Sign in to follow this  
-AJ-

Top 50 Canucks of All-Time - #11

Rate this topic

Top 50 Canucks of All-Time - #11  

61 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Voted ohlund 

 

Nominate tanman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, -AJ- said:

Funny that you mention Tallon. I have Tallon at 63 on my list and Hughes at 64 right behind him. If Hughes has another year like the one he just had, I'd suspect he'll jump up to around 50 or so. I prepared a top 70 list for this so I know where I have every player in advance.

 

Interesting that you prepared a big list. That would be a fun exercise. But tough. Different players have different things to their eligibility, peak/star power, longevity, fame, dedication to the franchise, exc.

 

Trying to find the right way to weight those is difficult. Then if you go to heavily in one way its like, 'we'll if I'm gunna go with X now, then should Y be in the conversation aswell'? And maybe its not someone you thought about as your next choice. 

 

Thanks for doing this! Its fun & you couldn't have picked a better time. 

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

Interesting that you prepared a big list. That would be a fun exercise. But tough. Different players have different things to their eligibility, peak/star power, longevity, fame, dedication to the franchise, exc.

 

Trying to find the right way to weight those is difficult. Then if you go to heavily in one way its like, 'we'll if I'm gunna go with X now, then should Y be in the conversation aswell'? And maybe its not someone you thought about as your next choice. 

 

Thanks for doing this! Its fun & you couldn't have picked a better time. 

One of the trickiest things I've found to weight is the "fan favourite factor". There are a bunch of players that often weren't incredible, but fans loved them, so they often get ranked way higher by some people. Some cases are guys like Burrows, Snepsts, Mitchell, Fraser, Williams, and Odjick. The question is, do I factor that into the "greatest Canucks"? Heck, even Linden could be added to that category and I sure as heck factored that in for him, so maybe I do. The follow-up question is how much to factor it in, which can heavily change up one's list.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, -AJ- said:

Funny that you mention Tallon. I have Tallon at 63 on my list and Hughes at 64 right behind him. If Hughes has another year like the one he just had, I'd suspect he'll jump up to around 50 or so. I prepared a top 70 list for this so I know where I have every player in advance.

 

Oh I figure Hughes might move up this list darn quick...

 

If he sticks around with us for a Bourque-ish length of time rather than bouncing around the league in a Larry Murphy-ish fashion, it's very conceivable that he will have something like 1,000 games and 700 points.  And if that does come to pass, I think we'll see all the Edlers and Ohlunds converge together in their rankings a little bit, and a little bit further down the chart.  Right now it seems like Edler has pulled away from the pack because we are in the moment, but once his records are beaten...and by beaten, I mean they will be shattered...he will, perhaps somewhat sadly, become just another former record holder.  And we've seen how well those tend to fare thus far: Lidster, Brodeur, Snepsts, Boudrias, Lever, Kearns, etc.

Edited by Kevin Biestra
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

One of the trickiest things I've found to weight is the "fan favourite factor". There are a bunch of players that often weren't incredible, but fans loved them, so they often get ranked way higher by some people. Some cases are guys like Burrows, Snepsts, Mitchell, Fraser, Williams, and Odjick. The question is, do I factor that into the "greatest Canucks"? Heck, even Linden could be added to that category and I sure as heck factored that in for him, so maybe I do. The follow-up question is how much to factor it in, which can heavily change up one's list.

 

It's an interesting and fun criterion to work into the mix.  Your poll asks who is the Greatest Canuck, not who is the Best Canuck or Most Talented Canuck or Canuck Most Likely to Get into the Hall of Fame.  So...for my money, a Canuck is indeed Greater if he captures the hearts of the fans or the city, and/or takes the whole team itself toward greatness (1982/1994/2011).

 

If someone looks at the career stat line of Gino Odjick (400something games, <100 points), they would not be particularly impressed.  But anyone who was around for it knows that he was one of the all-time greats in NHL history for representing a city with his fists and heart and perhaps a few brain cells.  Tiger Williams standing beside Roger Neilson with a towel tied to his hockey stick isn't anywhere in his stat line.  Nor is a young Stan Smyl suddenly thrust into the captaincy due to injury a few games before the playoffs and going all the way to the Final in his maiden voyage with the C on his shirt.

