Iginla vs. Nieuwendyk: Who was the better player?

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

I haven't read the thread, but was the answer Dan Quinn?

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Quite a few in here sighting Joe's cups as a big reason he's the better player. Something tells me many of these folks would not take the same angle if this was a Vernon / Kipper debate.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by redforever

personally, I would never put MacDonald over Nieuwendyk.

Or Fleury for that matter.

[trackercowe]

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.

[Mister Yamoto]

Iginla is not done yet. Why are people talking about his career in the past tense?

That's what bothers me the most about the trade. It was three years too late and three years too soon. Could have gotten a substantial return for him after the 2010 Olympics. Also could have gotten the same garbage return three years from now.

I say he plays, and plays well. Past his 40th birthday.

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by chockfullofgoodness

Help me with that one? Not sure what TW means.

Don't we allow each other a little latitude on typos? RW.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

For my own curiosity, what's Joe Thornton's status?

Thornton is not a superstar either.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Well played sir, very well played.

why...are you guys assuming Im a JT fan or do you believe he is also a superstar?
Attaching superstar status to a player who is simply great is not my cup of coffee. There are very few superstars. (eg Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe, Crosby, etc etc.) Iginla or JT are not in that league at all.
Superstars transcend the ordinary. IF Iginla or JT for that matter are put in the superstar category they are then hand in hand with the aforementioned....and they simply are not.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by JD

Yeah I'm a little disappointed to see how many are allowing Iggy's twighlight years block out the years where he was beyond reproach in this city. He epitomized the hard-working, physical, intimidating team the Flames were during their best years.

Agreed. Yzerman also fell off his last few seasons, you won't find any Wing fans getting down on him.

[onetwo_threefour]

Iggy, because he got us Monahan by sticking around too long...

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Cheese

why...are you guys assuming Im a JT fan or do you believe he is also a superstar?
Attaching superstar status to a player who is simply great is not my cup of coffee. There are very few superstars. (eg Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe, Crosby, etc etc.) Iginla or JT are not in that league at all.
Superstars transcend the ordinary. IF Iginla or JT for that matter are put in the superstar category they are then hand in hand with the aforementioned....and they simply are not.

Joe Thornton is not a superstar either? Oh boy. I guess it is how you define superstar. I think you are confusing superstar with greatest.

[Cheese]

I think I was pretty clear on how I draw the line.
Greatness does not equal superstardom.
Seems others believe there is a level above superstar...I dont.

[GGG]

What funny is that if Iggy wasn't a superstar then the league had no superstars for several years. Superstars don't need to be in the GOAT discussion. The Category above superstar is generational talent. I think you could have a debate on wether Iggy was a generational talent but both he and Sakic fail to meet that standard. But there is no debate that Iggy was a superstar. For another sport analogy was Peyton Manning a superstar before he won his superbowl? Was Lebron a superstar before he won his NBA championship? The answer is yes, these were the best players at there position at the time. That makes you a superstar.

And remember NO ONE scored more goals over the course of Iggys carreer than Iggy. NO ONE. The only one close is Hossa.

Bill Simmons Hall of fame pyramid for Basketball is a really could breakdown on how these types of dicussion should work

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by habernac

Agreed. Yzerman also fell off his last few seasons, you won't find any Wing fans getting down on him.

Some players change their game when their offensive skills start to wane, in order to become more complete, all-around players. Yzerman was one of those players. Niewendyk was another. Iginla isn't.

[chockfullofgoodness]

Originally Posted by Badger Bob

Don't we allow each other a little latitude on typos? RW.

Haha! I swear to God I didn't think it was a typo. Never entered my mind. Now I know!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Cheese

I think I was pretty clear on how I draw the line.
Greatness does not equal superstardom.
Seems others believe there is a level above superstar...I dont.

Neither do I, but Iginla was considered the best player in hockey in 2004. He may have had only a short time at the top, but that still puts him firmly in the superstar category.

You're basically penalizing Iginla for playing in Calgary instead of Detroit or New York.

[Tinordi]

Iginla had unquestionably the better peak but Niewendyk will likely have better longevity and, in my opinion, achieved more team success and was a much more important component of that success than Iginla.

[Vinny01]

Great trade for both teams.

[Macho0978]

Iginla no question. The Flames of the late 80's were stacked and so were the Stars. Joe was good but Iginla was a one man show for most of his career in Calgary. It's not Iggy's fault he never won a cup here. We just plan sucked besides him and Kipper

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Neither do I, but Iginla was considered the best player in hockey in 2004. He may have had only a short time at the top, but that still puts him firmly in the superstar category.

You're basically penalizing Iginla for playing in Calgary instead of Detroit or New York.

why would I do that? Im a Flames fan.
EVEN if Iggy was the best in 2004 that doesnt make him "what I consider a superstar". Iggy was and remains a very good player....the very closest thing to a superstar without crossing that line. He simply did not transcend the sport or change it any way. A great power forward who when in his prime led with pugnacity and desire. Players hated playing against him and he did make the Flames a better team...but he couldn't do it himself, and THAT is the reason there were 100s of threads on this board begging management to get him a #1 C and 100s more belaying the fact that his slow starts always killed the team.