Poll: Anyone else think Pierre Turgeon isn't a Hall of Famer?

[habdynasty]

They must be running out of players to induct.

 

[tazsub3]

He had a long productive career, it's pretty much all it takes at this point. Once you start letting guys like Lowe in, you make it a lifetime achievement award more than anything else.

What about mogolni then ? He has a long and productive career

 

[Pompeius Magnus]

What about mogolni then ? He has a long and productive career

Oh for sure, there's no reason for him not to be in at this point.

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

I think Turgeon is deserving. He was a good player for many years. It's not like he was a first-ballot guy, but guys like him sometimes get in eventually. I don't really have a problem with that.

 

[Kaiden Ghoul]

I don't think that affected his career trajectory. 1993 was a weird year for a lot of players and tons of guys hit levels they'd never even come close to again.

I mean Joe Juneau dropped 102 points as a rookie.

Turgeon's post 93 career is very much in line with what most would have expected. He didn't really begin to fall off until he joined the Stars following his age 31 season.

The quickness of his drop-off was unexpected given he was a reliable ppg guy going into that, but it was also 8 years removed from the Dale Hunter incident.

But at the same time Tuegeon never was à tough player from what i remember and the way he got injured in that series against WSH,there must has been also a émotionnel aspect, if im him, i dont think i come back with the same motivation and all

Mental health is a biggg part of this game

Speaking of Juneau he got injured the year after his 100 point season and put near ppg, the year after 11 games played and we know the rest, dont say Juneau would have been a ppg or more but...

 

[BLONG7]

They must be running out of players to induct.

This........................along with others who have gone in to the Hall.

That being said, many on here are probably too young to remember his play..........he was an offensive whiz with the puck, and could finish.
Based on previous guys being put in the Hall, I voted that he does belong there too.
He had an amazing career with the Sabres and Isles. His time with the Habs was just ok which is why many feel the way they do.
The league has more than one team guys....

 

[Tyson]

Keith Tkachuk isn't in the Hall, neither is Claude Lemieux.
Damphousse and Muller not in the Hall but Turgeon is deserving? Weird standards.

 

[TT1]

they're running out of people to induct

 

[StCaufield]

Today he is. Before he wasn’t

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

Is Pierre Turgeon really Hall of Famer?

I mean he has big numbers because he played in a high scoring era and played a lot of games.

I saw him as a star, a really good player, but not a hall of famer.

He was in the prime of his career when he was here, and Damphousse and Koivu were ahead of him on the C depth chart.

He was our highest scoring center over the 104 games that we had him with 127 points and was not the 3rd line center in the only full season that we had him. Koivue's emergence to what seemed to be guaranteed superstardom at the start of the 1996-97 meant that we had to move one of Damphousse or Turgeon but to paint him as our 3rd line center....you'd really have to squint hard to see that. If not for injuries he would have had 5 or 6 100 + point seasons and there was a short stretch in his career where he was one of the very best in the game and he put up gawdy point totals without much help.

There are many players that should not be in the Hall of Fame who were never as good as Turgeon so why start the conversation with him? A player like Mike Gartner is a much better example of a one dimensional player who was never considered to be among the league's elite and never considered to be the go to guy on his team yet his overall totals have him in the Hall. Gartner never came close to being as good as Turgeon at his peak and I think the Hall should be reserved for players who were at least in the conversation as being among the very best in the game at some point in their career. Longevity is important but without elite status at some point just isn't enough.

Ultimately, by my definition of a HOFer Turgeon should not be in the HOF but only if all the others that don't belong there are removed first. So relative to the rest of the current group he is 100% a Hall of Famer.

 

[sansabri]

500+ goals? 1300+ pts? yeah

 

[ZUKI]

So, people here that never have seen a single game of Pierre Turgeon ,because being too young, are voting to decide if that same Turgeon deserves to be in the Hockey HOF ? " was he a dman ?" anyway " He's a Québecois so probably another Drouin so i will vote NO..."

 

[ZUKI]

Keith Tkachuk isn't in the Hall, neither is Claude Lemieux.
Damphousse and Muller not in the Hall but Turgeon is deserving? Weird standards.

Turgeon was better than both. He was a top NHL players for years. He was a beauty on the ice, kind of gentleman as Béliveau was . LoL at people that mention he was soft . When a player makes 90- 100 points seasons , who cares he's soft ???

We are talking a lot about the trade of Roy as the worth in Habs history. To me the one of Turgeon was worse. Trading a 95 points center for an old, slow, 40 IQ grinder Corson who was already finished ...

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

Today he is. Before he wasn’t

Disagree, they have been letting in players who were never even in the discussion of being one of the top few players in the league for a long time. As much as I loved Guy Carbonneau (I was probably his biggest fan) he should not be in the HOF no matter how many Selke's he's won. HOFers should be players that teams were built around, franchise defining players. IMO only about 1/4 of the players in the HOF should even be there, it should be a shrine where generations can celebrate the players that defined and dominated the game. Any player who would not be the best player on more than half of the teams for multiple seasons should not even be considered.

The Hall should add a category to Players and Builders called Moments/Performances where players who have no business being in the Hall as a member can still be recognized. This gets Henderson, Lemieux, Nystrom, J.Williams etc in there but in an appropriate manner.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

delete

 

[jellybeans]

He was a great player still remember when i was 15 years old and he was 10 playing on an outside rink he was already much better then us.

What about mogolni then ? He has a long and productive career

who's mogolni.

