Round 2, Vote 2 (Stanley Cup Playoff Performers)

[quoipourquoi]

Procedure

• You will be presented with an increasingly large number of players based on their ranking in the Round 1 aggregate list
• Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
• You will submit ten names in a ranked order, #1 through #10, without ties
• Results of this vote will be posted after each voting cycle, but the individual ballots themselves will remain secret until the completion of this project
• The top-5 players will be added to The List, and the process will repeat itself for a total of eight voting cycles (#1-5 in Vote 1, #35-40 in Vote 8)

Eligible Voters
All voters are equal, but some voters are more equal than others

• Anyone is eligible to submit a ballot in any voting cycle, so long as it falls within the designated voting period and contains ten names in ranked order
• The results of the open voting will be posted after each voting cycle
• Ballots from voters who have submitted an approved Round 1 ranking of 60 players (which was used to shape the aggregate list) will have their votes tabulated both in the open ranking and in the History of Hockey ranking
• BenchBrawl, Black Gold Extractor, blogofmike, bobholly39, Canadiens1958, drmagg, Johnny Engine, Kyle McMahon, Mike Farkas, MXD, quoipourquoi, seventieslord, TheGeneral
• The History of Hockey ranking will be used to assemble The List
• You may continue to submit a ranked #1-60 list to quoipourquoi until further notice in order to be eligible for the History of Hockey ranking

Guidelines

• Respect each other. No horseplay or sophistry!
• Stay on topic and don't get caught up in talking about non-eligible players or non-Stanley Cup Playoff performance
• Participate, but retain an open mind throughout the discussion
• Do not speculate who cast any particular ballot. Do not make judgments about the mindset of whoever cast that particular ballot. All individual ballots will be revealed at the end of the project.

The actual voting period will open up on Friday, April 7th at midnight and continue through Sunday, April 9th at 11:59pm. Eastern time zone. Send PMs to quoipourquoi. I will release the results of the vote on Monday, April 10th.


Vote 2 Candidates

• Bobby Orr
• Denis Potvin
• Doug Harvey
• Guy Lafleur
• Jacques Plante
• Joe Sakic
• Ken Dryden
• Larry Robinson
• Mario Lemieux
• Mark Messier
• Mike Bossy
• Nicklas Lidstrom
• Red Kelly
• Ted Kennedy
• Turk Broda

Click to read more...

 

[MXD]

Vote 2 Candidates

• Bobby Orr
• Denis Potvin
• Doug Harvey
• Guy Lafleur
• Jacques Plante
• Joe Sakic
• Ken Dryden
• Larry Robinson
• Mario Lemieux
• Mark Messier
• Mike Bossy
• Nicklas Lidstrom
• Red Kelly
• Ted Kennedy
• Turk Broda

I sorta like this group of new entrants actually. No weakling duck this time around (save possibly Niklas Lidstrom), and we'll see if everything holds, but I have Turk Broda looking very good in this group.

 

[Kant Think]

Nice additions, but it is at least 1 or 2 rounds early for Lidstrom as far as I am concerned.

I hope we'll have the chance to compare him to Bourque.


Otherwise I have Plante comfortably in front of Dryden and I'm still debating which one of Potvin or Kelly I prefer in the playoffs (too early for Robinson?)

 

[bobholly39]

Curious to look more closely at Bossy, but at first glance I have Lemieux at the top of list for forwards.

Despite Messier's crazy prime/longevity numbers, I soured on him quite a bit in round 1 due to:

- Placing very poorly in "led his team in scoring" during runs. (and it's not like he was just #2 behind Gretzky when on the Oilers or anything, he placed poorly even without Grezky)

- Poor "clutchiness" aspect in terms of timing of goals

- Lemieux's best 2 runs are significantly better than any of Messier's

I initially had Messier looking to break into my top 5 of voting but soured on him a lot because of some of the above. I actually possibly like Sakic ahead of Messier too for some of these very reasons above, including also OT totals.

I admit I am one of those guys who tends to prioritize "peak" over "prime/longevity" though. For someone who does the opposite, Messier can absolutely be top of class here for forwards

 

[bobholly39]

2 posters only and both so far hint that Lidstrom might be early.

A lot of the love Harvey got in the first voting round had to do with "well, it's hard to tell off of his stats as a defenseman, but at least he was Doug Harvey for so many games, and that counts". Shouldn't Lidstrom get that same type of appreciation in spades? In the modern era he is by far the "winningest" #1 defenseman, having quarterbacked so many successful detroit teams.

