MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,812
- 16,549
The first names that came to mind are Mike Milbury, Réjean Houle and Kevin Lowe.
I'm voluntarily being off-topic.
I'm voluntarily being off-topic.
Roy is regarded as either #1 or #2. Same with Hasek. So you're basically asking whether he'd be a near unanimous #1 if he doesn't play in 2002 and 2003? I doubt it. Hasek would still have the higher peak. Also, Roy's regular seasons were very good in 2002 and 2003. The game 7 loss in 2002 looks bad, but I don't believe that game is why some rank Hasek above Roy.If Roy retired after 2001 winning Conn Smythe and outplaying Brodeur by a mile in the cup final is his reputation even bigger?
2002 was a very good season stats wise but everyone remembers game 6 and 7 against Detroit then lost to the Wild in round one the next season.
Roy is regarded as either #1 or #2. Same with Hasek. So you're basically asking whether he'd be a near unanimous #1 if he doesn't play in 2002 and 2003? I doubt it. Hasek would still have the higher peak. Also, Roy's regular seasons were very good in 2002 and 2003. The game 7 loss in 2002 looks bad, but I don't believe that game is why some rank Hasek above Roy.
I don't think he'd be a revered legend. Unless you're a Gretzky or Lemieux type, you're not getting in the HOF after 8 seasons.
I worshiped Yzerman as a kid and looking back I think he should've retired after the 2002 Cup run.
He scored 48 points in 52 games that year, which is very respectable for a 36, almost 37, year old in the DPE. Scores 23 in 23 in the playoffs, should've called it then.
Instead, he has the osteotomy after the season and comes back for about 20 games in 02-03.
So now, we're watching the guy play with essentially one knee, he gets hit in the eye by the Schneider slap shot in the 04 playoffs. Still comes back after the lockout with a hardass Babcock (I remember something in the press back then about Yzerman and Shanahan especially not liking his style) for a coach and seemingly struggles to adapt to the new NHL, at one point saying the game lost it's integrity with the new rules.
BUT THEN!
He catches fire, scoring 14 points in the final 13 games of the season, adding 4 points in 4 playoff games, causing me to think, "Hey, the old man has still got something left in him for next year". However, stupid Dwayne Roloson and Chris Pronger had to go and ruin everything.
To bring this all home, I don't necessarily think Yzerman hurt his legacy playing out those final years as a shell of the player he was, but he certainly didn't help it either.
I don't think he'd be a revered legend. Unless you're a Gretzky or Lemieux type, you're not getting in the HOF after 8 seasons.
What if Chelios retired at age 40 after the 2002 cup and a Norris runner-up finish instead of playing 7 more years
TBH I think a lot of younger fans know who Chelios is specifically because of that period when he was the senior citizen of pro hockey. Kind of like Jagr has a celebrity among younger fans that comes almost entirely from his post-KHL phase.
Bourque didnt hurt his legacy. He vastly improved it by winning a Cup finally.Joe Thornton could be falling into that category. He's had an Andreychuk-like last five seasons and Andreychuk just gets constantly raked over the coals as a hanger-on/compiler.
Guys that could've played their whole careers for one team but jump ship right at the end: Modano, Alfredsson, Brodeur, Federko, Marleau. Maybe Ray Bourque.
Guys that really, really bounced around from team to team at the end: Gilmour, Barrasso, Recchi, Iginla, Coffey (as mentioned). Jagr seems kind of immune from this effect.
That all being said, it is their life/career to do what they wish.
My Best-Carey
Not only that but walking away with the Cup in his final game but he came in 2nd for the Norris behind Lidstrom and was awarded a 1st team selection. I wish all players that stuck around too long had seasons like that.Bourque didnt hurt his legacy. He vastly improved it by winning a Cup finally.
He actually retired at the very best moment. Still a great D, arguably top 10D and retires as a champion instead of holding on a just a veteran precense.
I actually cant think of a worse example honestly
Is this sort of a more a "thing" in hockey than in other pro-sports? It just strikes me that in hockey, more elite players play longer into their post-primes (and sometimes way past even that) than in basketball, soccer, baseball... (not sure about football as I loathe that sport).
Yes, I guess you are right.Most others sports have a very distinctive starting versus bench with a very high bar to be able to be a member of the starting team than say be in a top 9 forward or regular and for something like basketball or soccer roster are not that big.
Just a rapid thought and if that angle is true, we will see less of it at the goaltending position than the others position.
I think there are a few players who current fans may not appropriately appreciate because they saw their latter days - Chelios probably most notably, but maybe also a guy like Rob Blake? But I think generally *on here* we're pretty good about contextualizing their peaks and primes. Honestly hockey is one of those sports where - outside of goaltender - you still have plenty of chances to contribute post prime in a way that you aren't a drag to keep on a roster to play third and fourth line minutes.
Bryan Trottier if he hung it up after the Pens 1992 Cup instead of an unnecessary 1993-94 return stint
the last image of him should have been a proven winner going out on top with another Cup ala 71 Beliveau
Bryan Trottier if he hung it up after the Pens 1992 Cup instead of an unnecessary 1993-94 return stint
the last image of him should have been a proven winner going out on top with another Cup ala 71 Beliveau