Who was the most talented out of Mogilny, Bure and Fedorov?

[Felidae]

This isn't who is the best player of the 3, I think most would agree that Fedorov would take that title.

However, Mogilny specifically seems to get praise for his talent. Sundin and Quinn are on record saying he's the most talented player he's ever played with/coached.

Aucoin would choose Mogilny over Bure if he had to.

Even Fedorov has said "he's better than all of us"



But who do you think was the most talented of the 3? And for fun I'd be interested to see people breaking down where you'd rank each one in specific skills. Skating, shooting arsenal, passing, stick handling, etc..

Here are some highlights.

Fedorov


Bure



Mogilny

Click to read more...

 

[VanIslander]

The question is great.
We asked it back then.

Mogilny was gimpy;
Bure lacked heart when without the puck;
Fedorov lacked vision, could skate into the fray then try to shoot his way out (imagine a great street cop but bumbling detective - is great if sees what's coming).

But Fedorov made the most of his talents.

 

[The Panther]

I don't know if anyone can say who was the "most talented"... I mean, how do you quantify that?

As far as NHL performances go, I would probably rank them:
1. Bure
2. Fedorov
3. Mogilny

All three, at their best, were exceptionally 'flashy' players, which means they tend to get just a bit overrated by people who are impressed by individual highlight-reel type of plays.

All three were great, but I think Bure was maybe the best because he was the most consistent when healthy. Unfortunately, he either wasn't healthy or had contract disputes and ended up with a shortened career. But I think every time Bure was healthy and playing, he was excepionally good at scoring goals. I can't say Fedorov or Mogilny were always great when healthy. If you take away each's two or best best seasons, they're basically 60-70 point guys.

 

[Gorskyontario]

All three, at their best, were exceptionally 'flashy' players, which means they tend to get just a bit overrated by people who are impressed by individual highlight-reel type of plays.

As you say that, you massively overrate Bure over Fedorov. Fedorov was a '60-70' point guy on the wings who rolled 4 lines. Then he was old and beaten up when he left.


Most talented, not the best. Mogilny looked like he should be putting up 150 points a season at times. Then he would score 50 points when it wasn't a contract year.

Bure was obviously a great and consistent goalscorer. He also looked like he didn't care in the 2nd half of his career. Never seen a player look so happy scoring in a 5-1 loss, as long as he was closer to his bonus.

Fedorov came 2nd in nhl scoring, while winning the selke. While bringing it in the playoffs every single year.


Mogilny probably had the best hands out of the 3. I'm not sure if Bure was faster than Fedorov, but he looked like he accelerated faster. Especially if he was 1 goal closer to his bonus.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

As you say that, you massively overrate Bure over Fedorov. Fedorov was a '60-70' point guy on the wings who rolled 4 lines. Then he was old and beaten up when he left.Most talented, not the best. Mogilny looked like he should be putting up 150 points a season at times. Then he would score 50 points when it wasn't a contract year.Bure was obviously a great and consistent goalscorer. He also looked like he didn't care in the 2nd half of his career. Never seen a player look so happy scoring in a 5-1 loss, as long as he was closer to his bonus.Fedorov came 2nd in nhl scoring, while winning the selke. While bringing it in the playoffs every single year.Mogilny probably had the best hands out of the 3. I'm not sure if Bure was faster than Fedorov, but he looked like he accelerated faster. Especially if he was 1 goal closer to his bonus.

Has nothing to do with who was more talented.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Has nothing to do with who was more talented.

I think Mogilny had more raw talent than Bure. He was way more dynamic. I actually don't think it's particularly close.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I think Mogilny had more raw talent than Bure. He was way more dynamic. I actually don't think it's particularly close.

OK.

 

[gretzkyoilers]

All three had strange careers. I would put Fedorov first because of his two-way game, and the fact that Bowman said he could be an equally good defenseman and win the Norris says a lot about his raw talent. Also winning the Selke twice while getting 120 points and 107 points is impressive. That being said he had a short peak, as wasn't a PPG player after 1996 (was only 27 in 1996). Bure was one of the most dynamic skaters of all time, and he looked like a player from the 2010's in the early 90's. Massive scoring peak in the DPE, but his career was shortened due to injuries. POure scoring talent and I wihs Bure was born in the 80's or 90's as his style would be perfect for today's game. Mogilny is a strange one: some high seasons, but inconsistent. Sure players and coaches have said he was the most talented they have seen, but how this talent translates to team play and their stats is what matters.

 

[bobholly39]

Fedorov > Bure > Mogilny.

Fedorov might be the most frustrating player ever for me. He had such a strong prime & career, but his accomplishment always felt like they could have been so much higher if he tried harder. I remember during the 90s, I felt he was the kind of guy who should have been contending for the Art Ross every year (like a Jagr, or if not that high, at least close to Forsberg). Instead, after 1995-1996 season, he has a 6 year stretch where he didn't once surpass 70 points. I know Fedorov was also great defensively, and he did perform great in playoffs obviously - but I always felt he had the talent to do more offensively still in the regular season.

Bure #2. He's probably close to Fedorov, and I'd say he definitely played to his potential more often than Fedorov did, but I do slot him 2nd.

