Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
C1958 was very high on that whole dynasty. If it were up to him, they would constitute Top 5. And he put Gretzky at #7. That's all you need to know.
Actually he had Gretzky at 6th and The Rocket at 7th.
C1958 was very high on that whole dynasty. If it were up to him, they would constitute Top 5. And he put Gretzky at #7. That's all you need to know.
I don't know if he was low on Lafleur. The impression I got was that he saw Lafleur for who he was,an offensively gifted player that offered little else. C1958 valued checking, fundamentals and geometry while he seemed to be low on attributes like artistry and improvisation. After all he had 99 at 7th.And Guy Lafleur.
How many full games of Doug Harvey have you watched? It must be quite a bit. 200? 300?
I don't know if he was low on Lafleur. The impression I got was that he saw Lafleur for who he was,an offensively gifted player that offered little else. C1958 valued checking, fundamentals and geometry while he seemed to be low on attributes like artistry and improvisation. After all he had 99 at 7th.
My point was that it's not true that C1958 was uncriticizing of Montreal players.
I don't see what the big deal is with having Gretzky at 7th. I know it made a huge splash but I don't see anything wrong with it from a poster who valued a complete game and the maturation of a player. C1958 defended all his positions and honestly, he persuaded me more often than not or at least brought something to my attention that I hadn't thought about.
I think the biggest issue I have with Harvey is when you look at Montreal's 49-50 through 53-54 seasons, basically Harvey's first full 5 seasons, his age-25 through 29 years, that also represent Maurice Richard's age 28 through 32 seasons. The point I'm trying to make is that you have 5 consecutive years of prime Harvey+M. Richard, two players who at the very worst are top 20 of all time, in what really is a weak era for hockey beyond Detroit, and Montreal's yearly goal differentials for those 5 years were +22, -11, +31, +7, and +54. Over that period, Montreal was -1 vs Boston, -40 vs Detroit, -4 vs Toronto, +83 vs Chicago, and +65 vs New York.
That +54 season corresponds to Beliveau's first partial season, and the next time Montreal had a goal differential lower than +31 was the 64-65 season. If you look at Montreal's yearly goal differential against each team in Beliveau's 8 year peak from 54-55 through 61-62, an even differential against Detroit in 54-55 and Chicago in 60-61, as well as a -3 against Boston in 56-57 are the only blemishes in their positive goal differentials over the entire period. Perhaps even more impressive, of those 37 positive goal differentials, only 8 were in single digits. Now part of that was all the talent in Montreal beyond Beliveau - your Plantes, Geoffrions, Moores, Olmsteads, H. Richards - but the supercharging of the offense that Beliveau provided is the biggest factor.
That's why for me Beliveau has a legitimate argument for #5 all-time, and Harvey and M. Richard get pushed down my list. I still lean Bourque for 5th though, just because of what he did as a #1D for so many years.
There's a very big difference, though, between the Habs of the first half of the '50s and the Habs of the 2nd half of the '50s.I think the biggest issue I have with Harvey is when you look at Montreal's 49-50 through 53-54 seasons, basically Harvey's first full 5 seasons, his age-25 through 29 years, that also represent Maurice Richard's age 28 through 32 seasons. The point I'm trying to make is that you have 5 consecutive years of prime Harvey+M. Richard, two players who at the very worst are top 20 of all time, in what really is a weak era for hockey beyond Detroit, and Montreal's yearly goal differentials for those 5 years were +22, -11, +31, +7, and +54. Over that period, Montreal was -1 vs Boston, -40 vs Detroit, -4 vs Toronto, +83 vs Chicago, and +65 vs New York.
That +54 season corresponds to Beliveau's first partial season, and the next time Montreal had a goal differential lower than +31 was the 64-65 season. If you look at Montreal's yearly goal differential against each team in Beliveau's 8 year peak from 54-55 through 61-62, an even differential against Detroit in 54-55 and Chicago in 60-61, as well as a -3 against Boston in 56-57 are the only blemishes in their positive goal differentials over the entire period. Perhaps even more impressive, of those 37 positive goal differentials, only 8 were in single digits. Now part of that was all the talent in Montreal beyond Beliveau - your Plantes, Geoffrions, Moores, Olmsteads, H. Richards - but the supercharging of the offense that Beliveau provided is the biggest factor.
That's why for me Beliveau has a legitimate argument for #5 all-time, and Harvey and M. Richard get pushed down my list. I still lean Bourque for 5th though, just because of what he did as a #1D for so many years.
Then feel free to jump in weekly when somone on "your side" of the debate posts comparisons like they did with Crosby/Beliveau earlier in this thread.
It is less likely that a smaller talent pool would produce the best defender of all-time for really obvious reasons but it doesn't mean it's impossible. The point is EVERYONE here must compare said player with his own peers because those are the only guys he was on the ice with. So if the talent pool is really smaller than it is even more likely that overall there will be less great players pushing the limits, which will reflect in these peer to peer comparisons one must take part in as a starting point for every era. We get into questions like how much did they dominate their peers so we must scrutinize their peers they dominated. Were Fetisov's peers and main top competition at the top in the RSL top quality? Probably not when compared with todays NHL. Were Harvey's? I'd say it's a similar answer.
I think Lidstrom has more of an argument for top 5 and top 10 than Harvey. I already explained why I brought up Lidstrom/Harvey and it's because it's probably the best example of what I'm talking about with these cross era comparisions that are clearly favouring the o6 guys when they shouldn't be.
# 1 is just about peoples perception and labelling it as such. In reality Harvey was the best of his era, Orr the best of his, followed by Bourque and then Lidstrom. The problem for you is that the NHL clearly got better, deeper, bigger, and more diverse over time so these feats and eras aren't all equal and only Orr dominated his peers in a different stratosphere than the other three.
