|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 26, 2003 18:27:16 GMT -5
I heard Bergeron say that on the radio today... Can any of the older fans agree with that statement? Man the big 3 of the new millenium is slowly but surely taking place...Markov playing like a friggin Monster(sorry Pierre McGuire haters...I had to)..Hainsey with the team and getting NHL experience and Komi getting better every game in the AHL. Like 17 said...with those 3 and Theo in goal...we will be doing 3 rounds and more each spring for sure ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) Cheer up Hab fans, the years of misery are done and the good times are just upon us. GHG.
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jan 26, 2003 18:29:48 GMT -5
Nope...but best since Chelios.
CO
|
|
|
Post by Psycorp on Jan 26, 2003 18:32:25 GMT -5
Well...i would partially agree, Markov is very good, my favorite defensemen since a long time but i would put Chelios right there as well, before being traded he was so dominant! A pity he had some personnality problems(too much partying) ![>:(](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/angry.png) CO you beat me to it ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Jan 26, 2003 18:36:15 GMT -5
Take into consideration his age and possibly that he will only become much better and he should exceed Chelios at this stage in his career i would say they are at least equal with Markov having a bit of the edge.
Marc Markov is not a Monster as meathead maguire would say he's more than that He's a HAB !!!!!
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 26, 2003 18:47:02 GMT -5
Best since Robinson ? Sheesh.
Chelios won a Norris (if not several), so I don't see how Bergeron can ignore him. And Bergeron coached against Chelios, so he should know.
And I'm not sure I wouldn't still take Desjardins (in his prime) over Markov, but a case could be made either way, I guess.
Malakhov has skill galore, plus size, but his intensity wasn't there. I'd still take Vlad's career year over Markov, but I think in the end Markov can be better than Vlad, but we still have to see if Markov can keep up the intensity, which often seems to be a problem for our Russky friends.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 26, 2003 19:02:04 GMT -5
thanks guys.........
;D
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 26, 2003 20:06:22 GMT -5
Markov is definitely the Habs best d-man since Brisebois.
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Jan 26, 2003 20:51:45 GMT -5
Markov is definitely the Habs best d-man since Brisebois. LOL! If he can improve at the pace he's on now, he will become the best Dman Montreal has ever had, but, those are mighty big shoes to fill and he has lots of improving to do. I know this, he's the best Dman we got by a huge margin and with youth on his side, the potential is certainly there to be the best. I pray to the hockey God that he makes it. "Ahem, Mr. Cherry? Can you hear me?" he-he
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jan 26, 2003 21:11:20 GMT -5
I'd agree with CO and PTH, Bergy forgot Chelios fer sure. Desjardins was also quite impressive.
Not too long ago a certain Eric Weinrich was leading the HABS dmen to what ranked as the best defensive team in the NHL... As a matter of fact, HABS defense has never recover from the Weinrich deal.
Markov is certainly turning into quite a dmen but he needs a couple of years to have the self-insurance that will make him control a game.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 26, 2003 21:14:31 GMT -5
Weinrich was and still is very solid. Wish we had him back.
As I recall AS offered him almost 3 million per year and EW said no...
|
|
|
Post by CalgaryHab on Jan 26, 2003 21:44:49 GMT -5
I'd vote for Chelios as probably the best one since but Markov is not finished developing so might pass him by. Chelios had the mean streak to go with his skill. I'd take Markov over Desjardins any time.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Jan 26, 2003 22:54:40 GMT -5
Markov
Chelios
Langway
Desjardins
Malakhov
Schneider
Robinson
Markov's not better than three of those five guys. Not yet, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 26, 2003 23:47:06 GMT -5
MarkovChelios Langway Desjardins Malakhov Schneider RobinsonMarkov's not better than three of those five guys. Not yet, anyway. Right on Johnny: 1. Robinson 2. Chelios 3. Langway 4. Desjardins 5. Markov (and climbing)......... others 78. Dyment 79. Brisebois 80. Traverse
|
|
|
Post by Rhiessan on Jan 27, 2003 0:36:24 GMT -5
I'm not that old but old enough to have seen Bigbird in his prime and the best comparision I can make to a guy in the league now is Rob Blake only LR was meaner had better hands in tight and was alot(and I can't stress this enough) TOUGHER! Alot of you young(er) guys have heard of Dave "The Hammer" