Jeremy Roenick

decma

Registered User
Feb 6, 2013
743
375
During [Turgeon's] prime, teams regularly identified him as a problem holding the team back from becoming a winner and traded him for players with stronger intangible qualities (ie: Muller, Corson).

Additionally, he missed 20 games a season in a 6 year stretch between 27-33 yo. That's a 3rd of his career and right in the middle of his prime. It's difficult to create a legacy when you're on the shelf.

Yes, the missed games during his prime definitely hurt his legacy and HOF chances.

But re the first quoted sentence, isn't the reverse equally true?
During Turgeon's, teams regularly identified him as the piece that could make them a winner, and traded players with strong intangibles (e.g., Muller, Corson) for him.
 

mrhockey193195

Registered User
Nov 14, 2006
6,513
2,005
Denver, CO
Yes. I was talking about Modano having roughly 50 more points than Turgeon. Why does Modano get in and Turgeon doesn't?
Also I was wondering if Roenick is 2nd on the All-Time American-born scoring list.

Modano was the best skater and franchise player on a cup winner and perennial cup contender for 7 seasons or so. Roenick never took a team he "led" to cup contention (92 and 95 being the exceptions). As great of a playoff performer as Roenick was, I think that's the difference at the end of the day.
 

Danny46

Registered User
Dec 28, 2015
456
200
Modano was the best skater and franchise player on a cup winner and perennial cup contender for 7 seasons or so. Roenick never took a team he "led" to cup contention (92 and 95 being the exceptions). As great of a playoff performer as Roenick was, I think that's the difference at the end of the day.

Modano was the franchise player, but in the 1999 stanley cup run Belfour to me was the best player of the team. And in that title Belfour and Nieuwendyk were the 2 best Dallas players in the playoffs...

Roenick 1992 run to me was more impressive than any of Modano three finals runs (1991, 1999 and 2000)... Which goes to what I think, Roenick was better in both guys peak, but Modano beats him in the long run.
 

86Habs

Registered User
May 4, 2009
2,588
419
Modano was the franchise player, but in the 1999 stanley cup run Belfour to me was the best player of the team. And in that title Belfour and Nieuwendyk were the 2 best Dallas players in the playoffs...

Roenick 1992 run to me was more impressive than any of Modano three finals runs (1991, 1999 and 2000)... Which goes to what I think, Roenick was better in both guys peak, but Modano beats him in the long run.

Modano was much more important to the 1999 and 2000 Stars teams than was Nieuwendyk. In 1999 he was on the ice ~6 minutes per game more than Nieuwendyk, and ~9 minutes more in 2000. Modano was the first line center, played on the first PP unit, and played on the first PK unit. Nieuwendyk was able to capitalize on some favourable matchups and scored a bunch of timely goals, which resulted in a Smythe, but Modano was the engine of that team and quite easily the best skater on the Stars. It's very much like asking whether Anze Kopitar or Justin Williams was the best player on the 2014 Kings team (hint: it wasn't the guy who won the Smythe that year, either).

As far as Roenick goes, well, I'll give you 1991 certainly. 1992 was indeed a very strong run for Roenick. For that Blackhawks team you have Belfour (consistent excellence between 1992 and 1999/2000), and Chelios was without a doubt the big swingin' d*** on that team. I don't think there is much of a gap between Roenick 1992 and Modano in 1999/2000, to be honest. Roenick did the heavy lifting for Chicago from an offensive standpoint, because he had to (Chicago had Sutter, Graham, Noonan, etc. who carried the load defensively), but Modano was more important from an all-around, 200 foot perspective and gave Dallas a good counter-balance to Forsberg/Sakic and Fedorov/Yzerman.
 

ForsbergForever

Registered User
May 19, 2004
3,319
2,023
One wonders if his big knee injury followed by his ankle in 1996 was what permanently killed his high scoring peak. The huge divide production wise pre and post 1996 does mirror the league entry into the dead puck era but JR definitely lost a step at that point as well.
 

Passchendaele

Registered User
Dec 11, 2006
7,731
1,148
Roenick is Ciccarelli 2.0.

His controversial behavior will keep him out for a while.. but he'll eventually get in. And honestly, he wouldn't be amongst the worst inductees overall. I'd put him ahead of Tkachuk, Bondra and the likes.
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,590
15,949
Roenick is Ciccarelli 2.0.

His controversial behavior will keep him out for a while.. but he'll eventually get in. And honestly, he wouldn't be amongst the worst inductees overall. I'd put him ahead of Tkachuk, Bondra and the likes.

but those two aren’t in the hall of fame

in general i do and don’t agree with you though. yes there are way worse players in there than jr. but almost all of them are wingers. if he was in, would he be the worst post-expansion center? i think it only depends on how you evaluate carbonneau. the next worst classic offensive star centers are sittler and federko right?

but then also, i think this embarrassment of a lawsuit is going to follow him for a long long time. he really seems to be digging his in heels on the side of a culture war just doesn’t seem like is going to turn out in his favour.
 
