest finishes in the scoring race were: 9, 11, 12, 13

Name any season where he was the central figure on his team that other teams game planned around? Or even the 2nd or 3rd guy?

We will be waiting a long time and Anderson was hardly the model of consistency in his career either.

He put up okay points given his great speed, when surrounded by great players, and hard an excellent playoff career but regular season he doesn't hit my best 300 players of all time never mind making the hall.

In fact after Gretzky left Edmonton Anderson became merely a good but not great or even excellent offensive player in the regular season that's it.

That season, 89, was when Anderson was 28, in his peak and he was 6th in regular season scoring on the Oilers with a team worst -16 and 7th in team scoring in the playoffs.

He did have one more good year offensively in 90 were he was 3rd in team scoring in the regular season but with a -1 and 5th in team playoff scoring.

Even with his playoff success Anderson for me is still one of the bottom 1/3 of HHOF players IMO.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

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.

Yeah, but how many of those 100 point seasons came with Gretzky? I only ask because I remember seeing a game long where Anderson and Kurri both get hat tricks and Gretzky assisted on all 6 goals.

 

[VelvetJones]

I went to almost every game 79-90 and don't remember Anderson playing with Gretzky on a normal line.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

As listed by Phil

His highest finishes in the scoring race were: 9, 11, 12, 13

Name any season where he was the central figure on his team that other teams game planned around? Or even the 2nd or 3rd guy?

We will be waiting a long time and Anderson was hardly the model of consistency in his career either.

He put up okay points given his great speed, when surrounded by great players, and hard an excellent playoff career but regular season he doesn't hit my best 300 players of all time never mind making the hall.

In fact after Gretzky left Edmonton Anderson became merely a good but not great or even excellent offensive player in the regular season that's it.

That season, 89, was when Anderson was 28, in his peak and he was 6th in regular season scoring on the Oilers with a team worst -16 and 7th in team scoring in the playoffs.

He did have one more good year offensively in 90 were he was 3rd in team scoring in the regular season but with a -1 and 5th in team playoff scoring.

Even with his playoff success Anderson for me is still one of the bottom 1/3 of HHOF players IMO.

How many Cups did Wayne win w/o Anderson?

 

[Big Phil]

Name any season where he was the central figure on his team that other teams game planned around? Or even the 2nd or 3rd guy?

Come on. Alex Delvecchio wasn't the 2nd or 3rd best player either on the Red Wings. But can you blame him? These are dynasty teams we are talking about. The 5th best guy is still usually a HHOFer for a reason. And yes in my honest opinion teams did build their plan around him. You don't think teams focused on the Messier/Anderson combo?

He did have one more good year offensively in 90 were he was 3rd in team scoring in the regular season but with a -1 and 5th in team playoff scoring.

Did you happen to catch the 1990 playoffs? Anderson was on fire that spring doing what he had done all the time.

Plus he was excellent with Toronto in 1993 and while he had slowed down he was still somewhat important to NYR in 1994 when winning.

He did what a lot of players did in their 30s, he slowed down. I can name a lot of players whose production fell in the 1990s when they were in their 30s compared to the 1980s.

Even with his playoff success Anderson for me is still one of the bottom 1/3 of HHOF players IMO.

We can agree on this one. But really, who cares? The bottom 1/3 of players in the HHOF is still impressive. Larry Murphy is in the bottom 1/3. So is Sittler, Shutt, Barber, Lapointe, and even Goulet for example. I still think they belong.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Come on. Alex Delvecchio wasn't the 2nd or 3rd best player either on the Red Wings. But can you blame him? These are dynasty teams we are talking about. The 5th best guy is still usually a HHOFer for a reason. And yes in my honest opinion teams did build their plan around him. You don't think teams focused on the Messier/Anderson combo?





Did you happen to catch the 1990 playoffs? Anderson was on fire that spring doing what he had done all the time.

Plus he was excellent with Toronto in 1993 and while he had slowed down he was still somewhat important to NYR in 1994 when winning.

He did what a lot of players did in their 30s, he slowed down. I can name a lot of players whose production fell in the 1990s when they were in their 30s compared to the 1980s.



We can agree on this one. But really, who cares? The bottom 1/3 of players in the HHOF is still impressive. Larry Murphy is in the bottom 1/3. So is Sittler, Shutt, Barber, Lapointe, and even Goulet for example. I still think they belong.

To me it was Messier and whoever played with him.

In 90 Craig Simpson and at least 4 other guys were more important to that run IMO.

In TO Gilmour was the stir that stirred the drink and he was absolutely a bit player in the 94 cup in New York. I can see why he got voted in because of that playoff success but without it there is no way he gets in if he had an average playoff career or even just a good one point wise IMO.

How many Cups did Wayne win w/o Anderson?

Zero but what exactly is your point?

How many cups do they win without Gretzky or without Anderson is the real question that you should be asking here.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

Zero but what exactly is your point?

