TheBig08
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2024
- 178
- 59
I like to talk about hockey but i have no one to talk about it with because no one knows anything about it, where i live its not popular. Not meaning to annoy people.My man, every thought that comes to your head doesn't need a new thread in the history sub-forum
I like to talk about hockey but i have no one to talk about it with because no one knows anything about it, where i live its not popular. Not meaning to annoy people.
I could talk all day about what a great goal-scorer Bossy was, but I think Bure was even better, maybe the 2nd-best ever, after Lemieux.
I could talk all day about what a great goal-scorer Bossy was, but I think Bure was even better, maybe the 2nd-best ever, after Lemieux.
It's actually a great comparison, Bossy and Bure were such incredible scorers but very different from each other.
Bossy could score from all over the place, off the rush, great at finding space, great shooter, very focused on scoring goals.
Bure, on the other hand, utilized his explosive skating probably more so than any of the other great goal scorers. It was his skating, stickhandling, scoring instincts, creativity, and his constant nose for the net. He was certainly more of an individualist than Bossy. Bure also was a great shooter, but his skating and stickhandling really were the best of his goal-scoring skills.
"Magnitude of Bossy"? He only led the league in goalscoring two measily times while playing with phenomenal passers. Bure did it three times with drastically worse teammates.It's closer than I would have initially thought but I can't overcome the sheer magnitude of Bossy at his peak. Bure can't match that, even if he was fantastic and the most entertaining player to watch for a good bit there.
"Magnitude of Bossy"? He only led the league in goalscoring two measily times while playing with phenomenal passers. Bure did it three times with drastically worse teammates.
Bossy did it in a much higher scoring era. Nitpicking between 17 in the high-flying 80s and 16 in 1994 in favor of the 17 is a bit odd to say the least.How many times did Bure score 17 goals in the playoffs?
Neither of these is even in the Top5.
[...]
Bossy did it in a much higher scoring era. Nitpicking between 17 in the high-flying 80s and 16 in 1994 in favor of the 17 is a bit odd to say the least.
First of all, you're factually wrong. Bossy scored 17 three times and Bure was in the second round four times. Second, now you're faulting him for being on lousy teams that didn't give him a chance to make a run at those kind of numbers. The one true deep playoff run he was a part of, he led the playoffs in goals.So, as I said how many times did Bure score 17 goals?
I'm pretty sure Bossy scored 17 goals more often than Bure made it out of the first round.
Bossy scored 58 goals and 117 points and turned Sutter, a 45 point defensive depth center, into a 100+ point player the year Trottier was too injured to play his usual role lol"Magnitude of Bossy"? He only led the league in goalscoring two measily times while playing with phenomenal passers. Bure did it three times with drastically worse teammates.
First of all, you're factually wrong. Bossy scored 17 three times and Bure was in the second round four times. Second, now you're faulting him for being on lousy teams that didn't give him a chance to make a run at those kind of numbers. The one true deep playoff run he was a part of, he led the playoffs in goals.
Bossy scored 17 three times and Bure was in the second round four times.
One player isn't responsible for a team being lousy, and if you bothered to take a look at the rosters, you'd see that they were lousy teams.Those teams were lousy because Bure was playing 30 minutes a night without putting any effort into defense, or team play.
That's pretty impressive that Bure managed to exit the first round one more time than Bossy had 17 goals.
One player isn't responsible for a team being lousy, and if you bothered to take a look at the rosters, you'd see that they were lousy teams.
And it's pretty impressive that you have no regard for facts.