In their primes: Russian Rocket vs Golden Brett

Discussion in 'The History of Hockey' started by PapaBear*, Feb 7, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PapaBear*

    PapaBear* Guest

    I am looking forward to these responses. In their primes, who would you have rather had on your RW scoring goals...Hull or Bure. Tough call, but Bure for me. This guy was just downright scary in his primes and could very well be the best pure goal scorer of the early 90's.
     
  2. Reilly311

    Reilly311 Guest

  3. CoupeStanley

    CoupeStanley Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Occupation:
    Webmestre
    Location:
    Nicolet
    Home Page:
    Hull at his speak was a 86 goals scorers. Pavel Bure is one of the most spectacular player ever, he was the fastest player i ever seen and had some of the craziest move around, while being deadly accurate with his wrist shot. But it's pretty hard competing against a Hull when it's time to shoot hard the puck into the net. Also, pretty though arguying about 86 goals.

    Brett Hull for me.
     
  4. coolhandluke2410

    coolhandluke2410 "BleedBlue44"

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    St. Louis
    Home Page:
    I'll definately take Hull
     
  5. Hockey Outsider

    Hockey Outsider Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,569
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Top 5 Adjusted Goal in a season:

    Hull: 82, 66, 65, 55, 53
    Bure: 69, 68, 62, 58, 52

    It's close but I'll take Hull.
     
  6. PapaBear*

    PapaBear* Guest

    Bure for me. Know why? When has this guy ever had a great centreman feeding him? Hull had Oates, Modano, etc.
     
  7. sunb

    sunb Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,232
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Yale University
    I'd take Bure.

    Both were small purely-offensive snipers.

    Hull had his wicked release and tremondous velocity on his shot while Bure had his world-class speed and fancy stickhandling.

    Hull may be a better leader and probably had a better NHL career but if I could choose one, I'd still take Bure. His acceleration was absolutely incredible and I doubt that there are more than 5 players in the entire NHL that could chase him down when he is on a breakaway. Goalies were very scared of him. Hull is a type of player who can shoot from anywhere and make a fantastic shot but he does need a solid playmaker. Bure can create his own opportunities and imo, he is also a great playmaker when he chooses to be.
     
  8. Habs4Life

    Habs4Life Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,110
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Location:
    Saint John, NB
    I would take Bure as PapaBear said he never had a true #1 center feeding him his passes.
     
  9. Luigi Lemieux

    Luigi Lemieux Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    17,219
    Likes Received:
    1,181
    Trophy Points:
    169
    i too would take bure. imagine bure with oates centering him game in and game out. 80 goals would not be out of the question for him in the early 90s.
     
  10. The Kingslayer

    The Kingslayer Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    40,648
    Likes Received:
    2,432
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Siem Reap, Cambodia
    Cliff Ronning was ok but I agree bure pretty much had to do it on his own.
     
  11. sharkyz15

    sharkyz15 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,330
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Dirty Dirty SC
    Home Page:
    I'll take Bure

    Hull had that deadly one timer

    Bure was more of a threat all the way around with his speed and skill
     
  12. WVP

    WVP Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Messages:
    13,399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    I can't pass on Bure.
     
  13. Pavel Bure for me. Its gonna be quite some time until another player like him come around.
     
  14. GravityGrave

    GravityGrave Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2005
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Tough choice, on a certain level. I would say that the two are probably the best two pure goal scorers of the last decade or so.

    Hull has the gaudier personal numbers, and probably has had the better career overall. He's a lock for the hall of fame, IMO. His one-timer is one of (if not the) best ever, and an 86 goal season is insane, and speaks for itself. Hull at his peak was an absolute terror.

    Then there's Bure. Unquestionably one of the most exciting players of the last generation, if not ever. One of the fastest and most explosive players ever. His wrist and snap shots are wicked, and IMO his slap and one timer are underrated; he scored a lot of goals just flying up the wing and letting one rip. Also, his international career is very very good, a fact many overlook. On the other hand there are a lot of knocks against him; he is soft on D, can be maddeningly inconsistent, has reputation for being selfish, and other than here in Vancouver in the early 90's, never really played for a contender/good team. As much as I would like him to, I don't think he's going to make the hall of fame - he's never won a cup, never hit 500 goals (although he would have been a lock if he was healthy, to be sure).

    But I'd still take Bure. Why? First of all, as said look at who he has played with over his career. While Hull has played with Oates, Modano, Datsyuk, etc, who has Bure played with? Anatoli Semenov, Murray Craven, Viktor Kozlov (and in his rookie season Igor Larionov, the only true playmaker he's been paired with). Bure has never been surrounded with the same kind of talent Hull has (except in New York, but that was an absolute debacle, and after he had been ***** by injuries). I suppose this proves that he can't carry a team on his own, but it also makes you wonder what heights he would have reached playing his prime on better teams. Purely looking at their skill sets, Bure takes it in a landslide. True, Hull has perhaps the most deadly release ever. But Pavel more makes up for it with his skating and puckhandling ability, not to mention his shot, which is still better than 90% of the league.

