NHL.com Super 16 No. 1 picks since 1980

[ninetyeight]

It's funny how he was on Quebec? Which was funnier his 103 point season or his 85 point season? If this makes you laugh you must be a happy guy.

I think his point was that they never played together in the NHL. When Forsberg made his NHL debut Sundin was already a leaf. For what it's worth I think he should also be higher on the list, but how do you even compare different eras and lengthy careers to active young players.

 

[FerrisRox]

It's funny how he was on Quebec? Which was funnier his 103 point season or his 85 point season? If this makes you laugh you must be a happy guy.

No, it's funny because Sundin and Forsberg never played together Quebec.

 

[BlueBaron]

No, it's funny because Sundin and Forsberg never played together Quebec.

Trying soo hard for a win. Does this petty point demonstrate Mats did not score more in Quebec or are you just desperate for some kind of victory?

Clearly you need a win, you sure showed me. Man I am humiliates. Please don't tell all your friends I referenced Quebec's franchise player when discussing an era over 20 years ago....oh the shame.

Gotta say when you win you win big!

 

[Peter Sidorkiewicz]

Kovalchuk in his prime is a better player than Modano.

He should be 6th.

 

[Fataldogg]

NHL.com is obsessed with Fleury. They named him goalie of the decade over Lundqvist, and now rank him in front of players like Stamkos, Turgeon, Matthew's, etc. He will be voted in first ballot and Lundqvist, Rask and Price will be on the outside looking in.

Yes, he won Cups on absolutely stacked teams. So did Osgood, and Osgood never had this level of acclaim in the NHL.

 

[FerrisRox]

Trying soo hard for a win. Does this petty point demonstrate Mats did not score more in Quebec or are you just desperate for some kind of victory?

Clearly you need a win, you sure showed me. Man I am humiliates. Please don't tell all your friends I referenced Quebec's franchise player when discussing an era over 20 years ago....oh the shame.

Gotta say when you win you win big!

A win of what? What are you talking about?

But if the "win" comes from pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about, well you also claimed he had 103 point season... something he never did... or maybe that was the year he and Forsberg played on a line together with the Nordiques?

 

[LeafsNation75]

A win of what? What are you talking about?

But if the "win" comes from pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about, well you also claimed he had 103 point season... something he never did... or maybe that was the year he and Forsberg played on a line together with the Nordiques?

Sundin had 114 points with Quebec in the 1992-93 season.

Mats Sundin Hockey Stats and Profile at hockeydb.com

 

[FerrisRox]

Sundin had 114 points with Quebec in the 1992-93 season.

Mats Sundin Hockey Stats and Profile at hockeydb.com

Why are you telling me this? I'm not the one that got it wrong, he is.

 

[LeafsNation75]

Why are you telling me this? I'm not the one that got it wrong, he is.

I didn't see you mention Sundin's 114 point season, because I thought you didn't know about it.

 

[Roof Daddy]

There is no way Lindros should be lower than 6th. He was an absolute force and the best player in the league for a good 3 year stretch. I think you could make a case to put him as high as 4th (I think they got the first 3 right for sure, with McDavid knocking on the door, but possessing the smaller resume currently).

I know it would be a weird way to evaluate his placement, but I’d use 2 occurrences to support higher placement for Lindros:

1) The guy made Team Canada (Canada Cup) as an 18 year old and finished 6th on the team in scoring (behind only Gretzky, Larmer, Messier, Coffey and MacInnis - all future Hall of Famers playing in their prime).

2) The bidding war/trade ransom that he created between the Flyers and Rangers that saw the return package exceed what Gretzky was traded for - before ever having set foot in the NHL.


I think it’s a unique measuring stick to truly reflect how highly sought his skill set was. And for a brief period of time, he lived up to expectations.

 

[yeaher]

Fleury and Hawerchuk seem way too high.

That's unfair to Hawerchuk guy put up a huge individual career.

