HHF Lindros, Bure, Neely and Mark Howe

[Hardyvan123]

Living in Vancouver it always amazes me how many more people think that Neely should be in the hall before these other 3 guys. I would rank them this way myself

1) Bure, best pure goal scorer of the low scoring 90\'s
2) Mark Howe top 5 two dman for ten plus years + WHA
3) Eric Lindros, was MVp came on strong then faded due to injuries
4) Cam Neeely, was a great scorer(Goals per Game) after Oates joined him, injuries prevented the whole story from coming out

Any thought, I was actually surprised that Mark Howe wasn;t in, is there such a bais against his WHA years, his NHl time alone should be good enough in my view

[Dobber]

I agree with this - and there is a big bias for the WHA years. Look at how much they hyped Gretz for breaking Gordie\'s record...but when it happened they did not count his WHA points.

Of course, Gretz has since hammered Gordie\'s WHA and NHL combined total.
B)

[repenttokyo]

The HOF is about more than just stats tho - Bure doesn\'t have any cups, Neely doesn\'t have any cups, Lindros doesn\'t have any cups...Bure and Neely are comparable in the sense that they were both dominant players who\'s careers were cut short by injury. But do we put them in the HOF for what might of been? That\'s a political issue, I guess.

[recordstyle]

I\'ll preface this with the fact that yes, I\'m a Bure fan/follower.

Pavel Bure (and the canucks) were thisclose to tying the game up in game 7 in the third period. That was an incredibly close and hard-fought cup for both teams, and a GREAT stanley cup for the league overall. What did the world keep seeing? Bure, Bure, Leetch, Messier, Bure, Richter, Bure, Tikkanen, Messier, Bure, Richter. Richter stood on his head that last period - if it was not for his stellar play to keep the Rangers ahead, Bure would be the cup winner. Bure would be vaulted into a much higher realm then he ended up with. fact.

Who absolutely got fans gasping (home, OR away! ) when he lit up the red-light and put the puck behind the goalie on a regular high-flying basis? (bure).

Before the days of shootout tie-breakers and guys pulling magic-trick goals out of their hats while calmly skating 1 on 1 against the goalie, but NOT being able to do that or even attempt it during a live game... who would score regularly like that?
(bure).

Who\'s name is already in the hall of fame on various trophies? (bure).
*note - i\'m not saying that alone is worth him entering, so don\'t go throwing down this as your lone excuse to rip my argument, i\'m just saying that he DOES have the hardware to stand for his play, stats and results while healthy in the league. the Calder trophy\'s got his name on it, and the Rocket Richard one has his name up there a few times, not to mention he did score 60 goals in 2 of his first 3 seasons.

I understand he was not a sluggish brute who stood and poached goals and racked up PIMS and was a blue-collar hometown hero from some small town with a population of 1,000 up north Yukon somewhere (and no offense to those guys, as they were an integral part of the game for that generation of hockey in the NHL), but it does not take from the fact that he was a game-maker, AND game-breaker who in keenans system or not, in vancouver or not, internationally or not, MADE the game his own - and had the results to prove it...

Dominated the game,
On his own.

702 games, 437 goals, 342 assists, 779points, 484 PIMS in an injury shortened highlight-reel filling MORE than a point-per-game STELLAR nhl career sort of sounds HOF worthy to me?...

i\'d probably vote yes.
:silly:

[repenttokyo]

look, I love bure, he was one of my favourite players growing up, but the hall of fame isn\'t just for talented scorers, it\'s for people who had a huge impact on the game, and they will consider things like did Bure play long enough to do that? You say he dominated the game, well he scored goals, but that\'s not what dominating really means - Lemieux dominated the game, Mike Bossy dominated the game, Bobby Orr dominated the game - these are people who, every season, were completely dominant players in almost every aspect. Bure never got the chance to do that because of injury. He also did not lead his team to a Cup - almost doesn\'t count, unfortunately. Do we put Jeremy Roenick in the hall of fame for almost winning a cup? Does Bure get in solely based on the fact that he was an amazing goal scorer?


Personnally, I would put Bure in the hall as well, but I\'m not making the decisions. I wouldn\'t put Lindros or Neely there.

I don\'t get your sluggish brute comment, and have no idea what \"generation\" of hockey players you are talking about - you find me someone in the hall, a player, who doesn\'t deserve to be there, explain why, and then we\'ll talk. But I don\'t think you\'ll find any of the \"sluggish brutes\" you described.

[recordstyle]

repenttokyo, i\'m sorry for not clearing up the \"sluggish brute\" comment when i posted it originally. It obviously wasn\'t meant at/toward you in any way... as I have a few friends of mine (in real life, haha) who are also on this forum who argue with me regularly that bure was too \"soft\" and that his speed had no business with some of the bigger guys who were power forwards in a power-forward friendly league for those years.

I never, ever, ever would compare Bure to Lemieux.
I never, ever, ever would compare Bure to Orr. (gulp!!!)
I wouldn\'t compare Bure to Bossy; but of all 3 Bure was closest to Bossy in terms of scoring.
(no, not saying equal at all in any way, just close in whatever subjective way in scoring \"touch\&quot

He did not lead his team to raising the Cup.
fact.
I personally (again, personally) feel that he brought them 99% of the way, but that 1% obviously wasn\'t there.
I admit that almost isn\'t enough, but since it\'s subjective; considering his injury shortened career,
I still feel his stats hold their own.
I feel his hockey game held it\'s own.
I feel his game breaking talent game in- game out held and spoke for itself as well.

Again, I\'m not an official ballot voter for the Hall.
I wish I was!
I do feel however that sometimes we find too many excuses NOT to award those who deserve that special recognition in the Hall.

Didn\'t mean to ruffle your feathers if I did, I guess I know that if he had two or 3 more half-seasons under his belt, (not even mentioning the idea of 3-5 more years!! ) 600 goals would have been a given, fact, signed - sealed - and delivered, no? 437 with half of a half of a healthy knee and over a point-per-game line isn\'t terrible, and I hope that the Hall voters give him the benefit of the doubt.

Any other guys out there have a take on Bure?
(I\'d love to hear anything/everything)

[repenttokyo]

I agree, a lot of people spend their time finding excuses to keep people out, seems to be a popular habit amongst hockey commentators these days.

[Dobber]

repenttokyo wrote:

I agree, a lot of people spend their time finding excuses to keep people out, seems to be a popular habit amongst hockey commentators these days.

With the toughness of baseball\'s system (I mean - Tim Raines is going to take seven or eight years before he gets in, if at all, and I could go on and on with other former greats), you can\'t help but think hockey should have tightened it\'s standards. The Hall of Fame should have two players per year in it.
Clarke Gillies? Bernie Federko? And it sickens me to think Dave Andreychuk will get in!
So based on the loose standards, these guys should all get in - Bure, Neely, Lindros, etc etc.
Based on tight standards - maybe not.

If you based it on true greatness, whether the player played 10 games or 1000, then that\'s a whole nother discussion!

[ultrawhiteness]

i like record\'s arguments, bure was an all-star 9 out of 12 seasons when 4 of those seasons he played 39 games or less. he\'s a hero to his country and was given control of his country\'s national program (yup, just like gretzky).