NHL2Night experts Top 100

[Bring Back Bucky]

Beliveau? Are you talking about you or your dad in L.A.?

You kill me, moneyp, you kill me....

 

[VanIslander]

Mike Gartner ahead of Joe Nieuwendyk? Maybe.

Ron Francis ahead of Bobby Clarke? I don't think so.

Grant Fuhr ahead of Ken Dryden???

NHL2Night are not experts. In fact, they must be under 35 years old or else aren't lifelong hockey fans or else have cognitive irregularities or else are sloppy pseudo-journalists. There's no other explanation.

 

[Thornton97]

Here's all you need to know about this list from the same ENTERTAINMENT folks who bring you Stuart Scott:

Bryan Trottier isn't on their top 100 list.

Same player who is on most every hockey expert's top 25 (or at worst, top 50) of all-time.

Whether deliberate or an oversight (I'll bet on the latter), it's typical and regrettable.

Wow, I didn't even notice his absence when I first looked at the list. Dear god. Simply laughable.

And Stuart Scott....he used to be decent years ago, but he gets worse practically daily. He's trying to be more and more from the "ghetto."

 

[Trottier]

Wow, I didn't even notice his absence when I first looked at the list. Dear god. Simply laughable.

And Stuart Scott....he used to be decent years ago, but he gets worse practically daily. He's trying to be more and more from the "ghetto."

True.

And not to get anymore off topic, but to this old-schooler (which is another way of saying "over 35er" ) , just the idea that we feel obliged to even mention any of the ESPN "personalities" is telling and pathetic. Would ESPN be any worse a product if they went back to their roots, which was to provide sports highlights and mature commentary 24x7, rather than the self-indulgent crapola they pass off today? Back in the day, they accentuated the "S" (for "sports") in ESPN. Now it is mostly all the "E," as in "entertainment".

I mean, they have tried to make themselves (especially their "reporters") the story, half the time. Would you watch it less if they reported scores, period? I wouldn't; in fact, I might start watching it again! And I doubt that the vast majority of sports fans, including the younger generation, who currently view ESPN would turn off either. Not expecting robots behind the anchor desk, but these guys forgot long ago that THE GAME IS THE THING. Not just the personalities, on (and especially off) the playing field.

Bottom line: when your network focuses on shine over substance, you end up with silly Top 100 lists like this that greatly favors current players, while disregarding or minimizing all-time greats who - horrors - happened to play in a previous decade or so. You know, "ancient history". Can't bore our viewership with such unimportant relics.

Back to the topic and list: where's Dale Purinton?!

 

[KOVALEV10*]

Beliveau? Are you talking about you or your dad in L.A.?

If you're gonna make a joke then maybe you should think of making it funny? Just a hint there.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

You kill me, moneyp, you kill me....

Yeah you kill me for finding lame jokes as the funniest thing you've ever heard. Oh well.. since we are talking about you there.. maybe it is.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

Sorry that was a bit of a joke that I had, I know all about Lafleur... it was a jab at K-10 for having to mention Lafleur in every single one of his posts.

Yet another lame joke from yet another lame poster. I should get used to this by now though.

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

Yet another lame joke from yet another lame poster. I should get used to this by now though.

If you want to talk about a lame poster, come one lets talk about yourself, you are the poster who feels that Lafleur smoking and drinking actually makes him a better hockey player because think of what he could do if he didn't do that. Sorry but that is in effect a lame joke, from quite possibly the lamest poster on these boards. Actually you seem to contradict yourself in your posts completely where you say that you were alive and can remember things that you wouldn't have been able to (such as Beliveau's career) and then preach to others that you are the definitive resource as a result and that the rest of the boards are a bunch of know nothings. Sorry if this comes off as rude, but you are by far the worst poster to grace the History of Hockey board. At first I figured I would ignore you, and maybe offer my two cents every once and a while, but when you go around and haphazardly insult posters I must wonder why should I bother holding back the punches.

You seem to know hockey I am not doubting that, but at the same time you are one of the biggest homers on the boards. you make lame arguements in order to fulfill your own distorted view on the game, and then you ignore other posters rational comments, and when they demand an explanation (and rightfully so) you go and insult them in a number of ways. Sorry but the only insult that you truely offer by your posts is an insult to the boards collective intelligence.

 

[Snap Wilson]

For me, it was hockey - sports - at it's very best.

Kovalev10, PogoStick, Chooch, please... take your hands off of your keyboards and learn something from this man. He actually knows what he's talking about.

I wouldn't call the Summit Series the aesthetic ideal of hockey at it's best, it sure was about as much drama as I can recall for any sporting event, by a long shot. This transcended the realm of athletic competition. It was war in all of it's aspects: political, militaristic, chaotic, and violent. A brutal clash of political and social ideology, on and off the ice. Intense and utterly compelling theater.

 

[reckoning]

Vaguely recall the '72 Summit Series, being a mere lad at the time. Was aware, at the time, of it's epic place in hockey's history, however. Received the '72 DVD a couple years back, and man, was that a great gift.

For those who are unfamiliar, hard to convey the authentic drama (no made-for-TV-crap, or melodrama ESPN storyline, thank you!) of that series.

The ebb and flow of that series, leading up to the finish could not be written. It was really several "acts" within one eight-game "play".

And Esposito's post-game interview following the Vancouver game is worth the price of the DVD alone. I do not for a moment doubt the sincerity of his quote that you cite above, i.e., "would have killed to win...". For if you watch closely the intensity of that series on both sides, an intensity which somehow just kept getting greater and greater with each game, it is hard to conclude otherwise.

The stickwork...Cashman shining his crazy toothless grin in the face of a Soviet player...Clarke purposely clubbing his stick down on Kharlamov's ankle and then, moment's afterward, he too, sticking his face, sans front teeth, in his victim's grill.

Some would call it a disgraceful display, even barbaric. On some levels, perhaps it was.

For me, it was hockey - sports - at it's very best.

Couldn`t have put that better myself. I was too young to remember it myself the first time, so the DVDs were my first chance to see it in its entireity. When you already know the ending of something beforehand, it usually lessens the drama when watching it. Not so with this. Completely riveting. The `87 Canada Cup, great as it was, doesn`t compare. It bothers when I hear people talk about how the game needs to showcase skill ahead of physical play. As pretty as all these nifty moves are, the passion of the players in the game is what makes hockey beautiful.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

If you want to talk about a lame poster, come one lets talk about yourself, you are the poster who feels that Lafleur smoking and drinking actually makes him a better hockey player because think of what he could do if he didn't do that. Sorry but that is in effect a lame joke, from quite possibly the lamest poster on these boards. Actually you seem to contradict yourself in your posts completely where you say that you were alive and can remember things that you wouldn't have been able to (such as Beliveau's career) and then preach to others that you are the definitive resource as a result and that the rest of the boards are a bunch of know nothings. Sorry if this comes off as rude, but you are by far the worst poster to grace the History of Hockey board. At first I figured I would ignore you, and maybe offer my two cents every once and a while, but when you go around and haphazardly insult posters I must wonder why should I bother holding back the punches.

You seem to know hockey I am not doubting that, but at the same time you are one of the biggest homers on the boards. you make lame arguements in order to fulfill your own distorted view on the game, and then you ignore other posters rational comments, and when they demand an explanation (and rightfully so) you go and insult them in a number of ways. Sorry but the only insult that you truely offer by your posts is an insult to the boards collective intelligence.

Look just because I think Lafleur was the equal of everyones beloved 99 doesnt make me any less of a poster. You may not agree with it and you're entitled to your opinion but so am I. Now I dont wanna argue anymore so let's end this now.

 

[salzy]

And while I think Forsberg is listed too high, he's better than Lindros. Two cups and better playoff numbers. Good luck holding Peter to 0 points in a four game sweep.

Good luck doing it to Lindros too. The 2 Cups is irrelevant IMO. Switch them around and the Avs win at least 2.

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

Look just because I think Lafleur was the equal of everyones beloved 99 doesnt make me any less of a poster. You may not agree with it and you're entitled to your opinion but so am I. Now I dont wanna argue anymore so let's end this now.

No I don't have a problem with you having a difference of opinion, but you are the rudest most arrogant poster on the boards. Someone will bring up a point, and you will ignore it completely.

You are entitled too your opinion, but you are not entitled to be an ass.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

No I don't have a problem with you having a difference of opinion, but you are the rudest most arrogant poster on the boards. Someone will bring up a point, and you will ignore it completely.

You are entitled too your opinion, but you are not entitled to be an ass.

I'm not going to say anything for the moment. Just tell you to go check out the "Message to Everyone" thread I posted. Please, I dont feel like fighting or arguing anymore.

