Mark Messier vs Bobby Clarke

[Trottier]

After Bobby Orr; Clarke, Trottier, Mikita, Messier & Forsberg may be my 5 favorite players.

Having said that I'd take Bobby Clarke or Bryan Trottier over Mark Messier.

I love what Clarke and Trottier brought to the ice on both offense and defense, a very rare breed, indeed. Simply talented and tenacious from end to end like no one I've seen before or since. They never seemed to get tired. I tried to play the game like those guys. Couldn't do it (haha) but they were my role models.

Great list. Relatively unfamiliar with Mikita's game (too young), but each of those guys possessed elite skills + a willingness (desire) to punish. Could use a bit more of that today, IMO.

And great description of Clarke's and Trottier's game. Both were a coach's dream, players who consistently contributed in every aspect of the game, over every square inch of the ice. Rare.

Regarding Messier: his "Final Act" - the last seven years of his career - are rightly cited here as being underwhelming, or less. But likewise, his game through the 80s and into the mid-90s is understated by some, especially his detractors. Yes, he played on a dynasty, including the most prolific scorer ever. But the guy was a beast, with a unique multifaceted skillset. Younger fans who did not see him during this time often fall back on the "well he played over 20 years which is why he has so many points!" meme. <<<That ignores entirely the other critical components of his game.

Adding: Obviously, you can tell who I rank at the top among #s 19, 11 and 16. (And had Forsberg avoided injury, the discussion would have been even more interesting, IMO.)

 

[Fred Taylor]

I disagree with this point. Messier gets a lot of "what if" credit because he was "held back by Gretzky" yet that is turned around on a guy like Bernie Nicholls who played in the exact same situation and for a decent portion of the 88-89 season actually led the league in scoring over Lemieux, Gretzky, and Yzerman.



My order as well.





The bolded were definitely better than Forsberg at peak, everyone else is arguable.

You also left off guys like Fedorov (arguable), Jagr, Pronger, Chelios, and even Zetterberg (arguable) and Datsyuk (arguable). And many more, like Mikita, Harvey, Kelly, etc. Forsberg has become so insanely overrated on these boards it's ridiculous.

Coffey, Sakic, and Yzerman are definitely arguable. Not sure how you could say they were clearly better than Forsberg with no argument to be had. If anything it's Yzerman that's overrated, aren't you the one who thinks he's better than Crosby and Jagr?

 

[Wrath]

As a career guy I'm inclined to take Moose over Clarke but would take Trotts over both of them and Forsberg as well.

Career guy.... Forsberg over Messier and Clarke??????

 

[Wrath]

Coffey, Sakic, and Yzerman are definitely arguable. Not sure how you could say they were clearly better than Forsberg with no argument to be had. If anything it's Yzerman that's overrated, aren't you the one who thinks he's better than Crosby and Jagr?

He's the one who thinks Yzerman's better than every player in the history of hockey besides Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe, and Orr. Including the likes of Bobby Hull, Beliveau, Richard, Harvey, etc.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Career guy.... Forsberg over Messier and Clarke??????

At his peak, I thought Forsberg was the best two-way forward in the league.

 

[Sentinel]

Vancouver was a team that had been on the decline prior to signing Messier, the team was blown up and rebuilt and started it's rise in Messier's final year with the Canucks.

The Rangers missed the playoffs all 3 seasons Messier was in Vancouver and continued to until the team was finally blown up in 04.

Both franchise's and their all-world roster's missed the playoffs before Messier even arrived, Messier was old and declining but he simply didn't destroy either team.

Actually, both teams were far from declining. It's more like "Messier has heavily contributed to their decline." In Vancouver he centered two of the best wingers of the era, Bure and Mogilny, and got nowhere. He got coach Renney fired, drove Linden out of town, followed by Gelinas and McLean, thus destroying the team.

And don't get me started on his second Rangers stint.

 

[Sentinel]

At his peak, I thought Forsberg was the best two-way forward in the league.

Maybe I have selective memory now, but I don't think Fors was all that special in his own zone. On the front end he was as good as they get, but I wouldn't call him the best two-way forward by any stretch.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Maybe I have selective memory now, but I don't think Fors was all that special in his own zone. On the front end he was as good as they get, but I wouldn't call him the best two-way forward by any stretch.

Really?

My recollection was that he was excellent all over the ice.

 

[Sonny Lamateena]

Actually, both teams were far from declining. It's more like "Messier has heavily contributed to their decline." In Vancouver he centered two of the best wingers of the era, Bure and Mogilny, and got nowhere. He got coach Renney fired, drove Linden out of town, followed by Gelinas and McLean, thus destroying the team.

And don't get me started on his second Rangers stint.

The Vancouver Canucks had went to the Cup final in 94 and they had declined each season since and missed the playoffs prior to Messier's arrival.

