Not sure what all this is supposed to mean in reply to my post about the 3 being good players, you just stated random facts/pretty reasonable, imo, subjective opinions?
Or maybe 35 point seasons, sharp declines in PPG from seasons past with specific teams, and being arguably one of the most, if not the most overrated players makes players "bad", and this is understood. If so, again, I think I don't understand what good means. I'm under the impression Keller, Kessel, and Hall are good hockey players. I also don't disagree with anything you said. Not sure if it was meant to imply they aren't good, if so... how does that work exactly?
I can think of a lot of good players that are overrated, or a lot of good players who have had 35 point seasons, or a lot of good players who previously played in Pittsburgh, continued their career elsewhere, ended up having a big decline, and were all good players. It's a very oddly specific criteria imo. Especially the being overrated part. It's weird that if a lot of people think someone is better than they are, that they are not good. Unless you were just stating random facts and opinions for no reason in reply, in which case okay, I guess, thanks for sharing that info. I agree with it.