NHL players (post 1970) that do not belong in the hockey Hall Of Fame?

[Throttlesteer]

No offense, but there's a lot of reminiscing and "homer" justification with many of these arguments. Sure, the names in question were extremely valuable to their teams and contributed to their success. Counting numbers are generally the key for most players, unless they're strongly disliked by the hockey writers.
Honestly, I could probably have put 60 points up each year if I found myself on the top six of those Isles, Habs, or Oilers teams.

I agree with the statement about having Orr in the same space as Gillies. But every other sport has the same challenge. Their Halls of Fame have a fair number of Hall of Very Goods in them.

[aro13]

The Hockey Hall of Fame is likely the most random of all of the Hall of Fames. All sorts of different variables.

I watched Morrow's entire career from 301 and 205 at the Coliseum, I never considered him an HoF guy, but it is a nice sentiment.

Fair enough. US team 1980. Best defensive defensemen on a 4 time Cup Champion. Probably not enough to warrant Hall of Fame selection. It just seems the Islanders get shafted a lot in discussions.

The one big difference and why I think the Habs are deserving of all of their Hall of Famers (and I am a Bruins fan) is that the Canadiens were dominant in the regular season and the play-offs. The Islanders moreso in the play-offs.
The Canadiens lead the league in goals for and goals against. They are deserving of all of the accolades they get.

I always used to wonder when the Oilers would have 7 or 8 all-stars every year. Fuhr was the best goalie in the league, Gregg and Lowe elite defensive defensemen yet the Oilers always led the league in goals scored but despite having an elite goaltender and awesome defensemen they were never good in goals allowed. The Canadiens on the other hand had the best goalie, the best defense, and the best forwards and it shows in the statistics.

[Kevin]

Reached out to Larry Brooks (NY Post) and Howie Rose (WFAN) and both said a strong “no” to Walt Tkaczuk. As for Tonelli, they both agreed “Hall of Very Good” and Brooks went on to state Goring obviously better than Carbonneau but brought up Brent Sutter as a player worth considering.

The comparison was should Orr be in the same Hall as Carbonneau, not Orr / Gillies. Gillies, when compared to others that are in, measures up nicely.

Brooks was a firm no on Ramsay, too.

[Kevin]

Was Coffey that great defensively? Gregg, yes, Lowe, one of my favs, but Coffey wasn’t Potvin defensively.

As for being a Bruins fan, you had to listen to that idiot Milbury name names and call out Stan Jonathan for the “too many men on the ice” penalty. No other player on that team said a word about Jonathan. No one mentioned his name I. The press. But that a.h. Milbury? What a POS.

But I digress.

[aro13]

Was Coffey that great defensively? Gregg, yes, Lowe, one of my favs, but Coffey wasn’t Potvin defensively.

Coffey was an amazing skater and offensive talent. His defense was generally regarded as below average. However, people like to find weaknesses in someone so prolific offensively. Coffey gained a lot of publicity for his one defensive play in the 1984 Canada Cup when he broke up a Soviet 2 on 1 that led to a winning goal.

As for being a Bruins fan, you had to listen to that idiot Milbury name names and call out Stan Jonathan for the “too many men on the ice” penalty. No other player on that team said a word about Jonathan. No one mentioned his name I. The press. But that a.h. Milbury? What a POS.

Really? I never heard him say that. Never would have guessed Jonathan but it does make some sense in that he was a left winger and Marcotte stayed out through two or three shifts at left wing. Doesn't really matter who it was, ultimately the coach has to have responsibility.

[Throttlesteer]

Its too bad there isn't a spot for great defensive blueliners in the Hall.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer

Its too bad there isn't a spot for great defensive blueliners in the Hall.

Joe Reekie -HoF!

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer

No offense, but there's a lot of reminiscing and "homer" justification with many of these arguments. Sure, the names in question were extremely valuable to their teams and contributed to their success. Counting numbers are generally the key for most players, unless they're strongly disliked by the hockey writers.
Honestly, I could probably have put 60 points up each year if I found myself on the top six of those Isles, Habs, or Oilers teams.

I agree with the statement about having Orr in the same space as Gillies. But every other sport has the same challenge. Their Halls of Fame have a fair number of Hall of Very Goods in them.

Yeah, some of the comments are hilarious.
The bias people have for teams and players they like definitely clouds logic and even basic common sense.
And no manager that has ever lived would select Goring over Gainey.... Never.

What's next? Huddy over Coffey??

** I should add that I think Goring was an excellent player who greatly contributed to the
Islanders and is well deserving of praise. I just think Gainey is a better player.
His selection as one of the NHL's 100 Greatest I believe supports that.

https://www.si.com/hockey/news/the-t...hrowback-style
https://icehockey.fandom.com/wiki/Li...he_Hockey_News

[mortimer brewster]

I would put Goring's Helmet in the Hall of Fame. Maybe in an evolution of the Hockey Helmet exhibit.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

And no manager that has ever lived would select Goring over Gainey.... Never.


** I should add that I think Goring was an excellent player who greatly contributed to the
Islanders and is well deserving of praise. I just think Gainey is a better player.
His selection as one of the NHL's 100 Greatest I believe supports that.

https://www.si.com/hockey/news/the-t...hrowback-style
https://icehockey.fandom.com/wiki/Li...he_Hockey_News

Interesting, the conversation was Goring over Carbonneau, though. On my end at least.