Mogilny easily #3. Great player too, but I have him behind the others.

 

[VanIslander]

All three had strange careers. I would put Fedorov first because of his two-way game, and the fact that Bowman said he could be an equally good defenseman and win the Norris says a lot about his raw talent. Also winning the Selke twice...

Dog see ball. Dog go get ball.

Vision like most centers have, is epitomized in Gretzky, and to a degree in most pivots - but not much in him. It is what he lacked.

I used to criticize Mike Fisher as limited because of this. But, i now admit, my Michael Peca was similar, but i cut him slack because he always should have been a 3rd-line center on a dominant or dynasty team, not top-6 thrust, captained. (Captain Crunch did have Lindros-stomping dead-puck era hitting ability - but that was an offshoot of bloodhound ability)

Fedorov was an elite skater with a decent shot. He did not show most of what made Larionov great.

 

[sr edler]

Fedorov and Bure (or Fedorov and the other two period) were so different type of players, so it's almost hard to make a direct comparison like that, but Fedorov was the overall package type of player, and IMO thus a more overall talented player. He was also the best overall skater (though not as explosive as Bure).

Mogilny and Bure are close IMO. It's easy to say if Mogilny had only had Bure's overall (early NHL career) fire, or if he had only had Bure's helicopter dad, that he would have had a better overall NHL career, and perhaps he would have, but Bure was still a pretty unique type of player. The way he went end-to-end in his first game against Winnipeg, I never saw Mogilny do that even when he was on occasional fire.

 

[sr edler]

What does that new Jokinen face even mean. I actually have a personal anecdote about that game, because it's the only one I've ever stayed up at night for listening to on Internet radio, and it happened quite randomly, so I experienced the Kesler vs Jokinen fight (it wasn't really a fight since Kesler took him down immediately) in real time, though I didn't see it at first, I had to watch it later on on the highlights. I have seen other NHL games live (both in person and on TV), but that's the only game I've listen to live on radio (from what I can remember).

 

[Hippasus]

What does that new Jokinen face even mean. I actually have a personal anecdote about that game, because it's the only one I've ever stayed up at night for listening to on Internet radio, and it happened quite randomly, so I experienced the Kesler vs Jokinen fight (it wasn't really a fight since Kesler took him down immediately) in real time, though I didn't see it at first, I had to watch it later on on the highlights. I have seen other NHL games live (both in person and on TV), but that's the only game I've listen to live on radio (from what I can remember).

It's supposed to be an angry response. Doesn't look like it though. To me it looks more like having fun, such as at an amusement park

 

[MadLuke]

on the wings who rolled 4 lines.

Shanahan, Hull scoring does not seem to see their scoring go down going on the Red Wings of that era, but they did not have all the responsibility of a Fedorov.

 

[Felidae]

Just as an exercise, feel free to chime in or add any other categories but if I were to rank them on specific skill sets it would be..

Stickhandling: Mogilny>Bure>Fedorov
(This one is definitely the most conentions between Bure and Mogilny imo)

Shooting arsenal: Bure>Mogilny>Fedorov

Skating: Fedorov>Bure>Mogilny

Passing: Fedorov>Mogilny>Bure

 

[sr edler]

Shanahan, Hull scoring does not seem to see their scoring go down going on the Red Wings of that era, but they did not have all the responsibility of a Fedorov.

Shanahan had two straight seasons in Detroit where he couldn't crack 60 points.

 

[MadLuke]

Shanahan had two straight seasons in Detroit where he couldn't crack 60 points.

Not sure it would not have happened elsewhere in the dpe.

He scored

1995: 41 in 45
1996: 78 in 74
1997: 87 in 79 with detroit.

While scoring went down and went down a lot after that.

All but one of his top 10 goal finish were with the Wings.

PPG finish among forward that played half the season or more

92-93: 19th
93-94: 12th
94-95: 40th
95-96: 31th
96-97: 16th
97-98: 48th
98-99: 64th
99-00: 20th
00-01: 42th
01-02: 20th
02-03: 33th
-- turn 35

40th and 31th in the league before becoming a Red Wings, averaged something similar as a RedWings.

Played 3:45 a night on the PP during that time, running 4th line can be a big deal but if you are Yzerman-Fedorov-Shanahan playing of the first PP unit getting ~4 minute of power play a night (Lidstrom was at 4:51 to give a reference) the impact can be limited.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Shanahan, Hull scoring does not seem to see their scoring go down going on the Red Wings of that era, but they did not have all the responsibility of a Fedorov.

Brendan Shanahan Hockey Stats and Profile at hockeydb.com Shanahans best seasons were with the blues.

 

[MadLuke]

Brendan Shanahan Hockey Stats and Profile at hockeydb.com Shanahans best seasons were with the blues.

Scoring changed a lot from 1993 to 2003.

Single one of those are with the blues:

Goals

1993-94 NHL 52 (5th)
1996-97 NHL 47 (6th)
1999-00 NHL 41 (6th)
2001-02 NHL 37 (9th)
2005-06 NHL 40 (10th)​

 

[wetcoast]

I don't know if anyone can say who was the "most talented"... I mean, how do you quantify that?

