We've had this argument already, and I showed you that Neely averaged the same amount of goals and points per game, after his injury, that Kerr did in his absolute prime. The difference between a healthy Kerr and an injured Neely is that Kerr could stay on the ice for a full season because his left quadriceps wasn't turning into bone.That's the problem right there... IF... Might've been... Could've been... His hip was hurt...
Tim Kerr was a monster in the playoffs. He might've won the Conn Smythe in '87 IF he didn't get hurt. The Flyers were damn close and he might've put them over the top. Does he get credit for this too?
Again, I agree. Neely had HOF talent. But two playoff runs is not that great in the grand scheme of things. Again, his totals just aren't there.
His dominance earlier in his career combined with the complete transformation of his game to compensate for his limitations, and still achieving the greatness he did, is why he's in.
And you know what? I don't need to have this argument. Neely's in the Hall and he always will be. Its never been about totals.