Zetterberg vs. Gilmour

[Plural]

I know, I also often check the voters if the poll is public. Which means you really didn't do anything terrible. But when the voting is as lopsided as it is in this poll it should be pretty clear that most of the guys voting for the underdog are somewhat emotionally attached.

But maybe I am just being a joy-killer now, cause I actually really like to see Red Wings fans to get some heat. i just probably red too much on your one post.

 

[Big Phil]

Toronto fans are huge homies, if Zetteberg was a Canadian playing for them he would be a hockey god.

Of course Zetterberg > Gilmour.

Did that really explain anything? I would liken Zetterberg in many ways to Toews at his best and I think Canadians appreciate the way Zetterberg plays. Gilmour was just ungodly those two years. Zetterberg never carried a team the way Gilmour did and that's the straw that breaks the camel's back here. There is no bias here, just a clear victory for Gilmour, no nostalgia needed for this one.

 

[Sentinel]

Zetterberg never carried a team the way Gilmour did.

That's exactly what I was talking about. Z played on much better teams than Gilmore, so he had a different role. And it's not like Doug actually carried Toronto anywhere.

 

[Evincar]

That's exactly what I was talking about. Z played on much better teams than Gilmore, so he had a different role. And it's not like Doug actually carried Toronto anywhere.

Consecutive conference finals? And Gilmour played the same role as Zetterberg on the 1989 Calgary team and he thrived.

 

[ozzie]

I'm a Wings fan and I enjoy watching Zetterberg play and what he brings to the team. His shut down skills are great and his playoff performance has been good as well.

But at the end of the day if you offered me Gilmour from 92 to 94 prime for Zetterberg prime, I make that deal right away. You get a huge upgrade in offensive production and selke caliber defense.

This has nothing to do about nationality.

 

[Dark Shadows]

That's exactly what I was talking about. Z played on much better teams than Gilmore, so he had a different role. And it's not like Doug actually carried Toronto anywhere.

Huh? Consecutive conference finals with that leaf squad is pretty impressive. Not to mention his job in StLouis, tied for the lead in playoffs scoring and not even making the finals.

Not to mention some of the matchups he went head to head with in 93.
Made Yzerman look ineffectual, and made Gretzky look like a mere mortal until game 7. And even in Game 7, Gilmour had 3 points in a 5-4 loss(Gretzky showed why he is the greatest ever right when he needed to).

Hell, just look at all game 7's that year. 1 goal, 3 assists and + 4 vs Detroit in game 7. 1 goal, 2 assists and +3 vs StLouis in game 7(poor Brett Hull was -4 that game).

Consecutive conference finals? And Gilmour played the same role as Zetterberg on the 1989 Calgary team and he thrived.

Yup.
Fletcher said when asked if they win a cup without Killer, he replied..

"No, we don't," he said. "Doug was the difference. We won the Presidents' Trophy again in '88-89, but he was the difference in the playoffs. Al MacInnis won the Conn Smythe Trophy [as playoff MVP] -- and deservedly so, but Doug was the key guy. He just dominated."

 

[Hardyvan123]

leaning towards Doug, but I usually prefer 5 consecutive years for prime, based on best 5 seasons overall it's pretty close still.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Gilmour for me.

 

[Dark Shadows]

leaning towards Doug, but I usually prefer 5 consecutive years for prime, based on best 5 seasons overall it's pretty close still.

Just curious so I can understand your rating system a bit better.
Why do years have to be consecutive? Every now and then a player plays with an injury, has an off year, and comes back better than ever.

Some people have absurdly long primes and their best years get spread out due to this, etc

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

Gilmour.

His '93 playoff run is just spectacular.

 

[Hobnobs]

Consecutive conference finals? And Gilmour played the same role as Zetterberg on the 1989 Calgary team and he thrived.

Gilmour carried the leafs? No, if it wasn't for Clark there wouldnt have been CF for the leafs who were nearly upset by the sharks and Gilmour wasnt the driving force of that series.

I agree about '93, that was an godly perforamnce by Gilmour

 

[21]

Well, Gretzky probably wouldn't agree with you guys.

Gretzky about Zetterberg
http://redwings.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=653805

 

[BraveCanadian]

Gilmour carried the leafs? No, if it wasn't for Clark there wouldnt have been CF for the leafs who were nearly upset by the sharks and Gilmour wasnt the driving force of that series.

