Where does Bure fit in the grand scheme of things?

[Form and Substance]

Despite the deafening love for Bure on these boards, most agree he's a borderline HOFer (I believe he is a shoe-in), but where should he be placed in an all-time list? Arguably in the top 3 for scorers yet his stats seem underwhelming compared to some of the giants in the league. So is he top 50 material? top 100?

Click to read more...

 

[Sens Rule]

Despite the deafening love for Bure on these boards, most agree he's a borderline HOFer (I believe he is a shoe-in), but where should he be placed in an all-time list? Arguably in the top 3 for scorers yet his stats seem underwhelming compared to some of the giants in the league. So is he top 50 material? top 100?

I thought of the perfect anology. Vince Carter. Burew was the Vince Carter of hockey. All the talent in the world and could do things that wow you to no belief but that never really took the step to be the absolute best. A kind of one dimensional talent. But that one dimension was so incredibly fantistic he is an all time great. Despite his one playoff run in Vancouver could not really make his teammates better with his insane talent but also did not need any team mates to achieve incredible personal success like in Florida.

Undebatedly a top 5 player in terms of excitement generated and highlight reel plays. Debateably a top 50 or even top 75 player all time.

He had the sizzle, the flair, the speed. But he didn't translate that the way he could have. Perhaps he just had a good hockey mind with an insane hockey body while greats like Lemieux and Orr had great hockey minds and body and some like Gilmour and Gretzky had insane hockey minds and drive but just good hockey bodies.

Either way to me he is good enough to be a sure Hall of Famer despite a short career. But he leaves you wanting more. Alot more in terms of his ability to help his team win games with his clearly insane amount of talent. Perhaps only a few had his insane pure physical talent to skate and shoot. The only ones that come to mind are Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Gordie Howe and Bobby Orr. All achieved far, far more success than Bure did with his crazy physical talent.

 

[RUSqueelin*]

I thought of the perfect anology. Vince Carter. Burew was the Vince Carter of hockey. All the talent in the world and could do things that wow you to no belief but that never really took the step to be the absolute best. A kind of one dimensional talent. But that one dimension was so incredibly fantistic he is an all time great. Despite his one playoff run in Vancouver could not really make his teammates better with his insane talent but also did not need any team mates to achieve incredible personal success like in Florida.

Undebatedly a top 5 player in terms of excitement generated and highlight reel plays. Debateably a top 50 or even top 75 player all time.

He had the sizzle, the flair, the speed. But he didn't translate that the way he could have. Perhaps he just had a good hockey mind with an insane hockey body while greats like Lemieux and Orr had great hockey minds and body and some like Gilmour and Gretzky had insane hockey minds and drive but just good hockey bodies.

Either way to me he is good enough to be a sure Hall of Famer despite a short career. But he leaves you wanting more. Alot more in terms of his ability to help his team win games with his clearly insane amount of talent. Perhaps only a few had his insane pure physical talent to skate and shoot. The only ones that come to mind are Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Gordie Howe and Bobby Orr. All achieved far, far more success than Bure did with his crazy physical talent.

Not a bad analogy but if Vince Carter makes it into the basketball Hall of Fame based on his career so far I will puke. If Bure was a healthy athlete, heck he'd be playing this year (that puts things into perspective), I'm sure this wouldn't be debated. I guess this was the intent of the original question. Perhaps a better comparison is Cam Neely. Both injury riddle, shortened careers who defined their position and were better in their prime at their positions then anyone else they played against. I don't know, personally I think Bure had to play 2 more years to be considered a HHOFer. Top 100 players of all time, definitely in this category. Top 50? How many players are in the top 50 and not in the Hall?

Pavel Bure, Hockey Hall of Famer. Just doesn't roll off the tongue.

