Who is the 5th best offensive player of all-time ??

[Canadiens1958]

Jean Beliveau

I thought that as well. I think we need to entertain the idea that Orr may not be in the top 4 in this category. Let's face it, Orr did everything elite, and that's why he's among the top 4 players of all-time, but if you isolate the offense-only, is it possible to put a defenseman in here? Even Orr?



Impossible. He won his only scoring title by a mere two points. If you throw in Forsberg you may as well throw in Lindros. Neither belongs.




Other than Gretzky, you can easily make an argument that Richard is the most clutch player in NHL history. Who else is arguably better in that category? Patrick Roy perhaps? As far as I am concerned it is that trifecta first and then the rest. However, the assists for Richard are too low for him to be #5 offensive player of all-time.



The OP can be forgiven for not including him originally. There is a very intriguing argument for him to be #5 all-time here. First off, let's take the general consensus 5 next best offensive players after the "big 4".

Top 10 scoring finishes:
Beliveau - 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 8, 8, 9 (12 in total)
Richard - 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (11)
Hull - 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 (11)
Esposito - 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 7, 9 (10)
Jagr - 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 (11)

Wow, talk about tight in that regards. In total, Beliveau has the most top 10 finishes. Esposito and Jagr have the most scoring titles. Esposito has 8 top 3 finishes. Hull has 6. Everyone else has 7. Richard has the most top 5 finishes with 9. The next best is everyone else with 8.

So since that is such a small discrepancy between all the players then let's look at something else. Who was the best goal scorer out of the bunch? Hull probably. By a wide margin? Not much, but my choice as #1 of that group. Who was the worst goal scorer? Jagr maybe and that says something. Who was the best playmaker? Beliveau with the next best being Jagr. The worst? Richard?

So what does this mean? Well I think in order to judge you have to take stats into account and your vision as well. With our eyes who was the best all around offensive talent out of these guys? Does Hull's goal scoring make up for that fact that he wasn't the best playmaker out of these guys? Does Espo's skating hold him back a bit? Does Richard's lack of playmaking hold him back? I think it does, which is why if I had to pick I would choose either one of Jagr or Beliveau.

Put it this way, these guys did everything special when it came to offense. Jagr was a human highlight reel and people forget one thing about Beliveau, watch old tapes of him from back in the day and tell me that he doesn't remind you in a way of Mario, or let's put it this way, Mario reminds you of Beliveau. Now, Mario did it better but Beliveau looked special out there as well. He was like a machine out there. He could beat you so many ways.

Jagr is a close second in my mind in this group and then I would have to throw Hull behind him.

After Bobby Orr, Jean Beliveau brought the greatest offensive variety to the rink. Scorer or playmaker, he could fill both roles.Also after Harvey left the Canadiens, Beliveau could lead the rush from the defensive end and he was the only one from the players you listed that could generate offense from the forecheck on a regular basis. Lemieux did not have the last two attributes.

A few comments about the other players.

Bobby Hull. Started his career as a center then moved to LW. Outside of his seasons with Bill Hay and Murray Balfour he did not have ideal linemates while in the NHL.

Phil Esposito. Blessed with advantageous teammates - Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita in Chicago, Bobby Orr in Boston whose talents catered to his strength, playing the slot. Granted no one played the slot as well as Phil Esposito.

Maurice Richard. First post Red Line scorer. Until Gordie Howe matured and developed a complete game, playmaking was not part of the lead wingers profile. See Charlie Conacher's stats:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/c/conacch01.html

BTW Charlie Conacher should be considered. When healthy he dominated the NHL in goal scoring during the thirties.

Jaromir Jagr. Defined by his era and player pool.

 

[Regal]

re: orr in the top four, i think it depends how we define "offense." if offense is brute accumulation of points, then there is an argument orr doesn't fit.

but if by offense we mean all the times orr moved the puck up ice without getting an assist, and how he was by all accounts the overwhelming reason boston led the league in goals every year he played there except the first and last ones, and the ridiculous margins of some of his teams' goals for leads, i think he pretty unmistakably belongs in the top four, even with "only" two scoring titles.

This is what I was thinking as well. Sometimes production isn't always the best way to judge how much a player drives the offense. It isn't simply a case of saying that his offense is impressive for a defenseman, it's that he was the driving force behind one of the best offensive teams of all time. Even in the years where Esposito outproduced him, I think removing Orr would have hurt the offense way more than removing Espo.

So since that is such a small discrepancy between all the players then let's look at something else. Who was the best goal scorer out of the bunch? Hull probably. By a wide margin? Not much, but my choice as #1 of that group. Who was the worst goal scorer? Jagr maybe and that says something. Who was the best playmaker? Beliveau with the next best being Jagr. The worst? Richard?

So what does this mean? Well I think in order to judge you have to take stats into account and your vision as well. With our eyes who was the best all around offensive talent out of these guys? Does Hull's goal scoring make up for that fact that he wasn't the best playmaker out of these guys? Does Espo's skating hold him back a bit? Does Richard's lack of playmaking hold him back? I think it does, which is why if I had to pick I would choose either one of Jagr or Beliveau.

Put it this way, these guys did everything special when it came to offense. Jagr was a human highlight reel and people forget one thing about Beliveau, watch old tapes of him from back in the day and tell me that he doesn't remind you in a way of Mario, or let's put it this way, Mario reminds you of Beliveau. Now, Mario did it better but Beliveau looked special out there as well. He was like a machine out there. He could beat you so many ways.

Jagr is a close second in my mind in this group and then I would have to throw Hull behind him.

I think this is a good way to look at it. While the total offensive production of most of these guys is similar, really only Beliveau, Jagr and Espo can be seen as being both elite at goalscoring and playmaking, and Esposito has question marks regarding his skating limitations, how much Orr helped his production, and his overall offense game playing outside the slot.

I wasn't around for Beliveau, but Jagr was always a guy that people would talk about in terms of hugely impacting his linemates, getting production out of mediocre players, almost to Lemieux-like levels. He was one of, if not the best playmaker in the league as well as being a top 5 goalscorer (never led the league, but has four 2nd place finishes). As well, he was able to generate offense on the rush, while being one of the best cycle players of all time.

Beliveau sounds similar, but I would personally pick Jagr, because of his 5 Art Ross wins, some of which were by fair margins, in what was a larger league with more competition. As well, while Jagr has certain issues regarding him, mainly questions about his attitude and commitment as well as his ability to buy into a more defensive system, that generally put him behind some of the other guys on an all-time list, I'd say a healthy/motivated Jagr was as good a bet to win the Art Ross as anyone not named Gretzky or Lemieux.

 

[Hardyvan123]

It's not just your opinion.

There is actually a correlation.

I specifically used the term correlation and not cause and effect which is almost impossible to prove in hockey situations as there was more than just the Orr variable at play.

Look at Phil's stats before and after Orr.

I know that part of his increase is due to reaching his peak years but it is my opinion that Phil would have been a very good to excellent offensive player, he really didn't do much else on the ice, instead of the top scoring forward that he was during his time with Orr and the Bruins.

 

[MJB Devils23*]

To answer the question, Esposito would by my choice. 4 consecutive Art Ross trophies, and 5 in 6 seasons. Also he won the goal scoring title in the year he didn't win the Art Ross during that 6 year span.

Sort of OT.

What made 68-69 so special that we saw not only the first 100 point season, but we saw 2 others score 100 points out of nowhere? Esposito looking at his career numbers seemed to dominate the league.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What made 68-69 so special that we saw not only the first 100 point season, but we saw 2 others score 100 points out of nowhere? Esposito looking at his career numbers seemed to dominate the league.

In 1967-68, the NHL doubled in size from 6-12 teams and the new expansion teams were awful. I forget why it took an extra year for the league's top scorers to really feast on the expansion teams; did the expansion teams only play each other in 67-68?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Esposito looking at his career numbers seemed to dominate the league.

Orr dominated the league, Espo was just the biggest benefactor.
Espo's ability to collect the garbage is almost unrivaled even today.
Orr's ability to control the game and get the puck on net is what made that possible.

How can I put this in terms of offensive talent...it's like the difference between a 50 goal season by Dave Andreychuk and a 50 goal season by Ovechkin or Crosby.
I think we all know who is the more offensively talented of the three even though they all potted the same amount of goals.

 

[seventieslord]

There is actually a correlation.