I agree about '93, that was an godly perforamnce by Gilmour

Did you even watch those games?

Gilmour was just as important in '94 as he was in '93.

He was slowed down by an injured ankle(? stupid memory) that needed injections before each game for him to be able to play and he still played incredibly.

Against San Jose Gilmour racked up 16 points in the 7 games so I'm going to have to go with yes.. Gilmour was the driving force in that series. He also had a goal in game 7, although Clark did have 2 and was the hero for that particular game.

Gilmour was the focus of every series he played in during 93 & 94.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Gilmour carried the leafs? No, if it wasn't for Clark there wouldnt have been CF for the leafs who were nearly upset by the sharks and Gilmour wasnt the driving force of that series.

I agree about '93, that was an godly perforamnce by Gilmour

uhhh, Wendel Clark(While important) was in the backseat to Gilmour in importance. Nevermind the fact that Clark's goals were mostly set up by Gilmour's brilliant playmaking. Gilmour had 16 points in 7 games and was +8 while playing the top opposing players and double shifting in checking duties.

Clark was great with 12 points and +2, but does not compare.

Well, Gretzky probably wouldn't agree with you guys.

Gretzky about Zetterberg
http://redwings.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=653805

We care what Gretz says anymore? In the past 10 years, he has called around 20 different players "The greatest/Most complete/etc I have ever seen", and praises different people at different times all over the map.

Gretzky is very free with his praise of everyone and it is always taken with a grain of salt.

Did you even watch those games?

Gilmour was just as important in '94 as he was in '93.

He was slowed down by an injured ankle(? stupid memory) that needed injections before each game for him to be able to play and he still played incredibly.

Against San Jose Gilmour racked up 16 points in the 7 games so I'm going to have to go with yes.. Gilmour was the driving force in that series. He also had a goal in game 7, although Clark did have 2 and was the hero for that particular game.

Gilmour was the focus of every series he played in during 93 & 94.

Exactly. and he also had great showings in his head to head matchup's as I pointed out earlier.

Made Yzerman look ineffectual, and made Gretzky look like a mere mortal until game 7. And even in Game 7, Gilmour had 3 points in a 5-4 loss(Gretzky showed why he is the greatest ever right when he needed to).

Hell, just look at all game 7's that year. 1 goal, 3 assists and + 4 vs Detroit in game 7. 1 goal, 2 assists and +3 vs StLouis in game 7(poor Brett Hull was -4 that game).

 

[Sentinel]

So Conference Finals is a big achievement now? Top 4 in the League? Sorry, didn't realize that. What does it make 96 Panthers? I take Cup Finals over that, thank you very much.

Again, I'm not belittling Clark's achievements, he was awesome, but this gap should not be as big as it is.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Just curious so I can understand your rating system a bit better.
Why do years have to be consecutive? Every now and then a player plays with an injury, has an off year, and comes back better than ever.

Some people have absurdly long primes and their best years get spread out due to this, etc

Consistency is something every player strives for but sleeping on it, I'm probably going to look at peak and prime 2 different ways going forward, best 5 and 7 years total and consecutive as well.

Injuries, among star players seem to be much higher since the 90's as well so you're right total years is something to be seriously considered IMO.

 

[Hardyvan123]

uhhh, Wendel Clark(While important) was in the backseat to Gilmour in importance. Nevermind the fact that Clark's goals were mostly set up by Gilmour's brilliant playmaking. Gilmour had 16 points in 7 games and was +8 while playing the top opposing players and double shifting in checking duties.

Clark was great with 12 points and +2, but does not compare.


We care what Gretz says anymore? In the past 10 years, he has called around 20 different players "The greatest/Most complete/etc I have ever seen", and praises different people at different times all over the map.

Gretzky is very free with his praise of everyone and it is always taken with a grain of salt.


Exactly. and he also had great showings in his head to head matchup's as I pointed out earlier.

Made Yzerman look ineffectual, and made Gretzky look like a mere mortal until game 7. And even in Game 7, Gilmour had 3 points in a 5-4 loss(Gretzky showed why he is the greatest ever right when he needed to).

Hell, just look at all game 7's that year. 1 goal, 3 assists and + 4 vs Detroit in game 7. 1 goal, 2 assists and +3 vs StLouis in game 7(poor Brett Hull was -4 that game).

I tend to agree but is this treatment any different than Joe Pelltier or the quotes used in the ATD?

