Historical debates, all time rankings etc

[André]

Thought it was about time we got these discussions under the same roof. We have several different threads now (mount rushmore, Bure HHoF, Top 100 all time etc).

I'll start.

Cam Neely; overrated?

He played during an extremely high scoring era (83-96, highest ever?) and is just under a PPG both in the regular season and in the Stanley Cup. He peaked at 92 points (a year when that was good for about 20th position in the scoring race).

He was great of course but some talk of him as a superstar. Even saw him suggested in an all time debate on some site.

Granted, injury ruined his chance to produce during the freaky 92/93 season (he was off to a great start with 18 points in 13 games) where he likely would've topped a 100 points.

His strongest case is as a goal scorer, as he's 14th all time in GPG with 0.544. But then again looking at the era he played in I say he's overrated, and of course shouldn't be included in any all time debate (then again I don't think he often is, maybe I've just been unlucky to stumble across a few instances of that).

[Gaucho]

Don't forget he scored 50 goals in 49 games in 93-94.

I'm not sure I'd call him overrated, as I don't think anyone rates him among the best ever at his position. Surely among the best in his era, though.

[Letang Is The Truth]

kick his ass seabass

[mikey287]

Hooray! I'm in. Andre, I recommend you bring your Forsberg arguments to this table too, if you want...

But let's try to keep discussion as sequitur as possible.

Cam Neely overrated? Short answer, yes.

I'm not sure what it means to have him in an "all time debate" - does that suggest that he was considered to be the best ever at something by someone? If so, that's a gross miscalculation on their part.

He's in the HHOF because he was a terrific power forward, one of the first real strong winger power forward. 4-time second-team AS, 4-times top-10 in goals, a noted physical presence and very tough to contain in the 80's where defense was still catching up to the wide-open hockey. Unfortunately, Neely was very injury prone and to be honest, didn't need to be a power forward yet. He was literally ahead of his time, and he probably would have experienced more dominance if he had played in the C&E era as opposed to the late 80's and early 90's...

Neely is, at best, a fringe HHOFer though. There are several players that left "unfinished business" that were better than him...including someone like Lindros who was a lot better than Neely...a lot a lot...

[topshelf]

Kevin Stevens > Cam Neely

I'm not sure if I'd put Cam in a top-25 list (or Stevens, for that matter).

[mikey287]

Stevens and Neely are pretty close peak wise certainly. Neither of them are top 25 players of all-time...not by a mile...not top 100...

[Rylan]

But Cam Neely was the prototype power forward that even today teams try to emulate. If anything he sort of revolutionized the game, no?

[Gaucho]

Anyone else shocked that Neely was only 6'1"?

[Rylan]

Anyone else shocked that Neely was only 6'1"?

Really? I never saw him play, but the stories my dad told me and from further reading made him seem like a man beast.

[mikey287]

But Cam Neely was the prototype power forward that even today teams try to emulate. If anything he sort of revolutionized the game, no?

Right. Which is why he's in the HHOF. He was ahead of his time, liked I noted in my original post on Neely.

[topshelf]

But Cam Neely was the prototype power forward that even today teams try to emulate. If anything he sort of revolutionized the game, no?

He certainly was, and he certainly did, but I'm not sure that would help him out in an all-time list. It would definitely help him in a "Players Who Changed the Game" list.

Unfortunately, Cam's career was cut short from injury, and I think we can only look at what he did with the time he was given and not at what could have happened if things were different (but don't ask me to do that with Lemieux ).

[Gaucho]

You might argue that a player who changed the game certainly belongs in the HoF, more so than, say, Mike Gartner. No disrespect, Mike. You belong, don't worry.

[mikey287]

I agree with the sentiment. If I had a choice of Lindros or Gartner in the Hall, it's Lindros and it's not close.

[topshelf]

You might argue that a player who changed the game certainly belongs in the HoF, more so than, say, Mike Gartner. No disrespect, Mike. You belong, don't worry.

I agree with the sentiment. If I had a choice of Lindros or Gartner in the Hall, it's Lindros and it's not close.

I agree with both of you. Guys like Neely and Lindros deserve to be in the Hall, as it should be weighted on different aspects.

[mikey287]

Bump. I spend my spare time in the summers now researching history, so I'm on a kick...just seeing if there's anything anyone wants to discuss...

[topshelf]

Wayne Gretzky... overrated?

[mikey287]

Wayne Gretzky... overrated?

Nope not at all. In fact, it's likely that his exploits are more impressive than the above average hockey fan readily recognizes.

[Zach6668]

I was reading some HFBoards thread (ya, I know) about Lemieux, and it turned into a bit of a top 4 all time thing, with lots of people having Howe ahead of Lemieux...

Am I crazy/homer for thinking I'd never ever ever have Howe over Lemieux? I can get behind well thought-out arguments for Orr and Gretzky, for sure. Anyone want to sell me on Howe?

[Zach6668]

On that same note, I really wish I got to watch Gretzky, Orr, and Howe in their primes, and to a lesser extent, Mario... I'm 27, so my first real hockey memory is from the early 90s... I don't seem to remember the Pens Cup years.

[mikey287]

I was reading some HFBoards thread (ya, I know) about Lemieux, and it turned into a bit of a top 4 all time thing, with lots of people having Howe ahead of Lemieux...

Am I crazy/homer for thinking I'd never ever ever have Howe over Lemieux? I can get behind well thought-out arguments for Orr and Gretzky, for sure. Anyone want to sell me on Howe?

Well, the first thing is to separate the "big 4" from everyone else. Because that's undeniable. Then you get into a discussion about the order of the four. I personally have Howe ahead of Lemieux, but only by the slighest of margins.

For pro-Howe sentiment from yours truly:

- viewtopic.php?f=6&t=56422&p=1930762&hilit=Gordie+Howe#p1930762
- viewtopic.php?f=6&t=56422&hilit=Gordie+Howe&start=50#p1931513
- viewtopic.php?f=6&t=56422&hilit=Gordie+Howe&start=50#p1932607
- viewtopic.php?f=6&t=56422&hilit=Gordie+Howe&start=75#p2001092

[Zach6668]

Exactly what I was looking for.

Agree the big 4 are in a league of their own.

May have some replies, however, I tend to take your word as gospel, so I will likely just nod along.

[mikey287]

Exactly what I was looking for.

Agree the big 4 are in a league of their own.

May have some replies, however, I tend to take your word as gospel, so I will likely just nod along.

Please challenge away, it keeps me sharp. Debate leads to research, research leads to learning, learning leads to a greater overall knowledge of the game which benefits everyone.

[Rylan]

I see mikey is trying to postcount pad.

[Chefpatrick871]

I see mikey is trying to postcount pad.

Pot or kettle??

[Rylan]

I have sub-10,000 posts; I am not a post padder until I have achieved 10k posts.