My knock on the Neely thing

[John Flyers Fan]

OK, link me.

You neglected this gem right above:

The following is a brief summary of the criteria for election and election procedures applicable to nominees for Honoured Membership in the Hockey Hall of Fame. This document is an incomplete summary only and, where required, resort to the full text of By-law No. 15 (as amended by By-law No. 16).


If Al hill retired after playing his 1st NHL game, where he scored 5 points, he would have been the all-time leader in ppg, yet he wasn't getting a sniff.

Games played is a factor just like evrything else not mentioned, goals, assists, major awards, Stanley Cups, etc. etc. etc.

 

[David]

had to edit my earlier post...I said thousands of tapes...between Cam and Wendel they were lucky to get to a thousand games combined. These Neely threads would be a lot shorter if he had played a thousand games.

I do have quite a lot of hockey on tape and some of them are of Neely's and Ray's games on tape (mostly against CH!) but I do not make a habit of taping Leaf games. I find that watching too much Leaf games just suck the joy of hockey right out from under me for some reason! (I do have some Leaf games on tapes but they are only of special occasions like the '93 playoffs.)


One of these days, I'll spend some time converting them over to DVD before they all get damaged and free up some of the room that they take up...you wouldn't believe how much more room VHS tapes take up than DVDs!!!

 

[God Bless Canada]

Comparing Neely to Clark is insulting. Neely was a four-time post-season all-star who finished in the top 12 for career goals per game and 4th in playoff goals per game. He finished on top of his game. Clark was injury prone, but had only a couple really strong seasons, was never a post-season all-star, and bounced around his final years.

Comparing Neely to Kerr is even worse. They were completely different players. Kerr was an average player at five-on-five who earned his place in the game because he was virtually unstoppable on the power play. Neely was a dominant force offensively at his peak who could control the game physically and was one of the best in the world at his peak.

People who say "Neely was never the best player on his team" against him are myopic. He played with one of the 10-15 best players in NHL history. That's like saying Jari Kurri was never the best player on his team. So Cliff Ronning is more deserving of enshrinement because he was the best player on his team.

Never said Lindros was the best player in the world. I didn't dispute his Hart season in a lockout-shortened 1995, but awards for that year should be asterisked. I've said repeatedly that if he would have retired after the 1998-99 season, he'd have been a cinch for the Hall. But he hasn't done a damn thing since, has not been intimidating since then, and may have cost him his spot in the Hall with his mediocre play.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Comparing Neely to Kerr is even worse. They were completely different players. Kerr was an average player at five-on-five who earned his place in the game because he was virtually unstoppable on the power play. Neely was a dominant force offensively at his peak who could control the game physically and was one of the best in the world at his peak.

The Kerr/Neely comparison had nothing to do with stlyes of play, but upon the fact they were both great goal scorers who had their careers decimated due to injury.

 

[PB37]

You've got the wrong guy. That wasn't me. I do hope that you are a little more careful with your accusations in the future though...

I do beleive it was you. I also remember you making the claim that Razor was blaming his teammates for losing, while taking all the credit for wins. I had asked when he said this (seeing as I'm a Boston fan, and news like that would have reached my ears), which you again did not respond to.

 

[DKH]

Comparing Neely to Clark is insulting. Neely was a four-time post-season all-star who finished in the top 12 for career goals per game and 4th in playoff goals per game. He finished on top of his game. Clark was injury prone, but had only a couple really strong seasons, was never a post-season all-star, and bounced around his final years.

Comparing Neely to Kerr is even worse. They were completely different players. Kerr was an average player at five-on-five who earned his place in the game because he was virtually unstoppable on the power play. Neely was a dominant force offensively at his peak who could control the game physically and was one of the best in the world at his peak.

People who say "Neely was never the best player on his team" against him are myopic. He played with one of the 10-15 best players in NHL history. That's like saying Jari Kurri was never the best player on his team. So Cliff Ronning is more deserving of enshrinement because he was the best player on his team.

Never said Lindros was the best player in the world. I didn't dispute his Hart season in a lockout-shortened 1995, but awards for that year should be asterisked. I've said repeatedly that if he would have retired after the 1998-99 season, he'd have been a cinch for the Hall. But he hasn't done a damn thing since, has not been intimidating since then, and may have cost him his spot in the Hall with his mediocre play.

I don't venture much out of the Bruins board but you are one damn good poster. Everything I've read from you including a few things I didn't agree with is well written and thought out.

 

[arrbez]

People who say "Neely was never the best player on his team" against him are myopic. He played with one of the 10-15 best players in NHL history. That's like saying Jari Kurri was never the best player on his team. So Cliff Ronning is more deserving of enshrinement because he was the best player on his team.

agreed. i wish people would stop using that line when comparing players, it's one of my many peeves