Brett Hull or Mike Bossy

Psycho Papa Joe

Porkchop Hoser
Feb 27, 2002
23,347
17
Cesspool, Ontario
Visit site
Historical tidbit: that summer ('87) Bossy announced that he was taking the following season 1987-88 "off". That is, he did not announce his retirement, as he hoped to be able to find some cure for his wonky back and return. Turns out he never did. Our loss.

Another historical tidbit. Bossy never intended on having a long career. Even if healthy, he wouldn't have played long after 87.
 

#66

Registered User
Dec 30, 2003
11,585
7
Visit site
When it comes to Mike Bossy, there are no what ifs. He was amazing. Did you ever see him play? Because you would never question La Machine, if you did.

(La Machine, named by Bill Mazer). Any long time NY Sports fan should remember Mazer, one of the few T.V. news sportscasters in the NY area that loved hockey.)
Wow good call. I forgot all about that nickname.
 

Dr Pepper

Registered User
Dec 9, 2005
70,349
15,497
Sunny Etobicoke
Bossy. Sure, he retired before I started becoming a hockey fan, but from what I've seen of both him and Hull, I'd go with Bossy, easily.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
Brett Hull is one of the best pure goal scorers ever. But you could argue Bossy was the best. Hull had three "great seasons" from 89-92. After that he had a few more good years. Hull had the best season between either one of them in '91 with the 86 goals. But Bossy's '82 season was pretty close to that though.

In the end I take Bossy hands down. He just had a will to score that was unmatched. Throw in the fact that he was on four striaght Cup winners, won a Conn Smythe, was eight times a post season all-star compared to Hulls three, and I think you have a pretty consensus winner. Plus not like it matters but as far as piling up the points Oates was just as good as Trottier I thought. Now Trotts was the better player, but if you switched Hull and Bossy I still think Bossy has all those 50 goal seasons.
 

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
73
One thing people do is think of Brett Hull as a one dimensional player. I really don't think he was. Later on in Dallas and Detroit he was a very respectable 2-way player and he was both a clutch player and a guy that did the little things that make you win hockey games. He possible could be criticized for his lack of conditioning but this did not prevent him from posting great 35-40 goal seasons in his very late 30's.

Hull was an amazing goal scorer that is without doubt but he was also an amazing hockey player overall and one of the smarter players ever to play hockey. After his great individual seasons in St. Louis he showed that he was a winner. In international play for the USA he was great as well.
 

nmbr_24

Registered User
Jun 8, 2003
12,864
2
Visit site
Mike Bossy, he was not only a great goal scorer, but he was a great clutch goal scorer.
Hull was great as well, but I'd take Bossy.
 

ScaredStreit

Registered User
May 5, 2006
11,082
2,971
Tampa, FL
One thing people do is think of Brett Hull as a one dimensional player. I really don't think he was. Later on in Dallas and Detroit he was a very respectable 2-way player and he was both a clutch player and a guy that did the little things that make you win hockey games. He possible could be criticized for his lack of conditioning but this did not prevent him from posting great 35-40 goal seasons in his very late 30's.

Hull was an amazing goal scorer that is without doubt but he was also an amazing hockey player overall and one of the smarter players ever to play hockey. After his great individual seasons in St. Louis he showed that he was a winner. In international play for the USA he was great as well.

You said that yeah Hull became a well rounded player later in his career and still netted 35-40 goals. Bossy was a well round player putting up 50-69 goals a year. Bossy shares the record for most 50+ goal seasons in a row with Gretzky. He was a much more consistent scoring then Hull-even if Hull had a few huge season-Bossy had 10-in a row. He was a main part of a dynasty with 4 cups in a row-5 appearances.

What sets them apart is this: Bossy made those around him better. he elevated all of their games. Trots was a great player-but was even better with Bossy.

Bottom line it's game 7, stanley cup finals, overtime who do you want on your team having the puck? Hull or Bossy? If you say Hull it's probably because you never saw Bossy.
 

