Cam Neely - Just how good was he in his prime?

[Infinite Vision*]

I don't think you can seriously call any player that got better than 50 in 50 while having his career shortened as much as his was inflated.

His limited playing time is what's keeping him from the HoF so far and how he played in that limited time is what gives him the possibility.

But Neely averaged less than a point a game in a very short career, during a high scoring era. And apparently the season he had 50 in 49, was not only largely due to Oates, he wasn't even the same player by then due to injuries. All the years Neely played without Oates his production was not nearly the same on a per game basis. Same story with Brett Hull. Only difference is Oates had seasons without either of them where he maintained the same scoring pace.

 

[jkrx]

I don't think you can seriously call any player that got better than 50 in 50 while having his career shortened as much as his was inflated.

His limited playing time is what's keeping him from the HoF so far and how he played in that limited time is what gives him the possibility.

His legend might be a bit inflated but he was definitly exceptional. Too bad he couldn't stick around.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I don't think you can seriously call any player that got better than 50 in 50 while having his career shortened as much as his was inflated.

His limited playing time is what's keeping him from the HoF so far and how he played in that limited time is what gives him the possibility.

He is in the hall already.

Yes he scored 50 in 50 once but he was below a point per game for his career even though he didn't play long enough to fade due to age.

I like Cam Neely.. he was a scary player out there. But he doesn't deserve to be in the hall and if he is.. Lindros is a slam dunk to go in.. there is no way you can let Cam Neely be in the hall and not Lindros who was the better player over more games.

 

[BraveCanadian]

His legend might be a bit inflated but he was definitly exceptional. Too bad he couldn't stick around.

You can easily make the same argument about Lindros.

Neely has a 50 in 50 season. Lindros has a Hart, LBP, represented Canada more than once in best on best tournaments.

At no point would Neely even be brought into a discussion about the best players in the league. With Lindros in the late nineties he HAD to be in the discussion.

Both of them only ever made the finals.

Honestly if Neely is in the hall there is almost no legitimate way to argue that Lindros doesn't get in..

 

[Hardyvan123]

You can easily make the same argument about Lindros.

Neely has a 50 in 50 season. Lindros has a Hart, LBP, represented Canada more than once in best on best tournaments.

At no point would Neely even be brought into a discussion about the best players in the league. With Lindros in the late nineties he HAD to be in the discussion.

Both of them only ever made the finals.

Honestly if Neely is in the hall there is almost no legitimate way to argue that Lindros doesn't get in..

As we have seen in the Lindros thread a lot of guys are making the argument that Lindros doesn't belong and I bet you half of those guys are okay with Neely being in.

As stated before Neely was an a excellent player but his carer was too short and his actual counting numbers look better than they are compared to both Lindros and Bure who played in lower scoring eras.

Neely probably should not be in the hall while both Lindros and Bure should be they where both better and had better peaks and careers than Neely hands down.

here are soem adjusted stats (which better reflects their points than counting stats at different times)

Neely totals 400-291-691 with peak goal scoring seasons of 53,51,51,49 and 39 goals. Best scoring season of 90 points

Bure at 498-390-888 with peak goals at 69,69,63,59, 53 and 3- 100 plus point seasons.

Lindros is at 439-583-1022 with peak goals of 57,49,49,46,43 and 3 -100 plus point seasons.

All 3 where decent playoff guys too with Bure having the best record stat wise.

At the end of the day Neely is one of those guys that we can only speculate how great he would have been if he had stayed healthy but what we got in not and should not be HHOF worthy IMO.

 

[CommonAnomaly*]

Yes , he was that good. Hands down one of , if not the , greatest power forwards of all time.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

As we have seen in the Lindros thread a lot of guys are making the argument that Lindros doesn't belong and I bet you half of those guys are okay with Neely being in.

As stated before Neely was an a excellent player but his carer was too short and his actual counting numbers look better than they are compared to both Lindros and Bure who played in lower scoring eras.

Neely probably should not be in the hall while both Lindros and Bure should be they where both better and had better peaks and careers than Neely hands down.

here are soem adjusted stats (which better reflects their points than counting stats at different times)

Neely totals 400-291-691 with peak goal scoring seasons of 53,51,51,49 and 39 goals. Best scoring season of 90 points

Bure at 498-390-888 with peak goals at 69,69,63,59, 53 and 3- 100 plus point seasons.

Lindros is at 439-583-1022 with peak goals of 57,49,49,46,43 and 3 -100 plus point seasons.

