John Flyers Fan
Registered User
Sort of a role reversal on Big Phil's threads:
Dick Duff
Cam Neely
Clark Gillies
Bernie Federko
Joey Mullen
Dick Duff
Cam Neely
Clark Gillies
Bernie Federko
Joey Mullen
Sort of a role reversal on Big Phil's threads:
Dick Duff : No
Cam Neely : No
Clark Gillies : Yes - extremely borderline though
Bernie Federko : No
Joey Mullen : Yes.
An absolute yes to Cam Neely. The people who oppose his induction usually point to a lack of longevity and falling under a point-per-game pace for his career. Yet they fail to realize that Neely's in there because he set the template for every power forward who will ever play in the league. There were many power forwards pre-Neely, but Neely was the first to have this label thrust upon him,
Neely - I always say no. Never had more than 92 points, only had 299 assists for his career and had a good but short peak. Kariya had a short peak too, but if he was named a top 3 player in the game no on lifted an eyebrow. Even in '93-94 Neely was no higher than a top 10 player in the game. You wouldnt kick him off your team but he was never a superstar and never won a Cup.
Neely - I always say no. Never had more than 92 points, only had 299 assists for his career and had a good but short peak. Kariya had a short peak too, but if he was named a top 3 player in the game no on lifted an eyebrow. Even in '93-94 Neely was no higher than a top 10 player in the game. You wouldnt kick him off your team but he was never a superstar and never won a Cup.
If you could pick one forward to be on you team on game one of the NHL playoffs from about 1988-1996 and he was healthy I think that there would be alot of GMs that would have picked Neely 3rd after Mario and Gretzky every one of those seasons. Over Forsberg or Lindros or Yzerman or Sakic or Gilmour. He was that dominant of a power forward and that clutch.
Neely wouldnt be third on my list. Mario and Wayne of course they'd be first. Gilmour was a huge part in a Cup win and his playoff performance in '93 and '94 was clutch as well. Neely never had a playoff like Gilmour's in '93. Messier from the years '88-96 would be picked ahead of him too. The guy captained two Cup teams in those years. Yzerman you have a good argument because he wasnt a playoff warrior at that time. Sakic didnt peak in the playoffs until '96. But if you mean overall only Lindros would be a guy who has a weaker playoff resume than Neely. Forsberg, Sakic, Gilmour, Yzerman were all better clutch performers.
I just think Neely gets overrated a lot around here. He was a good goal scorer and fit the power forward bill pretty good but his overall game doesnt make me jump out of my seat. He wasnt a great passer and couldnt use that as a weapon very well. He just fell short of a superstar IMO.
Neely was a huge force in the playoffs. He had many unbelievable playoff runs and the fact he didn't get that many assists or points is not important.
Well he actually had only about two. In '90 and '91. Yes they were both pretty good. Does that push him over the edge for a HHOF induction. I wouldnt have put him in. His numbers just arent that impressive. If you only got 90 points twice you better have won Cups, or be Bob Gainey.
I loved Neely and without his injuries he'd be a legit HHOFer no doubt. But the truth is he had them and within that time he didnt dominate. If you play pretty much ten years you need to have an Orr/Bossy career. Plus other than I guess '93-94 was he ever a top 10 player in the game? I dont understand how people almost have a heart attack when Lindros is mentioned as a HHOFer but with Neely its okay. He just doesnt jump out at me as a HHOFer.
My rationale behind not admitting Cam Neely was that... Gillies is already in for power-forwards, and much will concede that Neely was a bit admitted on a "what if?" basis. Admitting Neely isn't like admitting, let's say, Pelle Lindberg, but I think he should have done more to be admitted without any Cups.
I've never understood the "no cups" argument. If you saw how Neely played in the playoffs, you know his lack of championships have nothing to do with himself. There's a lot of luck and circumstance involved in winning a Cup in a 30 team league, and there's going to be a number of a great players from here on out that never do it. But if they perform like Neely did in the playoffs, I don't think it's relevant at all.
According to Big Phil Neely had only 2 great playoffs. I think he was great EVERY playoffs.
But if that was ture where are his dominant numbers? '90 and '91 he was great before Uflie checked him but at the end of the day he only had 89 points in 93 playoff career games. To me that just doesnt shout out dominant. To be in the Hall of Fame you have to do something that makes a you think wow this guy CANT not be in here. Yvan Cournoyer like Neely has 4 second team all-stars. But he also won 10 Cups, a Conn Smythe and was part of Team Canada '72. You CANT leave Cournoyer out. I just want to know what the thing is that makes anyone think that of Neely.
I liked him and his style too. But imagine he's the most unpopular player on the planet. Does he get in then? Can people honestly think that Neely isnt in partially because of sentimental reasons and because we all loved him?
I liked him and his style too. But imagine he's the most unpopular player on the planet. Does he get in then? Can people honestly think that Neely isnt in partially because of sentimental reasons and because we all loved him?
I personally like Neely as a HOFer, but I can't understand how so many people can have him in and leave Lindros out. Very similar careers (Lindros was better, and for longer, IMO). Do a poll, and you'll find most people in favour of Neely being in, and overwhelmingly opposed to Lindros' induction. I think popularity clearly plays a role here.
Neely never hung around as an essentially average player. If he hung around for 5 more years and got 15 goals and 30 points a year then he might not have ever made the HHOF.
He's fourth all-time in playoff goals per game. Period. You want numbers? How's that for a number?But if that was ture where are his dominant numbers? '90 and '91 he was great before Uflie checked him but at the end of the day he only had 89 points in 93 playoff career games. To me that just doesnt shout out dominant. To be in the Hall of Fame you have to do something that makes a you think wow this guy CANT not be in here. Yvan Cournoyer like Neely has 4 second team all-stars. But he also won 10 Cups, a Conn Smythe and was part of Team Canada '72. You CANT leave Cournoyer out. I just want to know what the thing is that makes anyone think that of Neely.
I liked him and his style too. But imagine he's the most unpopular player on the planet. Does he get in then? Can people honestly think that Neely isnt in partially because of sentimental reasons and because we all loved him?
Lindros brought plenty of problems on himself too or at least his stage parents did.I personally like Neely as a HOFer, but I can't understand how so many people can have him in and leave Lindros out. Very similar careers (Lindros was better, and for longer, IMO). Do a poll, and you'll find most people in favour of Neely being in, and overwhelmingly opposed to Lindros' induction. I think popularity clearly plays a role here.