David
Registered User
acr said:What do Cups have to do with anything?Having a Cup should be one of the most important criteria for being in the Hockey Hall of Fame! How can you be inducted into the Hall if you don't know how to win?
acr said:What do Cups have to do with anything?Having a Cup should be one of the most important criteria for being in the Hockey Hall of Fame! How can you be inducted into the Hall if you don't know how to win?
silver_made said:Bernie Nicholls belongs in the HHOF now!
David said:acr said:What do Cups have to do with anything?Having a Cup should be one of the most important criteria for being in the Hockey Hall of Fame! How can you be inducted into the Hall if you don't know how to win?
of course, b/c hockey is a solo sport, not a team sport, and we all know fredrik olausson, based on his 1 cup, is a greater hockey player than pat lafontaine, 0 cups.
x 10
silver_made said:of course, b/c hockey is a solo sport, not a team sport, and we all know fredrik olausson, based on his 1 cup, is a greater hockey player than pat lafontaine, 0 cups.
x 10
David said:Obviously, it's understood that the individual has to have an outstanding career first! x 10 x 10 x 10
Having a Cup isn't the only criteria since you wouldn't put someone like Mario Roberge into the Hall just because he's got a Cup...but I thought most would be smart enough to figure that out their own without someone having to spell it out for them...sheesh!
KOVALEV10 said:So let's say if Bourque hadn't won a cup his last year he wouldnt have been inducted into the hall. Same with Hasek? I dont get it. Cups are a team award nothing more nothing less.
David said:Yeah, although with the inclusion of some of the questionable names like Patty Lafontaine (who deserved it much more than Neely) the bar for induction into the Hall has been lowered significantly. Bourque's induction would have been up in there air if Bourque had not won that Cup...and Ray and many others knew it too...that's one of the reasons why it was so important for him to get the Cup even if he had to leave his beloved city Boston to do it. Even that SOB Sinden recognized it and gave Ray every chance to win the Cup by sending him to Colorado!
kruezer said:I have to disagree there, Bourque's HoF status was not in doubt, he is widely recognized as one of the 20 best players of all time, to keep him out because of having no cups would have been insane.
I really don't think that there were many arguing that Chelios was better Bourque, despite the Cup issue, Bourque was ahead in Norris' 5 - 3 during much the same time period. Bourque's the highest scoring defenseman of all time and had a stellar post season career despite not winning a cup. Chelios is not in that range, and I do not consider Chelios to be superior to Bourque defensively, he's only ahead in terms of physical play and that is not enough to justify putting him in Bourque's range.David said:You can say this now because he has that Cup under his belt and now rightfully recieve that kind of reverence and respect but until he won it, he was not regarded with such high esteem despite the fact that he was one of the best defensemen in hockey history during regular seasons.
Also, I would argue even today with your claim that Ray is one of the top 20 of all time...truthfully, there was and still is not alot separating Ray Bourque from someone like Chris Chelios...and since Chelios had won a Cup before in Montreal, at that time, many would have argued back before Ray won the Cup that Chris Chelios was greater than Ray without a Cup!
kruezer said:I really don't think that there were many arguing that Chelios was better Bourque, despite the Cup issue, Bourque was ahead in Norris' 5 - 3 during much the same time period. Bourque's the highest scoring defenseman of all time and had a stellar post season career despite not winning a cup. Chelios is not in that range, and I do not consider Chelios to be superior to Bourque defensively, he's only ahead in terms of physical play and that is not enough to justify putting him in Bourque's range.
Bourque is one of the top 3 defenseman of all time, most people recognized this, even before he had a cup. I don't think anybody is arguing that Chelios is better than Ray, cups or not.
David said:Bourque's induction would have been up in there air if Bourque had not won that Cup...and Ray and many others knew it too...that's one of the reasons why it was so important for him to get the Cup even if he had to leave his beloved city Boston to do it.
reckoning said:Brad Park never won a Stanley Cup or a Norris Trophy- he was inducted the first year he was eligible.
