Bure vs Boeser

[NewbieCanuckFan]

16 hours ago, 4thLineGrinder said:

 

fair point, the defense was played very differently in bure's rookie season vs brocks.  In bure's day the team defense wasn't as structured but you could shure as hell hook and grab and slow guys down no worries,  thinking of the churla incident, you just can't skate around hounding the stars as a goon any more, you also wouldn't get away with the mother of all elbows in todays game. 

 

It's like comparing tomatoes to potatoes, similar but totally different

That's the thing - Bure was had one really mean streak if you provoked him.  Brad Marchand would be singing soprano if he tried any cheap stunt on Bure.

 

Granted it's easy when you have Gino watching your back  (we'd all grow a few inches taller with him there).

[CanadianRugby]

Now, I'm gonna say this in advance that I'm hella biased because Bure basically got me into hockey as a young foreign lad that didn't speak English yet.  I love Boeser but I think Bure as a rookie was better at everything other than the wrist shot.  It will be interesting to see what Boeser develops into, I see him as a Naslund type.  Not flashy, just very effective due to his shot.  I don't know if we'll ever see anyone like Bure in a Canuck uniform again.  One of the most exciting players I've ever watched in any sport.

 

[oldnews]

Tough to make these kinds of comparisons for so many reasons.

Different eras.

Different supporting casts.

Different types of players.

One thing about Bure - he had the ability to wind up over 200ft and blow past an entire lineup - generating offense single-handedly in a way few players can.

Boeser though is arguably the more deadly player when the team has possession in the ozone.

 

If the point is a best ever Canucks rookie season you should probably include Linden in the conversation for lots of reasons - with production that also warrants consideration (30 goals and 59pts as an 18 year old.)

[Noseforthenet]

This is nice, but it's the wrong comparison, TBH. Let's see how Elias Petterson does. That's the closest thing we have had to a Bure type than we have had in awhile. Not taking anything away from Boeser though. His shot is pinpoint accurate. I don't even know how he does it, but he does. If Boeser's skating gets better, it's gonna be very hard for opposing defenders to stop him. The puck only needs to be on his stick for a moment. Imagine if he actually HAS time with it?

If we had a Boeser-type in '94 or '11, I guarantee we'd have a cup. Never had a sniper like him on the team until now. Bure had a great shot and his speed backed off defenders. He did make most opposing goalies fear him...except Mike Richter. If Boeser had that penalty shot Bure took in the final, Richter doesn't stop it. No chance.

[EdgarM]

When comparing players such as Bure and Lemieux to Gretzky and Boeser you have to look at the tools each of them had in the tool box. With things such as skating, toughness, slap shot, deke, wrist shot, on ice vision, defensive skills, passing skills etc. I lean more towards those that possess more in the toolbox. 

Lemieux was much like a power forward and Bure had the blazing speed which puts them above Boes and Gretzky in my books. 

Not taking nothing away from Boes and Gretzky but Mario and Pavel needed no other player on the ice to electrify the crowd and score goals.

[Father Ryan]

Completely different players, the only comparison being their final stats...not how they got there. Boeser, if he reminds me of anyone, is like Bossy (just not as good). You don't see him, until he has the puck on his stick, and by the time you react...the puck is gone. Great sniper, but not the kind of player that is going to make the other team shiver whenever he is on the ice, except maybe the player who realizes he is trying to block Boeser's shot. Bure...terrified the opposition. His shot may not have been quite as lethal as BB, but his imagination of what to do with the puck more than made up for it. His speed was absolutely lethal.

I know that the times were different, and goalies were (mostly) not on the level they are now. I would have love to have seen Bure matched up with a true playmaker at center. One of the worst trades in our history was moving Patrick Sundstrom. Just imagine the two of them paired up!

Basically, its this. Boeser does not take over games, and more or less needs a playmaker with him. Bure could carry the team on his shoulders; he didn't NEED help (but it sure would've been great if he had!)

[189lb enforcers?]

Brock is closer in style to Hull than Bossy, IMO. 

[Father Ryan]

1 hour ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Brock is closer in style to Hull than Bossy, IMO. 

I missed the majority of Hull's career...military time. I clearly remember Bossy though

 

[coastal.view]

3 hours ago, EdgarM said:

When comparing players such as Bure and Lemieux to Gretzky and Boeser you have to look at the tools each of them had in the tool box. With things such as skating, toughness, slap shot, deke, wrist shot, on ice vision, defensive skills, passing skills etc. I lean more towards those that possess more in the toolbox. 

