Worst players with 1000+ points

[Steelhead16]

It's not a dumb question at all really. The original poster is just asking for opinions on who, of the elite 1000 point club, are the players who for some reason or another aren't looked upon as being "1000 pt quality" or "HOF material". He's not asking who deserves more credit or not, he's asking who are the worst players of the bunch. Since I'm too young to have seen most of these players in their respective primes, I will refrain.

It is a dumb question and you just proved it by using the word "elite" to describe the players on the list. How can you use "elite" and "worst" to describe someone? Anyone who scored 1000 points no matter what the reason deserves to make a worst player list. Oh, and by the way, nowhere in the original post are the letters HOF used or a question about the Hall of Fame even asked.

 

[EagleBelfour]

Bellows and Propp, maybe Taylor and Nicholls because they had the chance to play with awesome players their whole career

 

[Hyped]

Propp

Another insane person...

 

[Fish on The Sand]

It is a dumb question and you just proved it by using the word "elite" to describe the players on the list. How can you use "elite" and "worst" to describe someone? Anyone who scored 1000 points no matter what the reason deserves to make a worst player list. Oh, and by the way, nowhere in the original post are the letters HOF used or a question about the Hall of Fame even asked.

He said the club was elite, not the players in the club.

 

[Release The Lehner]

Unlike many on this thread who say this is pointless, there is a point to it. Some of the players that have achieved 1000 points, were able to do so because they played during the highest scoring era of NHL hockey - the 80s. Many on the list played during a more defensive time and their 1000 points are "worth" more than others. As well, there are MANY players that did not play during the 80s with the high offensive style and 80 game seasons, that do belong on any top scorers list.

When you adjust for era and take into account rule changes etc. this should be the top 68 scorers of all time:

46 Markus Naslund

I'm sorry but there is no way Naslund deserves to be up there. The last 3 seasons yeah sure he was good. But look before that, it's just a 75, a couple 60's, and a bunch of crap. Nothing spectacular. If he's there you should be putting guys like Iginla, Hossa, Kovalchuk, Nash, Heatley etc. in there.

 

[Steelhead16]

He said the club was elite, not the players in the club.

So you don't need to be an elite player to be in the elite club??? That makes even less sense than the rest of this thread.

 

[TK79]

I think this thread is rediculous. Not all of those guys should automatically get in the HOF because of the numbers... thats a good question. But to answer the question at hand, they played for a while and got to 1000+, how do any of them not deserve atleast credit for doing it? Dumb question.

I second that. One of the most useless threads on Hfboards ever..

 

[Jo]

3 Gordie Howe 1850
17 Jari Kurri 1398
25 Dave Andreychuk 1320
37 Bernie Nicholls 1209
54 Pat Verbeek 1063
60 Brian Bellows 1022
68 Brian Propp 1004



Come on Gordie Howe played until he was 51!!!!

 

[GaryU]

Pretty unbelievable that someone would put Steve Larmer on the 'notch below HHOF' list. 1 of the best all-around players ever. The 1000+ points is a bonus.

 

[12# Peter Bondra]

3 Gordie Howe 1850
17 Jari Kurri 1398
25 Dave Andreychuk 1320
37 Bernie Nicholls 1209
54 Pat Verbeek 1063
60 Brian Bellows 1022
68 Brian Propp 1004



Come on Gordie Howe played until he was 51!!!!

He did have a pause though in the NHL for a long while between he was in his forties and when played at the age of 51/52.

 

[Mothra]

Ciccarelli - A power-play specialist who ranks high here because he scored a lot of goals in a high-scoring era but was never close to being one of the best goal scorers in the game. Despite playing his prime years in the league`s weakest division, he was only a top 10 goal scorer twice in his entire career, a mark bettered or equalled by players like Hodge, Redmond, Maruk, Vaive, Bullard, Richer, Carson, and Sheppard - guys who likely never received a single vote for the Hall.
It would be something if he excelled in other areas as well but he didn`t. Was never much of a playmaker, was a liability defensively and I must have missed his great playoff play. Other than his first year, his playoff resume is pretty mediocre. In fact, after Detroit didn`t win as expected in `96, Bowman singled him out as one of the guys he had to get rid of in order for the Wings to win a Cup. He did, and they did.

