Why did Cam Neely make it and Lindros not?

[BamBamCam*]

I got to see a lot of Neely. He was a great player. As I said, I don't dispute the guy had HOF talent.

So we should just ignore stats altogether then? Sorry man, but if you do this then the HOF has no meaning.

Yes, he hit and he fought. He was multidimensional but his career was so short that he wasn't really able to get any kind of reasonable totals. He's so far behind the average HOFer that he sticks out like a sore thumb. I'm sorry that you're upset and angry (I'm just going to ignore your XBox remarks) but Neely is one of the weakest inductions ever and I'm not alone in believing this. His name always comes up whenever questionable guys are left out. The HOF would've been better off just leaving him out and saved themselves some credibility.

Neely was a great player with tons of heart and Bruins fans love him passionately. That's what jersey retirements are for.

Never said that, I said your argument is all stats and not the big picture.

You claim to have watched him alot but you make statements in effect that you did not.

1) You overwhelmingly hand OT the credit for the goals Neely scored. Ignoring that Neely's best years were before OT ever got to Boston and was a deadly sniper in his own right.

2) You insinuate his best attributes were hitting and fighting while undermining his scoring prowess in the face of stats given to you.

3) You claim Neely could be suckered into bad penalties and could be throw off his game like a rookie.

I am sure there is more stuff you said proving you didn't watch much of him but I don't feel like going back from last week. I was right to walk away from this argument last week, time to do it again.

 

[BamBamCam*]

Thanks for asking.

The reason why Oates comes up so often in this thread is because people keep pointing to Neely's goal per game pace when comparing him to other players. Neely doesn't have the totals to match up so his defenders go this route.

He's a good goalscorer before Oates shows up. But Oates turns him into almost a goal per game player. He scores something like 125 goals in the next 150 games with Oates as his center. Obviously, that has a lot to do with the goal per game pace that folks keep referring to.

From the 1992-3 season, 153 games and 114 goals, not quite the embellishment you were searching for to nail your point home.

Besides someone already put down the gpg stat before and after Oates and they were very close, your argument doesn't hold water. But by all means, find another way to give Oates all the credit for Neely just having his stick on the ice.

 

[BamBamCam*]

Wait what?
Why is Oates getting all this credit for Neely exactly???
They only played together for Neely's last 4 years.
Neely had two 50 goal seasons, one 40 goal season and two 30 goal seasons before Oates even came to Boston.

Neely only averaged 38 games a season during the 4 years they played together.

Scoring with Boston 4 seasons before Oates, 152 goals in 228 games .67 GpG
Scoring with Boston 4 seasons after Oates, 114 goals in 153 games .75 GpG

Not exactly a huge markup there. Clearly Neely was already a damned good goal scorer before Oates arrived.
Far too much credit going to Oates here me thinks.

Here it is...I see you responded to it but you cleverly erased the entire post except for what you wanted to respond to, I highlighted what you DIDN'T erase. leaving the post intact like it should be. It is tactics like that, that make me question what you know about Neely. Respond to the entire post without spinning it like a Faux News report. Because those stats clearly tell you are wrong that Oates made Neely what he was.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Thanks for asking.

The reason why Oates comes up so often in this thread is because people keep pointing to Neely's goal per game pace when comparing him to other players. Neely doesn't have the totals to match up so his defenders go this route.

He's a good goalscorer before Oates shows up. But Oates turns him into almost a goal per game player. He scores something like 125 goals in the next 150 games with Oates as his center. Obviously, that has a lot to do with the goal per game pace that folks keep referring to.

honestly, a lot of people have argued that neely's 50 in 44 year with oates wasn't even his best year. i tend to agree. after '91, neely couldn't do all of the power forward things he used to, and which made him such a dominant player beyond goal scoring. in '94, neely scored at a higher rate, and some but not all of that credit goes to oates. but the other bit factor is that he no longer played nearly as much on the boards and in the corners, and so he was in front of the net a lot more, and put much more of his energy into scoring goals.

i'll leave it to boston fans of the era to chime in either in agreement or disagreement, but my impression and what i remember is that the cam neely who dominated the habs in the playoffs and owned patrick roy like no one else ever did was a better and more complete player than the cam neely with the gimpy knee who stood in front of the net and scored all those goals with adam oates.

