When it's all said and done, what do you say about Thornton's

[fanaticV3.0]

career? I know it is often said that he does nothing in the playoffs. Hell, when I drafted him in my fantasy league, someone said, "As long as this is a regular season league, he's a good pickup." I have even thought the same thing about him myself. This perception exists, I know that. But his PO numbers are not even close to being bad. His stats:

 

Regular season: 1229 games, 1209 points, .99ppg

PO: 132 games, 100 points, .77ppg

 

He's really not that bad.

 

[yave1964]

career? I know it is often said that he does nothing in the playoffs. Hell, when I drafted him in my fantasy league, someone said, "As long as this is a regular season league, he's a good pickup." I have even thought the same thing about him myself. This perception exists, I know that. But his PO numbers are not even close to being bad. His stats:

 

Regular season: 1229 games, 1209 points, .99ppg

PO: 132 games, 100 points, .77ppg

 

He's really not that bad.

But his team has not won. And when they lose it seems to be losing series they should have won. Multiple times.

 

  Hall of famer, no questions asked, start warming up the mic in Toronto for the ceremony and he can start writing his list now of people he wants to thank.

  Unless he wins a cup, he is the new Marcel Dionne. A great player who never came close. Not once even in the finals. It does count agaisnt him but Marcel Dionne was one hell of a player, so is Thornton. Actually I give an edge to Dionne, I feel Joe has had a better supporting cast and has not won or come close, whereas Dionne had a few years of Simmer and Taylor but for the most part he was a one man show.

 

  Thornton really needs a cup. Without one I see him as just below the all time greats. Others may disagree, saying the cup is only one part of the equation and i agree, his top ten numbers in career assists, all the rest count too, but a Cup is what they play for. Without one, like Dionne, the stats are a bit tarnished.

[Vanflyer]

He's really not that bad.

 

He is a hall of famer, but will be always tarnished as a bit of an enigma (not so dissimilar than Lindros).

[FD19372]

He was a great player, but I think someone of Thornton's size might have been served better if he played with more of an angry edge, and threw his weight around more. He is one of the better passers in the history of the game, especially for a big man.

[fanaticV3.0]

But his team has not won. And when they lose it seems to be losing series they should have won. Multiple times.

 

  Hall of famer, no questions asked, start warming up the mic in Toronto for the ceremony and he can start writing his list now of people he wants to thank.

  Unless he wins a cup, he is the new Marcel Dionne. A great player who never came close. Not once even in the finals. It does count agaisnt him but Marcel Dionne was one hell of a player, so is Thornton. Actually I give an edge to Dionne, I feel Joe has had a better supporting cast and has not won or come close, whereas Dionne had a few years of Simmer and Taylor but for the most part he was a one man show.

 

  Thornton really needs a cup. Without one I see him as just below the all time greats. Others may disagree, saying the cup is only one part of the equation and i agree, his top ten numbers in career assists, all the rest count too, but a Cup is what they play for. Without one, like Dionne, the stats are a bit tarnished.

 

Teams win Cups, not players.

 

Was Ray Bourque not a great player until he won a Cup with Colorado?

[Vanflyer]

Was Ray Bourque not a great player until he won a Cup with Colorado?

 

Yes, the bourque was a mercy trade. In all his great years in boston, it became evident that the cup was not going to happen for him there. They were entering re-building.

 

Thornton while on the other hand, wanted out of Boston because of the pressure. While still a fine player, he will always be an enigma for that an also, I am not sure he is C material. He gets HOF because of his stats, but not because anything he accomplished at a team level.

[fanaticV3.0]

Yes, the bourque was a mercy trade. In all his great years in boston, it became evident that the cup was not going to happen for him there. They were entering re-building.

 

Thornton while on the other hand, wanted out of Boston because of the pressure. While still a fine player, he will always be an enigma for that an also, I am not sure he is C material. He gets HOF because of his stats, but not because anything he accomplished at a team level.

 

What did Ray Borque accomplish at a team level? If he's never traded to Colorado, he still gets in the HOF. Couldn't it be said he gets in the HOf because of stats too?

[fanaticV3.0]

He was a great player, but I think someone of Thornton's size might have been served better if he played with more of an angry edge, and threw his weight around more. He is one of the better passers in the history of the game, especially for a big man.

 

Do you think if he was more physical it would have resulted in something different/better for him or the teams he played on?

[FD19372]

Do you think if he was more physical it would have resulted in something different/better for him or the teams he played on?