Not necessarily saying he should be at the very top of this list or anything, but i'm surprised he already got hinted at being too soon twice. Curious to see how he matches up with Kelly and even Potvin, who at first glance i think he could possibly pass.

 

[MXD]

2 posters only and both so far hint that Lidstrom might be early.

A lot of the love Harvey got in the first voting round had to do with "well, it's hard to tell off of his stats as a defenseman, but at least he was Doug Harvey for so many games, and that counts". Shouldn't Lidstrom get that same type of appreciation in spades? In the modern era he is by far the "winningest" #1 defenseman, having quarterbacked so many successful detroit teams.

Not necessarily saying he should be at the very top of this list or anything, but i'm surprised he already got hinted at being too soon twice. Curious to see how he matches up with Kelly and even Potvin, who at first glance i think he could possibly pass.

Maybe I wasn't clear : Niklas Lidstrom MAY BE a weakling duck, In that group at the very least, because he's the player that, at first, looks like the weakest playoff performer on that list. But that's a very strong group if I can say so, even if I must admit that my #11,12 and 13 (from Round #1!) still has to make it and that all of them would probably have ended up ahead of Lidstrom.

 

[The Panther]

Despite Messier's crazy prime/longevity numbers, I soured on him quite a bit in round 1 due to:

- Placing very poorly in "led his team in scoring" during runs. (and it's not like he was just #2 behind Gretzky when on the Oilers or anything, he placed poorly even without Grezky)

That's just not so. First, Messier's and Gretzky's scoring peaks are different (although they are the same age). Gretzky's was roughly 1981 to 1991, but Messier's was about 1986 to 1996. He essentially had two 'peak' playoff runs with Gretzky as a teammate, and in both he was excellent. In 1987, he was 2nd to Gretzky, and in 1988 he was again 2nd to Gretzky (I think he was 1st after three rounds of play).

As to "he placed poorly even with Gretzky"... er, no. He was #1 (tied) in the playoffs in 1990. #1 isn't exactly "poor".

In 1991, he put up "only" 15 points in 18 games, but he was injured the whole time and wouldn't even have been playing under normal circumstances. Then, from 1992 to 1996, the worst he did was a point-per-game in the playoffs, and this includes a 30-point playoff run and Cup in '94.

There is simply no reasonable argument to be made that Messier was anything less than simply outstanding in the playoffs from 1987 through 1996 (not that he was a slouch before that either. This is just about scoring peak, and not even mentioning his Conn Smythe in 1984.)

- Poor "clutchiness" aspect in terms of timing of goals

Eh? Are you referring to the detailed chart of player-percentage of 'game-tier', 'game-winners', etc. that was posted a few times recently? It has to be repeated that that chart, while interesting and informative, is seriously punishing players from the high-scoring era by comparison.

Here's what I know: Stanley Cup Finals, game 7 1987 -- Messier scores the game-tying goal (he almost got the insurance goal late in the third, too, but anyway that sequence led to Anderson's clincher). And: Stanley Cup Finals, game 7 1994 -- Messier sets up the first goal by Leetch, than later scores the game-winner. That should really say it all.

Not to mention game 4 against Chicago 1990: Oilers were down, and Messier single-handedly won the game for them.

Not to mention he saved the Rangers' entire franchise in game 6 vs. New Jersey in '94.

- Lemieux's best 2 runs are significantly better than any of Messier's

I would agree they're both probably better (esp. 1992 is beyond Messier's ability, for sure, though not sure about 1991). It's obvious that Lemieux is a talent-level beyond Messier, but the whole story is of course not told by points.

I initially had Messier looking to break into my top 5 of voting but soured on him a lot because of some of the above.

That's fine, and I understand you consider peak more than longevity, but I hope you can see that your criticisms of Messier's results don't really hold up.

 

[bobholly39]

That's just not so. First, Messier's and Gretzky's scoring peaks are different (although they are the same age). Gretzky's was roughly 1981 to 1991, but Messier's was about 1986 to 1996. He essentially had two 'peak' playoff runs with Gretzky as a teammate, and in both he was excellent. In 1987, he was 2nd to Gretzky, and in 1988 he was again 2nd to Gretzky (I think he was 1st after three rounds of play).

As to "he placed poorly even with Gretzky"... er, no. He was #1 (tied) in the playoffs in 1990. #1 isn't exactly "poor".

