Was Alexei Kovalev an under achiever throughout his career?

[Big Phil]

I was at that game straight up, and that's not what I remember of Kovalev. I remember his hit on Tucker, and his magical 2008 season. Countless memories from 2008. Making Chara his bitch all season long. Dropping his glove behind the net, keeping control of the puck, and going back to pick up his glove without ever losing control of the puck (I was at that game too). The classic Markov-to-Kovalev diagonal passes on the powerplay. Kovalev scoring two goals in the 0-5 6-5 come back against the Rangers. The crazy slap shot goal against Boston in the playoffs from the left board. The playoff goal with his helmet off and flying blond hair with the "C" on his jersey, reminiscent of Guy Lafleur. Those were just the highlights, he was consistently incredible that year, and he was good in 2006 and 2009 too.

Kovalev was the undisputed leader of that Montreal squad, even with Koivu on it (enough so that they gave him the "C" on his jersey as soon as Koivu missed a few games from injuries), and Montreal after years and years in the abyss finally finished 1st in the Conference. Kovalev deserved more love for the Hart that season.

I agree he was talented, and that was the thing, his talent should have translated to more of that sort of thing during the game.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I agree he was talented, and that was the thing, his talent should have translated to more of that sort of thing during the game.

He was an artist type. The big moment had to come to him for him to deliver. His haters are of the blue collar mentality, the worship of effort and labor, which fair enough, has its strong points. But when Montreal needed to win back its pride after years of humiliating decline, Kovalev was there to rise to the occasion. And he's known as a clutch performer in the playoffs for the same reason.

Sure, if he had been more machine-like, he would have had more great seasons, but I still think people underestimate what he actually accomplished when he mattered the most, and how magical his performances were.

 

[JianYang]

I feel like kovalev marched to the beat of his own drum.

He needed a coach to give him the freedom to express himself, and let him play the way he saw fit.

He was an artist, and if you stifle his imagination, you destroy his motivation.

Sometimes, it all came together. Pittsburgh had a roster that catered to offensive expression. He had that big year in Montreal as well.

Other times, he just looked disengaged. The one constant though is that you always wanted him on your side when the playoffs season was on.

 

[JianYang]

He had the talent. I remember the 2008 season, it was a good one for him, and for Montreal. 84 points, 47 of them on the power play. That was the key. The Habs had the best power play in the league. I have no idea what clicked that year and why it did, but for some reason it did. Had a couple of years with the Mario-led Penguins that he played well in the early 2000s, but more or less that was it. Yeah, he still had a career of 430 goals and 1029 points but I would say he underachieved.

He was valuable in the postseason. Normally played well. Was a big part of the Rangers' Cup win in 1994. I think they just got fed up with him eventually and that's why he got traded because I can remember after 1994 the assumption was that it would only be a matter of time before Kovalev blossomed. I suspect the Rangers' post 1994 fortunes would have been sweeter had he lived up to expectations.

The thing is, we remember Kovalev's dives as much as anything in his career, and that's too bad. Coughing up the puck after a slash - in overtime - in the playoffs in 2002 that resulted in a goal. Yes it was a slash that maybe should have been called, but Kovalev never even tried to play through the slash on that play. Sure you may be hurt, but leaning over to the point where you crash into your own player that results in a breakaway goal for the other team is not what you do. Kick the puck down the ice, do something. I think he just thought if he doubled over he could entice the ref to call a penalty. Same thing in the 1995 playoffs. Game 4 vs. Quebec, the Rangers are up 2-1 in the series, but Quebec is up 2-0 in the game, near the end of the first period. Craig Wolanin slashes Kovalev in the back, he goes down like a truckload of bricks Joe Sakic picks up a loose puck and goes end to end to score to presumably make it 3-0. No goal though. No whistle had blown as the Rangers never touched the puck, no penalty either. Just eventually called no goal. The optics of seeing Kovalev lying on the ice as if he had been shot was probably enough for the goal to be called back.

And in the end the Rangers won that game in overtime, thanks to Kovalev getting two points in the game, and then would win the series 4-2. Quebec leaves town right after that. The old adage of a hockey player pretending he is NOT hurt out of pride did not apply to Kovalev.

