Who had the better peak?
- Thread starter canucks4ever
- Start date
Dark Shadows
Registered User
Actually, I was very clear that Bure was far ahead of Naslund in this. That's credit to him right there because for once, you are giving him a reasonable comparison.
He doesn't deserve the extra credit in most of the cases you bring him up in. You massively overrate him with some of your comparisons and thus, I have no choice but to give you the straight up truth, and more often than not, the majority agrees with me.
Messier was a better forward that year in the playoffs and that isn't really debatable in my eyes. He was the ultimate team player, unparalleled leader, more physically intimidating, equally good in scoring to Bure and far far better defensively. The team was down 2 goals in a game 6 after 2 periods, down 3-2 in the series, and he made a guarantee that they would win and that he would personally see to it that they won the series. What does he do? Goes out and wills himself to score a natural hat trick in the third to win. It is one of the most amazing feats in recent memory.
And I am the furthest thing from a Messier fan as they have on this board.
I mean you seem to hold "forward playing defence" in such a high regard and claim that it makes a certain player better than Bure. If that's the case, then why does he have 3 all star team selections? I mean you can always say that these players are better than Bure cuz they play defence. If everyone held 2-way play in that high of a regard, I'm sure Bure wouldnt have a single all star team selection or be a finalist for a Har Trophy.
Another thing, Leetch and Messier may have put up 30 points, but are you seriously going to tell me that they were playing the better teams prior to the finals? Flames were like a top 3 team in the regular season and Canucks took them out in the first round, Maple Leafs were also given a 50/50 shot at beating Canucks and last time I remembered, the 94 Dallas Stars were an elite team too and no one excepted Bure to walk through them.
Another thing, Leetch and Messier may have put up 30 points, but are you seriously going to tell me that they were playing the better teams prior to the finals? Flames were like a top 3 team in the regular season and Canucks took them out in the first round, Maple Leafs were also given a 50/50 shot at beating Canucks and last time I remembered, the 94 Dallas Stars were an elite team too and no one excepted Bure to walk through them.
Dark Shadows
Registered User
You know why? Because the people we are discussing had equal offensive upside to go along with superior defensive prowess.
Messier had 1 less point than Bure, but his intangibles and Defense push him ahead of Bure during that playoff.
In either case, Bure's all star selections are slim compared to most players you compare him to, and its a regular season award voted on before the playoffs. His Hart votes that year is nothing.
1993-94
HART: Sergei Fedorov 194 (31-11-6); Dominik Hasek 86 (6-15-11); John Vanbiesbrouck 74 (7-11-6); Doug Gilmour 50 (4-7-9); Patrick Roy 26 (3-3-2); Ray Bourque 18 (2-2-2); Scott Stevens 13 (1-1-5); Adam Graves 8 (0-1-5); Cam Neely 5 (0-1-2); Mike Richter 3 (0-1-0); Jeremy Roenick 3 (0-1-0); Pavel Bure 2 (0-0-2); Adam Oates 2 (0-0-2); Arturs Irbe 1 (0-0-1); Igor Larionov 1 (0-0-1)
Someone gave him two 3rd place votes as an afterthought. Big deal. he was nowhere close to it.
The only year he was remotely close to the Hart was 99-00, and he wasn't even close. Pronger and Jagr were close, but were both far ahead of Bure. Pronger had over twice as Many first place votes as Bure, ans Jagr had just as many first place votes as Bure had second place votes. But hey, Bure had more 3rd and 4th place votes than them
The Devils were better than ANYBODY the Canucks beat, and the Devils went on to win the cup the next year to prove it. They also had a better regular season than anyone the Canucks played. And NO, the stars were not an elite team at that time. They were a middling-Good team.
You know why? Because the people we are discussing had equal offensive upside to go along with superior defensive prowess.
Messier had 1 less point than Bure, but his intangibles and Defense push him ahead of Bure during that playoff.
In either case, Bure's all star selections are slim compared to most players you compare him to, and its a regular season award voted on before the playoffs. His Hart votes that year is nothing.
