Where does Doug Gilmour rank all time for two-way centres?

[SeanMoneyHands]

His defensive game was probably just as good as Fedorov's but just a bit under him offensively. I'd say better than Modano, Francis, Oates though. Gilmour has to be top 10 of all time.

Click to read more...

 

[BenchBrawl]

What is your definition of "two-way center"? Is Jean Béliveau a two-way center? Is Frank Nighbor a two-way center? Is Joe Sakic a two-way center? Is Steve Yzerman a two-way center? Is Stan Mikita a two-way center? Is Mark Messier a two-way center? Is Henri Richard a two-way center? Is Ted Kennedy a two-way center? Is Howie Morenz a two-way center? Is Sidney Crosby a two-way center? Is Sid Abel a two-way center? Is Norm Ullman a two-way center? Is Eric Lindros a two-way center?

I assume Bryan Trottier, Frank Boucher, Bobby Clarke, Peter Forsberg, Milt Schmidt and Elmer Lach would qualify for you regardless.

Assuming most of those make the cut (+ Fedorov), Gilmour would be in the 15th-20th range. Thing with Gilmour is he peaked high offensively, defensively and playoffs-wise all simultaneously, so his peak in terms of combining elite offense and defense is probably Top 10.

 

[buffalowing88]

What is your definition of "two-way center"? Is Jean Béliveau a two-way center? Is Frank Nighbor a two-way center? Is Joe Sakic a two-way center? Is Steve Yzerman a two-way center? Is Stan Mikita a two-way center? Is Mark Messier a two-way center? Is Henri Richard a two-way center? Is Ted Kennedy a two-way center? Is Howie Morenz a two-way center? Is Sidney Crosby a two-way center? Is Sid Abel a two-way center? Is Norm Ullman a two-way center? Is Eric Lindros a two-way center?

I assume Bryan Trottier, Frank Boucher, Bobby Clarke, Peter Forsberg, Milt Schmidt and Elmer Lach would qualify for you regardless.

Assuming most of those make the cut (+ Fedorov), Gilmour would be in the 15th-20th range. Thing with Gilmour is he peaked high offensively, defensively and playoffs-wise all simultaneously, so his peak in terms of combining elite offense and defense is probably Top 10.

I think you illustrated your point just fine the first two times you asked the question. 13 times is redundant and a little peculiar.

I think I'd put Gilmour in the top 20 comfortably. He is getting a tad bit overrated these days again but I don't think there are too many contemporaries who are comparable to what he offered. He was definitely one of a kind!

 

[GlitchMarner]

Like a lot of other people from Ontario who started following hockey in the mid 90s, I was a big fan of his when he played in Toronto.

At his best he was outstanding, but for a lot of his career he was about a prime Toews level player (capable of being in the top 30 in scoring while being good defensively). He was a solid and useful player for a long time. Actually, if you give Rod Brind'Amour Sergei Fedorov's peak (or one a notch below it) and playoff career, that's basically Dougie, no?

 

[GlitchMarner]

What is your definition of "two-way center"? Is Jean Béliveau a two-way center? Is Frank Nighbor a two-way center? Is Joe Sakic a two-way center? Is Steve Yzerman a two-way center? Is Stan Mikita a two-way center? Is Mark Messier a two-way center? Is Henri Richard a two-way center? Is Ted Kennedy a two-way center? Is Howie Morenz a two-way center? Is Sidney Crosby a two-way center? Is Sid Abel a two-way center? Is Norm Ullman a two-way center? Is Eric Lindros a two-way center?

I wouldn't call Lindros a two-way player. He was a Power Forward who was reliable defensively. I guess Crosby has been a two-way guy the last five seasons or so, but before that he was a scoring star who wasn't anything special defensively. Yzerman was a two-way C in the Dead Puck Era but not in the 80s or early 90s. I guess you can call DPE Sakic one as well. Forsberg can probably be considered a two-way C.

In his prime (mid or late 80s to '94), I don't think there were many two-way centres who could place high in Selke voting and also crack the top ten in scoring. Since the 2005 Lockout guys like Kopitar, Bergeron and Toews stand out as prominent centres who could score at a fairly high level and finish high in Selke voting while some other pivots (Backstrom, Thornton, Getzlaf) could score at a very high level and provide fairly good play away from the puck.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I think you illustrated your point just fine the first two times you asked the question. 13 times is redundant and a little peculiar.

I think I'd put Gilmour in the top 20 comfortably. He is getting a tad bit overrated these days again but I don't think there are too many contemporaries who are comparable to what he offered. He was definitely one of a kind!

You don't get it, I asked for every single "two-way" centers I thought might be ranked over Gilmour. Hence my list. I legit wanted an answer for all of them.

