A Comparison: Damphousse, Nicholls, Roenick, Turgeon

[Say Hey Kid]

Why did I choose these four? I have mental health issues.

1. Who was the best player?

2. Who was the best offensive player?

3. Who was the best defensive player?

4. Who has the best leadership and other intangibles?

5. Are any of them HHoF worthy?

Click to read more...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

1. Roenick was best overall. Just a bit behind Turgeon offensively, while bringing more to the table overall.

2. Turgeon was best offensively

3. Damphousse was best defensively

4. Leadership is probably Damphousse. Roenick brings a bunch of physicality. Close between those two.

5. I wouldn't hate it if Roenick and Turgeon in particular were enshrined, but none of them are must adds. Roenick hurts his case by running his mouth too much to the media.

 

[seventieslord]

1. probably Roenick.
2. certainly Turgeon.
3. certainly Damphousse.
4. probably Damphousse, arguably Roenick.
5. Roenick and Turgeon - probably. Damphousse, Nicholls - no.

 

[MadLuke]

At is peak of defensive play, seem Damphousse is a solid candidate here, he played over 3 minutes of PK a game on the Sharks, over 2 often with Montreal (he played the most PK per game of a montreal forward some year), did not saw him for the rest of is career but there was a point with Montreal were he was ask to play a really all around the ice type of game and probably in good part why he was on Team Canada 1996.

It is a bit strange to say that someone was certainly better offensively than Nicholls (he scored 713 points in 541 games from 83-84 to 89-90) that was about the same has Savard-Hawerchuck-Yzerman-Stastny during that time. Turgeon did longer and had a similar peak not too far.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

Thanks, guys!

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

1. Who was the best player?

roenick, see TDMM's comments above, plus he was a notable playoff performer with a flair for big moments, though this sometimes gets forgotten because his playoff peak was so early in his career

2. Who was the best offensive player?

turgeon

3. Who was the best defensive player?

damphousse, probably decisively. but i do want to put a caveat on this, because i don't think damphousse pre, say, mid-90s was anything special defensively. my memory of him in edmonton and on the '93 habs is he was freed to help carry the scoring (in edmonton, centered by bernie nicholls) while guys like tikkanen and mactavish, and carbonneau and muller did the heavy defensive work.

roenick was more than a credible defensive center in his own right.

4. Who has the best leadership and other intangibles?

i think it depends what you want. roenick was a rah rah guy that the right team could rally around in a big way. but damphousse was more of a traditional steady respected veteran type of leader.

5. Are any of them HHoF worthy?

i wouldn't complain about roenick

but i'd also add: 6. who was the most versatile?

which would have to be damphousse. not only could he play two different positions, he was probably best suited to playing all over the lineup, ES, PP, PK, any of your top three lines, wing or center, open ice era or obstruction, he could play for ted green or darryl sutter. that said, he also is the least credible guy in this group as a first line center, although he was also far from laughable in that role.

 

[tabness]

I'd say Nicholls was the best defensively by the mid nineties, he always was a top notch penalty killer even in his big scoring days due to his incredible anticipation, but applied it everywhere after his stint in Jersey. Nicholls also was quite strong, and while he wouldn't hit as much as a Roenick, he'd definitely be smarter about it.

Of course, Nicholls at his best was probably right up there with anyone here offensively as well, the best shooter of this bunch. Roenick was also better than his early nineties numbers suggest because of Chicago's system.

 

[JackSlater]

1. Roenick

2. Turgeon

3. Damphousse

4. Roenick or Nicholls or Damphousse. Probably not Nicholls.

5. No.

 

[86Habs]

None of these guys should be in the HHOF, but I'd certainly want any four of them on my team more than a number of inductees in recent years. I mean, is anyone really taking Nieuwendyk over Roenick in their prime/peak? Or Andreychuk or Ciccarelli over any of these guys?

 

[Big Phil]

Best player - Roenick, Turgeon, Nicholls, Damphousse
Best offensive player - Turgeon, Roenick, Nicholls, Damphousse
Best defensive player - Damphousse, Roenick, Nicholls, Turgeon
Best leadership/intangibles - Damphousse, Roenick, Nicholls, Turgeon

HHOF worthy? None are in as of yet, and I think all of them fall short but all make good players in the Hall of Very good. Right near the top.

 

[frisco]

1. Turgeon.

2. Turgeon.

3. Roenick. I don't think Damphousse was all that great shakes defensively.

4. Roenick. Was a force for a few years all-around as a Hawk.

Like to see Roenick, Turgeon in especially with the standards that have been set. I'll say Nicholls, Damphousse are a cut below.

Career plus-minus: Roenick +153, Turgeon +139, Damphousse +7, Nicholls -39.

Top Ten Points/Game Finishes:
Roenick-10, 10.
Turgeon-4, 5, 6, 8, 9.
Damphousse-nil.
Nicholls-4, 6.

My Best-Carey

 

[Staniowski]

1. Turgeon.

2. Turgeon.

3. Roenick. I don't think Damphousse was all that great shakes defensively.

4. Roenick. Was a force for a few years all-around as a Hawk.

Like to see Roenick, Turgeon in especially with the standards that have been set. I'll say Nicholls, Damphousse are a cut below.

