Zetterberg vs. Gilmour

[Sentinel]

no sane person would even consider taking Bure over Gilmour 92-94. It wouldn't even cross their mind.

Really? Really?

 

[BraveCanadian]

Really? Really?

Really.

 

[seventieslord]

Really? Really?

Really.

 

[Boom Boom Bear]

Gilmour really benefits from his leaf days, those 93 and 94 runs were pretty epic for the city. Especially in 93 he really carried the team and always seemed to be on the ice.

Without his time with the leafs and just based on the Blues, Flames - I can see Zetterberg and himself about equal. That cup winning stacked Flames team is basically what Zetterberg was playing on for most of his career.

Gilmour's time with the leafs really puts him a head.

86 playoff with the Blues when they went to the conference finals against Calgary was an awesome run for Gilmour, ended up top playoff scorer that year without making it to the Finals, & then followed it up with a 100-point season the next year. By the time he arrived in Calgary he had already established himself as a 100-point number one center who is clutch in the playoffs.

 

[Boom Boom Bear]

number of known wings sympathizers and/or people with wings in their screen name voting for Zetterberg: 3 of 7

number of known wings sympathizers and/or people with wings in their screen name voting for Gilmour: 0 of 24

and the number of known Leafs fans flocking to this thread to show their typically rabid love for Gilmour?

 

[Boom Boom Bear]

Really.

Bure has 7 games in the Stanley Cup finals to Gimour's zero during this same time period.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Bure has 7 games in the Stanley Cup finals to Gimour's zero during this same time period.

Good for him.

 

[Big Phil]

Really? Really?

No disrespect to Bure here, since he was amazing himself from 1992-'94 but in that two year span you pick Gilmour 100% of the time.

1993
Gilmour 127 points
Bure 110

1994
Gilmour 111 points
Bure 107

1994 playoffs
Bure 31 points
Gilmour 28

We judge Bure on his offense around here because he didn't bring a whole lot more to the table. But Gilmour defeats him in this category and that doesn't even take into account the extreme difference in defensive play and other intangibles. Bure has the 1994 playoffs over him, despite the fact that Gilmour had more points than him in the first three rounds. That's the only edge you can give Bure, and it is a very miniscule one.

 

[Dark Shadows]

86 playoff with the Blues when they went to the conference finals against Calgary was an awesome run for Gilmour, ended up top playoff scorer that year without making it to the Finals, & then followed it up with a 100-point season the next year. By the time he arrived in Calgary he had already established himself as a 100-point number one center who is clutch in the playoffs.

Yep. But even so, there was another factor at work. Nieuwendyk's had a knack for tipping Al Macinnis' point shots, especially on the PP. Were I the coach, seeing that chemistry I would have kept them together on every power play too. It kinda cut into Gilmour's PP time.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

Really.

Okay I'm loling irl!

 

[Sentinel]

I know plenty of sane people who would take Bure over Gilmore in 1994 in a flash. Not to mention that Bure ended up beating Gilmore (just like Hasek ended up beating Roy). Bure didn't even have Wendel Clark at his disposal, like Gilmore.

Bure's run to the Finals was second best only to 93 Gretzky. With the same result.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I know plenty of "sane" people who would take Bure over Gilmore in 1994 in a flash.

Like who?

Not to mention that Bure ended up beating Gilmore (just like Hasek ended up beating Roy).

Teams.

Bure didn't even have Wendel Clark at his disposal, like Gilmore.

Nice try. Essentially Wendel Clark = Trevor Linden during that time period.

Heart and soul guys who produced in the playoffs as well.

Bure's run to the Finals was second best only to 93 Gretzky. With the same result.

It was definitely a monster playoff run.

And if we're counting points only then you might have a leg to stand on.. but Gilmour was having an impact all over the ice and I'm comfortable that overall he outplayed Bure in that time period quite handily.

Anyways this has gone far enough off topic for me.

 

[Killion]

Anyways this has gone far enough off topic for me.

Me too. No such player as Zetterbure'. Gilmour vs Zetterberg. Back on track plz.

 

[revolverjgw]

Gilmour for sure, he's got this edge I just love so much. I doubt Zetterberg could totally dominate while carrying a non-elite roster like Gilmour did with the Leafs.