I specifically used the term correlation and not cause and effect which is almost impossible to prove in hockey situations as there was more than just the Orr variable at play.

Look at Phil's stats before and after Orr.

I know that part of his increase is due to reaching his peak years but it is my opinion that Phil would have been a very good to excellent offensive player, he really didn't do much else on the ice, instead of the top scoring forward that he was during his time with Orr and the Bruins.

You realize I am agreeing with you, right?

 

[Rhiessan71]

You realize I am agreeing with you, right?

It's something new for him, you have to give him a few days to let it sink in first

 

[Killion]

After Bobby Orr, Jean Beliveau brought the greatest offensive variety to the rink. Scorer or playmaker, he could fill both roles.

Just saw this comment. Could not AGREE more. The greatest threat Ive ever seen on offence was Jean Beliveau. The Man was too polite for words. He wouldnt tell you, as a Torontonian, what he was about to do, he'd just do it. Montreal' had several players like that; Henri Richard was another. Very deceptive.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

My question who got 4th? To me the 4 best offensive players of all time. Are Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe, Jagr. Offensively Orr is behind them imo.

Just being a dman and winning the scoring race doesn't to me make a guy more offensive, being more offensive makes a guy more offensive. To me, Jagr should be number 4. If I were to concede Orr at number 4, which I don't really, then Jagr should be number 5.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

I asked the question, is this thread about offensive talent or results? If it's based on results, Orr cannot be considered a better offensive player than Espo, because during their time together in Boston, Espo had more points, more goals and a better PPG. Now of course Orr was likely more talented offensively and if he had played center would have 'buried' Espo, but he didn't and Espo ended up with the superior offensive numbers. Sure Orr's accomplishments are more impressive, nobody in their right mind doubts that, but at the end of the day he produced less than his teammate.

Exactly this. Orr is the only one that is judged on his talent, not saying he didn't get results, but if the question who was the most productive player offensively. The answer isn't Orr. Whether one played a better overall game, or one was dman isn't the topic of discussion. Obviously Orr was the better player, but we're discussing offense alone here.

 

[85highlander]

Exactly this. Orr is the only one that is judged on his talent, not saying he didn't get results, but if the question who was the most productive player offensively. The answer isn't Orr. Whether one played a better overall game, or one was dman isn't the topic of discussion. Obviously Orr was the better player, but we're discussing offense alone here.

On offense alone, when Orr retired he was the top OFFENSIVE player up to that point in NHL history according to points per game. If you are equating offense as the sum total of points, when Orr retired, he was on top at 1.39 points per game (for ALL skaters, not simply Defenseman).

He remains the 4th all-time ppg to this day purely on these offensive statistics (only Gretzky, Lemieux, and Bossy ahead of him).

If you are saying others are better offensively, back it up statistically, unless you are equating offense by some other means.

 

[Hardyvan123]

You realize I am agreeing with you, right?

Man I misread that must've been really tired. My bad

That and in total agreement with not one but two of R71's posts in this thread means it wasn't just a freaky Halloween occurrence..lol

 

[saskriders]

Jagr top 5 in points per game, and still producing at a high age.

 

[shazariahl]

Orr dominated the league, Espo was just the biggest benefactor.
Espo's ability to collect the garbage is almost unrivaled even today.
Orr's ability to control the game and get the puck on net is what made that possible.

How can I put this in terms of offensive talent...it's like the difference between a 50 goal season by Dave Andreychuk and a 50 goal season by Ovechkin or Crosby.
I think we all know who is the more offensively talented of the three even though they all potted the same amount of goals.

While there is a lot of truth to this, I think you are doing Phil a disservice. Phil may not have scored a pretty goal in his life, but he scored a lot of them. He performed well for team Canada in 72, he played well when Orr was injured, and pretty well when he wasn't with Orr. That isn't to say he was better than Orr - but there were a lot of players on that Bruins team that were benefiting from Orr's play; only one of them won 6 scoring titles.

