|
Post by 50belowzero on Aug 12, 2015 16:38:28 GMT
Bergy without question is a special player and a heart and soul guy, a great teammate and leader, but i would not consider him a superstar in any definition. Superstars in my mind, are more likely to be high end offensive players, who can win a game, all by themselves. Ovechkin, Crosby, Doughty, Getzlaf, Perry, players along those lines, and that are paid accordingly. Just my opinion though, and i love Bergy. Honestly, if that's the definition of superstar you're going with, then your using the "popularity contest" version of the term, which has less to do with nite's question - are the Bruins better. Better does not necessarily mean more capable of scoring bushels of goals. I'd add that if EA Sports puts you on the cover, then, in popularity contest terms, you're a superstar. EDIT: I should have added - does "winning a game all by yourself" include scoring game winning goals in game 7s? Because Bergeron's pretty good at that. How many game seven game winners does Ovechkin have? Crosby? Not at all, imo Bergy isn't a superstar, thats all. I gave players who i thought were. You think Bergy is a superstar along the lines of Bob Gainey? I can respect that. Getting back to the original question, i think the Bruins can be better, with the lineup they have now, but whether they will or not remains to be seen. **Edit- You like Bergy, i get it, he's scored a game 7 winning goal, right on.
|
|
|
Post by ialwayslikedmarcotte on Aug 12, 2015 17:03:07 GMT
If you don't think Patrice Bergeron is a superstar, I'd question your hockey IQ. Lucic was never a superstar. Hamilton wasn't either. Chara is an aging superstar, still not too far off of that. DK is one of the best centers in the league when healthy. Rask is one of the best goalers in the league. The grass isn't always greener "over there." Who are the "superstars" on the Sabres? Kane? Moulson? O'Reilly? Their D is meh and their goalkeeping features the oft-injured Lehner and Reacharound. The Panthers have some decent young talent but the closest thing to a "superstar" on that roster is 87-yr old Jagr. I'd pick the B's as constituted now over both teams, based solely on the rosters. On-ice events are a different matter, as we all know. Bergeron is a very special player & can play with anyone, but a superstar is usually someone who's has superior offensive talent compared to most of their peers when it comes to talking about forwards. He's my favorite player, but he'd never be my go to guy if I needed a big goal. Those belong to the Ovie's & Crosby's of the league. If you don't think Ekblad isn't going to be a superstar I question your hockey IQ. Who were the Bruins' superstars in 2011? 2013? Ovie and Crosby have won exactly zero Cups since the Bruins won their last. I'm all for superstars (depending on who they are/what their character is), but the absence of one on this roster is not something I even worry about.
|
|
|
Post by ialwayslikedmarcotte on Aug 12, 2015 17:08:50 GMT
And, since we're talking about him, Bergeron:
Scored the Cup-winning GWG in Game 7 against Vancouver. (As well as the back-breaking third goal of that game).
Scored the GWG in Game 7 against Toronto.
Scored at least one OT winner against Pittsburgh.
Ovie is a superstar who shits the bed in all playoff scenarios.
Crosby was the Bruins' bitch in 2013.
Careful what you wish for.
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Aug 12, 2015 17:11:50 GMT
Honestly, if that's the definition of superstar you're going with, then your using the "popularity contest" version of the term, which has less to do with nite's question - are the Bruins better. Better does not necessarily mean more capable of scoring bushels of goals. I'd add that if EA Sports puts you on the cover, then, in popularity contest terms, you're a superstar. EDIT: I should have added - does "winning a game all by yourself" include scoring game winning goals in game 7s? Because Bergeron's pretty good at that. How many game seven game winners does Ovechkin have? Crosby? Not at all, imo Bergy isn't a superstar, thats all. I gave players who i thought were. You think Bergy is a superstar along the lines of Bob Gainey? I can respect that. Getting back to the original question, i think the Bruins can be better, with the lineup they have now, but whether they will or not remains to be seen. **Edit- You like Bergy, i get it, he's scored a game 7 winning goal, right on. I know your trying to make your point more valid by using Gainey (a respected Selke winner) as a comparable, knowing that none of us would call Gainey a superstar.... but you're really doing the exact opposite. Gainey had a career best 23 goals and 47 points in 1981. Last year, in one of PB's worst scoring seasons he scored 23 goals and 55 points, and has twice hit 30 goals and 70 points. But what makes this even more silly is Gainey played in the high-flying days. In 81 47 points was pathetic. The average offense produced 3.77 goals per game compared to the historically low 2.52 this past year. Adjusting for "deflation", Bob would have scored 31 points in 2015, and that would be his best year. Further, Bergeron was 62nd in scoring this year and put up 63% of the offence of the scoring leader, Benn. Gob Gainey in '81 (again, his best season), was 151st in league scoring and put up only 28% of Wayne Gretzky's offence. A lot of us grew up viewing Selke winners as third line defensive specialists. The game has changed. Bergeron's not a defensive third liner, he's an elite 2-way scoring center. He can control the game as much or more as any forward playing. Definitely a modern superstar.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Aug 12, 2015 17:24:41 GMT
Comparing eras & stats is all fine and well, apples to oranges and the like. Some think Bergy is a superstar, i don't, but that doesn't mean i don't think he is, and has been a great player for the Bruins. I am not diminishing what he has done or will do in the future.
I don't think he has achieved superstar status, but what do i know, its only my opinion as a fan. If some fans think he's a superstar, i can live with that.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Aug 12, 2015 17:25:35 GMT
I think there are more question marks to start this season than to start last. Last year it was largely "Who plays with Lucic and Krejci? Will it be Miller or Bartkowski who takes Boychuk's place?" Now it's "What will be the first line? Third line? Who plays with Bergeron and Marchand? How will Eriksson be used? What will be the D? Can Hayes produce regularly? Pasternak? Was Beleskey's production a sign that he 'figured it out' or a flash in the pan? Can Connolly do something other than take bad penalties? Speaking of penalties, how many games before Rinaldo gets suspended?" Speculation over the team certainly lends a greater air of excitement than before, but I think the alchemy that goes into team building makes it almost impossible to predict where the team will finish. I think one young D stepping up and having an "exceeds expectations" season and one pair of forwards clicking in a nice bromance would be enough to get the team pretty high in the standings (provided no more significant injuries). Alternatively, there could be too many square pegs and octagonal holes or injuries and the whole thing will be a mess. Is it October yet? ^Very well said. That's pretty much the way I feel about it. I think it is very hard to argue that they are better off already, just because of all of the gaping unknowns. I am inclined to think that they are as good, or better, at forward. I think they are closer to the scoring-in-waves scenario that they used to have, and the 3rd line could score as much as the 1st. On defense, I am not as optimistic. I think they are worse now, and it will be harder than people think to replace the 22 minutes a night they got from Hamilton, especially if age continues to catch up with Chara/Seidenberg. I think you pretty much need someone like Colin Miller to jump in full time and play well, just to match last year's defense. If things go badly, they could go very badly. In May, everyone talked about the need for another top-4 d-man to join the team. Instead, we lost one. I'm holding out hope that they can make it to January competitively, and then our precious cap space can be used to acquire a good d-man from a bad team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 17:35:37 GMT
Comparing eras & stats is all fine and well, apples to oranges and the like. Some think Bergy is a superstar, i don't, but that doesn't mean i don't think he is, and has been a great player for the Bruins. I am not diminishing what he has done or will do in the future. I don't think he has achieved superstar status, but what do i know, its only my opinion as a fan. If some fans think he's a superstar, i can live with that. Forget trying to explain 50. I love Bergeron & as I said he's my favorite player & hope he retires a Bruin, but I'm not blinded by rose colored glasses to think that the rest of the hockey world would put Bergeron into "superstar status!" But to each their own.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Aug 12, 2015 17:46:13 GMT
I don't think Bergeron is a superstar either. I love his game and all that he does, but superstar?
Last year, he regressed back to 23 goals, despite playing in 81 games. That's 1 more than Loui Eriksson and 1 less than Brad Marchand. And Mr. Intaglibes was a +2 -- a good deal worse than the likes of Lucic (13), Pastrnak (12), and Reilly Smith (7).
