The Hockey News Top 100 Players

[Bring Back Bucky]

Francis is overrated on that list. What has he ever done that guys like MacInnis and Leetch didn't do? They each won a Conn Smythe and won Norris trophies. Francis was never close to being the best at his position. Can't believe he's ahead of Bobby Clarke there.

It bears mentioning that he was buried behind two pretty darned good centres throughout his best years though.... Given that the two ahead of him can both be used in arguments as the best ever, it makes it easy to overlook how great Francis was. MacInnis and Leetch wouldn't ever have won a Norris had Bobby Orr and Doug Harvey's careers spanned theirs.

 

[revolverjgw]

If there was an award for best center, he never would have won it even if Gretzky and Lemieux never existed. And he was never a 1st or 2nd all-star. First ballot hall-of-famer, but not near 38th best ever, and not ahead of Conn Smythe winners like Leetch and MacInnis.

 

[Leaf Lander]

macinnis was a norris trophy worthy player right till the end of his career which was ended by an eye injury.

harvey and orr didnt have macinnis's long durabilty.

Macinnis career was a great. He had one of the longest careers that peaked in 1986 and it never came off that plateau of greatness.

He changed the game with his shot from the point Orr also changed the game and so did harvey

Macinnis is one of the all time great d-man ever to lace up the skates on the nhl ice I dont think macinnis career pales towards any other greats!!

He is worthy all time great!!!He belongs with the hockey gods in HOF!!

 

[arrbez]

macinnis was a norris trophy worthy plauer right till the end of his career which was ended by an eye injury harvey and orr didnt have macinnis durabilty physicaly. Macinnis career was a great one did he change the game with his shot from the point like those 2 ......not quiet. but he is one of the all time great d-man ever to lace up the skates on the nhl ice I odnt think macinnis carre pales towards any other greats!!He is worthy all time great!!!

Heh, you'll get a laugh out of this post when you sober up and take a look

 

[Leaf Lander]

Heh, you'll get a laugh out of this post when you sober up and take a look

i dont drink bud\

thanks for insulting me i appreciate it

 

[BM67]

Ron Francis award voting history from the thread in this forum. There are still a few gaps, such as the 89 & 94 all-star team voting, but most of his career is fully covered.

1981-82 - Calder: 10th 3 (0-0-3)
1985-86 - Hart: T10th 1 (0-0-1); A-S Center: 9th 2 (0-0-2)
1986-87 - Hart: 9th 3 (0-1-0); A-S Center: 6th 3 (0-1-0)
1989-90 - Selke: 5th 32 (4-2-6); Lady Byng: T18th 1 (0-0-1)
1990-91 - Selke: T21st 1 (0-0-1)
1992-93 - Selke: 6th 13 (0-3-4)
1993-94 - Selke: 6th 17 (0-4-5)
1994-95 - Selke: 1st 50 (7-4-3); Lady Byng: 1st 50 (6-6-2); A-S Center: 3rd 18 (0-4-6)
1995-96 - Lady Byng: 9th 40 (2-1-2-0-3); Selke: 2nd 255 (12-15-3-5-0); A-S Center: 7th 6 (0-1-3); A-S Left Wing: T5th 5 (1-0-0)
1996-97 - Lady Byng: 4th 103 (0-6-6-9-4); Selke: 8th 72 (2-2-6-2-2); A-S Center: T8th 1 (0-0-1)
1997-98 - Hart: T15th 6 (0-0-0-2-0); Lady Byng: 1st 352 (20-12-11-4-1); Selke: 4th (2-4-6-6-0); A-S Center: 3rd 87 (7-12-16)
1999-2000 - Selke: 12th 28 (1-0-2-1-5); Lady Byng: 9th 50 (3-0-1-2-9)
2000-01 - Selke: T43rd 1 (0-0-0-0-1); Lady Byng: 7th 81 (5-0-4-3-2)
2001-02 - Hart: 6th (1-2-3-2-3); Lady Byng: 1st 427 (28-13-7-6-3); A-S Center: 3rd 85 (7-14-8)
2002-03 - Lady Byng: 8th 72 (1-6-4-0-0); Selke: T39th 1 (0-0-0-0-1)
2003-04 - Lady Byng: 10th 100 (1-6-5-5-8)

 

[God Bless Canada]

Francis is better than #38

Don't take that ESPN list seriously. Bryan Trottier, who is considered by most to be a top 10 all-time centre and a top 25 all-time forward, didn't make that list. Experts? The players at the Quebec carnival peewee tournament could come up with a better list.

Francis is not a top 50 all-time player. Top 100? Yes. Excellent defensively and a clutch player. But he's not top 50.

 

[arrbez]

i dont drink bud\

thanks for insulting me i appreciate it

Aw, lighten up man

That post had all the makings of a drunken ramble. I should know, I've had a couple myself

 

[Leaf Lander]

Aw, lighten up man

That post had all the makings of a drunken ramble. I should know, I've had a couple myself

deal

 

[Tookhavlatandtanguay*]

I only read the first page or so... but Messier should be in pretty much every top 10 best players list.

