I tend to disproportionately weigh proven playoff performers. I downgrade Sedins, Thornton, Ovi, Nash etc. I bump up Toews, Kane, Krejcki, Getzlaf, and till the last 2 series, Giroux....

Ovi is a much bigger star than Giroux, surely. But I would prefer to have Roo over Ovi in playoffs.

Regular season is really mostly pre-season, with teams shifting to a different gear from end Jan or so.
- PT21

I understand. You said Sellanne was more talented but weigh Kanes Playoff performance more. Im making my choice solely on talent.

#'s don't necessarily translate to "giving it everything". i'm sure he took a shift off now and then...and the end of his career was riddled with injuries. they turn great players into shells of their former selves.
- hammarby31

more impressively, when he was healthier (was never the same after his first knee injury) he scored 58 and 59 for the Panthers, again playing with nobody in the heart of the clutch and grab era.....he was unstoppable

I don't like comparing the numbers or really even players between eras. It always shortchanges players today. To be honest, I think part of x player from 80s is better than y player today is just nostalgia. It's the era of hockey most of you senior statesmen grew up with. Points and goals pretty much rained down from the sky, and it'll always have that special sheen to it.

The fact that a player like Ovechkin can routinely put up 50 is insane today. I don't have a doubt in my mind if you put him in decades earlier, he'd compete for the NHL goals record. Bure's (or whoever's) skill wouldn't diminish today and he'd still be as elite as it gets, but it's never the older player that gets shortchanged. I'm truly of the belief that Crosby would put up 180-190 point numbers if he played in the Gretzky era. And Gretzky's numbers today...would they really be dramatically above a Crosby?

I understand. You said Sellanne was more talented but weigh Kanes Playoff performance more. Im making my choice solely on talent.
- KINGKENZO

It all depends on what we want this team to do... fantasy team during reg season or a fantasy team during post season? I assumed latter...

more impressively, when he was healthier (was never the same after his first knee injury) he scored 58 and 59 for the Panthers, again playing with nobody in the heart of the clutch and grab era.....he was unstoppable
- KINGKENZO

if only he could have found the net one more time in game 7. or if nathan lafayette didn't hit the goddamn (frank)ing goal post. goddamnit.

So if Sam morin, in essence developed into the player that tyler myers is today, would most be satisfied with that?

I kinda always thought he was overrated, but he looked pretty solid tonight. Granted it was against the leafs, but he still looked good.
- benjichronic

To make that a more realistic possibility they must remain patient and let him develop.

I don't like comparing the numbers or really even players between eras. It always shortchanges players today. To be honest, I think part of x player from 80s is better than y player today is just nostalgia. It's the era of hockey most of you senior statesmen grew up with. Points and goals pretty much rained down from the sky, and it'll always have that special sheen to it.

The fact that a player like Ovechkin can routinely put up 50 is insane today. I don't have a doubt in my mind if you put him in decades earlier, he'd compete for the NHL goals record. Bure's (or whoever's) skill wouldn't diminish today and he'd still be as elite as it gets, but it's never the older player that gets shortchanged. I'm truly of the belief that Crosby would put up 180-190 point numbers if he played in the Gretzky era. And Gretzky's numbers today...would they really be dramatically above a Crosby?
- Mononoke

I think you have it backward, IMO. I think the older player always gets short changed. Ovi and Crosby are tremendous talents of any era, but I think the more physical style and Clutch and Grab of the late 80s to 2004 would have a negative effect on their games. Sid would get his points as more players racked up 100+ pt seasons, but Gretz and Lemiux were in a different stratosphere, not one Ovi and Sid are in

if only he could have found the net one more time in game 7. or if nathan lafayette didn't hit the goddamn (frank)ing goal post. goddamnit.
- hammarby31

I think he had a break, had Richter beat and either hit the post or just missed

I think you have it backward, IMO. I think the older player always gets short changed. Ovi and Crosby are tremendous talents of any era, but I think the more physical style and Clutch and Grab of the late 80s to 2004 would have a negative effect on their games. Sid would get his points as more players racked up 100+ pt seasons, but Gretz and Lemiux were in a different stratosphere, not one Ovi and Sid are in
- KINGKENZO

I don't know how you can say older players get shortchanged when everyone here is saying every older player is better than the modern ones or in a different stratosphere...

Crosby is 5th all time in points per game -- even in the era he's played in. Not saying he'd top Gretzky and Lemieux, but I don't have a doubt in my mind he'd be right up there with or near them, very much in their stratosphere. For people not born in the 1800s, Ovi has the third highest goals per game behind Bossy and Mario. He could very well battle Lemeiux for that title if he played concurrently back then. As for era changes -- great players would be great in whatever era they get plunked down.

I still am of the mindset the younger players get shortchanged because players of yesteryear have a mythical status. Purely as a hypothetical, here are some era adjusted points per game numbers to see where they might stack: http://www.coppernblue.co...a-adjusted-points-scoring

I don't know how you can say older players get shortchanged when everyone here is saying every older player is better than the modern ones or in a different stratosphere...

Crosby is 5th all time in points per game -- even in the era he's played in. Not saying he'd top Gretzky and Lemieux, but I don't have a doubt in my mind he'd be right up there with or near them, very much in their stratosphere. For people not born in the 1800s, Ovi has the third highest goals per game behind Bossy and Mario. He could very well battle Lemeiux for that title if he played concurrently back then. As for era changes -- great players would be great in whatever era they get plunked down.

I still am of the mindset the younger players get shortchanged because players of yesteryear have a mythical status. Purely as a hypothetical, here are some era adjusted points per game numbers to see where they might stack: http://www.coppernblue.co...a-adjusted-points-scoring
- Mononoke

because everyone of those players is better than the counterpart. Bure over Ovi being the toughest choice.

Generally speaking, you normally here the argument against older generation by saying todays athletes are bigger stronger faster and that they could compete. Thats the reference I used by saying the bias in normally against older guys


Sorry, as much as the NHL want to hype Crosby, hes not close of those 2. Lindros was a top 5 ppg until his latter year production and he wasnt close either. Like i said, IMO, Crosby wouldnt be as effective in a clutch agrab era and would be 120+ pt guy in the Offensive heyday of the late 80s


edit:
just looked at the chart. Getting back to Lindros, I think at his peak, his ppg was clost to 1.4. He played almost his entire career in the Clutch and Grab Era and 2 LINE PASSING WAS ILLEGAL, that change alone has had a momumental and fundimnetal impact on the offensive production post lockout. Lindros in this era, would eclipse the #s Crosby has put up

Anyone worried about the future timeline for this team ?

My main concern is regarding the young group of our stud D prospects coming up and being NHL ready and effective (3-4 years ?) and the age of our current forwards. Our elite guys (G and Jake for example) are going to be 31-32 years old by that time.

Giroux: 27
Voracek: 27 (this summer)
Simmonds: 27
Read: 29
Gagner: 26

Being patient, developing prospects, accumulating and keeping draft picks is the GM's philosophy, I get it in today's cap world, but seeing the prime years of your best players on a bad team waiting for our D prospects is a painful reality.
- Chris48


It's an issue but what is your solution?
-opeth_pa


Any approach/solution to try and solve this issue is a gamble and the outcome is always risky.


Do you risk to win now and trade picks and assets we accumulated for what we lack (#1 and #2 dman and sniper/playmaker winger) ?

Do you wait and burn off the prime years of G and Jake waiting for the D prospects to make it, and are those prospects going to be elite NHL'ers or #3-4 -5 dman at this level ?

Trading our highly rated prospects (Sanheim, Provorov, Morin, Ghost, Haag), picks, current players on the roster for what this team needs to be a contender now will be extremely expensive ?


It's a gamble either way you look at it.

I think he had a break, had Richter beat and either hit the post or just missed
- KINGKENZO

i just watched game 7 hi lites. i'm (frank)ing nauseous. there were THREE chances the canucks had, bure with one of them that simply should have been goals. in watching it again, i can not believe they lost this game. lafayette hit the post and so did gelinas, who perhaps had even more net to shoot at then lafayette. and messier's winner was a fluke garbage rebound off the inside of mclean's pad because babych punched the puck back into the crease on the scramble.

good lord. i just can't even.

i just watched game 7 hi lites. i'm (frank)ing nauseous. there were THREE chances the canucks had, bure with one of them that simply should have been goals. in watching it again, i can not believe they lost this game. lafayette hit the post and so did gelinas, who perhaps had even more net to shoot at then lafayette. and messier's winner was a fluke garbage rebound off the inside of mclean's pad because babych punched the puck back into the crease on the scramble.

good lord. i just can't even.
- hammarby31

Blame OJ


It does make me sick they won that Cup

you want to see domination? watch this:



bure vs. dallas in the 94 playoffs. i watched every canucks game that run, and he was something else.

Do you risk to win now and trade picks and assets we accumulated for what we lack (#1 and #2 dman and sniper/playmaker winger) ?
- Chris48

We are not going to be able to make that deal and keep both Giroux and Voracek. No one will give current 1,2D for projected 1,2 D + average players like we have.

Do you wait and burn off the prime years of G and Jake waiting for the D prospects to make it, and are those prospects going to be elite NHL'ers or #3-4 -5 dman at this level ?


- Chris48

The 2nd gamble has much better odds of success since the first one is essentially 0.

