Does Kent Nilsson deserve to be in the HHoF?

[MXD]

I can't help but to compare him to Kucherov and I'm coming to the conclusion that his case is already significantly weaker.

 

[Professor What]

You simply can't ignore 160 points in 43 games.

Garry Unger is not impressed.

 

[psycat]

No but he was a better player than some in the HHOF.

 

[vikash1987]

What's the story behind Nilsson's six-game stint with the Oilers in 1995? He was 38 at the time, and hadn't played in the NHL since winning the Cup in '87. (Talk about a disappearing act!)

Glen Sather once said that Nilsson was among the most gifted athletes he'd ever seen. That's high praise, considering all those great players he saw in the '80s. I guess Nilsson's issue was his lack of consistency and lack of longevity---which, I imagine, has kept him out of any serious talks re the HHOF.

 

[sr edler]

The weird thing is, I have no memory of him touching or holding the Cup. It's like when the clock ticked down, he went straight to the locker room.

... would have been amazing if this was true, Nilsson skating straight to the locker-room not caring about celebrating the Cup with the rest of his teammates. Mr. Magic strikes again, just another disappearing act. Here below he is close to the Cup, at least. But perhaps Messier didn't let him touch it for reals?

 

[Dingo]

I was gonna say Maruk, too, @Big Phil.

Both would likely make a Hall of Talent, (along with Pierre Turgeon) but they dont belong in the HOF.

 

[MXD]

I was gonna say Maruk, too, @Big Phil.

Both would likely make a Hall of Talent, (along with Pierre Turgeon) but they dont belong in the HOF.

Way to compare three very different careers.

 

[The Panther]

Glen Sather once said that Nilsson was among the most gifted athletes he'd ever seen. That's high praise, considering all those great players he saw in the '80s. I guess Nilsson's issue was his lack of consistency and lack of longevity---which, I imagine, has kept him out of any serious talks re the HHOF.

Glen Sather was also teammates of Bobby Orr, Phil Esposito, Andy Bathgate (half a season), Jean Ratelle, Brad Park, Guy Lafleur, Larry Robinson, Ken Dryden, and Norm Ullman (in Edmonton!). Then, just two-to-three years later, he was coaching Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier, Paul Coffey, and Jari Kurri.

That TSN feature on the "Most Skilled Players" or whatever featured Kent Nilsson in the top-10.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

I'm going from memory but I seem to remember Nilsson going off the ice alone after the final whistle while the rest of the team remained on the ice. This may have been in game 6 though. Help me out people.

 

[buffalowing88]

Glen Sather was also teammates of Bobby Orr, Phil Esposito, Andy Bathgate (half a season), Jean Ratelle, Brad Park, Guy Lafleur, Larry Robinson, Ken Dryden, and Norm Ullman (in Edmonton!). Then, just two-to-three years later, he was coaching Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier, Paul Coffey, and Jari Kurri.

That TSN feature on the "Most Skilled Players" or whatever featured Kent Nilsson in the top-10.

Seems pretty telling. I found an old quote from Fletcher about him just not having that extra effort in the postseason which stands out to me but idk...was an odd bird and someone who marched to his own drummer in an era when hockey teams were really close-knit, but I could find a place for him in the HHOF. I just think his prowess on the ice was undeniable.

More insight/Fletcher quote can be found here: Kent Nilsson: The Calgary Flames Superstar Who Chose Not To Be - Last Word On Hockey

 

[Kamaya Painters]

What's the story behind Nilsson's six-game stint with the Oilers in 1995? He was 38 at the time, and hadn't played in the NHL since winning the Cup in '87. (Talk about a disappearing act!)

Nilsson started working as a scout for the Oilers in 1992-1993. He was on a scouting trip to Virginia when Sather asked him to report back to Edmonton. He flew to Edmonton and sat down with Sather who asked him whether he wanted to play for the Oilers in the shortened 1994-1995 season. Nilsson wasn't sure he'd be able to do it but he still picked up some equipment from the Oilers and went to an outdoor rink in order to skate with another team.