 

[JianYang]

Is Pierre Turgeon really Hall of Famer?

I mean he has big numbers because he played in a high scoring era and played a lot of games.

I saw him as a star, a really good player, but not a hall of famer.

He was in the prime of his career when he was here, and Damphousse and Koivu were ahead of him on the C depth chart.

I think every other player ahead of him in all time points is in the hall of fame, but I understand the line has to be drawn somewhere.

He had that monster season in 92/93, before hunter cheapshotted him in the playoffs. I'm not sure if he ever was the same player after that but he was still very good. I know some people will say that 92/93 was an inflated year but he was 5th in scoring overall, plus his supporting cast was pretty bad. The isles didnt have much offensive talent, so it was pretty much a one man show. If you don't believe me, just let me mention that he had 45 more points than the next closest player on his team.

I don't even think he's the worst inductee in this class, actually.

 

[StCaufield]

Disagree, they have been letting in players who were never even in the discussion of being one of the top few players in the league for a long time. As much as I loved Guy Carbonneau (I was probably his biggest fan) he should not be in the HOF no matter how many Selke's he won. HOFers should be players that teams were built around, franchise defining players. IMO only about 1/4 of the players in the HOF should even be there, it should be a shrine where generations can celebrate the players that defined and dominated the game. Any player who would not be the best player on more than half of the teams for multiple seasons should not even be considered.

The Hall should add a category to Players and Builders called Moments/Performances where players who have no business being in the Hall as a member can still be recognized. This gets Henderson, Lemieux, Nystrom, J.Williams etc in there but in an appropriate manner.

I agree with most of what you said but he’d be in if he retired today. Almost 1300+ points in less games played is no joke. Carbonneau should be in as nobody did what he did better. He was the best at preventing goals and shots in his era. It’s not always about points and it’s refreshing to see someone like him get recognized. I voted yes on todays criteria as it’s turning into a participation ribbon and lost its meaning to be a hof imo. He’d be a lock today and honestly wouldn’t be surprised if he made it in years past

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

I agree with most of what you said but he’d be in if he retired today. Almost 1300+ points in less games played is no joke. Carbonneau should be in as nobody did what he did better. He was the best at preventing goals and shots in his era. It’s not always about points and it’s refreshing to see someone like him get recognized. I voted yes on todays criteria as it’s turning into a participation ribbon and lost its meaning to be a hof imo. He’d be a lock today and honestly wouldn’t be surprised if he made it in years past

Like I said, I was a huge Carbonneau fan but he absolutely shouldn't be there, just like Doug Jarvis or Joel Otto should not be there either. Bergeron is basically Carbonneau ++ and I would put him in because even though he was not a top scorer in the league he was the best defensive forward and #1C on his team which Carbonneau was not.

I know what you mean about Carbo as he was special but he just wasn't special enough to meat my definition of a HOFer. I do agree by the current low standards that there is strong a case for him. He was a better overall hockey player imo than Ciccarelli, Gartner, Andreychuk etc.

 

[tazsub3]

He was a great player still remember when i was 15 years old and he was 10 playing on an outside rink he was already much better then us.


who's mogolni.

Yehaaa you so sharp and funny , you detected a typo.
Gréât contribution to a message board of you ask me

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

He was a great player still remember when i was 15 years old and he was 10 playing on an outside rink he was already much better then us.


who's mogolni.

 

[JianYang]

Like I said, I was a huge Carbonneau fan but he absolutely shouldn't be there, just like Doug Jarvis or Joel Otto should not be there either. Bergeron is basically Carbonneau ++ and I would put him in because even though he was not a top scorer in the league he was the best defensive forward and #1C on his team which Carbonneau was not.

I know what you mean about Carbo as he was special but he just wasn't special enough to meat my definition of a HOFer. I do agree by the current low standards that there is strong a case for him. He was a better overall hockey player imo than Ciccarelli, Gartner, Andreychuk etc.

Vast majority of 500 goal scorers are in the hall. 600 is just that magic number that automatically gets you in no matter what (Ciccarelli). Then you get to gartner who is 700 plus.

There are certain individual milestones you reach that even if you don't anything else particularly well, the one thing you do very well will get you in on its own.

Thats the way I feel about 600 goals, high scoring era or not.

As for carbo, I think he basically was the pioneer of shot blocking. He started that trend of using laying on the ice and using shin pads to block pucks. Lots of guys tried to copy it, but it's really hard, and now it's not even recommended.

He basically took the torch from Gainey for a period of time and got multiple selkes.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

Vast majority of 500 goal scorers are in the hall. 600 is just that magic number that automatically gets you in no matter what (Ciccarelli). Then you get to gartner who is 700 plus.

There are certain individual milestones you reach that even if you don't anything else particularly well, the one thing you do very well will get you in on its own.

Thats the way I feel about 600 goals, high scoring era or not.

Accrued stats belong in stat books but there should not be a number that magically gets you into the hall when you have never even remotely been in the conversation as a top ten player in the league. In Ciccarelli's case he was well known for falsely claiming that he tipped pucks and stole many goals from teammates who were too dumbfounded to contest his selfish behaviour.

I get what you are saying and begrudgingly accept that a precedent has been set but it just doesn't conform to my ideal a HOF inductee.......sounds like a me problem lol

 

[Garry Valk]

He definitely is. Was inducted just the other day.

 

[jaffy27]

Nope

Good player but not Hall
Worthy