Toggle sidebar

Rank the Bruins "Top 6" RWs Since 2010/11

member 96824

Guest
Jean_Jacket41 said:
No. Any list with Seguin #1 just can't be.
Click to expand...

I dont see anyone else on that list that lead the team in points at just a shade below 70.

Care to rationalize your point?

Also...im concerned about the response to my mod for a day, you guys dont trust me?:laugh: :naughty:
 
finchster

finchster

Registered User
Jul 12, 2006
10,634
2,123
Antalya
Horton- Despite the flack he got for floating, guy really turned it on when it mattered. 17 points in 21 games and 19 points in 22 games in the playoffs puts him at number one for me.

Seguin- Led the team in points one year, clearly the best talent the Bruins had at right wing in a long time. Disappointing playoffs and an underwhelming third season

Iginla- Could've passed Seguin, but even his five goals in the playoffs were disappointing compared to all the chances he missed.

Recchi- Solid vet, had to use his hockey IQ at the end of his career rather than his skills.

Ryder- One good season followed by two terrible seasons. However, guy was third in playoff scoring in his three seasons behind Krejci and Bergeron.

Smith- Great first season and good hands could climb higher

Eriksson- Disappointing year all around, can be the best RW depending on how the rest of his career in Boston goes.
 
Jean_Jacket41

Jean_Jacket41

Neely = HOF
Jun 25, 2003
25,621
13,971
With the smurfs
BrainOfJ said:
I dont see anyone else on that list that lead the team in points at just a shade below 70.

Care to rationalize your point?

Also...im concerned about the response to my mod for a day, you guys dont trust me?:laugh: :naughty:
Click to expand...

Well, the question was: How would you rank these six RWs in terms of how good of players they were in their time in Boston?

In their time in Boston means for me how they played and produced especially when it counts, ie in the playoffs. That's what puts Seguin behind Horton. Iginla was very good all year and despite the critics, he also produced in the playoffs.

Loui is a no brainer to be last because of his disappointing season. Smith in 5th and Seguin just ahead of Recchi in 3rd but only because of his great 2nd year regular season.

Seguin is the most talented offensively of this group no doubt and proved it last year. But in his time in Boston, he was a Dud in the playoffs besides his great 4pts period against TB.

Still mad about his 1g in 22 games last playoffs with us...
 

member 96824

Guest
Jean_Jacket41 said:
Well, the question was: How would you rank these six RWs in terms of how good of players they were in their time in Boston?

In their time in Boston means for me how they played and produced especially when it counts, ie in the playoffs. That's what puts Seguin behind Horton. Iginla was very good all year and despite the critics, he also produced in the playoffs.

Loui is a no brainer to be last because of his disappointing season. Smith in 5th and Seguin just ahead of Recchi in 3rd but only because of his great 2nd year regular season.

Seguin is the most talented offensively of this group no doubt and proved it last year. But in his time in Boston, he was a Dud in the playoffs besides his great 4pts period against TB.

Still mad about his 1g in 22 games last playoffs with us...
Click to expand...

Thats fair, when looking at the overall though, my justification is no RW was a larger threat than Seguin in his time here, and i think in the two seasons both were playing (hard to compare seguin's rookie year) Seguin was the more effective player...hence the long term extension, all star appearance, leading the team in points, etc. The playoff run in 13 certainly stands out...but i remember him being one of, if not our best forward against Washington (only one of few that even bothered showing up)Horton is the only one I considered over Seguin, but overall...could I say he was better? I couldnt convince myself yes.

We can obviously go around and around with Seguin and have in the past. I just dont like being called wrong without backing is all:) appreciate the respectful response
 
Jean_Jacket41

Jean_Jacket41

Neely = HOF
Jun 25, 2003
25,621
13,971
With the smurfs
BrainOfJ said:
Thats fair, when looking at the overall though, my justification is no RW was a larger threat than Seguin in his time here, and i think in the two seasons both were playing (hard to compare seguin's rookie year) Seguin was the more effective player...hence the long term extension, all star appearance, leading the team in points, etc. The playoff run in 13 certainly stands out...but i remember him being one of, if not our best forward against Washington (only one of few that even bothered showing up)Horton is the only one I considered over Seguin, but overall...could I say he was better? I couldnt convince myself yes.