1993-94
HART: Sergei Fedorov 194 (31-11-6); Dominik Hasek 86 (6-15-11); John Vanbiesbrouck 74 (7-11-6); Doug Gilmour 50 (4-7-9); Patrick Roy 26 (3-3-2); Ray Bourque 18 (2-2-2); Scott Stevens 13 (1-1-5); Adam Graves 8 (0-1-5); Cam Neely 5 (0-1-2); Mike Richter 3 (0-1-0); Jeremy Roenick 3 (0-1-0); Pavel Bure 2 (0-0-2); Adam Oates 2 (0-0-2); Arturs Irbe 1 (0-0-1); Igor Larionov 1 (0-0-1)
Someone gave him two 3rd place votes as an afterthought. Big deal. he was nowhere close to it.
The only year he was remotely close to the Hart was 99-00, and he wasn't even close. Pronger and Jagr were close, but were both far ahead of Bure. Pronger had over twice as Many first place votes as Bure, ans Jagr had just as many first place votes as Bure had second place votes. But hey, Bure had more 3rd and 4th place votes than them
The Devils were better than ANYBODY the Canucks beat, and the Devils went on to win the cup the next year to prove it. They also had a better regular season than anyone the Canucks played. And NO, the stars were not an elite team at that time. They were a middling-Good team.
Well how legit is the hart trophy voting if Adam graves is getting so many votes, what did he really do? Score 52 goals, o wow Bure only scored 8 more in 10 less games. Adam Graves finished 34th in scoring and there were like 3 guys on his own team that outscored him and hes going to get more votes than Bure and Adam Oates, two of the top 5 scorers.
Dark Shadows
Registered User
Well how legit is the hart trophy voting if Adam graves is getting so many votes, what did he really do? Score 52 goals, o wow Bure only scored 8 more in 10 less games. Adam Graves finished 34th in scoring and there were like 3 guys on his own team that outscored him and hes going to get more votes than Bure and Adam Oates, two of the top 5 scorers.
Now you attack the legitimacy of the Hart Voting?
I can think of a few times when Hart Voting legitimacy could be called into question, but that is not one of them. In either case, its not like Graves got a ton of votes. One second place vote and five 3rd place. The end result is the same, Bure was not even close to the top 6 guys that season. Oates could have been, but Ray Bourque was more instrumental to Boston's success that season, and its not often that people on the same teams get a ton of votes unless they were both in the top 4.
You seem to have a problem with accepting that Offense only players are not regarded as highly as two way players. Bure's offense was better than Graves, but Graves was a tough physical hard nosed power forward who also placed top 5 in the Selke voting that season, and played a key role in winning the team the Presidents trophy and Stanley cup that season.
Now, I will say, that it is my personal opinion that Bure's offense was better that year to the degree that Graves two way play would not deter me from picking Bure first. But I can see how some voters would disagree, based on how well Graves did on both ends of the ice and physically. If Graves had scored 90 points instead of 79, then I would change up and say his two way play pushes him ahead of Bure's in my eyes, but he didn't.
It doesn't matter. Bure was not even close to the top 5 that year for the Hart any way you slice it.
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
I have to disagree here. Jagr in 99/00 was in his own league when it comes to best in the league. Yes, he only edged out Bure by 3 points or something, but he also missed 19 games. Forsberg in 03 is a lot closer to Naslund than Bure was to Jagr in 2000.
Dark Shadows
Registered User
Forsberg missed 7 games, Naslund 0
Jagr missed 19 games, Bure missed 8.
Its a 4 game difference
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
I suppose you could argue that, but I still feel the gap between Jagr and Bure was a lot wider than Forsberg and Naslund. Naslund was very good that year.
Yeah i do attack the legitimacy of the hart voting, Gretzky doesnt get a single vote in 1994 cuz his team sucked, yet Iginla is runner up even though his team was pure crap. You could have easily made a case for s Naslund and Bertuzzi, i mean they were only slightly behind in points and thier team was alot better and they are the reason thier team was good that year. Bertuzzi finished with a higher ppg than Iginla by the way.
The voting for the trophy is inconsistent. They gave it to Jagr in 99 and Hasek in 98, this was based solely on opinion, there was no way to prove Jagr was better than Hasek in 1999, hell 1999 was Hasek's statistically best season.
Blades of Glory
Troll Captain
That's because the award doesn't involve playoff performance, and obviously Hasek would have won it if playoffs were included. In the regular season, you absolutely can say that Jagr was more valuable to the Penguins than Hasek was to the Sabres. He scored 127 points, winning the scoring title by 20 points, the largest margin in recent memory, all while playing on a line with Kip Miller and Jan Hrdina.
