Is Patrice Bergeron a HOF Candidate ?

[wetcoast]

Fleury was a very good playmaker for a winger (though not as good as Gilmour), so that's probably why. Better playmaker than Nieuwendyk. But yes, he was undersized and didn't have a two-way game to speak of.

For a guy who didn't have much of a 2 way game Fleury played alot on the PK in his career.

He isn't in the Hall because people don't like him, which is a shame because alot of his behavior is due to his acknowledged trauma from his junior coach.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

For a guy who didn't have much of a 2 way game Fleury played alot on the PK in his career.

He isn't in the Hall because people don't like him, which is a shame because alot of his behavior is due to his acknowledged trauma from his junior coach.

So did Bure, Lemieux, Gretzky, etc

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Yeah, a forward being good on the PK/Special Teams doesn't always mean that player is a defensive stalwart. Some guys are there for the SH/speed threat they are, others are just good at playing and defending shorthanded.

Marner is a guy who's very solid on the PK and played 110+ minutes on it last year, but he's not a great or noteworthy defensive player.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I may be an uneducated adult but why would anyone think that midget Fleury without Gilmour's playmaking or defensive game would be a shoe-in 1C?
Nieuwendyk at least had the size for it.

Fleury was a very good playmaker for a winger (though not as good as Gilmour), so that's probably why. Better playmaker than Nieuwendyk. But yes, he was undersized and didn't have a two-way game to speak of.

For a guy who didn't have much of a 2 way game Fleury played alot on the PK in his career.

we're taking this super far afield, which is probably my fault, but a few things:

fleury was an excellent playmaker, from center ice or the wing. he wasn't doug gilmour, obviously, but he also was no joe nieuwendyk by a longshot.

as for his defensive game, oh he definitely had one. i don't think anybody on the 2000s rangers ever backchecked, but fleury entered the league as a checker and in his prime in calgary certainly knew his own end of the ice. there's a reason he made all that first and last team canada as a checking winger. he made the team as a legit star in the two in between, of course.

as for why anybody would think he could slide into the #1 center role, well he led the CHL in scoring as a center, made a total mockery of the IHL as a center (more than 2 points/game in a half season before getting called up—for comparison, mark recchi, who was the same age, was putting up "just" one and a half points/game), entered the league as a fourth line center and won the cup in that role, and had just scored 50 goals and 100 points as a converted winger. he was moved over because he was way too good to play on the fourth line and the three centers ahead of him were a 100 point scorer in his prime, a two-time 50 goal scorer, and a top three defensive center in the league. fleury moved up the calgary lineup at RW because there was a spot there: mark hunter/lanny were gone and fleury slid into the spot next to otto, behind mullen and makarov. when mullen and patterson/maclellan left, fleury and his LW paul ranheim shifted up to gilmour's line. and that year fleury matched nieuwendyk's career high in goals and passed him points.

as it turns out, robert reichel emerged and gary leeman busted so fleury stayed on the wing.

as for why i as a 10 year old thought fleury would become calgary's number one center, fleury was fast, always had the puck on his stick, and you noticed him every single shift. nieuwendyk was a guy who tapped in sweet passes by makarov or tipped in and/or cleaned up the garbage from suter-to-macinnis bombs on the PP. what else is there to say?

 

[Filthy Dangles]

While were on the OT train....the C vs W debate always interests me. it's often oversimplified by looking at whether boxes such as 'does player skate well enough' and/or 'does player have enough defensive awareness/acumen' are checked or not.

in my experience, some guys simply see a drop in offensive effectiveness playing up the middle vs on the wing despite being good skaters and solid defensively.

having to tie up with the opposing center (as opposed to pouncing on a loose puck or flying the zone)
center swing/middle lane drive vs driving the wide lane
3rd man high in the Ozone vs more freedom to forecheck
etc...

