yave1964 Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 1 minute ago, JagerMeister said: I don't give credence to cup wins, I give credence to individual postseason performances IN cup wins. Which I even said in my original post, that Messier was a superior playoff performer. Yes, Messier has exceeded every offensive career total of Clarke, but wouldn't you concur that's attributed more to longevity and not actual skill as a player? During their primes, they are incredibly close as players since Clarke's phenomenal two way play negates Messier's small offensive gap. Now that you explained your rationale though, I find myself agreeing with you. During their primes both players were incredibly close, but Messier's moderately better playoff performances and longevity give him a slight edge IMO. Clarke had an amazing prime but it burned bright and then he slid into simply being a very good player in a short time. Messier had a much longer prime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 4 minutes ago, yave1964 said: Clarke had an amazing prime but it burned bright and then he slid into simply being a very good player in a short time. Messier had a much longer prime. I don't know if that's true Yave, he was a top ten point producer in the league 9 times. Is being 8th in points with excellent defense really just a "very good player"? Because Toews hasn't been a top ten point producer in the league once In his career. He has stellar defense and you hold him in high regard. Clarke Points1971-72 NHL 81 (10)1972-73 NHL 104 (2)1973-74 NHL 87 (5)1974-75 NHL 116 (6)1975-76 NHL 119 (2)1976-77 NHL 90 (8)1977-78 NHL 89 (8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 55 minutes ago, JackStraw said: Clarke probably doesn't get as much respect as he deserves, because of the whole thug hockey rep. The guy won three Hart Trophies during the prime years of Esposito and Orr. You have to be pretty good to do that. He really was a very similar player to Gretzky. Not saying he was as good, but he used skill and brains- always seemed to know where the puck was going before everyone else. True, but that is negated by the fact that Messier also won titles with Gretzky and Lemieux. And his top ten point finishes are heavily skewed because of having his career at the same time as two of the greatest offensive producers of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 1 hour ago, JackStraw said: What I remember about Mikita is that his style was different. He didn't "cheat" like most other centers did. You couldn't tell whether he was going forehand or backhand, and his hands were so quick, he was like a pickpocket. I can't really remember Mikita and Clarke going head to head (although I'm sure they did) so I don't know who would win. Speaking of skill..... I think to be an elite faceoff guy you have to be able to win them all kinds of ways against all kinds of players using all kinds of techniques. Clarke used to sally up to the dot with his hands in one position then switch, often more than once. It was watching him that I learned almost all I know about faceoffs. Playing the opponent's stick first, then the puck, is perhaps my favorite method against unsuspecting young'uns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 22 minutes ago, JagerMeister said: True, but that is negated by the fact that Messier also won titles with Gretzky and Lemieux. And his top ten point finishes are heavily skewed because of having his career at the same time as two of the greatest offensive producers of all time. Messier also put up a lot of points playing in a high scoring era for the highest scoring team. Clarke played in a lower scoring era, on a team that stressed team defense. I don't think comparing stats really tells the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 Just now, JackStraw said: Messier also put up a lot of points playing in a high scoring era for the highest scoring team. Clarke played in a lower scoring era, on a team that stressed team defense. I don't think comparing stats really tells the story. But Messier already proved himself as a player without Edmonton. Also, I wasn`t comparing stats, I was comparing their top ten point finishes in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 8 minutes ago, JagerMeister said: But Messier already proved himself as a player without Edmonton. Also, I wasn`t comparing stats, I was comparing their top ten point finishes in the league. How many of Messier's top 10 point finishes were with Edmonton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 20 minutes ago, Podein25 said: Speaking of skill..... I think to be an elite faceoff guy you have to be able to win them all kinds of ways against all kinds of players using all kinds of techniques. Clarke used to sally up to the dot with his hands in one position then switch, often more than once. It was watching him that I learned almost all I know about faceoffs. Playing the opponent's stick first, then the puck, is perhaps my favorite method against unsuspecting young'uns. Sounds like the kind of sneaky trick you would