HOH Top 60 Wingers of All Time

[Michael Farkas]

Crosby and Ovechkin referred to as "compilers" in the same week...didn't Ovechkin finish like 1st or 2nd in goals this year...?

 

[bobholly39]

Crosby and Ovechkin referred to as "compilers" in the same week...didn't Ovechkin finish like 1st or 2nd in goals this year...?

First. Both in regular season and playoffs.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Crosby and Ovechkin referred to as "compilers" in the same week...didn't Ovechkin finish like 1st or 2nd in goals this year...?

He can finish 1st in goal and still be a compiler.Ovechkin is not the player he used to be.He focuses his game on scoring goals, usually in the same fashion.It works for him, but he's not the offensive threat he once was, and he's not the offensive threat Lafleur was in his prime.

 

[MXD]

I'm sustaining it.Lafleur better playoff performer by far, top player of dynasty.Ovechkin has been a luxurious compiler for a few years now.Great goalscorer but that was the end of it, until he had that cup run.

Also Lafleur's prime was probably longer than Ovechkin's.I mean when they were actual all-around offensive threat.This hasn't been the case for Ovechkin for a long time.I watched a video recently of his 65 goals seasons and yeah... not the same player.

I know I'm in the minority to still have Lafleur > Ovechkin but I don't see it changing unless Ovechkin has even more playoff success, or he magically goes back to his peak form.

...Ovechkin just compiled his way to a Rocket FFS.

And actually, this argument vs. Lafleur could work on a theoretical version of Guy Lafleur where his prime continues past 1981.

 

[bobholly39]

I'd put him over Jagr pretty comfortably. Jagr won his Art Ross trophies in a league in transition - no real offensive star forwards (best forwards were all two-way guys who often sacrificed offense for defense). And of course one of the years he won it was a tie. I just find Ovechkin's consistent goalscoring more impressive.

Howe
Hull
Richard
Ovi
Lafleur
Jagr

I'm probably lower on Jagr than most though.

It's at least the 2nd time i hear this said this week which I find absolutely unusual as a position. Normally most people argue the 90s is the era with the most offensive talent in league history.

 

[BenchBrawl]

...Ovechkin just compiled his way to a Rocket FFS.

And actually, this argument vs. Lafleur could work on a theoretical version of Guy Lafleur where his prime continues past 1981.

I consider most of his "second prime" Rockets to be luxurious compiling.

Not saying they aren't valuable, but he's not a real superstar forward anymore.Just a sniper.

I agree about your hypothetical Lafleur argument... but then Lafleur's prime as a real offensive threat would still be longer, and his playoff record would still be significantly ahead.

 

[MXD]

I consider most of his "second prime" Rockets to be luxurious compiling.

... Even if that was the case, you'd be comparing a luxurious compiler to... whatever totally inferior to a luxurious compiler.

 

[BenchBrawl]

... Even if that was the case, you'd be comparing a luxurious compiler to... whatever totally inferior to a luxurious compiler.

Yeah, but I don't put as much weight on this part of their career as some do.

See my edit above about your Lafleur hypothetical argument.You edited before I saw.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Ovechkin's best season in his second prime, going by memory, was 2014-2015.He "felt" different that year.

 

[The Macho King]

It's at least the 2nd time i hear this said this week which I find absolutely unusual as a position. Normally most people argue the 90s is the era with the most offensive talent in league history.

The late 90s? Really?

The early 90s you have plenty of players at or near their peaks putting up ridiculous point totals, but after the lockout you see a huge drop in both scoring and the impressiveness of the names at the top of the leaderboards. Gretzky/Mario aren't the same/still playing, Yzerman is a different player than he used to be, Messier is slowing down. Who in the late 90s at F are say top 40 players? Sakic and Yzerman are borderline, but are there largely for two way play and intangibles rather than raw offensive output. And after that, you have what - Forsberg and Federov as top 100 (Federovs best offensive season coming earlier)?