 

[Trottier]

This transcended the realm of athletic competition. It was war in all of it's aspects: political, militaristic, chaotic, and violent. A brutal clash of political and social ideology, on and off the ice. Intense and utterly compelling theater.

First, thanks for the kind words.

Regarding your comment boldfaced above, worth remembering too that the Summit Series took place within mere days of arguably the most infamous event in Olympic history, the ultra-controversial Soviet/US basketball game, which the USSR "won," sending the US to its first defeat EVER in Olympic Bball. (See: http://espn.go.com/classic/s/Classic_1972_usa_ussr_gold_medal_hoop.html )

Fair to say that sports and geo-politics were never so closely and legitimately intertwined as during that period of time, late summer '72.

 

[Ogopogo*]

What's this, Ogopogo posted his top 100 again? Dude, I think we have it floating around this site enough times as it is. Not that it matters, we just roll our eyes and hit "page down" until we get to the next post

We have it in an earlier posting. Just put a link to it in your message, or tell us to go to that thread.

Sorry, I thought it would be simpler than spending a 1/2 hour picking apart their list for its obvious flaws.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Kovalev10, PogoStick, Chooch, please... take your hands off of your keyboards...

Do you have a drinking problem or are you mentally disturbed?

 

[Snap Wilson]

First, thanks for the kind words.

Regarding your comment boldfaced above, worth remembering too that the Summit Series took place within mere days of arguably the most infamous event in Olympic history, the ultra-controversial Soviet/US basketball game, which the USSR "won," sending the US to its first defeat EVER in Olympic Bball. (See: http://espn.go.com/classic/s/Classic_1972_usa_ussr_gold_medal_hoop.html )

Oh, I remember the event very well, although I forgot how close the Summit Series was to that event. Still makes me angry thinking about it.

 

[KH1]

When I read that list in the other thread, my jaw just dropped when they overlooked Bryan Trottier. I mean, I've always thought that the Isles dynasty of the early 80s was underrated, but come on!

I think that this "experts" list should be renamed the "Top players of the last 15 years, with some extras" or something. It's a total travesty.

 

[VanIslander]

Darn digital world! It's not even good for toilet paper...

 

[Rabid Ranger]

What a lame list. Chelios behind Chris Pronger? Right.............

 

[Leaf Lander]

When I read that list in the other thread, my jaw just dropped when they overlooked Bryan Trottier. I mean, I've always thought that the Isles dynasty of the early 80s was underrated, but come on!

I think that this "experts" list should be renamed the "Top players of the last 15 years, with some extras" or something. It's a total travesty.

the islanders were revered for some reason i connected there dynast y to the leafs via arbour and the wars they had with the very good leaf team in the mid 70's that helped shaped islanders into the team that could over throw another power hosue in that 70's montreal team.

 

[RorschachWJK]

Vaguely recall the '72 Summit Series, being a mere lad at the time. Was aware, at the time, of it's epic place in hockey's history, however. Received the '72 DVD a couple years back, and man, was that a great gift.

For those who are unfamiliar, hard to convey the authentic drama (no made-for-TV crap, or melodramatic ESPN storyline, thank you!) of that series.

The ebb and flow of that series, leading up to the finish could not be written. It was really several "acts" within one eight-game "play".

And Esposito's post-game interview following the Vancouver game is worth the price of the DVD alone. I do not for a moment doubt the sincerity of his quote that you cite above, i.e., "would have killed to win...". For if you watch closely the intensity of that series on both sides, an intensity which somehow just kept getting greater and greater with each game, it is hard to conclude otherwise.

The stickwork...Cashman shining his crazy toothless grin in the face of a Soviet player...Clarke purposely clubbing his stick down on Kharlamov's ankle and then, moment's afterward, he too, sticking his face, sans front teeth, in his victim's grill.

Some would call it a disgraceful display, even barbaric. On some levels, perhaps it was.

For me, it was hockey - sports - at it's very best.

Disgracefull and barbaric? Definitely yes. And also made the Soviets the moral winners of the whole series, despite actually losing. And make no mistake, I am no friend of their political system, having lived in the shadow of the Soviet Union for more than half of my life. That stuff just does not belong in hockey, no matter what.

 

[shadoz19]

I know someone already mentioned this, but Joe Sakic ahead of Steve Yzerman? Let alone nearly 20 spots ahead. Plenty of guys in between who have not had better careers and even a few ahead of these guys as well.

 

[Mothra]

Where is Lafleur?

Playing wing of course