Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

2012 Hall of fame inductions


BigTed3

Recommended Posts

Love the selections of Joe Sakic and Pavel Bure. They were both well-deserved. I'm not convinced that Oates (who spent much of his career centering Cam Neely or Brett Hull) and Sundin (who probably benefited from guys like Quinn and Burke being on the committee) should have gone in this season, but ultimately, I'm okay with both guys being in at some point...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't see what Sundin did to deserve to go in the HHOF. Guys like Bure were amazing to watch, Sakic was an amazing leader, class act, and has won. I am sure Sundin is a great guy, classy, and loyal to the teams he played for....but hes never won anything, and I dont think he really did much to earn a nod. Hes definitely a great player, but he shouldnt have gone in on the 1st ballot IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't see what Sundin did to deserve to go in the HHOF. Guys like Bure were amazing to watch, Sakic was an amazing leader, class act, and has won. I am sure Sundin is a great guy, classy, and loyal to the teams he played for....but hes never won anything, and I dont think he really did much to earn a nod. Hes definitely a great player, but he shouldnt have gone in on the 1st ballot IMO.

It's really bizarre. He was no doubt a very good player, but was he really a hall-of-famer, let alone a first-ballot hall-of-famer? I mean he really only had one season (92-93) with Quebec that was arguably hall-quality. Otherwise, he was generally around a PPG player who could score 30-something goals. Consistent, solid, but not extraordinary. He didn't ever lead his team to a cup, or really win any personal awards (other than that Messier one), wasn't phenomenal to watch, didn't reinvent his position, or anything else that may make up for relatively mediocre stats, I don't quite get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really bizarre. He was no doubt a very good player, but was he really a hall-of-famer, let alone a first-ballot hall-of-famer? I mean he really only had one season (92-93) with Quebec that was arguably hall-quality. Otherwise, he was generally around a PPG player who could score 30-something goals. Consistent, solid, but not extraordinary. He didn't ever lead his team to a cup, or really win any personal awards (other than that Messier one), wasn't phenomenal to watch, didn't reinvent his position, or anything else that may make up for relatively mediocre stats, I don't quite get it.

Basically what I believe too. I would have preferred to see them opt for roenick (who played with much more style and would have had better PPG numbers if he didn't stick around so far past his prime), Carbo (who was the epitome of a two-way defensive specialist for many years), or Shanahan (who was a more prolific scorer), and I'd have stuck Lindros in the same category as Sundin, as a very good albeit overrated player. To me, Sundin got in because of all the Leaf influences voicing opinions at the board meeting. I'd have been okay with him eventually getting in down the line in a weak year, but when Bure has to wait 5-6 years to get in and Burns is still waiting, then it makes little sense to think Sundin should be in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically what I believe too. I would have preferred to see them opt for roenick (who played with much more style and would have had better PPG numbers if he didn't stick around so far past his prime), Carbo (who was the epitome of a two-way defensive specialist for many years), or Shanahan (who was a more prolific scorer), and I'd have stuck Lindros in the same category as Sundin, as a very good albeit overrated player. To me, Sundin got in because of all the Leaf influences voicing opinions at the board meeting. I'd have been okay with him eventually getting in down the line in a weak year, but when Bure has to wait 5-6 years to get in and Burns is still waiting, then it makes little sense to think Sundin should be in.

Shanny averaged about 1 more goal per 82 games than Mats. I don't know, I kind of feel like Mats is pretty underrated, he never really got to play with really high end talent and although some of his numbers may feel unspectacular, the 80+ point seasons in the dead of the trap era were quite often awesome. I don't see what any of the inductees other than Sakic did that Sundin didn't. Oates was very good but a compiler and Bure didn't have a long peak and wasn't great defensively.

Anyway, the HHOF is kind of a joke, it's basically the hall of good although I still think there's many more egregious selections than Sundin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

International play counts too. Sundin should be in the HoF. Of course he didn't win any cup, but have a look at the wingers he was forced to play with during his Toronto tenure.

Rest are even more well-deserved. Sakic was a complete player and Adam Oates is perhaps the best passer that has played the game along with Forsberg and Gretzky.

And Bure... What can you say? Still probablu my favourite player ever. Third all time in goals per game. Unbelievable speed, and somehow his hands could keep up.

He was a one man army. One season in Florida he scored 30% of the team's goals! Second highest scorer was Kozlov at 37 points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hockey has had a long line of players who didn't win a Stanley Cup but had nice careers and wound up in the Hockey Hall of Fame. One great case in point is Bill Gadsby. He never won a Cup, but was a top defenseman during his era. Winning a Cup helps, but IMHO shouldn't be the sole criteria for someone getting in. Sundin played with some crappy players in Toronto, but if you put him in on some other NHL team with some talent, his numbers probably would be much different. I always felt he stood out anyway - well above the caliber of some of his teammates. So who really knows how a guy would pan out in a given situation. Given that, I don't know if he'd be a first-ballot selection, but you could make a case for him. Adam Oates, on the other hand, I'm not sure why he's even a Hall Of Famer. I got to see plenty of him in Detroit, and to be honest with you, he was just another decent player on the ice. I was never impressed with him enough to see him get into the Hockey Hall of Fame. Good player, yes. Not a star player. Love the selections of Sakic and Bure. They are definitely worthy of their induction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love the selections of Joe Sakic and Pavel Bure. They were both well-deserved. I'm not convinced that Oates (who spent much of his career centering Cam Neely or Brett Hull) and Sundin (who probably benefited from guys like Quinn and Burke being on the committee) should have gone in this season, but ultimately, I'm okay with both guys being in at some point...

Oates has been passed over already, I actually felt fine with him going in. However, I'm most shocked by Shanny not being a first-ballot guy. Especially when you consider that he and Sakic together defined the great rivalry we saw between Colorado and Detroit. That was one of the better hockey rivalries of the last 20 years, IMO, and this would have been a great way to celebrate and recognize that.

My predictions for the year actually were Shanny, Sakic, Sundin, and Oates, with Bure getting the snub again. However, it is good to see Bure go in.

I am quite shocked by passing on Burns again. This was really an opportunity to "right a wrong" in the eyes of many .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hockey has had a long line of players who didn't win a Stanley Cup but had nice careers and wound up in the Hockey Hall of Fame. One great case in point is Bill Gadsby. He never won a Cup, but was a top defenseman during his era. Winning a Cup helps, but IMHO shouldn't be the sole criteria for someone getting in. Sundin played with some crappy players in Toronto, but if you put him in on some other NHL team with some talent, his numbers probably would be much different. I always felt he stood out anyway - well above the caliber of some of his teammates. So who really knows how a guy would pan out in a given situation. Given that, I don't know if he'd be a first-ballot selection, but you could make a case for him. Adam Oates, on the other hand, I'm not sure why he's even a Hall Of Famer. I got to see plenty of him in Detroit, and to be honest with you, he was just another decent player on the ice. I was never impressed with him enough to see him get into the Hockey Hall of Fame. Good player, yes. Not a star player. Love the selections of Sakic and Bure. They are definitely worthy of their induction.

It's hard to argue with a guy who is holds the 6th highest amount of assists and 16th highest amount of points all-time in the NHL. While he played with some good talent, the hard facts remain hard to ignore. He was also undrafted and holds the most points of any player to enter the NHL from the college system, so those work strongly in his favour too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...