Why do people think Joe Sakic was better than Brett Hull?

Discussion in 'The History of Hockey' started by NativeHockey77*, Jan 25, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. Brett Hull in my opinion is top 10 while Sakic is top 50. Look at the comparasins

    Ive seen so many people on these boards say Sakic was better and ect ect .... Brett doesnt get enough respect around here.



    Their top 5 seasons


    Sakic
    1989-90|80 39 63 102
    1990-91|80 48 61 109
    1992-93|78 48 57 105
    1995-96|82 51 69 120
    2000-01|82 54 64 118

    Hull
    1989-90|80 72 41 113
    1990-91|78 86 45 131
    1991-92|73 70 39 109
    1992-93|80 54 47 101
    1993-94|81 57 40 97
     
  2. BraveCanadian

    BraveCanadian Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    11,830
    Likes Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Maybe because Sakic was better in the defensive side of the rink, and because he was a 100 point scorer at 20 and a 100 point scorer at 38?

    I think Hull had probably the best one-timer ever, and his peak is insane but I'd take Sakic every day and twice on Sunday.
     
  3. ok so were talking defence now? remember these guys were FORWARDS. you get paid to score.



    But go ahead take Sakic. If Hull was canadian he would be #2 all time
     
  4. Bear of Bad News

    Bear of Bad News HFBoards Escape Goat

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Messages:
    6,107
    Likes Received:
    1,392
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    Windsor
    You get paid to win. Scoring helps with that. So does defense.
     
  5. Loto68

    Loto68 Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    861
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    64
    Location:
    Boston
    Please. Brett wasn't even the best Hull. :help:
     
  6. Dgill

    Dgill Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,862
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Halifax
    Home Page:
    You don't think that every aspect of a position should be taken into consideration to find out who is better? Or do you truly believe that forwards should not worry about defense at all and sit on the bluelines waiting for that breakout pass?
     
  7. McGuillicuddy

    McGuillicuddy Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Actually, Hull is Canadian. Still not #2 all time.
     
  8. Weztex

    Weztex Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    117
    You seem less encline to ask a question than to confront answers. I hope this is not the case...so let's discuss.

    Why makes you personally put Hull ahead of Sakic?
     
  9. JackSlater

    JackSlater Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,097
    Likes Received:
    1,286
    Trophy Points:
    109
    Top 10 ever in terms of all players ever? That would be insanity. If you are just ranking them as goalscorers you may be on to something.

    Sakic is better than Hull at everything other than goalscoring, and even there the gap is not huge. Sakic was a far better playmaker than Hull. Sakic has a much better prime and far superior longevity. In terms of raw numbers Hull appears to have the better peak, but when you consider the era, that he contributed little away from the puck and how much his prime coincided with his time with Oates, I would honestly give peak to Sakic as well. Of course Sakic was also the better defensive player by quite a bit.

    Of course defence matters. Forwards also have to contribute defensively if they want to be as effective as possible. Sakic was better at contributing defensively.

    The xenophobic Canadian is a national identity I didn't know we had acquired until I read it in a few threads on this site recently. I personally consider Hull to be a Canadian hockey player, and I still consider Sakic to be the better player pretty easily. Are you seriously saying that you think Brett Hull is the second best hockey player of all time? Better even than Gretzky and Lemieux, two contemporaries who were blatantly superior?
     
  10. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,300
    Likes Received:
    1,267
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    Not to be snide, but I don't think anyone watching either player would ever take Brett Hull over Joe Sakic.

    But just to humor the original post:

    Joe Sakic's Top 10 points finishes:

    2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 8th, 10th

    Brett Hull's Top 10 points finishes:

    2nd, 4th, 5th

    Not to mention the fact that Hull never finished top 10 in scoring without Adam Oates as his center. 3 straight 73+ goal seasons, then Oates leaves and Hull never beats 57 again? Hmmm....

    And that's before getting into the massive advantage Sakic has over Hull in terms of defensive play.

    Throw in Sakic's Conn Smythe, 2nd Smythe-worthy performance, and MVP at the Olympics....
     
  11. Stephen

    Stephen Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    45,501
    Likes Received:
    2,135
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Home Page:
    Hull is Canadian, and the only thing he's coming in second in is this conversation.
     
  12. Boxscore

    Boxscore #OldNHL

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    139
    The problem is, Sakic and Hull are contrasting players. The more comparable would be Brett Hull vs. Mike Bossy. But, when it comes down to the greatness of Sakic and Hull, there are many factors in play: Skill, production, leadership, accomplishment, intangibles, longevity and such.

    In terms of goal scoring, this is a slam dunk for Golden Brett. But if you are factoring everything, I would choose Sakic for my team. Sakic made players better and was a great leader. Hull was a sick sniper and offensive powerhouse.

    But, if we are just looking at peak -- the nod goes to Hull rather quickly. At his peak, Hull was more dominant and scary than Sakic.
     
  13. Stephen

    Stephen Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    45,501
    Likes Received:
    2,135
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Home Page:
    Also, as ungodly as Hull's 86 goal season was, his assist totals were pretty paltry in comaprison, meaning that while he scored, he wasn't necessarily making guys around him more productive by setting up his linemates either. I guess you can make the argument that that doesn't matter, since he scored so much, but Sakic's team affects were definitely greater than Hull's as far as the prototypical offensive juggernaut in the center position. Hull's Blues never won anything, Sakic and the Avs won a couple of championships.
     
  14. how can you argue with 86 goals and a GT Brand? :shakehead
     
  15. Bear of Bad News

    Bear of Bad News HFBoards Escape Goat

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Messages:
    6,107
    Likes Received:
    1,392
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    Windsor
    Clearly, we're done here.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"