Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,229
That didnt just all boil down to Red....... Correct....Yet to hear some talk... Got MORONS on my team.
Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time
- Thread starter quoipourquoi
- Start date
- Status
That didnt just all boil down to Red....... Correct....Yet to hear some talk... Got MORONS on my team.
Sentinel
Registered User
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,229
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I think he means "the big four" plus those three.
Surprised to see you have Roy so high - and almost expected you to have Lemieux at 5 with Hasek at 4.
7 right is pretty good
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
We keep using that word "right"...
Sentinel
Registered User
Yeah, I caved it to the popular opinion. Hasek is my #5 and Roy #7.
Sentinel
Registered User
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,466
- 4,659
No doubt. Other contributors to that dynasty will make this list as well.
But it speaks very highly to Kelly's all-around skill set that Imlach identified him, a defenseman, to be his ace-in-the-hole center in an effort to counter the great Jean Beliveau. And four Cups with Kelly at center suggest that Imlach had a supreme eye for talent.
VanIslander
20+ years of All-Time Drafts on HfBoards
I had Hasek at 7th and Roy at 8th in the 2nd round of voting. They both moved up (Roy a lot more) from my initially submitted 120-name list because there were some great detailed discussions of goaltending.
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
So I looked at my old list, I made a conscious effort to not look at what I thought going into the exercise and let the arguments presented sway me without a firm ranking.
Of the first 29 - I have 27 in various different places with the two others currently up for vote which makes me happy that my initial list while a little scattered featured the right players.
Of the first 29 - I have 27 in various different places with the two others currently up for vote which makes me happy that my initial list while a little scattered featured the right players.
I have no problem with OV's ranking. What would it have been w/o a SC win?
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 52,253
- 18,223
As far as I'm concerned, and if we take for granted he played the exact same way in the 2018 playoffs (which is something of flimsy proposition, I know), the same.
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 49,240
- 30,259
Eh - if he's stuck in the second round again, no matter how he played he would have suffered. I'm not thrilled with his ranking, but it's fine. I think he's probably the worst playoff performer we've put in so far (but admittedly that's without deep checking so there may be one or two that have a worse resume), and by far the worst international resume.
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 52,253
- 18,223
First - thank you for changing the subject.
For me personally i don't think the no SC would change his ranking too horribly much. I already weight him as a mostly decent playoff performer - who simply hadn't managed to achieve a lot of team success yet. But I expect a few people here would have been a real stickler for him not making it past round 2, and it likely knocks him down a bit. Behind Lafleur, at least.
To me I think where the real money is for Ovi is in getting a 2nd smythe/cup. Before the 1 he was by far the weakest playoff performer. Now? He's still near the bottom, comparable to Jagr and a few others. But you give him a 2nd smythe/cup? All of a sudden his playoffs start to look quite strong - and he can move up the ranks significantly.
I mean Messier is ranked right above Ovi. Ovechkin has been a higher profile player than Messier almost his whole career. But Messier is killer in the playoffs. If Ovechkin raises his stock further in playoffs, i think he'll continue to climb the ranks in coming years.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
You all know I have to lock this thread on 1000 posts, right? Maybe save some room for 2019 and beyond instead of talking about hockey registrations in a project thread?
Nick Hansen
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2017
- 3,146
- 2,694
Update the list in OP or I'll contribute to the participation discussion. 
I would like to see the comments be more directly related to this project.
Clarke fell from 21 to 29 and there's no guarantee Robinson makes 30-34. Is this committee more offense minded than past ones? (I realize was Clarke was great offensively also.)
Clarke fell from 21 to 29 and there's no guarantee Robinson makes 30-34. Is this committee more offense minded than past ones? (I realize was Clarke was great offensively also.)
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Not sure how much you've been following but it absolutely is. There are folks that are very, very enamored with raw offensive stats involved. Jagr rose, I think, 9 spots from the 2009 list despite not doing a damn thing of note since 2009. Paul Coffey is up for discussion now with a chance to go in the 35-40 range, which would be a bigger jump from his 46th spot a decade ago.
Some people just aren't willing to admit that not playing defense inherently makes scoring points easier.
But to each their own I guess.
Thanks for replying and agreed with your defense comments. The Bulls won 6 rings not from Jordan and Pippen's offense, but from them being 2 of the best defensive players of all time. I may not post again, but I'll probably be watching and enjoying.
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 52,253
- 18,223
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I'll say it - the 2008 and 2009 lists over-represented players who played from about 1940-1980. The positional rankings sorted a lot of that out.
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,466
- 4,659
I think the 1970s decade in general has been looked at with a little more critical an eye. Orr and Howe have flipped places and Lafleur, Esposito, and Clarke all dropped.
ChiTownPhilly
Not Too Soft
- Status
