TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I have no idea how someone could say that Clarke, Messier and Trottier are ahead of Beliveau offensively.
Me neither.
I have no idea how someone could say that Clarke, Messier and Trottier are ahead of Beliveau offensively.
I have no idea how someone could say that Clarke, Messier and Trottier are ahead of Beliveau offensively.
So Beliveau is last in this group offensively.
Clarke is considered the best defensively.
But Beliveau seems to be a top 3 lock.
Does playing on great Montreal teams have much to do with everyone's perception of him?
An initial list is of the top-60, not top 9. This round is of the top 8.
Is there any eligible voter who puts Mikita at 9th (out of the top-8 voting for this round)?
Exactly what I was about to post.
I can see how you could consider Mikita or Esposito better offensively, but I think you'd be wrong.
Beliveau is better than Mikita & Esposito offensively?
Please explain.
Beliveau is better than Mikita & Esposito offensively?
Please explain.
Of course I can't say for sure, I'm only working from the evidence available to me.
My reasoning is based on the fact that Beliveau was a complete offensive package who could skate well, had one of the best shots in the league, set up his wings on both sides, and play on or off the puck. As early as the 1955-56 season he was in the conversation for the best hockey player in history.
Mikita and Esposito both played on teams with far less centre depth than Beliveau did and received more ice time and freedom to extend shifts as a result. They also had to play their style and were less adaptable to team needs - their lines had to be specifically tailored to their needs, while Beliveau could and did play with any wingers.
So, actual offensive production only counts if its Gretzky & Lemieux?
Or should everyone be considering the possibility that Beliveau should be #1?
If "actual offensive production" is all that matters, then Esposito > Lemieux. Seriously.
Is it too late to somehow add ChiTownPhilly and Sentinel to the voters list?
If there is an almighty being listening to my prayers, the next four added centers ought to be two from the nineties and two from the pre-NHL era.
The.
Most.
Anticipated.
Round.
Ever.
If there is an almighty being listening to my prayers, the next four added centers ought to be two from the nineties and two from the pre-NHL era.
The.
Most.
Anticipated.
Round.
Ever.
Thanks for your help with the semantical distinction, and also for your kind words about my possible inclusion in the selection. Truthfully, it seems that I've brought more heat than light to the conversation. That wasn't intentional, though.An initial list is of the top-60, not top 9. This round is of the top 8.
I didn't submit a list & don't have a vote but I just had to step in to respond to the Mikita slamming that is going on. People are cherry picking articles and coming to the conclusion that Stan's stats were the result of getting extra ice time and the Hawks playing some sort of run & gun game which gave him an advantage over the other superstars of his era.
Absolute nonsense. Chicago ran 3 lines just like everybody else. Mikita played the powerplay just like the superstars on the other teams. The only extra ice time he got was killing the odd penalty which other stars didn't have to do. If anything Beliveau had the unfair advantage as he didn't kill penalties and could focus on offense.
Chicago had great GA numbers during that era. Sure Hall was a big part of it but he wasn't the only reason. No more than the Habs goalies were the sole reason their GA was so good.
There are games out there to watch and I would suggest people do so instead of cherry picking SI quotes
You mentioned the problems with SI as a source. I realize they didn't have detailed hockey coverage but the fact that they were written for a general audience is what makes them interesting. They give more of a big picture look at things and include general perceptions that, say, day to day coverage by a Toronto paper might take for granted because its readers watched or listened to the games.
That being said they could be wrong, of course, like any source.
Another thing about those quotes I posted - they were specifically not cherry-picked. I skimmed every article turned up by a search for Stan Mikita and posted everything of substance. That's why the post was so long.
In any case, thanks for your input - I appreciate hearing from you and others who watched these players. Any suggestions on games to watch of the mid-60s Hawks that are online?