No doubt about it.  If you look at some of the best players who were power forwards who played the game, Forsberg, Lindros, Gordie Howe, Lemeiux, Messier they all had a common denominator: a mean streak.  Jumbo Joe doesn't seem to have it on their level, and I think it is what keeps him from being as feared as he should be with someone who has his skill set. They also all had the ability to take over games and be clutch, which he has not stepped up to do as of yet.

[fanaticV3.0]

No doubt about it.  If you look at some of the best players who were power forwards who played the game, Forsberg, Lindros, Gordie Howe, Lemeiux, Messier they all had a common denominator: a mean streak.  Jumbo Joe doesn't seem to have it on their level, and I think it is what keeps him from being as feared as he should be with someone who has his skill set. They also all had the ability to take over games and be clutch, which he has not stepped up to do as of yet.

 

He doesn't take over games, I can agree with that.

 

I wonder how his career would have panned out if he, like Lindros, wasn't always expected to be the man? I think Forsberg benefitted from being with Sakic and Roy for example. Lindros and Thornton never had that.

[J0e Th0rnton]

Yes, the bourque was a mercy trade. In all his great years in boston, it became evident that the cup was not going to happen for him there. They were entering re-building.

 

Thornton while on the other hand, wanted out of Boston because of the pressure. While still a fine player, he will always be an enigma for that an also, I am not sure he is C material. He gets HOF because of his stats, but not because anything he accomplished at a team level.

Wherever did you get this idea? He signed a contract extention with the Bruins and bought a house.

He then scored 33 points in 22 games while the team sucked around him and was capegoated and traded. The trade SHOCKED him and everyone to be honest.

 

Joe had way more of a mean streak when he was younger.

 

As for Bourque, he literally carried that Bruins team on his back. But both times they were sorely outclassed by the Oilers in the finals.

 

Another time, they were looking good in the conference finals, up 2 games to zero against the Pens, then Samuelsson took out Neely, who had 16 goals in 16 playoff games games at the time, and they lost a lot of guys to the flu. And then it was a 4-2 Pens win. Bourque kept playing well

[yave1964]

What did Ray Borque accomplish at a team level? If he's never traded to Colorado, he still gets in the HOF. Couldn't it be said he gets in the HOf because of stats too?

I AGREE Bourque is a hofer and one of the top two or three d-men of all time. But if he had never won a cup it would be mentioned in the same way as Dionne and in the same way that Ernie Banks never won with the Cubs.

Individual stats are just that, but superstars are supposed to lead their team to the promised land. Those that don't win a Championship have that hanging over them.

[J0e Th0rnton]

I AGREE Bourque is a hofer and one of the top two or three d-men of all time. But if he had never won a cup it would be mentioned in the same way as Dionne and in the same way that Ernie Banks never won with the Cubs.

Individual stats are just that, but superstars are supposed to lead their team to the promised land. Those that don't win a Championship have that hanging over them.

I doubt it.

Dionne was a guy whose play supposedly went WAAAAAAAAY down in the playoffs.

 

Bourque was a guy who was considered to have elevated his play in the playoffs and his teams got molested by better teams, usually when he was on the bench because he could not play 60 minutes of a game.

 

The same way nobody held it against Gretzky for not winning it in LA.

 

It is rare to have such universal support for a player who moved to another team as Bourque got because he was so superhuman, carrying those average bruins teams. It was beyond weird to see even Habs fans cheering for Bourque to win a cup, saying he deserved it when he moved.

 

 

Iginla is a nice guy and great player, but nowhere near as many people were rooting for him last season or the season past. It was barely a blip on the radar.

[yave1964]

@J0e Th0rnton

I know what you mean with the universal love for Bourque winning with Colorado, I tried, i have to say I really, Really tried to root for him but I could not bring myself to root for the Avalanche. It goes against my DNA, I think it would be akin to you, having watched Joe Thornton his entire career in San Jose and then watching him win a cup with the Kings. I think you might just have a difficult time with that, lol.

But you are right, everyone went crazy happy for Bourque when he won. Because the choice was the Avalanche and the Devils and I hated both with a passion back then, and knowing they both COULDNT lose although i wish there had been a way, i watched the broad smile on the classy face of Raymond and just pretended he was still wearing a Bruins sweater......

[Vanflyer]

I wonder how his career would have panned out if he, like Lindros, wasn't always expected to be the man? I think Forsberg benefitted from being with Sakic and Roy for example. Lindros and Thornton never had that.

