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

[The Panther]

I know the majority are going to say Fedorov was the most talented (and probably the "best", too). Fedorov gets a lot of love here.

That's fine, he was great. But I'm less inclined towards players' career accomplishments and longevity than with their peak / prime level. (And of course, longevity / accomplishments have nothing to do with who was most talented.)

My preference for Bure here is based on his sustained, consistent high level. Bure averaged 51 goals per season (based on 82 games played). Now, he was only 31 or so when he retired, but that average is over twelve seasons (he was still scoring at a 50-goal pace with the sad-sack Rangers at the end). Neither Fedorov nor Mogilny could sustain that level of player over a twelve-year period.

 

[Troubadour]

Comparing wingers and a center is tricky, even when the focus is on something as abstract as talent is.

As a kid/teen growing up in the nineties who supported neither 'nucks nor Wings, let alone the Sabres, I would have said Bure easily, because with him, what you saw is what you got, and what you saw was something you had never seen before, a lot, plus damn catchy.

He scored a ton, openly loved doing so, he looked fantastic doing it. His rep didn't coast on the early nineties alone; his superstar relevance carried well over into the latter half of the decade and the new one, too. Just when you thought he was cooked, he had the 97/98 season, a 5-goal game in Nagano where all the other superstars seemingly underperformed, and from there, he would keep posting nasty numbers for years to come. Meanwhile both Fedorov and Mogilny seemed to care about paychecks more than performing to their ability.

Still, hyperbole coming, picking Bure's talent over Mogilny's has an unpleasant flavor of picking Kovalchuk over Kucherov to me. Which is obviously insulting to Bure, but Mogilny had more nuance. Then again, talking about aristry or artfulness as a way of pumping anybody's tires over Bure is a walk on the thin ice.

The best of the thee was Fedorov anyway. Even when his regular season totals dropped, I still thought he was the best center not named Lemieux or Forsberg. Better than Lindros, better than Sakic.

Playing center, especially the way Fedorov did, takes more overall talent than playing any wing, I think (every other day or so).

 

[connellc]

Bure was many times essentially placed in roles where Defense was not a priority. He was given oodles of minutes and PPT in Florida and his main reason was to score goals. The issue was the team stunk.
Fedorov, after about 1994, sacrificed a lot of his offense for defense and he started to focus and pick up his game in the playoff's when it mattered. I say this, because the stats can be a bit deceiving, as Fedorov even played defense for a large portion of the 1997 season. Imagine if the roles were reversed, how much better would Fedorov's offense have been and how much better Bure would be defensively under Bowman? I personally don't think Bure could accomplish the versatility Fedorov had.

Mogilny needed some decent linemates to succeed and he actually took the longest to develop in the NHL and also retired a little lack-luster (in the AHL) which I doubt could have ever happened, baring a major injury, to Feds or Bure.

The answer is Fedorov, Bure, then Mogilny.

 

[Overrated]

Bure>Mogilny>Fedorov​

I think Mogilny's career could have been much greater had he not suffered injuries early on. Many negative things were also said about his work ethic. I'd say talent wise it was close but I'd still say Mogilny. Bure clears however he was the best player out of the three. Fedorov benefited by playing on a super team. Unfortunately the NHL is structured in a way where many players don't get to reach their potential by not playing on similarly strong teams.


Bure also showed the most potential as a teenager under Tikhonov:

 

[authentic]

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

I don’t think it’s not close, but I agree that he did have the most offensive talent. Watching him in the early 90s is like watching a modern day player who went back in time. It feels like his 76 goal season is a good representation of who he was as a player even if it isn’t.

 

[authentic]

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.

Funny this is how I feel about Mogilny. Bure was super skilled and fast but Mogilny seemed like he had something extra talent wise. Better hands, reach, vision, similar skating ability but seemed more effortless like he was gliding along the ice instead of digging into it with his skate blades.

 

[authentic]

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.

A “decent” shot? You sure about that? Also anyone else want to chime in about Fedorov’s lack of vision, it never struck me as a weakness of his even if it wasn’t his greatest trait.

 

[authentic]

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 contentious between Bure and Mogilny imo)

Shooting arsenal: Bure>Mogilny>Fedorov

Skating: Fedorov>Bure>Mogilny

Passing: Fedorov>Mogilny>Bure

Fedorov won hardest shot competition and his wrist shots were bar down lasers from distance. Was his shot arsenal decisively worse or did he just not use his shot enough?

 

[sr edler]

As much as I like Mogilny as a player, IMO he tends to get romanticised a little bit too much at times, and I don't think it's because of that GPG season, but more because he was the oldest of the three and the de facto leader of the line in juniors, the first to defect, the biggest star when the three played together (despite being outscored by Bure in the WJC), had mental issues early on (fear of flying, hitting a referee) that had him miss a bunch of games, et cetera, plus all the talent obviously. Plus Sundin and Pat Quinn.

But if you watch footage from the 1989 WJC tournament in Anchorage (I think it should still be on YT), where Bure was a 1st year player, it's Bure (and not Zubov, for instance) who drives the puck from the backend up the ice, along the left wing, hands the puck off to his line-mates, and then promptly plants himself in front of the net on the PP. Already two qualities in that sequence alone he was better at than Mogilny, puck-rushing and net front presence.