Nalyd Psycho

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
24,415
14
No Bandwagon
Visit site
One other point, something that never ceases to amaze (and frustrate) me when assessments of any player comes up here on HF.

An argument against Bossy (in this case) is that he played with great players and on a winning team.

That, to me, is a plus in his favor rather than a black mark. For Bossy's individual success LED TO TEAM SUCCESS. He was a major (core) player on a dynasty team.

And, ultimately, that is what sports is about. When assessing AN INDIVIDUAL's accomplishment, it is extremely short-sighted, IMO, to disregard the big picture. To ignore the CONTEXT in which individual success was achieved.

Bossy produced...and produced...and produced...from Day One in the NHL (scoring in his first game, in Buffalo) until he was forced to hang them up prematurely. Every season on a playoff team, every season on a bonfide Cup contender, and as previously cited, for fully half his career on a Cup Finalist. Read: producing in a constant high-pressure, high-expectation environment. There is a difference between netting 50+ on a Cup team and netting 50 for a non-competitive bottom feeder. (Not implying that the Blues were the latter.) The stats geeks overlook this point, because the numbers do not offer that insight. But ask most anyone in the game.

I recognize that this basic point runs counter to the common HF wisdom that the better his team, the better his teammates, the lesser the player is (the "Marty Brodeur Syndrome"). Ridiculous, IMO.

I agree.

Too me, the big difference is the winning. When Brett Hull was the go to guy on a team. They couldn't win. When Mike Bossy was the go to guy, they won. Hull was the Stars leading scorer when they lost to New Jersey. But in his two victories, he was not the primary offensive player. Yes, Bossy had support, but Bossy out produced all except Trottier. (They split the four cups when it came to offensive leadership. Well, Bob Bourne lead the team in playoff scoring in '83, but Bossy's 17 goals trump that.) While Hull, in order to win, needed guys like Modano and Yzerman to charge of the situation.

Hull is great. But he's not Bossy great. And the cup rings, and the role played in getting those cup rings. Is the proof.
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,134
6,429
Haul out every friggin' statistic you want.

I saw them both play throughout their careers and IT'S NO CONTEST.

Mike Bossy was a hockey god, legendary. Brett Hull was merely great!

Let's not try and compare Mario Lemieux to Marcel Dionne next, k?
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,134
6,429
I wish I was old enough to appreciate hockey back then. All I knew were the Oilers.
Some day someone will say that to you when there are discussions of Jagr, Forsberg, Lidstrom, Pronger and the rest of their generation.

Imagine what two year olds are missing! :) Like the greatest rookie crop in modern history.
 

Everest

Registered User
Apr 19, 2005
10,411
0
Hull.
Bossy can't touch Golden Brett's 86 goal season. He also can't touch Hull's longevity.
 

jiggs 10

Registered User
Dec 5, 2002
3,541
2
Hockeytown, ND
Visit site
Hull.
Bossy can't touch Golden Brett's 86 goal season. He also can't touch Hull's longevity.


How many 60 goal seasons did Hull have? Bossy had 4. How many 50 goal seasons did Hull have? Bossy had 9 straight.

How many Cups did Hull win? Bossy won 4, scoring the winner twice and getting the Smythe.

Hull was better than people here are saying, but Bossy was the better scorer and player.
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
bossy

1977-78 New York Islanders 73 53 38 91 6
1978-79 New York Islanders 80 69 57 126 25
1979-80 New York Islanders 75 51 41 92 12
1980-81 New York Islanders 79 68 51 119 32
1981-82 New York Islanders 80 64 83 147 22
1982-83 New York Islanders 79 60 58 118 20
1983-84 New York Islanders 67 51 67 118 8
1984-85 New York Islanders 76 58 59 117 38
1985-86 New York Islanders 80 61 62 123 14
1986-87 New York Islanders 63 38 37 75 33
NHL Totals 752 573 553 1126 210

9 50 goal season's - and 4 cups
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->