 

Thats a really good question and something I wonder about as well. The folks you mentioned all had that killer instinct. Lindros had it if you really pissed him off, but for the most part I got the feeling he was just ho hum. I also like the point of captaincy. I think both Joe and Lindros would have benefitted allot more by not having the weight of the C on them to be the one to lead and just go out an play.

[JackStraw]

I AGREE Bourque is a hofer and one of the top two or three d-men of all time. But if he had never won a cup it would be mentioned in the same way as Dionne and in the same way that Ernie Banks never won with the Cubs.Individual stats are just that, but superstars are supposed to lead their team to the promised land. Those that don't win a Championship have that hanging over them.

The fact that Ted Williams never won a World Series doesn't mean squat.

[yave1964]

The fact that Ted Williams never won a World Series doesn't mean squat.

One of the few players I would agree with you on.

The greatest of the great elevate their team and lift them up to a championship. Now is it Teddy Ballgame's fault that while he sat in one dugout with Vince and the boys, across the way sat some of the greatest players of all time wearing pinstripes, Jolting Joe and Yogi and Mickey and Whitey ect...... one of the greatest collections of talent of all time? Of course not. In another era Williams would have won not one but MULTIPLE World Series. And when you think of the years lost to the war....Three four world series almost certainly would have been won by the Splendid Splinter any other time.

But winning championships is what you play for, if it is baseball, football, hockey, tiddlywinks, or any damn thing. And it is a factor by which you are judged. Does Billy Martin who won, i believe 10 World Series between playing career and managing career get thought of as one of the four or five greatest of all time? Of course not. But Rizzuto is in the Hall, not so much for his very average stats but for his part in Championships that the Yankees won. If he had been a Senator or a St. Louis Brown he would have been forgotten. It is a factor.

My opinion is everything counts, you throw it into a giant pot at the end of the career and weigh it all against each other

and stir it up. If Thornton and Messier wind up with similar career stats, Messier gets the nod because of his reputation as a warrior in the postseason and the fact that he won a lot of cups. On paper there is not a lot that seperates Lafleur from a dozen other guys who are HOFers but not revered as all time greats, it is the Cups that were won that unbalances it.

Like I said I agree with Williams.

[J0e Th0rnton]

One of the few players I would agree with you on.

The greatest of the great elevate their team and lift them up to a championship. Now is it Teddy Ballgame's fault that while he sat in one dugout with Vince and the boys, across the way sat some of the greatest players of all time wearing pinstripes, Jolting Joe and Yogi and Mickey and Whitey ect...... one of the greatest collections of talent of all time? Of course not. In another era Williams would have won not one but MULTIPLE World Series. And when you think of the years lost to the war....Three four world series almost certainly would have been won by the Splendid Splinter any other time.

But winning championships is what you play for, if it is baseball, football, hockey, tiddlywinks, or any damn thing. And it is a factor by which you are judged. Does Billy Martin who won, i believe 10 World Series between playing career and managing career get thought of as one of the four or five greatest of all time? Of course not. But Rizzuto is in the Hall, not so much for his very average stats but for his part in Championships that the Yankees won. If he had been a Senator or a St. Louis Brown he would have been forgotten. It is a factor.

My opinion is everything counts, you throw it into a giant pot at the end of the career and weigh it all against each other

and stir it up. If Thornton and Messier wind up with similar career stats, Messier gets the nod because of his reputation as a warrior in the postseason and the fact that he won a lot of cups. On paper there is not a lot that seperates Lafleur from a dozen other guys who are HOFers but not revered as all time greats, it is the Cups that were won that unbalances it.

Like I said I agree with Williams.

Yeah, in Williams only world series appearance, he ran into some damn good opponents.

Isn't that the same as Bourque's Bruins running into Gretzky's Oilers in the 88 Finals? Or Messier's Oilers in the 1990 finals?

 

Those teams just dwarfed the Bruins in terms of talent and depth.

[fanaticV3.0]

I doubt it.

Dionne was a guy whose play supposedly went WAAAAAAAAY down in the playoffs.

 

Bourque was a guy who was considered to have elevated his play in the playoffs and his teams got molested by better teams, usually when he was on the bench because he could not play 60 minutes of a game.

 

The same way nobody held it against Gretzky for not winning it in LA.

 

It is rare to have such universal support for a player who moved to another team as Bourque got because he was so superhuman, carrying those average bruins teams. It was beyond weird to see even Habs fans cheering for Bourque to win a cup, saying he deserved it when he moved.

 

 

Iginla is a nice guy and great player, but nowhere near as many people were rooting for him last season or the season past. It was barely a blip on the radar.

