pierre turgeon

[Ogopogo*]

Maybe cuz top 30 equals a good year. Turgeon was very good in 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2001 and 1989, just because he didnt crack the top 10, it doesnt mean you just dismiss the guy.

Good ain't great. Great should be the criteria for HOF induction, not good.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Maybe cuz top 30 equals a good year.

Then put Turgeon into the "Hall of Good Years".

 

[cupcrazyman]

You dont count assists or anything?

Originally Posted by ushvinder
Pierre Turgeon was offensively superior to Michel Goulet and Mike Gartner.

offensively superior means goal scoring.you never said anything about being a playmaker.which means setting up goals i.e. assists ala Adam Oates.

 

[Fraction Jackson]

What's your criteria for induction? Mine is to be one of the truly elite of your time. Simply being good for a long stretch isn't good enough for me.

It depends how long "a long stretch" is. 5 years isn't enough. But Turgeon was a very, very good offensive player for a little over a decade, ditto Recchi. It doesn't make them locks, but I do honestly feel it merits consideration. It's why Gartner is in. There aren't a lot of players in the history of the game who can maintain that level of production for that long - even some "great" players never did. That makes guys like Gartner, Recchi, and Turgeon unique in their own right; by being very good for so long, they become special by doing what they did for longer than almost anyone.

One other point: I don't see much difference between Turgeon and, for example, Alex Mogilny, production-wise, and Mogilny wasn't exactly a defensive expert either. Yet the original Alex the Great is discussed like he's if nothing else a very strong contender, if not exactly a lock. I'll grant that maybe that's because of how he came over in part (giving him a higher profile from day one), and the fact that he has a ring. But heck, Turgeon has one more 30-goal season (9) than Mogilny (8), 5 more points (132) in his best year than Mogilny's best year (127, during the same year), and had 11 seasons where he was a PPG player, compared to 8 for Mogilny. They have the same number of 100-point seasons (2), and Turgeon hit 90 points 4 times, compared to still only 2 for Mogilny.

Based on that, if Mogilny gets in (and he probably ought to), then there really isn't a reason to deny Turgeon.

 

[TrevorLinden16]

offensively superior means goal scoring.

who made this rule?

 

[cupcrazyman]

Then put Turgeon into the "Hall of Good Years".

exactly.you could probably find 20 or more retired NHL forwards that fall into that category & most will never be inducted in the HHOF.

 

[lextune]

Now you are starting to see why the HOF is pretty much irrelevant. Gillies, Duff, Federko, Neely, Anderson, Gartner and several more make the Hall a sham.

What's your criteria for induction? Mine is to be one of the truly elite of your time. Simply being good for a long stretch isn't good enough for me.

At the end of the 90/91 season Neely (a three time all-star by then, with one more to go), was already truly elite.
There weren't 10 players in the league that any GM wouldn't have traded to get him.

In fact, forget 10; other than Gretzky, Mario, Messier, Yzerman and Hull, I would like to hear of another player who wouldn't have been traded in a heartbeat for Neely.

 

[Ogopogo*]

At the end of the 90/91 season Neely (a three time all-star by then, with one more to go), was already truly elite.
There weren't 10 players in the league that any GM wouldn't have traded to get him.

In fact, forget 10; other than Gretzky, Mario, Messier, Yzerman and Hull, I would like to hear of another player who wouldn't have been traded in a heartbeat for Neely.

He finished tied for 2nd in goals once, 3rd once and tied for 8th once. Never a sniff of a Hart, Smythe or an Art Ross trophy.

Not really enough to be considered one of the truly elite of the era.

 

[lextune]

I repeat; at the end of the 90/91 season Neely (a three time all-star by then, with one more to go), was already truly elite.

Other than Gretzky, Mario, Messier, Yzerman and Hull, I would like to hear of another player who wouldn't have been traded in a heartbeat for Neely.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Originally Posted by ushvinder
Pierre Turgeon was offensively superior to Michel Goulet and Mike Gartner.

offensively superior means goal scoring.you never said anything about being a playmaker.which means setting up goals i.e. assists ala Adam Oates.

Offensively superior means both goal scoring and playmaking. Not just goal scoring

Pierre Turgeon was offensively superior to Michel Goulet and Mike Gartner.

Michel Goulet was offensively better than Turgeon. I am not sure where you are getting the idea otherwise from.

 

[Ogopogo*]

It depends how long "a long stretch" is. 5 years isn't enough. But Turgeon was a very, very good offensive player for a little over a decade, ditto Recchi. It doesn't make them locks, but I do honestly feel it merits consideration. It's why Gartner is in. There aren't a lot of players in the history of the game who can maintain that level of production for that long - even some "great" players never did. That makes guys like Gartner, Recchi, and Turgeon unique in their own right; by being very good for so long, they become special by doing what they did for longer than almost anyone.