 

[buffalowing88]

You don't get it, I asked for every single "two-way" centers I thought might be ranked over Gilmour. Hence my list. I legit wanted an answer for all of them.

Oh, that makes sense. I guess the style sorta seemed more like a long-winded rhetorical. My bad, I read that wrong.

 

[psycat]

Right around someone like Zetterberg.

 

[scott clam]

In the all time sense slightly below Fedorov, maybe even 1 below. Both those guys were better at defense than players like Yzerman or Sakic though.

 

[Staniowski]

Gilmour is generally overrated for his 2 big years in Toronto, and underrated for some of his other years (Calgary years, etc.).

 

[The Panther]

Gilmour is generally overrated for his 2 big years in Toronto, and underrated for some of his other years (Calgary years, etc.).

Yes, and don't forget St. Louis, for whom Gilmour led the playoffs in scoring in 1986, then finished 5th in scoring in 1987 (which was higher than 1994 in Toronto). He was also really good at the '87 Canada Cup. This is all before Calgary.

 

[scott clam]

Gilmour is generally overrated for his 2 big years in Toronto, and underrated for some of his other years (Calgary years, etc.).

I'm not even so sure it's Gilmour that's overrated during those years so much as it is the Leaf teams that he played on...

 

[seventieslord]

Yes, and don't forget St. Louis, for whom Gilmour led the playoffs in scoring in 1986, then finished 5th in scoring in 1987 (which was higher than 1994 in Toronto). He was also really good at the '87 Canada Cup. This is all before Calgary.

5th is higher than 4th??

 

[VanIslander]

His defensive game was probably just as good as Fedorov's but just a bit under him offensively. I'd say better than Modano, Francis, Oates though. Gilmour has to be top 10 of all time.

No way.

Oates and Gilmour generated more offense than Fedorov: they had better vision, better anticipation of passing opportunities. Fedorov was a rich man's Mike Fisher: has wheels, defense and a shot but not much (in terms of greatness - had adequate Soviet-trained passing skills, but no Larionov or Fetisov teamwork) in the passing dep't.

Take away ONE season from Fedorov's resume and no way he even approaches top-100 status. One great regular season and a 3-year postseason defines Fedorov's career.

I take the grittier, more visionary Gilmour nineteen times out of twenty.

 

[Boxscore]

Gilmour was outstanding--everything you want in a hockey player. To me, Gilmour's peak was very "Bobby Clarkish"--great all around while being a gritty, inspirational leader who played bigger than his size. I was recently listening to him on the Cam & Strick Podcast and he was talking about his early years in St. Louis. They called him up and said to him, "we need you to check" and his reply was, "you're paying me to play in the NHL... I'll check or do anything you want me to do."

Based on intangibles and the "it factor", at his best, I'd place Dougie in the upper echelon of two-way centers. He wasn't as dynamic as peak Forsberg or as vicious as prime Clarke and Messier, but he's in the neighborhood. I'd take him over Modano or Fedorov any day... but I love players like Dougie Gilmour.

 

[Big Phil]

5th is higher than 4th??

The way I read it, he meant regular season scoring in 1987, which is a higher finish in just as hard of a year to do it as in 1994.


As for the question, hmmmmm, top 10? Maybe, yeah. That's pretty high praise though. The term "two-way" centre sometimes gets a little muddy. Heck, you can call Crosby a two-way centre for sure, and a darn good one as well. If you factor in Gilmour's playoff career then it is a shorter list, because he was excellent in the postseason.

 

[danincanada]

No way.

Oates and Gilmour generated more offense than Fedorov: they had better vision, better anticipation of passing opportunities. Fedorov was a rich man's Mike Fisher: has wheels, defense and a shot but not much (in terms of greatness - had adequate Soviet-trained passing skills, but no Larionov or Fetisov teamwork) in the passing dep't.

Take away ONE season from Fedorov's resume and no way he even approaches top-100 status. One great regular season and a 3-year postseason defines Fedorov's career.

I take the grittier, more visionary Gilmour nineteen times out of twenty.

Here are Fedorov’s top scoring seasons using adjusted points vs. Gilmour’s. Looks like Fedorov has the edge and it also looks like Gilmour also only has two incredible seasons along some very good ones. Not sure how you came up with your argument based on this. Sounds like you really just don’t like Fedorov to me.

Fedorov 109, 102, 93, 87, 78, 76, 75, 75, etc.

Gilmour 102, 100, 89, 85, 79, 77, 76, 72, etc.

I like Oates a lot and he produced a little more offense than both but he didn’t really have the same impact the other two guys had all over the ice. I think most agree or he would be discussed more and ranked higher than he is. As good as Oates was Fedorov and Gilmour were more impactful overall and at their best.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I'm not even so sure it's Gilmour that's overrated during those years so much as it is the Leaf teams that he played on...

