Best Russian Right Winger - Peak Bure vs. Peak Kucherov?

[Voodoo Child]

Back-to-Back 60 goal seasons...

And then, six years later, back-to-back 58 and 59 goal seasons!

Prime Bure was a shoot-first McDavid.

Kucherov is great but shares the marquee with Stamkos, Point, Hedman and Vasilevskiy and has a supporting cast of Palat, Cirelli, Killorn, Sergachev and McDonagh. I know he shouldn't be punished for it but he had a lot of help Bure never got.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Bure scored near 60 goals back to back , during the DPE, on a horrible Florida team with zero help.

In the playoffs we saw how neutered Kucherov was when Point was hurt.

Edge goes to Bure.

 

[ScaredStreit]

Bure was more exciting...Kucherov is the better player.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

lol, why is Bure winning? Kucherov just swept all of the awards and won an art ross by scoring 128 points, much more than Bure ever did despite playing in some much higher scoring years.

Bure was great - but peak Kucherov has absolutely done better.

Bure AINEC

 

[authentic]

I mean, based on pure skill he might be

Not to mention his two-way play on top of it. I think in actual reality, not the assuming every star player from the past would be more dominant than him today, he is top 5.

 

[authentic]

tbf, I doubt peak Kucherov is winning anything against these guys...

Player	Team	GP	G	A	PTS
Mario Lemieux	Pittsburgh	60	69	91	160
Pat LaFontaine	Buffalo	84	53	95	148
Adam Oates	Boston	84	45	97	142
Steve Yzerman	Detroit	84	58	79	137
Teemu Selanne	Winnipeg	84	76	56	132
Pierre Turgeon	NY Islanders	83	58	74	132
Alexander Mogilny	Buffalo	77	76	51	127
Doug Gilmour	Toronto	83	32	95	127
Luc Robitaille	Los Angeles	84	63	62	125
Mark Recchi	Philadelphia	84	53	70	123

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

To be fair, in his best season he would likely outscore everyone there except Lemieux. None of those players won the Ross convincingly over a player like McDavid, which would be like Jagr in his prime who was easily better offensively than Selanne.

 

[Fataldogg]

Bure.

People forget how good he was. Kucherov scoring 128 points is impressive.

You know what else is? Scoring 58 and 59 goals in back to back seasons, in the dead puck era, on the Florida Panthers.

One season Bure had 59 goals and 92 points. The next highest point total on the team was Kozlov with 37. He scored 248% more points than the 2nd best player on the team. The one season he scored 58, he also only played 74 games.

Imagine if Bure had a Point, Hedman, Stamkos, etc, to work with and didn't have to do it entirely on his own.

Yes. I think Kucherov is great. But you cannot ignore the supporting cast. Very few players will ever play with the level of talent he has.

 

[moropanov]

Nikita Kucherov scored the highest point total of the last 25 years. It should be him in a landslide.

tbf, I doubt peak Kucherov is winning anything against these guys...

Player	Team	GP	G	A	PTS
Mario Lemieux	Pittsburgh	60	69	91	160
Pat LaFontaine	Buffalo	84	53	95	148
Adam Oates	Boston	84	45	97	142
Steve Yzerman	Detroit	84	58	79	137
Teemu Selanne	Winnipeg	84	76	56	132
Pierre Turgeon	NY Islanders	83	58	74	132
Alexander Mogilny	Buffalo	77	76	51	127
Doug Gilmour	Toronto	83	32	95	127
Luc Robitaille	Los Angeles	84	63	62	125
Mark Recchi	Philadelphia	84	53	70	123

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

A simple adjustment of scoring levels and schedule length puts Kucherovs season at 158 points in 92-93.

 

[Los merengues]

Kuch. Its not even close really

 

[Hammettf2b]

Nikita Kucherov scored the highest point total of the last 25 years. It should be him in a landslide.


A simple adjustment of scoring levels and schedule length puts Kucherovs season at 158 points in 92-93.

The point still stands. Like I said before to bring up the amount of Art Ross trophies Bure had vs Kuch had is disingenuous because of the level of competition especially when Bure had to fight for that trophy against the likes of Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemiux and Jaromir Jagr. I don't have a horse in this race as both players are great, I just don't think comparing trophies in different eras does any justice to either player.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

If we go by that logic Datsyuk is a top 5 player all time.

Datsyuk was also better than Bure

 

[nowhereman]

It looks like quite a few people in this thread are drunk off the sweet nectar of '90s nostalgia.

 

[moropanov]

Bure's seasons in Florida are amongst the most overrated seasons of all time.

Bure was played over 25 minutes a night and given a free reign to do nothing but look for cheap offense.What Bure did had nothing to do with playing in a winning collective. He didn't make his teammates better at all. What is much more impressive is how Kucherov, playing 18 minutes a night and conducting the best offense the league had seen in decades, scored 128 points in the process and how he again scored the highest playoff point total in over a decade with very limited TOI.

Probably Kucherov would've broken 150 if he was utilized as Bure was, alas this didn't serve the interest of the team.

Kucherov has the greatest hockey brain we've seen since Gretzky. Every team that wants to win would pick him over a solo artist such as Bure.