One other point: I don't see much difference between Turgeon and, for example, Alex Mogilny, production-wise, and Mogilny wasn't exactly a defensive expert either. Yet the original Alex the Great is discussed like he's if nothing else a very strong contender, if not exactly a lock. I'll grant that maybe that's because of how he came over in part (giving him a higher profile from day one), and the fact that he has a ring. But heck, Turgeon has one more 30-goal season (9) than Mogilny (8), 5 more points (132) in his best year than Mogilny's best year (127, during the same year), and had 11 seasons where he was a PPG player, compared to 8 for Mogilny. They have the same number of 100-point seasons (2), and Turgeon hit 90 points 4 times, compared to still only 2 for Mogilny.

Based on that, if Mogilny gets in (and he probably ought to), then there really isn't a reason to deny Turgeon.

Your standards are way too low. Turgeon, Mogilny and Recchi all do not deserve to be in the Hall.

They were all good players for extended periods and Mogilny even had an elite season or two. But, these guys are second tier stars. They are not the elite of their era and shouldn't be included in a group with Messier, Yzerman, Sakic and Forsberg.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I repeat; at the end of the 90/91 season Neely (a three time all-star by then, with one more to go), was already truly elite.

Other than Gretzky, Mario, Messier, Yzerman and Hull, I would like to hear of another player who wouldn't have been traded in a heartbeat for Neely.

Truly elite?

Your standards are waaaay too low. Making an all star team is not the measure of elite ability.

Being a Neely fan is fine, you are just letting it skew your judgement.

 

[lextune]

Not really enough to be considered one of the truly elite of the era.

Well, then it should be easy for you to answer my question.....

It's the end of the 90/91 regular season, other than Gretzky, Mario, Messier, Yzerman and Hull, name any player who would not have been traded in a heartbeat for Neely.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Truly elite?

Your standards are waaaay too low. Making an all star team is not the measure of elite ability.

Being a Neely fan is fine, you are just letting it skew your judgement.

Ill just quote God Bless Canada, who I am in agreement with.

There are two reasons that Neely's in the HHOF. And when you bring them together, he should be a no-brainer selection for the HHOF.

The first is definition. He DEFINED the power forward role. Every power forward that comes along for many, many years to come, will have Cam Neely as the measuring stick. It's a measuring stick that only one, Jarome Iginla, had matched. This is not to say that Neely was the first real power forward. He wasn't. Charlie Conacher was a power forward by every definition of the term. But Neely was the first one to get the label of the power forward. Every scout for the last 20 years has been searching for the next Cam Neely. Call it a hunch, I think they'll be seeking for the next Neely for the next 30 years.

Cam Neely is probably one of the 10 or 15 most important players from the game in the last 25 years.

The other reason is playoffs. One of the best playoff performers of his generation. Fourth in career post-season goals per game. Why did Roy hate playing Neely so much? Maybe it's because of the way Neely utterly dominated the Habs in 1988, when the Bruins ended a 40-year post-season drought against Montreal. Or maybe it was Neely's follow-up two years later, when Boston once again dominated the Habs. In 1991, he was an Ulf Samuelsson knee away from leading Boston back to the Cup (that hit changed the entire complexion of the series), and Neely would have certainly set a post-season goals record in the process. (He had 16 in the first three rounds). He had that big-game, high-pressure mentality that can't be taught. When the game was on the line, he wanted to be on the ice. He wanted to be the hero, and he had the ability to do it.

You can cite all the regular season statistical smoke and accolades you want. Personally, when it comes HHOFers, I'd vote for Neely, who defined the game, and dominated in the playoffs, ahead of guys with great career numbers, like an Adam Oates, or even a Dale Hawerchuk or a Denis Savard - great players deserving of the HHOF, but not guys who defined their role, who did things that will make them memorable 25 years from now.

Twenty-five years from now, when we're still searching for the next Neely, nobody will question his place in the HHOF. Those who were fortunate enough to watch him, with an unbiased eye, will rave about how fantastic he truly was.

Those who question Neely's place in the HHOF, have no idea what it takes to truly be great.

Outside of Messier, there hasn't been a better combination of goal scoring ability and physical play the last 30 years than Cam Neely.

And my arguments above are the reason I would vote for Theo Fleury, too. The arguments for Neely hold true for Theo, too. Theo was a magnificent playoff performer. It's too bad that his Calgary teammates didn't have Theo's big game mentality. Actually, as a Canucks fan, it's a good thing. If they did, Calgary beats us in 1994. And Theo defined his role. It's the opposite end of the spectrum, of course. Whereas Cam Neely defined the power forward role, Theo Fleury became the prototype and the measuring stick for small forwards - quick, highly skilled, but fearless, an all-out, all-heart, all-the-time force who took the hit to make the play, and wasn't afraid to hit much bigger players. A guy whose place in the game will grow as we get further removed from his best years.