pull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Just now, JackStraw said: Sounds like the kind of sneaky trick you would pull. It can lead to getting kicked out if the dumb linesman doesn't drop the puck right away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yave1964 Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 41 minutes ago, JagerMeister said: I don't know if that's true Yave, he was a top ten point producer in the league 9 times. Is being 8th in points with excellent defense really just a "very good player"? Because Toews hasn't been a top ten point producer in the league once In his career. He has stellar defense and you hold him in high regard. Clarke Points1971-72 NHL 81 (10)1972-73 NHL 104 (2)1973-74 NHL 87 (5)1974-75 NHL 116 (6)1975-76 NHL 119 (2)1976-77 NHL 90 (8)1977-78 NHL 89 (8) First to put Clarke's defense in the class of Toews or Bergeron is simply looking back at the past and romanticizing things. He was a good defender, nothing more. Never considered while he played to be the greatest defensive forward of his era. Never close. As for his scoring, your numbers prove my point. After peaking in 1976 with 119 points at the age of 27, he never came close to those numbers again. He slid down steadily from there every year, to 90, (a 25 percent drop) 89, 73, 69,65, and 63 before a bit of a bounceback with a fluky 85 point year before calling it a career with 60 points in 1984. After the age of 27 he was a good, not great player. Messier after the age of 29 had 111 points in a year and 129 in another and then 107 in yet another. He also scored 90 plus 3 other times. Plus the cups that you do not hold in as high of a regard as I do, his two most famous cups were 1989 after Gretzky left and in 1994 with the Blueshirts where he seemingly willed them to a cup. Both were past his prime and he was a massive part of both and a big contributor. Just ask the Devils. So Clarke was a good player past the age of 27 who never led his team to much after that age. Messier led his teams to 2 cups after that age, not a spear carrier, he LED them. What kills him is he hung around too long, Clarke had the sense to get out when the getting was good, when he could still contribute. He never went through the 'sad old man trying to hang on' phase that many if not most go through. Messier stuck around for about 3 or 4 years too long which is what a lot of people remember when they think of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 1 minute ago, JackStraw said: How many of Messier's top 10 point finishes were with Edmonton? 4 out of 6 with Edmonton, 3 out of six with Gretzky. But that shouldn`t in any way whatsoever denigrate him as a player seeing as he won all his regular season hardware without Gretzky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 2 minutes ago, yave1964 said: First to put Clarke's defense in the class of Toews or Bergeron is simply looking back at the past and romanticizing things. He was a good defender, nothing more. Never considered while he played to be the greatest defensive forward of his era. Never close. As for his scoring, your numbers prove my point. After peaking in 1976 with 119 points at the age of 27, he never came close to those numbers again. He slid down steadily from there every year, to 90, (a 25 percent drop) 89, 73, 69,65, and 63 before a bit of a bounceback with a fluky 85 point year before calling it a career with 60 points in 1984. After the age of 27 he was a good, not great player. Messier after the age of 29 had 111 points in a year and 129 in another and then 107 in yet another. He also scored 90 plus 3 other times. Plus the cups that you do not hold in as high of a regard as I do, his two most famous cups were 1989 after Gretzky left and in 1994 with the Blueshirts where he seemingly willed them to a cup. Both were past his prime and he was a massive part of both and a big contributor. Just ask the Devils. So Clarke was a good player past the age of 27 who never led his team to much after that age. Messier led his teams to 2 cups after that age, not a spear carrier, he LED them. What kills him is he hung around too long, Clarke had the sense to get out when the getting was good, when he could still contribute. He never went through the 'sad old man trying to hang on' phase that many if not most go through. Messier stuck around for about 3 or 4 years too long which is what a lot of people remember when they think of him. Really? the bolded astonishes me since I have seen him ranked as a top ten two way forward of all time, not just here mind you. And if he isn`t as good as you say he was defensively, then you are right. that descends him to very good player level. But I have a lot of trouble believing he was JUST good defensively, then why did he win the selke as a 33 year old in his second to last year past his prime? Anyways, I think JackStraw and Podein can attest to whether what you say is true or not.... But you`re making a really good case for Messier, damn you yave!