Heat McManus
Registered User
is that even a word?
I'd also like to nominate Palffy as the Dead Puck Era (DPE from here on out) as the NHL most underfed. The guy had shoulders like ping-pong balls. Which makes his success even more impressive and his injuries more expected.
Frolov 6'3
Unregistered User
lol, I got to admit, I also looked it up at the internet (before I wrote it) and I got matches !
hey, english is not my first language !
Heat McManus
Registered User
lol, I got to admit, I also looked it up at the internet (before I wrote it) and I got matches !
hey, english is not my first language !
lol, gotya
Dude was absolutely dominating in 03-04 prior to his injury. He was 2nd in PPG behind only Forsberg but had more points. He was also playing with scrubs as Allison/Deadmarsh were injured and was pacing an undermanned Kings team to a playoff position. His 2-way game was awesome that year, too.
Moreover, he was a notorious slow starter who almost always had better finishes to his seasons than beginnings. If he had stayed healthy and kept LA in the playoffs, he would have been deserving of Hart Trophy and his legacy now may have been much greater. But - alas - he suffered a season ending injury and never managed to reach those levels again. Consequently, his reputation will never be truly reflective of his talent. However, those who saw him a lot know how dynamic he truly was. One of the greats of the DPE.
This may have been true for the Kings but not when he was an Islander. Ziggy was a dynamic all around player. He didnt start slow as an Islander. He could score on the PP, on breakways all day, and was such a great finisher. He could pass the puck, had a great wrist shot, and he had great speed
redbull
Boss
- Mar 24, 2008
- 12,593
- 654
Palffy was definitely a compiler who never led his teams to anything, but I believe he was a great offensive player, one of the best of his time. He was completely one-dimensional but great at it. I believe he was very smart defensively and had great anticipation - hence, he was able to create offense with little support.
Phil Kessel is kinda like that today, though Palffy was a much better passer, higher hockey IQ. Bondra was similar but again, Palffy was much better (vision, hockey sense).
I never liked Palffy's competitiveness, nor Turgeon's for that matter. But you cannot deny his pure skill.
Phil Kessel is kinda like that today, though Palffy was a much better passer, higher hockey IQ. Bondra was similar but again, Palffy was much better (vision, hockey sense).
I never liked Palffy's competitiveness, nor Turgeon's for that matter. But you cannot deny his pure skill.
redbull
Boss
- Mar 24, 2008
- 12,593
- 654
Eye test, mostly.
How they play in important games, do they take a hit to make a play, can they lead a team to success.
Doug Gilmour was more competitive than Alexei Yashin.
I'm not sure what number I'd use to measure, but that's as good as an example that i can think of. Palffy skewed Yashin.
MadArcand
Whaletarded
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,541
- 4,935
Great offensive player AND very smart defensively - that's not what you usually call "completely one-dimensional", quite the opposite.
Calling him one dimensional and comparing him to Kessel is really, I mean really an exaggerating. Palffy was an impactful player, I really like the comparision with Kariya.
His talent is comparable only to Gaboriks one, Demitra or Hossa might have better careers, but they are inferior in terms of talent.
His talent is comparable only to Gaboriks one, Demitra or Hossa might have better careers, but they are inferior in terms of talent.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,145
Just watching him and his career I don't deny his skill but he always struck me as a player with little substance. Is he really all that different than Marc Savard when it comes to a career? He too never led his teams anywhere despite putting up good numbers. I agree with an above poster about his competitiveness. Was he just happy being a big fish in a terrible pond in NYI? We don't know. I am always wary of a player who is almost 30 before his first playoff game though. This is why the first thing you think about Bouwmeester is this very thing. And for a while the same thing for Jokinen or Savard.
When he finally got on a team with a very bright future (2005-'06 Pens) he retired. Had he waited a couple of years he wins a Cup. There is just a lot about his career I didn't care for. He falls into the category of a player I might second guess if he were on my team.
When he finally got on a team with a very bright future (2005-'06 Pens) he retired. Had he waited a couple of years he wins a Cup. There is just a lot about his career I didn't care for. He falls into the category of a player I might second guess if he were on my team.
Frolov 6'3
Unregistered User
Just like earlier in this topic I think you are very short-sided on some things, Phil, and do like your posts in general. He retired because he had a chronic problem (I believe it was his shoulder) and he still wanted to play hockey. Hockey in Europe is hardly that physical like it is in N-A and also has a larger surface. Apparantely it was impossible to continue in N-America otherwise he would not have retired.
The guy never had much to play with, with exception of Allison and Deadmarsh for one year. What team he played for, had any chance to do great things ? It boggles my mind how you can hold this against him. His centers during his career, Green, Reichel, Stumpel, Smolinski, Armstrong...wow.
I think too many people just look at the stats and never really have seen him play much.