Borje Salming never came remotely close to winning a Stanley Cup and never won a Norris Trophy- he was inducted the first year he was eligible
Ray Bourque wins 5 Norris Trophies, yet his induction would be "up in the air" if he didn`t win a Cup????
reckoning said:Brad Park never won a Stanley Cup or a Norris Trophy- he was inducted the first year he was eligible.
Borje Salming never came remotely close to winning a Stanley Cup and never won a Norris Trophy- he was inducted the first year he was eligible
Ray Bourque wins 5 Norris Trophies, yet his induction would be "up in the air" if he didn`t win a Cup????
DKH said:David, I'm assuming your atleast early 30's and therefore had a clue when Lafontaine and Neely were playing and therefore can make a valid judgement and aren't just holding open a book looking at stats. And since your atleast 30 you understand that you couldn't find 10 people to agree what planet we live on. I have good news for you- I saw both your favorite players many times and they are deserving of the Hall- and even better news for you: by a long shot. Don't listen to all those 25 year-old Hockey Register toting know it alls who make can't think without looking at some statitistic. Put it this way- it would take you along time to find a contempory that disagreed and if so list their name. But on this board, the first teenager who has never seen either play with a stat book will say otherwise.
So who do you believe?
David said:I would disagree with you here.
During any stretch of time in the 80's or even for a big chunk of 90's if I had to choose between having Chelios on my team or Bourque on my team, I would have chosen Chelios over Bourque every time. Chelios may have not scored as much but he did score almost as much as Ray on a season by seaon basis...just not as long...and Chelios did so many other things better than Bourque.
This is not even counting the fact that Chelios was better defensively and was hell of a lot grittier but he was a better leader, he was able to play incredible amounts of time with very little rest in between, he did little things like delaying the game with deliberately breaking his stick during the last minutes of the play in a close game so that his best players can get rest so that they can be double shifted, and many and many little things that you can't see on TV but none the less are so incredibly valuable to the team!
True, Chelios aged very poorly and has stayed around too long to tarnish what he has done earlier in his career but to not recognize his greatness by saying that he's not even in Ray's range is madness!
I would bet any amount of money you have not been to or played as much hockey as me. And to be honest, your comments were so far off I can't believe you have ever seen either in their prime if at all. Ridiculous. I've been on this board for about 4 years and no post have I ever thought was more off base than yours.David said:Son, I can't even understand your last two sentence but if you are saying that I don't know my hockey because I'm not 30 yet then you would be completely wrong. I can only wish that I were 30 years old again!!!!
I'm pretty sure that I've seen much more hockey than you in my lifetime including Cam Neely and he does not belong in the Hall. PERIOD.
Good night!
reckoning said:Brad Park never won a Stanley Cup or a Norris Trophy- he was inducted the first year he was eligible.
Borje Salming never came remotely close to winning a Stanley Cup and never won a Norris Trophy- he was inducted the first year he was eligible
Ray Bourque wins 5 Norris Trophies, yet his induction would be "up in the air" if he didn`t win a Cup????
MS said:To say that Cam Neely's career is similar to that of Martin, Vaive, or Kerr because their career totals look similar is like saying that Bobby Clarke has the same claim to the HHOF as Bernie Nicholls' because their career totals are amost identical. There's more involved here than stats. And to say that Neely's career is similar to Wendel Clark's is just bizarre.
David said:Bourque's induction would have been up in there air if Bourque had not won that Cup...and Ray and many others knew it too...that's one of the reasons why it was so important for him to get the Cup even if he had to leave his beloved city Boston to do it.
btw- Happy (belated) B'day to one of the bestmcphee said:Many posts back, Trenton 1 explained how many GM's drooled and projected about the next 'Neely'. When you talk hockey with people, and some of the group is younger, Neely is one of the guys that you tell them, 'Man you should have seen Neely at his best.' He wasn't dominant for as long as B [and hockey fans] would have liked,it took him a few years to become 'Cam Neely', as it did Lafleur actually, but for a time, he was something to see. Sometimes,that has to count.
God Bless Canada said:He was one of the defining players of his generation.