All 3 where decent playoff guys too with Bure having the best record stat wise.

At the end of the day Neely is one of those guys that we can only speculate how great he would have been if he had stayed healthy but what we got in not and should not be HHOF worthy IMO.

bure is my favourite player, but even i can concede that this is not true, stats-wise or otherwise.

 

[BostonAJ]

As stated before Neely was an a excellent player but his carer was too short and his actual counting numbers look better than they are compared to both Lindros and Bure who played in lower scoring eras.

Lindros and Bure will probably get in at some point. Bure was one of the most exciting goal scorers in history and Lindros was the most powerful player I've ever seen. The Big E may take some time because of his unusually severe decline coupled with the fact that he is largely disliked by the hockey world (with good reason).

When Neely's placement in the HHOF is questioned it is always a matter of injuries. No one really doubts that he was a good enough player to merit HHOF status. IMO had Neely not been injured he would have earned a 70-80 goal season (or even two). Lindros was more powerful than Neely, but Cam had the Big E beat in the skills department. Neely was the shining example of a power forward in the glory days of power forwards, and 20 years later remains its definition. He was great in the playoffs, managed three 50 goal seasons in half a career, and was the face of a major franchise. All this makes him HHOF worthy, IMO. He was a god to kids like me.

 

[BraveCanadian]

IMO had Neely not been injured he would have earned a 70-80 goal season (or even two). Lindros was more powerful than Neely, but Cam had the Big E beat in the skills department.

Whoa whoa whoa... Neely was awesome but really?

 

[revolverjgw]

Lindros was more powerful than Neely, but Cam had the Big E beat in the skills department.

No he didn't. Lindros was an MVP, Art Ross winning talent that for a pretty significant time had the one of the top 5 PPGs ever. The only thing Neely had on him was goal scoring.

Neely had a career high of 40 assists, for crying out loud, and in a high scoring era. Lindros' playmaking ability was worlds better. His all-around offensive talent had scoring at a PPG that far outpaced Neely. That's in addition to being bigger and stronger.

Edit- not Art Ross winning, actually, but he had the same amount of points as Jagr in less games, so... may as WELL have been Art Ross winning.

 

[BostonAJ]

Whoa whoa whoa... Neely was awesome but really?

I think so. The year he had 50 in 49 he should have done it. Another 30 GP should've netted him another 20+ goals. The two years previous he had 9G in 9GP and 11G in 13 GP. Those would have been his prime years with Oates. I think he had it in him.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I think so. The year he had 50 in 49 he should have done it. Another 30 GP should've netted him another 20+ goals. The two years previous he had 9G in 9GP and 11G in 13 GP. Those would have been his prime years with Oates. I think he had it in him.

More players have tailed off after reaching 50 in 50 or close to it than have poured it on.

 

[BostonAJ]

No he didn't. Lindros was an MVP, Art Ross winning talent that for a pretty significant time had the one of the top 5 PPGs ever. The only thing Neely had on him was goal scoring.

Lindros' game was all about power. He really wasn't that skilled - he was just a monster on skates.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Lindros' game was all about power. He really wasn't that skilled - he was just a monster on skates.

Nope.

His claim to fame was that he was the big strong guy with the little guy skills.

This is what Bobby Clarke thinks about Lindros getting into the Hall.. and we know how much those two love each other:

"Yes, based on his ability to play the game and based on his contributions as a player, I think you have to separate all the crap that went on. Particularly when he played for the Flyers, it was just outstanding, dominant hockey — the first of the huge, big men with small man's skill." —Bobby Clarke

 

[BostonAJ]

More players have tailed off after reaching 50 in 50 or close to it than have poured it on.

Only Richard, Gretzky, Bossy, Lemieux, Hull, Mogilny, Kurri and Neely have accomplished 50 in 50. Besides Richard, who only had 50 games to work with, Bossy finished with the fewest goals at 68. Usually a player finishes with 70+ goals in a season like that.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Only Richard, Gretzky, Bossy, Lemieux, Hull, Mogilny, Kurri and Neely have accomplished 50 in 50. Besides Richard, who only had 50 games to work with, Bossy finished with the fewest goals at 68. Usually a player finishes with 70+ goals in a season like that.

Except Neely scored his 50th goal in the teams 66th game.

 

[BostonAJ]

Nope.

His claim to fame was that he was the big strong guy with the little guy skills.