 

[BamBamCam*]

honestly, a lot of people have argued that neely's 50 in 44 year with oates wasn't even his best year. i tend to agree. after '91, neely couldn't do all of the power forward things he used to, and which made him such a dominant player beyond goal scoring. in '94, neely scored at a higher rate, and some but not all of that credit goes to oates. but the other bit factor is that he no longer played nearly as much on the boards and in the corners, and so he was in front of the net a lot more, and put much more of his energy into scoring goals.

i'll leave it to boston fans of the era to chime in either in agreement or disagreement, but my impression and what i remember is that the cam neely who dominated the habs in the playoffs and owned patrick roy like no one else ever did was a better and more complete player than the cam neely with the gimpy knee who stood in front of the net and scored all those goals with adam oates.

Lextune and I (I am sure others have too) have already made the above statement you just made. Neely was a shell of his former self when OT came aboard in 1992. His dominant years were from 86 to that 91 playoff series against Pittsburgh. Do not get me wrong, I think very highly of Oates and it is a shame he is not in the Hall but LaFleur's Guy seems to saying Neely owes it all to Oates. That is just not true, he was so much better during his Janney days and could do it all then. When his leg got destroyed by that Ulf hit, he wasn't the same player like when Stevens got his face turned inside out.

 

[dafoomie]

Thanks for asking.

The reason why Oates comes up so often in this thread is because people keep pointing to Neely's goal per game pace when comparing him to other players. Neely doesn't have the totals to match up so his defenders go this route.

He's a good goalscorer before Oates shows up. But Oates turns him into almost a goal per game player. He scores something like 125 goals in the next 150 games with Oates as his center. Obviously, that has a lot to do with the goal per game pace that folks keep referring to.

Between December of 1990 and his last game of the 92 season, Neely scored 65 goals, 100 points in 74 games without Adam Oates, including his 16 in 19 playoff games.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Never said that, I said your argument is all stats and not the big picture.

You claim to have watched him alot but you make statements in effect that you did not.

1) You overwhelmingly hand OT the credit for the goals Neely scored. Ignoring that Neely's best years were before OT ever got to Boston and was a deadly sniper in his own right.

2) You insinuate his best attributes were hitting and fighting while undermining his scoring prowess in the face of stats given to you.

3) You claim Neely could be suckered into bad penalties and could be throw off his game like a rookie.

I am sure there is more stuff you said proving you didn't watch much of him but I don't feel like going back from last week. I was right to walk away from this argument last week, time to do it again.

1. Go back and actually read my posts. I haven't said this. I said he was great before Oates got there but Oates turned him into a gpg player. Stop distorting what I actually argue.
2. No. I said that his hitting and fighting were in addition to his goal scoring, not that they were his best attributes. Don't you want us to look at the whole picture?
3. He could definitely be suckered into bad penalties. If you don't know this you either didn't watch him or you're so enamoured with him that you can't see any flaws. Yes, he was a hothead and yes they could sucker him.

The fact that you have to try to distort what I'm saying just adds more credence to my arguments.

From the 1992-3 season, 153 games and 114 goals, not quite the embellishment you were searching for to nail your point home.

Why start in '93? Oates showed up in 91-92 and Neely instantly became a goal per game player. 162 games and 123 goals. Pretty close to what I was saying.

Besides someone already put down the gpg stat before and after Oates and they were very close, your argument doesn't hold water. But by all means, find another way to give Oates all the credit for Neely just having his stick on the ice.

Look at your contradiction down below...

Lextune and I (I am sure others have too) have already made the above statement you just made. Neely was a shell of his former self when OT came aboard in 1992. His dominant years were from 86 to that 91 playoff series against Pittsburgh. Do not get me wrong, I think very highly of Oates and it is a shame he is not in the Hall but LaFleur's Guy seems to saying Neely owes it all to Oates. That is just not true, he was so much better during his Janney days and could do it all then. When his leg got destroyed by that Ulf hit, he wasn't the same player like when Stevens got his face turned inside out.

So... he's a shell of his former self BUT his goal per game average goes up? How does that happen man?

And again, Oates is only half the story. He just helps the gpg pace. Bottom line though is that his low totals are what's really the problem.

 

[Sens Rule]

Thanks for asking.

The reason why Oates comes up so often in this thread is because people keep pointing to Neely's goal per game pace when comparing him to other players. Neely doesn't have the totals to match up so his defenders go this route.

