Ron Francis

[PeakMcOil]

I took a look at the top 100 and was shocked to see Francis in 94th place. How can a guy who is one of the greatest defensive forwards to play the game and is in 5th place on the all time points list (not too mention being an all around class act) be so low? I'd place him in the top 10 forwards of all time and top 30ish overall, just looking for some reasoning behind such a low ranking (Jagr's 25th for example, I like Jagr but he's not better or that much better than Francis).

Click to read more...

 

[Vagrant]

I took a look at the top 100 and was shocked to see Francis in 94th place. How can a guy who is one of the greatest defensive forwards to play the game and is in 5th place on the all time points list (not too mention being an all around class act) be so low? I'd place him in the top 10 forwards of all time and top 30ish overall, just looking for some reasoning behind such a low ranking (Jagr's 25th for example, I like Jagr but he's not better or that much better than Francis).

Because to some folks, Francis wasn't even the best center on his own team and blah blah blah. Long story short, he's about as underrated of a player as has ever played the game.

Prepare for this thread to be full of the following statements:

1. Longevity doesn't mean you were "great" for any length of time. Dave Andreychuk and Mike Gartner have 600 goals but nobody will say they're better than Eric Lindros or Pavel Bure.

2. At no point was Ron Francis a Top 5 center in the league. He was a very good player for a very long time but he was never one of the best in the NHL like everybody in front of him on the list.

3. Francis played on a great powerplay in Pittsburgh that helped to inflate his scoring stats. Lemieux and Jagr pretty much made him.

4. He wasn't as good of a playmaker as Adam Oates and he wasn't as good of a goal scorer as Yzerman. Thus, he's not as good as either.

5. Francis is just like Doug Gilmore. They both played a long time and racked up stats but never really were franchise players.

6. Francis will be remembered as "the ideal second line center".

You kind of get the point. A lot of baseless points being made that look good in theory without having watched the guy play. Francis was a rare combination of scoring prowess, leadership, and stellar defensive play to the likes that have not been seen since.

Longevity or not, which is laughable considering it's being used in a negative context here, you have to be a damn fine player to rack up the amount of points that Francis did and he did it for some pretty weak clubs aside from those Pittsburgh years.

20 goals in 20 straight years.

 

[reckoning]

Well I think #94 is a little low for Francis (I had him at#65), but the reasoning is basically that as good, as consistently good as he was, he was never really considered elite. He was never considered a legitimate MVP candidate in his career, so it's hard to rate him as one of the best ever. Offensively, he only finished in the top 5 scorers three times. Defensively, while he certainly developed into a solid two-day player in the 90s, calling him one of the best defensive forwards ever to play the game is exaggerating.

He was a great playmaker, usually gave a solid performance at playoff time, and as you said he was a class act. One of the more admirable players to play the game. But I can't see any way to put him in the top 50, let alone the top 30.

Now if it was a list of the most consistently good players in history, he'd probably be top 10.

 

[pitseleh]

You kind of get the point. A lot of baseless points being made that look good in theory without having watched the guy play. Francis was a rare combination of scoring prowess, leadership, and stellar defensive play to the likes that have not been seen since.

Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they are making baseless points.

There are other players who combined scoring, leadership, and great defensive play that were better scorers in their day (Nighbor, Delvecchio, etc.) that were also right near the bottom of the list. Couldn't it be that you're underrating them because you never saw them play while you did see Francis play?

Longevity or not, which is laughable considering it's being used in a negative context here, you have to be a damn fine player to rack up the amount of points that Francis did and he did it for some pretty weak clubs aside from those Pittsburgh years.

You're mixing up the points. No one is suggesting that longevity in and of itself is a negative. Everyone (who disagrees with you) is saying that longevity in and of itself is not enough to warrant a higher place on the list.

I wouldn't have been disappointed if he were higher on the list, but I don't think it's a travesty that he isn't either.

 

[reckoning]

Prepare for this thread to be full of the following statements:

1. Longevity doesn't mean you were "great" for any length of time. Dave Andreychuk and Mike Gartner have 600 goals but nobody will say they're better than Eric Lindros or Pavel Bure.

2. At no point was Ron Francis a Top 5 center in the league. He was a very good player for a very long time but he was never one of the best in the NHL like everybody in front of him on the list.

3. Francis played on a great powerplay in Pittsburgh that helped to inflate his scoring stats. Lemieux and Jagr pretty much made him.

