Most Overrated Forward Of All-Time?

[MS]

Gordie Howe is the most overrated forward of all time. He's a decent player who for some reason is named as one of the all time greats simply because he played 500 years of pro hockey.

Ignorant statement.

Gordie Howe from 1950-1954 turned in the most dominant stretch of hockey from any forward in the past 70 years aside from Gretzky. He was the best goalscorer in the game, the best playmaker, the toughest player, and one of the best defensive players all at once. If anything, his longevitity and toughness are talked about far too much, and his sheer offensive dominance not enough.

_________

As for the most over-rated forward, I don't know if he's the *most* over-rated but I'll nominate an unusual suspect and say Gilbert Perreault. Great player, but I don't know if he was any better than, say, Mats Sundin. Only scored more than 90 points 4 times in 16 seasons while playing in a very offensive era with very good linemates.

Jean Ratelle and his dreadful playoff record also deserve a mention.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Ignorant statement.

Gordie Howe from 1950-1954 turned in the most dominant stretch of hockey from any forward in the past 70 years aside from Gretzky. He was the best goalscorer in the game, the best playmaker, the toughest player, and one of the best defensive players all at once. If anything, his longevitity and toughness are talked about far too much, and his sheer offensive dominance not enough.

_________

As for the most over-rated forward, I don't know if he's the *most* over-rated but I'll nominate an unusual suspect and say Gilbert Perreault. Great player, but I don't know if he was any better than, say, Mats Sundin. Only scored more than 90 points 4 times in 16 seasons while playing in a very offensive era with very good linemates.

Jean Ratelle and his dreadful playoff record also deserve a mention.

Uh, Gilbert Perreault's linemates were not "Very good".

The french connection line was run by Perreault. Rene Robert and Rick Martin were decent, but they were bottom tier first liners on any other team. Guys who put up 60-65 points by themselves, and only became 80-90 point scorers a few times because of the offensive brilliance of Perreault. I respect them as players, but Perreault was the key that made them something more. Robert deserves some credit for his more complete game, but that's it. Martin was a sniper, with nothing else really to his game

Jean Ratelle's playoff record is not that bad. Not sure why you think so. He is a far step ahead of, say, Dionne. his final years in Boston were terrific playoff wise. He simply had the misfortune of playing against some very powerful Habs, Bruins, Islanders and Flyer teams. He was never in the right place at the right time, which is really what it takes to win cups, but he performed brilliantly when the chips were down.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Alexander Daigle - I don't know if he would fall under overrated or overhyped or both.

Overhyped

 

[MS]

Uh, Gilbert Perreault's linemates were not "Very good".

The french connection line was run by Perreault. Rene Robert and Rick Martin were decent, but they were bottom tier first liners on any other team. Guys who put up 60-65 points by themselves, and only became 80-90 point scorers a few times because of the offensive brilliance of Perreault. I respect them as players, but Perreault was the key that made them something more. Robert deserves some credit for his more complete game, but that's it. Martin was a sniper, with nothing else really to his game

Well, Martin was a hell of a sniper, probably the best natural goalscorer in the game in the mid-1970s. If you were a playmaking center, he was *the* guy to have on your line at the time. Yes, he was 'very good', better than 'decent'. Would probably have pushed 600 goals for his career if it wasn't cut short at the age of 28.

Rene Robert went to Colorado after leaving Buffalo. Past his prime, on a garbage Colorado team that didn't have another forward with more than 50 points, he ran away with the team scoring lead with 63 points in 69 games. Would have outscored the rest of his team by 20+ points if he'd have stayed healthy. Fairly strong evidence that he was more than a '60-point, low-end first liner' by himself.

They weren't Bossy and Gillies, but they were very good players.

I recognize that Perreault was an excellent offensive player, but I think he ranks behind a player like Peter Stastny. He just didn't put up the string of dominant offensive seasons that his reputation would suggest he did. In fact, take the best 5-seasons stretch of his career, and it isnt't really any better than Rick Middleton's, who was a better defensive player.

Jean Ratelle's playoff record is not that bad. Not sure why you think so. He is a far step ahead of, say, Dionne. his final years in Boston were terrific playoff wise. He simply had the misfortune of playing against some very powerful Habs, Bruins, Islanders and Flyer teams. He was never in the right place at the right time, which is really what it takes to win cups, but he performed brilliantly when the chips were down.

Ratelle's playoff performance for NYR from '65-75 is probably the worst playoff record ever for an elite player who was playing for a very good team. 9-33-42 in 65 games for a guy who was averaging roughly 35 goals and 90 points/season over that stretch. Brutal.