And frankly, Orr benefited from him a lot too. Orr needed a talented finisher. While he was certainly a terrific goal scorer, Orr's playmaking was what really made him special. Orr would have produced at an incredible rate without Espo - but would he have done as well? Probably not. That Espo wouldn't have done as well w/o Orr is even more true - I don't think anyone's debating that. But you even compared Espo to Dave Andreychuk, which IMO is completely unjustified. Espo shattered the record for goals and for points in a season before Gretzky came along. Phil wasn't just someone "matching" other top players (like in your Andreychuk vs Crosby/Ov example), he was destroying them.

It would be more like comparing Ryan Smith to Crosby, if Ryan Smith was scoring 76 garbage goals in a season. Sure all he does is stand in front of the net and get ugly goals. But he would be getting a lot of them, and more than anyone else in the league was scoring goals of any other sort (ugly, pretty, whatever).

There's a talent to scoring lots of ugly goals, just like there is lots of pretty ones. If there weren't, everyone would score 50 ugly goals a year. A great finisher is a great finisher regardless of whether he's Ovechkin or Stamkos, Lemieux or Espo. 6 scoring titles don't completely lie.

All that being said, I'd vote Beliveau or Jagr next.

 

[rmchahn]

In 1967-68, the NHL doubled in size from 6-12 teams and the new expansion teams were awful. I forget why it took an extra year for the league's top scorers to really feast on the expansion teams; did the expansion teams only play each other in 67-68?

You're on the right track. In 67-68 the teams played other teams within their division 10 times each (5x10=50) and teams in the other division 4 times each (4x6=24) totalling 74 games that season.

In 68-69 they played within their division 8 times each (5x8=40) and the other division 6 times each (6x6=36) in a 76 game season.

With the 70-71 expansion, each team played everyone 6 times regardless of the division in a 78 game (6x13) season.

 

[Rhiessan71]

You're on the right track. In 67-68 the teams played other teams within their division 10 times each (5x10=50) and teams in the other division 4 times each (4x6=24) totalling 74 games that season.

In 68-69 they played within their division 8 times each (5x8=40) and the other division 6 times each (6x6=36) in a 76 game season.

With the 70-71 expansion, each team played everyone 6 times regardless of the division in a 78 game (6x13) season.

Looking around though, the expansion years through 68-71 really weren't that bad at all. There was enough talent to handle a 12-14 team league.
It was the years 72-79 where continuing to expand along with the added drain of the WHA really seemed to choke the new teams badly.

That's why I always think the 80's get a bad rap. Sure goalies weren't as good as they are today but that was damned strong league after absorbing the WHA with only 21 teams, that went 12 years without expansion along with a good flood of Euro's.

Today's league imo isn't as strong as the mid/late 80's was. Sure we're rolling on 10 years without any more expansion after adding 9 teams in the previous 10 but at the same time there was no kick start like absorbing the WHA. Adding Russians definitely helped but adding that talent pool into a 24-30 team league is not on the same scale as absorbing an entire league into just 21 teams.

We're getting there though, give it another 5 years, providing no more expansion (which would be asinine at this point btw) I think we will fully recovered and have the same kind of depth we saw in the mid/late 80's.
The other issue is the rule changes after the LO. I mean it's not that skating wasn't always important, but it has never had the kind of onus on it like it does now and you have to allow the minor league's to catch up on that onus.
Those kids under this new onus that were 9-10 years old after the LO are going to be coming through the draft in another 3-5 years.
That's when, after all the limited number of speedy, talented kids are taken, we're going to see less teams having to pick between the remaining talented kids or speedy kids, they will be much more the same kid.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

While there is a lot of truth to this, I think you are doing Phil a disservice. Phil may not have scored a pretty goal in his life, but he scored a lot of them. He performed well for team Canada in 72, he played well when Orr was injured, and pretty well when he wasn't with Orr. That isn't to say he was better than Orr - but there were a lot of players on that Bruins team that were benefiting from Orr's play; only one of them won 6 scoring titles.

And frankly, Orr benefited from him a lot too. Orr needed a talented finisher. While he was certainly a terrific goal scorer, Orr's playmaking was what really made him special. Orr would have produced at an incredible rate without Espo - but would he have done as well? Probably not. That Espo wouldn't have done as well w/o Orr is even more true - I don't think anyone's debating that. But you even compared Espo to Dave Andreychuk, which IMO is completely unjustified. Espo shattered the record for goals and for points in a season before Gretzky came along. Phil wasn't just someone "matching" other top players (like in your Andreychuk vs Crosby/Ov example), he was destroying them.