1994 - 85pts, 2nd in the Pacific, Lost Stanley Cup Finals
1995 - 48pts, 2nd in the Pacific, Lost Conference Semifinals
1996 - 79pts, 3rd in the Pacific, Lost Conference Quarterfinals
1997 - 77pts, 4th in the Pacific, Did not qualify

Bure and Mogilny were great wingers who the the year before Messier arrived also didn't make the playoffs. In 97-98 Bure was the only good Canuck (Messier included) and then he held out and demanded to be traded over a dispute with management that had nothing to do with Messier. In 97 Mogilny missed 31 games but was still 3rd in team scoring behind Bure and Messier, The next season both Messier and Mogilny only played 59 games, Messier finished second in team scoring, Mogilny was third.

Other than Bure the traded players forced themselves out of town with their horrible play.

Trevor Linden (Age 27): 42GP 7G 14A 21Pts -13
Martin Gelinas (Age 27): 24GP 4G 4A 8Pts -6
Kirk McLean (Age 31): 3.68 GAA 6W 17L 4T/OT 0.879SV%

Facts are facts, the teams weren't good enough to make the playoffs pre-Messier and they didn't. Messier is accountable for his own poor play but he didn't injure his own teammates or make them play poorly.

The Rangers situation has even less to do with Messier.

 

[blogofmike]

Objectively, they weren't contenders and were slightly less horrible with him then without him, but there was clearly a visceral antipathy towards Mess in Vancouver. Like true love, pure hatred doesn't need to make sense.

Nevertheless, his last 7 years don't negate his previous value. Career-wise I have to choose Mess, and prime vs. prime is very close, but Mess was better in the playoffs.

 

[seventieslord]

Agree. Messier had a unique ability to physically dominate his opposing center in a way that I haven't seen anyone else do. Makes up a lot of the advantage in pure defense that Clarke had.

Still think eva was being pretty generous to Clarke and you kinda let him get away with it. Clarke was a rat. He was intimidating like Matt Cooke was intimidating. Messier was intimidating in the same way, but also in the Eric Lindros way (not quite, I don't think anyone was quite at that level)

Messier actually did regularly miss between 5-8 games per season, probably due to his style of play, but rarely more than that. He was always there in the playoffs though.

If we're judging Mess by raw points he gets seriously downplayed by the fact that he missed 8, 8, 8, 9, 12, 17, 29 games in seasons that he had 1.11-1.34 PPG.

 

[pdd]

Sure you can, depending on the criteria. If we're evaluating talent using "longevity, health and durability" then, yes, they are factors. If we're evaluating talent (as I am right now) based on a "snap shot of a player's peak when they are at the pinnacle of their career" then their long-term durability is irrelevant for the particular evaluation. It's kind of like saying, "Well, Orr was better than Lidstrom at their peak, but if you factor in Nick's longevity, you have to say he was the better player since Orr only played parts of 9 seasons." I'm looking at this as "who was better when they were at their very best."

If the player's playing style causes them to sustain more injuries than the average player, it cannot be excluded from consideration.

If you're picking that guy for one game, he might go out and mix it up early and hurt himself where another comparably talented player wouldn't. It's a higher risk, and must be accounted for. Just like concussions, etc. when considering a player's future. If you were to re-draft the league, who would you take first? Many would take Crosby. But I would bet a large number would take someone else like Malkin, Stamkos, Tavares, Karlsson, etc. due to Crosby's injury concerns. Great to have... but what if you have him and he never plays?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Career guy.... Forsberg over Messier and Clarke??????

Some peaks are just too great and if you add up all of Foppa's regular season, playoff and Swedish and international games he actually played more than most people think.

Foppa's goal scoring actually went up a lot postseason and it's not a small sample either.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Some peaks are just too great and if you add up all of Foppa's regular season, playoff and Swedish and international games he actually played more than most people think.

Foppa's goal scoring actually went up a lot postseason and it's not a small sample either.

I fail to see how Forsberg's peak was greater than Clarke's but they have similar longevity (as impact players -- Clarke tailed off like many players of his era around 30) so I could see how you might pick him.

Forsberg vs. Messier on a career basis is a landslide for Messier.

 

[King Woodballs]

I'd take Forsberg over both as well. I don't know if I can count on two hands how many players I would take over Forsberg assuming everyone is at their absolute best.....

4
99
66
Gordie
Rocket
Robinson
Lindros
Shore
Potvin

Forsberg was one of the most dominating players of all-time IMO if judging by peak.

I still have PEAK Forsberg over....

Beliveau
Lafleur
Coffey
Lidstrom
Morenz
Hull(s)
Trottier
Messier
Clarke
Bossy
Crosby
Yzerman
Sakic
Ovechkin
Bourque
etc.

I would take everyone on that likst but ovechkin crosby and brett hull over Forsberg.

Quite easily actually.

 

[ted2019]

As a life long Philadelphia Flyers Fan, I have seen both players play ( because I'm old) No one gave as much every night out there on the ice then Bobby Clarke. I remember hearing a few times about the Flyers trying to give Clarke a week off before the playoffs started to have Him fresh and He would hear none of it. Clarke was a better faceoff & defensive player then Messier, but Messier was a better scorer and won more cups. Both players were known as all time Captains and I think that a lot of people would give Messier the nod because of the " prediction". Clarke was no chopped liver in the leadership department. The players on the Flyers would skate through a brick wall for Clarke and as someone else said, Clarke did all of this while having Diabetes.