He was one of many underachievers last season, regressing in almost every category. I'm not trying to pin the Bruins failures on him, or badmouth the guy at all, but let's face the facts. He was a leader of a team that performed well below expectations last year, and his value and production (while generally very good) did not reach superstar status by any metric.
And I'm probably talking about my favorite Bruin here...
|
|
|
Post by ialwayslikedmarcotte on Aug 12, 2015 17:57:19 GMT
I'm not suggesting by my comments that Bergie's a superstar. I'll have to think more about that.
I am suggesting he's a winner. I can live without superstars on my teams; I must have winners to be a happy fan.
The record books are littered with guys who fit the description of "superstar" who never won much of anything.
Bottom line: my view is that superstars are certainly helpful but not indispensable in the quest for championship play. I'm not worried about it.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Aug 12, 2015 18:09:09 GMT
One of the reasons this team underachieved in 10 imo, was because Kessel wasn't replaced. I thought this team was plenty good enough last year, but some kind of internal drama cropped up, coupled with a ton of injuries, and the absence of Elvis and Boychuk. I don't know if there's one issue that did them in, but having no replacement for 2 fairly significant pieces obviously hurt. This year, there are no comparable replacements for either Lucic, or Hamilton. The picks and prospects could be huge down the road, but the only way they'll be huge this year...is if they're dealt for something immediate. That window is certainly wide open. There's a bit of cap space, but it's tempered by the Lucic money. If one believes LA is still a Cup threat, and the Bruins "should still be", there's a little concern. There's a ton of unknowns this year, so I don't see how anyone can make any comments morwe objective than "hope". That's obviously where I am. They said last year was unacceptable. It was, and they made changes to supposedly remedy that. I feel anything less than 100 points suggests they got it wrong. I put a great deal of emphasis on "team". I think Sweeney does too, and it looks like that famous team spirit the B's used to have got lost somewhere. If the guys they got are a better fit teamwise, they could be hugely better, while sacrificing a little bit of overall skill. But that's a conversation for November, not an assumption for today. I think the howls of Chara and Seidenbergs demise, are over the top, and I expect both to rebound nicely. I can imagine Chara seething all summer. The new guys...who knows. It's a given we're a little tougher, but we need to score more. GA wasn't that bad last year. GF was, if one believes this team should be a contender. As of today, I don't like our chances, maybe I'm wrong. A couple decent pickups, and my confidence skyrockets though. There's both money and pieces to get there. A decent sample size to view the new guys, and things can change dramatically too. A lot can happen between now and early Oct. A lot more by Feb. Gotta admit, I'm more influenced by Cam recently stating they "could make the playoffs", rather than a descriptor a little more confident, but I'm hoping for the best. The one thing I'm pretty confident of, is that we're going into what sees to be more unknowns, than we have in many years. Should make the season extra exciting, and banter.............
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 12, 2015 18:16:13 GMT
Honestly, if that's the definition of superstar you're going with, then your using the "popularity contest" version of the term, which has less to do with nite's question - are the Bruins better. Better does not necessarily mean more capable of scoring bushels of goals. I'd add that if EA Sports puts you on the cover, then, in popularity contest terms, you're a superstar. EDIT: I should have added - does "winning a game all by yourself" include scoring game winning goals in game 7s? Because Bergeron's pretty good at that. How many game seven game winners does Ovechkin have? Crosby? Not at all, imo Bergy isn't a superstar, thats all. I gave players who i thought were. You think Bergy is a superstar along the lines of Bob Gainey? I can respect that. Getting back to the original question, i think the Bruins can be better, with the lineup they have now, but whether they will or not remains to be seen. **Edit- You like Bergy, i get it, he's scored a game 7 winning goal, right on. Not one. Multiple. The point being that he's clutch, and I think superstar has as much to do with being clutch as with being a massive producer overall (Oshie has national commercials because of his clutch shootout antics, not because he's a top end NHL scorer). Bergeron's also in the Quadruple Crown club and was either the best player (WJHC), a core player (Bruins SC), or an extremely valuable player (Olympics) in every case. The only time you might say he rode the tails to a medal was the first Olympics when he was injured and basically just took face-offs and then got off the ice. But there are very few who have achieved that crown and the majority are superstars. 