I think the fact that I called him the worst good player in the NHL and that sparked two Hawks fans to get upset about it lends truth to what I was saying. I said he was a good player. I just happen to believe that of all the good players in the NHL back then, he was the worst. That's still not really a bad thing to say about a guy who played in 1 all star game.
But at the end of the day, he was advertised as a scorer, but he lacked finishing skills especially on break aways where his best move was to fire a wrister high and wide. His hands were meh. His IQ/vision was below average for a supposed high skill guy. Good player, propped up by great players. That's what it will say on his tombstone.
He was good for 27-36 goals a year on average in Chicago. Played any position in the top 9, was an excellent complimentary piece on the first line for a dynasty Hawks era, defensively responsible, very good skater, and a dose of size and physicality.
Not the same caliber of player as Toews, Kane, Kieth, or Hossa for sure but he was every bit as valuable and effective as Hjalmarsson, Seabrook, and Crawford.
He’s not a HoFer and won’t even have his number retired. Not sure why you’d disparage him by saying he was thought of too highly.
I’ve never seen anyone say anything you just said is my point. I don’t even understand what a worst good player is. Do you mean like worst second liner or ? Why is he the line between good and bad? What makes him that? Why does he qualify as a good player? Why isn’t he the best bad player?
He was more of a shooter than a breakaway, in close, hands guy or passer. That’s not news. He had some grit, played solid defense, would throw down when needed. Never really saw anyone prop him up as a high skill guy. People liked his shot.
My only slight against him is he didn’t bury that shot on Luongo in the 2011 series. We could’ve sent them home 3 times in a row.