 

Or Trevor Linden getting needles jammed into his injured ribs between periods in the 94 playoffs.  Ronning getting the better of Wayne Gretzky and the Kings in overtime and riding his stick, the way he saw Tiger Williams do when he was a kid.  Brodeur shutting down Lanny McDonald in Round One, Marcel Dionne in Round Two, and Denis Savard in Round Three to take on perhaps the greatest Goliath team in NHL history in the final.  McLean stopping Reichel when Reichel had beaten everything else Vancouver had to put in front of him and only one man remained to keep the season alive.  Greg Adams (and Bieksa) (and Jim Nill) sending the Canucks to the Stanley Cup Final with the one last goal they needed to get there.

 

Greatness.

 

 

Edited by Kevin Biestra
  • Like 1
  • Hydration 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

I thought I'd put Hughes out there because I think there is a tendency for people look back more and forget at the supreme talent that is in front of their nose.  My last nomination was Boudrias because a lot of fans aren't old enough to remember the older stars either.  That's kind of my perspective on this anyways.  My nomination is kind of a reminder to people.  

 

Great idea for a series of threads btw AJ

 

 

There is also recency bias. You tend to remember players from recent past and value them higher than some guys from the 70s or 80s that you may never have seen play. My prediction would be that the Bieksas, Jovanovskis, Morrisons and Hansens will edge out the Lidsters, Levers; Kearnses and Butchers. Not because they were "greater", but because more people remember them.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, -AJ- said:

One of the trickiest things I've found to weight is the "fan favourite factor". There are a bunch of players that often weren't incredible, but fans loved them, so they often get ranked way higher by some people. Some cases are guys like Burrows, Snepsts, Mitchell, Fraser, Williams, and Odjick. The question is, do I factor that into the "greatest Canucks"? Heck, even Linden could be added to that category and I sure as heck factored that in for him, so maybe I do. The follow-up question is how much to factor it in, which can heavily change up one's list.

 

Just as a follow-up thought on this topic...  One way to illustrate what I'm saying might be with the notion of statues.  Our top three all-time scorers in franchise history have their numbers retired - Sedin, Sedin, Naslund - but if one were to make a bronze statue of any of the three outside the arena...in all three cases, I think it would just be of the player standing there.  There's nothing really distinctive that they would be doing.

 

On the other hand, a statue of Linden would be putting Norton through the glass, or the Campbell Bowl lid falling off as he lifted it, or hugging McLean after game 6 against the Rangers, or struggling to the bench at the end of Game 6 as Robson says he'll play...

 

A Tiger Williams statue could be him riding his stick after a goal, it could be him holding up a towel with Roger Nielsen, it could be him standing toe to toe with Willi Plett, about a full foot taller than him.

 

Ronning would be riding his stick, Luongo or Brodeur could be raising their stick with one hand after a playoff victory, McLean could be hugging Linden or stopping Reichel in game 7 overtime.  Gino could be down to his shoulder pads with no jersey taking on five Blues while Glenn Anderson backpedals away in the distance.  I've said Bieksa doesn't belong quite this high in the rankings but he would probably be drilling a shot from the blueline after a stanchion rebound against the San Jose Sharks.  Bure would be scoring on Mike Vernon in game 7 of round 1 in 1994.

 

Sedin, Sedin and Naslund...  I think they would just be standing there, or just in some randomly chosen hockey action pose.

 

I love all three players but their legacies are missing that little extra something.

 

When people think of a distinct Sedin memory, my guess is what most people usually come up with is "the Shift."  And while that was a top notch display of skill, it was basically playing keepaway from a hapless Oilers team in a relatively inconsequential regular season game, and not even really trying very hard to score.  It's a far cry from the heart racing and blood pounding of the other examples I named.