 

[sr edler]

I was simply completely refuting the nonsense statement that he wasn't a factor in that series. I am pretty sure 16 points in 7 games puts him in the drivers' seat.

For a guy playing on a mangled ankle to do what he did that whole playoff was extraordinary.

So the Leafs ran out of gas and were outmatched against Vancouver.. so what.. no sane person would even consider taking Bure over Gilmour 92-94. It wouldn't even cross their mind.

Even though Bure is underrated around here considering how well he played in Vancouver. He gets a lot of flak for his cherry picking in Florida.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to downplay Gilmour, he had two fantastic first years in Toronto and deserves praise, but a lot of players were great in the early 90s. His 127 points in 92–93 looks beautiful on paper but it "only" gave him an 8th place in the points race. 92–93 was an anomaly year and star players on offensively shallow teams, like Gilmour, put up boatloads of points with lots of juicy ice time between the new longer commercial breaks. PP specialist Dave Andreychuk also came in from Buffalo and scored 25 goals in 31 games, a 66 goal clip. Same season Turgeon and Selänne scored more points than Gilmour on arguably worser, or at least evenly shallow, teams.

Toronto wasn't a power house or anything like that in 93–94 but it was a good team and only two points behind Western Conference champions Detroit. Toronto was also the only team with two players in the top 10 in scoring. Gilmour with 111 points and Andreychuk with 99. So he had some help.

 

[Hobnobs]

Yep. But even so, there was another factor at work. Nieuwendyk's had a knack for tipping Al Macinnis' point shots, especially on the PP. Were I the coach, seeing that chemistry I would have kept them together on every power play too. It kinda cut into Gilmour's PP time.

That Flames team could afford to use both Gilmour and Nieuwendyk on the same PP unit

 

[God Bless Canada]

I was tempted to vote for Zetterberg, only to see him get a vote. But 14 people took care of the issue. (Unfortunately, I don't think these were sympathy votes).

I think Zetterberg's an awesome player. Tremendous skill. Tremendous hockey sense. Thrives at multiple positions. Battles hard in the corners. Terrific leader. Put his team on his back late last season. (His play screamed "I don't want to be the captain of the first Red Wings team to miss the playoffs since Jacques Demers was our coach.")

But he's not in Gilmour's class. I campaigned hard around here for Gilmour to be a first-ballot HHOF inductee in 2006; he should have been inducted long before the sixth attempt a couple years ago. His hockey sense was only surpassed by his competitiveness and his intensity. Zetterberg's playoff record is great, but Gilmour was terrific, too, and was among the all-time leaders in playoff points when he retired.

He was the acquisition who helped put the Flames over the top in 88-89; he was the acquisition who completely changed the complexion of the Leafs in 1991-92.

As for Gilmour vs. Fedorov, Fedorov's best year was better than Gilmour's best, but Gilmour was the more consistently elite player. Fedorov could be a frustrating player who sometimes left you wanting more. When was a team ever dis-satisfied with the effort and performance of Gilmour?

 

[seventieslord]

and the number of known Leafs fans flocking to this thread to show their typically rabid love for Gilmour?

Y'know, there's actually a thread going on right now where Gilmour is being compared to a clearly superior player and I don't see very many of us Leafs fans over there irrationally claiming he's better... If we were, though, you'd definitely have a point.

 

[Hobnobs]

Y'know, there's actually a thread going on right now where Gilmour is being compared to a clearly superior player and I don't see very many of us Leafs fans over there irrationally claiming he's better... If we were, though, you'd definitely have a point.

Problem is that it doesnt have a poll

 

[Dark Shadows]

Yeah, I wasn't trying to downplay Gilmour, he had two fantastic first years in Toronto and deserves praise, but a lot of players were great in the early 90s. His 127 points in 92–93 looks beautiful on paper but it "only" gave him an 8th place in the points race. 92–93 was an anomaly year and star players on offensively shallow teams, like Gilmour, put up boatloads of points with lots of juicy ice time between the new longer commercial breaks. PP specialist Dave Andreychuk also came in from Buffalo and scored 25 goals in 31 games, a 66 goal clip. Same season Turgeon and Selänne scored more points than Gilmour on arguably worser, or at least evenly shallow, teams.