Those tend to get treated with less criticism, as many never got to watch those players play yet the modern guys can be picked apart by advanced states and minuet detail.

 

[21]

We care what Gretz says anymore? In the past 10 years, he has called around 20 different players "The greatest/Most complete/etc I have ever seen", and praises different people at different times all over the map.

Gretzky is very free with his praise of everyone and it is always taken with a grain of salt.

Well, you have a point but I care more about Gretzky's view than what people write in this thread, that's for sure.

He has praised Zetteberg a number of times, not just once.

Of course I don't know how Gretzky would compare Gilmour with Zetterberg though.

 

[Sentinel]

I concur with the notion that Gretzky's praises should be taken with a teaspoon or two of salt.

 

[sr edler]

Against San Jose Gilmour racked up 16 points in the 7 games

Is that a good thing though he had 16 of his 28 points in one second round series against an opponent at the time not known for its fabulous defense? That leaves 12 points for the other two series. In the two series against Chicago and Vancouver he had 12 points in 11 games. Only against Vancouver, in the Conference Finals, he had 4 points in 5 games and went pointless in 3 of those games. Was also −4. Hardly "best player in the world" stuff that series as he was outplayed by one Pavel Bure.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Is that a good thing though he had 16 of his 28 points in one second round series against an opponent at the time not known for its fabulous defense? That leaves 12 points for the other two series. In the two series against Chicago and Vancouver he had 12 points in 11 games. Only against Vancouver, in the Conference Finals, he had 4 points in 5 games and went pointless in 3 of those games. Was also −4. Hardly "best player in the world" stuff that series as he was outplayed by one Pavel Bure.

I was simply completely refuting the nonsense statement that he wasn't a factor in that series. I am pretty sure 16 points in 7 games puts him in the drivers' seat.

For a guy playing on a mangled ankle to do what he did that whole playoff was extraordinary.

So the Leafs ran out of gas and were outmatched against Vancouver.. so what.. no sane person would even consider taking Bure over Gilmour 92-94. It wouldn't even cross their mind.

Even though Bure is underrated around here considering how well he played in Vancouver. He gets a lot of flak for his cherry picking in Florida.

 

[jkrx]

I was simply completely refuting the nonsense statement that he wasn't a factor in that series. I am pretty sure 16 points in 7 games puts him in the drivers' seat.

For a guy playing on a mangled ankle to do what he did that whole playoff was extraordinary.

So the Leafs ran out of gas and were outmatched against Vancouver.. so what.. no sane person would even consider taking Bure over Gilmour 92-94. It wouldn't even cross their mind.

Even though Bure is underrated around here considering how well he played in Vancouver. He gets a lot of flak for his cherry picking in Florida.

8 of those points were in the two blow out victories if I remember correctly. I find Gilmour to be one of the most overrated players on this boards where his '93 playoffs has been completely blown out proportion that it affects his other playoffs as well. 8 pts in 5 games isn't bad but it's not dominating either.

As to what the thread is about, Gilmour is ahead of Zetterberg.

 

[BraveCanadian]

8 of those points were in the two blow out victories if I remember correctly. I find Gilmour to be one of the most overrated players on this boards where his '93 playoffs has been completely blown out proportion that it affects his other playoffs as well. 8 pts in 5 games isn't bad but it's not dominating either.

As to what the thread is about, Gilmour is ahead of Zetterberg.

Really?

 

[Dark Shadows]

8 of those points were in the two blow out victories if I remember correctly. I find Gilmour to be one of the most overrated players on this boards where his '93 playoffs has been completely blown out proportion that it affects his other playoffs as well. 8 pts in 5 games isn't bad but it's not dominating either.

As to what the thread is about, Gilmour is ahead of Zetterberg.

Oh good lord.
His 93 playoffs were amazing and not at all blown out of proportion.

Where are these "blowout wins" you speak of? I see game 7 against St Louis in which he was amazing with 3 points and, Brett Hull ended the game minus 4. The other possible is his game 5 vs StLouis, 2 points in a 5-1 game.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Oh good lord.
His 93 playoffs were amazing and not at all blown out of proportion.

Where are these "blowout wins" you speak of? I see game 7 against St Louis in which he was amazing with 3 points and, Brett Hull ended the game minus 4. The other possible is his game 5 vs StLouis, 2 points in a 5-1 game.

I think he is referring to the series against the sharks in 94

I know one game the Leafs scored 8 goals and I think Gilmour had 4-5 points.