9 of 26 are HHOF members, and 8 are still playing, so you could conceivably have more than 2/3rds of them in the Hall. Loob and Naslund were on the HHOF path before leaving the NHL for Sweden. Certainly you have guys like Jiri Slegr and Alexei Gusarov who have the Triple Gold but they're high end supporting players, not core players. There are lists of guys who have the Worlds, Olympics, and Stanley Cup - the addition of the WJHC is a little harder to check, but most of the star players were there. I don't think Gainey is the comparable I'd use, but it's hard to find a great comparable for a guy who was the best defensive forward in the game plus a better than average scorer for his era who would have been considered a superstar. The best might be Dave Keon. There's a group of guys I think are good comparables but who would inevitably lead to "yeah but" as in "yeah, but they were closer to elite scorers than Bergeron" - Ron Francis, Doug Gilmour (pre-Leafs), Bobby Clarke, Dave Taylor, Trevor Linden, Brian Sutter. The trouble with this really is similar to the trouble with HOF debates in general - how narrowly do you limit that category "superstar"? Are we talking there are maybe 5 stars who outshine all of the game's other stars in their performance, factoring in how spectacular that performance is (there will never be a defensive defenseman superstar...)? Or are we talking about a group that's about the same size as the number of playoff teams + 2 or 3 given that some top end teams might have more than one superstar (Toews and Kane), and some top end teams have a superstarless model. If you use superstar to mean those 5 face of the league players, then no, I guess you wouldn't include Bergeron. But he makes that second definition. And I was using that kind of definition in the context of the question. Implying that it might be hard for the Bruins to compete without a superstar seems either madness or like it's begging for that broader definition.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Aug 12, 2015 18:17:06 GMT
I don't think Bergeron is a superstar either. I love his game and all that he does, but superstar? Last year, he regressed back to 23 goals, despite playing in 81 games. That's 1 more than Loui Eriksson and 1 less than Brad Marchand. And Mr. Intaglibes was a +2 -- a good deal worse than the likes of Lucic (13), Pastrnak (12), and Reilly Smith (7). He was one of many underachievers last season, regressing in almost every category. I'm not trying to pin the Bruins failures on him, or badmouth the guy at all, but let's face the facts. He was a leader of a team that performed well below expectations last year, and his value and production (while generally very good) did not reach superstar status by any metric. And I'm probably talking about my favorite Bruin here... I think Bergy's international game kind of says it all. Generally superstars are considered to be the ones who can go out and win you a game, all by themselves. Bergy has that ability to almost single handedly, save one. Some superstars only posess maybe 3 elements out of 10 when it comes to pure excellence. 37 is pretty good in those 3 area's, but he's off the chart great in about 5 others. Problem is, those 5 area's aren't the ones non professionals pay that much attention to.
|
|
|
Post by chappy28 on Aug 12, 2015 18:20:15 GMT
The fact is nobody should judge a player on team success any more than you judge a team by the number of "superstars" they have. Hockey is the ultimate team sport and it really does take the whole team pulling their weight to win the cup. Getting hot at the right time and staying healthy are probably the two most important things to winning a cup.
Crosby getting shut down by the Bruins in the playoffs probably has much more to do with matching up against Chara than whether or not he is a superstar. The Penguins currently have two generational "superstars" but unfortunately they need superstar money so they can't afford to fill out the rest of the TEAM with the necessary talent to win it all. Doesn't make Crosby or Malkin any worse as players, but it effects the results of the team.
It will be interesting if event he mighty Chicago can stay elite now that they are paying Toews and Kane f u money. I think not. I think we will see them in the same position as the Penguins for the next five years --- knocking on the door but not having the depth to win in the playoffs.
Also there is a difference between star, and super-star. Bergy is definitely a star, I'd reserve super-star for the real legends ---- Crosby, Malkin, Ovie, Bourque, Espo, Orr, Gretzky, etc. Guys that are clearly above even the "star" players of their generation. If the GM can't build a winning team around them it doesn't make them lesser players, just superstars with so-so supporting casts.