The Habs PP was in 08 featured two quarterbacks. Markov on the left point, and kovalev on the right half wall.

Then you had streit on on the right point unleashing bombs.

Koivu was down low and he was good on that role.

A motivated kovalev with those weapons just presented too many challenges for the penalty killers. Who do you cover? There was danger from multiple spots on the ice.

 

[sr edler]

I didn't know Kovalev scored that many points on the PP that season in Montreal, but it kinda makes sense because the PP is more of a static endeavor and Kovalev was never someone who would fly all over the ice and direct the pace of the game 5-on-5.

Alexei Kovalev was such a treat to watch. He could hang with the best and even outperform them. Clutch player in the playoffs and great leader.

He’s had a phenomenal career. One of the all-time best.

While he was a good playoff performer, let's not pretend he was something otherworldly either. I would actually prefer the guy in your profile pic post-season wise, Koivu always stepped up in the playoffs, and on international ice too in multiple best-on-best tournaments. If I had a choice to build my team around either Koivu or Kovalev I would go with Koivu for sure.

 

[psycat]

Kovalev's overall talent level wasn't nearly as high as some people think. There was a lot lacking in his game. He had some superior skills, and he could sometimes score because of these skills, but, overall, he wasn't a great player.

I'm someone who loves watching high-skilled players, but I never enjoyed watching Kovalev. His game was quite boring.

1000pts in the NHL, "not a great player". Okay then.

So deadly bored with all these hyperboles when people act like you need to be either the very best or you are total garbage. Heck you can't even use the "compared to NHL players" narrative because he outperformed a good 99.9% of them.

Another example would be the ridiculous thread about "players with tools that doesn't produce regulary" in which people sit and namedrop 60pts players. Like scoring more often than not in a game is not "regulary". Lofty standards to say the least.

Kovalev was obviously a great player.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

1000pts in the NHL, "not a great player". Okay then.

Nope.

Plenty of good/very good players have accumulated their way to 1000+ points by playing a long time.

Kovalev falls into that category with 1,300+ games and a career PPG of 0.78 and -31. As well as only 1x top 10 in points. That's not a great player, especially for such a 1 way player like Kovalev.

For comparison sake, no one would ever call Bergeron a great offensive player, yet his career PPG is higher than Kovalev's at 0.81

 

[MadLuke]

1000pts in the NHL, "not a great player". Okay then.

They're something great to play a full long nhl career in a competitive era in a league so many dream to play in and with those salaries to start with. The bar is set very high to be great among that group, we talk among those who play 1,000+ games or could have, who are particularly great among those (65 forward did it during Kovalev career), a group of which all are great hockey player when we consider everyone playing hockey.

Ray Withney scored exactly has many point in 50 less game between 92-93 to 2012-2013, Bill Guerin scored the same amount of goals in less games, it really depends on where one put the bar to greatness, it would not be scandalous to include the Whitney and Guerin in it, but many would not.

Was Kovalev a Top 25 player of his era ? Was he a top 15 nhler in any single season when he played ? Would many historic franchise retire his jersey would he have been a career X ? Could a team be a serious contender for the cup with that player has their clear best player ?

No, is that bar too high ? Maybe.

He mixed being in the top of the hall of very good while having elite attributes, great treats and one of the fun showmen-personnality of the sports, but not necessarily enough for a great career or package.

 

[Rengorlex]

Kovalev's overall talent level wasn't nearly as high as some people think. There was a lot lacking in his game. He had some superior skills, and he could sometimes score because of these skills, but, overall, he wasn't a great player.

I'm someone who loves watching high-skilled players, but I never enjoyed watching Kovalev. His game was quite boring.

I agree. Kovalev had some flashy skills, but even that is overstated. Other players from that era such as Kariya and Forsberg had much more impressive abilities to my eye.

 

[Big Phil]

He was an artist type. The big moment had to come to him for him to deliver. His haters are of the blue collar mentality, the worship of effort and labor, which fair enough, has its strong points. But when Montreal needed to win back its pride after years of humiliating decline, Kovalev was there to rise to the occasion. And he's known as a clutch performer in the playoffs for the same reason.

