Jarome Iginla vs Pavel Bure

[missionAvs]

This is Bure for me but it's pretty close between the two. Good poll.

 

[Felidae]

I’m not a fan of looking at large timelines like that as one chunk because so much of it can be affected by timelines for competition. Iginla’s prime started in a weak period and then a lot of the top players changed after the lockout.

Also, if we’re looking at peaks, then this is too large a sample imo. To me it comes down to the fact that Bure only played 5 full seasons and finished 1,1,1,3,5 in goals. Iginla had 19 seasons where he played at least 70 games and he has worse goals finishes at 1,1,3,3. When I talk about mediocre seasons I mean the ones that were in between Iginla’s peak years. He wins the Art Ross and Richard, then has down season. Then he wins the Richard again (three way tie), but is down in points. Then has another down season after the lockout, before two strong years, then another two down goal years. To me it seems that if he was close to as good as Bure as a goal scorer he’d be able to be at the top more consistently. The only real down year Bure had that wasn’t injury related or while a rookie was the 94-95 lockout season

Yeah comparing their timelines won't ever be perfect. But it shows how they fared against their peers (I agree Iginla's was weaker) and that's really about the best you can do. I mean, it's not like Iginla lost much ground when new competition arrived. He actually has 3 of his 4 best statistical seasons after 2005.

As for Bure not having down years, There's also 1996. Yeah, he was coming off injury the previous season and ended up missing games. But its his goalscoring and point pace was still down. It also didn't stop him from going back to form in 1999 after having missed virtually the entire previous season.

I do agree that it's impressive Bure has the same amount of points finishes and more goal finishes while playing less seasons. I think it's likely he ends up having a few more elite seasons, which would give him the edge in prime but not necessarily peak. (Unless Bure would of found another level to his play)

But again it's far from a guarantee. It's normal for elite players to have have 4 maybe 5 seasons as a top player, we don't have any idea if Bure would have followed the same path or not.

Also, I guess I consider "prime" to be the number of seasons one has as a top player, irrespective of age. So I wasn't thinking of those down years in his 20s as his prime, even though it very likely is in terms of athletic performance.

 

[Rowlet]

Bure was the more talented player but Iginla had a better career.

Bure had that special something, he was electric, he made fans believe in miracles.

 

[Hockeyholic]

When each were at their best, Bure.

But I'm not sure I'd pick Bure over Iginla if I were starting a team.

 

[wetcoast]

I wouldn't really call Bure a "one dimensional" goal scorer.

He did settle in a bit as, "just a goal scorer"...but he was always able to score goals in a variety of different ways. Far from a one trick pony. He wasn't just all breakaways and highlight reels. He was an absolutely lethal shooter in a lot of different ways too.

He was also a pretty good 2 way player when deployed as such and an excellent playoff guy.

 

[sr edler]

It’s more funny for people pretending Iginla provided just scoring

I'm not sure anyone in this thread said this, but I am sure someone in this thread said this: "when I think of a complete hockey player, Iginla comes to mind", which is the type of message I reacted to. Personally, there are plenty of players I would think of before Iginla, like a ton of them, when I think of complete players, but perhaps that's just me being weird.

From age 30, Iginla didn't record a single shorthanded point, that's over half of his career and almost 800 games that indicates very sparse use on the kill.

As been said up thread, physicality is nice, but it's not like Iginla even scared opponents out of their pants. Bure was a smallish guy with a mean streak who still held his own in a pretty brutal era, ask Churla and the like.

 

[DFF]

I'm not sure anyone in this thread said this, but I am sure someone in this thread said this: "when I think of a complete hockey player, Iginla comes to mind", which is the type of message I reacted to. Personally, there are plenty of players I would think of before Iginla, like a ton of them, when I think of complete players, but perhaps that's just me being weird.

From age 30, Iginla didn't record a single shorthanded point, that's over half of his career and almost 800 games that indicates very sparse use on the kill.

As been said up thread, physicality is nice, but it's not like Iginla even scared opponents out of their pants. Bure was a smallish guy with a mean streak who still held his own in a pretty brutal era, ask Churla and the like.

Pavel Bure pretty much already checked out at 30, so what is your point?

So he was not a penalty killing specialist, but he brought other dimensions like toughness, fighting, leadership while holding his own defensively and showed up every night. That’s a lot for a goal scorer. You do not find many goal scorer like that including Bure.

Bure was more talented it’s not a debate but Iggy definitely brought more.

 

[klingsor]

I voted Bure because he was so much fun to watch.
I realize that’s not reasonable but I couldn’t resist.

 

[ijuka]

Voted for Bure. Even if Iginla technically has the greater accomplishments, Bure for some reason made a much bigger impression on me. A bit of a "what could have been"-situation with him.

