Bure vs Boeser

[canucklehead44]

Bure but statistically they are on par. Bure gave is that glimpse of super stardom, Boeser will probably be a top sniper. That said I was too young to really appreciate Bure (born in 87).

I was very young in the 90s but I have memories of Vancouver being such an incredible place. Unpretentious, affordable, character and the mid nineties Canucks were awesome.

 

For the folks born in the 60s or 70s who have a more accurate perspective has the city changed a lot for the worse ? I disliked it so much I left but not sure if going from love to hate was just my personal experience or the city itself?

[TNucks1]

two different players and Bures a HHOF, i didnt watch hockey back then but from the highlights and videos ive seen.

also if you guys ever wanna watch any of em makaveli has done some awesome highlights on YT.

[chon derry]

this is a similar comparison to Mario was on pace to end up with more points OA  than gretzki, but retired because of health reasons........never happened  bure played 3 more games and had 5 more points ,bure's breakout speed was unmatched ,all that said if brock wasn't injured he would go down  as being better just on more points........never happened   ............so it ends up another 'what if ' scenario., 

[chon derry]

29 minutes ago, canucklehead44 said:

Bure but statistically they are on par. Bure gave is that glimpse of super stardom, Boeser will probably be a top sniper. That said I was too young to really appreciate Bure (born in 87).

I was very young in the 90s but I have memories of Vancouver being such an incredible place. Unpretentious, affordable, character and the mid nineties Canucks were awesome.

 

For the folks born in the 60s or 70s who have a more accurate perspective has the city changed a lot for the worse ? I disliked it so much I left but not sure if going from love to hate was just my personal experience or the city itself?

the words affordable and Vancouver have never been able to be in the same sentence. I left in 79 after 8 months then again in 88 after 1 year both because of affordability. and now its insanely worse than both of my examples. BUT its Vancouver, cream o the crop,top o the heap  A #1  

[canucklehead44]

6 minutes ago, chon derry said:

the words affordable and Vancouver have never been able to be in the same sentence. I left in 79 after 8 months then again in 88 after 1 year both because of affordability. and now its insanely worse than both of my examples. BUT its Vancouver, cream o the crop,top o the heap  A #1  

Affordable isn’t the right word, and I guess it is perspective. Prices in 79 and 88 are downright cheap to me. 

 

Interest rates were crazy yes. But the amount of money I saved for a 20% down payment in my 70 year old Toronto bungalow would have bought it outright plus a new car (cash) in the 80s adjusted for inflation. Not to mention saving in a high interest rate environment. 

 

My company has an office in Atlanta and it sounds like paradise there for young people compared to the insane costs and crap weather of Canada 

 

 

 

 

[chon derry]

1 minute ago, canucklehead44 said:

Affordable isn’t the right word, and I guess it is perspective. Prices in 79 and 88 are downright cheap to me. 

 

Interest rates were crazy yes. But the amount of money I saved for a 20% down payment in my 70 year old Toronto bungalow would have bought it outright plus a new car (cash) in the 80s adjusted for inflation. Not to mention saving in a high interest rate environment. 

 

My company has an office in Atlanta and it sounds like paradise there for young people compared to the insane costs and crap weather of Canada 

 

 

 

 

in 88 there was a real affordability issue but there was an availability issue that  compounded the affordability issue. which has only gotten worse  my niece's basement suite in Burnaby costs her twice as much as my mortgage ,anyway I don't want derail another thread with a anti Vancouver thingy, because as a city I still really really love Vancouver as a city!

[IBatch]

12 hours ago, coastal.view said:

i have posted something similar before

comparable numbers do not at all tell the whole story

brock is a sniper and so he looks good statistically

he was largely ignored by other teams till around january 2018

he never took over games nor had other teams game plan to stop him all over the ice

 

bure was different and phenom

it was evident the first time he stepped on the ice

he was faster and more powerful then any other player

he was a bit raw but he scared the bejeebers out of other teams

they game planned against him almost immediately

he would embarrass other teams and other players

he took over games even in his first year

he was not just a sniper

he had many more components to his game

a much more complete and feared player

 

i would not trade a 1st year bure for a 1st year brock

but i'd trade a 1st year brock for a 1st year bure in a heart beat

i saw both play in their first years

the stats really are the only thing that they seem to compare quite well at

 

their 1st years are now done

i really like brock

brock could develop into a bossy

and have a better overall career then bure

if he reaches that level then we can compare the mature bure and the mature brock

 

This is pretty much exactly how I feel experiencing both seasons as well.   From his first shift it was obvious we had something uniquely special in Bure.   Boeser is special too, just in a different way, but not unique.  Reminds me a bit of Hull, Robataille, just a hard accurate shot.  Bossy works too, man we will be lucky if he can have a career as or near as good as any of these guys.  