Edited by Kevin Biestra
  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

Just as a follow-up thought on this topic...  One way to illustrate what I'm saying might be with the notion of statues.  Our top three all-time scorers in franchise history have their numbers retired - Sedin, Sedin, Naslund - but if one were to make a bronze statue of any of the three outside the arena...in all three cases, I think it would just be of the player standing there.  There's nothing really distinctive that they would be doing.

 

On the other hand, a statue of Linden would be putting Norton through the glass, or the Campbell Bowl lid falling off as he lifted it, or hugging McLean after game 6 against the Rangers, or struggling to the bench at the end of Game 6 as Robson says he'll play...

 

A Tiger Williams statue could be him riding his stick after a goal, it could be him holding up a towel with Roger Nielsen, it could be him standing toe to toe with Willi Plett, about a full foot taller than him.

 

Ronning would be riding his stick, Luongo or Brodeur could be raising their stick with one hand after a playoff victory, McLean could be hugging Linden or stopping Reichel in game 7 overtime.  Gino could be down to his shoulder pads with no jersey taking on five Blues while Glenn Anderson backpedals away in the distance.  I've said Bieksa doesn't belong quite this high in the rankings but he would probably be drilling a shot from the blueline after a stanchion rebound against the San Jose Sharks.  Bure would be scoring on Mike Vernon in game 7 of round 1 in 1994.

 

Sedin, Sedin and Naslund...  I think they would just be standing there, or just in some randomly chosen hockey action pose.

 

I love all three players but their legacies are missing that little extra something.

 

When people think of a distinct Sedin memory, my guess is what most people usually come up with is "the Shift."  And while that was a top notch display of skill, it was basically playing keepaway from a hapless Oilers team in a relatively inconsequential regular season game, and not even really trying very hard to score.  It's a far cry from the heart racing and blood pounding of the other examples I named.

Anyone whos been to MTL since they made their mega-plex and left the forum - and has spent the time to walk around the entire thing outside won't be dissappointed.  Next to an an outside rink that is open for the public to skate around - lit up nicely - usually with snow around it in the winter is a couple rows of their greats in bronze.  Richard looks just as fierce as i imagine he was coming down the middle with the puck - or  standing in the way once you got there an imposing Robinson - or Harvey.  Or Lafluer - got his hair moving in the wind just right ... then go inside and walk the upper bowl and you will find more plaques and more history then a half dozen franchises combined.  They've been gifted great goalies in pretty much every era.   Plus a dozen or so names that i really dont know much about other then they were once some of the greatest players in the world (pre-war).  The best part is once you take a seat and look up.  Litterally a fire hazard worth of HHOF players retired plus so many cups they don't bother with divisions titles, conference final banners etc.  Its truly impressive.  So i get what your saying.  We still have our heros - and no most of them arent or will not end up in the HHOF - that said the one's we have are connected to a moment that was really important to us and what we have to cheer about.   Funny thing is a lot of great players don't have a specific moment that made them great.  Orr flying is his best - beating a patsy team for the cup.  Bobby Clarks is an important goal on the way to the cup.  Gretzky's best game got them to the final only to lose to Roy.   Lidstroms' defining game might be scoring on Cloutier (or one of them).   So when these underdog guys do great things - it is special.  Not everyone can be Crosby and score a gold medal game in OT at 20ish.   Most of the best hockey moments are done by the Uwe Krupps of the world.  We've had our fair share of those - which is also why Burrows is going to be ranked higher then he probably should be - and thats totally ok.  

Edited by IBatch
  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, joe-max said:

There is also recency bias. You tend to remember players from recent past and value them higher than some guys from the 70s or 80s that you may never have seen play. My prediction would be that the Bieksas, Jovanovskis, Morrisons and Hansens will edge out the Lidsters, Levers; Kearnses and Butchers. Not because they were "greater", but because more people remember them.