4. He wasn't as good of a playmaker as Adam Oates and he wasn't as good of a goal scorer as Yzerman. Thus, he's not as good as either.

5. Francis is just like Doug Gilmore. They both played a long time and racked up stats but never really were franchise players.

6. Francis will be remembered as "the ideal second line center".

You kind of get the point. A lot of baseless points

Interesting that you made the effort to list all those "baseless points", but didn't make the effort to prove any of them wrong.

 

[DaveG]

Personally I think he's underrated on the list by a good bit, but I wouldn't have him in my top 30 players. Top 60 definitely though. The biggest problem that Francis had is that he played in relative obscurity with the exception of his years in Pittsburgh. Hartford never had great teams (although a couple good years to be sure) and with the exception of 01-02 neither did Carolina really.

He tied Gordie Howe's record for consecutive seasons with 50+ points with 22 straight. He was also one of the better two-way centermen, yet that seems to be disregarded around here despite winning the Selke once (I think I recall someone saying that was "more of a lifetime achievement award" for him or some other utter bull along those lines) with a second place and multiple top 5 finishes. He prettymuch willed the Hurricanes to the Stanley Cup Finals in 2001-02 which shows just how good of a leader he actually was. He was one of the classiest players in the league prettymuch throughout his career.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I took a look at the top 100 and was shocked to see Francis in 94th place. How can a guy who is one of the greatest defensive forwards to play the game and is in 5th place on the all time points list (not too mention being an all around class act) be so low? I'd place him in the top 10 forwards of all time and top 30ish overall, just looking for some reasoning behind such a low ranking (Jagr's 25th for example, I like Jagr but he's not better or that much better than Francis).

Francis is not even close to one of the best defensive forwards ever to play. He was a very good two way forward, but nowhere near one of the best. I can name 30 equal to or better defensively without giving it much thought.

Now, in the top 100 List, the distance between players between 70-110 is very small. In fact, it generally comes down to preference. Each player has a legitimate case.

The easiest way to ask this is, who do YOU think Francis deserves to be ahead of on that list?

Because to some folks, Francis wasn't even the best center on his own team and blah blah blah. Long story short, he's about as underrated of a player as has ever played the game.

Prepare for this thread to be full of the following statements:

The problem is, you, as a Carolina fan, refuse to acknowledge that these statements are actually legitimate and valid points against Francis.

1. Longevity doesn't mean you were "great" for any length of time. Dave Andreychuk and Mike Gartner have 600 goals but nobody will say they're better than Eric Lindros or Pavel Bure.

Very true. Peak is far more important than Longevity when judging greatness. However, Longevity itself deserves some points, and Francis receives them accordingly.

2. At no point was Ron Francis a Top 5 center in the league. He was a very good player for a very long time but he was never one of the best in the NHL like everybody in front of him on the list.

Again, a Legitimate point.
80-90 points in the 80's was not exactly top notch. Merely solid. Like 65-80 points today

3. Francis played on a great powerplay in Pittsburgh that helped to inflate his scoring stats. Lemieux and Jagr pretty much made him.

Made him no. But Lemieux and Jagr established that they could score a ton no matter who they played with. Francis very obviously did have his stats padded a bit on that Dynasty. He was a star scorer on his own obviously, and consistent. but not "Great" without them.

4. He wasn't as good of a playmaker as Adam Oates and he wasn't as good of a goal scorer as Yzerman. Thus, he's not as good as either.

Francis does not belong in the same sentence as Yzerman. Oates and Francis are close, but I give the edge to Oates just barely. Oates also proved he was a big scorer no matter who he played with, and offensively was a step above Francis. He is also a top 5 all time playmaker, which in itself holds merit.

5. Francis is just like Doug Gilmore. They both played a long time and racked up stats but never really were franchise players.

Gilmour was far more of a game breaker. I would take a Gilmour in the playoffs any day of the week.

You kind of get the point. A lot of baseless points being made that look good in theory without having watched the guy play. Francis was a rare combination of scoring prowess, leadership, and stellar defensive play to the likes that have not been seen since.

Oh good god. now it IS homerism coming out. Francis was not that great.

The "Baseless" points you bring up are not baseless at all. All are legitimate.

Longevity or not, which is laughable considering it's being used in a negative context here, you have to be a damn fine player to rack up the amount of points that Francis did and he did it for some pretty weak clubs aside from those Pittsburgh years.

20 goals in 20 straight years.

Again, who would YOU place him above on the list?

I am waiting to hear your reasons and who you think he could supplant.