I'd put Datsyuk in as a superstar --- basically Bergy with more offense. I'd love to see Bergeron get back to 70+ pt seasons. Then he is a no brainer superstar. Don't think that's in the cards at this point though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 18:20:18 GMT
One of the reasons this team underachieved in 10 imo, was because Kessel wasn't replaced. I thought this team was plenty good enough last year, but some kind of internal drama cropped up, coupled with a ton of injuries, and the absence of Elvis and Boychuk. I don't know if there's one issue that did them in, but having no replacement for 2 fairly significant pieces obviously hurt. This year, there are no comparable replacements for either Lucic, or Hamilton. The picks and prospects could be huge down the road, but the only way they'll be huge this year...is if they're dealt for something immediate. That window is certainly wide open. There's a bit of cap space, but it's tempered by the Lucic money. If one believes LA is still a Cup threat, and the Bruins "should still be", there's a little concern. There's a ton of unknowns this year, so I don't see how anyone can make any comments morwe objective than "hope". That's obviously where I am. They said last year was unacceptable. It was, and they made changes to supposedly remedy that. I feel anything less than 100 points suggests they got it wrong. I put a great deal of emphasis on "team". I think Sweeney does too, and it looks like that famous team spirit the B's used to have got lost somewhere. If the guys they got are a better fit teamwise, they could be hugely better, while sacrificing a little bit of overall skill. But that's a conversation for November, not an assumption for today. I think the howls of Chara and Seidenbergs demise, are over the top, and I expect both to rebound nicely. I can imagine Chara seething all summer. The new guys...who knows. It's a given we're a little tougher, but we need to score more. GA wasn't that bad last year. GF was, if one believes this team should be a contender. As of today, I don't like our chances, maybe I'm wrong. A couple decent pickups, and my confidence skyrockets though. There's both money and pieces to get there. A decent sample size to view the new guys, and things can change dramatically too. A lot can happen between now and early Oct. A lot more by Feb. Gotta admit, I'm more influenced by Cam recently stating they "could make the playoffs", rather than a descriptor a little more confident, but I'm hoping for the best. The one thing I'm pretty confident of, is that we're going into what sees to be more unknowns, than we have in many years. Should make the season extra exciting, and banter............. Hearing this constantly from people who talk hockey on the street when they see me in my Bruins garb. It's one of the 1st things they say. 'They should trade Chara!" Pwwwtt...I tell them point blank. "Don't talk so fawking foolish!" & walk away.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Aug 12, 2015 18:20:38 GMT
One thing not being mentioned in regards to whether the B's will be better, is CJ's influence and his ability to implement the changes that Sweeney wants going forward. CJ seems pretty stubborn, and his D to D and then up to the forwards has been his staple for yrs and yrs.
DS says he wants the D more mobile, and i'm sure they must have talked about Juliens stubborn penchant for having Kelly & Campbell out on the ice down a gl. Soupy is gone, but you get the idea. I for one, think CJ is a real good coach and the B's are lucky to have him, but he has to be
a big part of it if the Bruins are to make it back to the playoffs, ready to implement these changes along with a concerted effort from the whole team in regards to consistency, desire, and commitment in all areas of the ice. Better D, better offensive production. Goaltending will be fine.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 12, 2015 18:22:03 GMT
I don't think Bergeron is a superstar either. I love his game and all that he does, but superstar? Last year, he regressed back to 23 goals, despite playing in 81 games. That's 1 more than Loui Eriksson and 1 less than Brad Marchand. And Mr. Intaglibes was a +2 -- a good deal worse than the likes of Lucic (13), Pastrnak (12), and Reilly Smith (7). He was one of many underachievers last season, regressing in almost every category. I'm not trying to pin the Bruins failures on him, or badmouth the guy at all, but let's face the facts. He was a leader of a team that performed well below expectations last year, and his value and production (while generally very good) did not reach superstar status by any metric. And I'm probably talking about my favorite Bruin here... 3 Selkes is a metric.... Only Gainey won it more often (4), and only Datsyuk has won as many. But as I said above, this seems to be more about what you mean by superstar than what you think of Bergeron. Mr. Intaglibes sounds like a character in a Naipul novel.
|
|
|
Post by chappy28 on Aug 12, 2015 18:25:43 GMT
The cap changes everything as well. A superstar can actually hurt their team these days if they want to be paid relative to their piers. You end up tying up too much cap space and the team is worse off for it.
