TOMapleLaughs Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 And while you're capitalizing Naslund's team accomplishments relative to the league, you're still ignoring Bure's accomplishments that matter to the Canucks. fyi. Capitalizing doesn't make those accomplishments considerably more significant than they were. Meanwhile, you make it important that Naslund's performance relative to the league is considerably significant, but then brush off Bure's HHOF nod as unimportant, because it doesn't involve the Canucks? Straw man argument. Take off the blinders and you'll realize that Bure's significance to this franchise at least rivals Naslund's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Personally, if I had to pick one of them in their prime to be on our team right now, it would be Bure in a heartbeat. Naslund was impressive but Bure was magnificent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M A K A V E L I 96 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Over a 5 year period, nobody IN THE ENTIRE LEAGUE put up more points than Naslund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Well is the HHoF to celebrate great players or great careers? The two aren't always the one and the same. I'm not really sold Gilles should be in the HHoF. But if he was deemed worthy, how could he be more worthy than Goring? There's been many inducted in HHoF that have made me scratch the old dome. Then there's others that get passed over for years like Howe. The same could be said of retiring a number. Should it be for great players, or great Canucks? Messier was a great player, not really a great Canuck. Mogilny was a great player, but not really a great Canuck. Linden wasn't a great player but was a great Canuck. Bure was a great player, but I don't see him as a great Canuck. Honestly, ten years ago when asked about great Canucks it was always 3 names came immediately to mind: Smyl, Snepsts and Linden. Tanti was more talented than Smyl shouldn't we be retiring his number? Yes talent should play into it but it's not all about talent alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 And yet I don't have to beliitle players to make my points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Snepsts? M'kay... Dodging the point doesn't invalidate it. Since we haven't won a cup at all, Bure not winning one shouldn't count against him when comparing to Naslund. Note that before Naslund's jersey retirement, it was playoff success, such as it was, that determined who got their jersey hung up in this town. Now that Naslund's is up as well, it would seem that the requirements have changed. ie. The requirements aren't set in stone. Knowing that the requirements are flexible, there is certainly room for both Naslund's and Bure's jerseys. -Meanwhile, your 'much much longer' equates to just four seasons. Four more seasons for Nazzy as a Canuck. That's it? That's hardly significant. -Naslund as 'captain' didn't lead this team to anything but one playoff round victory and probably the most humiliating 2nd round loss in team history. You're right. That's significant. Meanwhile, Bure scored the most famous and clutch goal in team history en route to our greatest, most unexpected 'heart-filled' run in team history. Gee, that sounds significant too, although... Kinda better, y'think? (Roberto was Captain. Messier was Captain. The Captain card doesn't get you far here, i'm afraid. Esp. one with almost zero playoff success.) -Funny how Naslund's winning of a Pearson is significant, but Bure's HOF nod doesn't apply here. Hmmm... I think the second one is a bit more significant, don't you agree? -Naslund owns Canuck records for all-time goals, all-time points, and all-time powerplay goals. That's three Canuck records. -Bure owns Canuck records for all-time shorthanded goals, most goals by a rookie, most points by a rookie, most goals in a season, all-time playoff goals, most points in a playoff run and most goals in a playoff run. That's seven Canuck records. Bure seems to have a bigger boatload of team records, y'think? -Bure scored 60 goals two seasons in a row and has five 50+ goal season, including ones in the dead puck era. Naslund's peak was 48, thanks to the Bertuzzi pushoff play with the man advantage. -Bure scored more points (107,110) in a season twice than Naslund's peak (104) -Bure's best +/- is +35 (one off from team record). Naslund's is +22. The list goes on the more you actually look into it, bud. Yet you think i'm the one with the blinders on? Okay, Harold. The only reason Naslund's was retired before Bure's was because it was more difficult to patch things up with Bure. Naslund was actually surprised when they retired his jersey and so were a lot of fans, but now that it's done, Bure's will likely go up soon. Esp. after the hall of fame nod, which, really, wasn't surprising at all because it's well-deserved. Just like his jersey retirement here in Vancouver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Quite the case you're making. Good work. I find 1138, 896, and 894 considerably more significant than 428. So terribly sorry if that offends you so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 And while you're capitalizing Naslund's team accomplishments relative to the league, you're still ignoring Bure's accomplishments that matter to the Canucks. fyi. Capitalizing doesn't make those accomplishments considerably more significant than they were. Meanwhile, you make it important that Naslund's performance relative to the league is considerably significant, but then brush off Bure's HHOF nod as unimportant, because it doesn't involve the Canucks? Straw man argument. Take off the blinders and you'll realize that Bure's significance to this franchise at least rivals Naslund's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Your whole point in this thread is to belittle Pavel Bure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 You seem to be confused by the difference between a league wide accomplishment as a Canuck and career accomplishment as a player. Bure is in the HHoF because of his entire career, not because he was a Canuck. Bure led the Canucks in points 4 times Naslund led the Canucks in points 7 consecutive years Does one of those seem more significant than the other? Bure played 428 games for the Canucks Naslund played 894 games for the Canucks Does one of those seem more significant than the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 You have great employee that moves on to a new employer after 5 years, and a very good employee that stays for 25 years. Who gets the gold watch? So now bure was here 5yrs and nazzy 25yrs? WowZers. Do you like the sound of your own voice or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 You seem to be confused by the difference between a league wide accomplishment as a Canuck and career accomplishment as a player. Bure is in the HHoF because of his entire career, not because he was a Canuck. Bure led the Canucks in points 4 times Naslund led the Canucks in points 7 consecutive years Does one of those seem more significant than the other? Bure played 428 games for the Canucks Naslund played 894 games for the Canucks Does one of those seem more significant than the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimito Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 saw this randomly on utube. man bure was so fast. the 2nd goal looked just like the 94 gm 7 OT goal in round 1. also, check out the fan with nux jersey in japan. http://youtu.be/jL_p_kMMc5E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauii Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 ^^^ thanks for sharing. He could have won that game singlehandedly...unbelievable. He looks even faster on an international level. Reminds me of my nephew..out of 10 goals he would have scored 8 or he'd tell me how his team was losing and down a few goals and so he'd score a couple and they'd win. His mom tells me he'd done that a couple of times. Unfortunately this is for soccer, hopefully, he can transfer this on the ice someday although I think he wants to be a goalie for hockey. Apparently, on his first debut as a goalie, he did great and won. Maybe my pointers helped him out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 So you seem to think that he would've made the hall without the Canuck years? If so, please stop. Once again, you're ignoring Bure's other Canucks-related accomplishments when relating to Naslund. Point to Naslund's playoff success, for starters. Canuck all-time playoff goals and points? Oh right, Bure owns those records. No really... We get it, Baggins. You think season games played matters a lot. And it does, but before Naslund's jersey retirement, season records wasn't the bar used by the Canucks. Playoff success was. ie. We 'lowered the bar' with Naslund's jersey retirement. Needless to say, the bar is adjustable. I think the Canucks will raise it again with a Bure jersey retirement. The selection committee has a majority of Bure-lovers, Francesco wants his jersey retired, the fans want it, and it makes a lot of sense, esp. after the Naslund jersey retirement. So I think it's going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Zero Stanley Cups.... What playoff success? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Zero Stanley Cups.... What playoff success? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoasting Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I don't know if any of you know of Tony Tanti or watched him play at all but i was just looking at his numbers and they are basically identical to Pavel's other than he played 90 more games as a Canuck. During his time he was the star during that period. Shouldn't we be retiring his number first? Or does he not count for anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 A question for Trevor Linden and Stan Smyl as well. (You lost.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.