Lemieux was much like a power forward and Bure had the blazing speed which puts them above Boes and Gretzky in my books. 

Not taking nothing away from Boes and Gretzky but Mario and Pavel needed no other player on the ice to electrify the crowd and score goals.

it is beyond argument in my view

that gretzky saw and thought the game better then anyone else

and needed less physical attributes in his toolbox

he is the leading goal scorer in nhl history with a meh shot

how did that happen ?

 

he made eveyone around him so much better then anyone before or since him ever did

 

he was henrick sedin on steroids playing at a higher level

and did not require a twin for his magic to work

 

 

[higgyfan]

1 hour ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Brock is closer in style to Hull than Bossy, IMO. 

Yeah, he's more like Hull.  Pettersson will be our Bossy.

[189lb enforcers?]

4 hours ago, Father Ryan said:

I missed the majority of Hull's career...military time. I clearly remember Bossy though

 

Thank you, sir. 

[mikkim]

On 4/13/2018 at 9:42 PM, -AJ- said:

I still get the feeling that some are thinking of 60-goal Bure when comparing him to Boeser. It might be impossible to do (or nearly so), but it's not a fair comparison if you remember Bure over his whole tenure as a Canuck vs Boeser as a rookie. That said, some have made good points specifically pertaining to his rookie season, particularly @bloodycanuckleheads with the note that Bure turned the team around more than Boeser did. I also liked @Rick Blight's commentary on how Bure was more exciting in his rookie season than Boeser, another good qualitative factor to consider.

 

This is definitely what I think. While I give the edge to Boeser in his rookie season, I'm pretty doubtful that he can reach Bure's level for the rest of his career.

Bure did not turn that team around, the trade Pat Quinn made at the trade deadline the year before when he got  Geoff Courtnall, Robert Dirk, Sergio Momesso, Cliff Ronning for Dan Quinn and Garth Butcher was what turned the team around. Bure going the Canucks brought the fans back. As far as who had the better rookie season it's Bure, every time he touched the puck, no matter where it was on the ice, you felt like he was about to score.

[mikkim]

8 hours ago, Father Ryan said:

Completely different players, the only comparison being their final stats...not how they got there. Boeser, if he reminds me of anyone, is like Bossy (just not as good). You don't see him, until he has the puck on his stick, and by the time you react...the puck is gone. Great sniper, but not the kind of player that is going to make the other team shiver whenever he is on the ice, except maybe the player who realizes he is trying to block Boeser's shot. Bure...terrified the opposition. His shot may not have been quite as lethal as BB, but his imagination of what to do with the puck more than made up for it. His speed was absolutely lethal.

I know that the times were different, and goalies were (mostly) not on the level they are now. I would have love to have seen Bure matched up with a true playmaker at center. One of the worst trades in our history was moving Patrick Sundstrom. Just imagine the two of them paired up!

Basically, its this. Boeser does not take over games, and more or less needs a playmaker with him. Bure could carry the team on his shoulders; he didn't NEED help (but it sure would've been great if he had!)

Really?, This trade doesn't happen '94 Stanley Cup run doesn't happen. The two players we received for Patrick Sundstrom was Kirk Mclean and Greg Adams. This should go down as one of the best trades in Canucks history.

 

[189lb enforcers?]

Strange that Boeser has the same rookie stats as Bure.

surprising stat 

Go Brock! 

[IBatch]

6 hours ago, coastal.view said:

it is beyond argument in my view

that gretzky saw and thought the game better then anyone else

and needed less physical attributes in his toolbox

he is the leading goal scorer in nhl history with a meh shot

how did that happen ?

 

he made eveyone around him so much better then anyone before or since him ever did

 

he was henrick sedin on steroids playing at a higher level

and did not require a twin for his magic to work

 

 

Its a sign of a great player when you can put a third or fourth liner on their wing and they become scoring machines.  Lemuiex and Gretzky could do it, so can Crosby (sorry Sheary/Rust), so can McDavid.   So could the Sedins.