He's a good goalscorer before Oates shows up. But Oates turns him into almost a goal per game player. He scores something like 125 goals in the next 150 games with Oates as his center. Obviously, that has a lot to do with the goal per game pace that folks keep referring to.

You are giving FAR too much credit to Oates. You keep saying Oates was FAR more important to Hull and Neely than they were to him. That is CRAP. They were all GREAT Players. They helped each other equally, or near equally. Kurri was great with or without Gretzky. And Gretzky and Coffey sure helped Gretzky get to 200 points all those times.

You seem to think Oates is some demi-god that turned Hull and Neely into ridiculous goal scorers. He helped goal scorers who were right at the top of the league already in goal scoring to score more. You are also mistaking all their stats in their best years and coming to wrong conclusions I think. Oates surely helped Neely and Hull to score more goals. But hey were at their GOAL SCORING Primes then. Oates best year came without either of them probably. And he scored more goals that year than any other. Why do I think that is? He was simply at his best that year, right at his prime. If Hull had a lesser playmaking centre those years he is not getting 72 and 86 goals. But you act like he would have had 50 with another decent playmaker. I doubt that.

If you really have to solely resort to career stats and Adam Oates in talking about Neely you are just missing the point. Neely was ALREADY a superstar, already a massive force in the playoffs before Oates came. Oates likely helped him into the HHOF because without 50 in 44 Neely might not have made it. But if he had scored 37 or 40 in 44 games as a broken down player would it really have made a difference? I don't know.

I think many of the voters had played or coached against Neely. They knew exactly what he brought to the ice each night and they voted him in because of that.

Let's compare him to Shanahan. A no doubt power forward HHOFer that played in the same time period. Neely in his best years IMO was FAR better than Shanahan at his best. Shanahan is not going to make the HHOF as a compiler. He is not Gartner or Ciccarelli. And to me Neely is a no brainer as a better player than Shanahan. Neely is a better player at his best than Iginla IMO. And Iginla led the NHL in goals and points.

Neely is not some star with a few good years and a short career. He was a bonafide superstar and a top echlon player. Top 10 easily in the NHL for several seasons. Probably or maybe certainly the best playoff performer in history that did not win a Cup.

 

[Sens Rule]

honestly, a lot of people have argued that neely's 50 in 44 year with oates wasn't even his best year. i tend to agree. after '91, neely couldn't do all of the power forward things he used to, and which made him such a dominant player beyond goal scoring. in '94, neely scored at a higher rate, and some but not all of that credit goes to oates. but the other bit factor is that he no longer played nearly as much on the boards and in the corners, and so he was in front of the net a lot more, and put much more of his energy into scoring goals.

i'll leave it to boston fans of the era to chime in either in agreement or disagreement, but my impression and what i remember is that the cam neely who dominated the habs in the playoffs and owned patrick roy like no one else ever did was a better and more complete player than the cam neely with the gimpy knee who stood in front of the net and scored all those goals with adam oates.

This is very true. And shows how great of a player Neely was. When Physically unable to play the style he was used to playing he changed and focused on goal scoring and got 50 in 44. Oates or not that says a ton. Like Yzerman changing his focus to defence mid career, Neely changed to goal scoring and not just that year but in parts of others years was like a goal a game player.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Between December of 1990 and his last game of the 92 season, Neely scored 65 goals, 100 points in 74 games without Adam Oates, including his 16 in 19 playoff games.

The 92 season includes Oates. Your numbers are wrong. 9 goals in 9 games. So those numbers should be 56 goals in 65 games.

From 92-94 he's 70 goals in 71 games. Those are the stats that folks point to all the time. It includes his 50 in 50 and what his supporters rely on when arguing his induction.

And btw, Adam Oates or not that's still awesome. It just shouldn't be enough to justify his induction.

 

[Sens Rule]

3. He could definitely be suckered into bad penalties. If you don't know this you either didn't watch him or you're so enamoured with him that you can't see any flaws. Yes, he was a hothead and yes they could sucker him.

How is that very significant? He took some bad penalties and that means what really? Chelios took a ton of bad penalties. Messier was a massive hot head. He took SUSPENSIONS for it. Neely did not take enough bad penalties that it is even worth discussing here. Do you think Neely taking bad penalties deflated the Bruins? Like EVER? Neely was a force of nature on those teams. If he got carried away those were penalties the Bruins would gladly try to kill off.