Hasek during the regular season carried an extremely weak offensive team and was head and shoulders above the other goalies. Ed Belfour was also brilliant in 1999, but hasek was way better than roy, kolzig, broduer and the other elite goaltenders.
The only reason why Pronger won it in 2000 was due to Don Cherry's constant barking about defencemen getting overlooked. Pronger was never MVP material, it was a bogus win. The worst Hart Trophy robbery in the last 15 years.
Are you suggesting that there's some magic truth-finding machine that they neglected to use that season?
Dark Shadows
Registered User
I personally feel the gap between a Selke finalist AND art Ross winner like Forsberg over a far from stalwart defensively Naslund is slightly bigger than the gap between a cherry picking Bure and Jagr, who is about as good defensively as Naslund(Not very).
Forsberg was just dominant that season.
Gretzky was far from the only good player on the kings squad, and they still managed to blow. Among other things, 93-94 was by far Gretzky's worst defensive year to date. He was more a liability than a help that year. 109 even strength goals against were scored while he was on the ice, and only 84 goals for, and only 14 Power play goals to show for the non shorthanded times on ice.
Defense does matter unless you outscore the competition by an obscene amount.
Jagr won the Art Ross by 20 points that year, almost double his dominance from the year before. Its safe to say he deserved the Hart trophy that year
No argument. He was clearly the Vezina guy in 98-99, but Jagr's scoring dominance was also extremely great that year.
This is one of the few points you have made that I completely agree with. it wasn't only Cherry. it was just about every analyst that year going on about standards for Hart voting, etc. They were pushing the point so hard every chance they got that it became clear that whoever won the Norris that year was going to have a good shot at winning the Hart.
Their play styles are a lot different.
Naslund was elite for awhile, with a deadly wristshot he was a great player for the Canucks.
Bure at his peak was one of the best goal scorers of all time and he could do it without relying on his linemates aswell.
I give Bure the edge just because of his goal scoring but it's close.
Naslund was elite for awhile, with a deadly wristshot he was a great player for the Canucks.
Bure at his peak was one of the best goal scorers of all time and he could do it without relying on his linemates aswell.
I give Bure the edge just because of his goal scoring but it's close.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
The offensive gap between Jagr circa 2000 and Forsberg circa 2003 is large enough imo to offset the defensive gap.
Morozov
The Devil Killer
- Sep 18, 2007
- 13,846
- 364
Talk of Jagr and some defensive deficieny are overblown anyway, when you have the puck on your stick basically permanently you dont need to play defense. Once he had the puck he was impossible to knock off it and what better defense than to not let the other team get possession.
Dark Shadows
Registered User
That's just it. I don't feel the offensive gap between Jagr and Bure is as big as the Defensive gap between Forsberg and Naslund.
Dark Shadows
Registered User
Not really. His even strength goals against that season vs goals for was worse than his average at the time.
One of his less stalwart years with the puck.
As Opposed to Forsberg
Who defensively, had his best year ever.
Overall, you can see the difference defensive play makes. Forsberg's career numbers for two way play show that he both dominated offensively while keeping pucks out of his own net.
Heat McManus
Registered User
Bure. At their peak, I would take Bure over Naslund. It seems to get Naslund at his peak you also needed Bertuzzi and Morrison.
I totally disagree, Morrison and Bertuzzi weren't no elite players. Naslund was by far the best player on the line, he made it work.
If anything Naslund would put up better numbers on atleast a dozen other teams.
Dark Shadows
Registered User
Disagree. Bertuzzi was looking like the next Cam Neely, and was a force in his own right for a few years. It was a symbiotic relationship.
MG91
Registered User
Bertuzzi came 11 points within the art ross trophy, if it wasnt for his idiotic 10 game suspension, he prolly would have got it. The next year he finished top 5 again. He's already on par with Cam Neely.
I have met Cam Neely twice and hes a great guy, but a very weak induction into the HHOF.
Dark Shadows
Registered User
Weak? Yes, but I think he deserved it. I can name a few weaker in the Hall, and his peak was incredible. Physically, he was untouchable unless you got dirty with career ending hits. The term power forward was first coined on Neely, and it stuck to become commonplace terminology in hockey to Describe a Neely like player.
The career ending hit happened right as he was entering his prime, and limited him severely. You can say Adam Oates was responsible for his 50 in 44, but Neely was a tremendous goal scorer without Oates too, and the fact that he did it on one leg speaks for itself as well.