It would be more like comparing Ryan Smith to Crosby, if Ryan Smith was scoring 76 garbage goals in a season. Sure all he does is stand in front of the net and get ugly goals. But he would be getting a lot of them, and more than anyone else in the league was scoring goals of any other sort (ugly, pretty, whatever).

There's a talent to scoring lots of ugly goals, just like there is lots of pretty ones. If there weren't, everyone would score 50 ugly goals a year. A great finisher is a great finisher regardless of whether he's Ovechkin or Stamkos, Lemieux or Espo. 6 scoring titles don't completely lie.

All that being said, I'd vote Beliveau or Jagr next.

Agreed.

But he didn't just perform well in the Summit Series, he was the best player.

And he didn't just stand in front of the net and collect rebounds. Many of his goals were scored from the high slot. He had a great wrist shot that he got off quickly, like Bossy. He was also great at protecting the puck, much like Jagr, and used that ability to kill penalty time. He also put 550 shots on net in 70-71, an unheard of sum. He could get them off forehand or backhand,often with a defender draped on him.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Agreed.

But he didn't just perform well in the Summit Series, he was the best player.

And he didn't just stand in front of the net and collect rebounds. Many of his goals were scored from the high slot. He had a great wrist shot that he got off quickly, like Bossy. He was also great at protecting the puck, much like Jagr, and used that ability to kill penalty time. He also put 550 shots on net in 70-71, an unheard of sum. He could get them off forehand or backhand,often with a defender draped on him.

The point however is not whether he was a good 40 or 50 goal scorer on his own, the point is that he is not close to a 76 goal scorer without Orr.
Under the criteria we're going on here, who's the 5th best offensive talent all-time, Phil quite simply doesn't deserve that spot over Hull, Jagr, Bossy or Richard, all of which imo were more individually dominant.
Phil might of been the best player for Canada in '72 but that's without Orr or Hull playing. Kinda like saying Hawerchuk (just an example) was the best player for Canada in '87 if Gretzky and Lemieux don't play.
Unless of course you believe the '72 series still takes 8 games to settle if Hull and especially Orr were playing. I obviously do not.

Broadway Bernie was a good goal scorer too but he sure as hell doesn't get 70 goals and 150 points without Gretzky and I don't see his name listed in this thread.
..and no, I'm not saying Bernie was as good as Phil, all I'm saying is that while Gretzky made a good player excellent, Orr made an excellent player great.
Hull, Richard, Jagr and Bossy were great on their own.

 

[VMBM]

Phil might of been the best player for Canada in '72 but that's without Orr or Hull playing. Kinda like saying Hawerchuk (just an example) was the best player for Canada in '87 if Gretzky and Lemieux don't play.

Oh boy. No, it really isn't the same thing at all.

BTW, Hull got his chance two years later, and while playing on a weaker - but much better-prepared - team, I wouldn't say that he was better than Esposito in 1972. The Russians certainly thought that Espo was THE MAN.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The point however is not whether he was a good 40 or 50 goal scorer on his own, the point is that he is not close to a 76 goal scorer without Orr.
Under the criteria we're going on here, who's the 5th best offensive talent all-time, Phil quite simply doesn't deserve that spot over Hull, Jagr, Bossy or Richard, all of which imo were more individually dominant.
Phil might of been the best player for Canada in '72 but that's without Orr or Hull playing. Kinda like saying Hawerchuk (just an example) was the best player for Canada in '87 if Gretzky and Lemieux don't play.
Unless of course you believe the '72 series still takes 8 games to settle if Hull and especially Orr were playing. I obviously do not.

Broadway Bernie was a good goal scorer too but he sure as hell doesn't get 70 goals and 150 points without Gretzky and I don't see his name listed in this thread.
..and no, I'm not saying Bernie was as good as Phil, all I'm saying is that while Gretzky made a good player excellent, Orr made an excellent player great.
Hull, Richard, Jagr and Bossy were great on their own.

I wasn't trying to make the point that Espo is the 5th best. Only trying to change the presumption that Espo was a "garbage man" and scored most of his goals off Orr rebounds or tap-ins from Orr passes. The fact that he finished first in assists 3 times and second 4 times without a great goal scoring winger says a lot. Anyone who saw him play in Boston would tell you he was far from a one-dimensional player.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Oh boy. No, it really isn't the same thing at all.