We need more Tom Brady type superstars that willingly take less money so they can have some more studs to play with.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Aug 12, 2015 18:32:55 GMT
A lot of good stuff has been said here which i think fits my views on Bergy. Book, Bergy is clutch no doubt, no better honour can be bestowed upon a player in team sports, and as Steve says, Bergy is pretty good in 3 areas and great in 5 others, trouble is the 5 he's great in aren't really the ones that elevate a player to superstar status. I agree with Chappy,
i consider Bergy a star, but not a true superstar. He is definitely on my top 10 list of favourite Bruins all time. I do know that he will make the HHOF and will have his number raised to the rafters at the garden, that you can count on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 18:37:41 GMT
Not at all, imo Bergy isn't a superstar, thats all. I gave players who i thought were. You think Bergy is a superstar along the lines of Bob Gainey? I can respect that. Getting back to the original question, i think the Bruins can be better, with the lineup they have now, but whether they will or not remains to be seen. **Edit- You like Bergy, i get it, he's scored a game 7 winning goal, right on. Not one. Multiple. The point being that he's clutch, and I think superstar has as much to do with being clutch as with being a massive producer overall (Oshie has national commercials because of his clutch shootout antics, not because he's a top end NHL scorer). Bergeron's also in the Quadruple Crown club and was either the best player (WJHC), a core player (Bruins SC), or an extremely valuable player (Olympics) in every case. The only time you might say he rode the tails to a medal was the first Olympics when he was injured and basically just took face-offs and then got off the ice. But there are very few who have achieved that crown and the majority are superstars. 9 of 26 are HHOF members, and 8 are still playing, so you could conceivably have more than 2/3rds of them in the Hall. Loob and Naslund were on the HHOF path before leaving the NHL for Sweden. Certainly you have guys like Jiri Slegr and Alexei Gusarov who have the Triple Gold but they're high end supporting players, not core players. There are lists of guys who have the Worlds, Olympics, and Stanley Cup - the addition of the WJHC is a little harder to check, but most of the star players were there. I don't think Gainey is the comparable I'd use, but it's hard to find a great comparable for a guy who was the best defensive forward in the game plus a better than average scorer for his era who would have been considered a superstar. The best might be Dave Keon. There's a group of guys I think are good comparables but who would inevitably lead to "yeah but" as in "yeah, but they were closer to elite scorers than Bergeron" - Ron Francis, Doug Gilmour (pre-Leafs), Bobby Clarke, Dave Taylor, Trevor Linden, Brian Sutter. The trouble with this really is similar to the trouble with HOF debates in general - how narrowly do you limit that category "superstar"? Are we talking there are maybe 5 stars who outshine all of the game's other stars in their performance, factoring in how spectacular that performance is (there will never be a defensive defenseman superstar...)? Or are we talking about a group that's about the same size as the number of playoff teams + 2 or 3 given that some top end teams might have more than one superstar (Toews and Kane), and some top end teams have a superstarless model. If you use superstar to mean those 5 face of the league players, then no, I guess you wouldn't include Bergeron. But he makes that second definition. And I was using that kind of definition in the context of the question. Implying that it might be hard for the Bruins to compete without a superstar seems either madness or like it's begging for that broader definition.I think it's madness to think that you need superstars to win in the league. That wasn't what I was implying, or meant to imply if I did. I'm saying a team like the Panthers & the Sabers could potentially have closed the gap if the B's aren't a team that doesn't have a great work ethic. You watched this team last season book. A lot of games they looked lethargic & had no energy. They need their best players to be their best players in the offensive part of the ice. If they aren't a team like the Panthers could end up being the team that gets in the play-offs ahead the Bruins instead of the Sens.