I don't see Neely taking penalties as any kind of negative. He wasn't going around taking cheap useless penalties. If he took a penalty the other team was "earning it" with usually some serious physicality.

 

[BamBamCam*]

1. Go back and actually read my posts. I haven't said this. I said he was great before Oates got there but Oates turned him into a gpg player. Stop distorting what I actually argue.
2. No. I said that his hitting and fighting were in addition to his goal scoring, not that they were his best attributes. Don't you want us to look at the whole picture?
3. He could definitely be suckered into bad penalties. If you don't know this you either didn't watch him or you're so enamoured with him that you can't see any flaws. Yes, he was a hothead and yes they could sucker him.

The fact that you have to try to distort what I'm saying just adds more credence to my arguments.

Why start in '93? Oates showed up in 91-92 and Neely instantly became a goal per game player. 162 games and 123 goals. Pretty close to what I was saying.

Look at your contradiction down below...


So... he's a shell of his former self BUT his goal per game average goes up? How does that happen man?

And again, Oates is only half the story. He just helps the gpg pace. Bottom line though is that his low totals are what's really the problem.

Lots of things wrong with your post. Turn on your sarcasm detector.

Because the 92 93 season is where you should start the difference. Cam played 9 freaking games in 91-92 and if I remember right, they were not with Oates who came later in the season. You got the data which you are conveniently ignoring that the increase in his goal production was negotiable pre Oates to post Oates You ignore it, I think at this point you are arguing to argue to get under people's skin. You have done nothing but ignore facts/stats of what doesn't fit into your argument and you cut up and butcher people's post to spin them.

Have a good one, one day maybe you will have a genuine argument instead of Faux News style debate.

 

[BamBamCam*]

The 92 season includes Oates. Your numbers are wrong. 9 goals in 9 games. So those numbers should be 56 goals in 65 games.

From 92-94 he's 70 goals in 71 games. Those are the stats that folks point to all the time. It includes his 50 in 50 and what his supporters rely on when arguing his induction.

And btw, Adam Oates or not that's still awesome. It just shouldn't be enough to justify his induction.

No, it doesn't Oates came later that year, Neely was already shelved, nice try though. Again, you were given the stats of the goal difference post to pre Oates...stop spinning.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Between December of 1990 and his last game of the 92 season, Neely scored 65 goals, 100 points in 74 games without Adam Oates, including his 16 in 19 playoff games.

and, to be fair, that should really be 15 goals in 15 playoff games, pre-samuelsson hit.

So... he's a shell of his former self BUT his goal per game average goes up? How does that happen man?

there is more to hockey than numbers. i explained how this happened earlier. but i'll let sens rule drive it home:

shows how great of a player Neely was. When Physically unable to play the style he was used to playing he changed and focused on goal scoring and got 50 in 44. Oates or not that says a ton. Like Yzerman changing his focus to defence mid career, Neely changed to goal scoring and not just that year but in parts of others years was like a goal a game player.

by the way, i was definitely not a neely fan. but as a habs fan in the late 80s and early 90s, i certainly respected and feared him.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The 92 season includes Oates. Your numbers are wrong. 9 goals in 9 games. So those numbers should be 56 goals in 65 games.

From 92-94 he's 70 goals in 71 games. Those are the stats that folks point to all the time. It includes his 50 in 50 and what his supporters rely on when arguing his induction.

And btw, Adam Oates or not that's still awesome. It just shouldn't be enough to justify his induction.

Actually, YOU are wrong.
Neely didn't play a single game with Oates in the 91/92 season.
My numbers are right on the money!
Those 9 goals in 9 games in 91/92 were pre-Oates.
In fact, the Bruin's traded for Oates BECAUSE of Neely's injury!

Cam Neely
Missed Boston's 1991 training camp and first half of 1991-92 season with deep bruise in left thigh, an injury suffered when he was checked by Ulf Samuelsson during Game 6 of Boston's Wales Conference finals series at Pittsburgh on May 11, 1991. ... Missed remainder of 1991-92 season, entire 1992 playoffs and start of 1992-93 season with strained left knee that filled with fluid, an injury suffered during Boston's Jan. 23, 1992, game vs. Montreal.