Ciccarelli is a HOFer in my book....you can talk about numbers not meaning what they used to, but 600 goals is 600 goals. He was an energy guy that also drew a lot of penalties with his gritty play around the net.....was a better passer than you give him credit for, and indeed was a very good playoff goal scorer.

I dont remember Bowman singling out Ciccarelli....do you have a source on that? He was tied for 2nd in goals that playoff run. Even so....he was 36 and that team clearly needed something else

Nieuwendyk - A very good player, far better than Ciccarelli, but IMO not quite up to Hall standards. The major argument people have in his favour is that he hit 500 goals and won 3 Cups with 3 different teams. Well due to expansion diluting the quality and inflated scoring in the 80s and early 90s, the 500 mark lost any
signifance it used to have (hello Pat Verbeek). His three Cups: the Calgary team in `89 was a powerhouse, he was nowhere near the top of the team in playoff scoring and didn`t contribute much defensively, he played well with Dallas in `99 but Belfour or Modano were far more deserving of the Conn Smythe, with New Jersey in `03 he was injured and didn`t even play in the Final. What about the rest of his career? If you consider the 3 cups, you also have to consider the 10 years he lost in the 1st round.
Bottom line: there`s a few players in the Hall who Nieuwendyk was better than, but there`s far more players not in the Hall who were better than him.

Nieuwendyk I'm a little torn on...although I say he is in....I do think that you shoot yourself when you say this "Belfour or Modano were far more deserving of the Conn Smythe". I will go as far as say its debatable.....but "far more deserving"? No chance....its comments like that that make me wonder if you see the big picture

 

[Zhackpot]

Two observations:

1) I had no idea Yzerman was that high in point totals. As I'm only 20, I missed out on just about all of his prolific scoring years, so I've only been able to be impressed by stories of his scoring ability. Seeing these numbers though, and hearing the old story about scotty sitting him down and telling him essentially that he was no longer 'the scorer' on the team, but now had more of a checker role, his points statistic really impresses me. He must be one of the most complete players recent hockey history, no?

2) I totally disagree with reckonings post having Joe Nieuwendyk on the list. 3 cups on 3 different teams, a conn smythe, a calder, and I believe held(tie) the old record of 6 game winning goals in one playoff season? Add to 1000 points and I'd say that's pretty good.

Having had the pleasure of watching Newey as a Flame he was one of the guys that when you needed a goal he would get it. And he established this reputation as a rookie. 100 goals in his first two seasons. At the time I believe only Bossy and Lemieux had accomplished the feat. That's pretty damn good company in my books. The fact he has continued to put up numbers despite having bad knees and a back that has flared up also proves he is a top competitor as his 3 Cups can attest to.

Plus he could skate and play defence. Don't forget the Flames team that won the cup went from near the bottom in GA to second in the league in a year with primarily the same offensive team.

Newey is worthy of the hall and would get my vote.

 

[Zhackpot]

Bellows and Propp, maybe Taylor and Nicholls because they had the chance to play with awesome players their whole career

How the heck did Taylor play with great players his whole career? Taylor played with one great player in Dionne, one very good player in Bernie Nicholls, two good players in Goring (2 seasons, later traded to the Isles) and Simmer, two good defenceman in Jimmy Fox and Larry Murphy (not at the same time) and not a real good goalie (Mario Lessard).

This team was not very good. The year before Taylor arrived they had two players over 80 points (Dionne and Goring). The year he got there Dionne and Goring didn't crack 80.

Over Taylor's career this was a team that didn't have much more than a line and 2/3's most nights and Mario Lessard in net (a guy on most HOF ballots right?).
And a below average defence.

The Kings team was Taylor, Dionne, Simmer, Nicholls until Gretz arrived.

 

[Verbeek]

Well due to expansion diluting the quality and inflated scoring in the 80s and early 90s, the 500 mark lost any
signifance it used to have (hello Pat Verbeek).

Since he was one of my favorite players.. and I use his name here, I kind of feel obligated to ask, why would you single him out(I know other posters have too)?

He played mostly on crappy teams and still put up points consistantly, and maybe if he wasn't racking up close to 3000 PIM's he could have scored even more. I think it says something that he is the only player to have 500 goals and 2500+ PIM's. But thats what that style of play will get you. He did also win a cup with Dallas, and was a fan favorite there. I'm not saying he's HOF material because I don't believe he is, but seems kind of wrong to sell him short.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

Since he was one of my favorite players.. and I use his name here, I kind of feel obligated to ask, why would you single him out(I know other posters have too)?