 

[Tookhavlatandtanguay*]

Is there an updated list?

 

[Leaf Lander]

there will be in hmmm 2022

milt dunnel will be 117 then

 

[Leaf Lander]

Is there an updated list?

goingto up this so i can do some work with this list

 

[capn89*]

No one will agree with me, but I don't really give a damn. My biggest problem with the list is the fact that it's all so ridiculously blind. You cannot make an all time greatest list in any sport because quite frankly, if you took the "WORST" player in the NHL today and sent him back 30 or 40 years to play in the NHL he would completely dominate everyone. It takes nothing away from the fact that these older names did great things during their time period, but it's absurd to think that some of the guys would be better than the best today. Take into play current conditioning, the size of guys, rules, etc. It's just stupid.

 

[Leaf Lander]

there were big men back in the day too guys 5'11 6 feet 6'1 etc
in the 1960;s a guy who was 6'1 was considered huge
The largest players in the nhl during the 1980's generally were 6 feet or 6'2 in some rare cases 6'4 Bobby Smith Larry Robinson 6'3 Willie Huber 6'6"

If you wanan use the scenerio of brining todays modern players and zapping them back in time to play in the 1930's isnt realistic but at the same tiem we could argue why couldnt we suggets that a player of the of a elite calibre from a yester year era played todays game. Let pretend that charlie conacher was born in 1983 and played in todays nhl how would he dominate? Players like that would dominate because they are great...rest assure of that!

 

[capn89*]

there were big men back in the day too guys 5'11 6 feet 6'1 etc
in the 1960;s a guy who was 6'1 was considered huge
The largest players in the nhl during the 1980's generally were 6 feet or 6'2 in some rare cases 6'4 Bobby Smith Larry Robinson 6'3 Willie Huber 6'6"

If you wanan use the scenerio of brining todays modern players and zapping them back in time to play in the 1930's isnt realistic but at the same tiem we could argue why couldnt we suggets that a player of the of a elite calibre from a yester year era played todays game. Let pretend that charlie conacher was born in 1983 and played in todays nhl how would he dominate? Players like that would dominate because they are great...rest assure of that!

And like I said, no one would agree with me, and of course it's all hypothetical. By "big" I don't mean height so much as the masses of some of these guys. If you look at photos, the farther you go back, the guys get smaller and scrawnier. It's not an arguement I'll get into, simply because it cannot be proven either way, but I will just state my opinion that I do not believe guys from yesteryear would dominate today.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

Who thinks Patrick Roy drops quite a few spots? His reputation seems to have taken quite a beating since 2002 when he sat out the Olympics.

 

[mcphee]

And like I said, no one would agree with me, and of course it's all hypothetical. By "big" I don't mean height so much as the masses of some of these guys. If you look at photos, the farther you go back, the guys get smaller and scrawnier. It's not an arguement I'll get into, simply because it cannot be proven either way, but I will just state my opinion that I do not believe guys from yesteryear would dominate today.

I think that the fact that the physical differences of the body can't be factored in, along with available eqmt., and training, dictates the arguement should work in terms of relation to their peers. Sure these guys are bigger and faster and most shoot harder, but we aren't saving lives here, we're having fun trying to compare and rate players.

 

[arrbez]

No one will agree with me, but I don't really give a damn. My biggest problem with the list is the fact that it's all so ridiculously blind. You cannot make an all time greatest list in any sport because quite frankly, if you took the "WORST" player in the NHL today and sent him back 30 or 40 years to play in the NHL he would completely dominate everyone. It takes nothing away from the fact that these older names did great things during their time period, but it's absurd to think that some of the guys would be better than the best today. Take into play current conditioning, the size of guys, rules, etc. It's just stupid.

yes, no kidding.

but who cares? if people don't agree with you, it's because you're completely missing the point of this.

if "best" is such a huge philsophical problem for you, then just think of it as a list of who was the most dominant during their time.

 

[God Bless Canada]

No one will agree with me, but I don't really give a damn. My biggest problem with the list is the fact that it's all so ridiculously blind. You cannot make an all time greatest list in any sport because quite frankly, if you took the "WORST" player in the NHL today and sent him back 30 or 40 years to play in the NHL he would completely dominate everyone. It takes nothing away from the fact that these older names did great things during their time period, but it's absurd to think that some of the guys would be better than the best today. Take into play current conditioning, the size of guys, rules, etc. It's just stupid.

Your argument fails to take into account one thing: the mental side of the game. There's an old school of thought that says hockey is 90 per cent mental and 10 per cent physical. While that might be an exaggeration, an impressive skill-set only takes you so far. If talent is all that matters, then we'd be looking at guys like Jason Bonsignore and Alexander Volchkov in the top 10 for NHL scoring leaders.