 

[Vagrant]

Always a pleasure, gentlemen. Who needs a time piece when you have the history of hockey board?

 

[Dark Shadows]

Well I think #94 is a little low for Francis (I had him at#65), but the reasoning is basically that as good, as consistently good as he was, he was never really considered elite. He was never considered a legitimate MVP candidate in his career, so it's hard to rate him as one of the best ever. Offensively, he only finished in the top 5 scorers in one season ('95-'96 on the Pens juggernaut with Lemieux and Jagr). Defensively, while he certainly developed into a solid two-day player in the 90s, calling him one of the best defensive forwards ever to play the game is exaggerating.

He was a great playmaker, usually gave a solid performance at playoff time, and as you said he was a class act. One of the more admirable players to play the game. But I can't see any way to put him in the top 50, let alone the top 30.

Now if it was a list of the most consistently good players in history, he'd probably be top 10.

Personally I think he's underrated on the list by a good bit, but I wouldn't have him in my top 30 players. Top 60 definitely though. The biggest problem that Francis had is that he played in relative obscurity with the exception of his years in Pittsburgh. Hartford never had great teams (although a couple good years to be sure) and with the exception of 01-02 neither did Carolina really.

He tied Gordie Howe's record for consecutive seasons with 50+ points with 22 straight. He was also one of the better two-way centermen, yet that seems to be disregarded around here despite winning the Selke once (I think I recall someone saying that was "more of a lifetime achievement award" for him or some other utter bull along those lines) with a second place and multiple top 5 finishes. He prettymuch willed the Hurricanes to the Stanley Cup Finals in 2001-02 which shows just how good of a leader he actually was. He was one of the classiest players in the league prettymuch throughout his career.

I just want to know who on this list everyone thinks Francis could be ahead of?

 

[Dark Shadows]

Always a pleasure, gentlemen. Who needs a time piece when you have the history of hockey board?

And again, you are dodging answering the questions because they are legitimate points against Francis.

Always a pleasure when a Homer invades the board and calls everyone else out for not loving his huggable favorite.

If you are just going to come in and make baseless statements without even making an effort to back them up, do go back to the polls section where you came from.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I took a look at the top 100 and was shocked to see Francis in 94th place. How can a guy who is one of the greatest defensive forwards to play the game and is in 5th place on the all time points list (not too mention being an all around class act) be so low? I'd place him in the top 10 forwards of all time and top 30ish overall, just looking for some reasoning behind such a low ranking (Jagr's 25th for example, I like Jagr but he's not better or that much better than Francis).

Oh come on. I'm hard on Jagr and Francis was one of my favorite players, but to say the two are pretty much equal is outrageous. Jagr was the dominant forward of a generation. Several scoring titles and a perennial MVP candidate and 1st AST. He was, or arguably was, the best player in the world for a number of years.

All time career numbers are probably the most overrated stat, and I seem to value longevity a little more than most around here. I'm not one who thinks that a Lindros or a Neely should be ahead of Francis. His career was longer enough than their's to overcome the gap in peak value. But to think that playing good for 20 years is enough to vault him into the top 50 all-time? Sorry, no dice on that one.

 

[Vagrant]

And again, you are dodging answering the questions because they are legitimate points against Francis.

Always a pleasure when a Homer invades the board and calls everyone else out for not loving his huggable favorite.

If you are just going to come in and make baseless statements without even making an effort to back them up, do go back to the polls section where you came from.

You’re not going to draw me out with amateurish reverse psychology. There are no shortages of holes in every one of those points to divulge into but it’s not really worth the time when you know that 95% of your audience has already decided. It’s like scheduling a presidential debate for November 8th. It isn’t a coincidence that I was able to preempt a lot of these contrived talking points about Francis. I’ve seen it happen on this board for years.

 

[pitseleh]

You’re not going to draw me out with amateurish reverse psychology. There are no shortages of holes in every one of those points to divulge into but it’s not really worth the time when you know that 95% of your audience has already decided. It’s like scheduling a presidential debate for November 8th. It isn’t a coincidence that I was able to preempt a lot of these contrived talking points about Francis. I’ve seen it happen on this board for years.