He played mostly on crappy teams and still put up points consistantly, and maybe if he wasn't racking up close to 3000 PIM's he could have scored even more. I think it says something that he is the only player to have 500 goals and 2500+ PIM's. But thats what that style of play will get you. He did also win a cup with Dallas, and was a fan favorite there. I'm not saying he's HOF material because I don't believe he is, but seems kind of wrong to sell him short.

Verbeek, I agree with many of your points. Your namesake may be one of the least talented players to rack up a thousand points, but he could play on my team anytime..

 

[Habsfunk]

Vincent Damphousse sticks out to me. He's always been a good player but has never cracked 100 points and only reached 40 goals once.

 

[GentlemanOfLeisure]

Jarri Kurri

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

Jarri Kurri

 

[arrbez]

Vincent Damphousse sticks out to me. He's always been a good player but has never cracked 100 points and only reached 40 goals once.

Still, he's way better than Brian Bellows and some of the others on there

 

[JonathanK]

Dave Taylor sticks out in my mind.

 

[silver_made*]

I thought Bernie Nicholls was a very good scorer? Haven't read much about him, just his stats and stuff. Enlighten me!

i'd like some responses to this post as well

 

[reckoning]

Nobody is saying these players are horrible. The guy who started this thread mentioned in post #1 that it doesn`t necessarily mean that these players are necessarily bad, it just asked who would rank at the bottom of that list. Instead people act like if a player has 1000 points nothing critical should ever be said about them. Using that logic, it`s wrong for anyone to bring up Bryan Fogarty in the most disappointing player thread because at least he made the NHL while thousands and thousands of others didn`t. People are getting way too sensitive about thread topics lately ( though I admit the who`s more overrated between Robinson and Bossy thread was kind of dumb.)

Ciccarelli is a HOFer in my book....you can talk about numbers not meaning what they used to, but 600 goals is 600 goals.

Let me put it this way: let`s say 25 years ago you put $10,000 in bills in a hiding place in your home. Today you took it out of the hiding place. It`s still $10,000, the dollar values on the bills didn`t change; but is it worth the same? Obviously not, because you could have bought much more with that money back then than today.

Same philosophy here. Ciccarelli`s 600 goals are still 600 goals, but worth much less than say, Bobby Hulls 600 goals.

Since he was one of my favorite players.. and I use his name here, I kind of feel obligated to ask, why would you single him out(I know other posters have too)?

For the record, I`ve always had a lot of respect for Pat Verbeek. The thing is back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, getting 500 goals was a major accomplishment. It only happened once every few years and was always considered a big deal by the media. The idea of a 500 goal scorer not making the Hall of Fame was unthinkable. Richard, Howe, Beliveau, Hull. This wasn`t the very good, it wasn`t the great: it was the greatest.

In the 90s however, a lot of players hit it who didn`t fit that bill. Lemieux, Messier and Yzerman are one thing. Andreychuk and Goulet are a different story. When the club becomes less exclusive, it loses some of what made it special.

As BBB said, Pat Verbeek can play on my team anyday. It`s just that calling him a 500 goal scorer, while technically accurate, doesn`t mean what it used to.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I'm sorry but there is no way Naslund deserves to be up there. The last 3 seasons yeah sure he was good. But look before that, it's just a 75, a couple 60's, and a bunch of crap. Nothing spectacular. If he's there you should be putting guys like Iginla, Hossa, Kovalchuk, Nash, Heatley etc. in there.

The thing you are failing to realize is that Naslund is a star in a defensive era. His 84, 104 and 90 points of the past three seasons are two second place finishes and a fourth. Much more impressive than say, Bobby Smith scoring 114 to finish 8th in 1982 or Mats Naslund's 110 for an 8th place finish in 1986.

Iginla, Kovalchuk, Nash and Heatley will make that list when they are finishing at or near the top of the scoring race consistently.

 

[Ogopogo*]

i'd like some responses to this post as well

Bernie was a good player but he definitely does not qualify as great.

His career totals are inflated because he played in the high-scoring 80s. Like I said, he was a good hockey player but his place on the all-time scoring list is very misleading.

I would compare him to a Doug Weight - not necessarily the style of play but the kind of impact he had on the league.

 

[norrisnick]

C'mon Ogo. You're just itching to say it. Go for it!