His record with Boston *looks* better, on paper. But closer inspection (which someone did, a year ago) shows that he torched crap teams - like the LA Kings, one year - in the early rounds, but continued his record of no-showing against good teams when it mattered later in the playoffs.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Well, Martin was a hell of a sniper, probably the best natural goalscorer in the game in the mid-1970s. If you were a playmaking center, he was *the* guy to have on your line at the time. Yes, he was 'very good', better than 'decent'. Would probably have pushed 600 goals for his career if it wasn't cut short at the age of 28.

Rene Robert went to Colorado after leaving Buffalo. Past his prime, on a garbage Colorado team that didn't have another forward with more than 50 points, he ran away with the team scoring lead with 63 points in 69 games. Would have outscored the rest of his team by 20+ points if he'd have stayed healthy. Fairly strong evidence that he was more than a '60-point, low-end first liner' by himself.

They weren't Bossy and Gillies, but they were very good players.

I recognize that Perreault was an excellent offensive player, but I think he ranks behind a player like Peter Stastny. He just didn't put up the string of dominant offensive seasons that his reputation would suggest he did. In fact, take the best 5-seasons stretch of his career, and it isnt't really any better than Rick Middleton's, who was a better defensive player.

Well, obviously he is behind Stastny. Stastny to running neck and neck with Dionne.

I disagree with you assessments on Martin and Robert. I watched them play a lot. Perreault ran that line completely. Without him, neither player ever hits 80.

Robert getting injured is inconsequential. He failed to deliver over 65 points without Perreault, and yes he did have an excellent player for over half the year in Lanny MacDonald(Who ended up with 40 goals on the year after a string of 85-93 point seasons), and for the record, Robert missed most of those games before MacDonald arrived.

Ratelle's playoff performance for NYR from '65-75 is probably the worst playoff record ever for an elite player who was playing for a very good team. 9-33-42 in 65 games for a guy who was averaging roughly 35 goals and 90 points/season over that stretch. Brutal.

His record with Boston *looks* better, on paper. But closer inspection (which someone did, a year ago) shows that he torched crap teams - like the LA Kings, one year - in the early rounds, but continued his record of no-showing against good teams when it mattered later in the playoffs.

I would like to see this inspection. Link please?

I personally based on the experience of watching them, do not think that Rangers team was as good as the top 3 teams of the time. The Bruins teams, Montreal teams and Flyer teams far exceeded them in talent and depth by my eyes.

I see why you would hit him for playoff performance, but I don't think he was as bad as, say, Dionne. Especially given his two way talents.

Now, it should be noted, I do not think he is a top 120 player. I just don't think he is overrated either. He was never considered "The man" to begin with.

I would like to see this "inspection" that you say someone made. Probably like the one Hockey Outsider did on Dionne. Link please?

 

[flyguy1234*]

Jiri Dopita

 

[MS]

Well, obviously he is behind Stastny. Stastny to running neck and neck with Dionne.

I disagree with you assessments on Martin and Robert. I watched them play a lot. Perreault ran that line completely. Without him, neither player ever hits 80.

Robert getting injured is inconsequential. He failed to deliver over 65 points without Perreault, and yes he did have an excellent player for over half the year in Lanny MacDonald(Who ended up with 40 goals on the year after a string of 85-93 point seasons), and for the record, Robert missed most of those games before MacDonald arrived.

Didn't see Stastny on the HOH list. My mistake.

But I'd also rate Perreault similarly to Dale Hawerchuk or Denis Savard. Or Mats Sundin.

He wasn't a great all-around player, didn't kill penalties until very late in his career, and didn't have the number of dominant 100 point/top-5 in scoring seasons that his reputation would suggest. Absolutely a great player. But I think he might be rated a notch higher than he deserves to be.

In any case, it was a name I tossed out there mainly to create discussion.

I would like to see this inspection. Link please?

I personally based on the experience of watching them, do not think that Rangers team was as good as the top 3 teams of the time. The Bruins teams, Montreal teams and Flyer teams far exceeded them in talent and depth by my eyes.

I see why you would hit him for playoff performance, but I don't think he was as bad as, say, Dionne. Especially given his two way talents.

Now, it should be noted, I do not think he is a top 120 player. I just don't think he is overrated either. He was never considered "The man" to begin with.

I would like to see this "inspection" that you say someone made. Probably like the one Hockey Outsider did on Dionne. Link please?

It is hockey outsider, but in a thread on Ratelle :

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=401070

Basically, in the 1976 and 1977 playoffs, Ratelle posted 22 points in 13 games against the very mediocre LA Kings. He did have a very good series against Philly in 1977, but in the two series where Boston was eliminated by Philly in '76 and Montreal in '77, he posted 1-4-5 in 9 games. Overall, 11 points in 13 games against non-LA.