    So, for me, Bure. Hull was amazing but IMO he still can't touch Bure.

    lol, sorry for the essay-length response :)
     
  15. BlueBleeder

    BlueBleeder Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Looking for others
  16. KOVALEV10*

    KOVALEV10* Guest

    Nice post there GravityGrave.. couldn't agree more :handclap: While Hull might have had the better shot he sure didnt have the speed, smooth skating, slick stickhandling that Bure had. So yeah I would go with Bure but if I had to choose a Right winger that played in the last 15 years I would definately choose Jagr over these two.
     
  17. Vladiator

    Vladiator Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    74
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Bure for me. But i am biased - he's my favourite player.
     
  18. bleedgreen

    bleedgreen Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    13,514
    Likes Received:
    3,641
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    colorado
    Home Page:
    hull. best shooter ever, imo
    bure was a stud, but i dont know about the no center theory. i think he flew best solo. i dont think he really needed linemates, let alone someone that kept the puck from time to time. bure at his best required no setup. all the memories we love about him are him flying at top speed with the puck - where is there a pass in those plays? all a center would have done is flip a puck in front of him and watch. i suppose that might make him better, but i remember hull at his peak....he was freakish. he never missed. best shooter ever. 86 goals and at least half of them he barely touched the puck.

    although i would agree with above - i would take jagr at his best over either.
     
  19. BigStar

    BigStar Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    795
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Tech Support
    Location:
    Saint John
    Hull easily, he is one of the best trigger men and in his hey day had the moves to go with it.
     
  20. BlueBleeder

    BlueBleeder Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Looking for others
    Bure would have been better off with a defensemen able to make long outlet passes then any center. Partly for cherry picking, but mostly for his speed and 1 on 1 moves.

    Scott Young is by no means Bure, but he scored alot of goals with us on break out passes from MacInnis and Pronger. I can't remember who the Nucks had for defense back then, besides Babych and Lumme.
     
  21. sunb

    sunb Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,232
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Yale University
    Jeff Brown. Jyrki Lumme was great for Vancouver back then and I think he benefitted Bure a lot.

    Another point about Bure being better than Hull is that. Bure was a star the day he set foot in the league. As a 20 year old rookie Bure absolutely tore up the league and averaged 50+ goals in his first three seasons. Brett Hull had a rough NHL start and didn't find his groove until a couple of seasons after his NHL debut.

    Bure had an amazing international career that started even earlier. During his draft year, he was a top 5 player who dominated the WJC with one of the best lines in WJC history: Mogilny - Fedorov - Bure. Brett Hull was cut from WJC's Team Canada ....
     
  22. CRUNK JUICE

    CRUNK JUICE Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2002
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Teacher
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Home Page:
    Couldn't have said it better. Why would Bure need a center when the majority of his goals came from his blowing by people with his speed and moves? I think people are confusing "better player" with "more excuting." I'll take Hull any day of the week. And btw, Modano is NOT an elite playmaking center. Oates is the only one Hull ever played with, and whether he needed a playmaker or not, I'll still take the guy with three 70+ goal seasons. Also, the two seasons after Oates was traded, Hull still managed 57 and 54 goals. Not too shabby.

    Terrible argument, IMO. Sergei Samsonov had a much better start to his career than Joe Thornton did. Would you rather have Samsonov now? And if you want to compare overall careers, it's no contest. Hull wins in a landslide. Where's Bure's Hart trophy and Stanley Cup?
     
  23. Alfons

    Alfons Registered User

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bure was the better player no question. If you are considering injuries and his selfishnes, then one might consider Hull. But it depends on whether you have an elite centerman or not. I think if you would switch Bure and Hull, that is let Bure play with Oates, Modano, Zubov etc, and let Hull take Bures place I think this choice would be pretty easy. And by the way saying Bure benefitted from Lumme: :dunno:
     
  24. tulsytrid1

    tulsytrid1 Registered User

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,507
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Medical field.
    Location:
    Murfreesbo Tennessee
    Home Page:
    Although Bure was explosive and extremely skilled, I go with Hull as he had the uncanny ability to ALWAYS find the open ice, and he had one of the best and most feared shots in hockey. Hull scored 50 pts in his rookie year in 52 games with the Flames, so I wouldn't call that a slow start. For me, it is hard to argue with 700+ goals with seasons of 72,86,and 70 goals scored seasons in a row. Heck he put up 68 pts last year as a 39 year old. I think Hull is/has been underated in the hockey world.
     
  25. mattihp

    mattihp Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Messages:
    16,264
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Location:
    Uppsala
    Hull.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"