 

[tape-2-tape]

I see Bure in the top 50-100 around 75ish All Time. If you talk about the top Russian players of all time, he's got to be in the top 5 in that group IMO.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Despite the deafening love for Bure on these boards, most agree he's a borderline HOFer (I believe he is a shoe-in), but where should he be placed in an all-time list? Arguably in the top 3 for scorers yet his stats seem underwhelming compared to some of the giants in the league. So is he top 50 material? top 100?

On my list of greatest players (not including goalies) Bure is #98.

 

[xeric716x]

top 50 in the 40's

 

[God Bless Canada]

I find "exciting" to be an incredible subjective term. I wouldn't rate him as one of the most exciting players I've ever seen. I'd say he's probably the most explosive player I've ever seen, and the fastest skater I've ever seen. A treat to watch with the puck on his stick? Damn straight. I find a great hit to be exciting. I find a fight exciting. I find a great backcheck to be exciting. Stickhandling? Exciting. Great speed? Exciting. Tenacious forecheck? Exciting. Most exciting? Mario, Wayne, Bobby Orr, Rocket Richard, Guy Lafleur would be ahead of Pavel. I found guys like Trottier, Beliveau and Clarke were more exciting, but again, that's a preference thing, and a reflection of what I find exciting.

Top goal scorers? I'd rate Mario, Esposito, the Hulls, Bossy, Howe, Lafleur and Rocket Richard light years ahead of Bure. Bure was more of a dangler - a guy who used his speed and stickhandling to score goals. He had a great shot, but not in the class of those mentioned above. Gretzky was a shooting arsenal who used his vision and anticipation, instead of pure goal-scoring instincts, to break the records.

I wouldn't rate Bure as one of the top 100 players of all-time. I'd take Neely ahead of him in a heart-beat. Neely was nearly as good of a goal scorer as Bure, but a much more physical presence and a better team player. I can name several Russian/Soviet forwards I'd take ahead of Bure: Makarov, Larionov, Fedorov, Kharlamov, Yakushev, Mikhailov. I'd also take Fetisov and Tretiak among the non-forwards.

 

[tape-2-tape]

I can name several Russian/Soviet forwards I'd take ahead of Bure: Makarov, Larionov, Fedorov, Kharlamov, Yakushev, Mikhailov. I'd also take Fetisov and Tretiak among the non-forwards.

Those are all GREAT players but half of them didn't have careers in the NHL which is why I'd take Bure in the Top 100. Sure, Kharlamov, Yakushev, Mikhailov, & Tretiak all could have played in this league had the circumstance of that time allowed it, but Pavel did play NHL hockey which makes it easy for me to choose him.

 

[Form and Substance]

Well I was actually tempted to put him in the top 10 of all-timebut refrained from doing so. Man I completely missed that guy.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

He had the sizzle, the flair, the speed. But he didn't translate that the way he could have. Perhaps he just had a good hockey mind with an insane hockey body while greats like Lemieux and Orr had great hockey minds and body and some like Gilmour and Gretzky had insane hockey minds and drive but just good hockey bodies.

I think he did translate it well. From 92-94 he was absolutly dominant. And even afterwards, when he was healthy, he was dominant.

In the grab scheme of things, he's an astrix, a might have, could have been due to injuries. Should have been the best goalscorer of the modern era, but injuries prevented that.

 

[KRM]

Don't forgett that he got his knee injurie early in his career, what was it? 1996? And yet managed too score 60 goals after his injurie which later resulted in the end of his career.

A healthy Bure, would still be playing today and have managed too put up more points then he did after he got injured.