 

Gretzky was unreal... remember an old VHS of his greatest fifty goals, from the early nineties...one that I will never forget was taking a snap shot off the dot with less than three seconds on the clock, down a goal...went through a wall of bodies, top post and in far side.  Rewind and watch in grainy slow frame and it goes in, through legs and arms and sticks.   He had a wicked shot too.  Guess that's why he's the leading scorer and probably always will be with apologies to Ovechkin.  Had one more career NHL goals, than all of Howes NHL and WHA goals, and he played into his fifties (regular and playoffs combined).

[IBatch]

2 hours ago, mikkim said:

Bure did not turn that team around, the trade Pat Quinn made at the trade deadline the year before when he got  Geoff Courtnall, Robert Dirk, Sergio Momesso, Cliff Ronning for Dan Quinn and Garth Butcher was what turned the team around. Bure going the Canucks brought the fans back. As far as who had the better rookie season it's Bure, every time he touched the puck, no matter where it was on the ice, you felt like he was about to score.

Anyone who's watched both play will side with Bure, simply because he was the better player.  He was special, and didn't need anyone on his line to be special, or the PP, just leave him the puck and watch him go.  Entire teams changed defensively when he hopped on the ice.. ..then went on and had back to back sixty goal seasons. 

[Baggins]

People seem to be confusing the question. The question wasn't who's more exciting, or had more in the tool box, or who made the team better. The question is who had the better rookie season. To me it's Boeser when factoring how much easier it was to score in Bure's early years and the difference in the quality of the team around them.

 

That said the two things that stood out for me with Boeser that didn't include his shot. I expected that. What stood out was how shifty he could be with the puck and most of all his passing. This kid could be as good a playmaker as he is a shooter.

[EdgarM]

4 hours ago, Baggins said:

People seem to be confusing the question. The question wasn't who's more exciting, or had more in the tool box, or who made the team better. The question is who had the better rookie season. To me it's Boeser when factoring how much easier it was to score in Bure's early years and the difference in the quality of the team around them.

 

That said the two things that stood out for me with Boeser that didn't include his shot. I expected that. What stood out was how shifty he could be with the puck and most of all his passing. This kid could be as good a playmaker as he is a shooter.

I guess it depends how you look at the notion "better rookie season". If you look at just that one year for the both of them, Brock "could' very well be a "star" , Bure was a "superstar" that first year as no one saw a player like him come in an astound people with his acrobatic moves and blazing speed. Not taking anything away from Brock, he is going to be a great player from what we have seen so far ,but there was no doubt the first time you saw Bure play, he was going to be something special.

[Baggins]

4 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

I guess it depends how you look at the notion "better rookie season". If you look at just that one year for the both of them, Brock "could' very well be a "star" , Bure was a "superstar" that first year as no one saw a player like him come in an astound people with his acrobatic moves and blazing speed. Not taking anything away from Brock, he is going to be a great player from what we have seen so far ,but there was no doubt the first time you saw Bure play, he was going to be something special.

I still see that as confusing exciting with results. I saw Bure play and yes he was exciting. If you want results: in 92/93 would you rather have Bure's 110 pts in 83 games or Lemieux's 160 pts in 60 games? Or I'll be reasonable: how about Lafontaines 148 pts in 84 games? That year you needed over 120 points to crack top 10 in the league. Results versus exciting. This is why I believe Boeser had the better rookie season. He produced very similar to Bure in an era when producing is considerably harder than the early 90's. Results.

[EdgarM]

2 hours ago, Baggins said:

I still see that as confusing exciting with results. I saw Bure play and yes he was exciting. If you want results: in 92/93 would you rather have Bure's 110 pts in 83 games or Lemieux's 160 pts in 60 games? Or I'll be reasonable: how about Lafontaines 148 pts in 84 games? That year you needed over 120 points to crack top 10 in the league. Results versus exciting. This is why I believe Boeser had the better rookie season. He produced very similar to Bure in an era when producing is considerably harder than the early 90's. Results.

I guess if you just look at it in the simplistic form, PPG, then you can just look at the stats. The question is probably too vague to come up with a realistic answer.

Yes it was a different era but the players are different nowadays too. Sorry to say but we have no Gretzky, Lemieux, Bure's today. Yes we have Lafontaines, Sakic, Robitaille types but superstars? Maybe McDavid will be this generations "superstar". Those crazy skills that no other players possess.

Back then, we had clutch and grab defense too but Bure was too fast for them to even grab onto him. A lot of factors to consider to have a definitive answer.