Adam Oates traded to the Boston Bruins on Feb. 7, 1992

4 years before Oates 152 goals in 228 games
4Years after Oates 114 goals in 153 games.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

You are giving FAR too much credit to Oates. You keep saying Oates was FAR more important to Hull and Neely than they were to him. That is CRAP.

Oates' best season comes in '93. Neely plays 13 games that year.

Oates has his best year ever, 45 goals, 97 assists...

Look at Hull with Oates:

Hull, Year before Oates: 41 goals in 78 games.
Hull, with Oates: 72 in 80, 86 in 78, 70 in 73.
Hull, without Oates again: 54 in 80. 57 in 80.

You don't see a difference there?

Neely year before without Oates: 51 in 69 games
Neely next 71 games: 70 goals.


Reposted edit: (thanks Rhiessan71)

Neely year before without Oates: 60 in 78 games
Neely next 62 games: 61 goals.

Again?

Now look at Oates:

Oates season before Hull: 78 points in 69 games
Oates seasons with Hull: 102 in 80, 115 in 61, 99 in 80

Oates without either one: 142 points.
Oates with Neely every other game next season: 112 points.

They benefited a lot more from him than him from them.

How is that very significant? He took some bad penalties and that means what really? Chelios took a ton of bad penalties. Messier was a massive hot head. He took SUSPENSIONS for it. Neely did not take enough bad penalties that it is even worth discussing here. Do you think Neely taking bad penalties deflated the Bruins? Like EVER? Neely was a force of nature on those teams. If he got carried away those were penalties the Bruins would gladly try to kill off.

I don't see Neely taking penalties as any kind of negative. He wasn't going around taking cheap useless penalties. If he took a penalty the other team was "earning it" with usually some serious physicality.

I don't see it as a huge negative either. I just don't see 1000 penalty minutes as the huge positive that it was being made into.

 

[lextune]

No, it doesn't Oates came later that year, Neely was already shelved, nice try though. Again, you were given the stats of the goal difference post to pre Oates...stop spinning.

Indeed.

Cam missed the start of the 91/92 season, still recovering from the Ulf hit. Then he finally showed up in January, played 9 games and looked like his old self.

It was awesome.

....then he wrecked his knee in a game against Montreal on January 23rd 1992. (And yes I had to look the date up, lol, but I did remember it was against the Habs).

Oates came after that. His first game with the B's was February 8th 1992.

I'd add that to the long list of Lafleurs Guy's mistakes and misconceptions, ("OMG! Neely's best years were with Oates!") if I wasn't already done with him

....do that for me BamBam will ya? Thanks.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

and, to be fair, that should really be 15 goals in 15 playoff games, pre-samuelsson hit.

there is more to hockey than numbers. i explained how this happened earlier. but i'll let sens rule drive it home:

by the way, i was definitely not a neely fan. but as a habs fan in the late 80s and early 90s, i certainly respected and feared him.

I respected him too. As I said, HOF talent.

That doesn't mean that he should be in the HOF though. Lots of guys had HOF talent but not HOF careers.

Actually, YOU are wrong.
Neely didn't play a single game with Oates in the 91/92 season.
My numbers are right on the money!
Those 9 goals in 9 games in 91/92 were pre-Oates.

Touche, my mistake. Thanks for pulling up the history.

 

[BamBamCam*]

Actually, YOU are wrong.
Neely didn't play a single game with Oates in the 91/92 season.
My numbers are right on the money!

Actually I already pointed that out to him. I have also tried to get him to acknowledge your stat research. He refuses to acknowledge them and continues with his distorted stat configurations. I think at this point we are being duped, he is not willing to have an honest discussion about Neely. I appreciate your research and fact finding, it shows, it wasn't all Oates.

What's sad is, is how much of a fan of OT I am and I have to down play how great he was because this guy is trying to give all the credit to Oates fo Neely's scoring ability. Anyhow, good luck in the playoffs, hope the Habs and B's meet again for the 33rd time, I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[lextune]

Actually, YOU are wrong.
Neely didn't play a single game with Oates in the 91/92 season.
My numbers are right on the money!

Cam Neely
Missed Boston's 1991 training camp and first half of 1991-92 season with deep bruise in left thigh, an injury suffered when he was checked by Ulf Samuelsson during Game 6 of Boston's Wales Conference finals series at Pittsburgh on May 11, 1991. ... Missed remainder of 1991-92 season, entire 1992 playoffs and start of 1992-93 season with strained left knee that filled with fluid, an injury suffered during Boston's Jan. 23, 1992, game vs. Montreal.

