I think he's talking about future 2000 goal scorer Angelo Esposito
And he's right. The guy lacks puck poise.
I think he's talking about future 2000 goal scorer Angelo Esposito
And he's right. The guy lacks puck poise.
Debrincat93
Registered User
So who was banking them off Phil when he was the best player in the Summit Series?
Poor Phil, gets no love...
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Know Your Enemy
Registered
Yeah, that argument is REALLY starting to piss me off. I read it everyday on these ****** boards. I don't understand why people don't believe that great teammates feed off each other (i.e. Kurri, Gretzky), to them it allways "X player spoonfed X teammate, so X teammate is overrated and must have a huge asterisk beside his career."
Ha ! Maybe I was a little harsh ( and I do mean little ). To your question; hmmm, maybe it was Brad Park or Sarge Savard doing the banking during the Summit Series since Bobby O didn't play - I'd have to check the videos.
saskganesh
Registered User
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
That would be Gordie Howe, everyone else is battling for second.
The problem is, Esposito's stats were 50% better with Orr than without, the effect chemistry had on him is unreal. And we never saw a healthy Orr minus Esposito. So, it's hard to predict how much was chemsitry and how much was Orr's greatness. The other problem is, Esposito's prime was all spent with Orr, so how much was natural decline? Was Esposito a 1st line center without Orr? Yeah, no doubt about it. Was Espo a top ten all-time center without Orr? No. Top 20 maybe.
Heat McManus
Registered User
Esposito was the best player in the 1972 Canada/Russia series without Orr. I think Phil could stand on his own quite nicely.
Weztex
Registered User
- Feb 6, 2006
- 3,113
- 3,701
Never heard about him.
(read: forgot)Your post bring really good points. Usually I try to see things with what we know but the ''ifs'' could tell a whole other story in Espo's case. Rating Esposito's dominance is like the Gretzky/Lemieux debate...full of questions.
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
There's no denying Esposito was a big game player, but, an 8 game series is hardly a career. He'd have been good, but, dominant? It takes more than 8 games to convince me.
I'd love to see Espo's #'s when Orr was hurt vs when Orr was healthy
I don't really like attacking anyone who scores 500. I mean yeah does Dave And bring the game Messier does? Of course not, but the man did his job and did it damn well.
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
Amongst old-timers - Johny Bucyk
Amongst more contemporary players - Verbeek, Andreychuk, Turgeon, Gartner
Amongst more contemporary players - Verbeek, Andreychuk, Turgeon, Gartner
Boris Le Tigre
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Richard? How many cups for Richard... if you say that I say Neely
he's so bad he's not even on the list... what a scrub
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
Looking back at his stats again I must rescind my statement a little. He had years where he was a top 10 forward, but not many as I previously said. In 95-96 he scored 96 points in 80 games and in 99-00 he was once again among the top scoring forwards. Anybody who could have 5 straioght seasons of scoring about .5 ppg and still be over 100 points more than gp is not the worst to score 500.
wedge
Registered User
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
people forget with Verbeek he was like theo fluery--but without the off ice crap
he was 5'9 and physical
I was never a Turgeon fan
he was 5'9 and physical
I was never a Turgeon fan
rumrokh
THORBS
- Mar 10, 2006
- 10,108
- 3,285
This thread should be labeled "who do you remember the least?"
85% of these posts are people toeing the line between players who are absolute legends and guys who are great now. It's absurd to say that Nieuwendyk or Selanne are better than Andreychuk, Gartner, or Robitaille.
Gartner is sixth all time in goals. He has over 700 goals and folks are talking about him like it's easy to say he's worse than guys who are right at 500. That's like saying guys with 350 goals are clearly better than the ones with 500.
Andreychuk has 640 and holds the record for most alltime powerplay goals. He wrote the book on being a screen and is one of the prototypical power forwards for the modern era. Scrappy goals are still goals. How many pucks on his stick wouldn't have gone in if he weren't so strong and well positioned? That's much more a part of the game than thread-the-needle passes and toe-dragging or whatever gives you guys boners.
Robitaille is the highest scoring left wing in history. A mind for the game like his is much rarer than the stickhandling and moves of guys like Kovalev or Viktor Kozlov. Luc had one of the best shots of all time.
The problem is that these guys aren't legends yet. So they don't get the respect that the legends get. And whomever is still playing now gets more attention. We're talking people who are in the top half of the 500 goal club and are being treated like they hardly even belong. I can't wait for somebody to say that Fedorov is better than Stastny because of his playoff point totals or that Gilbert Perreault was a better goal scorer than Brett Hull because they played in different eras.
Better yet, prettier goals are worth 2 goals and garbage goals don't even count because garbage goals mean you weren't actually trying to score and the other team didn't actually try to defend against it. I mean, seriously, anybody can score those.
You get a penalty for getting close enough to touch the crease unless you are dekeing the goalie for a backhander top-shelf. And all goals will instead be credited to the player with the primary assist. If you have to resort to slapshots for goals, that's because your wrister isn't good enough (a "wicked wrister" is the only sign of a true goalscorer), and you only get one goal. Unless you are a defenseman, in which case, you have an "absolute cannon" and you would have outscored Gretzky if you played in the same era. At the end of the season, the Stanley Cup is awarded to the single player with the highest plus/minus rating.
