What is the case for Lafleur over Jagr?

[livewell68]

Why is Sakic is so important in this thread?

Anyway, Jagr is seriously underrated on this board...

Exactly.

Underrated and under appreciated.

He is was a generational talent, a talent that only comes 1-2 an era or lifetime.

Sakic is used because some people actually believe that Sakic was on the same level as Jagr.

So they say that it wasn't only Jagr that scored with bad teammates, apparently Sakic did so too.

The difference is Jagr scored towards his team winning, Sakic not some much until he got help from Forsberg and other great players.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

The difference is Jagr scored towards his team winning, Sakic not some much until he got help from Forsberg and other great players.

Okay, now you're getting exceptionally weird. What did Jagr ever win apart from Lemieux?

 

[livewell68]

Okay, now you're getting exceptionally weird. What did Jagr ever win apart from Lemieux?

What did Lemieux win apart from Jagr?

What did Gretzky win apart from Messier?

What did Sakic win apart from Forsberg and Roy?

Jagr's teams were weak post-Lemieux era but he still led them to the playoffs.

It's not like he was scoring 100 Pts and his teams were missing the playoffs.

What has Lafleur won without Dryden, Lemaire, Cournoyer...

What has Orr or Esposito won without the other?

Every great player needs a great team to win a Stanley Cup. Championships are not won alone, they are won as a team.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

What did Lemieux win apart from Jagr?

What did Gretzky win apart from Messier?

What did Sakic win apart from Forsberg and Roy?

Jagr's teams were weak post-Lemieux era but he still led them to the playoffs.

It's not like he was scoring 100 Pts and his teams were missing the playoffs.

You're correct - Jagr's *teams* made the playoffs. Sakic's (early teams) did not. It's a team game.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Every great player needs a great team to win a Stanley Cup. Championships are not alone, they are won as a team.

But playoffs can be made by just one player? That's what you're implying regarding Sakic/Jagr.

Your arguments are inconsistent. If you're going to accept the (true) statement that you're dependent upon a team to win a Cup, then you have to accept that team also has a heavy influence on whether or not the playoffs are made in the first place.

 

[livewell68]

You're correct - Jagr's *teams* made the playoffs. Sakic's (early teams) did not. It's a team game.

Except Jagr's teams made the playoffs on mostly Jagr's so-called "one dimensional" scoring.

Give Jagr the same teams he had post-Lemieux and put Roy on those teams and Jagr would have won a Cup.

Sakic played with one of the best goaltenders of all-time and quite possible the greatest clutch and playoff goalie the game has ever seen.

Jagr's teams might have had some talent on offense but those late 90's teams were weak on defense and had rather average goaltending.

Even this so-called high talent team did nothing until the 2000-01 when Lang, Kovalev and Straka all had career years. Before that it was Jagr and not many other good players.

I will give you Francis in 1997-98 but he was past his prime.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Except Jagr's teams made the playoffs on mostly Jagr's so-called "one dimensional" scoring.

According to you. Even Jagr was on the ice less than half of the game.

 

[livewell68]

According to you. Even Jagr was on the ice less than half of the game.

So tell me this, why is that Jagr between 1997-98 and 1999-00 and then again in 2005-06 scored or assisted on more than 50% of his team's goals?

No one has ever claimed that Jagr scored 100% of his team's goals, heck every team had NHL players so they should at least be able to score, but without Jagr, those Penguins teams are bottom 5.

 

[jkrx]

So tell me this, why is that Jagr between 1997-98 and 1999-00 and then again in 2005-06 scored or assisted on more than 50% of his team's goals?

No one has ever claimed that Jagr scored 100% of his team's goals, heck every team had NHL players so they should at least be able to score, but without Jagr, those Penguins teams are bottom 5.

In '98 Jagr wasnt alone in taking his team to the playoffs. Barraso was phenomenal.
In '00 The team werent bad either. Unless you call a team consisting of Kovalev, Lang, Straka and solid depth guys weak.
In '06 he were on a solid team once again.

I have no doubt in my mind that Jagr helped these teams push thmeselves to a playoff berth but once again you are overselling him.

 

[Derick*]

So tell me this, why is that Jagr between 1997-98 and 1999-00 and then again in 2005-06 scored or assisted on more than 50% of his team's goals?

No one has ever claimed that Jagr scored 100% of his team's goals, heck every team had NHL players so they should at least be able to score, but without Jagr, those Penguins teams are bottom 5.

In 05-06 Jagr had 123 points and the Rangers scored 257 goals. That's less than 48%.

 

[livewell68]

In 05-06 Jagr had 123 points and the Rangers scored 257 goals. That's less than 48%.