He played six games but it didn't work out because of his age and the fact that he had been removed from top level hockey for too long.

Nilsson left the NHL back in 1987 partly because of his wife. She wanted to move back to Europe. They had decided this several years back when he signed his previous contract. He wasn't sure what to do at the time: stay in the NHL or accompany his family. 1988 was a Olympic year and he wanted to represent Sweden in Calgary. He asked Lars-Erik Sjöberg (played for the Winnipeg Jets between 1974-1980) who advised him to pick his family. Sjöberg had developed cancer and passed away shortly afterwards. Nilsson went to Italy to play for Bolzano because Ron Chipperfield (captained the Oilers in 1979-1980) asked him to come. Chipperfield had married an Italian woman and coached Bolzano after playing his last three seasons there.

Glen Sather once said that Nilsson was among the most gifted athletes he'd ever seen. That's high praise, considering all those great players he saw in the '80s. I guess Nilsson's issue was his lack of consistency and lack of longevity---which, I imagine, has kept him out of any serious talks re the HHOF.

No surprise. He's one of the most skillful players to come out of Sweden - ever.

Nilsson simply had a laidback attitude which wasn't appreciated in the NHL at the time.

 

[sr edler]

I guess Nilsson's issue was his lack of consistency and lack of longevity---which, I imagine, has kept him out of any serious talks re the HHOF.

Longevity yes, consistency no. Kent Nilsson was consistently Kent Nilsson. One spike season yes, but many players have spike seasons or career years. Mike Bossy for instance had a year with 147 points, 20+ points than his 2nd best year, that doesn't make him inconsistent. Peter Forsberg (1.25) is the only Swedish player with a higher PPG ratio in the NHL than Nilsson (1.24). You're not scoring 686 points in 553 games in the NHL if you're inconsistent, not even in the 80s. And he was consistently underwhelming in the playoffs by his own regular season standards. "Inconsistent" is an accusation that gets thrown around a bit too easily at certain players who, for some reason, perhaps didn't live up to all lofty (or unrealistic) expectations. If you're consistently flawed, that's still being consistent.

Nilsson was just a "lirare" ("finesse player") extraordinaire which is a Swedish term for a very technical skill player who just likes to dangle & stuff & score pretty goals more than anything else. Kristian Huselius & Michael Nylander are similar types of players, just lower level, and they're all from the greater Stockholm region. If you're a "lirare" from Norrland, like the Sedins, that comes with tons of humility. I guess Forsberg was a "lirare" too, and Sundin too perhaps, technically, because they were also very skilled, but Nilsson was next level stick & puck-skills, and Forsberg's & Sundin's other elements such as grit & towering physicality respectively kinda annuls it. A true "lirare" for all intents and purposes can't be a whole package type of player, but he must be inherently flawed like some tragic character from an early 19th century Gothic romance novel.

If a "lirare" is not obviously flawed, like say Gretzky or Leo Messi, that's almost uncanny valley territory. It's the same feeling you get from reading Nicklas Lidström's memoirs about being the perfect human, it gets either uncanny or boring because there's not a lot there to relate to for mere mortals.

 

[vikash1987]

Nilsson was consistently Kent Nilsson. One spike season yes, but many players have spike seasons or career years. Mike Bossy for instance had a year with 147 points, 20+ points than his 2nd best year, that doesn't make him inconsistent. Peter Forsberg (1.25) is the only Swedish player with a higher PPG ratio in the NHL than Nilsson (1.24). You're not scoring 686 points in 553 games in the NHL if you're inconsistent, not even in the 80s. And he was consistently underwhelming in the playoffs by his own regular season standards. "Inconsistent" is an accusation that gets thrown around a bit too easily at certain players who, for some reason, perhaps didn't live up to all lofty (or unrealistic) expectations. If you're consistently flawed, that's still being consistent.