Last edited:

Passchendaele

Registered User
Dec 11, 2006
7,731
1,148
but those two aren’t in the hall of fame

in general i do and don’t agree with you though. yes there are way worse players in there than jr. but almost all of them are wingers. if he was in, would he be the worst post-expansion center? i think it only depends on how you evaluate carbonneau. the next worst classic offensive star centers are sittler and federko right?

but then also, i think this embarrassment of a lawsuit is going to follow him for a long long time. he really seems to be digging his in heels on the side of a culture war just doesn’t seem like is going to turn out in his favour.
I'd argue Larionov is worse. But he's got the whole Soviet legacy boosting his stock.

I don't believe Sundin was better than Roenick. Might have been a bit more consistent, but that's it. If the year is 1993, I'm taking Roenick over Sundin on my team.

He peaked higher than Nieuwendyk ever did as well.
 

Voight

#winning
Feb 8, 2012
40,373
16,652
Mulberry Street
Roenick's problem is he had 4 great seasons in a row and then never reached those heights again. He was still a good player & stuck around for a long time but didn't have an elite season after his 5th year.
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,590
15,949
I'd argue Larionov is worse. But he's got the whole Soviet legacy boosting his stock.

I don't believe Sundin was better than Roenick. Might have been a bit more consistent, but that's it. If the year is 1993, I'm taking Roenick over Sundin on my team.

He peaked higher than Nieuwendyk ever did as well.

oh i forgot about nieuwendyk. roenick def was better than him.

i think i'd take roenick's '91 through '94 over the peak four years of a lot of low rung HHOF centers, including a guy like ron francis. but i think if you weigh their whole careers, i find it really hard to put him ahead of larionov or sundin, or the guys i mentioned upthread, sittler and federko. i guess lafontaine is the other low rung guy who should be in this conversation. he has 2.5 seasons way above anything most players ever accomplish but that's such an incredibly short time.
 

Hobnobs

Pinko
Nov 29, 2011
8,864
2,236
Roenick is overrated to me. Mainly because all he had was those 3 seasons with the hawks. The rest of his career he was a average or slightly above average 1st line center who took dumb penalties.
 

Ziggy Stardust

Master Debater
Jul 25, 2002
63,046
34,004
Parts Unknown
JR took a big dip in production after leaving Chicago, though he still put up some respectable numbers during the dead puck era. That said, he never won any individual or team awards and his performances representing the US Olympic Team were embarrassing, as was his tirade for being omitted from the 2006 Olympic team.
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,590
15,949
his performances representing the US Olympic Team were embarrassing

1998 was a total embarrassment for off ice reasons. i guess we don't really know for sure that he was involved in trashing that hotel room, but he certainly is the name most associated with it. i remember they called him jeremy redneck for a while after that happened.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,114
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
Looking back at Roenick's career, it's pretty solid. I think, where he gets docked some points is 1995-96 (last season in Chicago) and 1997-98 (second season in Phoenix). He missed some games in '95 (short season), and that was a weirdly low-scoring year, so his 34 points in 33 games is okay, esp. considering he was injured.

But his 1995-96 totals are harder to explain. The Hawks were still pretty good at that point, and it was the last sort-of high scoring season, so his 67 points in 66 games (matching the production of 34-year-old Bernie Nicholls) is hard to explain, given that Roenick should've been right in his prime.

I'll give him a pass for that first season in Phoenix -- he did all right, and it's the first year with a new club. But, although the DPE arrives in full force in 1997-98, his 56 point season (still only aged 28) looks rather suspect. He managed to outscore Cliff Ronning by one point and Teppo Numinen by 5.

After that, he seemed to straighten himself out and he put together three pretty solid seasons in Phoenix, leading the club in scoring every year.

His three seasons in Philly before the Lock-Out are easy to dismiss, but, ya know, the first year he scored 67 points in 75 games and went +32. That was a good team, and he was first on it in assists, points, and plus/minus despite being past his prime. And despite his forgettable point totals, he also led that team in scoring the next year, too!

So, I'm just saying, it's not really a case of "he was great for a few years in Chicago and then nothing". But I'm still left wondering where he was in 1995-96 and 1997-98. He was still in his prime both seasons and didn't play like an All Star.
 
  • Like
Reactions: buffalowing88

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
but those two aren’t in the hall of fame

in general i do and don’t agree with you though. yes there are way worse players in there than jr. but almost all of them are wingers. if he was in, would he be the worst post-expansion center? i think it only depends on how you evaluate carbonneau. the next worst classic offensive star centers are sittler and federko right?

but then also, i think this embarrassment of a lawsuit is going to follow him for a long long time. he really seems to be digging his in heels on the side of a culture war just doesn’t seem like is going to turn out in his favour.

I don't think Roenick should have been talking about such personal things in his life, that isn't my style, but I also think there is this punishment we have for wanting colourful athletes and then shunning them the second they make off colour remarks.

I didn't actually hear the podcast he was on, I just saw the quotes, but my question is, was he being goaded into saying some controversial things? Was it one of those "man to man" type of heat of the moment discussions that you would talk with your buddies about behind closed doors and he just forgot for a second that he was on air?

