OK, which is fine for someone in the 20's of top players of all-time. Aside from team accomplishments most of which were won with the greatest ever, I see no reason for him to be in the conversation of the top 10. Or to say being in the 20's is being "underappreciated".
3rd all time in points, 2nd in playoff points. Granted, 5 of the top 6 all time playoff points played on the dynasty Oilers teams.
And I get it, points and team accomplishments alone don’t tell the full story. I mean Ron Francis isn’t in that conversation for the best handful to ever play and hockey is the ultimate team sport. I just think when you look at everything Messier brought to the table he likely gets under appreciated historically.
Shore and Howe are praised for their physical edge and competitive ruthlessness, as is Richard when he was angry to a lesser extent. Messier has more of a “goon” tag than the former, and that diminishes how he impacted the game.
His all time ranking amongst fairly knowledgeable historians seems just off, and I’m guilty of it too. Obviously his legacy is hurt by the utter disaster that his Vancouver stint was. In the 20s just seems like an under appreciation for an all time great.
Like I said, I have him in the 12-16 range and when you think about the body of work it’s somewhat puzzling. If nothing else, it’s interesting to contemplate and reflect on his place in history. I appreciate the debate.
Anyways, the trophy is ridiculous but so is saying (not you in particular) “Messier is a joke and his name shouldn’t be associated with leadership”