 

[VladNYC*]

Pavel Bure is in my top 10 best players of all time. I don't know how many of you have seen this man live and in person. I was lucky enough to see the CCCP teams play in the 80s in the soviet union as a little kid. Me and my dad regularly traveled to moscow to see games. I grew up watching all those cold war games and i have been an avid nhl fan for 17 years now. I have seen the Mogilny - Fedorov - Bure line in person. I have seen Makarov, Fetisov, Larianov when they were still cogs in the machine of the evil empire. I have seen Mario and the Great One, so you know that when i say that Pavel Bure is the most exciting player to have ever stepped on the ice, i have alot to compare it to. The man was a god on skates. Yeah he didn't play defense but there is NO ONE who scared goalies more then Pavel Bure in his prime. Pavel only had a handful of moves and goaltenders quickly started memorizing them and despite all the goalies knowing his moves by his the second and third year he would still beat them no problem. Ive never seen a guy with more mastery of the puck and by mastery i mean complete domination and control. There are few people who can step on the ice and say "That is my puck" with out an argument and Pavel was one of those guys. Even when it left his stick to go around a player or thru his legs, it was like it was drawn to his stick by a mystical energy. As far as his skating goes, i don't think i even have to say much other then what many who played with and against him have said, "It is as if his feet didn't even touch the ice." Him being in the Hall of Fame is not even a question.

 

[Heat McManus]

Pros:
One of the greatest pure goal scorers in the history of the game.
One of (if not) the most exciting player to watch.
Incredible stats on the NHL and International Level (Olympics and WJC)
Undeniable talent
2 time goal scoring champion
Led playoffs in goals in 1994
Calder Trophy


Cons:
Did not elevate the play of those around them.
Was not a team player.
Knees gave out early.
Never won a Stanley Cup


I've said it time and time again, if "the next-____" makes scouts drool and puts butts in the seats then the guy is a HHOFer. "The Next Pavel Bure" is something the hockey world is always looking for. If Clark Gillies, Bernie Federko are HHOFers than it would be criminal to deny Bure a spot.

It would be amazing if the Russian National team experiences a rebirth under the management of Bure and he is elected in a different capacity.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

Pavel Bure is in my top 10 best players of all time. I don't know how many of you have seen this man live and in person. I was lucky enough to see the CCCP teams play in the 80s in the soviet union as a little kid. Me and my dad regularly traveled to moscow to see games. I grew up watching all those cold war games and i have been an avid nhl fan for 17 years now. I have seen the Mogilny - Fedorov - Bure line in person. I have seen Makarov, Fetisov, Larianov when they were still cogs in the machine of the evil empire. I have seen Mario and the Great One, so you know that when i say that Pavel Bure is the most exciting player to have ever stepped on the ice, i have alot to compare it to. The man was a god on skates. Yeah he didn't play defense but there is NO ONE who scared goalies more then Pavel Bure in his prime. Pavel only had a handful of moves and goaltenders quickly started memorizing them and despite all the goalies knowing his moves by his the second and third year he would still beat them no problem. Ive never seen a guy with more mastery of the puck and by mastery i mean complete domination and control. There are few people who can step on the ice and say "That is my puck" with out an argument and Pavel was one of those guys. Even when it left his stick to go around a player or thru his legs, it was like it was drawn to his stick by a mystical energy. As far as his skating goes, i don't think i even have to say much other then what many who played with and against him have said, "It is as if his feet didn't even touch the ice." Him being in the Hall of Fame is not even a question.

You are drawing on memories from pretty early in life then, given you were born in 83

Gump Worsely might argue that Bobby Hull created a bit of nervous stomach in goalies in his day, so Bure striking the most fear ever is debatable.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Pros:
One of the greatest pure goal scorers in the history of the game.
One of (if not) the most exciting player to watch.
Incredible stats on the NHL and International Level (Olympics and WJC)
Undeniable talent
2 time goal scoring champion
Led playoffs in goals in 1994
Calder Trophy


Cons:
Did not elevate the play of those around them.
Was not a team player.
Knees gave out early.
Never won a Stanley Cup


I've said it time and time again, if "the next-____" makes scouts drool and puts butts in the seats then the guy is a HHOFer. "The Next Pavel Bure" is something the hockey world is always looking for. If Clark Gillies, Bernie Federko are HHOFers than it would be criminal to deny Bure a spot.