The 95-05 decade just seems to lack in top end forward talent imo.

 

[Michael Farkas]

He can finish 1st in goal and still be a compiler.Ovechkin is not the player he used to be.He focuses his game on scoring goals, usually in the same fashion.It works for him, but he's not the offensive threat he once was, and he's not the offensive threat Lafleur was in his prime.

What does compiler mean then...? Compiler represents like Messier after 1997...just tacking on a bunch 40-55 point seasons, stealing first line time from, whoever, in useless seasons where the team accomplishes absolutely nothing...

Ovechkin leading the league in goals does not meet that criteria for me...Ovechkin isn't as dominant, but he's still the same player he was...he doesn't have a lot of dimension to his game, even at his best...he was just really, really, really good at that dimension...

If anything, Ovechkin taking a little different approach is what helped him actually escape the Divisional Round...

Bottom line: He's an impact player. Messier was not an impact player in 2002, for instance. He's just tallying up a few more points, games and tears...as his team finishes in hockey limbo for the Xth year in a row...

 

[Sentinel]

Late 90s WERE the era with some of the best offensive talent. Jagr, Bure, Selanne & Kariya, the Russian Five, the Legion of Doom, Sakic & Forsberg, Modano & Hull, Yashin, Recchi, Nolan, Sundin, Mogilny...

The problem was: they were often injured and also faced elite defensive / goaltending talent.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Crosby and Ovechkin referred to as "compilers" in the same week...didn't Ovechkin finish like 1st or 2nd in goals this year...?

Approach vs results. 2018 last game of the season vsNJ, meaningless, Ovi has the Richard clinched by a minimum of 3 goals but he is trying for 50, having entered the game at 47.

 

[The Macho King]

What does compiler mean then...? Compiler represents like Messier after 1997...just tacking on a bunch 40-55 point seasons, stealing first line time from, whoever, in useless seasons where the team accomplishes absolutely nothing...

Ovechkin leading the league in goals does not meet that criteria for me...Ovechkin isn't as dominant, but he's still the same player he was...he doesn't have a lot of dimension to his game, even at his best...he was just really, really, really good at that dimension...

If anything, Ovechkin taking a little different approach is what helped him actually escape the Divisional Round...

Bottom line: He's an impact player. Messier was not an impact player in 2002, for instance. He's just tallying up a few more points, games and tears...as his team finishes in hockey limbo for the Xth year in a row...

Yeah - I hear compiler and I think of Andreychuk and late Messier. Ovi still winning Rockets and being an impact player isn't "compiling".

We give a lot of players a lot of credit for length of prime. Richard, Howe, Bourque, Lidstrom - it's rare to be *that* good for *that* long. Ovi isn't the best player in the world anymore. He's not the best winger in the world anymore. But he's still an impact player and the best goalscorer in the league. He deserves credit for that.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Never thought I’d see the day when the guy who has won 5 Rockets in the last 6 years as a “compiler.” I don’t quite think some of you
Know what that means. Compilers aren’t impactful, and for many of them, are simply healthy enough to stick around, like the last half of Andreychuks career.

I mean where is the grey area? Just because he isn’t one of the best players in the world anymore, and maybe not even the best winger, suddenly means he’s a compiler who’s game doesn’t make a difference? It’s absurd. Being the best goal scorer in the game as well as one of the top wingers does count for something.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

to try to adjudicate these lafleur - jagr - ovechkin positions and what does or does not count in a comparison of them, marked underlined below--

lafleur has a six year peak. it is spectacular. almost nothing he does outside of those six years means anything in this debate. but man those six years. caveats: i think just how dominant he was in those six years gets a little overstated at times because of how short his prime was; the first and last year he couldn't have won the hart or art ross (orr, gretzky) but it's not like he finished second either time. insofar as i have heard people say that lafleur's peak is up there with anyone outside of the big four's peak, i that's a little generous. but playoffs are a big big point in his favour.

jagr has a seven year peak. one of the more glorious scoring runs ever. caveat: almost all of his competition was injured or took themselves out of the lineup for other reasons for a lot of this run (mario misses '95, '98-2000, half of 2001; lindros misses significant time '97-2000 and misses all of 2001; forsberg misses significant time in '97, '98, '00, and '01; sakic misses significant time '96-2000; selanne misses enough to maybe make a difference in '98 and '99 and declines in 2001; kariya misses significant time in '97, '98, '00, and '01; bure misses significant time '95-'97 and '99). caveat to this caveat: with the exception of mario and sometimes lindros, none of those guys was going to challenge jagr anyway.

"classic" ovechkin had a five year peak. but then, like gordie howe, he has a whole other peak at a lower level, now eight seasons and counting, including five rockets, a hart, a hart runner up, two AST1s, three AST2s (not counting the double one), two AST3s, plus a cup and a decently legit smythe. caveat: none that i can see.

i don't know how to weight all this out. but the way i see it, the relevant factors are:

lafleur has the exactly overlapping regular season and playoff success. but again, almost nothing he does outside of those six years means anything in this debate.

jagr was unequivocally and far and away the best offensive player in the world unless mario was around (which lafleur wasn't) plus has one more peak season later on plus if you care about that stuff a lanny mcdonald's career's worth of of compiler longevity (outside of '95-'01 + '06, he has 1,156 games, 398 goals, 640 assists, 1,038 points).

ovechkin has the second peak that is universes higher than the other two. you could reasonably mistake ovechkin's 2011-present with selanne's prime. do we call that compiling? i get the idea. after a certain point (probably in the mid-to-late 60s?), you'd think that another top five scoring season by gordie howe doesn't really separate him any farther from rocket richard. it's just... there. but because of the unique shapes of these three guys' careers, i think ovechkin at his current level is still adding.

idk what to do with all of this though, except that i still have rocket ahead of those three.

 

[BenchBrawl]

What does compiler mean then...? Compiler represents like Messier after 1997...just tacking on a bunch 40-55 point seasons, stealing first line time from, whoever, in useless seasons where the team accomplishes absolutely nothing...

Ovechkin leading the league in goals does not meet that criteria for me...Ovechkin isn't as dominant, but he's still the same player he was...he doesn't have a lot of dimension to his game, even at his best...he was just really, really, really good at that dimension...

If anything, Ovechkin taking a little different approach is what helped him actually escape the Divisional Round...

Bottom line: He's an impact player. Messier was not an impact player in 2002, for instance. He's just tallying up a few more points, games and tears...as his team finishes in hockey limbo for the Xth year in a row...

He was compiling Rocket Richard trophies and not contributing to anything else.A great thing to compile sure, but compiling none the less.He was dying in a luxurious mansion.He was in his comfort zone, and it was miserable.Like a great army without a cause or enemy, seeing its great equipment just get older for no purpose.Recently it finally changed and good for him, because I like Ovechkin.You can see in his prolonged SC celebration that his subconscious tank was starting to get full.About time he won to empty it.

I disagree that he was the same player.Offensively, he wasn't dynamic like he used to be.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Same style, not the same caliber perhaps. Ovechkin plays the game that Ovechkin plays...he's played almost the same way from October 2005 until April 2018 - with various degrees of success.

He's still an impact player. He still gets "impact points" from me because of that...Messier could be ignored and nothing bad will happen in 1999 or whenever...no one cares...if you ignore Ovechkin, he scores and scores often...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Never thought I’d see the day when the guy who has won 5 Rockets in the last 6 years as a “compiler.” I don’t quite think some of you
Know what that means. Compilers aren’t impactful, and for many of them, are simply healthy enough to stick around, like the last half of Andreychuks career.

I mean where is the grey area? Just because he isn’t one of the best players in the world anymore, and maybe not even the best winger, suddenly means he’s a compiler who’s game doesn’t make a difference? It’s absurd. Being the best goal scorer in the game as well as one of the top wingers does count for something.