Clarke won the following awards:
1971-72 Bill Masterton
1972-73 Hart & Ted Lindsay
1974-75 Hart
1975-76 Hart
1982-83 Selke ( probably would've won it a few more times if the trophy wasn't created until 1977-78 when Clarke was at His best)

2 time 2nd team NHL All Star Team
2 time 1st team NHL All Star Team

2 Stanley Cups

Averaged 1.06 points per game for His career, mostly playing against the other teams top line.
Was never a minus player in His career
Averaged .87 points per game in 136 playoff games

Lets look at Mark Messier:
1983-84 Conn Smythe
1989-90 Hart & Ted Lindsay
1991-92 Hart & Ted Lindsay

1 time 2nd Team NHL All Star Team
4 time 1st Team NHL All Star Team

6 Stanley Cups

Averaged 1.07 points per game in His career in 1756 games
Averaged 1.25 points per game in 236 playoff games

After looking at all the data and watching both players play for Their entire careers, I would take Clarke slightly over Messier. I took Clarke over Messier due to the fact that Clarke was a lot better Defensive player then Messier ever was.

 

[Fred Taylor]

Maybe I have selective memory now, but I don't think Fors was all that special in his own zone. On the front end he was as good as they get, but I wouldn't call him the best two-way forward by any stretch.

He finished runner-up for the Selke one year, and has two other top ten finishes I believe. Forsberg's two-way game was outstanding in his prime. While he wasn't Datsyuk or Zetterberg defensively, he was still far above average IMO, and much better offensively.

 

[Hardyvan123]

He finished runner-up for the Selke one year, and has two other top ten finishes I believe. Forsberg's two-way game was outstanding in his prime. While he wasn't Datsyuk or Zetterberg defensively, he was still far above average IMO, and much better offensively.

In the playoffs that Joe and Peter both played in over there careers, Peter is a whopping +47 to Joe's +9 and it's a pretty big sample. His PPG rate was also .05 better than Joe's (1.16 to 1.11)who is arguably one of the top 10 playoff forwards of all time (Both guys are IMO).

Alot of Clarke peak is Reggie Leach influenced.

Clarke was by far the better player had helped Leach more than the other way around but Clarke's top 5 finishes in assists and points get a huge boost from playing with Leach.

 

[Killion]

As a life long Philadelphia Flyers Fan.... I took Clarke over Messier due to the fact that Clarke was a lot better Defensive player then Messier ever was.

I respect Bobby Clarke. In his prime? Right through the wall. Nothing you cant like about that. He'd do anything to insure the win. All guts. You got your moneys worth with #16.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

If we were playing one game against the aliens for the fate of humanity, I'd choose Clarke.

If we tooling up a Stanley Cup contender at the start of a season, I'd choose Messier.

So, the answer is yes, Messier or Clarke.

 

[kmad]

Aliens come to earth and play us in a game of hockey for the fate of humanity... I pick Clarke as my starting center.

 

[pdd]

Aliens come to earth and play us in a game of hockey for the fate of humanity... I pick Clarke as my starting center.

I'd say you have to pick Datsyuk, except he's an alien...

 

[Hardyvan123]

Man first superpowers and now aliens/

What's next?

Name the Greek or Roman God most like your favorite player thread?

 

[shazariahl]

Sure you can, depending on the criteria. If we're evaluating talent using "longevity, health and durability" then, yes, they are factors. If we're evaluating talent (as I am right now) based on a "snap shot of a player's peak when they are at the pinnacle of their career" then their long-term durability is irrelevant for the particular evaluation. It's kind of like saying, "Well, Orr was better than Lidstrom at their peak, but if you factor in Nick's longevity, you have to say he was the better player since Orr only played parts of 9 seasons." I'm looking at this as "who was better when they were at their very best."

But how long did they have to be at their best? Fedorov's best season is extremely impressive, but other than 1 or maybe 2 more pretty good years, his offense tanks dramatically. Pronger won a Hart, which Lidstrom never did. I honestly think one could claim Pronger at his absolute best was better. But was he a better player? No. Lidstrom's a top 5-6 Dman of all time.

If their best is only a single season (or less - we could say at his peak Gagner had an 8 pt game!) and we ignore longevity completely, then we overlook an important part of evaluating a player - which is their consistant performance, night in, night out, over their peak, prime, AND post-prime career. There's a reason people here care about longevity.

 

[quoipourquoi]

If their best is only a single season (or less - we could say at his peak Gagner had an 8 pt game!) and we ignore longevity completely, then we overlook an important part of evaluating a player - which is their consistant performance, night in, night out, over their peak, prime, AND post-prime career. There's a reason people here care about longevity.

Given that this is a Mark Messier thread, I only feel comfortable about evaluating players after they turn 36-years-old. Who is Bobby Clarke?