Yes, the players today are bigger, stronger, faster, etc. But you can't teach greatness. I can take a kid with a good shot and teach him how to have a great shot. But I can't teach him how to score goals. Why? Because goal-scoring is more than just skills. It requires those instincts that I can't teach. You either have them or you don't. You can't teach anticipation, hockey sense, determination, dedication, a strong work ethic, a big-game mentality, leadership or a winning attitude. These are what separates the talented from the all-time greats.

It was said in a previous thread that Chad Kilger would dominate in the Original Six. No bloody way. Why? He doesn't have the mental edge to dominate. He doesn't have those instincts. Great size, good mobility for a big man and an impressive skill set, to be sure, but he is lacking in the mental aspect of the game. He wouldn't have survived against Original Six competition, when virtually every player had that mental edge, and even the top stars were capable of playing a rugged game.

 

[Weztex]

No one will agree with me, but I don't really give a damn. My biggest problem with the list is the fact that it's all so ridiculously blind. You cannot make an all time greatest list in any sport because quite frankly, if you took the "WORST" player in the NHL today and sent him back 30 or 40 years to play in the NHL he would completely dominate everyone. It takes nothing away from the fact that these older names did great things during their time period, but it's absurd to think that some of the guys would be better than the best today. Take into play current conditioning, the size of guys, rules, etc. It's just stupid.

I thought that all have been said about this subject. I know a lot a people thing this way but if you take a player from an era to another you cannot just teleport him. If it would be the case then i would totally agree with you. But the fact is that if Howie Morenz play today he would be born in the 80's and would have access to all the training equipement, new rules, sticks and whatever player use today (even propecia ). So in the end, what's left is pure talent. Same if Bossy had played the 30's. Frankly, I always thought that if you take the rules and equipements of the 30's and drag it to our era, the scroring race would not be that different because equipement don't interfer in anyway with talent.

 

[pappyline]

capn89 said

"if you took the "WORST" player in the NHL today and sent him back 30 or 40 years to play in the NHL he would completely dominate everyone."

"If you look at photos, the farther you go back, the guys get smaller and scrawnier."

I just had to weigh in on this one. Unfortunately, there are a lot out there who would agree with you and everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Have you ever seen a photo of Bobby Hull in his prime (5' 10", 195 ilbs). One of the "Best" players right now is Marin St. Louis (5' 9", 185 ilbs). Anybody that knows anything about hockey knows that Hull would be much more dominant than St. Louis if he was transplanted to 2006. So much for your "smaller & scrawnier theory. How about Howe (6', 205lb) and Beliveau (6'3", 205 lb).

Do you really think the worst player today would dominate these guys? Forgetting about size, there are other attributes that are relative. How about natural ability & heart?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

capn89 said

"if you took the "WORST" player in the NHL today and sent him back 30 or 40 years to play in the NHL he would completely dominate everyone."

"If you look at photos, the farther you go back, the guys get smaller and scrawnier."

I just had to weigh in on this one. Unfortunately, there are a lot out there who would agree with you and everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Have you ever seen a photo of Bobby Hull in his prime (5' 10", 195 ilbs). One of the "Best" players right now is Marin St. Louis (5' 9", 185 ilbs). Anybody that knows anything about hockey knows that Hull would be much more dominant than St. Louis if he was transplanted to 2006. So much for your "smaller & scrawnier theory. How about Howe (6', 205lb) and Beliveau (6'3", 205 lb).

Do you really think the worst player today would dominate these guys? Forgetting about size, there are other attributes that are relative. How about natural ability & heart?

Excellent post. The "smaller and scrawnier" theory is completely false. If small players like Fleury, Yzerman, Sakic, St. Louis, Datsyuk, Kariya, John Madden, etc., are able to dominate the NHL today, why wouldn't signficantly larger, stronger, more durable and more skilled players (like Beliveau, Howe, Esposito, Conacher, Hull (not particularly big, but EXTREMELY muscular), George Armstrong, etc.) be able to dominate?

 

[Ogopogo*]

capn89 said

"if you took the "WORST" player in the NHL today and sent him back 30 or 40 years to play in the NHL he would completely dominate everyone."

"If you look at photos, the farther you go back, the guys get smaller and scrawnier."

I just had to weigh in on this one. Unfortunately, there are a lot out there who would agree with you and everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Have you ever seen a photo of Bobby Hull in his prime (5' 10", 195 ilbs). One of the "Best" players right now is Marin St. Louis (5' 9", 185 ilbs). Anybody that knows anything about hockey knows that Hull would be much more dominant than St. Louis if he was transplanted to 2006. So much for your "smaller & scrawnier theory. How about Howe (6', 205lb) and Beliveau (6'3", 205 lb).

Do you really think the worst player today would dominate these guys? Forgetting about size, there are other attributes that are relative. How about natural ability & heart?

Oddly enough, I was doing some research recently and I was surprised how many 5'10" - 6' players there were in the 20s. It wasn't just all these 5'6" guys flying around.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

Oddly enough, I was doing some research recently and I was surprised how many 5'10" - 6' players there were in the 20s. It wasn't just all these 5'6" guys flying around.

Dont listen to him Ogo. He probably thinks Eric Cole >> Gordie Howe