In 1991, he put up "only" 15 points in 18 games, but he was injured the whole time and wouldn't even have been playing under normal circumstances. Then, from 1992 to 1996, the worst he did was a point-per-game in the playoffs, and this includes a 30-point playoff run and Cup in '94.

There is simply no reasonable argument to be made that Messier was anything less than simply outstanding in the playoffs from 1987 through 1996 (not that he was a slouch before that either. This is just about scoring peak, and not even mentioning his Conn Smythe in 1984.)


Eh? Are you referring to the detailed chart of player-percentage of 'game-tier', 'game-winners', etc. that was posted a few times recently? It has to be repeated that that chart, while interesting and informative, is seriously punishing players from the high-scoring era by comparison.

Here's what I know: Stanley Cup Finals, game 7 1987 -- Messier scores the game-tying goal (he almost got the insurance goal late in the third, too, but anyway that sequence led to Anderson's clincher). And: Stanley Cup Finals, game 7 1994 -- Messier sets up the first goal by Leetch, than later scores the game-winner. That should really say it all.

Not to mention game 4 against Chicago 1990: Oilers were down, and Messier single-handedly won the game for them.

Not to mention he saved the Rangers' entire franchise in game 6 vs. New Jersey in '94.

I would agree they're both probably better (esp. 1992 is beyond Messier's ability, for sure, though not sure about 1991). It's obvious that Lemieux is a talent-level beyond Messier, but the whole story is of course not told by points.

That's fine, and I understand you consider peak more than longevity, but I hope you can see that your criticisms of Messier's results don't really hold up.

Hey so to address your first point about "leading team in scoring". Refer to post#111 for the vote 1 thread, where Benchbrawl did an awesome analysis. Here

I'm not saying Messier didn't score a lot of points overall, i'm saying he didn't usually lead his team in-scoring, and very often wasn't even 2nd or 3rd, but below. In contrast Lemieux particularly (and Sakic too) rate a lot better in that comparison.

And for "timeliness" of goals. Yes, again I was referring to that chart you described. Lemieux also played in mostly as high a scoring era as Messier but scored better (and Sakic much better, though his era had many lower scoring years). So again, Messier is last in that department.

 

[quoipourquoi]

A lot of the love Harvey got in the first voting round had to do with "well, it's hard to tell off of his stats as a defenseman, but at least he was Doug Harvey for so many games, and that counts". Shouldn't Lidstrom get that same type of appreciation in spades?

Harvey's more noteworthy teammates ultimately ended up above him. Similarly, Lidstrom is not the first name I had for the 1990s-2000s Detroit Red Wings, so his name stuck out for me in this round much like Sakic's did in the previous round in that regard.

Broda, Dryden, and Kennedy are looking good.

Messier seems to be the top forward, with seven strong Finals runs. I'm the opposite of bobholly39 here; Messier's teams win in the clutch, and his overtime assists are surprising. Always the best player when the best players weren't the best players. That Gretzky and Gretzky's linemates could outscore him over four rounds does not trouble me. No dynasty without his primary roles in 87, 88, and 90.

Comparing Bossy and Potvin could either move me up on Bossy and down on Potvin, or solidify Potvin in a top spot for this round.

 

[danincanada]

2 posters only and both so far hint that Lidstrom might be early.

A lot of the love Harvey got in the first voting round had to do with "well, it's hard to tell off of his stats as a defenseman, but at least he was Doug Harvey for so many games, and that counts". Shouldn't Lidstrom get that same type of appreciation in spades? In the modern era he is by far the "winningest" #1 defenseman, having quarterbacked so many successful detroit teams.

Not necessarily saying he should be at the very top of this list or anything, but i'm surprised he already got hinted at being too soon twice. Curious to see how he matches up with Kelly and even Potvin, who at first glance i think he could possibly pass.

Par for the course around here. Lidstrom always gets underrated. Keep comparing Lidstrom with Harvey on your own and by the end of this you'll realize two things:

1) Posters want to give a 6 team league with really only Canadians full value as if it's equal to the 30 team international league of today. This makes no sense, not to mention there were only two rounds of playoffs back then so it makes things appear magnified.

2) Harvey's got nothing on Lidstrom when full context is added yet he'll finish far higher in the ranking.

This is why it's hard to take these cross era comparison lists seriously.

 

[The Panther]

I'm not saying Messier didn't score a lot of points overall, i'm saying he didn't usually lead his team in-scoring, and very often wasn't even 2nd or 3rd, but below.

And I'm saying, that's wrong. In his prime scoring years of 1987 to 1996, how many times was he 1st or 2nd on his team?
1987 - 2nd (to Gretzky)
1988 - 2nd (to Gretzky)
1989 - 1st
1990 - 1st
1991 - 3rd
1992 - 3rd (1st in PPG)
1994 - 2nd
1995 - 2nd (one point off 1st)
1996 - 1st

In contrast Lemieux particularly (and Sakic too) rate a lot better in that comparison.

Sakic, yes. But how did Mario Lemieux do in game 7's again...?

 

[MXD]

Harvey's more noteworthy teammates ultimately ended up above him. Similarly, Lidstrom is not the first name I had for the 1990s-2000s Detroit Red Wings, so his name stuck out for me in this round ]much like Sakic's did in the previous round in that regard.

Broda, Dryden, and Kennedy are looking good.

I like both underlined players at this point (I said in Vote 1 that there was one unavailable player that would look right at home in Vote 1 : I was referring to Broda), I just have issues conciliating the underlined statements from the first paragraph with the underlined of the 2nd paragraph.

 

[MXD]

Oh, and a kind request to the moderating crew : Is it possible to take measures so this thread doesn't become another "Lidstrom played in the Super NHL" Part 231?

I don't see any of such interventions so far, and I'd really like for it to stay this way.

 

[bobholly39]

And I'm saying, that's wrong. In his prime scoring years of 1987 to 1996, how many times was he 1st or 2nd on his team?
1987 - 2nd (to Gretzky)
1988 - 2nd (to Gretzky)
1989 - 1st
1990 - 1st
1991 - 3rd
1992 - 3rd (1st in PPG)
1994 - 2nd
1995 - 2nd (one point off 1st)
1996 - 1st

Sakic, yes. But how did Mario Lemieux do in game 7's again...?

83 - 3rd
84 - 3rd
85 - 5th
86 - 4th


You left out a lot of years. You can't just cherry pick and say "oh that wasn't his prime". He won a Conn Smythe in those years lol. So yeah he was rarely the "main" offensive force on his teams. In fact only once. More than that if you remove Gretzky (should we? I don't even think so, i'd be more inclined to say yes for regular season art ross race, but not when comparing playoff team leaders). Lemieux was always the go-to guy for his teams.

Game 7.

Lemieux 6 games 6 points (3G 3 A). 3-3 record
Messier 9 games 12 points (5 goals 7 assists). 7-2 record.

Yep, Messier is better there, but not really by a huge margin. Team record sure, personal stats only somewhat better.

Though not to diminish that, I don't like concentrating on games 7 alone too much. I'd be more curious to see how players performed in games where they were facing elimination and also in games where they could seal off a series. Games 7 are important but also somewhat of a gimmick. When you're facing elimination, or when you're on the verge of clinching a series, i'd argue each game is as important whether it's game 7 or 4-5-6 if you accomplish the desired outcome. That might be something useful to look at.

If I had to guess I actually expect Messier to do a lot better than Lemieux in games facing elimination/clinching, so not trying to use that as a way to diminish his games 7 performance. I just personally didn't put too much importance in game 7 performance when comparing players.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I like both underlined players at this point (I said in Vote 1 that there was one unavailable player that would look right at home in Vote 1 : I was referring to Broda), I just have issues conciliating the underlined statements from the first paragraph with the underlined of the 2nd paragraph.

I had Kennedy (and Dryden) sandwiched between Messier and Potvin in my top-10 in Round 1 and Turk Broda about 10 spots back of that, if that gives you an idea of where I'm starting from. But I could be sold on Broda being higher than I had him (probably to the detriment of my already high opinion of Kennedy), since that's what happened with me last round with Harvey making my top-10. Not saying I have buyer's remorse on Kennedy yet though, but I was forward-heavy.

 

[MXD]

I had Kennedy (and Dryden) sandwiched between Messier and Potvin in my top-10 in Round 1 and Turk Broda about 10 spots back of that, if that gives you an idea of where I'm starting from. But I could be sold on Broda being higher than I had him (probably to the detriment of my already high opinion of Kennedy), since that's what happened with me last round with Harvey making my top-10. Not saying I have buyer's remorse on Kennedy yet though, but I was forward-heavy.