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 9 minutes ago, JagerMeister said: Really? the bolded astonishes me since I have seen him ranked as a top ten two way forward of all time, not just here mind you. And if he isn`t as good as you say he was defensively, then you are right. that descends him to very good player level. But I have a lot of trouble believing he was JUST good defensively, then why did he win the selke as a 33 year old in his second to last year past his prime? Anyways, I think JackStraw and Podein can attest to whether what you say is true or not.... But you`re making a really good case for Messier, damn you yave!!! I think @yave1964 overstated his case. The fact that he (eventually) won a Selke means he was in that conversation all along. But they don't typically give the Selek to guys in the 100 pts range. Clarke was a 200' player and probably the hardest working athlete of his time. He hated losing, hated getting scored on and that attitude spread to those on the ice with him, so that adds up to what we might call defence. Faceoffs have already been mentioned. He took a lot of them, especially in his own zone. I'm not sure what else is involved in being a good defensive player. A good stick? Smarts? Physical strength? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 4 minutes ago, Podein25 said: I think @yave1964 overstated his case. The fact that he (eventually) won a Selke means he was in that conversation all along. But they don't typically give the Selek to guys in the 100 pts range. Clarke was a 200' player and probably the hardest working athlete of his time. He hated losing, hated getting scored on and that attitude spread to those on the ice with him, so that adds up to what we might call defence. Faceoffs have already been mentioned. He took a lot of them, especially in his own zone. I'm not sure what else is involved in being a good defensive player. A good stick? Smarts? Physical strength? And to add to that, the selke wasn't created until after Clarke`s peak years. Then Bob Gainey came in and disguised himself as a forward, winning 4 selke`s during other years Clarke could have won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 1 minute ago, JagerMeister said: And one crucial point, the selke wasn't created until after Clarke`s best years. Really? What year? I totally forgot that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 Just now, Podein25 said: Really? What year? I totally forgot that 1977 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 1 minute ago, JagerMeister said: And one crucial point, the selke wasn't created until after Clarke`s best years. Then Bob Gainey came in and disguised himself as a forward, winning 4 selke`s during other years Clarke could have won. For what it's worth, the historians at the Society For International Hockey Research went through a voting process to fill in the gaps for the major awards. When all was said and done, they named Bobby Clarke the Selke winner for 1974 and '75. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 1 minute ago, JR Ewing said: For what it's worth, the historians at the Society For International Hockey Research went through a voting process to fill in the gaps for the major awards. When all was said and done, they named Bobby Clarke the Selke winner for 1974 and '75. Thanks for the info, but I'm not certain if that's enough to have Clarke over Messier IMO. Right now I'm leaning towards Messier but It can change at any moment if someone makes a convincing enough case, that's how close it is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 4 minutes ago, JR Ewing said: the Society For International Hockey Research Nerd! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Just now, JagerMeister said: Thanks for the info, but I'm not certain if that's enough to have Clarke over Messier IMO. Right now I'm leaning towards Messier but It can change at any moment if someone makes a convincing enough case, that's how close it is... I don't provide the info in an attempt to sway the argument; only to give more context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 Just now, JR Ewing said: I don't provide the info in an attempt to sway the argument; only to give more context. Ah, but the context you provide could sway the argument... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 4 minutes ago, JagerMeister said: Ah, but the context you provide could sway the argument... As I would hope, but let's face it: most people settle on an opinion, and then pick and choose the facts which best represent that stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 8 minutes ago, JR Ewing said: most people settle on an opinion Some people shouldn't have opinions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blocker Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I'd pick Clarke. He had more abilities. As far as face-offs go, I'd add Derek Sanderson to the mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 23 minutes ago, Podein25 said: Some people shouldn't have opinions I agree, except I'm completely serious. Some people shouldn't have opinions. Fortunately for this site, Phlfly is the only case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.