Adam Oates traded to the Boston Bruins on Feb. 7, 1992

You beat me by about a minute!

 

[Rhiessan71]

Actually I already pointed that out to him. I have also tried to get him to acknowledge your stat research. He refuses to acknowledge them and continues with his distorted stat configurations. I think at this point we are being duped, he is not willing to have an honest discussion about Neely. I appreciate your research and fact finding, it shows, it wasn't all Oates.

What's sad is, is how much of a fan of OT I am and I have to down play how great he was because this guy is trying to give all the credit to Oates fo Neely's scoring ability. Anyhow, good luck in the playoffs, hope the Habs and B's meet again for the 33rd time, I wouldn't have it any other way.

Hey all you need to know about me here is that I absolutely loathe Neely and especially the Boston Bruins but I do at least respect ole Sea Bass and have no issue with his Hall induction.

I mean the Bruins have beat the Habs like what, 8 times ever in the playoff's out of 32 series and Neely was mostly responsible for what, half of those series wins?
Hate 'im!

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Actually I already pointed that out to him. I have also tried to get him to acknowledge your stat research. He refuses to acknowledge them and continues with his distorted stat configurations. I think at this point we are being duped, he is not willing to have an honest discussion about Neely. I appreciate your research and fact finding, it shows, it wasn't all Oates.

Again man, you gotta chill out. Rhiessan71 posted the facts, I've edited. Don't worry, I'm not going to try to "distort the facts", I was wrong on those 9 games. I was sure that they had played together that year but I mixed it up. Sorry.

What's sad is, is how much of a fan of OT I am and I have to down play how great he was because this guy is trying to give all the credit to Oates fo Neely's scoring ability. Anyhow, good luck in the playoffs, hope the Habs and B's meet again for the 33rd time, I wouldn't have it any other way.

You don't have to downplay Oates.

 

[BamBamCam*]

Hey all you need to know about me here is that I absolutely loathe Neely and especially the Boston Bruins but I do at least respect ole Sea Bass and have no issue with his Hall induction.

That's how I feel about Mr Guy LaFleur, he made this 11 year old boy cry in 1979 ... nevermind Dryden, Tremblay or Gainey.

Such a great rivalry, it's both of our teams hatred that makes hockey so special and the greatest sport in the world. You can't find two other teams with so much hatred, players and history. Unfortunately I have been on the wrong end too many times.

Oh wait until some guy named Cam Neely came to Boston

Seriously, good luck in the playoffs.

 

[Rhiessan71]

That's how I feel about Mr Guy LaFleur, he made this 11 year old boy cry in 1979 ... nevermind Dryden, Tremblay or Gainey.

Such a great rivalry, it's both of our teams hatred that makes hockey so special and the greatest sport in the world. You can't find two other teams with so much hatred, players and history. Unfortunately I have been on the wrong end too many time.

Oh wait until some guy named Cam Neely came to Boston

Seriously, good luck in the playoffs.

I was wrong, Neely only played in 3 of those 8 winning series, he was on the team for a 4th in '92 but as we just discussed, he was out.

I'll say good luck to you as well....but I don't really mean it

It is a great rivalry though, might be the last TRUE one left in the league today.

 

[lextune]

Hey all you need to know about me here is that I absolutely loathe Neely and especially the Boston Bruins but I do at least respect ole Sea Bass and have no issue with his Hall induction.

I mean the Bruins have beat the Habs like what, 8 times ever in the playoff's out of 32 series and Neely was mostly responsible for what, half of those series wins?
Hate 'im!

Sadly the B's are 8-24 all time against the Habs. Which includes losing 18 series in a row from 1946 to 1987. Even with Orr, and then Bourque, (F you Steve Penney), we just lost and lost and lost....

Then Cam showed up and the Bruins took 3 of the next 4 series'.

It was like a miracle, lol. And Neely's heroic role in those playoff series', and in the playoffs in general, (not all of which can be read on the score sheet, you had to actually watch his game to fully appreciate his impact), was a huge part of Cam's FAME.




(I heard there is a place where they put famous players like that....some sort of Hall for those with fame....)





.