As far as NHL performances go, I would probably rank them:
1. Bure
2. Fedorov
3. Mogilny

All three, at their best, were exceptionally 'flashy' players, which means they tend to get just a bit overrated by people who are impressed by individual highlight-reel type of plays.

All three were great, but I think Bure was maybe the best because he was the most consistent when healthy. Unfortunately, he either wasn't healthy or had contract disputes and ended up with a shortened career. But I think every time Bure was healthy and playing, he was excepionally good at scoring goals. I can't say Fedorov or Mogilny were always great when healthy. If you take away each's two or best best seasons, they're basically 60-70 point guys.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, all 3 of these guys would have much better all time rankings had the hockey Iron curtain not fell as they were outstanding as a line and would have just dominated international hockey for a decade plus.

As for your ranking of NHL performances Fedorov peaked higher IMO and then I'd take Bure with Mogliny 3rd.

Pure "talent" Bure had the "excitement" factor in spades but it's a very interesting question.

 

[wetcoast]

Not sure it would not have happened elsewhere in the dpe.

He scored

1995: 41 in 45
1996: 78 in 74
1997: 87 in 79 with detroit.

While scoring went down and went down a lot after that.

All but one of his top 10 goal finish were with the Wings.

PPG finish among forward that played half the season or more

92-93: 19th
93-94: 12th
94-95: 40th
95-96: 31th
96-97: 16th
97-98: 48th
98-99: 64th
99-00: 20th
00-01: 42th
01-02: 20th
02-03: 33th
-- turn 35

40th and 31th in the league before becoming a Red Wings, averaged something similar as a RedWings.

Played 3:45 a night on the PP during that time, running 4th line can be a big deal but if you are Yzerman-Fedorov-Shanahan playing of the first PP unit getting ~4 minute of power play a night (Lidstrom was at 4:51 to give a reference) the impact can be limited.

On the surface one can make an argument that for his last 2 seasons in Detroit that he slightly propped up Hull and shanny in their scoring but it's also subjective with the aging curve and Fedorov had defensive responsibilities but on the original thought that fedorov gets penalized because of his numbers a lot of people doing so then take a different angle on Dave Keon all time which seems somewhat inconsistent to me.

 

[norrisnick]

I just want to state for the record that "talent" is not mutually exclusive with defense.

 

[Frank Cannon PI]

As far as NHL performances go, I would probably rank them:

1. Bure
2. Fedorov
3. Mogilny

Going by that, I'd go with either Fedorov or Bure for #1, and Mogilny at #3.

Skating: Fedorov>Bure>Mogilny

Skating is an interesting one. I think in general, people will place too much weight on speed at it relates to their skating, specifically a player's top-end speed.

There are players who aren't particularly fast, who are excellent skaters. Bourque is one of the first people that comes to mind in this regard. His balance was excellent, he knew when to change gears, and what route to take, which would more than make up the difference in someone who was a faster skater.

I can't put Mogilny first, because Fedorov is one of the greatest all-around skaters in the history of the game, and Bure is one of the most, if not the most, explosive skater the game has ever seen. Yet, Mogilny's skating was also excellent. It's just not as obvious, as the other two.

I'd also add that Bure and Fedorov would lead with the puck, whereas Mogilny did more of his skating playing off of his teammates. It's harder to appreciate Mogilny's skating by comparison.

All three, at their best, were exceptionally 'flashy' players, which means they tend to get just a bit overrated by people who are impressed by individual highlight-reel type of plays.

Of the three, I only think of Bure as being flashy. I'm not saying the other two weren't capable of having their own highlight reels, just that I didn't primarily regard them as being flashy. I think Mogilny, by and large, did things more subtly by comparison. Fedorov too.

I don't know if anyone can say who was the "most talented"... I mean, how do you quantify that?

Talent, to me, encompasses so many different elements. @Felidae touched on a few of them, with shooting, skating, stickhandling and passing. Ability is another one. There's also what a player can do without the puck. Defense is obviously a big one. How the player plays in relation to his teammates is another one. Also, their physical make-up. Their athletic ability. Their hand-eye coordination. Individual and team IQ. And with all that, what's their ceiling? Did you get the sense that they could have made another significant jump in their development?

I can't imagine that there was a higher level for Fedorov to hit, when he had a season where he won the Hart trophy and the Selke (and Pearson).

I think we saw the best of Bure, and it was in 1992-93, 1993-94 in Vancouver. I think he could have been more well-rounded, continuing to build on what he left back in Russia in terms of playing with others and defense. The Florida version of him to me, is overrated, as are most things attached to the DPE. To sort of quote William Friedkin, "I don't give a flying f*** into a rolling donut what Bure fans think."

Mogilny had a lot of headroom to work with, and he didn't seem overly interested in wanting to maximize his ability. And perhaps that's an illusion that I'm being suckered into. I might be over-crediting him, because I always viewed him as a bit of an afterthought (from the public's perspective) compared to Fedorov and Bure.

I put Mogilny and Fedorov ahead of Bure, because they could do a lot more of the little things. Who's the most fun to watch? Bure (in Vancouver).