Actually they scored 250 goals and Jagr's 123 Pts means he played part on 49.2% of his team's goals.

Btw I have never thought that Jagr's 123 Pts in 2005-06 is as dominant as any of his seasons with the Penguins.

 

[Flames420]

Here is my case for Lafleur over Jagr:

Jagr - Had more skill, had more points.

Lafleur - A better all around hockey player.

 

[seventieslord]

Here is my case for Lafleur over Jagr:

Jagr - Had more skill, had more points.

Lafleur - A better all around hockey player.

Such strange word choice. Explain...

 

[livewell68]

Such strange word choice. Explain...

I don't know, maybe he thinks Lafleur played two-way hockey?

Maybe it was the fact that he led his mediocre Montreal team to dynasty status because of his "better all around game"

 

[CarlWinslow]

Except Jagr's teams made the playoffs on mostly Jagr's so-called "one dimensional" scoring.

Give Jagr the same teams he had post-Lemieux and put Roy on those teams and Jagr would have won a Cup.

Sakic played with one of the best goaltenders of all-time and quite possible the greatest clutch and playoff goalie the game has ever seen.

Jagr's teams might have had some talent on offense but those late 90's teams were weak on defense and had rather average goaltending.

Even this so-called high talent team did nothing until the 2000-01 when Lang, Kovalev and Straka all had career years. Before that it was Jagr and not many other good players.

I will give you Francis in 1997-98 but he was past his prime.

Wait. You spent 2 days arguing this in another thread with me.

Let's recap.

You told me first, Jagr had no supporting cast so his team success was limited.

I pointed out his cast in Washington and you then said that Jagr is BETTER when he is alone and can be the man.

SO, if we put a bunch of great players on Jagr's team, would he not be WORSE?

Yet here you say he would have won the cup. As the dude pointed out before, your arguments are inconsistent and you use points only when convenient.

 

[livewell68]

Wait. You spent 2 days arguing this in another thread with me.

Let's recap.

You told me first, Jagr had no supporting cast so his team success was limited.

I pointed out his cast in Washington and you then said that Jagr is BETTER when he is alone and can be the man.

SO, if we put a bunch of great players on Jagr's team, would he not be WORSE?

Yet here you say he would have won the cup. As the dude pointed out before, your arguments are inconsistent and you use points only when convenient.

Where did I say a bunch of great players?

All I said is that Jagr needed a great goalie or maybe just one good defenseman and that would have been enough to most likely get him a Cup.

Just watch some of the playoff games he played in 1998-99 and 1999-00 and he was a complete beast. Opposing teams had to change their whole defensive tactics, put players to shadow him and double team to try and reduce his impact.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Where did I say a bunch of great players?

All I said is that Jagr needed a great goalie or maybe just one good defenseman and that would have been enough to most likely get him a Cup.

Just watch some of the playoff games he played in 1998-99 and 1999-00 and he was a complete beast. Opposing teams had to change their whole defensive tactics, put players to shadow him and double team to try and reduce his impact.

So he didn't need a good team except he needed a good team?

 

[The_Eck]

Jagr and the Pens were allowed to play pond hockey. He got some pretty numbers out of it, but unfortunately, not wins and cups on teams he led.

Just like lafleur played pond hockey in that case. What a preposterous argument...Jagr had to consistently fight through clutching and grabbing to get anywhere near a scoring chance...Yes pond hockey indeed...Absurd...

 

[livewell68]

So he didn't need a good team except he needed a good team?

Again you are just saying things that I never said.

Was Buffalo a good team in the late 90's? They were good but only a playoff team, Hasek made them a contender. Goalies, especially in the late 90's were more important than they have ever been before or after.

For instance the Buffalo team that lost to the Dallas Stars in the Finals might have won had they had Jagr.

It's the same for Jagr in Pittsburgh.

Jagr could have been playing with a buch of AAA hockey players as forwards, but if he had NHL caliber defensemen and a Hasek like goalie, they would have won the Cup. He was that good.

 

[The_Eck]

That still doesn't make a late-70's Lafleurless team better than the early 70's teams that won 2, one a huge upset. They'd be a contender without a doubt, but not a lock like they were the 1st 3 years of the dynasty. You just don't take away the best player in the game, and expect to be the same team.

Yes they' still be a contender. Whereas Jagr's team of the late 90s, NOBODY had them pegged as a contender even with Jagr. I could envision that team quite possible finishing dead last withoug Jagr's presence. They were always slated to finish 7-8th in the east and even outside the post season, and not because of Jagr.

When we speak of team success and how jagr was never able to led his team to a cup without Lemieux, it's only fair to bring up the point of not having a good enough supporting cast. During that era, the pre-eminent favorites were always the avs, wings, devils, and stars. And rightfully so...Those teams were vastly superior than what Jagr had to work with..

 

[livewell68]

Just like lafleur played pond hockey in that case. What a preposterous argument...Jagr had to consistently fight through clutching and grabbing to get anywhere near a scoring chance...Yes pond hockey indeed...Absurd...

Didn't you know? Jagr was playing in a league full of midgets and 3 year old kids playing pond hockey, that is the only reason why he scored so much.

He wasn't in the NHL; we were just led to believe he was.

Jagr also played pond hockey in 2005-06 at age 34 when he scored 123 Pts

 

[CarlWinslow]

Again you are just saying things that I never said.

Was Buffalo a good team in the late 90's? They were good but only a playoff team, Hasek made them a contender. Goalies, especially in the late 90's were more important than they have ever been before or after.

For instance the Buffalo team that lost to the Dallas Stars in the Finals might have won had they had Jagr.

It's the same for Jagr in Pittsburgh.

Jagr could have been playing with a buch of AAA hockey players as forwards, but if he had NHL caliber defensemen and a Hasek like goalie, they would have won the Cup. He was that good.

So you are telling me that Jagr could win a Cup with arguably the greatest goalie of all-time between the pipes? Okay... This means what exactly? Or are you saying Lafleur could not do the same? If that is what you are saying, you are wrong.

As for that Sabre team, they got cheated out of the Cup. Lafleur would have helped just as much, if not more than Jagr.

Riiight. There you go again. Throwing out these insane opinions you have instead of actually stating true facts.

Here's the problem. If I take Jagr's 98-99 team, he had NHL caliber defensemen.

Kevin Hatcher, 17 seasons... Jiri Slegr, 15 seasons... Darius Kaspiritus, 16 seasons... Bobby Dollas, 7 seasons.

Oh, he also had Tom Barrasso as his goalie for most of those Pittsburgh seasons. Then Olaf Kolzig in Washington. Those two goalies are very good.

Yet, he still got them nowhere. I'd hate to see how bad Jagr's team would be with AAA forwards.

 

[livewell68]

So you are telling me that Jagr could win a Cup with arguably the greatest goalie of all-time between the pipes? Okay... This means what exactly? Or are you saying Lafleur could not do the same? If that is what you are saying, you are wrong.

As for that Sabre team, they got cheated out of the Cup. Lafleur would have helped just as much, if not more than Jagr.

Riiight. There you go again. Throwing out these insane opinions you have instead of actually stating true facts.

Here's the problem. If I take Jagr's 98-99 team, he had NHL caliber defensemen.

Kevin Hatcher, 17 seasons... Jiri Slegr, 15 seasons... Darius Kaspiritus, 16 seasons... Bobby Dollas, 7 seasons.

Oh, he also had Tom Barrasso as his goalie for most of those Pittsburgh seasons. Then Olaf Kolzig in Washington. Those two goalies are very good.

Yet, he still got them nowhere. I'd hate to see how bad Jagr's team would be with AAA forwards.

When Jagr was in Washington the whole team had issues and Jagr was still their leading socrer.

As for Pittsburgh, Barasso was no Hasek in the late 90's. Barasso won 31 games in 1997-98 and never won more than 19 games after, in fact he started to play less and less and was no longer a starting goalie.

If I recall Btw Lafleur was playing with the 1970's version of Hasek, his name was Ken Dryden.

All those defensemen you named were either average defensemen, past their primes or were old.

When you say Kaspiritis, does his name evoke great or legendary? Did Jiri Slegr bring fear to opposing fowards?

Compared to the other teams of the NHL between 1997-98 and 2000-01, how was Pittsburgh even comparable to Detroit, Dallas, New Jersey, Colorado or even St.Louis and Philadelphia.

Did the Penguins have a Blake, Pronger, MacInnis, Foote, Lidstrom, Chelios, Desjardins, Stevens, Niedermauer, Rafalski? Did the Penguins have a Roy, Hasek, Brodeur , Belfour or even a Cujo?

All those teams were stacked, the Penguing were Jagr and a few rather average players.

So what Jagr had 2 and a half off years in Washington, even with those seasons Jagr was more dominant than Lafleur.

It should be mentioned that he was durable and had a longer career, that means something in the NHL.

 

[CarlWinslow]

When Jagr was in Washington the whole team had issues and Jagr was still their leading socrer.