Sure, if he had been more machine-like, he would have had more great seasons, but I still think people underestimate what he actually accomplished when he mattered the most, and how magical his performances were.

I would say he is a guy who carved out a good career. Maybe to an extent even a very good career. Not great though. And that is the thing we often associate with him. He probably could have been great, maybe should have been. I wasn't a fan of him but he even annoyed me when he was the opposition, because I always thought "Does Kovy know that he could dominate a game all of the time or has no one told him?" So I think he forever will have that sort of stigma on him, fair or not.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Kovalev was one of my favorite players growing up.

Such a beautiful, elegant, artistic player. Incredible talent.

His hockey sense wasn't as elite as his physical tools, but it was there.

It feels like most of his underachieving years were on the Rangers after he won the cup, and then after he returned from Pittsburgh (come to think of it, maybe this contributes to the narrative of Rangers being poor at developing talented players that persists today).

He could have been better because if feels like there are 6 or 7 years where he farted around and gave 60% of what he had. But his 95 point year in 00-01 was his max, as was his year with Montreal in 07-08.

He does elicit comparisons to Kent Nilsson in that they were geniuses who could bend the game to their will when they felt right, and had a bit of space. But that ability to 'feel right' and conjure up the energy and effort on a consistent basis is as much a skill (or trait) as doing crossovers.

But the examples of picking up the glove while carrying the puck, and carrying the puck over to Tucker to elbow him as revenge for a knee on knee hit are just examples of superlative genius and audacity.

He's an interesting guy who had other hobbies (flying planes, playing saxophone). Perhaps if he was less broadly interested in the world, he would have dedicated more of himself to hockey mentally or emotionally.

Either way, he was a pleasure to watch.

 

[barbu]

He had the talent. I remember the 2008 season, it was a good one for him, and for Montreal. 84 points, 47 of them on the power play. That was the key. The Habs had the best power play in the league. I have no idea what clicked that year and why it did, but for some reason it did. Had a couple of years with the Mario-led Penguins that he played well in the early 2000s, but more or less that was it. Yeah, he still had a career of 430 goals and 1029 points but I would say he underachieved.

He was valuable in the postseason. Normally played well. Was a big part of the Rangers' Cup win in 1994. I think they just got fed up with him eventually and that's why he got traded because I can remember after 1994 the assumption was that it would only be a matter of time before Kovalev blossomed. I suspect the Rangers' post 1994 fortunes would have been sweeter had he lived up to expectations.

The thing is, we remember Kovalev's dives as much as anything in his career, and that's too bad. Coughing up the puck after a slash - in overtime - in the playoffs in 2002 that resulted in a goal. Yes it was a slash that maybe should have been called, but Kovalev never even tried to play through the slash on that play. Sure you may be hurt, but leaning over to the point where you crash into your own player that results in a breakaway goal for the other team is not what you do. Kick the puck down the ice, do something. I think he just thought if he doubled over he could entice the ref to call a penalty. Same thing in the 1995 playoffs. Game 4 vs. Quebec, the Rangers are up 2-1 in the series, but Quebec is up 2-0 in the game, near the end of the first period. Craig Wolanin slashes Kovalev in the back, he goes down like a truckload of bricks Joe Sakic picks up a loose puck and goes end to end to score to presumably make it 3-0. No goal though. No whistle had blown as the Rangers never touched the puck, no penalty either. Just eventually called no goal. The optics of seeing Kovalev lying on the ice as if he had been shot was probably enough for the goal to be called back.

And in the end the Rangers won that game in overtime, thanks to Kovalev getting two points in the game, and then would win the series 4-2. Quebec leaves town right after that. The old adage of a hockey player pretending he is NOT hurt out of pride did not apply to Kovalev.

These two exemples have nothing to do with each other. In one in he faked an injury, fair enough. In the other it was a penalty that was not called. And although the habs lost that game, on that play specifically, they won the series and Kovalev was one of their best players. I don't know why you keep bringing this exemple whenever Kovalev is mentioned.

 

[JianYang]

Kovalev was one of my favorite players growing up.

Such a beautiful, elegant, artistic player. Incredible talent.

His hockey sense wasn't as elite as his physical tools, but it was there.