Career plus-minus: Roenick +153, Turgeon +139, Damphousse +7, Nicholls -39.

Top Ten Points/Game Finishes:
Roenick-10, 10.
Turgeon-4, 5, 6, 8, 9.
Damphousse-nil.
Nicholls-4, 6.

My Best-Carey

Finally, somebody gets #3 correct.....Damphousse was notably weak defensively. It was easily the worst part of his game.

 

[The Panther]

1. Who was the best player?
A difficult question. At each player's peak, I'd say they're all pretty close. There's no objective "best" here; it would depend on what your team needs.
2. Who was the best offensive player?
Probably Bernie Nicholls, but Turgeon at his best comes close. Roenick is a clear step behind those guys overall in offense (Nicholls outscored Roenick on the Blackhawks when Bernie was past his prime), but his three-year peak as a goal scorer was impressive. Damphousse doesn't have any one area where he peaked higher than the others offensively, but he might have been the most well-rounded player of the four. He was more consistent, probably.
3. Who was the best defensive player?
None was known for his defense, particularly. Nicholls was God-awful in the 80s, but quite solid in the 90s. Turgeon also transitioned well from late 80s to late-90s. Roenick and Damphousse might have been more consistently 'okay' defensively from start to finish (if we ignore Damphousse's Toronto period, but that wasn't his fault).
4. Who has the best leadership and other intangibles?
I'm not sure.
5. Are any of them HHoF worthy?
By my standards, no. But I suspect Roenick and Turgeon are going to make it sooner or later.

 

[Staniowski]

Turgeon and Roenick were the best players.

Turgeon, then Roenick, were the best offensively.....both world-class offensive talent. Nicholls had very good skills, buy he didn't put it together as well as Turgeon.

Turgeon should be in the Hall for sure. But I wouldn't have any problems with any of them getting in.

 

[Big Phil]

Finally, somebody gets #3 correct.....Damphousse was notably weak defensively. It was easily the worst part of his game.

Damphousse killed penalties and actually finished 4th in Selke voting one year. Killed penalties right up until the end of his career. I'm not sure if we were watching the same guy.

 

[The Panther]

Turgeon, then Roenick, were the best offensively.....both world-class offensive talent.

I'm not sure why anyone would think Roenick was better than Nicholls offensively:

Scoring finishes in prime years:
Roenick
11, 7, 15, 6, 76 (missed games), 53, 33, 49, 21, 12, 31
Nicholls
15, 13, 16, 20, 38 (missed games), 4, 6, 37, 115 (missed games), 106 (missed games), 137 (missed games), 12, 78 (missed games)

Roenick's finishes here are over an 11-year period, and Nicholls' a 13-year period. If we ignore seasons where each missed a significant number of games, the finishes are:
Roenick
6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 21, 31, 33, 49 [five-best average = 10th; nine-best average = 21st]
Nicholls
4, 6, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 37, 38 [five-best average = 10th; nine-best average = 18th]

But, perhaps more notable:

Points peak (and Hockey Ref. adjusted):
Roenick
107, 107, 103, 94, 78 (97, 91, 87, 85, 84 = 88.8 average)
Nicholls
150, 112, 100, 97, 95 (124, 94, 88, 80, 76 = 92.4 average)

And, perhaps most notably:
Chicago Blackhawks' scoring 1995 and 1995-96:
Roenick
101 points in 99 games (1.02 per game)
Nicholls
111 points in 107 games (1.04 per game)

Nicholls was getting old, yet still outscored prime-era Roenick while they were teammates.

 

[frisco]

Damphousse killed penalties and actually finished 4th in Selke voting one year. Killed penalties right up until the end of his career. I'm not sure if we were watching the same guy.

Simply killing penalties doesn't necessarily make a guy a top defensive player. All four of the guys listed killed penalties at various points in their careers.

As far as Damphousse and the Selke, that one 4th place finish was the only time he got any votes in an 18-year career.

My Best-Carey

 

[86Habs]

Simply killing penalties doesn't necessarily make a guy a top defensive player. All four of the guys listed killed penalties at various points in their careers.

As far as Damphousse and the Selke, that one 4th place finish was the only time he got any votes in an 18-year career.

My Best-Carey

As I'm sure you know, the Selke is largely a reputational award and players can be very good defensively for quite some time before getting Selke recognition (and conversely, players can get Selke recognition for some time after they stop being very good defensively). Damphousse's 4th place finish in 1996 is quite easily the best finish of any of these four players. Does it mean he was the best defensively? Not necessarily, but Damphousse is no worse than #2 here. Of these four players, I see Roenick as the most capable of playing a strong defensive game in this 4-player group, in the mold of a contemporary Western conference center like Modano, Sakic or Yzerman. He wasn't asked to do so though, as Roenick needed to carry the load offensively for his teams because he didn't have the luxury of a superstar #1B center backing him up like Fedorov/Yzerman and Sakic/Forsberg did. Hence, the lack of high Selke finishes for Roenick.