The whole team had issues? What does that even mean? Are you privy to some sort of underlying tension in their locker room? I recall you saying before that being around good player hurt poor Jammy because he likes to be the man and is better without any help. So that's not true anymore? Now they has "issues"?

As for Pittsburgh, Barasso was no Hasek in the late 90's.

So, because Barrasso was only a great goalie but not the greatest goalie of all0time Jagr couldn't get it done?

If I recall Btw Lafleur was playing with the 1970's version of Hasek, his name was Ken Dryden.

He did have Ken Dryden. No doubt that helps. I think their success had a bit to do with Lafleur too. Actually, look at 79-80. They were a great team with Bunny and Herron splitting time in net too.

All those defensemen you named were either average defensemen, past their primes or were old.

Actually, Slegr and Kaspiritus were in there primes and Hatcher was not "old". You said he had AHL defensemen which he clearly did not. Just admit you are wrong.

When you say Kaspiritis, does his name evoke great or legendary? Did Jiri Slegr bring fear to opposing fowards?

So Jagr only wins with legendary defensemen and the greatest goalie of all-time?

Did the Penguins have a Blake, Pronger, MacInnis, Foote, Lidstrom, Chelios, Desjardins, Stevens, Niedermauer, Rafalski? Did the Penguins have a Roy, Hasek, Brodeur , Belfour or even a Cujo?

Again, you said he could have won had they had NHL caliber defensemen. They clearly did and he still lost. As for the goaltending, Tom Barrasso is a great goalie. He's not Roy, Hasek or Brodeur but you are probably right. Barring one of the best goalies of all time, Jagr wins squat.

Also compared to the other teams of the NHL between 1997-98 and 2000-01, how was Pittsburgh even comparable to Detroit, Dallas, New Jersey, Colorado or even St.Louis and Philadelphia.

It doesn't matter. You keep talking about how Jagr had AHL scrubs and how he could still win with a bunch of AAA players. He had help and they went nowhere.

All those teams were stacked, the Penguing were Jagr and a few rather average players.

Yes, they were better than the Penguins. Your whole point though is that this mythical man-beast Jammy Jagr could carry this gang of slack jawed morons on his back to a world of success. He failed and was not a winner. Deal with it.

 

[livewell68]

The whole team had issues? What does that even mean? Are you privy to some sort of underlying tension in their locker room? I recall you saying before that being around good player hurt poor Jammy because he likes to be the man and is better without any help. So that's not true anymore? Now they has "issues"?



So, because Barrasso was only a great goalie but not the greatest goalie of all0time Jagr couldn't get it done?



He did have Ken Dryden. No doubt that helps. I think their success had a bit to do with Lafleur too. Actually, look at 79-80. They were a great team with Bunny and Herron splitting time in net too.



Actually, Slegr and Kaspiritus were in there primes and Hatcher was not "old". You said he had AHL defensemen which he clearly did not. Just admit you are wrong.



So Jagr only wins with legendary defensemen and the greatest goalie of all-time?



Again, you said he could have won had they had NHL caliber defensemen. They clearly did and he still lost. As for the goaltending, Tom Barrasso is a great goalie. He's not Roy, Hasek or Brodeur but you are probably right. Barring one of the best goalies of all time, Jagr wins squat.



It doesn't matter. You keep talking about how Jagr had AHL scrubs and how he could still win with a bunch of AAA players. He had help and they went nowhere.



Yes, they were better than the Penguins. Your whole point though is that this mythical man-beast Jammy Jagr could carry this gang of slack jawed morons on his back to a world of success. He failed and was not a winner. Deal with it.

All the stuff you have spewed is garbage. I give up on trying to argue with you because you are set on the fact that Lafleur was some kind of God and led his "mediocre" Canadiens to dynasty status while Jagr had Barasso the greatest goalie and his superior "help" and led them to nowhere.

Btw quote me where I said Jagr played with AHL defensemen.

I said they were NHL caliber but everyone else in the NHL, were NHL caliber.

It remains that his team was weaker than any of the competitors of that era.

You keep bringing Hasek, but Hasek is not the greatest goalie of all-time, he is one of but Roy is pretty darn good too.

So because Sakic won with Roy, Forsberg, Foote, Blake, does that diminishe Sakic's accomplishments?

You still haven't proven anything to me. Between 1997-98 and 2000-01 find me a time where Barasso was considered among even the best 15 starter netminders? (I didn't say top 10 because then you would say, "oh he needs a top 10 goaltender to win")

Lemieux had a prime Jagr in 1995-96, had Francis, had Barasso, had Naslund and Sandstrum, how come he did not lead his team to the Cup?