Which players would be superstars no matter what team they play on?

[The Cheat]

Which players would be absolute superstars no matter what team they had to play on regardless of the talent they had to play with?

Which current superstar players would not be so dominant or struggle?

Click to read more...

 

[Vesa Awesaka]

karlsson plays with crap... so him i guess lol

 

[NyQuil]

Jonathan Quick might struggle?

Kings fans have stated that Sutter's defense-first philosophy stunts the offensive production of guys like Doughty, so the corollary might be that it benefits their goaltender.

 

[eeddieedwards]

The current superstars in the league

 

[Le Tricolore]

A better question would be what players are superstars based only on the team they play for? I can't think of any.

 

[MakeTheGoalsLarger]

A better question would be what players are superstars based only on the team they play for? I can't think of any.

i agree,

and the answer is Toews, Keith, Quick, Rask

 

[Shrimper]

Crosby would do fine. As would Geno.

 

[londonHK]

i agree,

and the answer is Toews, Keith, Quick, Rask

Just curious - do you take the view that these guys were all mediocre on their junior, international, etc. teams and only play well on their respective NHL teams?

 

[BeastoftheEast85]

A better question would be what players are superstars based only on the team they play for? I can't think of any.

Seguin if he was on Boston

Edit: Gomez on any other team but the Devils.

 

[FytinSioux]

i agree,

and the answer is Toews, Keith, Quick, Rask

Pretty incorrect answer for guys with a lot of individual hardware at every level they've ever played at.

 

[The Podium]

Well Kessel was able to score with the likes of Joey Crabb, Matt Stajan, etc.

He was also responsible for Bozak's career, and its no coincidence that Lupul and JVR had career years on his off-wing.

 

[Alexander the Gr8]

Which players would be absolute superstars no matter what team they had to play on regardless of the talent they had to play with?

Which current superstar players would not be so dominant or struggle?

Superstars are superstars regardless of the team they play on. They wouldn't be superstars otherwise.

 

[DayNah]

i agree,

and the answer is Toews, Keith, Quick, Rask

I think any great goaltender is a result of who plays in front of them.

 

[Le Tricolore]

I think any great goaltender is a result of who plays in front of them.

Some goalies would be, sure.. but ANY?!

 

[NyQuil]

I think any great goaltender is a result of who plays in front of them.

You haven't seen much of the New York Rangers over the last 10 years.

 

[DFC]

Some players actually do a lot better on poor teams. Not as much depth to compete with, and somebody has to score. So I think the opposite happens in a lot of cases. There are depth guys getting lost in the shuffle on good teams who would light it up with poor teams.

 

[NyQuil]

Some players actually do a lot better on poor teams. Not as much depth to compete with, and somebody has to score. So I think the opposite happens in a lot of cases. There are depth guys on good teams who would light it up with poor teams.

Some goalies put up ridiculous statistics when they see a lot of shots - and then when they go to stingy teams, they allow deflating goals when they don't see as much action, and the stats aren't as good.

 

[Chris Hansen]

i agree,

and the answer is Toews, Keith, Quick, Rask

The two best, most important players on Chicago are only superstars because they play for Chicago?

That's pretty backwards.

You can at least make a reasonable argument for the two goalies, since we have scores of examples showing that goalies can be products of systems (although I would disagree with these two as well).

 

[Algernop Kreider]

I think any great goaltender is a result of who plays in front of them.

I wouldn't say that. Guys like Lundqvist and Rinne have shown that they can be great no matter what.

 

[Android 16]

Pat Kane could play for the Sabres and put up 70 easily.

 

[Algernop Kreider]

Nash has shown that he can be a superstar with both the best and the worst teams.

 

[Maplebeasts]

Nash has shown that he can be a superstar with both the best and the worst teams.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Nash hardly qualifies as a superstar imo. He played on a bad team in CBJ but I bet you his stats were inflated from being the only option offensively on the team. He most likely saw a ton of ice time, loads of time on the pp, CBJ players probably gave him the puck a lot more than if they had more than one really good player. He's shooting about 20% on the season, which is much higher an his career average. He also was lousy last season and has only reached ppg for a year twice.

 

[pbgoalie]

Homer vote for Getzlaf

Can't imagine he wouldn't be good anywhere

 

[Marina]

i agree,

and the answer is Toews, Keith, Quick, Rask

You do realize that without Toews and Keith the Hawks aren't nearly as good as they are? How in the world are they only superstars because of the team they play for when they're a huge part of the teams success in the first place...

 

[TriFF51]

If you're a superstar, you're a superstar no matter where you play. Maybe some stats would take a hit, but the skill would still be there.