Flames Mount Rushmore Round Three

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Do a list. I'd be interested to see who the ~20 d-men you'd rank ahead of him.

Well I mean you had him at top 5 and I have thrown out about 15 names of defenseman I rank higher. You want to argue about spots 15 to 20? That’s not the hill I’m going to die on, lots of room for debate there.

Also Brad Park is crazy underrated by some. Seven time first or second team All Star and six time Norris runner up, almost all to some guy named Orr. He was crazy good and similar to Macinnis in that he is closely associated with two franchises. He is in my top 20 no problem and one of my personal favorites.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

It has to be Cliff Fletcher. He built those teams in the 80s. Even with Gretzky on the Oilers, he built a team better than those Oilers. The Flames would have had a dynasty perhaps even greater than Edmonton but they ran out of time due to salary escalation.

Except that he left and robbed the franchise blind in the Gilmour trade.

Otherwise yeah he'd be there. But that trade makes him into a serious traitor to me.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

it's Maher for me

absolute legend

[GioforPM]

Badger, Sutter, Maher, Bearcat

[Strange Brew]

Back on the Macinnis thing. He is 5th all time in PPG for defenseman behind Orr, Coffey, Potvin and Bourque. Pretty impressive.

Now without looking, guess who is right behind him at 6th?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Back on the Macinnis thing. He is 5th all time in PPG for defenseman behind Orr, Coffey, Potvin and Bourque. Pretty impressive.

Now without looking, guess who is right behind him at 6th?

Housley?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Housley?

Nope it is surprising IMO.

A name that Flame fans will be familiar with.

[SuperMatt18]

I love Kipper but I don’t see how he’s a more recognizable or impactful Flame than Macinnis

Longevity? nope
Playoff Success? Nope
Individual Awards? Nope
Career Accomplishments? Nope

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Nope it is surprising IMO.

A name that Flame fans will be familiar with.

Reinhart?

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Back on the Macinnis thing. He is 5th all time in PPG for defenseman behind Orr, Coffey, Potvin and Bourque. Pretty impressive.

Now without looking, guess who is right behind him at 6th?

By PPG you mean points per game? Because he's second in power play goals.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Back on the Macinnis thing. He is 5th all time in PPG for defenseman behind Orr, Coffey, Potvin and Bourque. Pretty impressive.

Now without looking, guess who is right behind him at 6th?

What's your point? A guy who played exclusively in the highest scoring decade and retired at 30 has a similar p/gp to MacInnis - who played 499 gp after age 33 in years where scoring took a dramatic nosedive?


Coffey played 255gp in those years, age 35 and older for him (total adjusted pts = 1347 in 1409gp --> 0.96 per game)

Bourque played 384gp; age 36 and older (1426 in 1612gp --> 0.89)

Potvin retired at age 34...total adjusted pts = 882 in 1060 gp --> 0.83

MacInnis 1200 APts in 1416gp --> 0.85

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Reinhart?

Yeah. PPG meaning point per game.

I would never have guessed. He was a great player but that is some illustrious company.

648 games so while not a super long career he does not come by it cheaply. He was productive from day one in the NHL.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

What's your point? A guy who played exclusively in the highest scoring decade and retired at 30 has a similar p/gp to MacInnis - who played 499 gp after age 33 in years where scoring took a dramatic nosedive?


Coffey played 255gp in those years, age 35 and older for him (total adjusted pts = 1347 in 1409gp --> 0.96 per game)

Bourque played 384gp; age 36 and older (1426 in 1612gp --> 0.89)

Potvin retired at age 34...total adjusted pts = 882 in 1060 gp --> 0.83

MacInnis 1200 APts in 1416gp --> 0.85

I think my point was summed up when I said “Pretty impressive”.

[Ryan Coke]

Reinhart also played forward a fair bit.

[Strange Brew]

Reinhart did play at forward but he predominantly played defenseman. He certainly had free rein to jump into the offense though. Other than constantly missing huge chunks of time for his back the two things I remember most about him:
1) he was incredible in the playoffs
2) best player I have ever seen at keeping the puck inside the zone at the blue line

An underrated talent.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

I always wondered (I was young at the time) but why did the Flames trade Reinhart after the 87-88 season? He once again had a very good playoffs. Not to mention, they ran out of bodies in 86 so you'd think they'd appreciate the depth -- and they actually could have used him because Suter was injured for most of the 89 run, like he was in 86. That almost bit them as he had a good series against the Flames with Vancouver in 89.

Flames made a series of bad deals with Vancouver in the late 80s. Brian Bradley for Craig Coxe, Reinhart/Bozek for a 3rd, etc. I wasn't really a fan of the Murzyn/Stern deal either though that was early 90s.

[Strange Brew]

It was always about the back with Reinhart and whether you could count on him to be in the lineup. I imagine Fletcher grew tired of that. Plus you had Macoun returning from his car wreck.

A healthy back end of Macinnis, Suter, Reinhart, McCrimmon, Macoun, Ramage, Murzyn, Nattress would have been insane.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

It was always about the back with Reinhart and whether you could count on him to be in the lineup. I imagine Fletcher grew tired of that. Plus you had Macoun returning from his car wreck.

A healthy back end of Macinnis, Suter, Reinhart, McCrimmon, Macoun, Ramage, Murzyn, Nattress would have been insane.

Or, with Reinhart, maybe the Ramage trade doesn’t happen and the Flames keep Hull.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Or, with Reinhart, maybe the Ramage trade doesn’t happen and the Flames keep Hull.

Ramage was acquired while Reinhart was still with the team. But no doubt his back issues were part of Fletcher’s calculations there.

Flames were actually swept by the Oilers with a back end of Suter, Macinnis, Reinhart, McCrimmon, Ramage and Murzyn/Nattress. Macoun was out.

Yeah give me Reinhart and Hull over Ramage and Wamsley all day. So long as we get to keep the banner.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

I always wondered (I was young at the time) but why did the Flames trade Reinhart after the 87-88 season? He once again had a very good playoffs. Not to mention, they ran out of bodies in 86 so you'd think they'd appreciate the depth -- and they actually could have used him because Suter was injured for most of the 89 run, like he was in 86. That almost bit them as he had a good series against the Flames with Vancouver in 89.

Flames made a series of bad deals with Vancouver in the late 80s. Brian Bradley for Craig Coxe, Reinhart/Bozek for a 3rd, etc. I wasn't really a fan of the Murzyn/Stern deal either though that was early 90s.

I read something years ago about the Flames wanting to make the Canucks a bit better so they could beat the Oilers more often as to why Reinhart and Bozek were dealt there. Fletcher didn’t want the Oilers going 8-0 against them again.. Flames had MacInnis, Suter, MacCrimmon, Macon, plus Ramage did not really have a spot for Reinhart plus the injury concerns. Similar up front with Gilmour, Niewendyk, and Otto there was not much ice time left for Bozek so he was flipped to Vancover after the deal with St.Louis.

I would guess some of it was salary dumping as Gilmour, Mark Hunter, a Bozek for Bullard, Coxe, and Corkey was horrific for the Blues. So the Flames likely wanted to send some money out as they had added some pricier vets in the previous 12 months.