 

[86Habs]

I'm not sure why anyone would think Roenick was better than Nicholls offensively:

Scoring finishes in prime years:
Roenick
11, 7, 15, 6, 76 (missed games), 53, 33, 49, 21, 12, 31
Nicholls
15, 13, 16, 20, 38 (missed games), 4, 6, 37, 115 (missed games), 106 (missed games), 137 (missed games), 12, 78 (missed games)

Roenick's finishes here are over an 11-year period, and Nicholls' a 13-year period. If we ignore seasons where each missed a significant number of games, the finishes are:
Roenick
6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 21, 31, 33, 49 [five-best average = 10th; nine-best average = 21st]
Nicholls
4, 6, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 37, 38 [five-best average = 10th; nine-best average = 18th]

But, perhaps more notable:

Points peak (and Hockey Ref. adjusted):
Roenick
107, 107, 103, 94, 78 (97, 91, 87, 85, 84 = 88.8 average)
Nicholls
150, 112, 100, 97, 95 (124, 94, 88, 80, 76 = 92.4 average)

And, perhaps most notably:
Chicago Blackhawks' scoring 1995 and 1995-96:
Roenick
101 points in 99 games (1.02 per game)
Nicholls
111 points in 107 games (1.04 per game)

Nicholls was getting old, yet still outscored prime-era Roenick while they were teammates.

Nicholls had a package of elite offensive tools and the production to go along with it, whereas Roenick was a little more dynamic and played with more of an edge, resulting in the perception that he was a true franchise/superstar center (which he was, if only for a ~4 season stretch). It was likely attributable to personal issues, but Nicholls bounced around a little and had some down years in what should have been his prime. Maybe that impairs our view of him in retrospect too.

 

[MadLuke]

Simply killing penalties doesn't necessarily make a guy a top defensive player. All four of the guys listed killed penalties at various points in their careers.

Certainly true, specially in some eras were it could have common to use the fast scoring treat.

Sadly nhl.com does not go before 97-98, but Turgeon past 1997 never did:
NHL Stats

To be fair St-Louis/Dallas had quite the cast for the job and he was fully past prime with Colorado, but Hull, Demitra, Young were seeing more time than Turgeon.

 

[frisco]

Certainly true, specially in some eras were it could have common to use the fast scoring treat.

Sadly nhl.com does not go before 97-98, but Turgeon past 1997 never did:
NHL Stats

To be fair St-Louis/Dallas had quite the cast for the job and he was fully past prime with Colorado, but Hull, Demitra, Young were seeing more time than Turgeon.

Some teams won't "waste" top end offensive talent minutes on the PK and are more apt to use pluggers in there. The Pens currently with Crosby as an example. Turgeon did score 10 SHG in his career so he must've been out there somewhat.

My Best-Carey

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

As I'm sure you know, the Selke is largely a reputational award and players can be very good defensively for quite some time before getting Selke recognition (and conversely, players can get Selke recognition for some time after they stop being very good defensively). Damphousse's 4th place finish in 1996 is quite easily the best finish of any of these four players. Does it mean he was the best defensively? Not necessarily, but Damphousse is no worse than #2 here. Of these four players, I see Roenick as the most capable of playing a strong defensive game in this 4-player group, in the mold of a contemporary Western conference center like Modano, Sakic or Yzerman. He wasn't asked to do so though, as Roenick needed to carry the load offensively for his teams because he didn't have the luxury of a superstar #1B center backing him up like Fedorov/Yzerman and Sakic/Forsberg did. Hence, the lack of high Selke finishes for Roenick.

i think the san jose damphousse was the best defensive player out these four

but i don't think he was capable of that until the second half of the 90s

Finally, somebody gets #3 correct.....Damphousse was notably weak defensively. It was easily the worst part of his game.

which damphousse are you talking about? i don't really remember toronto damphousse, but i don't remember the '93 damphousse as weak defensively at all, and as i said san jose damphousse was very good defensively.

 

[MXD]

I don't think any of these players other than Damphousse are anything special in terms of leadership/intangibles. Roenick may even have negative intangibles to a certain extent because I'm not sure he has ever shown an ability to shut up, which may be useful if he's a key player on your team, but is definitely not if he's not a key player on your team AND your team have leaders that would have precedence over him.

I'm taking for granted that this is something of a ATD question.

 

[tabness]

Nicholls was getting old, yet still outscored prime-era Roenick while they were teammates.

I'm with you on Nicholls not ever getting his due (it seems that scoring 70 goal and 150 points is almost held against him lol), but Roenick had his own injury issues then as well, I don't think it's fair to call him "prime-era" in the mid nineties.

 

[Big Phil]

Simply killing penalties doesn't necessarily make a guy a top defensive player. All four of the guys listed killed penalties at various points in their careers.

As far as Damphousse and the Selke, that one 4th place finish was the only time he got any votes in an 18-year career.

My Best-Carey

If Damphousse is not considered the best defensively of this group, then who is? You do a poll on HOH with these 4 guys the winner is Damphousse in that category. Maybe like someone said Roenick never was put in the position to have to play that sort of role or anything but it is what it is, out of the 4 and I saw their whole careers it is Damphousse who was the strongest defensively. He played that sort of two-way role for quite some time.