 

[Video Nasty]

The point still stands. Like I said before to bring up the amount of Art Ross trophies Bure had vs Kuch had is disingenuous because of the level of competition especially when Bure had to fight for that trophy against the likes of Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemiux and Jaromir Jagr. I don't have a horse in this race as both players are great, I just don't think comparing trophies in different eras does any justice to either player.

It's equally as disingenuous to pretend that Bure wasn't winning hardware due to Gretzky and Lemieux. There's no Art Ross race in his career that would be altered by removing those two players and their teammates from existence. This isn't a case of Yzerman dropping 155 points, the highest total ever by a player not named Gretzky and Lemieux, and finishing third in scoring.

Keep your argument to removing Jagr.

Ok, so let's pretend that he wins an Art Ross in a year with no Jagr, Forsberg missing 33 games, Lindros missing 27 games, and Sakic missing 22 games. Mark Recchi was 3rd in scoring.

Kucherov won an Art Ross scoring the most points since the 1995-1996 season and finished 12 points clear of McDavid who only played 4 fewer games. In fact, almost all the top talents played the whole season. Kane, Drai, Marchand, Crosby, MacKinnon, Stamkos; right down the list everyone played nearly every game.

Bure couldn't get it done even in a year where he played 11 more games than Jagr and 15-25 games more than some of the top talents of the day.

Bure was the more obvious, flashy, you have to blind to not see him on the ice player. He scored 60 in two high scoring seasons and just about 60 in two low scoring seasons (side note: serves as evidence that adjusted goals and points are problematic at best). He was great and I remember the excitement of watching him and the rate that he scored goals on that Florida team.

I don't know if that excitement trumps Kucherov's all around greatness, his mind, and actual tangible accomplishments.

Kucherov is highly disrespected around here, simply because he plays on a talented team. It's not argument you hear used against any legend, any Hall of Famer, any future Hall of Famer, but he's the one who gets dogged on for whatever reason.

 

[Hammettf2b]

It's equally as disingenuous to pretend that Bure wasn't winning hardware due to Gretzky and Lemieux. There's no Art Ross race in his career that would be altered by removing those two players and their teammates from existence. This isn't a case of Yzerman dropping 155 points, the highest total ever by a player not named Gretzky and Lemieux, and finishing third in scoring.

Keep your argument to removing Jagr.

Ok, so let's pretend that he wins an Art Ross in a year with no Jagr, Forsberg missing 33 games, Lindros missing 27 games, and Sakic missing 22 games. Mark Recchi was 3rd in scoring.

Kucherov won an Art Ross scoring the most points since the 1995-1996 season and finished 12 points clear of McDavid who only played 4 fewer games. In fact, almost all the top talents played the whole season. Kane, Drai, Marchand, Crosby, MacKinnon, Stamkos; right down the list everyone played nearly every game.

Bure couldn't get it done even in a year where he played 11 more games than Jagr and 15-25 games more than some of the top talents of the day.

Bure was the more obvious, flashy, you have to blind to not see him on the ice player. He scored 60 in two high scoring seasons and just about 60 in two low scoring seasons (side note: serves as evidence that adjusted goals and points are problematic at best). He was great and I remember the excitement of watching him and the rate that he scored goals on that Florida team.

I don't know if that excitement trumps Kucherov's all around greatness, his mind, and actual tangible accomplishments.

Kucherov is highly disrespected around here, simply because he plays on a talented team. It's not argument you hear used against any legend, any Hall of Famer, any future Hall of Famer, but he's the one who gets dogged on for whatever reason.

That's exactly my point. Jagr and the likes are much better point wise than the greats of today. It's rare for a player to crack 100 pts in today's NHL. As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I'm not going to get into it as I wasn't making any other arguments about what you brought up.

 

[Krewe]

That's exactly my point. Jagr and the likes are much better point wise than the greats of today. It's rare for a player to crack 100 pts in today's NHL. As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I'm not going to get into it as I wasn't making any other arguments about what you brought up.

That isn't because the players aren't as good. Gretzky isn't scoring remotely close to 215 in today's NHL.

 

[Hammettf2b]

That isn't because the players aren't as good. Gretzky isn't scoring remotely close to 215 in today's NHL.

I'm not talking about the point totals. I'm talking about the players themselves. I think its safe to assume Gretzky and the likes would be considered top players in todays game. Nevertheless, it is all moot because theres no way to actually tell which is why I don't think the Art Ross trophy is a good indicator when comparing 2 different players from 2 different eras.

 

[Video Nasty]

That's exactly my point. Jagr and the likes are much better point wise than the greats of today. It's rare for a player to crack 100 pts in today's NHL. As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I'm not going to get into it as I wasn't making any other arguments about what you brought up.

I agree that the top end talents of 90s were stronger, but it's still irrelevant. You can dismiss my post, but you are the one who claimed that Bure had to fight Wayne and Mario and it's simply not true. If you just said Jagr, I probably would have glossed over it and not written a hockey dissertation.