It feels like most of his underachieving years were on the Rangers after he won the cup, and then after he returned from Pittsburgh (come to think of it, maybe this contributes to the narrative of Rangers being poor at developing talented players that persists today).

He could have been better because if feels like there are 6 or 7 years where he farted around and gave 60% of what he had. But his 95 point year in 00-01 was his max, as was his year with Montreal in 07-08.

He does elicit comparisons to Kent Nilsson in that they were geniuses who could bend the game to their will when they felt right, and had a bit of space. But that ability to 'feel right' and conjure up the energy and effort on a consistent basis is as much a skill (or trait) as doing crossovers.

But the examples of picking up the glove while carrying the puck, and carrying the puck over to Tucker to elbow him as revenge for a knee on knee hit are just examples of superlative genius and audacity.

He's an interesting guy who had other hobbies (flying planes, playing saxophone). Perhaps if he was less broadly interested in the world, he would have dedicated more of himself to hockey mentally or emotionally.

Either way, he was a pleasure to watch.

He's always loved the game. But if you got the wrong coach or the wrong system, he could get disengaged pretty quick.

He was coaching some KHL team in china last I heard.

I recall he also released a DVD about hockey skills while he was still putting up points in the nhl.

I also remember this move where he would try to camouflage himself with the net while a defender was coming from the other side. It's little quirks like that which made me think he's actually a student of the game.

He had some original ideas to go with unique talent, but he was also easily wasted talent under the wrong conditions.

 

[Big Phil]

These two exemples have nothing to do with each other. In one in he faked an injury, fair enough. In the other it was a penalty that was not called. And although the habs lost that game, on that play specifically, they won the series and Kovalev was one of their best players. I don't know why you keep bringing this exemple whenever Kovalev is mentioned.

Because it is a pattern with him. And it is a shame that it is, because without the theatrics he was a damn fine player. I have just never seen such nonsense as in 2004. Yes he gets slashed, maybe should have been a call, but there is no attempt to play through it and at least get to the bench. Instead he is going full in on the hope that if he embellishes it enough he'll get the call. He was committed to that and it backfired. It is just an ugly play.

 

[JianYang]

Because it is a pattern with him. And it is a shame that it is, because without the theatrics he was a damn fine player. I have just never seen such nonsense as in 2004. Yes he gets slashed, maybe should have been a call, but there is no attempt to play through it and at least get to the bench. Instead he is going full in on the hope that if he embellishes it enough he'll get the call. He was committed to that and it backfired. It is just an ugly play.

That slash was in game 4. I recall he was using his other hand in the handshake line after game 7 even though it meant he was going cross body to perform the handshake.

Maybe that was part of the theatrics, but it was a different time as well. That's a penalty today overtime or not. Certainly I give him more benefit of the doubt than what Ribeiro did a couple years earlier.

 

[Big Phil]

That slash was in game 4. I recall he was using his other hand in the handshake line after game 7 even though it meant he was going cross body to perform the handshake.

Maybe that was part of the theatrics, but it was a different time as well. That's a penalty today overtime or not. Certainly I give him more benefit of the doubt than what Ribeiro did a couple years earlier.

Actually Ribeiro's was the same year. Same series too. That Habs team of 2004 is just really hard to like, and I tried to like them if only for Saku Koivu.

 

[Staniowski]

I agree. Kovalev had some flashy skills, but even that is overstated. Other players from that era such as Kariya and Forsberg had much more impressive abilities to my eye.

Yes, if you compare Kovalev and Kariya....they both had some elite skills, but the sum of Kariya's skills were much greater than the sum of Kovalev's....plus Kariya was smarter, more exciting, and an overall better player.

 

[markymarc1215]

Overall, yes. He had a few years with the Penguins and Canadiens where he hit his potential.

That being said, Rangers don't win the cup in 1994 without his 9-12-21 in 23 GP. He was incredibly clutch in those playoffs. 3 points in the famous Messier Hat Trick Game 6 vs Devils game. He was also money in the 94-95 playoffs although they only lasted 2 rounds.

 

[JianYang]

I agree. Kovalev had some flashy skills, but even that is overstated. Other players from that era such as Kariya and Forsberg had much more impressive abilities to my eye.