 

1771 career points in 1348 games. That's good for an average of 1.31ppg.

45 career points in 49 PO games. That's good for an average of .92ppg, which is less than 1.31, but in no way even a little bit bad.

 

But not his team's, eh? Before you lose it, no I'm not saying he's not a great player. I know he was, but he never carried a team. I will concede though that it's a team game. I just can't completely ignore the fact that he didn't win a Cup until he played for a team with 3 additional HOFers.

[fanaticV3.0]

I AGREE Bourque is a hofer and one of the top two or three d-men of all time. But if he had never won a cup it would be mentioned in the same way as Dionne and in the same way that Ernie Banks never won with the Cubs.

Individual stats are just that, but superstars are supposed to lead their team to the promised land. Those that don't win a Championship have that hanging over them.

 

Do you think Bourque lead that Colorado team to a Cup though? As opposed to just being a part of the team?

 

I'm stuck somewhere between you and @JackStraw. I think you put a lot, maybe even too much, emphasis on team accomplishments when judging a player. If you take two guys with similar career numbers, but one has a Cup and the other doesn't, I can't say the one is great because he has the Cup and the other doesn't. A lot of it depend son which team you play for. But I do agree leading a team to a championship can mean something.

[mojo1917]

I think about greatness like this.  Was that player the best at anything ?  Did that player dominate the league at all ?  Would you go see that player play just to say I saw him play ? Is there anyone else from that players era that you would consider picking for your team other than that player ?  .  

 

In tennis I can't help but think about poor Andy Roddick, by all accounts a good dude. a tireless worker, supremely talented, huge booming serve and forehand but reached his peak at the same time as Roger Federer.  Does the fact that Andy has only 1 major championship diminish his greatness ?  In the context of always having to play against the arguably the greatest player ever and certainly of his generation, I say no. Roddick was great and would be hall of fame worthy.

 

Does 1 championship make Dr J any less great ?  No  Charles Barkely with zero, how about Dominque Wilkins ? 

 

Thorton has had a nice career, I'd take him on my team, he's been great and will most likely be in the HOF,  I will not flip out that he's won no championships.

[JackStraw]

Dan Marino is another one. Nobody can say that he wasn't one of the greatest QBs of all time, but no championships and only got to one SB iirc. And QBs probably have a greater influence on games than almost any other position in sports (hockey goalie being the other obvious one).

[fanaticV3.0]

Thats a really good question and something I wonder about as well. The folks you mentioned all had that killer instinct. Lindros had it if you really pissed him off, but for the most part I got the feeling he was just ho hum. I also like the point of captaincy. I think both Joe and Lindros would have benefitted allot more by not having the weight of the C on them to be the one to lead and just go out an play.

 

There is a part of me that believes if Lindros ended up on Quebec/Colorado, and if he and his parents could put their egos aside, he'd have won the two Forsberg did. Agreed on both him and Thornton. Some guys, even "great" players, aren't meant to lead. They just need to be able to go out and perform.

 

This entire conversation makes me think of Mark Messier. He led a team to a Cup after that all-star team he played for broke up. Even Gretzky didn't do that. I think he might be the only guy from those Oilers Cup teams to do that. That is great imo.

[fanaticV3.0]

Dan Marino is another one. Nobody can say that he wasn't one of the greatest QBs of all time, but no championships and only got to one SB iirc. And QBs probably have a greater influence on games than almost any other position in sports (hockey goalie being the other obvious one).

 

I dunno man. I can think of 5 and maybe even 10 guys I'd rather build my team around than him. Great player for sure, but he's not exactly a winner. No championships, 8-10 PO record, something like a 77 rating in playoff games too. It's a team game, I get it, but you can't ignore those numbers. All of the positives about him revolved around individual play.

[mojo1917]

I dunno man. I can think of 5 and maybe even 10 guys I'd rather build my team around than him. Great player for sure, but he's not exactly a winner. No championships, 8-10 PO record, something like a 77 rating in playoff games too. It's a team game, I get it, but you can't ignore those numbers. All of the positives about him revolved around individual play.

 

I disagree with your point here.  Marino's playoff teams never had a shot because the defense was either depleted by injury or porous.  Last I checked Quarterback isn't a defensive position.   Football is a sport where one guy definitely gets too much credit and blame for team successes or failings.  put him on those San Francisco teams and there wouldn't be a passing record in the books he wouldn't own along with all the Lombardi trophies Montana won and maybe some he didn't.