Just because you've paid attention and can recite the points against Francis doesn't mean they are wrong. Why even bother posting if you're just going to complain about how others can't see Francis's greatness without defending your point of view? What makes the History board great is that people aren't closed-minded and they are able to articulate logical reasons as to why they hold their opinions.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

You’re not going to draw me out with amateurish reverse psychology. There are no shortages of holes in every one of those points to divulge into but it’s not really worth the time when you know that 95% of your audience has already decided. It’s like scheduling a presidential debate for November 8th. It isn’t a coincidence that I was able to preempt a lot of these contrived talking points about Francis. I’ve seen it happen on this board for years.

So you come in here, go against the grain with your opinion, and refuse to back it up? Bravo.

Franics was one of those guys that was underrated for a long time. But in the last few years that's almost been over-corrected to the point that he's becoming overrated, especially to people who just look at career numbers. Like Thornton said, once you get past the top 50 or 60, it gets really murky when choosing between players. In my mind, you could probably list Francis anywhere in the 70-120 range and be able to back it up, it really just depends on what qualities your prefer in a player. But if you want to go spouting off and implying that he's hugely underrated at 94, and refuse to give any reason why, don't expect to be taken seriously.

 

[Vagrant]

By all means, continue to prove the reasoning behind why rational discourse is encouraged on this board.

 

[pitseleh]

By all means, continue to prove the reasoning behind why rational discourse is encouraged on this board.

So complaining about how you think everyone is wrong and close-minded but refusing to back up your own opinion is rational discourse?

There have been no fewer than four posters who have posted their own reasoning as to why they place Francis (and one, DaveG, who posted his support for Francis) where they do all time. Instead of arguing their points or bringing up your own, you just proclaim that everyone here is biased.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I took a look at the top 100 and was shocked to see Francis in 94th place. How can a guy who is one of the greatest defensive forwards to play the game and is in 5th place on the all time points list (not too mention being an all around class act) be so low? I'd place him in the top 10 forwards of all time and top 30ish overall, just looking for some reasoning behind such a low ranking (Jagr's 25th for example, I like Jagr but he's not better or that much better than Francis).

Playing a long time during the high scoring 80s has padded his totals significantly. Francis is nowhere near being the 4th greatest scorer of all time. Honestly, can anyone say he is a greater scorer than Rocket Richard, Bobby Hull or Phil Esposito? Of course not.

Francis is the 131st greatest player on my list; he was never as dominant as you need to be to be in the top 30 of all time. He was a very good player for a long time, not a great player worthy of being mentioned among the very elite.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

I think it all has to do with where he played. When he wasn't on bad teams in lesser markets in Hartford/Carolina, he was 2nd fiddle to Mario. If he's on a team like the Bruins for the better part of his career, IMO the guy is ranked a ridiculous amount higher.

 

[JWells16]

In my opinion he's the most underrated player of all-time. Then again, it's only my opinion and I don't mind that people disagree.

 

[ObnoxiousPensFan*]

Ronnie is the Rodney Dangerfield of hockey.

 

[MadArcand]

Geez Vagrant, I'm probably one of the biggest Francis supporters around here, and argued about him with Thornton numerous times, but even though he's exaggerating a bit again (Gilmour? Oates?), he's mostly right. If you take a look at the names in the top 50, Francis just can't crack it no matter what (no, he's not even better than Sakic). Brett Hull is 67th, Stastny 73rd. I'd put Ronnie somewhere in between them.

 

[Vagrant]

So complaining about how you think everyone is wrong and close-minded but refusing to back up your own opinion is rational discourse?

There have been no fewer than four posters who have posted their own reasoning as to why they place Francis (and one, DaveG, who posted his support for Francis) where they do all time. Instead of arguing their points or bringing up your own, you just proclaim that everyone here is biased.

I was just sitting back and watching the dog pile mentality that occurs when you run a quick checklist of all the tired and cliche points that people make about Francis and the fact that they're off base and without merit. I didn't offer to debunk them because I don't have to in order to have an opinion. That's what these boards are for, correct?

No where in the user agreement does it say, if you post an opinion you have to post seventy lines of useless rhetoric to back it up but reading through this board in particular sometimes you'd think it was a mandate.

I think Francis is so underrated it's criminal. I think a lot of those points I mentioned above were baseless. I don't have the burden of proof to defend those points because they're subjective in nature.

I also raised some points in my initial post that I think points could be made in opposition against in regards to Francis, as it was only a list of what to prepare to hear, and didn't so much intend to call those in particular baseless as much as those who hold fast to those reasons and those reasons alone.

I would break out the list and start moving names around, but it's obvious that kind of thing isn't looked upon very highly here and is issued as more of a challenge than a reasonable consideration. Not many have the objectivity to reevaluate the work they've compiled and the opinions that contradict their findings.

