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.

 

[Jumptheshark]

i voted Federov-Bure-Mogilny

Both Bure and Mogilny were better goals scorers but Federov was a better all around player in my opinion. Bure and Mogilny could be liabilities in their own zone.

 

[The Panther]

I mean, people are saying Fedorov's scoring totals were limited by defensive systems and his coach, etc. This might be true (we saw what he could do when relied upon to lead a team's offense -- not sharing that with Yzerman -- for 50-odd games in 1993-94), but how about the fact that he played all his top seasons on the most stacked, deepest team in the NHL?

Then, compare that with Pavel Bure. Yeah, the Canucks circa 1992-94 had some talent (though nobody near his level), but beyond that, in 1991-92 and about 1995 to 2001 (end of career) he basically played with past-primes or no-name players. And could still score 60 goals in the DPE.

For me, Fedorov and Bure are close at their respective bests, but I just think Bure was more great all the time. Fedorov more hit and miss.

This being said, I do agree that Fedorov could 'tilt' the ice more when at his best, as he was more all over the ice surface. But again this is influenced by his being on the best, deepest team in the League. (Once he left Detroit, his ES numbers went way south.)

 

[Staniowski]

It was unforgettable watching them when they were linemates. The speed was off the charts.

I don't think they would've remained a line, though. They didn't have the cohesiveness of KLM or the '70s big line. Fedorov and Mogilny were great together. Probably Kozlov (who was more KLM-like than any of them) would be good with them. And Bure with Zhamnov, who he actually played with some.

Fedorov, Mogilny, and Bure are three of the best skaters ever. Each of them are different types of skaters. They each used their skating
to fit their other strengths.

Bure and Mogilny were two of the best goal-scorers ever, Bure a bit better. Bure probably used his skating in scoring goals more effectively than any of the great goal-scorers.

Fedorov was the best foundational player of the three. At his best, he could go head-to-head against any other centre ever, and do well.

 

[Stephen]

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.

Mogilny always looked like he had spare capacity and an extra gear or two but it wouldn't be necessary. It's like he was playing down a league and he could just trick you enough, throw a little wrister on net or tuck it in with a little back hand and whatever, little shimmy to get by just enough. Not that serious, just playing NHL hockey kinda thing. He's also the least satisfying answer since Bure was so spectacular and Fedorov looked so high end and complete.

 

[Staniowski]

Also...i think I've said this before, but if these guys were actually linemates for 15 years, I don't think Fedorov would be the best scorer (goals and assisrs) very often, maybe never or almost. Mogilny and Bure were better natural scorers. None of the three could pass the puck like Makarov, Malkin, or Kucherov.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Mogilny needed some decent linemates to succeed

he finished third in goals, ninth in pts, 55 goals, 107 pts on a line with cliff ronning. the opposite winger was roman oksiuta half the time and past his prime tikkanen for the rest.

with the exception of oksiuta, those guys didn’t suck, but they also weren’t lafontaine and andreychuk.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

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?

i think it’s a case of strongest and even most accurate shot not necessarily being the best shot

in terms of timing and getting it off midstride and the puck leaving your stick really fast, bure was on another level. and mogilny imo was even better than bure.

 

[authentic]

i think it’s a case of strongest and even most accurate shot not necessarily being the best shot

in terms of timing and getting it off midstride and the puck leaving your stick really fast, bure was on another level. and mogilny imo was even better than bure.

Good call. That’s probably the real differentiator in their goal scoring abilities.

 

[connellc]

he finished third in goals, ninth in pts, 55 goals, 107 pts on a line with cliff ronning. the opposite winger was roman oksiuta half the time and past his prime tikkanen for the rest.

with the exception of oksiuta, those guys didn’t suck, but they also weren’t lafontaine and andreychuk.

This is true, however, the point remains that Mogilny was not at the level of driving the offense as often Bure . Feds, there could be a case, but Fedorov had more defensive responsibilities. I Mogilny does not possess more elite season than the other two.

We can agree that Mogilny had two elite season. Bure is at least 4, and Fedorov has Two, but is obviously has the most playoff success, and was also a defensive stud. Feds two elite are (won the Hart Trophy) are comfortably above Mogilnys two.

The more I see, the more it's clear Mogilny is the obvious 3rd with Bure and Fedorov being very close.

 

[Brodeur]

Excuse to post these 90's AF videos:

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

This is true, however, the point remains that Mogilny was not at the level of driving the offense as often Bure . Feds, there could be a case, but Fedorov had more defensive responsibilities. I Mogilny does not possess more elite season than the other two.

We can agree that Mogilny had two elite season. Bure is at least 4, and Fedorov has Two, but is obviously has the most playoff success, and was also a defensive stud. Feds two elite are (won the Hart Trophy) are comfortably above Mogilnys two.

The more I see, the more it's clear Mogilny is the obvious 3rd with Bure and Fedorov being very close.

i think the DPE maybe obscures how close bure’s 1993 season was to the other two’s top late prime years

mogilny 2001: 6th in goals, 15th in pts

fedorov 2003: 12th in pts

mogilny 2003: 15th in pts

bure 1993: 5th in goals, 13th in pts

but i think yours is more a body of work ranking, which i don’t argue with, than a talent ranking. mogilny could do a lot of things, he just often didn’t.

i say this as someone whose childhood hero and favourite player ever was bure.

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

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.

Did you only watch Fedorov in Columbus? This is an objectively bad take.

 

[The Panther]

Fedorov . . . obviously has the most playoff success,

He had the most opportunities to go deep. Let's not forget Bure led the 1994 playoffs in goals, while scoring 31 points. I would say Bure's playoff stats are better than Fedorov's; it's just a smaller sample.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i would say this: fedorov was a very intelligent player. understood positioning, systems play, and optimizing his gifts with the job that had to be done at a high level.

but mogilny was a genius. he saw plays that 99% of folks couldn’t.

 

[authentic]

i would say this: fedorov was a very intelligent player. understood positioning, systems play, and optimizing his gifts with the job that had to be done at a high level.

but mogilny was a genius. he saw plays that 99% of folks couldn’t.

This makes me wonder. Was his peak in 1993 actually better than Bure’s? And too much is made of it being in the high scoring 1993 season. Because Bure played the same year and didn’t really come close to Mogilny’s goals and points. Also though I have always found it odd how few truly elite seasons he and Fedorov had, like 2 and a half each or something like that.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Here's the problem with Mogilny and Fedorov. If you take away their two best seasons each, between the two of them you have:

0x hardware
0x top-10 scoring finishes
0x AST nominations

How much mileage they should get off those two seasons each is up to you, but they probably had very few Hart/Pearson votes either outside of those two seasons either.

Bure meanwhile, if we take away his 1994 and 2000 seasons, is left with a 3rd and 7th place scoring finish as well as a Rocket at the very least, and this is in a shorter career than the others.