|
|
|
Post by ialwayslikedmarcotte on Aug 12, 2015 18:38:17 GMT
One of the reasons this team underachieved in 10 imo, was because Kessel wasn't replaced. Underachieved? They were one win (and a hideously separated wrist) away from the Conference Finals. Collapse? Yes. Painful blot on the franchise's history? Yes. Underachievement? Not IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Aug 12, 2015 18:40:05 GMT
I don't think Bergeron is a superstar either. I love his game and all that he does, but superstar? Last year, he regressed back to 23 goals, despite playing in 81 games. That's 1 more than Loui Eriksson and 1 less than Brad Marchand. And Mr. Intaglibes was a +2 -- a good deal worse than the likes of Lucic (13), Pastrnak (12), and Reilly Smith (7). He was one of many underachievers last season, regressing in almost every category. I'm not trying to pin the Bruins failures on him, or badmouth the guy at all, but let's face the facts. He was a leader of a team that performed well below expectations last year, and his value and production (while generally very good) did not reach superstar status by any metric. And I'm probably talking about my favorite Bruin here... 3 Selkes is a metric.... Only Gainey won it more often (4), and only Datsyuk has won as many. But as I said above, this seems to be more about what you mean by superstar than what you think of Bergeron. Mr. Intaglibes sounds like a character in a Naipul novel. Well, if Selkes or video game covers = superstar to you, than there isn't much to argue about. I don't think that in 2014-15 Bergeron was a superstar, by any metric. In my opinion, Bergeron has indeed drifted towards the superstar conversation in certain years. Last year wasn't one of them. One of the things that was always argued in Bergeron's favor, despite some fairly average statistics, was that "he wins". 'He's a winner, he knows what it takes to win, he leads his team to winning'. So what happens when he's the leader of a team doesn't win, underachieves, and gets sub-par performances from the key leadership players when they're needed most. 55 points on a team that can't even make the playoffs suddenly doesn't look so glamorous. Everyone loves to beat up on Lucic, or Smith, or Hamilton for the failures last year, but at some point you have to turn your eyes to the team's leaders like Chara and Bergeron. And Chara was injured. Bergeron wasn't. Yet, he regressed in almost every measurable way. I love Bergeron, and I think he'll have a bounce back year, but putting up 55 points as the leader of a team that fails to make the playoffs, amid some very ugly losses and late-game collapses, ain't superstar stuff. The Bergeron-Towes comparison has probably never been so glaring, and within it, I think you can find the difference between a very good player and a superstar, at least for the 2014-15 season.
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Aug 12, 2015 18:45:15 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 18:46:43 GMT
The fact is nobody should judge a player on team success any more than you judge a team by the number of "superstars" they have. Hockey is the ultimate team sport and it really does take the whole team pulling their weight to win the cup. Getting hot at the right time and staying healthy are probably the two most important things to winning a cup. Crosby getting shut down by the Bruins in the playoffs probably has much more to do with matching up against Chara than whether or not he is a superstar. The Penguins currently have two generational "superstars" but unfortunately they need superstar money so they can't afford to fill out the rest of the TEAM with the necessary talent to win it all. Doesn't make Crosby or Malkin any worse as players, but it effects the results of the team. It will be interesting if event he mighty Chicago can stay elite now that they are paying Toews and Kane f u money. I think not. I think we will see them in the same position as the Penguins for the next five years --- knocking on the door but not having the depth to win in the playoffs. Also there is a difference between star, and super-star. Bergy is definitely a star, I'd reserve super-star for the real legends ---- Crosby, Malkin, Ovie, Bourque, Espo, Orr, Gretzky, etc. Guys that are clearly above even the "star" players of their generation. If the GM can't build a winning team around them it doesn't make them lesser players, just superstars with so-so supporting casts. I'd put Datsyuk in as a superstar --- basically Bergy with more offense. I'd love to see Bergeron get back to 70+ pt seasons. Then he is a no brainer superstar. Don't think that's in the cards at this point though. It's going to be interesting to see how Yzerman handles Johnson, Kucherov & Hedman when they all will be looking for deals in the same year.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Aug 12, 2015 18:50:36 GMT
Who's Jared Clinton? Bill & Monica's kid? Is he the new Big Head Bob?
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Aug 12, 2015 19:00:30 GMT
Who's Jared Clinton? Bill & Monica's kid? Is he the new Big Head Bob? haha, I don't know, but I think we can all learn something from him.
|
|