 

[mrhockey193195]

I was just sitting back and watching the dog pile mentality that occurs when you run a quick checklist of all the tired and cliche points that people make about Francis and the fact that they're off base and without merit. I didn't offer to debunk them because I don't have to in order to have an opinion. That's what these boards are for, correct?

No where in the user agreement does it say, if you post an opinion you have to post seventy lines of useless rhetoric to back it up but reading through this board in particular sometimes you'd think it was a mandate.

I think Francis is so underrated it's criminal. I think a lot of those points I mentioned above were baseless. I don't have the burden of proof to defend those points because they're subjective in nature.

I also raised some points in my initial post that I think points could be made in opposition against in regards to Francis, as it was only a list of what to prepare to hear, and didn't so much intend to call those in particular baseless as much as those who hold fast to those reasons and those reasons alone.

I would break out the list and start moving names around, but it's obvious that kind of thing isn't looked upon very highly here and is issued as more of a challenge than a reasonable consideration. Not many have the objectivity to reevaluate the work they've compiled and the opinions that contradict their findings.

With all due respect, these boards would be pretty boring if everyone just posted their beliefs without giving explanations...no one would learn anything that way...and to be honest, I come to the history boards in particular to learn things about the history of hockey and to hear different opinions than mine.

Quite frankly, I'm interested in why you believe Francis is a top 10 offensive player of all time. I agree with you that he's underrated, but not to that extent...I generally put him around 50-70 in the all-time player ranking (as opposed to top 30).

 

[MS]

Francis was rated appropriately on that list. Could've been 10 spots up, but is absolutely not a top-50 player of all time.

He had a couple huge seasons in Pittsburgh (while playing on the same PP as Jagr and Lemieux) but during his Hartford years he was just not a top-10 forward in the league at any point. And was no longer an elite player while with Carolina.

When you look at the numbers of players who were dominant, game-changing forces in this sport for 10+ years, it's impossible to rate Francis much higher.

Francis was a rare combination of scoring prowess, leadership, and stellar defensive play to the likes that have not been seen since.

It's hard to take you seriously with statements like these. Uh, Yzerman? Sakic?

 

[PeakMcOil]

I sort of picked and chose certain quotes from here without referencing them properly, sorry.

Now if it was a list of the most consistently good players in history, he'd probably be top 10.
Isn't that exactly what an all time list should be, people who got it done over and over irregardless of circumstance?

Couldn't it be that you're underrating them because you never saw them play while you did see Francis play?
Probably, I didn't see a lot of the greats play unfortunately.

I can name 30 equal to or better defensively without giving it much thought.
Please do, there may be 30 or even 50 better defensive forwards but how many of them put up the points Francis did. Let's say he's 50th, isn't being the 50th best defensive forward and the 5th best scoring forward reason alone for a higher placing on the list.

Gilmour was far more of a game breaker. I would take a Gilmour in the playoffs any day of the week
Wow, not me, Francis was a better player in every way possible.
Again, who would YOU place him above on the list?
Jagr, like I said in my opening post, I didn't go back and look at the list but I'm sure there are a lot more who I wouild put behind Francis, maybe I'll go back and pick out the names when I have a little more time.

Playing a long time during the high scoring 80s has padded his totals significantly. Francis is nowhere near being the 4th greatest scorer of all time.
He played on some pretty poor teams for most of his career, he didn't have much help in Hartford or Carolina and he didn't play on Jagr/Lemiuex's line in Pitt. No matter what you think he is the 5th greatest scorer of all time, look at the stats, I don't think he's one of the 5 most talented offensive players but you can't dispute the stats.

Francis just can't crack it no matter what (no, he's not even better than Sakic). Brett Hull is 67th, Stastny 73rd. I'd put Ronnie somewhere in between them.
He's better than Sakic imo, not as much of a goal scorer but a petter passer and better in his own end. And Francis is worlds better than Hull. No matter how well he could put the puck in the net, he was nowhere near the all around player Francis was, and didn't do it for nearly as long.

Originally Posted by Vagrant
Francis was a rare combination of scoring prowess, leadership, and stellar defensive play to the likes that have not been seen since.

It's hard to take you seriously with statements like these. Uh, Yzerman? Sakic?

Yzerman was not a good defensive player for a lot of his career, he learned that towards the end, and Sakic (though good in his own end) isn't in the same league as Francis.
__________________