Nilsson was just a "lirare" ("finesse player") extraordinaire which is a Swedish term for a very technical skill player who just likes to dangle & stuff & score pretty goals more than anything else. Kristian Huselius & Michael Nylander are similar types of players, just lower level, and they're all from the greater Stockholm region. If you're a "lirare" from Norrland, like the Sedins, that comes with tons of humility. I guess Forsberg was a "lirare" too, and Sundin too perhaps, technically, because they were also very skilled, but Nilsson was next level stick & puck-skills, and Forsberg's & Sundin's other elements such as grit & towering physicality respectively kinda annuls it. A true "lirare" for all intents

Fair point. But from my understanding, Nilsson's consistency was questioned precisely because coaches never knew what they were going to get out of him on any given night. There were some nights in which he was a pure magician/artist with the puck; and then there were some nights in which he was invisible. PPG doesn't really reflect this pattern, and I don't think the other players you mentioned had quite the same reputation.

See these reviews of Nilsson from those who coached/managed him and knew him well, pulled from a 1985 Calgary Herald article:

• From Al MacNeil, Flames Asst. GM: "Kent has more basic talent than anyone. He is exceptional some nights and not very good on others. He has been like that over the five years he has been with us. He is hard to figure out..."
• From Anders Parmstrom, an ex-coach from Sweden: "He is simply outstanding one game and so bad that he is not usable in the next one. There is nothing in between."
• From Leif Boork, another coach from Sweden: "He is some sort of Bohemian. He got all his skills with his mother's milk, as we say in Sweden. But he can't translate it into every game."

Also, it seems that Nilsson faced a higher-than-average # of injuries during his prime, which shouldn't be ignored.

• 1981-82: separated shoulder (missed half the season)
  
• 1983-84: broken leg (missed the end of the season and all the playoffs)
  
• 1985-86: back injury, viral infection, separated shoulder, groin pull
  
• 1986-87: bruised ribs

He likely would not have hit 131 points again, and he likely would not have led the Flames back to the semifinals. But he was definitely deprived of a lot of time, which must have disrupted his rhythm/momentum.

 

[jcs0218]

I only ever saw him play with Edmonton in the spring of '87. He was quite good, but as this was probably the most stacked-offensively playoff team ever, he didn't really stand out.

The weird thing is, I have no memory of him touching or holding the Cup. It's like when the clock ticked down, he went straight to the locker room.

He was already halfway to Italy by the time the Stanley Cup was presented, so he could prepare to win the 1987-88 Italian League Championship.

 

[sr edler]

Fair point. But from my understanding, Nilsson's consistency was questioned precisely because coaches never knew what they were going to get out of him on any given night. There were some nights in which he was a pure magician/artist with the puck; and then there were some nights in which he was invisible. PPG doesn't really reflect this pattern, and I don't think the other players you mentioned had quite the same reputation.

See these reviews of Nilsson from those who coached/managed him and knew him well, pulled from a 1985 Calgary Herald article:

• From Al MacNeil, Flames Asst. GM: "Kent has more basic talent than anyone. He is exceptional some nights and not very good on others. He has been like that over the five years he has been with us. He is hard to figure out..."
• From Anders Parmstrom, an ex-coach from Sweden: "He is simply outstanding one game and so bad that he is not usable in the next one. There is nothing in between."
• From Leif Boork, another coach from Sweden: "He is some sort of Bohemian. He got all his skills with his mother's milk, as we say in Sweden. But he can't translate it into every game."

Also, it seems that Nilsson faced a higher-than-average # of injuries during his prime, which shouldn't be ignored.

• 1981-82: separated shoulder (missed half the season)
  
• 1983-84: broken leg (missed the end of the season and all the playoffs)
  
• 1985-86: back injury, viral infection, separated shoulder, groin pull
  
• 1986-87: bruised ribs

He likely would not have hit 131 points again, and he likely would not have led the Flames back to the semifinals. But he was definitely deprived of a lot of time, which must have disrupted his rhythm/momentum.