BTW, Hull got his chance two years later, and while playing on a weaker - but much better-prepared - team, I wouldn't say that he was better than Esposito in 1972. The Russians certainly thought that Espo was THE MAN.

I realise that comparing Espo specifically to Dale is not a good comparison, hence the (just an example).
And like I said, if Orr and Hull were playing, who do you think they would of considered THE MAN?
Orr, end of story! He would of scared the living crap out of them.

I wasn't trying to make the point that Espo is the 5th best. Only trying to change the presumption that Espo was a "garbage man" and scored most of his goals off Orr rebounds or tap-ins from Orr passes. The fact that he finished first in assists 3 times and second 4 times without a great goal scoring winger says a lot. Anyone who saw him play in Boston would tell you he was far from a one-dimensional player.

I never said Espo wasn't an excellent player or that he was one dimensional but he was a garbage man though. He was just as strong in the corners as he was in the slot and got quite a few assists from that hard work. All I'm saying is that he doesn't clear 60 goals let alone 70 without Orr, no doubt in my mind on that.

Even in '72, most of that Russian team was skating circles around Phil and he wasn't very effective without help from his teammates to get the puck through the neutral zone and get it deep for him.

Like c'mon man, he goes from a 61 goal scorer and 127 point player to a 35-40 goal scorer and an 80 point scorer as soon as he is without Orr. The same as what he was before Orr. Not coincidence.
He was an excellent player on his own but Orr made him great.

Either way, it's not that I wouldn't hold Phil in with the Yzerman's and Sakic's, I just wouldn't hold him in with the Hull's and Jagr's.

 

[SpitsOHL89]

Forsberg never scored over 30 goals in a season.

Exactly. Too many people are enthralled with Forsberg because they like the way he played the game, but he isn't close to someone like Jagr.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Oh boy. No, it really isn't the same thing at all.

BTW, Hull got his chance two years later, and while playing on a weaker - but much better-prepared - team, I wouldn't say that he was better than Esposito in 1972. The Russians certainly thought that Espo was THE MAN.

You do realize that Hull was 36 and had a line 0f 8-7-2-9 and 2 years later he had a line of 7-5-3-8 in the Canada cup as a 38 year old right?

Your comparison of Espositio in 72 at age 30 is a little bit of cherry picking IMO. The same Canada cup listed above Espo had a line of 7-4-3-7 and was 4 years younger than Hull.

Overall if I was going to make a list of the top 10 offensive players of all time Espo wouldn't be on it as his stats are more of an indication of circumstance rather than actual skill. Heck I have Dionne higher on my list.

Also in that Canada Cup the Russians thought Bob Gainey was the MAN, pretty sure that was shared by many in the NHL at the time.

 

[livewell68]

You do realize that Hull was 36 and had a line 0f 8-7-2-9 and 2 years later he had a line of 7-5-3-8 in the Canada cup as a 38 year old right?

Your comparison of Espositio in 72 at age 30 is a little bit of cherry picking IMO. The same Canada cup listed above Espo had a line of 7-4-3-7 and was 4 years younger than Hull.

Overall if I was going to make a list of the top 10 offensive players of all time Espo wouldn't be on it as his stats are more of an indication of circumstance rather than actual skill. Heck I have Dionne higher on my list.

Also in that Canada Cup the Russians thought Bob Gainey was the MAN, pretty sure that was shared by many in the NHL at the time.

I agree with all this although I think Esposito does have some merit for top 10 consideration.

My top 20

1. Gretzky
2. Lemieux
3. Orr
4. Howe
5. Jagr
6. Beliveau
7. Hull
8. Lafleur
9. Richard
10. Esposito
11. Bossy
12. Coffey
13. Stastny
14. Sakic
15. Yzerman
16. Dionne
17. Lafontaine
18. Ovechkin
19. Crosby
20. Potvin

HM: Selanne, Bure, Malkin, Trottier, Mogilny, Fedorov, Leetch, Bourque, Busyk, Clarke, Forsberg, Lindros, Messier, Robitaille, Francis, Oates.....