Is it brutal? No, not really. But it isn't very good. In order to exhonerate himself from his awful performances as a Ranger, he needed to post some big series against good teams late in the playoffs for Boston. And lighting up the LA Kings just doesn't count, for me.

And make no mistake - his performance as a Ranger was terrible. Those were some very good Ranger teams (the best NYR clubs since 1940 excluding the 1994 blip), Ratelle was the top offensive player, and he absolutely bombed when it mattered. And I consider that far worse than Dionne, who spent his career on teams that were roadkill for President's Trophy winners. Ratelle failed on teams that should have actually done something.

And they were right there with Montreal and Boston. Between 1967-68 and 1972-73, NYR finished 2nd in the NHL 3 times and 3rd twice in 6 years. Ratelle's no-show in 1971 as they lost to Chicago was especially painful, since the dominant Bruins were already eliminated.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Gordie Howe is the most overrated forward of all time. He's a decent player who for some reason is named as one of the all time greats simply because he played 500 years of pro hockey.

I'm curious where/when this myth started. A lot of people have been posting comments like this recently. Anyway, this remains one of the most factually incorrect myths on HFBoards.

Two great posters have already responded but I'll add my take on this. "Decent"? Howe, in his prime, was as dominant as Lemieux and he was healthy enough to play at an elite level for two decades. It's not an either/or situation -- some players really can be healthy and dominant.

I'd say that these accomplishments indicate that Howe was better than "decent" (HOH regulars skip this, there's absolutely nothing new here):

• He won six Hart trophies, as many as Orr and Lemieux combined, and second only to Gretzky
• He was a Hart trophy finalist (top three) 13 times, more than any player in history
• He won six Art Ross trophies, more than anybody aside from Gretzky
• Not only did Howe win six AR trophies, he had a stunning margin of victory. His average margin was 20%. In his best years he was averaging a 30% margin of victory, a margin that only Gretzky beat consistently.
• He finished in the top five in scoring 20 times, more than any player in history
• He led the playoffs in scoring six times, tied (with Gretzky) for the all-time record
• He led the league in goals five times, more than anybody (tied) aside from Hull & Esposito
• He led the league in assists three times, more than anybody (tied) aside from Gretzky & Orr
• He was a first-team all-star 12 times (more than any forward in history) and was a first- or second-team all-star 21 times (more than any player in history)
• He had tough competition: when he won the Art Ross he beat Richard (x3), Lindsay (x2) and Bathgate; when he won the Hart he beat Beliveau, Hull, Mikita, Bathgate, Lach and Rollins. Every player except Rollins is a Hall of Famer and everyone is both on The Hockey News and the history forum's top 100 list
• He was a good defensive player and a tough, aggressive hitter

It might be a good idea to make a comprehensive, consolidated "Gordie Howe defense post" so we can direct newcomers to it when necessary.

 

[Horseradish]

Sittler. If he weren't in Toronto, and it weren't for that 10 point game, he'd be an after thought. As it is, he's still nowhere near the top for most people. HOF is a stretch for him, in my books.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Sittler. If he weren't in Toronto, and it weren't for that 10 point game, he'd be an after thought. As it is, he's still nowhere near the top for most people. HOF is a stretch for him, in my books.

I would be interested in what you think of Lanny Macdonald then. Also a HOFer who rode shotgun many years with Sittler, and was clearly a tier below.

 

[pappyline]

I would be interested in what you think of Lanny Macdonald then. Also a HOFer who rode shotgun many years with Sittler, and was clearly a tier below.

IMO, Both are over-rated. Being a "good" player on a mediocre Leaf team seems to add to the legend,

 

[Stonefly]

IMO, Both are over-rated. Being a "good" player on a mediocre Leaf team seems to add to the legend,

Completely agree.

 

[MXD]

Somebody can correct this...

But players from Sittler's era who had that kind of career numbers, they're like, pretty much ALL in the HHOF, right?


McDonald and Sittler played their career when 1000 pts made you a lock for the HHOF.

This said, I'll name two guys from that era who were exactly on McDonald's pace (PPG) throughout their career, but finished a bit short of 1000 points, because they retired early (or were somewhat overrated...) : Tom Lysiak and Ken Hodge. If somebody really think of them as HHOF'ers, well...

Oh, Hodge have more cups than McDonald, and was a bit more relevant than McDonald during his two cup runs.

But in that era, 1000 pts made you an moral lock for HHOF... I guess.