 

[Mobiandi]

This is like asking if you'd rather go to the circus or watch a great movie in theatres. Depends how you want to be entertained.

I personally feel that the legend of Bure exceeds what his actual contribution to a team was

 

[Ghetty Green]

Iggy for sure

 

[VanillaCoke]

Nucks fan and Bure truther but I take Iginla every time

 

[Ghetty Green]

I think the difference in their goal scoring is bigger than any difference in playmaking. Iginla had some big goal scoring seasons, but they were never as big as Bure’s despite having more kicks at the can due to health. He also had a lot of mediocre goal scoring seasons in there as well, and while Bure had some as well, it was usually due to health

Bure had the advantage of having most of his prime in a higher scoring era. Most of Iginlas prime was the dead puck era

 

[Regal]

Bure had the advantage of having most of his prime in a higher scoring era. Most of Iginlas prime was the dead puck era

I’m not using totals to make that determination though. Bure has better goalscoring finishes despite Iginla having many more healthy years in his prime, and his best finishes were by greater margins. He played 5 seasons where he played more than 70 games and was top 5 in goals each one, including 1st three times. Iginla played 19 seasons of 70 games or more and was top 5 in goalscoring 4 times (and no other time inside the top 10).

 

[Ace of Hades]

I will take Bure anyday. Superior player.

 

[Givememoneyback]

Might be a homer from his time with the Panthers, but I went with Bure. I could see arguments either way, as while they were both elite goal scorers, they played the game quite differently.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

Both rather one dimensional complimentary players who not suited to the big stage moments.

Iginla wasn't a great leader by any stretch (smiling and sometimes being a nice guy doesn't make you one) but I don't get the sense he was an outright cancer like Bure

 

[pi314]

Iginla was a physical presence, he truly did it all. Elite goal scorer, great fighter, extremely physical, great leader, when I think of a complete hockey player, Iginla comes to mind. He really did it all, and did it all at a high level. I think Pavel Bure was the better offensive player, obviously the better skater, but Iginlas physicality can't be ignored. Probably the 2nd best power forward of the last 20 years, behind only Ovechkin.

This is how I see it as well.

Bure was better offensively but also a floater that did little else. Better for highlight reels.

Iginla was a 200-foot monster. Better for actually winning games.

If it’s a game 7, I want the guy with the complete skill set.

 

[Ace of Hades]

This is how I see it as well.

Bure was better offensively but also a floater that did little else. Better for highlight reels.

Iginla was a 200-foot monster. Better for actually winning games.

If it’s a game 7, I want the guy with the complete skill set.

This is nonsensical when you look at Bure's 1993-94 run.

 

[WingsFan95]

Here's the thing, could you win with Bure?

Outside of 94-95 in the playoffs his career is incredibly lacking in those situations.

Bure was absolutely the more talented of the two, but knowing what we know does anyone actually take Bure for 10 years over Iginla 16? On an even playing surface Iginla will be more reliable and that will translate more into actually winning. The Hart voting tells some of this and I'd argue Iginla deserved more finishes in the 10-15 spacing but he was overlooked.

 

[Siludin]

One generation early but imagine Bure with the Sedins?

Wouldn't have been the right line combo to maximize on what Bure or the Sedins could do.
Sedins needed someone like Corey Perry on their line
Bure with Kesler would have been the vibe.

 

[Siludin]

Pavel Bure pretty much already checked out at 30, so what is your point?

That's an interesting way to write career cut short due to knee injuries.
Lindros also checked out I guess. Same with Kariya & Forsberg.

 

[tfong]

Wouldn't have been the right line combo to maximize on what Bure or the Sedins could do.
Sedins needed someone like Corey Perry on their line
Bure with Kesler would have been the vibe.

To me it was like..just ANYONE with Bure would've been great.

 

[lawrence]

great poll. I love Bure so its hard for me not to vote him. Just a deadly scorer too. It's insane durring his prime years, the best we got for him was literally Cliff Ronning (although not a bad player himself) By the 7th game against the Rangers he was centered by Murray Craven.
By the time he touched down in Florida the best he had was Kozlov. Bure never had any any elite centres to play along side with.

great poll though.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

Here's the thing, could you win with Bure?

Outside of 94-95 in the playoffs his career is incredibly lacking in those situations.

Bure was absolutely the more talented of the two, but knowing what we know does anyone actually take Bure for 10 years over Iginla 16? On an even playing surface Iginla will be more reliable and that will translate more into actually winning. The Hart voting tells some of this and I'd argue Iginla deserved more finishes in the 10-15 spacing but he was overlooked.

I mean the thing is we know you couldn't win with Iginla.

For all this talk of being the best leader in hockey we never really saw it.

Always no showed the big games in the playoffs, never made it out of the first round (outside of 04) until he was a second/third liner with Boston/Pittsburgh