Okay. Makes sense. I pretty much had them the other way around, which doesn't mean there isn't a lot to like with Kennedy at this point. If there's one player for whom clutch scoring could really mean a lot, it's Kennedy.

 

[danincanada]

Oh, and a kind request to the moderating crew : Is it possible to take measures so this thread doesn't become another "Lidstrom played in the Super NHL" Part 231?

I don't see any of such interventions so far, and I'd really like for it to stay this way.

You don't have to go crying to the mods. I'm not going to interfere.

Comparing across eras only at face value is how this list will be viewed because that's what is being done. If the Russian Elite League had a playoff format Fetisov would be voted #1 cause he dominated the league, right? No need to mention it was only a league made of Soviet players with a shorter playoff format.

Anyways, carry on.

 

[quoipourquoi]

83 - 3rd
84 - 3rd
85 - 5th
86 - 4th

Man... I would not use 1983 (14 goals in 10 games before separating his shoulder in the third round) or 1984 (scoreless Game 7 vs. Calgary, but three bodybags) in an argument against Mark Messier's numbers. The press was raving about him in both years. If anything, this makes me even more comfortable thinking it's not a big deal to be behind Gretzky and Gretzky's winger.

 

[MXD]

Man... I would not use 1983 (14 goals in 10 games before separating his shoulder in the third round) or 1984 (scoreless Game 7 vs. Calgary, but three bodybags) in an argument against Mark Messier's numbers. The press was raving about him in both years. If anything, this makes me even more comfortable thinking it's not a big deal to be behind Gretzky and Gretzky's winger.

My stance on Messier at the moment : Considering everything, especially his longevity coupled with his consistency and his physical play, the fact that wasn't always the best producer on his team is probably more of a reason why he's wasn't voted in a few hours ago, as opposed to something to really hold against him at this point.

 

[The Panther]

You left out a lot of years. You can't just cherry pick and say "oh that wasn't his prime".

I didn't say it wasn't his prime -- I said it wasn't his scoring prime (since we seem to be focusing on purely scoring... since a Conn Smythe isn't enough to impress you).

But, okay, I'll bite -- let's go all the way back to 1983:

1983 - 3rd
1984 - 3rd
1985 - 5th
1986 - 4th
1987 - 2nd (to Gretzky)
1988 - 2nd (to Gretzky)
1989 - 1st
1990 - 1st
1991 - 3rd
1992 - 3rd (1st in PPG)
1994 - 2nd
1995 - 2nd (one point off 1st)
1996 - 1st

Now, let's see that again if we wave Gretzky as competition:
1983 - 2nd
1984 - 2nd
1985 - 4th
1986 - 3rd
1987 - 1st
1988 - 1st
1989 - 1st
1990 - 1st
1991 - 3rd
1992 - 3rd (1st in PPG)
1994 - 2nd
1995 - 2nd (one point off 1st)
1996 - 1st
1997 - 1st

So, now, let's think about this -- in 1984, Messier was 3rd in team playoff scoring and was judged the MVP of the playoffs.

Then, starting in 1987, he was consistently 1st or 2nd in scoring on his team in the playoffs (i.e., even better than 1984).


Hmmm...

 

[bobholly39]

I didn't say it wasn't his prime -- I said it wasn't his scoring prime (since we seem to be focusing on purely scoring... since a Conn Smythe isn't enough to impress you).

But, okay, I'll bite -- let's go all the way back to 1983:

1983 - 3rd
1984 - 3rd
1985 - 5th
1986 - 4th
1987 - 2nd (to Gretzky)
1988 - 2nd (to Gretzky)
1989 - 1st
1990 - 1st
1991 - 3rd
1992 - 3rd (1st in PPG)
1994 - 2nd
1995 - 2nd (one point off 1st)
1996 - 1st

Now, let's see that again if we wave Gretzky as competition:
1983 - 2nd
1984 - 2nd
1985 - 4th
1986 - 3rd
1987 - 1st
1988 - 1st
1989 - 1st
1990 - 1st
1991 - 3rd
1992 - 3rd (1st in PPG)
1994 - 2nd
1995 - 2nd (one point off 1st)
1996 - 1st
1997 - 1st

So, now, let's think about this -- in 1984, Messier was 3rd in team playoff scoring and was judged the MVP of the playoffs.

Then, starting in 1987, he was consistently 1st or 2nd in scoring on his team in the playoffs (i.e., even better than 1984).


Hmmm...