 

[cmb63]

Doug Weight and Petr Nedved

 

[MXD]

Doug Weight and Petr Nedved

Ouch, completely disgressing on Doug Weight, though I cannot give a better reason than where he was picked in the last ATD.

It's not like anybody thinks he's a Top-200 player...

 

[czechmate25]

I believe Jagr would have been a dominant player in any era. Sure his strength has always been an asset while fighting off two or three players that are holding and hooking him up and down the ice. However, if the NHL actually enforced holding, hooking, interference, etc. during Jagr's prime, it would have just been all the more difficult to get the puck away from him. I don't see how his strength, balance, speed, puck-handling, passing, and shooting wouldn't translate into dominance in any era. Besides Lemieux, I'm not sure there has been a more skilled forward than Jagr, and even Lemieux quit the "garage league" for it's lack of rules enforcement.

You are really stretching the facts here. Jagr wasn't as good earlier in the '90s, because he was still developing as a player. You act like the NHL stopped calling penalties to make Jagr a dominant player. Somehow I don't think they held a private meeting with him, where he told them to not call any penalties on opposing players, so he would have to bull his way through three players at a time and get constantly held, slashed, tripped, hooked, etc. If the league was favoring a style for a particular player, it was Lindros, who the league wanted to promote (like Crosby today), and not Jagr.

If Jagr played in the '80s, he would have been skating around defenders more than through them, then proceeded to beat the goalies like rented goalies.

....+1

 

[tony d]

Mark Messier

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

But, I think the idealization of the Bure or Savard type as goal scorers is more of a YouTube creation. The best goal scorers are about positioning, release, power and accuracy. Another key is knowing WHEN to shoot and when not to.

i think bure is overrated by many and underrated by many others. certainly, he was a far better goal scorer than denis savard, who more of a set-up guy and never hit 50. savard did, however, score some amazing highlight reel goals.

bure, on the other hand, was much more than the highlight reel goals. he had one of the greatest wrist shots ever, and is one of the top 15 goal scorers of all time, if not top 10. incredibly heavy shot, which he could get off while off balance or in mid-stride, great timing, incredibly accurate... sure, he couldn't do things that esposito or kerr could do, but they couldn't score the way bure scored either. i could quote you stats, things like his GPG average, which is fourth all time, behind bossy, lemieux, and ovechkin (the only other players to average 50 goals/80 games), or the fact that he scored at least 50 goals in every season he played 70 or more games, or his 58 goals in '99-'00 when no one else scored 45, and we could argue all day about the significance of the numbers (for example, he is 7th all time in playoff GPG, but that's probably a much less valid stat than his regular season GPG). but in his era, i didn't see anyone better than bure.

obviously, he was one-dimensional. i'm not arguing that. but his status as one of the all-time great goal scorers is not "youtube creation." who was a better goal scorer? richard, bobby hull, bossy, gretzky, and lemieux are givens. but after that? howe, esposito, brett hull probably, and maybe lafleur and kurri. i don't think ovechkin is quite there yet, though his 65 goals last year was pretty close to bure's 58 and 59 from '99-'01. but i don't see many others, assuming we can all agree that guys like geoffrion, mahovlich, shutt, martin, dionne, goulet, kerr, neely, robitaille, and selanne are a step below.

 

[Shareefruck]

Whoever said Yzerman deserves to be shot, IMO. If anything he's a bit underrated, considering that purely points-wise he's already among the best, and for whatever reason while his leadership, professionalism, all-around game, and ridiculous work ethic/drive is constantly talked about, nobody seems to think it's enough to boost him up a couple notches higher than that. Personally I think that Yzerman is by far the best off-ice player (if that makes sense) in the league while also being an absolutely ridiculous on-ice player. Even now that he's retired, his presence is affecting the Redwings in a significant and positive way.

and I agree with Gretzky being a bit overrated if not very. Obviously it's not as bad at HF (although I'm not entirely convinced of this statement), but FAR too many people treat him like no player could even TOUCH him at any point in his career. People DON'T just consider him the player with by far the best career (which he is by far), they treat him as though nobody in their prime could even be half the player that Gretzky was in his, they treat him like he dominates and is unstoppable within every facet of the game.

In their prime, Orr was without a doubt a better player than Gretzky, IMO, and would be considered so if he were to play a full career. Lemieux is also in that area, although I won't go as far as to say that he'd be easily better, but they are certainly in around the same ballpark and wasn't far behind. The way people talked about Gretzky, you would think he was Orr, Lemieux, Gretzky, and Howe combined into a god.