We can obviously go around and around with Seguin and have in the past. I just dont like being called wrong without backing is all:) appreciate the respectful response
Click to expand...

I liked Seguin a lot. You could see the potential. Great 2nd year. Took a step back in his 3rd season but that was an odd shorten season and probably took some bad habits dominating overseas. But his 13 playoffs were a killer. I would have been ok keeping him and hope he takes the next step when it counts but I was happy with the return of the trade as I always liked Loui. Didn't turn out well for Loui, much better for Smith and even more for Seguin. Will always pull for the guy to do well but will always be bitter of his 1g in 22 that costed us a 2nd Cup in 3 years...
 

Era of Sanity

Certified Poster
Nov 12, 2010
4,321
9
Horton
Recchi
Seguin
Iginla
Smith
Eriksson

I factored in playoff contributions with weight to the contributions that help the Bruins win the cup.
 

member 96824

Guest
Jean_Jacket41 said:
I liked Seguin a lot. You could see the potential. Great 2nd year. Took a step back in his 3rd season but that was an odd shorten season and probably took some bad habits dominating overseas. But his 13 playoffs were a killer. I would have been ok keeping him and hope he takes the next step when it counts but I was happy with the return of the trade as I always liked Loui. Didn't turn out well for Loui, much better for Smith and even more for Seguin. Will always pull for the guy to do well but will always be bitter of his 1g in 22 that costed us a 2nd Cup in 3 years...
Click to expand...

See thats where I disagree.

Seguin nearly cost us the first round, but in the end actually did the dirty work for the series winner. Was horrid for the next two series, but you can ask for more than beating NYR and PIT in 11 games...but against Chi we just ran into the best team in hockey, while also losing the battle of attrition. Seguin was physically engaged, posted 4 points in the 6 games (should have been 6 if Daug and Kelly could find an open ****ing net), played solid in three zones.

I get its easy to say "1 goal in 22, his fault." But if you actually go back and read these boards from June 2013, you'll see a ton od people claiming the third line had been the best line again CHI, and Seguin had been the catalyst of that ( along with of course, posts about how mature seguin is for going to Claude and asking how to help)

I dont really have a gripe about not sweeping both Pittsburgh and New York, and while the Toronto series was horrid, the Chicago series was really good...I dont buy into it being Seguin's fault. I think it was lack of capitalization when Chi gave us a chance (games 1 and 3) because they were clear cut the best team in hockey, and not being healthy enough to keep up.
 
Ten Thousand Hours

Ten Thousand Hours

Registered User
Aug 17, 2010
8,145
0
Boston
BrainOfJ said:
See thats where I disagree.

Seguin nearly cost us the first round, but in the end actually did the dirty work for the series winner. Was horrid for the next two series, but you can ask for more than beating NYR and PIT in 11 games...but against Chi we just ran into the best team in hockey, while also losing the battle of attrition. Seguin was physically engaged, posted 4 points in the 6 games (should have been 6 if Daug and Kelly could find an open ****ing net), played solid in three zones.

I get its easy to say "1 goal in 22, his fault." But if you actually go back and read these boards from June 2013, you'll see a ton od people claiming the third line had been the best line again CHI, and Seguin had been the catalyst of that ( along with of course, posts about how mature seguin is for going to Claude and asking how to help)

I dont really have a gripe about not sweeping both Pittsburgh and New York, and while the Toronto series was horrid, the Chicago series was really good...I dont buy into it being Seguin's fault. I think it was lack of capitalization when Chi gave us a chance (games 1 and 3) because they were clear cut the best team in hockey, and not being healthy enough to keep up.
Click to expand...