The reason I say this is because I've seen Wayne Gretzky on Howard Stern before and those two couldn't be more different. Howard purposely says shocking things and even during that interview I remember him on multiple occasions talking about how attractive Janet was and hoping to goad Gretzky into a more intimate conversation about her. Gretzky didn't bite, he just sort of seemed to take it as a strange compliment, but the point is that could have easily turned into sharing something he could regret.

On the ice, I always have Roenick as one of the best players not in, but just slightly below the bar. If there was a King for the Hall of Good, he's there.
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,590
15,949
I don't think Roenick should have been talking about such personal things in his life, that isn't my style, but I also think there is this punishment we have for wanting colourful athletes and then shunning them the second they make off colour remarks.

I didn't actually hear the podcast he was on, I just saw the quotes, but my question is, was he being goaded into saying some controversial things? Was it one of those "man to man" type of heat of the moment discussions that you would talk with your buddies about behind closed doors and he just forgot for a second that he was on air?

The reason I say this is because I've seen Wayne Gretzky on Howard Stern before and those two couldn't be more different. Howard purposely says shocking things and even during that interview I remember him on multiple occasions talking about how attractive Janet was and hoping to goad Gretzky into a more intimate conversation about her. Gretzky didn't bite, he just sort of seemed to take it as a strange compliment, but the point is that could have easily turned into sharing something he could regret.

On the ice, I always have Roenick as one of the best players not in, but just slightly below the bar. If there was a King for the Hall of Good, he's there.

i’m not going to adjudicate who does or does not get censured for what or why or how.

but i do suggest you listen to those comments in context. i don’t listen to that podcast but tracked it down when the jr thing went down because i had a lot of the same questions as you. and let me just say it was very. very. surprising.

that clearly is a boys being boys shock jock show. their whole popularity is based on crossing some perceived line. and through the whole story, which jr tells for like ten minutes, theyw ere trying to change the subject, talk him down, deflect. “hey jr, let’s remember this is a coworker” is an actual thing one of them said to him. and he keeps waving them off, going no no this is gonna be awesome.

but i tthink the bigger picture here is he’s taking this opportunity right now to dig his heels deeper into the grave he dug for himself. i mean, suing nbc for “straight discrimination”? it’s like he’s trying to get himself canceled.
 

Yozhik v tumane

Registered User
Jan 2, 2019
1,797
1,879
I agree with the notion that within its context, Roenick’s comments sounded even worse. He wasn’t being baited, he just joined the podcast pumped for the opportunity and fully committed to being one of the boys. I couldn’t believe it when he started babbling about the vacation with Tapper, and for how long he went on despite the hosts‘ attempts at diverting and saving him.

What an idiot, but what’s even worse is this lawsuit. People make mistakes, I think he could have amended this one if he had just accepted that he’d gone way out of line and that the NBC was in the right to fire him — instead he goes from stunningly stupid to incredibly dumb with the lawsuit and comments on him being discriminated, losing most of what goodwill many might have had left for him. As several have commented in this thread, he wouldn’t have been the weakest inductee in the HHOF, but I feel that now he’s clowning himself out of consideration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ORHawksFan

buffalowing88

Registered User
Aug 11, 2008
4,274
1,716
Charlotte, NC
Looking back at Roenick's career, it's pretty solid. I think, where he gets docked some points is 1995-96 (last season in Chicago) and 1997-98 (second season in Phoenix). He missed some games in '95 (short season), and that was a weirdly low-scoring year, so his 34 points in 33 games is okay, esp. considering he was injured.

But his 1995-96 totals are harder to explain. The Hawks were still pretty good at that point, and it was the last sort-of high scoring season, so his 67 points in 66 games (matching the production of 34-year-old Bernie Nicholls) is hard to explain, given that Roenick should've been right in his prime.

I'll give him a pass for that first season in Phoenix -- he did all right, and it's the first year with a new club. But, although the DPE arrives in full force in 1997-98, his 56 point season (still only aged 28) looks rather suspect. He managed to outscore Cliff Ronning by one point and Teppo Numinen by 5.

After that, he seemed to straighten himself out and he put together three pretty solid seasons in Phoenix, leading the club in scoring every year.

His three seasons in Philly before the Lock-Out are easy to dismiss, but, ya know, the first year he scored 67 points in 75 games and went +32. That was a good team, and he was first on it in assists, points, and plus/minus despite being past his prime. And despite his forgettable point totals, he also led that team in scoring the next year, too!

So, I'm just saying, it's not really a case of "he was great for a few years in Chicago and then nothing". But I'm still left wondering where he was in 1995-96 and 1997-98. He was still in his prime both seasons and didn't play like an All Star.

Very nuanced analysis. I think I can at least give some insight in terms of why he didn't catch on, even initially, with Phoenix. In a Spittin Chiclet's episode last year, he continued to refer to Tkachuk ss "the captain". Never gave a whole lot of insight into why that was but he was absolutely detrimental to the bigger alpha in the room. When Roenick joined Philly, he was supposed to become that alpha but it was never in his making. Doesn't make him a bad player, but he's also not Hall of Fame player in my mind. He's in my top 10 for most talented US born players, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ORHawksFan

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->