Compiler simply puts his own interests ahead of team interests.

 

[GreatGonzo]

He was compiling Rocket Richard trophies and not contributing to anything else.A great thing to compile sure, but compiling none the less.He was dying in a luxurious mansion.He was in his comfort zone, and it was miserable.Like a great army without a cause or enemy, seeing its great equipment just get older for no purpose.Recently it finally changed and good for him, because I like Ovechkin.You can see in his prolonged SC celebration that his subconscious tank was starting to get full.About time he won to empty it.

I disagree that he was the same player.Offensively, he wasn't dynamic like he used to be.

That doesn’t make him a compiler. Perhaps one dimensional, and I agree he isn’t as dynamic, but that one dimension makes him the best in the league at it. You don’t compile 50 goals, especially when no one has hit That mark outside of you over the last few years.

This isn’t the 80s where players can simply benefit from higher scoring. Ovechkin being the best goal scorer in the league alone proves you wrong. Unless you can somehow prove all his goals never helped or impacted his team, which. Is silly.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Compiler simply puts his own interests ahead of team interests.

So him scoring 49 was in his own interest and not for his team? What about his 15 post season goals, was that selfish as well?

Guy scores more goals than anyone, yet your trying to tell me that in no way is in his teams interest. Isn’t he paid to do that? Isn’t that his job?

Compilers aren’t selfish players, they are players that add little to nothing to their team and are simply there because they are “good enough” to be. They are usually over the hill, past their primes, and just stack up meaningless point totals and psd their stats. Ovechkin doesn’t fit that mold, sorry.

 

[DitchMarner]

Can you put Perry ahead of Kovalchuk or Middleton at this point? If he doesn't belong on the list now, I don't think he ever will.

What would it take for someone like Kessel or Hall to get on here?

 

[The Macho King]

Can you put Perry ahead of Kovalchuk or Middleton at this point? If he doesn't belong on the list now, I don't think he ever will.

What would it take for someone like Kessel or Hall to get on here?

I would think Kucherov has a better case than either Kessel or Hall at this point (still not on the list yet though).

 

[Canadiens1958]

So him scoring 49 was in his own interest and not for his team? What about his 15 post season goals, was that selfish as well?

Guy scores more goals than anyone, yet your trying to tell me that in no way is in his teams interest. Isn’t he paid to do that? Isn’t that his job?

Compilers aren’t selfish players, they are players that add little to nothing to their team and are simply there because they are “good enough” to be. They are usually over the hill, past their primes, and just stack up meaningless point totals and psd their stats. Ovechkin doesn’t fit that mold, sorry.

49 was a fail since the objective was 50. Even at 47 he wins the Richard yet Ovi wanted 50. No impact on the standings. Just an artificial benchmark reached countless times by even average players. Gary Leeman.

Up thread you mentioned Dave Andreychuk. Fact remains teams were willing to pay him for other attributes besides scoring.

Ovi's quirks are tolerated since he is entertaining and a draw, secondary benefits to a team.

 

[Daximus]

49 was a fail since the objective was 50. Even at 47 he wins the Richard yet Ovi wanted 50. No impact on the standings. Just an artificial benchmark reached countless times by even average players. Gary Leeman.

Up thread you mentioned Dave Andreychuk. Fact remains teams were willing to pay him for other attributes besides scoring.

Ovi's quirks are tolerated since he is entertaining and a draw, secondary benefits to a team.

I think you are severely underrating what he has managed to do. Sure his playoffs record doesn't relate but it's so hard to compare 06 to now. In a time where 50% of the teams were able to string together back to back wins. I feel like there should be a lot more stock put into winning a cup these days. Especially when the talent is mostly drafted and developed rather than signed freely.

I also think you are severely underestimating the difficulty in acheiving a 50 goal season these days. It's not as willy nilly as you seem to think it is.