 

Bure was the most exciting player of his generation, which says a lot given who was playing then, and only Selanne could almost keep up with him when he was scoring fifty in the peak of the dead puck era on a middling at  best Florida team.

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, chon derry said:

this is a similar comparison to Mario was on pace to end up with more points OA  than gretzki, but retired because of health reasons........never happened  bure played 3 more games and had 5 more points ,bure's breakout speed was unmatched ,all that said if brock wasn't injured he would go down  as being better just on more points........never happened   ............so it ends up another 'what if ' scenario., 

Mario never was on track to put up numbers to pass Gretzky, four two hundred plus seasons kind of put that out of reach although he did have one 199 point year.   When he retired the first time his PPG was a little higher Gretzky's, but he hadn't come close to a decline yet, which eventually did come and by the end slipped lower than Gretzky, playing almost half the games.   Gretzky also posted unreal stats in his late prime in LA, with a lot less to work with than Lemuiex had in the early nineties.   Both were absolutely unreal players, playing in a much higher scoring era (which kept up right until 1995).  

 

At this point it's fun to compare Bure and Boeser's rookie years, but Brock had a lot to do before we can truly compare careers, Bure was the main incentive for Gretzky to come to Vancouver (rudeness killed a done deal with one late night call, Gretzky explains it well in his book), he was truly one of the top hundred ever to lace them up, and the most exciting player in the NHL for a decade, even when Lemuiex was at the peak of his powers. 

[chon derry]

5 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Mario never was on track to put up numbers to pass Gretzky, four two hundred plus seasons kind of put that out of reach although he did have one 199 point year.   When he retired the first time his PPG was a little higher Gretzky's, but he hadn't come close to a decline yet, which eventually did come and by the end slipped lower than Gretzky, playing almost half the games.   Gretzky also posted unreal stats in his late prime in LA, with a lot less to work with than Lemuiex had in the early nineties.   Both were absolutely unreal players, playing in a much higher scoring era (which kept up right until 1995).  

 

At this point it's fun to compare Bure and Boeser's rookie years, but Brock had a lot to do before we can truly compare careers, Bure was the main incentive for Gretzky to come to Vancouver (rudeness killed a done deal with one late night call, Gretzky explains it well in his book), he was truly one of the top hundred ever to lace them up, and the most exciting player in the NHL for a decade, even when Lemuiex was at the peak of his powers. 

I agree gretzky was tops I merely made a comparison of a comparison. there are people in the world that do believe Mario would have beaten wayne , i'm not one of them..........

[TheGuardian_]

14 hours ago, -AJ- said:

When Boeser began his rookie season, it became clear that he was on pace to challenge Bure as the best Canuck rookie of all-time. Still, he had to be consistent. And he was. He kept scoring and scoring. Unfortunately for many of us, Boeser suffered injuries just before he could catch Bure in the rookie records. Bure finished with 34 goals in 1991-92 to Boeser's 29 and Bure (and Hlinka) had 60 points to Boeser's 55. Bure wins this time.

 

But did he? Although Bure appears to top Boeser in most statistics for their rookie seasons, there are several factors to consider here. I made a table to lay some of them out (this is obviously not all that you can consider, but it's something):

 

 

I want to make it EXTREMELY CLEAR, that I am not comparing Bure later on in his career to 29-goal Boeser. This is NOT a comparison of 60- or 50-goal Bure to Boeser, but strictly a comparison of their rookie seasons. There's no question that Bure went on to a be a superstar in his heyday, and Boeser has yet to do that. The focus of this comparison is on their rookie campaigns.