It would be amazing if the Russian National team experiences a rebirth under the management of Bure and he is elected in a different capacity.

The next Gillies actually would be a very sought after commodity, simply because there have been so few players like him ever since. The Islanders have spent two decades seeking the next Gillies. They hoped that Bertuzzi would be that player, but we know what happened. (Bertuzzi is nowhere near the playoff performer that Gillies was).

Under your premise, you have just argued for Theo Fleury in the Hall. Those who have read my posts know that I'm a big Theo fan, in spite of his short-comings. Scouts have spent the last 15 years looking for the next Theo Fleury. Throughout the 90s, he was THE prototypical small forward in the league, with his combination of speed, skill, intensity, gumption and ability to elevate his play in the post-season. Most small forwards are lanky, but Theo had a very compact frame.

I don't think Theo is deserving of the HHOF. He'll generate plenty of heated debate (he, Bure and Claude Lemieux will likely be the most contested candidates over the next few years). Too much off-ice baggage, and there's just a couple parts missing in the portfolio.

 

[Heat McManus]

If Claude Lemiuex makes the Hall and Bure is left on the door-step then there is something greatly amiss with their voting process.

 

[chooch*]

Bure was exciting in a cotton candy sort of way; its hard to get too excited about a guy who has 100 more career goals than assists but he was fun to watch.

He is missed.

What was his +/-?

 

[Ogopogo*]

Bure was exciting in a cotton candy sort of way; its hard to get too excited about a guy who has 100 more career goals than assists but he was fun to watch.

He is missed.

What was his +/-?

C'mon chooch, you're a smart guy. +/- means about as much as the color of the uniforms.

 

[Heat McManus]

Bure was exciting in a cotton candy sort of way; its hard to get too excited about a guy who has 100 more career goals than assists but he was fun to watch.

He is missed.

What was his +/-?

A. Is it hard to get excited about a guy who can go end-to-end and score some of the most incredible goals in NHL history? Is it hard to get excited about a player who did things at top speed that many all-stars didn't attempt in practice? Gretzky had over twice as many assists than goals so obviously he couldn't put the puck in the net.


B. He was a +42 for his career.

Also, I believe Theo Fleury's numbers are without a doubt good enough to be in the HHOF, but unfortunately his off-ice issues are a huge hinderance to his chances.

 

[God Bless Canada]

If Claude Lemiuex makes the Hall and Bure is left on the door-step then there is something greatly amiss with their voting process.

I didn't say Lemieux will get in. I said he will generate a lot of debate. He comes up for eligibility for the first time next year, and while he won't get in due to the number of outstanding, first-time candidates, come 2008, he'll get a lot of support.

The post-season is what matters, and over the last 20 years, there have been few players better in the post-season than Claude Lemieux. One of six players to win a Cup with three different organizations. (And a pretty key player to all three). Won the Conn Smythe. Had a lesser role on a fourth Cup champion.

I don't think he'll get in, and I don't think he belongs. Like Theo, there is some off-ice baggage, and Claude wasn't always the most pleasant person to be around. His on-ice conduct - a history of cheap shots and diving - won't help his cause either.

But when the game was on the line, or if you were in a Game 7, there weren't many players you'd want ahead of Lemieux. That is why he will be one of the most fiercely debated candidates starting in 2008.

 

[ForsbergForever]

1992-93 Vancouver Canucks 83 60 50 110
1993-94 Vancouver Canucks 76 60 47 107
1997-98 Vancouver Canucks 82 51 39 90
1998-99 Florida Panthers 11 13 3 16
1999-00 Florida Panthers 74 58 36 94
2000-01 Florida Panthers 82 59 33 92

These were Pavel's best seasons, which really are truely impressive, 98-99 more so if he had played more games. If he had scored over 30 in the 94-95 season and been totally healthy with Mogilny on the Canucks for 95-96 and 96-97, I think his numbers would be undeniable HoF material. He should be in the Hall of Fame based on what he was able to do in between knee injuries but unlike Orr he didn't dominate long enoguh to really cement his status as an all time great, which holds him back when comparing him to other legends.