You're making it sound like i said "Messier didn't lead all his teams in scoring so he sucks and should be voted last".

What I said was - in terms of "leading his teams in scoring" he falls behind Lemieux, and even Sakic. How is that wrong? Lemieux was always 1st (usually by a lot). And Sakic was more often first then Messier.

It's by no means the only criteria I'm considering and nowhere near the most important one, but it is one criteria.

 

[bobholly39]

Man... I would not use 1983 (14 goals in 10 games before separating his shoulder in the third round) or 1984 (scoreless Game 7 vs. Calgary, but three bodybags) in an argument against Mark Messier's numbers. The press was raving about him in both years. If anything, this makes me even more comfortable thinking it's not a big deal to be behind Gretzky and Gretzky's winger.

I'm not using it as a negative lol.

There was an analysis posted last round about forwards and where they placed in their team's top-5 scoring in all of their "important" playoff runs.

I was surprised as how often Messier was out of the top 1-2 spots.

His 1983 run (and 1984 run) were treated as huge positives when I went on to evaluate individual runs and other criteria. I absolutely love Messier's prime in the playoffs and those 2 years in particular are awesome.

But looking at it from a high level overview, Messier was less often the "main" offensive threat on his playoff teams than other forwards. That's all I said, which is true.

 

[steve141]

On this list, I think Lidstrom should be well behind both Kelly, Harvey, and Potvin. He simply didn't dominate the playoffs the same way all three of them did.

More than anything, I hope that someone really takes the time to evaluate Kelly vs Harvey for this round. Remember that Kelly placed as the 7th best defenceman in our HOH Top 60 Defenceman ranking. Add four Stanley Cup wins as a top forward to that and you have a playoff resume that is totally unique.

Harvey's more noteworthy teammates ultimately ended up above him. Similarly, Lidstrom is not the first name I had for the 1990s-2000s Detroit Red Wings, so his name stuck out for me in this round much like Sakic's did in the previous round in that regard.

Fedorov for sure peaked higher as a playoff performer than Lidstrom, but Lidstrom should have a significant career advantage. I'd probably put Yzerman behind both from a playoff perspective.

 

[MXD]

More than anything, I hope that someone really takes the time to evaluate Kelly vs Harvey for this round. Remember that Kelly placed as the 7th best defenceman in our HOH Top 60 Defenceman ranking. Add four Stanley Cup wins as a top forward to that and you have a playoff resume that is totally unique.
.

For the positionnal projects...
We came to an understanding, I think it's during the Centers project, to consider the whole career of a player, instead of just the time he spent in the target position. I can't tell whether it stems from common sense, or from litigious cases, but whatever...

It wasn't THAT clear during the D-Men project (as it did later on) that we were voting on the complete package of the player, as opposed to voting on "what he did at the target position".

My point is -- Red Kelly might have finished a few spots higher with clear guidelines. I'd still rank Kelly last out of the Shore, Lidstrom, Potvin and Kelly tier, but that's just me trying to remember how things went in 2011-12.

On this list, I think Lidstrom should be well behind both Kelly, Harvey, and Potvin. He simply didn't dominate the playoffs the same way all three of them did.

If you indirectly meant that Robinson vs. Lidstrom makes for an interesting study (or that they belong in a same tier, below Harvey, Kelly and Potvin), then I entirely agree.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Alright, pretty much what I expected for candidates. Surprised Henri Richard is not yet up for voting though.

One new inclusion that I'd really have to be sold hard on is Ken Dryden. I've got several of his teammates ahead of him. He just feels too much like "right place, right time" for me.

Harvey is my front runner at this point. I think Robinson is worthy of being compared with Orr and Potvin as well, interested to examine him in detail.

Lafleur-Bossy will make for a good comparison, but it's perhaps a round early for either to get serious top five consideration from me as I see it right now.

Messier is my top forward at the moment. Teeder Kennedy is a bit of a wild card and opinions could be all over the map with him. I think Lemieux is still in tough to overcome the relative lack of team success compared to some of the other candidates. Still too early for Sakic IMO. Not enough world-beater performances outside of the two Cup runs.

Plante vs Broda... should be a good debate. Dryden a very distant third for me.

Two great Red Wings defencemen enter the arena. I think Kelly's versatility and the fact that Detroit never won without him make him a very strong candidate. Lidstrom's consistency and longevity is laudable, but he suffers from never appearing to be the main driver of his team's success. The same questions could be asked of Robinson too, in fairness.