 

In the end, I see that Boeser and Bure were very close in all their primary offensive statistics and taking that into account along with the difference in scoring for their respective eras, I'd personally put Boeser's rookie season ahead of Bure's. Still, there are other factors that don't show up as clearly on the stat sheet. How were they defensively? How much were they carried by their teammates? How much did they carry the team themselves and make things happen? Many of these questions are hard for me to answer, as I wasn't around back in 1991-92 to witness Bure's great rookie season. All that said, my vote still goes to Boeser's rookie season, but it's not by a long shot; Boeser's rookie year only barely edges out Bure's 1991-92 season in my estimation. We can only hope Boeser's sophomore year is as good as Bure's.

 

I brought this up briefly in the Boeser player thread a while back, but I wanted to see what the larger audience of CDC thought about it.

I think a telling stat would be puck possession time, Bure owned the puck and his presence on the ice had teams backing up before he even got the puck, his first shift as a Canuck he skated through the entire opposition team for a shot on goal. Bure didn't need any other players on the ice to score.

 

Boeser is more of finisher, a sniper, a Mike Bossy type player, he doesn't have the puck for very long. It is his accuracy, strength of his hot and quick delivery. It was not unusual for Bure to skate end to end out dangling the other team.

 

Also the two era's were vastly different, a regular game in Bure's day is comparable to a playoff game today, lots of holding, hooking, slashing and just the need to fight through checks constantly, that is one reason the "big" guy was out there, to get the star the room to play.

 

I am not talking about Bure's career, he was like that from day one, the first day he stepped onto the ice and he wasn't used to the NHL/North American game.

 

You should look up Bure's first shift on the ice in youtube.

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, chon derry said:

I agree gretzky was tops I merely made a comparison of a comparison. there are people in the world that do believe Mario would have beaten wayne , i'm not one of them..........

Cheers, I do remember the talk.  The best series all-time was Mario's coming out party, he acknowledges that when he saw how hard Gretzky and others worked it changed his career, and the magic they created together in 87 against the Soviet Union was unreal.  

[189lb enforcers?]

For those of you who might not have a proper reference, the only thing comparable to Bure in today’s game is McDavid. 

 

What’s being lost in here, simply to prop up Brock, is Bure’s shot.

 

Had Bure wanted to be a sniper, he’d have been a sniper.

 

There were plenty of snipes, especially in the years after the rookie season. Bure’s shot was everything Boeser’s is, even with the wooden sticks of the day. I think it is foolish to prop up Brock’s shot by assuming he was better with it than Bure. When he cranked off a wrist shot from the blue line, Bure would score, but he seemed to love earning it a little more and would get in closer for an even crazier play.

 

What I mean to say is, Bure could snipe, but he chose to skate it in and score more often than he’d just shoot. His shot was lethal. Let’s not forget that element of his overall game. 

 

I can recall an instance against the Leafs. Potivin was in net and the play had come out of Toronto’s end, it must have been a Dman lugging the puck out. 

Bure caught up to him and lifting the player’s stick, he got the puck, stopped on a dime and as the player was realizing that he’d been checked, Bure spun around and in seemingly in one motion, hammered off a slap shot from basically Center ice ... and scored. 

 

No no disrespect to Brock, love the kid, but this is a ridiculous concept that would embarrass Brock, himself. He has humility. 

 

In order to make this comparison, all sorts of *ifs and *buts, and imagination must be worked into their stats, which is not at all a science even though it’s a use math.

 

Who had a better rookie season, or, who had the best PPG average? 

Stats don't tell the enire story. You have to have been there, that’s all I can really say. 

 

 

[chon derry]

24 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

For those of you who might not have a proper reference, the only thing comparable to Bure in today’s game is McDavid. 

 

What’s being lost in here, simply to prop up Brock, is Bure’s shot.

 

Had Bure wanted to be a sniper, he’d have been a sniper.

 

There were plenty of snipes, especially in the years after the rookie season. Bure’s shot was everything Boeser’s is, even with the wooden sticks of the day. I think it is foolish to prop up Brock’s shot by assuming he was better with it than Bure. When he cranked off a wrist shot from the blue line, Bure would score, but he seemed to love earning it a little more and would get in closer for an even crazier play. What I mean to say is, Bure could snipe, but he chose to skate it in and score more often than he’d just shoot. His shot was lethal. Let’s not forget that element to his overall game. 