Last edited:
Just a notice, actually, Stumpel and especially Reichel were above-average centers. Palffy played with Stumpel from their 15 or so..there was unbelievable amount of chemistry.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,145
No I do realize the reason he retired at the time was injuries. I just can't reward him for things he didn't do though. There are things to like about Palffy and things not to like. Competitiveness has been mentioned. I also felt he was a bit of a perimeter player too. And year after year the Islanders were at or near the bottom of the standings. Its one thing to not win a Cup or miss the postseason by a hair, but the Islanders were never close at that time. Eventually you do have to ask yourself how can I make this team better? How can I sacrifice? No doubt Palffy didn't always have a lot to work with, but its an issue that I criticize Rick Nash for as well. The guy has never had a good team around him, has been a big fish in a dirty pond for a long time and still signs a long term deal with Columbus?
It just makes me wonder about Nash's willingness to win. So I guess you can say I always wondered that about Palffy despite his obvious talent.
mrzeigler
.. but I'm not wrong
That "retirement" tainted the opinion of him a bit, at least in some circles. Many in the Penguins organization believed Palffy quit on the team because it was doing so badly in the standings and not due to the lingering shoulder injury that he cited when he told Craig Patrick he was retiring for medical reasons. The fact that Palffy unretired the next year and played three years in the Czech Republic would support that interpretation.
That might be how people measure competiveness, fairly or not.
I completely concur with you on Nash. A player whose reputation proceeds him, yet we still wait for something elite to actually happen. The single most over stated talent in the NHL today IMO.
Comparing him to Palffy, however, seems bizarre. Palffy may have been one dimensional, but he did at least score at an elite rate in the NHL. He's unquestionable one of the best producers of his generation, something Nash isn't, nor he close.
Palffy was way way before my time, but statistically speaking, a Palffy/Nash comparison is being very ungenerous to what Palffy actually achieved.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I'm going to have to disagree with myself from 2 years ago - Palffy finished top 10 in NHL scoring 4 times - not exactly common in the modern competitive league.
Injuries did prevent him from having several consecutive elite seasons in a row
Frolov 6'3
Unregistered User
Correct above-average.
Reichel had some great years in the beginning but both were not 1st line centers, despite the chemistry with Stumpel. I did like Stumpy.
BTW I dont want to read Palffy and one-dimensional in once sentence again.
Palffy had no talent around him on the NYI and the Kings werent all that great either. To call him one dimensional is ridiculous and even as a scorer he was multi-dimensional.
Ziggy was a competitor as an Islander. By the time he signed with the PENS he appeared to be winding down. He stilll played relatively well there.Injuries really derailed his promising NHL future. He was not a big guy so he took a beating. He was protected on either the ISles or Kings and he had concussion problems as well as the shoulder injuries. I am surprised he never came back to the NHL but either did Kenny Jonsson. It is as silly to label him a quitter as it is to say he was one-dimensional.
i always see Ziggy as a slightly poorer man's Pavel Bure. Awesome talent, sooooo fun to watch - undersized with ******* linemates, but still was a high end producer in an era that didn't make sense for small guys without linemates to produce in.
Put those two in today's NHL with centermen. and watch out.
Put those two in today's NHL with centermen. and watch out.
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,301
- 4,353
I don't think it's really a similar comparison. Nash has been in Columbus a decade nearly, and could have left by now if he wanted. Palffy was only on the island for four years essentially. What was he supposed to do, demand a trade in year three? If the Oilers suck again next year, should Taylor Hall demand a trade?
I think the notion that a lot of people didn't see Palffy due to him playing out in LA is supported by those Kings teams being written off as garbage by a lot of people. The Kings were in fact competitive after Palffy arrived, always either in the playoffs or just outside at a time when making the top 8 in the west was no small task. If those early 2000's Kings teams were in the eastern conference they'd have been a shoo-in to make the playoffs and Palffy might be remembered better.
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
Palffy (and the Kings) were playing terrific hockey in 2001-02. They had one of the most productive lines that season, the LAPD like with Allison-Palffy-Deadmarsh. Unfortunately, Allison and Deadmarsh got hurt and that trio did not last very long. Had they remained together, who knows what all three and the Kings could've accomplished.
I see Palffy in the same vein as Mike Gartner. Never won anything, but it shouldn't take away from him being one of the best players during his era. He was definitely a top 10 winger in the NHL from the late 90s to the 00s. In fact, from 1995-96 to 2003-04, Palffy ranked 4th overall in scoring among wingers with 654 points in 604 games, which is also the third best PPG average behind only Jagr and Kariya. Only Jagr, Selanne and Kariya scored more points than Palffy in that eight year run. Ziggy certainly is underrated.
Here's the list for those interested in seeing the top scoring wingers from 1995 to 2004:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=games_played
I see Palffy in the same vein as Mike Gartner. Never won anything, but it shouldn't take away from him being one of the best players during his era. He was definitely a top 10 winger in the NHL from the late 90s to the 00s. In fact, from 1995-96 to 2003-04, Palffy ranked 4th overall in scoring among wingers with 654 points in 604 games, which is also the third best PPG average behind only Jagr and Kariya. Only Jagr, Selanne and Kariya scored more points than Palffy in that eight year run. Ziggy certainly is underrated.
Here's the list for those interested in seeing the top scoring wingers from 1995 to 2004:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=games_played
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
Series Winner Boston Bruins vs Toronto Maple LeafsWagers: 5Staked: $1,322.00Event closes
- Updated:
-