Next season: Goaltenders must play in tuxedos and saves can only be made using a double-pad-stack. This is all to preserve the tradition of the game and to ensure that the hall of fame will be truly representative of player skills.
85% of these posts are people toeing the line between players who are absolute legends and guys who are great now. It's absurd to say that Nieuwendyk or Selanne are better than Andreychuk, Gartner, or Robitaille.
Gartner is sixth all time in goals. He has over 700 goals and folks are talking about him like it's easy to say he's worse than guys who are right at 500. That's like saying guys with 350 goals are clearly better than the ones with 500.
Andreychuk has 640 and holds the record for most alltime powerplay goals. He wrote the book on being a screen and is one of the prototypical power forwards for the modern era. Scrappy goals are still goals. How many pucks on his stick wouldn't have gone in if he weren't so strong and well positioned? That's much more a part of the game than thread-the-needle passes and toe-dragging or whatever gives you guys boners.
Robitaille is the highest scoring left wing in history. A mind for the game like his is much rarer than the stickhandling and moves of guys like Kovalev or Viktor Kozlov. Luc had one of the best shots of all time.
The problem is that these guys aren't legends yet. So they don't get the respect that the legends get. And whomever is still playing now gets more attention. We're talking people who are in the top half of the 500 goal club and are being treated like they hardly even belong. I can't wait for somebody to say that Fedorov is better than Stastny because of his playoff point totals or that Gilbert Perreault was a better goal scorer than Brett Hull because they played in different eras.
Better yet, prettier goals are worth 2 goals and garbage goals don't even count because garbage goals mean you weren't actually trying to score and the other team didn't actually try to defend against it. I mean, seriously, anybody can score those.
You get a penalty for getting close enough to touch the crease unless you are dekeing the goalie for a backhander top-shelf. And all goals will instead be credited to the player with the primary assist. If you have to resort to slapshots for goals, that's because your wrister isn't good enough (a "wicked wrister" is the only sign of a true goalscorer), and you only get one goal. Unless you are a defenseman, in which case, you have an "absolute cannon" and you would have outscored Gretzky if you played in the same era. At the end of the season, the Stanley Cup is awarded to the single player with the highest plus/minus rating.
Next season: Goaltenders must play in tuxedos and saves can only be made using a double-pad-stack. This is all to preserve the tradition of the game and to ensure that the hall of fame will be truly representative of player skills.
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
Gartner was never even the 3rd best player at his position according to all-star team voters.
Andreychuk was almost never his teams go to guy, and the team sucked when he was. And, for the record, Gord Drillon wrote the book on standing in the crease.
Robitaille is both underrated and overrated. He's overrated because that highest scoring LW does not reflect his status in history where he is not top 10 all time and is borderline top 10 in NHL history. He's underrated because people forget that he had hands of silk when he plays in L.A.
Andreychuk was almost never his teams go to guy, and the team sucked when he was. And, for the record, Gord Drillon wrote the book on standing in the crease.
Robitaille is both underrated and overrated. He's overrated because that highest scoring LW does not reflect his status in history where he is not top 10 all time and is borderline top 10 in NHL history. He's underrated because people forget that he had hands of silk when he plays in L.A.
rumrokh
THORBS
- Mar 10, 2006
- 10,108
- 3,285
Do you realize how these all refer to external perception as opposed to actual performance?
All-star votes don't actually determine how you play. People talk about overlooked, overrated, underrated ALL the time around here. Attention and year-to-year popularity are inconsequential to performance or production.
Being the go-to-guy on a team also has nothing to do with overall performance or production. It might indicate your dependability during a certain period or how clutch another player was, but it doesn't matter. Andreychuk was a certain type of player. Of course you're putting the puck on LaFontaine's stick when it counts. But if you don't have Andreychuk on your team, maybe you don't even get to that point as often.
I'll admit hyperbole saying that Andreychuk wrote the book on anything, but there's a bit of a difference between being a screen and playing in the crease.
Again, with Robitaille, it's not a matter of production, it's how he is "rated." If you watched him play and you look at his numbers, there's no mistake. Perception and performance are not directly related. And the responses to this thread, for the most part, reflect that. People are going by general impression or perception of allstar voters rather than watching a guy play and looking at his stats and analyzing them accordingly.
TheSniper26
Registered User
I really never cared for topics like this. It's almost asking an impossible question. A more appropriate question would be "who is the best/worst in relation to their respective eras?". Sports, like anything else, evolve over time. People have this natural way of idealizing and glorifying the past. But the truth is, anyone who doesn't think there is a difference in the level of skill between the eras is being very naive. Players today are bigger, stronger and faster. Immensely better skating is taking place out there. Goalies too are bigger, faster and smarter. Their equipment is massive compared to years ago. There's barely any net to shoot at. Defensive schemes are more sophisticated. The list of reasons can go on and on as far as why it's impossible to compare most of the players on this list to one another. Half are from an era where most goals were scored along the ice. The other half are from an era when a shot skidding along the ice is a usually routine stop for a goalie. Half of the reason Gretzky came on as strong as he did was because he was a modern day level player catching the league at, in my opinion, the tail end of an older era. Sure, every now and again you have those guys who can transcend the sport and be truly ahead of their time(Orr is the obvious answer to this), but those people are very, very rare. Sports and athletes evolve. It's actually a really good thing. But it's also something that makes discussions like this one silly and irrelevant.