This is what Bobby Clarke thinks about Lindros getting into the Hall.. and we know how much those two love each other:

"Yes, based on his ability to play the game and based on his contributions as a player, I think you have to separate all the crap that went on. Particularly when he played for the Flyers, it was just outstanding, dominant hockey — the first of the huge, big men with small man's skill." —Bobby Clarke

I guess I saw a different game. I never thought of the Big E as a particularly skilled guy. I saw Godzilla on the ice. I remember thinking if he could stickhandle he'd be as dangerous as anyone I've seen. I still think it's accurate to say that Neely used a little more skill and Lindros a little more power in their game.

I'm for both being in the HHOF. I loathed Lindros, but when he was at his best...holy cow.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I guess I saw a different game. I never thought of the Big E as a particularly skilled guy. I saw Godzilla on the ice. I remember thinking if he could stickhandle he'd be as dangerous as anyone I've seen. I still think it's accurate to say that Neely used a little more skill and Lindros a little more power in their game.

I'm for both being in the HHOF. I loathed Lindros, but when he was at his best...holy cow.

Lindros and Neely were both just plain scary at their peaks but in all honesty Lindros was a better skater and puck handler than Neely.

Neely was a finisher.

 

[BostonAJ]

Except Neely scored his 50th goal in the teams 66th game.

And Kurri and Mogilny in their teams' 53rd. Lemieux had a couple 50 in 50 seasons that were after the Pens' 50th game. In 92-93 he scored 50 in 48, which was his team's 72nd game, and finished with 69!

 

[BraveCanadian]

And Kurri and Mogilny in their teams' 53rd. Lemieux had a couple 50 in 50 seasons that were after the Pens' 50th game. In 92-93 he scored 50 in 48, which was his team's 72nd game, and finished with 69!

I'm with you but Cam Neely isn't Mario Lemieux.

 

[dafoomie]

But Neely averaged less than a point a game in a very short career, during a high scoring era. And apparently the season he had 50 in 49, was not only largely due to Oates, he wasn't even the same player by then due to injuries. All the years Neely played without Oates his production was not nearly the same on a per game basis. Same story with Brett Hull. Only difference is Oates had seasons without either of them where he maintained the same scoring pace.

He scored 590 points in 520 games in Boston, 677 in 606 including playoffs. As I'm sure has been said by now, he was miscast in his first three seasons in Vancouver.

What you haven't realized yet is that Neely had just briefly entered his prime as a goal scorer when he got hurt. 16 goals in 19 playoff games with Craig Janney as his center, at 25 years old, 3 shy of the all time record. Same age as Brett Hull when his numbers jumped, then his career's basically over. And when the scoring really jumped, 5 60 goal scorers in 92/93, he played 13 games.

If Neely were healthy when Oates arrived he would've had him during the highest scoring seasons in the NHL. Oates led the league in assists in 92/93 without Neely. Everything was there for him to surpass what Hull did with Oates.

 

[BraveCanadian]

And when the scoring really jumped, 5 60 goal scorers in 92/93, he played 13 games. He largely missed out on the highest scoring seasons.

92-93 was a freak year for sure but other than that one we can safely say that Neely played the majority of his career in the a pretty free-wheeling era.

He was a point per game finisher.

If Mike Bossy doesn't hit 70 goals in his career I have a hard time believing Neely could have..

 

[dafoomie]

92-93 was a freak year for sure but other than that one we can safely say that Neely played the majority of his career in the a pretty free-wheeling era.

He was a point per game finisher.

If Mike Bossy doesn't hit 70 goals in his career I have a hard time believing Neely could have..

Bossy was a much better scorer than Hull who scored 86. Aside from what the Oilers were doing, most of the 80s weren't as sky high as the early 90s were, Bossy's career highs would've only been 3rd and 4th in the league in 92/93, and at the time they were 10 goals more than the guy in 2nd.

Its tragic that one man could rob the game of a great player like this.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Bossy was a much better scorer than Hull who scored 86. Aside from what the Oilers were doing, most of the 80s weren't as sky high as the early 90s were, Bossy's career highs would've only been 3rd and 4th in the league in 92/93, and at the time they were 10 goals more than the guy in 2nd.

Oh so the Islanders didn't score in the 350 goal plus range 5 times in the 80s too?

And just for the record.. I'm not sure that Bossy was a much better goal scorer than Brett Hull.

 

[sr edler]

16 goals in 19 playoff games with Craig Janney as his center

janney was no bum, he was pretty good