 

[yeaher]

There is no way Lindros should be lower than 6th. He was an absolute force and the best player in the league for a good 3 year stretch. I think you could make a case to put him as high as 4th (I think they got the first 3 right for sure, with McDavid knocking on the door, but possessing the smaller resume currently).

I know it would be a weird way to evaluate his placement, but I’d use 2 occurrences to support higher placement for Lindros:

1) The guy made Team Canada (Canada Cup) as an 18 year old and finished 6th on the team in scoring (behind only Gretzky, Larmer, Messier, Coffey and MacInnis - all future Hall of Famers playing in their prime).

2) The bidding war/trade ransom that he created between the Flyers and Rangers that saw the return package exceed what Gretzky was traded for - before ever having set foot in the NHL.


I think it’s a unique measuring stick to truly reflect how highly sought his skill set was. And for a brief period of time, he lived up to expectations.

Lindros was the best player in the league during shortened 94-95 season, he was never the best player in the league before that time, and he was never the best after that time. The reason he was the best in that season was because Lemieux didn't play. The next two seasons Lemieux returned and was far better putting up numbers Lindros couldn't get near, and on top of that players like Jagr, Sakic, and Forsberg were better. After 97 Lemieux retired, so wasn't in the league, he came back in December 2000 and was immediately better than Lindros. But in that time, Jagr, Forsberg, and Kariya were superior players to Lindros.

 

[Rebels57]

Hawerchuk over Lindros?

Not a f***ing chance.

Modano vs. Lindros is a more interesting conversation, but it's still Lindros.

 

[FerrisRox]

There is no way Lindros should be lower than 6th. He was an absolute force and the best player in the league for a good 3 year stretch.

Out of curiosity, what three years do you consider him the best player in the league?

I only had him as the top player in the league in the lockout shortened year.

 

[Roof Daddy]

Out of curiosity, what three years do you consider him the best player in the league?

I only had him as the top player in the league in the lockout shortened year.

I think you could make a case for his season in 93-94, as well as 97-98 and 98-99. Maybe I overvalue physical presence, but I’ll take his physicality and toughness over an extra 15-20 points that comes with little to no physical presence.

But I suppose most will disagree.

 

[FerrisRox]

I think you could make a case for his season in 93-94, as well as 97-98 and 98-99. Maybe I overvalue physical presence, but I’ll take his physicality and toughness over an extra 15-20 points that comes with little to no physical presence.

But I suppose most will disagree.

Jagr outscored him by 34 points in 1998-99 and he certainly was no push over physically. I really don't think there's any credible way to argue that Lindros was the best player in the league that year.

In 1997-98 I'm not sure if he was even a top 20 scorer in the league.

EDIT: Just checked he was 20th in league scoring. Jagr outscored him by 30 points. I definitely have Jagr as the best player in the league in both of those years.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

I feel like Joe Thornton should be number 6, Lindros number 7. After that, the rest of the list looks pretty good, though I imagine some of the younger guys will rise up the ranks as their careers progress and they accumulate accolades.

Joe Thornton will be underrated until after he retires.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Lindros over Thornton because he picked a fight and beat him up when he was still basically a kid, or the 3-5 year prime where Lindros was somewhere near the hype they created for him?? It can't be for much else.

 

[StumpyTown]

Hawerchuk over Lindros?

Not a f***ing chance.

Modano vs. Lindros is a more interesting conversation, but it's still Lindros.

Hawerchuk had a far more complete career than Lindros. While Lindros' peak was likely higher, Hawerchuk played more than 50% more games than Lindros did. Hawerchuk also scored at a 1.19 rate vs Lindros' 1.14. Hawerchuk had 6 100 point seasons to Lindros' 1. Hawerchuk never had linemates or teams like Lindros' did either.
Hawerchuk is known as the "lowest maintenance superstar" vs Lindros' "I won't play in Quebec" thing. There is something to be said for that as well. While Lindros was a beast Hawerchuk just went quietly about his business of being a leader.

 

[Riddum]

Patrick Kane is overrated

 

[Kranix]

Jumbo Joe should actually be number 5 here. Anybody disagree?