Lafleurs Guy
Guuuuuuuy!
- Jul 20, 2007
- 74,611
- 44,105
I think everything that needs to be said about this guy has been said. Should've been in long ago.
I dunno, I am thinking Hull and Neely made this guy what he was, if it wasn't for their shots, Oates doesn't get that many assists.
Seriously, I am in shock he is not in yet, the man was a magician with the puck. Less complaining about Lindros until OT finds his way in the HHOF.
Considering the HOF committe is made up of 17 buffoons, who knows? But, Oates is a sure-fire, first-ballot HOFer in every sense of the word. He is one of the greatest playmakers of all time.
If he doesn't get in while guys like Dick Duff and Clark Gillies are in, the HOF committed should be disbanded.
thanks for the input folks. he was my fav bruin when i started watching the b's in the 90's. just seemed like he never got the mention or recognition he deserved.
to this day i have people that are somewhat familiar with hockey say "oates who"?
to this day i have people that are somewhat familiar with hockey say "oates who"?
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,739
- 16,129
i am 100% on the side of oates in the HHOF. but i will say one thing: he gets too much credit for hull, neely, and bondra. (btw, this is not in reference to bambamcam-- i know you are joking) this is not to diminish oates' effect on these guys, which was positive of course. and of course it's not like they carried oates, who scored 45 goals and 142 points with joe juneau and dmitri kvartalnov on his line.
but hull played with zezel for a lot of his 72 goal season. obviously oates was there too, especially on the PP, but yeah, 72 goals and peter zezel. it's not like oates alone turned hull from a 40 goal scorer into a 50 in 50 guy.
http://www.greatesthockeylegends.com/2006/06/brett-hull.html
brett hull's season-by-season bio on http://www.hockeydraftcentral.com/1984/84117.html
hull on zezel, http://blog.mlive.com/snapshots/2009/11/former_red_wing_brett_hulls_pr.html
hull also was a 50+ goal scorer after oates left. it's a big jump from 57 to 86, but then the illustrious kevin miller and ron sutter were his centers (and, as i recall, both guys were natural wingers), while janney centered shanahan.
neely was a 50 goal scorer before oates, as we know. he was also a much more physical and devastating player before the ulf samuelsson hit in the 1991 playoffs. neely was a very talented goal scorer and while part of his productivity in '94 was because he had one of the greatest passers of all time on his line, it was also in part because he could no longer do a lot of the power forward stuff he used to do and concentrated more on playing in front of the net, hence the incredible 50 in forty-something season. i don't think he hits 50 in 50 without oates, but there were other factors.
bondra led the league in goals long before he ever played with oates. and he had a 50 goal season with joe juneau.
but hull played with zezel for a lot of his 72 goal season. obviously oates was there too, especially on the PP, but yeah, 72 goals and peter zezel. it's not like oates alone turned hull from a 40 goal scorer into a 50 in 50 guy.
http://www.greatesthockeylegends.com/2006/06/brett-hull.html
brett hull's season-by-season bio on http://www.hockeydraftcentral.com/1984/84117.html
hull on zezel, http://blog.mlive.com/snapshots/2009/11/former_red_wing_brett_hulls_pr.html
hull also was a 50+ goal scorer after oates left. it's a big jump from 57 to 86, but then the illustrious kevin miller and ron sutter were his centers (and, as i recall, both guys were natural wingers), while janney centered shanahan.
neely was a 50 goal scorer before oates, as we know. he was also a much more physical and devastating player before the ulf samuelsson hit in the 1991 playoffs. neely was a very talented goal scorer and while part of his productivity in '94 was because he had one of the greatest passers of all time on his line, it was also in part because he could no longer do a lot of the power forward stuff he used to do and concentrated more on playing in front of the net, hence the incredible 50 in forty-something season. i don't think he hits 50 in 50 without oates, but there were other factors.
bondra led the league in goals long before he ever played with oates. and he had a 50 goal season with joe juneau.
Last edited:
Check out the Gilmour vs Oates thread. It seems him and Bill Ranford are talked about a lot on this forum.
lextune
I'm too old for this.
I'll quote a post of mine from this thread:
With that said; when one of the top four greatest passers/playmakers in the history of hockey is not in the Hall something is wrong....
Ahhh.....a topic near and dear to my heart.....
All of the players I am about to mention had great ice vision, creativity, stickhandling skills and passing precision. But, (in my opinion), in different measure....
Thornton_19 said:
...exactly.
Not to mention only three players have ever hit 100 assists in a season; Orr did it once. Lemieux, once. And Gretz...?...Eleven times. Ridiculous.
#2 Mario Lemieux: Vision and creativity are probably the top two criteria for great playmaking. But stickhandling and one on one skills can also play a big role in passing. Elite level stickhandling can get a player into unique positions and open up heretofore unreachable and/or unnoticed passing lanes, and one on one skills can simply power a player into the aforementioned lanes. Mario certainly had great ice vision and wonderful creativity, but when you add the unquestionable fact that he was the greatest one on one player in history and a stickhandler of supreme skill you have a playmaker second only to The Great One.
#3 Adam Oates: Oatsie gets the nod from me as the most precise playmaker in NHL history. Wayne made incredibly creative plays, he was constantly throwing a monkey wrench into the flow of the game. Sending unnoticed linemates, in seemingly 'contained positions', in alone, or setting them up with a wide open net. Mario was also creative and, as I mentioned, a powerhouse; able to give himself great passing lanes that few others could reach. But Oates had a wonderful ability to "force the pass". He must have had more of those "through the legs of two opposing players right onto his teammate's tape" type of passes than anyone in history. An amazing, totally unique playmaker, right down to the strangely shaved and stunted stick blades he created for himself.