 

[dcinroc]

i think bure is overrated by many and underrated by many others. certainly, he was a far better goal scorer than denis savard, who more of a set-up guy and never hit 50. savard did, however, score some amazing highlight reel goals.

bure, on the other hand, was much more than the highlight reel goals. he had one of the greatest wrist shots ever, and is one of the top 15 goal scorers of all time, if not top 10. incredibly heavy shot, which he could get off while off balance or in mid-stride, great timing, incredibly accurate... sure, he couldn't do things that esposito or kerr could do, but they couldn't score the way bure scored either. i could quote you stats, things like his GPG average, which is fourth all time, behind bossy, lemieux, and ovechkin (the only other players to average 50 goals/80 games), or the fact that he scored at least 50 goals in every season he played 70 or more games, or his 58 goals in '99-'00 when no one else scored 45, and we could argue all day about the significance of the numbers (for example, he is 7th all time in playoff GPG, but that's probably a much less valid stat than his regular season GPG). but in his era, i didn't see anyone better than bure.

obviously, he was one-dimensional. i'm not arguing that. but his status as one of the all-time great goal scorers is not "youtube creation." who was a better goal scorer? richard, bobby hull, bossy, gretzky, and lemieux are givens. but after that? howe, esposito, brett hull probably, and maybe lafleur and kurri. i don't think ovechkin is quite there yet, though his 65 goals last year was pretty close to bure's 58 and 59 from '99-'01. but i don't see many others, assuming we can all agree that guys like geoffrion, mahovlich, shutt, martin, dionne, goulet, kerr, neely, robitaille, and selanne are a step below.

I agree with you.

I think you misinterpreted what I meant. I didn't mean that Bure's skills or talent were simply YouTube illusions. I was trying to address those who put players such as Savard and Bure on a pedestal based on their YouTube highlights. The key word in my statement is "idealization".

Having great moves is nice...but it is one weapon in the goal scorer's arsenal, and not the most important one.

I love Lafler, and he could skate and stickhandle far better than Mike Bossy...but I'd still say Bossy was a much better goal scorer than Lafleur.

 

[mrzeigler]

If Lindros wouldn't have been suffering from his injuries we would be talking about him in th same sentence as the alltime greats.

I agree. Lindros is by far the greatest player who never learned to skate with his head up.

If you're going to blame his injuries for shortening his career, take it a step further and note that a flaw in his game (and not a "good" flaw, such as being overly physical or overly aggressive) was largely responsible for that.

 

[dcinroc]

I agree. Lindros is by far the greatest player who never learned to skate with his head up.

If you're going to blame his injuries for shortening his career, take it a step further and note that a flaw in his game (and not a "good" flaw, such as being overly physical or overly aggressive) was largely responsible for that.

While I agree with you, I'd also say that shots to head like that are a fairly recent phenomenon.

In the past, players would generally hip check you or target your shoulder/chest area. They'd actively avoid going for your head even if you were looking down or looking in another direction. Plus, shoulder pads were much softer and could actually help cushion the impact rather than become a weapon.

Until the 90s, I can't recall ever seeing a player get knocked unconscious (though I'd seen a few get rattled pretty good) and I watched games fanatically from the late 70s on. I'm sure somebody might know of some examples, but I don't.

 

[ZDH]

Mark Messier

thats what I said to myself before even opening this thread...

 

[mrzeigler]

I agree: I mean, it's not like he won 6 League MVP's or 6 Scoring Titles or anything.

Yes, and we know that voters get everything right, especially 1988-89 MVP votes.

Lemieux - 85G, 199P in 76 games.
Gretzky - 54G, 168P in 78 games.

Yet Gretzky gets the MVP. To paraphrase Mario: "W T F?!"

This perfectly illustrates the "Gretzky is God and we don't dare consider anyone else" mindset of many hockey people.

Correct this travesty and suddenly we have a much-closer Hart Trophy discussion, with Gretzky's long, relatively healthy career with 5 and Lemieux and his injury-riddle career with 4. (edit: oops, bad info based on Agent Dale Cooper's bad info ... but I kept it in so the following post makes sense.)

 

[mrzeigler]

While I agree with you, I'd also say that shots to head like that are a fairly recent phenomenon.

In the past, players would generally hip check you or target your shoulder/chest area. They'd actively avoid going for your head even if you were looking down or looking in another direction. Plus, shoulder pads were much softer and could actually help cushion the impact rather than become a weapon.

Until the 90s, I can't recall ever seeing a player get knocked unconscious (though I'd seen a few get rattled pretty good) and I watched games fanatically from the late 70s on. I'm sure somebody might know of some examples, but I don't.

Good point. Had Lindros come along 15 years earlier, things might have been different.