Toronto wasn't a power house or anything like that in 93–94 but it was a good team and only two points behind Western Conference champions Detroit. Toronto was also the only team with two players in the top 10 in scoring. Gilmour with 111 points and Andreychuk with 99. So he had some help.

Well, Andreychuk will be the first person to credit Gilmour and how good he is. note that Andreychuk never hit those numbers before or after he played with Gilmour. Hell, he played 52 games with Lafontaine, Mogilny and Hawerchuk before playing with Gilmour and only had 29 goals. the two just clicked well. But Killer was scoring well before he got there


In fairness as well, Gilmour was playing a more complete game than most forwards. And, well, he did not overly brutalize those expansion teams for points the way some guys did. Selanne and Mogilny were the other two who were not overly mean to expansion teams(Which I found surprising given their point and goal totals).

Turgeon was awful to them, but thankfully only played 5 games against SJ, TB and Ott(8 goals and 7 assists). Lemieux only played a few games against them, but also had a lot of points, but then again, he did that to everyone. LaFontaine, Oates and Yzerman also...well, let's just say they were on pace for 175-200+ points against the 3 expansion teams

 

[sr edler]

Well, Andreychuk will be the first person to credit Gilmour and how good he is. note that Andreychuk never hit those numbers before or after he played with Gilmour. Hell, he played 52 games with Lafontaine, Mogilny and Hawerchuk before playing with Gilmour and only had 29 goals.

Andreychuk didn't benefit much from playing with Lafontaine because Mogilny had that specific role on the Sabres that year. If Mogilny wasn't there Andreychuk's role naturally would have been bigger as the main scorer besides Lafontaine and he would have scored more. Put Andreychuk with Lafontaine only, or with Yzerman or Oates, in 92–93 and he scores at a similar pace as with Gilmour because it was such a season. Generally players on teams with a "one line punch" benefitted in the points race. That's why, for example, Sakic and Sundin, who supposedly didn't play on the same line except occasionally and on the power play, "evened out" a bit in the points race and "only" had 105 and 114 points. Bure for example was a first line player in Vancouver but Vancouver had some nice depth and pretty much ran two first lines, one with Bure and Adams [who scored at a PPG pace], and one with Linden and company. So Bure cooled off a bit from an insane start as the season went on and the team rolled on to score 346 goals, only behind Pittsburgh, Detroit and Quebec. If Vancouver didn't have as nice depth I think Bure easily could and would have scored 120 points instead of 110, but the team would have suffered and looked more like Selänne's Winnipeg or Turgeon's Islanders, because you need more than one good player to make a difference. When Lemieux was the only star in Pittsburgh his team sucked too even though he scored boatloads of points.

 

[PigPen]

I've been a huge zetterberg fan since he broke into the league and always will be. I think he'll be a future HOFer (or at the very least have his jersey retired as the 1st/2nd most important piece of their 2008 and 2009 cup runs.)

However, gilmour at the same age was just a cut above. I started watching hockey religiously in 90-91 and fedorov was my favorite player from his rookie season until he left the wings, but gilmour was number 2 for me, which i couldnt really say to my school friends or teammates as the leafs/wings rivalry became huge in the early 90's.
Gilmour was always someone that caught my eye. He could disrupt an opposing team's offensive rush singlehandedly, somehow sneak out of the corners with the puck 9/10 of the time despite being smallish, and he'd rag the puck in the offensive zone as good as anyone before dishing off a beauty of a pass to somebody for a goal.
He was one of the most complete players I've ever seen. I think a more fair comparison would be fedorov (not prime/peak, but just when he decided to actually give 100%) or forsberg.

 

[Jysk]

Killer all the way !

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

That's exactly what I was talking about. Z played on much better teams than Gilmore, so he had a different role. And it's not like Doug actually carried Toronto anywhere.

So I can count on you to make this same argument the next time Steve Yzerman's productions in the 80s is getting overrated?

 

[Peter9]

I think you're probably right.

During those couple of seasons Gilmour played as well as any mortal I've seen.

He was the best player in the world over that 92-94 span of time.

When the Canadiens played the Flames in the 1989 Stanley Cup finals, I remember thinking that if there is one player on another club I'd like to see in Canadiens colors, it's Gilmour. The man was fantastic well before 92-94, although I agree he was even better in 92-94. But I rarely if ever vote in these polls so no vote from me.