#4 Bobby Orr: Number four; Bobby Orr! How appropriate, lol. Robert Gordon Orr was the first to display the kind of 'flow changing' playmaking that would see it's culmination in Gretzky, and he also had the powerhouse type of skating ability that gave him access to the lanes that Mario would skate through years later. As Thornton_19 said; A wizard.
While the top four are an absolute lock for me, number five is a very difficult choice. It could go a number of ways for me on any given day. Howe is in consideration, Boucher, and even Peter Stastny. I will take the opportunity of this thread to try to finalize my number five spot; and I look forward to hearing everyone else's opinions on the matter.
With that said; when one of the top four greatest passers/playmakers in the history of hockey is not in the Hall something is wrong....
LeBlondeDemon10
Registered User
A great passer no doubt, but really how is he much different than Pierre Turgeon, who almost everybody says should not be in the HOF? Their stats are similar. No Cups for either. Oates had more playoff games, but really that's more of a team thing. I say that either they both get in or neither gets in. Throw Gilmour in there too.
revolverjgw
Registered User
Whoa there. Turgeon has a grand total of TWO top 10 point finishes compared to Oates, who did it an impressive seven times and was a top 3 scorer 3 times, putting him in elite company. Turgeon never came close to leading the league in any category, Oates led in assists 3 times... only a handful of guys have done that in the modern era. Oates is a top 25 playoff producer, Turgeon... 86th. Oates was better all-around, playing a decent defensive game and was a dominant faceoff man. He led two SC finalists in playoff scoring. He beats Turgeon pretty soundly in every conceivable way.
And Gilmour is like the ANTI-Turgeon. One of the best playoff performers ever and a fierce competitor all over the ice.
Turgeon was better than a lot of people give him credit for, but he's a tier below Oates and Gilmour. Those two should already be in. I definitely wouldn't put Turgeon in but he got pretty close.
Good job, I was trying to figure out a way to battle the Turgeon to Oates comparison and you did it. Nicely done.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Yeah, I think Oates gets overrated around here because people look at his assist totals without looking at his points totals. But there is no concievable way turgeon is in his class.
I think Oates should probably be in the HHOF, but I also think he's quite over-rated.
Brilliant playmaker, yes, but lots of warts there. Goalscoring record (save for one year) isn't great. Mediocre defensive player - very over-rated in that regard by people who equate faceoff ability with defensive play ... especially in his pre-Washington years he was quite poor. And he was a big-time mercenary who feuded his way out of organizations several times during his career and wasn't considered a great team guy. Never played a single game of international hockey, which is amazing in this era. Never won anything.
But all that said, 1000 assists should put you in the HHOF, full stop.
__________
As for Oates vs. Turgeon, I don't think there's much difference there at all.
Oates had a better career, but largely because Turgeon had a knack for getting hurt during his best years, and lost 4 top-10 finishes (and a potential Art Ross in 1999-00) to injury. If Turgeon could have stayed healthier, it would be a near dead heat.
And I don't think there was much difference in their intangibles. Oates was a better faceoff man, but otherwise? Meh.
To me, one guy just got unfairly lambasted for his lack of grit/character while the other got a free pass.
Brilliant playmaker, yes, but lots of warts there. Goalscoring record (save for one year) isn't great. Mediocre defensive player - very over-rated in that regard by people who equate faceoff ability with defensive play ... especially in his pre-Washington years he was quite poor. And he was a big-time mercenary who feuded his way out of organizations several times during his career and wasn't considered a great team guy. Never played a single game of international hockey, which is amazing in this era. Never won anything.
But all that said, 1000 assists should put you in the HHOF, full stop.
__________
As for Oates vs. Turgeon, I don't think there's much difference there at all.
Oates had a better career, but largely because Turgeon had a knack for getting hurt during his best years, and lost 4 top-10 finishes (and a potential Art Ross in 1999-00) to injury. If Turgeon could have stayed healthier, it would be a near dead heat.
And I don't think there was much difference in their intangibles. Oates was a better faceoff man, but otherwise? Meh.
To me, one guy just got unfairly lambasted for his lack of grit/character while the other got a free pass.
did he ever. i remember watching him and he would go to make a pass. as soon as he sent the pass off i would say to myself " what a terrible pass what is he thi.......ooooooh". i got used to it after that. he could thread a pass through any amount of traffic you put in front of him. absolutely amazing
i wish there were oates pass highlights out there somewhere.
lextune
I'm too old for this.
For those who never saw him play, check out what he would do to his sticks. Here is a picture of the game used sticks of Adam Oates & Larry Murphy.
It is easy to tell which one was Oates', lol.
It is easy to tell which one was Oates', lol.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,145
For those who never saw him play, check out what he would do to his sticks. Here is a picture of the game used sticks of Adam Oates & Larry Murphy.
It is easy to tell which one was Oates', lol.
I never knew that about Oates. Why would he shave his stick that narrow? It couldn't have been an advantage you'd think.
He used to cut the toe of the blade off which gives it that shape not just shave the bottom of the blade. That's the way he liked it.
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1022247/index.htm#ixzz1I2fA2ez8
LeBlondeDemon10
Registered User
Ok, point taken. Has anyone ever acknowledged a players draft position as a merit to getting in the Hall? I see that Oates was not drafted whereas Turgeon was first overall, I believe. This should only serve to solidify Oates' case as a HOFer even more.
And it looks like to him it did give him an advantage against the boards. Totally makes sense and I think I am going to try it and see for myself.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 13Staked: $16,904.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
Series Winner Boston Bruins vs Toronto Maple LeafsWagers: 8Staked: $3,310.00Event closes
- Updated:
-