What worries me is the 3rd alternative. Sneaky rebuilding in a major fan base that is impatient will turn into sneaky concession that we will never contend but will throw meat to the fan base now. Like, giving up Provorov + for a crowd pleaser like Phaneuf.

Blame OJ


It does make me sick they won that Cup
- KINGKENZO

here's gelinas with a gaping net. hit the outside of the near post along the ice. seriously.

you want to see domination? watch this:



bure vs. dallas in the 94 playoffs. i watched every canucks game that run, and he was something else.
- hammarby31

amazing how much offense he created transitioning from defense

here's gelinas with a gaping net. hit the outside of the near post along the ice. seriously.


- hammarby31

that s the one I remember the most

that s the one I remember the most
- KINGKENZO

for me, the lafayette play stands out the most bc it looked like richter stopped it with his glove during live play. replay showed he was beaten by a mile. sigh.....

The fact that a player like Ovechkin can routinely put up 50 is insane today. I don't have a doubt in my mind if you put him in decades earlier, he'd compete for the NHL goals record.
- Mononoke

Yeah... he'd have outscored Gretzky in the 80's with the way defenses were backing in and goalies were flopping around.

He'd have the size and balance to withstand all the 90's punishment too, I'd wager.

Dunno why he's not more appreciated today... these same people who hate on him now will be waxing poetic about his greatness to their grand kids in 20-30 years time.... mark my words.

hes not close of those 2. Lindros was a top 5 ppg until his latter year production and he wasnt close either. Like i said, IMO, Crosby wouldnt be as effective in a clutch agrab era and would be 120+ pt guy in the Offensive heyday of the late 80s


edit:
just looked at the chart. Getting back to Lindros, I think at his peak, his ppg was clost to 1.4. He played almost his entire career in the Clutch and Grab Era and 2 LINE PASSING WAS ILLEGAL, that change alone has had a momumental and fundimnetal impact on the offensive production post lockout. Lindros in this era, would eclipse the #s Crosby has put up
- KINGKENZO

You are definitely adamant, so I won't write anything more than this, but I will just say that I ran the numbers on goal scoring in the NHL throughout their careers:

Crosby's NHL career: 2.83 goals per game across the league

Lindros's career (from rookie year 92-93 to 03-04): 2.88 goals per game across league. I only included the pre-2005 lockout years for him so it wouldn't be artificially inflated at the tail end of his career when goals actually went up and he barely played.

They both are playing/played in almost identically stingy eras, and if you just include Lindros' Flyer years, their PPG are almost identical. This 10s decade has been almost pre-lockout 2.0 right now in terms of goal scoring, so Crosby's numbers probably would've been the same in Lindros's era. Whether one era is called "clutch-and-grab" or the other "defense-first system structures," that's just different ways of saying "low scoring." They're victims of their eras. Compare this to the 80s when goals per game hovered around 3.7-4.0. I think that Lindros (*cheer*) and Crosby (*spit*) would've both been near the top of scoring in the wide open 80s goal-a-paloozas.

He'd have the size and balance to withstand all the 90's punishment too, I'd wager.

Dunno why he's not more appreciated today... these same people who hate on him now will be waxing poetic about his greatness to their grand kids in 20-30 years time.... mark my words.
- Tomahawk

Life in a nutshell. One day we will do the same.....

"You should've seen that Jason Akeson, my boy. What speed; what talent! I've never seen the game of hockey played better!"

Yeah... he'd have outscored Gretzky in the 80's with the way defenses were backing in and goalies were flopping around.
- Tomahawk

Man, the Flyers current defensemen would've been legit

You are definitely adamant, so I won't write anything more than this, but I will just say that I ran the numbers on goal scoring in the NHL throughout their careers:

Crosby's NHL career: 2.83 goals per game across the league

Lindros's career (from rookie year 92-93 to 03-04): 2.88 goals per game across league. I only included the pre-2005 lockout years for him so it wouldn't be artificially inflated at the tail end of his career when goals actually went up and he barely played.

They both are playing/played in almost identically stingy eras, and if you just include Lindros' Flyer years, their PPG are almost identical. This 10s decade has been almost pre-lockout 2.0 right now in terms of goal scoring, so Crosby's numbers probably would've been the same in Lindros's era. Whether one era is called "clutch-and-grab" or the other "defense-first system structures," that's just different ways of saying "low scoring." They're victims of their eras. Compare this to the 80s when goals per game hovered around 3.7-4.0. I think that Lindros (*cheer*) and Crosby (*spit*) would've both been near the top of scoring in the wide open 80s goal-a-paloozas.
- Mononoke

Man, the Flyers current defensemen would've been legit
- Mononoke

Put Darren Pang behind them, and yeah, instant fireworks.

Put Darren Pang behind them, and yeah, instant fireworks.
- Tomahawk