It would be a different story if we looked back at Bure's career and saw him finishing only behind Gretzky, Lemieux, and Jagr in every scoring race, but it's simply not true. He finished behind many other lesser players in addition to the untouchable legends.

His only close calls are by pretending to remove Jagr to make him finish 1 point behind Forsberg who played 10 less games. And of course the one where he actually finished 2nd in real life.

McDavid, as he stands after 5 seasons, is at worst the equivalent of the best players of the 90s (not named Gretzky and Lemieux) and Kucherov beat him straight up with no strings attached and he did it in convincing fashion scoring at a rate that we haven't seen in a quarter of a century.

 

[Hammettf2b]

I agree that the top end talents of 90s were stronger, but it's still irrelevant. You can dismiss my post, but you are the one who claimed that Bure had to fight Wayne and Mario and it's simply not true. If you just said Jagr, I probably would have glossed over it and not written a hockey dissertation.

It would be a different story if we looked back at Bure's career and saw him finishing only behind Gretzky, Lemieux, and Jagr in every scoring race, but it's simply not true. He finished behind many other lesser players in addition to the untouchable legends.

His only close calls are by pretending to remove Jagr to make him finish 1 point behind Forsberg who played 10 less games. And of course the one where he actually finished 2nd in real life.

McDavid, as he stands after 5 seasons, is at worst the equivalent of the best players of the 90s (not named Gretzky and Lemieux) and Kucherov beat him straight up with no strings attached and he did it in convincing fashion scoring at a rate that we haven't seen in a quarter of a century.

I'm not saying Bure would have won awards if it were not for Wayne and Mario. I'm saying Kucherov wouldn't be winning awards either if he had to play with Wayne, Mario, Jagr, ect... You can compare McDavid to these greats all you want but the truth is we will never really know how they stack up, which is again, why I say comparing Art Ross trophies in 2 different eras is nonsense.

 

[Video Nasty]

I'm not saying Bure would have won awards if it were not for Wayne and Mario. I'm saying Kucherov wouldn't be winning awards either if he had to play with Wayne, Mario, Jagr, ect... You can compare McDavid to these greats all you want but the truth is we will never really know how they stack up, which is again, why I say comparing Art Ross trophies in 2 different eras is nonsense.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[authentic]

It's equally as disingenuous to pretend that Bure wasn't winning hardware due to Gretzky and Lemieux. There's no Art Ross race in his career that would be altered by removing those two players and their teammates from existence. This isn't a case of Yzerman dropping 155 points, the highest total ever by a player not named Gretzky and Lemieux, and finishing third in scoring.

Keep your argument to removing Jagr.

Ok, so let's pretend that he wins an Art Ross in a year with no Jagr, Forsberg missing 33 games, Lindros missing 27 games, and Sakic missing 22 games. Mark Recchi was 3rd in scoring.

Kucherov won an Art Ross scoring the most points since the 1995-1996 season and finished 12 points clear of McDavid who only played 4 fewer games. In fact, almost all the top talents played the whole season. Kane, Drai, Marchand, Crosby, MacKinnon, Stamkos; right down the list everyone played nearly every game.

Bure couldn't get it done even in a year where he played 11 more games than Jagr and 15-25 games more than some of the top talents of the day.

Bure was the more obvious, flashy, you have to blind to not see him on the ice player. He scored 60 in two high scoring seasons and just about 60 in two low scoring seasons (side note: serves as evidence that adjusted goals and points are problematic at best). He was great and I remember the excitement of watching him and the rate that he scored goals on that Florida team.

I don't know if that excitement trumps Kucherov's all around greatness, his mind, and actual tangible accomplishments.

Kucherov is highly disrespected around here, simply because he plays on a talented team. It's not argument you hear used against any legend, any Hall of Famer, any future Hall of Famer, but he's the one who gets dogged on for whatever reason.

Lol, no it doesn't. He played more of a cherry picking style by that point and was the only player on his team that could score, also 25+ minutes a game. That's not close to evidence of anything of the sort.

 

[Video Nasty]

Lol, no it doesn't. He played more of a cherry picking style by that point and was the only player on his team that could score, also 25+ minutes a game. That's not close to evidence of anything of the sort.

You appear to be making the assumption that adjusted stats take things like cherry picking and “being the only player that could score” into account which is just another reason why adjusted stats are faulty.

How many minutes a game did Bure play during his Vancouver heyday? I have to imagine it wasn’t all that different.

 

[Regal]

You appear to be making the assumption that adjusted stats take things like cherry picking and “being the only player that could score” into account which is just another reason why adjusted stats are faulty.

How many minutes a game did Bure play during his Vancouver heyday? I have to imagine it wasn’t all that different.

It says nothing about adjusted goals though, because that context would be needed regardless. If Bure was playing far more minutes relative to the rest of the league and cherry-picking like crazy in '94, he'd have more goals too.

 

[Hockeyholic]

Bure was more electrifying. Better scorer.

But I think Kucherov's all around game is better.

 

[Hischier and Hughes]

I feel Kucherov is somewhat overrated

Hes an insanely good playmaker but he doesn’t do as much on his own as youd expect from a 128 point player

Bure was the better singular talent IMO