I don't think it's overstated. If he would lead a rush up the ice, he would send a player zigging when he was zagging.

It became like clockwork so maybe we just took it for granted.

He wouldn't be looking at the oncoming checker, nor would he be looking at the puck. He made it look too easy.

Kovalev clearly loves the game. Otherwise he would not be releasing skill dvd's, or playing in lower level euro league after his NHL career would be over. Nor would he be coaching a team in China.

But he has a specific mindset in the way the game should be played, and if you didnt give a specific canvas, he was not going to live up to expectations.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

Ranger fan here ill chime in. If you ask me the answer is a resounding yes. In 94 he was huge part of that cup team and even in that season he was streaky (15 pts in 11 games to end the season).Its afterwards it got funny he had 28 pts in 48 games for .58 ppg a huge drop from .73 ppg the season before but he redeemed himself those playoffs with 11 pts in 10 gp. The issue with the Rangers management at the time was where to play him. In 94 he was swapped around from 2nd line center to 1st line rw often. In 95 they picked up Pat Verbeek to play RW with Messier and the hope was Kovalev could provide 2nd line rw scoring. The hope continued into 96 where he as just ok with 58 pts in 81 games and just 7 pts in 11 playoff games. At that point management still thought he could break out and when they signed Gretzky in 96 thought ok here we go this is his time he was decent in 96-97 and was on pace for a career year with 63 pts which still isnt great until he got hurt and missed the rest of the season. After that he was just a consistent 50-60 pt player who after 2 big playoff years in 94 and 95 management thought would be better.

I think the biggest problem of the time was the exodus of Russian players coming over. I feel like alot of execs thought these guys were professionals back in the USSR who trained much harder and we can sign them for nothing. Case in point with another Russian player Sergei Nemchinov, the Rangers were so high on him because of his soviet background that they pretty much chose him to keep over Doug Weight, who was a college kid who went to an even lesser known college in Lake Superior State. Lets just say Doug Weight had a much better career despite Nemchinov scoring 30 goals his rookie year. Same case as far as the Rangers go for Kovalev post 94 it was rumored more often than not that Neil Smith wanted Brendan Shanahan. The asking price was always Kovalev as the return and that's where they balked for many reasons(Messier loved Kovalev,management thought he was on the brink, Shanahan had a bad reputation), but despite Kovalev having some big seasons in the early 00s with Pitt Shanahan was the better player overall and during that 94-98 window.

Post NY is where it did work out for him in a way. In Pittsburgh in 01 he had 95 pts but look at that team I think management knew all too well it was Lemieux and Jagrs team. The last 2 years there the team was bad. When he went back to NY he was ok in 02-03 but looked lost in 03-04. It was in Montreal in 07-08 where he was a huge part of the resurgence only to see them fall back to earth hard in 08-09. Point being yes a huge under achiever who many just held on to hope for too long.

Why did Kovalev underachieve so much with the Rangers but was great everywhere else??

 

[wetcoast]

Kovalev in 2008 in Montreal was similar to Gilmour in Toronto in 1993 and 1994. It's not a long stretch but it left a deep mark in the subconscious.

Mats Sundin had a long, solid career with the Leafs, but Toronto fans in the 35-45 age range hold Gilmour higher in their personal mythologies.

That's the way I see Kovalev.

I'm seeing this as more love for Kovalev than any slight on Gilmour right?

What Gilmour did for the Leafs in 93-94 was historical and by any measure significantly more impressive.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I'm seeing this as more love for Kovalev than any slight on Gilmour right?

What Gilmour did for the Leafs in 93-94 was historical and by any measure significantly more impressive.

No slight on Gilmour at all. I loved Kovalev.

 

[Run the Gauntlet]

He duel it out with Bure in the 94 finals, but Kovalev ended up having the more iconic goal of the two.
Front cover NHL95.
He also connected with Leetch for some amazing goals in those finals.

 

[Hanji]

I'd say so. According to his former coach, Kovalev didn't give two craps about winning the Cup.

Starts around 37:00

 

[Stephen]

Sometimes sublime skill and an artistic temperament can't be harnessed on a consistent, workaday basis.