Who overrates those teams? They would have been mediocre without Gilmour.

(Unlike the team a certain comparable played on )

Gilmour's 93 and 94 seasons are the closest I've seen a mortal get to having the kind of impact you'd expect of a Big 4 player in their primes. It was ridiculous.

 

[Johnny Engine]

The way I read it, he meant regular season scoring in 1987, which is a higher finish in just as hard of a year to do it as in 1994.

If he meant regular season, then he's still wrong as he finished 4th in '94 and 5th in '87...

 

[scott clam]

Who overrates those teams? They would have been mediocre without Gilmour.

(Unlike the team a certain comparable played on )

Gilmour's 93 and 94 seasons are the closest I've seen a mortal get to having the kind of impact you'd expect of a Big 4 player in their primes. It was ridiculous.

What I mean is that the '93 and '94 Leafs are easily the most venerated teams to lose in the 3rd round of the playoffs, as it's the closest they've come to being in the SCF for over 50 years.

It's Doug Gilmour's insane peak that made those teams so entertaining.

 

[BraveCanadian]

What I mean is that the '93 and '94 Leafs are easily the most venerated teams to lose in the 3rd round of the playoffs, as it's the closest they've come to being in the SCF for over 50 years.

It's Doug Gilmour's insane peak that made those teams so entertaining.

Got ya, the '93 Leafs are still one of my all time favourite clubs so I see where you're coming from. Obviously, Gilmour is a big part of that, but Potvin, Andreychuk, Clark, Ellett etc. were too. It was a really appealing team to me because the team was MUCH more than the sum of its parts. I think Pat Burns deserves the credit for that, along with Gilmour leading by example.

 

[buffalowing88]

Got ya, the '93 Leafs are still one of my all time favourite clubs so I see where you're coming from. Obviously, Gilmour is a big part of that, but Potvin, Andreychuk, Clark, Ellett etc. were too. It was a really appealing team to me because the team was MUCH more than the sum of its parts. I think Pat Burns deserves the credit for that, along with Gilmour leading by example.

Yeah, I'm a Sabres fan but as a kid that Leafs core was just so fun to root for. Like you said, they were greater than the sum of their parts. I don't think it'd be an overstatement to suggest they were the most popular team of the early 90s and Gilmour was the face of that team so naturally, he was as popular as anyone in the league at that time. He was so versatile out there and dynamic.

 

[scott clam]

Got ya, the '93 Leafs are still one of my all time favourite clubs so I see where you're coming from. Obviously, Gilmour is a big part of that, but Potvin, Andreychuk, Clark, Ellett etc. were too. It was a really appealing team to me because the team was MUCH more than the sum of its parts. I think Pat Burns deserves the credit for that, along with Gilmour leading by example.

The '93 Leafs are actually my favourite team of all time: as that was the first playoffs I ever watched as a kid.

But the point I was trying to make was that in reality they're nothing more than an above average team that lost game 7 of the conference finals. Gilmour was absolute money those playoffs, and was the difference maker against a heavily favoured Red Wings team, as well as the Blues. So he deserves most of the accolades he gets for his short peak with TO.

But to me the way the '93 team gets romanticized to this day is pretty sad, and in some ways has arguably been a curse on Leaf nation.

 

[Boxscore]

Got ya, the '93 Leafs are still one of my all time favourite clubs so I see where you're coming from. Obviously, Gilmour is a big part of that, but Potvin, Andreychuk, Clark, Ellett etc. were too. It was a really appealing team to me because the team was MUCH more than the sum of its parts. I think Pat Burns deserves the credit for that, along with Gilmour leading by example.

That was the year I started to truly love the Leafs--that team was so likable in every way. The player on that team who I found to be underappreciated was Dave Andreychuk--I loved watching him play during those Leafs years.

 

[scott clam]

Here are Fedorov’s top scoring seasons using adjusted points vs. Gilmour’s. Looks like Fedorov has the edge and it also looks like Gilmour also only has two incredible seasons along some very good ones. Not sure how you came up with your argument based on this. Sounds like you really just don’t like Fedorov to me.

Fedorov 109, 102, 93, 87, 78, 76, 75, 75, etc.

Gilmour 102, 100, 89, 85, 79, 77, 76, 72, etc.

I like Oates a lot and he produced a little more offense than both but he didn’t really have the same impact the other two guys had all over the ice. I think most agree or he would be discussed more and ranked higher than he is. As good as Oates was Fedorov and Gilmour were more impactful overall and at their best.

The adjusted points for the top scorers of 1987 vs. 2003 is easily my number one reason for not taking adjusted stats seriously.