How many cups do they win without Gretzky or without Anderson is the real question that you should be asking here.

You seemed to have attributed a lot of Anderson's success on the fact that he played on the same team (not even on his line) as Gretz, just trying to clarify.

Also at that time Anderson had the incident of his best friends death at his house. Very traumatic, according Anderson himself, to the point that he was ready to give up hockey. So his production was down after many cups, great team success and a personal tragedy.

i don't find that odd at all. Do you?

 

[Hardyvan123]

You seemed to have attributed a lot of Anderson's success on the fact that he played on the same team (not even on his line) as Gretz, just trying to clarify.

Also at that time Anderson had the incident of his best friends death at his house. Very traumatic, according Anderson himself, to the point that he was ready to give up hockey. So his production was down after many cups, great team success and a personal tragedy.

I don't find that odd at all. Do you?

I know that he didn't play very often with Gretzky except perhaps sometimes on the PP but he benefited, much like Messier, from all the attention that Gretzky's line garnered from the other teams best checking lines.

At the end of the day in the regular season he reminds me a bit of Mogilny, without as great of a peak, in the sense that he could have been so much more if he applied himself in all situations.

As for his personal tragedy I have very little to comment except that stuff like that affects different players differently and I'm looking at what he actually did on the ice to help his team win and how important he was in that function.

After Gretzky left he was a good but not great player, maybe in the top 40 in the league but that's all.

And at the end of the day that's how I judge a player, one of the main questions I ask of any HHOF candidate is was he ever the best player in the league? Top 3, 5, 10, 20? ( I take it top 20ish for the current 30 team league and conditions).

I can honestly say that I'm hard pressed to put Anderson in the top 20 in any regular season and the whole playoff thing gets tricky IMO for support players like Anderson and Larry Murphy.

 

[Big Phil]

To me it was Messier and whoever played with him.

In 90 Craig Simpson and at least 4 other guys were more important to that run IMO.

Well you have Ranford who won the Smythe in 1990. Messier and Simpson's freak spike in points I guess would be ahead of him. Other than that, a trio of Kurri, Tikkannen and Anderson follow. Pretty good company and he was still central to the success of the team.

In TO Gilmour was the stir that stirred the drink and he was absolutely a bit player in the 94 cup in New York. I can see why he got voted in because of that playoff success but without it there is no way he gets in if he had an average playoff career or even just a good one point wise IMO.

Without playoff success he doesn't get in. I agree. But he had it. He had one of the best playoff careers of all time. It's like saying "without that great season or two I wouldn't vote them in". Well they had it. It counts as part of their career. Ditto for Anderson.

How many cups do they win without Gretzky or without Anderson is the real question that you should be asking here.

Without Gretzky that's a tough one. I'd say Edmonton wins one or two Cups. Without Anderson I think you can take one Cup away like in a tight year like 1987 when he arguably could have won the Smythe.

 

[K1984]

Glenn Anderson had 16 playoff game winning goals while a member of the Oilers. The guy showed up when it mattered most, and that's why he's in the HOF.

For those complaining about his regular season results, would you rather have a guy that is top 5 in scoring, but fades in the playoffs, or someone in the top 15 in scoring, but shows up when it matters most?

Playoff performances matter more than anything else, and Anderson was one of the biggest playoff performers of the last 30 years. It wasn't Gretzky, Messier, or Kurri with those GWGs, it was Anderson, time and time again.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

Glenn Anderson had 16 playoff game winning goals while a member of the Oilers. The guy showed up when it mattered most, and that's why he's in the HOF.

For those complaining about his regular season results, would you rather have a guy that is top 5 in scoring, but fades in the playoffs, or someone in the top 15 in scoring, but shows up when it matters most?

Playoff performances matter more than anything else, and Anderson was one of the biggest playoff performers of the last 30 years. It wasn't Gretzky, Messier, or Kurri with those GWGs, it was Anderson, time and time again.

Believe it or not, there are some people who would take Joe Thornton over Glenn Anderson! Not me, not ever.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

After the age of 27, Glenn Anderson's highest point total was 72 points in a season.
And that's still in an offensive era.

His career is a difficult one to judge. As great as he was in the playoffs, I think Esa Tikkanen was just as valuable. But he's not getting into the Hall.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

After the age of 27, Glenn Anderson's highest point total was 72 points in a season.
And that's still in an offensive era.

His career is a difficult one to judge. As great as he was in the playoffs, I think Esa Tikkanen was just as valuable. But he's not getting into the Hall.

that's an interesting comparison. tikkanen peaked later, and his best playoffs was proably in '91, after the dynasty was over. anderson was in the right place at the right time, but fair or not he was there for all five cups, and was a key contributor for all of them. tik missed the first cup and barely played in the second. and he wasn't a key contributor until the fourth, though he was still very good in the third.