Edit: 500 posts! it may not be the four digit milestone, but i think quality over quantity is what counts.

 

[Big Phil]

The ironic thing is that despite Bure's goal scoring talents if you look back at old Hockey News yearbook's quite often Bure is not in the top 10 or even top 15 even after a 58 goal season. In the top 5 you had guys like Hasek, Jagr, Lindros, Forsberg and Kariya while the top 10 rounded out to be Pronger, Lidstrom, Sakic, Modano and Sundin. These were the years of around '98-04. So Bure wasnt considered to be a Top 10 player in those years. I can only think of one year maybe '93-94 where he was a consensus top 10 player in the game. Now does it mean he doenst get into the Hall? No. But he's not the shoo-in everyone thinks.

 

[XploD]

Well I believe it's too much focus on other things than what you actually did on the ice in the HHOF. The fact is that Bure was one of the most exciting players of all time, does he really need the Stanley Cup and the lengthy career with top 50 all time numbers to get in the hall? I mean getting in the hall is an individual achievement so shouldn't the individual stuff count the most, not how many Stanley Cups you've won, and would you pass on arguably one of the most exciting players of all time just because he had a shortened career?

Bure is will and will go down as a hockey legend, someone that everyone will talk about for a very long time, not because of career numbers or Stanley Cup wins but because of how magical that Russian Rocket was. Shouldn't this be accounted for when considering Bure's induction?

 

[Sens Rule]

Well I believe it's too much focus on other things than what you actually did on the ice in the HHOF. The fact is that Bure was one of the most exciting players of all time, does he really need the Stanley Cup and the lengthy career with top 50 all time numbers to get in the hall? I mean getting in the hall is an individual achievement so shouldn't the individual stuff count the most, not how many Stanley Cups you've won, and would you pass on arguably one of the most exciting players of all time just because he had a shortened career?

Bure is will and will go down as a hockey legend, someone that everyone will talk about for a very long time, not because of the career numbers or because of the many Cup wins but because of how magical that Russian Rocket was. Shouldn't this be accounted for when considering Bure's induction?

Of course it should. It is the Hall of Fame after all. I think Bure should definately get in. He is not one of the very best ever to play in the NHL. He was never the very best player in the NHL when he played. But he was undenyably a true Superstar from the moment he started playing in the NHL to the day he retired. That means alot in the great scheme of things and despite being one dimensional, and perhaps not improving his teammates, and missing so much time to injury and never being a true top 5 player in the world he is a definate Hall of Famer and still a legend.

P.S. What Cup Wins? He never won the Cup... Did you mean trophy wins like the Richard trophy?

 

[XploD]

Of course it should. It is the Hall of Fame after all. I think Bure should definately get in. He is not one of the very best ever to play in the NHL. He was never the very best player in the NHL when he played. But he was undenyably a true Superstar from the moment he started playing in the NHL to the day he retired. That means alot in the great scheme of things and despite being one dimensional, and perhaps not improving his teammates, and missing so much time to injury and never being a true top 5 player in the world he is a definate Hall of Famer and still a legend.

Exactly. He never was the best player in the world but I would argue in terms of talent and what he was able to do with the puck on the ice, he was second to none. Of guys I've seen play he's on par for the lead with Lemieux in that area, and that is why he should be a no brainer for the hall.

P.S. What Cup Wins? He never won the Cup... Did you mean trophy wins like the Richard trophy?

Edited, I just worded it a bit oddly. I'm a little jet-lagged. Just got back from Crete.

I meant that he's a player that won't be remembered for Cup wins or incredible numbers but for the magic he displayed on the ice. I can't understand why the Hall would overlook this and why people here think that it should be overlooked.