Its already happening just by the nominations.   So yes i think you will be right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Funny thing is a lot of great players don't have a specific moment that made them great.  Orr flying is his best - beating a patsy team for the cup.  Bobby Clarks is an important goal on the way to the cup.  Gretzky's best game got them to the final only to lose to Roy.   Lidstroms' defining game might be scoring on Cloutier (or one of them).   So when these underdog guys do great things - it is special.  Not everyone can be Crosby and score a gold medal game in OT at 20ish.   Most of the best hockey moments are done by the Uwe Krupps of the world.  We've had our fair share of those - which is also why Burrows is going to be ranked higher then he probably should be - and thats totally ok.  

 

But a lot of them do.  Mario Lemieux deeking out Jon Casey in the final.

 

Gretzky...where to start...five goals in one game to get 50 in 39, including that slapper from the blue line over the shoulder and top corner.  Gretzky / Lemieux goal in the 87 Canada Cup.

 

Bure...I'm sure Vernon still has nightmares.  Just like Stan Smyl has about Vernon.

 

Scott Stevens...well, most of his moments are 20 game suspensions now, but they seemed impressive at the time.

 

The Lays Chips Piggy...guaranteeing a win and then beating the Devils singlehanded.  Puke, but it happened.

 

But I agree, you need the Bob Bauns and Jim Nills of the world to get it done as a team.

 

 

Anyway, I've got Burrows pretty high myself.  7th all time in games, up there in goals, legitimate playoff hero.  Was he anywhere close to as skilled as Alexander Mogilny?  Nowhere close, but he is the greater Canuck in my book.

Edited by Kevin Biestra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

If you are ready to put Hughes in the mix already, I would at least suggest that you also then consider someone like Dale Tallon, who was our first star rookie and our first star defenseman.  In the Canucks' first season, 1970-71, he had 56 points as a rookie blueliner.  And finished in the top five in Calder voting...he got the shaft not being a finalist, as two of the forwards ahead of him were only in the 60s in poiints.  He got killed by the Eastern bias in voting, and by the Canucks being a brand new team.

 

I bring him up, first to point out his accomplishment.  But I suppose also to suggest being a bit wary of jumping the gun.  Nobody but me really cares these days about Dale Tallon's accomplishments in a Canuck uniform as far as I can tell.  I expect bigger things for Quinn Hughes, but he still has to actually do them.

 

Just like Barry Pederson is unfairly maligned for not being Cam Neely, Dale Tallon is unjustly maligned for not being Gilbert Perreault.

 

So...Dale Tallon for Top 50!

I think that I posted on Hughes expected season point totals rather than actual.  So he's 11th by season and 4th on a ppg basis.  I know it's only 1 season and he may ultimately re-write the Canuck record books but ya, I agree, let's put on the brakes.  

 

Reinhart (57 pts, 57 pts), Lumme (55, 54) and Lanz (57, 53) all have 2 top 10 seasons on the Canucks record books

  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted for Kesler, keenly aware that Big Bert was also a standout. Difference for me is that Kesler almost single handed beat the Preds in 2011. Bert scared the league, but that team never came close.

Nominating Dennis Kearns, one of the early leaders for this team. Not his fault at all that early ownership/management didn't have much of a clue of how to run an NHL franchise. Didn't have any luck either, missing a coin toss that could have netted us Gilbert Perrault

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Father Ryan said:

Voted for Kesler, keenly aware that Big Bert was also a standout. Difference for me is that Kesler almost single handed beat the Preds in 2011. Bert scared the league, but that team never came close.

Nominating Dennis Kearns, one of the early leaders for this team. Not his fault at all that early ownership/management didn't have much of a clue of how to run an NHL franchise. Didn't have any luck either, missing a coin toss that could have netted us Gilbert Perrault

 

Kearns is a guy who, on a different team, might have been something quite special.  People forget how defensemen and goalies of the 1970s and 1980s Canucks suffered from never having a single player in team history score 100 points or even come that close.  Defensemen suffered by never really getting a lift to the 70 or 80 point mark, and goalies just by having not much run support in the two greatest decades of freewheeling high-scoring hockey.

 

Guys like Cesare Maniago, Gary Smith, Glen Hanlon and Dunc Wilson (and King Richard) really had to stop what was coming at them if they didn't want to go 0-55 for the season.

Edited by Kevin Biestra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.