Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - Iginla vs. Nieuwendyk: Who was the better player?

trackercowe · 10-24-2013, 12:55 AM

I'd say Nieuwendyk has the better career, while Iginla has the better prime/peak. Iginla was either the best, or one of the best players in the league for a 2-3 year period (pre-Crosby), so I would say he was most definitely an elite player. Some might say he was not a superstar, but that would be saying no one in that era would have been considered at a superstar level. That might be true, as that was also the time Forsberg had injury issues, Lindros was near the end, Jagr was wasting his time in Washington, and Thronton was about to be exiled from Beantown.

Meanwhile with Nieuwendyk he was never really a top five player, or probably even a top ten player. Now he had to play with Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Messier, etc in their prime, so the competition was a lot more stiff, but even then he never had a 100 point season. He did however adapt his game later in his career, which is why his stats did decline once he left Calgary. At least during the regular season Nieuwendyk wasn't one of the top guys those teams depended on for scoring. Which is obviously different than Iginla who was the top guy in Calgary for over a decade, always played on the top line, and always got time on the powerplay. So in a sense some could argue even though Iginla played much of his career in the deadpuck era, unlike Nieuwendyk he was given a much better chance at putting up points even if he played on teams with less talent.

So it's a cop-out, but careerwise I have to go with Nieuwendyk, but Iginla was better in his prime. If you forced me to choose between the two I would go with Nieuwendyk, but that could change if Iginla finds a way to play a significant role on a cup winning team. Sorry, but at least for me Cups do matter.

10-24-2013, 12:55 AM	#84
trackercowe Franchise Player Join Date: Nov 2009 Exp:	I'd say Nieuwendyk has the better career, while Iginla has the better prime/peak. Iginla was either the best, or one of the best players in the league for a 2-3 year period (pre-Crosby), so I would say he was most definitely an elite player. Some might say he was not a superstar, but that would be saying no one in that era would have been considered at a superstar level. That might be true, as that was also the time Forsberg had injury issues, Lindros was near the end, Jagr was wasting his time in Washington, and Thronton was about to be exiled from Beantown. Meanwhile with Nieuwendyk he was never really a top five player, or probably even a top ten player. Now he had to play with Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Messier, etc in their prime, so the competition was a lot more stiff, but even then he never had a 100 point season. He did however adapt his game later in his career, which is why his stats did decline once he left Calgary. At least during the regular season Nieuwendyk wasn't one of the top guys those teams depended on for scoring. Which is obviously different than Iginla who was the top guy in Calgary for over a decade, always played on the top line, and always got time on the powerplay. So in a sense some could argue even though Iginla played much of his career in the deadpuck era, unlike Nieuwendyk he was given a much better chance at putting up points even if he played on teams with less talent. So it's a cop-out, but careerwise I have to go with Nieuwendyk, but Iginla was better in his prime. If you forced me to choose between the two I would go with Nieuwendyk, but that could change if Iginla finds a way to play a significant role on a cup winning team. Sorry, but at least for me Cups do matter.