The only thing that Theo doesn't have, that Neely had, was a spotless record, on and off the ice. And it's too bad. We're going to be looking for the next Theo for the next quarter century, too.

Do I think Theo gets in? Yes. I'm convinced of it. I might be an old fart when it happens. But I think he'll make it. The futher we're removed from the great seasons, such as his 50 goals in 1990-91 that made him such a great story, the more we'll marvel at the little dynamo. The more we'll realize that he was such a special, once in a lifetime type of player. And that's when he'll get in.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Ill just quote God Bless Canada, who I am in complete agreement with.

GBC likes to romanticize his faves and prefers style over substance. I'll agree to disagree. Going on memory alone is a sure fire way to misplace players you like.

 

[lextune]

I love that quote, lol.

And I will note that when God Bless Canada brings up Cam being fourth in career post-season goals per game, the three players ahead of him are Bossy, Mario and The Rocket.

Pretty elite company.

I won't repeat my (conspicuously ignored) question for a fourth time, but I will note the elite nature of that company as well, and assure Ogopogo that my judgment is not skewed in the slightest.

....because if Bossy, The Rocket, Mario, Gretz, Yzerman, Hull and Messier aren't elite company I don't know who are.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Well, then it should be easy for you to answer my question.....

It's the end of the 90/91 regular season, other than Gretzky, Mario, Messier, Yzerman and Hull, name any player who would not have been traded in a heartbeat for Neely.

Gretzky, Hull, Oates, Sakic, Yzerman, Lemieux, Messier, Coffey, Bure, Gilmour, Fedorov, Stevens, Chelios, Jagr...

 

[Dark Shadows]

GBC likes to romanticize his faves and prefers style over substance. I'll agree to disagree. Going on memory alone is a sure fire way to misplace players you like.

Going on stats alone is a surefire way to misplace players. Statistics NEVER tell the whole story.

 

[lextune]

Oates, Sakic, Coffey, Bure, Gilmour, Fedorov, Stevens, Chelios, Jagr...

Bure wasn't even in the league.

Jagr was a rookie who would have traded for Neely in a millisecond.

Fedorov was a rookie who would have traded for Neely in a millisecond.

Coffey:

Sakic in his third season would have been a close call, but lets go ahead and add him to my list and you tell me how that makes it less elite....

Stevens:

Gilmore would have been traded in a second.

Chelios had just been traded for Denis Savard who was putting up 59 points....Either one of them would have been traded for Neely in a second.

Oates would have been traded in a second.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Going on stats alone is a surefire way to misplace players. Statistics NEVER tell the whole story.

I'm not even going to get into my methods again. You don't understand them and I will leave it at that.

 

[canucks4ever]

Offensively superior means both goal scoring and playmaking. Not just goal scoring



Michel Goulet was offensively better than Turgeon. I am not sure where you are getting the idea otherwise from.

Turgeon was more durable than him, and Turgeon was better than Gartner.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I'm not even going to get into my methods again. You don't understand them and I will leave it at that.

Your methods are flawed and most people disagree with them and the results.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Turgeon was more durable than him, and Turgeon was better than Gartner.

Ill Buy Durable. better offensively? No. Goulet was well above him

 

[Big Phil]

At the end of the 90/91 season Neely (a three time all-star by then, with one more to go), was already truly elite.
There weren't 10 players in the league that any GM wouldn't have traded to get him.

In fact, forget 10; other than Gretzky, Mario, Messier, Yzerman and Hull, I would like to hear of another player who wouldn't have been traded in a heartbeat for Neely.

Not sure if anyone else has said this yet, but Roy and Bourque would be on that list. And Adam Oates/Sakic would be a good bet as well. But I see your point, Neely was an elite player then, I just wish he kept that level going longer

 

[canucks4ever]

Ill Buy Durable. better offensively? No. Goulet was well above him

Goulet has 6 seasons that put him in the hall of fame right? Turgeon scored 132 in 1993, 106 in 1990, 95 points in 1992 and 94 points within 69 games in 1994. So he has 4 seasons that match Goulet's 6. On top of that he has 5-6 good years, so overall career I give to Turgeon. Not to mention that he was unfortunate to miss large portions of 1998 and 2000, he almost certainly would have cracked the top 5-7 in those seasons. You can say Goulet was better defensively, but overall Turgeon had the better career. Turgeon is very comparable to Lafontaine, he's above Mike Gartner and Alexander Mogilny.