Some guys will see a drop in offense having to deal with those kinds of things. I only saw Fluery toward the end of his career in NY and I was very young but I don't recall much about the defensive player he was. According to Hockey_Ref, he once finished 5th in Selke voting in his 3rd year but never not another vote.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i rep for fleury's two-way game, but his 5th place selke vote was a stats-based farce. he led the league in +/- and had seven SH goals.

that said, that selke really should have gone to tikkanen.

 

[wetcoast]

So did Bure, Lemieux, Gretzky, etc

Yeah, a forward being good on the PK/Special Teams doesn't always mean that player is a defensive stalwart. Some guys are there for the SH/speed threat they are, others are just good at playing and defending shorthanded.

Marner is a guy who's very solid on the PK and played 110+ minutes on it last year, but he's not a great or noteworthy defensive player.

Fair enough Fluery was never in the mix for being a Selke guy but his defensive game wasn't bad by any stretch and Mario was by far the worst defensive player of the 3 guys mentioned above, which often seems to get brushed over.

His ESGF/ESGA ratio some seasons is alarming for a guy with his skill and reputation.

 

[wetcoast]

The 6th most important player on the Oilers dynasty is in the HOF...but because he has ~500 goals and ~1000 points, do you support him?

I have never supported Glenn Anderson for the HHOF and have often pointed out that he was at best maybe the 3/4/5th (87) most important Oiler in any of his 6 SC runs.

Anderson was a different kind of passenger than Gainey but he was still a passenger.

 

[wetcoast]

my uneducated impression as a ten year old when that trade happened:

i never liked nieuwendyk, just wasn't impressed by him. of all of the scary guys on the flames, he was pretty low on the list.

admittedly i didn't think gilmour was as good as he really was either, i saw him as more of a john tonelli than a junior trottier if you know what i mean. but i feel like the prevailing thought was that theo fleury would shift back to the middle and be calgary's first line center.

While I agree with this, the part below is in part due to other circumstances, ie injury, a shorten season and scoring going down in the NHL in the later 90's.

what's interesting to me is nieuwenydk's first four years were

50 goals, 90 points
50 goals, 80 points
45 goals, 95 points
45 goals, 85 points

then the gilmour trade happens and he never hits 40 goals or 80 points ever again.

His best adjusted goal scoring season is actually in Dallas in 98 and his 39 goals in 73 games translates to 45 adjusted.

the best in the 4 listed above translates to 42 goals in 89.

94-95 shortened season translates to his best scoring season at 86 points.

For the record I don't think that Joe is a HHOF guy but he also isn't the worst guy in there

 

[JianYang]

He will be in. It's just a matter of time.

Even if he doesn't reach 1000 points, he has all the window dressing to make up for it in terms of team accomplishments both in the NHL and internationally.

4 selke trophies just reinforces his reputation as an elite two way player in the game for a very long time.

It's a level of excellence that needs to be recognized based on the standards of the hhof.

 

[JianYang]

You guys are giving the HOF selection committee a lot of unwarranted credit here...

What makes you think they'd elect Bergeron and his 60-point seasons/less than 800 career points, while guys like Pat Verbeek (500 goals!!!), Bernie Nicholls (1200 points!!!), and Vinnie Damphousse (1200 points and a Cup!!!) are still awaiting the phone call?

Think of it this way, Rod Brind'Amour also won a couple Selke's, has a sterling reputation as a leader, captained a team to the Stanley Cup, and went sailing past the all-important 1000 point benchmark. And he doesn't really seem to be getting a lot of buzz as a candidate...

I do think Bergeron will get in sooner or later, but it will probably be for the singular reason that "he set the record for most Selke Trophies".

I think brindamour will get in eventually as well.

Damphousse didn't get any individual hardware that I can think of. Turgeon had a a very productive career, and everyone around him in regards to point totals is in the hall of fame, but he doesn't have individual hardware or cups either.

I think those ancilliary resume bullet points which involve hardware actually hold a significant amount of weight in getting players over the bar. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but just an observation.