Game to game basis is a good/fair point, I took it as meaning season to season basis.

 

[Danny46]

To me yes, he was a real good player that was sucessfull in a lot of leagues, one of the 10 most skilled players i ever saw, just a sick talent, and he played with his head up. He had great fundamentals, sometimes he disappeared but still more than a HOF talent, great great player, a special talent. Forsberg was more complete, but Kent had a level of skill that even Forsberg can't come close...

 

[crobro]

He’s still behind Rick Martin,Charlie Simmer and Tim Kerr

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

His WHA numbers look impressive, but those 107 points in 1978 placed him only 4th (!) on his team in scoring. And when he became the main-man and top-scorer the next season, the team dropped 20 points in the standings.

Very good 4 year old post overall, but just wanted to nitpick this part slightly. Not sure what’s equivalent to losing Hedberg, Ulf Nilsson and Bobby Hull from one season to the next, but perhaps it would be a drop in the standings the likes of having the 2019 Bruins losing Marchand, Bergeron and Krejci and going all in on Pastrnak for the next season… something like that.

 

[hacksaw7]

This one is close. Hall of Fame talent? Absolutely. Legendary talent. I'm not very well versed with his accomplishments outside of the NHL, but while in the NHL I think he falls a little bit short.

1979-1985, he was magnificent, but also left you thinking he could be even better. Seemed like a guy who didn't always give it his all

 

[hacksaw7]

I only ever saw him play with Edmonton in the spring of '87. He was quite good, but as this was probably the most stacked-offensively playoff team ever, he didn't really stand out.

The weird thing is, I have no memory of him touching or holding the Cup. It's like when the clock ticked down, he went straight to the locker room.

Just for the heck of it I googled Kent Nilsson Stanley Cup. Couldn't find a single picture of him with the Cup. Nothing in the postgame celebration...nothing on the ice. It was his first and only Cup, he was already 30+ years old and his best days were behind him...

I'm going to re-watch that celebration to see if he has his moment with it. Otherwise that's just bizarre. I can't remember hearing about any player winning the Cup and just kind of..."ok nice...nah not going to bother with it see ya next summer guys"

Ok, found him



Regarding the on ice celebration...I don't see him hoisting it anywhere

 

[quietbruinfan]

He was a brilliant player that lacked drive. He was not a HHOFER.

 

[Fourier]

He really wasn't really special in the NHL. He had four good seasons (only one that was elite really) and was basically a defensive liability or a solid but not prolific scorer during the rest of his short career there. I don't know why he would have a shot at the HHOF unless he has a spectacular International resume, and as far as I know that's not the case.

His career was not that special and no he should not be in the Hall of fame. But he was exceptionally skilled. He just lacked the drive to turn that into what it could have been.

 

[Moridin]

Hall of "famous" yes. HHoF no.

Watching games where he was on is a treat though.

 

[IComeInPeace]

He did not have a Hall of Fame worthy NHL career.

The only way he’d get in to the HoF is if you were allowed to factor in how highly skilled he was (above and beyond what his actual numbers showed.

When I was a kid I hated Nilsson. He’s an odd guy to hate, but I just had no respect for guys that were so easy to intimidate.

As an old guy now, I kind of feel bad for him. Some guys just don’t have that in their makeup, and playing hockey to them is purely about physical skills and having fun, and that ‘mental toughness’ stuff is just not a part of it for them.

Timing is everything. Fighting and intimidation were a huge part of the game back when he played.

I can’t help but wonder how he’d do in todays game where that aspect has been largely removed from the game..

He was so highly skilled, if he was on my team back then, and I was the GM, I would have parked the toughest guy in the league on his wing at all times. Not just a tough guy, but an elite one, and he’d play beside him at all times. I think it would have significantly increased his already high point totals.

 

[Danny46]

Do you guys think that Kent Nilsson is like the Alexei Kovalev of his generation? A sick talent when he was on, but with disappearance acts...