 

I can recall an instance against the Leafs. Potivin was in net and the play had come out of Toronto’s end, it must have been a Dman lugging the puck out. 

Bure caught up to him and lifting the player’s stick, he got the puck, stopped on a dime and as the player was realizing that he’d been checked, Bure spun around and in seemingly in one motion, hammered off a slap shot from basically Center ice ... and scored. 

 

No no disrespect to Brock, love the kid, but this is a ridiculous concept that would embarrass Brock, himself. He has humility. 

 

In order to make this comparison, all sorts of *ifs and *buts, and imagination must be worked into their stats, which is not at all a science even though it’s a use math.

 

Who had a better rookie season, or, who had the best PPG average? 

Stats don't tell the enire story. You have to have been there, that’s all I can really say. 

 

 

the first goal says it all! he could get in so fast he had to resort to soccer moves because he went  past the  puck. not to take anything away from boeser but theres some posters that weren't even born back then.  PB was insanely FAST.

 

[189lb enforcers?]

6 minutes ago, chon derry said:

the first goal says it all! he could get in so fast he had to resort to soccer moves because he went  past the  puck. not to take anything away from boeser but theres some posters that weren't even born back then.  PB was insanely FAST.

 

Fast... with the puck. 

As I said above, I can only see McJesus as a comparable for Bure. 

Love Brock and all, but this stats claim is likely held together by chewing gum. 

 

As an aside, I think EP has some Bure in him. He might be the closest we’ve had since. 

 

[chon derry]

the other side of bure , churla was NO SLOUCH  BURE WASNT EITHER  

 

[Amebushi]

17 hours ago, coastal.view said:

i have posted something similar before

comparable numbers do not at all tell the whole story

brock is a sniper and so he looks good statistically

he was largely ignored by other teams till around january 2018

he never took over games nor had other teams game plan to stop him all over the ice

 

bure was different and phenom

it was evident the first time he stepped on the ice

he was faster and more powerful then any other player

he was a bit raw but he scared the bejeebers out of other teams

they game planned against him almost immediately

he would embarrass other teams and other players

he took over games even in his first year

he was not just a sniper

he had many more components to his game

a much more complete and feared player

 

i would not trade a 1st year bure for a 1st year brock

but i'd trade a 1st year brock for a 1st year bure in a heart beat

i saw both play in their first years

the stats really are the only thing that they seem to compare quite well at

 

their 1st years are now done

i really like brock

brock could develop into a bossy

and have a better overall career then bure

if he reaches that level then we can compare the mature bure and the mature brock

 

This pretty much sums it up. Bure scared other teams from the moment he stepped on the ice. People bought tickets and became hockey fans based on Pavel being in the lineup. He could score goals with beer league line mates, it didn't matter.

Boeser is a special kid with a great shot, and he makes the team better. I think he had a great season and will only get better. No disrespect as saying Bure was a better rookie than Brock is like saying Brett Hull wasn't as good as Gretzky. I don't think it's a fair comparison and that most of the people who do likely never saw Bure on the ice. He siglehandedly changed the way teams defended, outsmarted everyone and still managed to take care of himself in a much heavier hitting era. 

[King Heffy]

Different eras.  Bure was the most exciting player we've ever had in a Canucks jersey, but he did it in an era where goaltending techniques weren't nearly in advanced, and coaches weren't nearly as defensive.

 

I consider myself lucky to have gotten to watch both players in Canucks jerseys.  Edge for me still goes to Bure but it's close.

[SliteriousBlackbeard]

 If you were too young here's a glimpse into Bure. Boeser is good but Bure was phenomenal, incomparable!

[J-Dizzle]

Add another for Pavel. I was really young when he started playing but - as many other posters have stated - the numbers don’t tell the whole story. 

 

Brock is incredible and he’s gonna score a lot of goals (and maybe bring a cup to the Canucks ) but I just don’t think it’s particularly close as Bure was a one man show. 

[48MPHSlapShot]

Pettersson will be better than both *shrugs*