Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
Wow. Bourque was perceived as having issues with effort but averaged something like 54 points over 82 games in Calgary.
He had such a hot start one year that people were wondering if he would displace Iggy as the top winger. The disappointment was that he ended up with 50 odd points
And the current opinion is that people are turning on Ferland when he left?
Bourque wasn’t god’s gift to hockey. His years after Calgary were nothing to write home about. But his years in Calgary were a heck of a lot more productive, on average across the whole time good and bad, than Ferland’s best year.
And Ferland coasted his ass off on the 4th line many games when he thought he was a scorer.
Silly.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
Bourque on the other hand...
averaged 54 points per 82 games over his entire tenure in Calgary.
Yes?
He wasn’t a feel good story because people were talking about him when he was hot, potentially being to displace Iggy, but then he came back to earth.
Produced very well here, far better and more consistently than Ferland, and was fortunately traded at the right time.
|
Not sure exactly what you're arguing here... Yeah, Bourque had a lot of points here and proved himself to be more of a goal scorer and point producer. Then coasted after a larger contract was signed, which brought into question his compete level and effort. He had the talent, but not the effort and it was frustrating as hell.
Ferland is a guy who has less talent, but more effort, which makes him more likeable.
You're right. he produced far better than Ferland over a longer period of time, because Ferland is more of a bottom 6er grinder type, who is more than likely playing over his head right now.
Tell me again how they compare? I must have missed the discussions where fans thought Ferland was the future of Calgary.