# 2 Kelly pretty consistently outscored Harvey early on and all 4 generations of top defeseman listed above at least drove their teams offense in a similar way, too. Obviously, again, Orr brought it to a diferent level but they all surpassed Harvey in offensive production. Harvey had arguably the best centre, goalie, group of wingers, a Norris guy playing behind him, and the best coach. There was a lot more to the 5 Cups than just one guy and the O6 had what, 2 or 3 teams a season who could seriously challenge? Again, it's more like Fetisov's RSL teams than what the NHL is now.
Standing around probably.
But seriously, the elder Richard was a legend before Harvey ever showed up, and the younger Richard and Beliveau were long after he was gone.
Geoffrion definitely has some right place, right time vibe to him. Moore had an injury-plagued career and is one of the more enigmatic players to evaluate IMO. But these two are accordingly held in lesser esteem than those other names.
C1958 had Boom Boom at 50th.
Dickie Moore at 47th.
Henri Richard at 36th.
He had Gretzky at 6th overall though, the term WTF comes to mind RIP.
Yet Moore somehow found his way onto the top 100 list at 68 for basically 5 relevant full seasons and some good playoffs on a dynasty.
Had he played for the NYR or Black Hawks he wouldn't have even been in the conversation.
Even Geoffrion at 53 seems way too generous really.
But this is all the product of having a dominant team in a 6 team league and SC counting at the end IMO.
There are only 15 multiple Art Ross winners.
Moore is one of them.
The subject was biased in favor of the 1950's Canadiens.
Gretzky 6th and Mario 5th. Lack of defensive play did not sit well with him.
User | Aggy List Rank | Inference Rank Vote 2 | At the Primary Expense of... |
@bobholly39 | 12 | 8 | Dominik Hašek |
@ResilientBeast | 12 | 7 | Maurice Richard |
@seventieslord | 11 | 10 | Eddie Shore |
@TheDevilMadeMe | 10 | 8 | Howie Morenz |
@BenchBrawl | 10 | 7 | Doug Harvey |
@Sentinel | 9 | 8 | Maurice Richard |
Canadiens1958† | 8 | 7 | Maurice Richard |
@kruezer | 8 | 6 | Jean Béliveau |
@Johnny Engine | 7 | 6 | Doug Harvey |
@Batis | 7 | 6 | Dominik Hašek |
@Hockey Outsider | 7 | 6 | Maurice Richard |
@The Macho Man | 7 | 5 | Maurice Richard |
@ted2019 | 6 | 5 | Doug Harvey |
(fka) Art of Sedinery | 6 | 5 | Jean Béliveau |
@Kyle McMahon | 6 | 5 | Doug Harvey |
Sure but he was 8th and 5th in Hart voting those years.
I wasn't alive so the weight of only 5 relevant seasons and those Hart results, man McDavid probably passed him in 2018 or 2019 forsure.
Even then Gretzky at 6th all time is such a wacky choice no matter the reasoning.
I can't even think of anything in hockey terms as wacky as perhaps the fellow that mentioned Dave Keon being better than Crosby upthread.
Hart voting wasn't the same as it is today, as I'm sure you know.
For the record. I had McDavid ranked 84th, Moore 94th.
Then feel free to jump in weekly when somone on "your side" of the debate posts comparisons like they did with Crosby/Beliveau earlier in this thread.
It is less likely that a smaller talent pool would produce the best defender of all-time for really obvious reasons but it doesn't mean it's impossible. The point is EVERYONE here must compare said player with his own peers because those are the only guys he was on the ice with. So if the talent pool is really smaller than it is even more likely that overall there will be less great players pushing the limits, which will reflect in these peer to peer comparisons one must take part in as a starting point for every era. We get into questions like how much did they dominate their peers so we must scrutinize their peers they dominated. Were Fetisov's peers and main top competition at the top in the RSL top quality? Probably not when compared with todays NHL. Were Harvey's? I'd say it's a similar answer.
I think Lidstrom has more of an argument for top 5 and top 10 than Harvey. I already explained why I brought up Lidstrom/Harvey and it's because it's probably the best example of what I'm talking about with these cross era comparisions that are clearly favouring the o6 guys when they shouldn't be.
# 1 is just about peoples perception and labelling it as such. In reality Harvey was the best of his era, Orr the best of his, followed by Bourque and then Lidstrom. The problem for you is that the NHL clearly got better, deeper, bigger, and more diverse over time so these feats and eras aren't all equal and only Orr dominated his peers in a different stratosphere than the other three.
# 2 Kelly pretty consistently outscored Harvey early on and all 4 generations of top defeseman listed above at least drove their teams offense in a similar way, too. Obviously, again, Orr brought it to a diferent level but they all surpassed Harvey in offensive production. Harvey had arguably the best centre, goalie, group of wingers, a Norris guy playing behind him, and the best coach. There was a lot more to the 5 Cups than just one guy and the O6 had what, 2 or 3 teams a season who could seriously challenge? Again, it's more like Fetisov's RSL teams than what the NHL is now.
Yet Moore somehow found his way onto the top 100 list at 68 for basically 5 relevant full seasons and some good playoffs on a dynasty.
Had he played for the NYR or Black Hawks he wouldn't have even been in the conversation.
Even Geoffrion at 53 seems way too generous really.
But this is all the product of having a dominant team in a 6 team league and SC counting at the end IMO.
Actually he had Gretzky at 6th and The Rocket at 7th.
On the initial list, yes, but I think he fell one spot to 7th during 2nd round voting.