But even if it wasn't Seguin's fault we lost and even if he wasn't awful, he wasn't better than Horton. In either of Horton's 2 postseasons. Not even close. And his regular season production doesn't make up the difference.
 
Bruinswillwin77

Bruinswillwin77

My name is Pete
Sponsor
May 29, 2011
22,313
11,334
Hooksett, NH
BrainOfJ said:
See thats where I disagree.

Seguin nearly cost us the first round, but in the end actually did the dirty work for the series winner. Was horrid for the next two series, but you can ask for more than beating NYR and PIT in 11 games...but against Chi we just ran into the best team in hockey, while also losing the battle of attrition. Seguin was physically engaged, posted 4 points in the 6 games (should have been 6 if Daug and Kelly could find an open ****ing net), played solid in three zones.

I get its easy to say "1 goal in 22, his fault." But if you actually go back and read these boards from June 2013, you'll see a ton od people claiming the third line had been the best line again CHI, and Seguin had been the catalyst of that ( along with of course, posts about how mature seguin is for going to Claude and asking how to help)

I dont really have a gripe about not sweeping both Pittsburgh and New York, and while the Toronto series was horrid, the Chicago series was really good...I dont buy into it being Seguin's fault. I think it was lack of capitalization when Chi gave us a chance (games 1 and 3) because they were clear cut the best team in hockey, and not being healthy enough to keep up.
Click to expand...

I was bored the other day and watched dafoomies high lights of game 7 vs. Toronto and seguin had ALOT to do with bergys gwg.
 

Era of Sanity

Certified Poster
Nov 12, 2010
4,321
9
Ten Thousand Hours said:
But even if it wasn't Seguin's fault we lost and even if he wasn't awful, he wasn't better than Horton. In either of Horton's 2 postseasons. Not even close. And his regular season production doesn't make up the difference.
Click to expand...

Horton's playoff heroics in 2011 stand out as more important than anything anyone else on that list did in a Bruins uniform. Seguin atleast in 2011 contributed against Tampa. In 2013 Seguin was a passenger the first 3 rounds. If everyone would have underachieved as much as he did the Bruins would have been nowhere near the finals. I miss his talent and evidently he's gotten better but I don't miss his half step behind and fake it in defensive and board battles.
 
Last edited:

member 96824

Guest
Ten Thousand Hours said:
But even if it wasn't Seguin's fault we lost and even if he wasn't awful, he wasn't better than Horton. In either of Horton's 2 postseasons. Not even close. And his regular season production doesn't make up the difference.
Click to expand...

Luckily, its all subjective!

He was better than Horton in that Chi series, but definitely not in the rest of the playoffs. Either way, I think Seguin's time here was top of the available list.

Nate obviously made some big plays for us, not discrediting him in any way. Seguin doesn't get enough credit for some of his big plays in the playoff as well (game 2 vs. Tampa is the obvious one, but there is also games 6 and 7 vs. Wash, and the beautiful work in OT against Toronto) im not going to say he was a big game guy, just that I thought he was the best RW out of the bunch...
 
finchster

finchster

Registered User
Jul 12, 2006
10,634
2,123
Antalya
BrainOfJ said:
Luckily, its all subjective!

He was better than Horton in that Chi series, but definitely not in the rest of the playoffs. Either way, I think Seguin's time here was top of the available list.

Nate obviously made some big plays for us, not discrediting him in any way. Seguin doesn't get enough credit for some of his big plays in the playoff as well (game 2 vs. Tampa is the obvious one, but there is also games 6 and 7 vs. Wash, and the beautiful work in OT against Toronto) im not going to say he was a big game guy, just that I thought he was the best RW out of the bunch...
Click to expand...

Nate's banged up shoulder made him useless in that series. That would've been the time to replace Nate with Jagr or Seguin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom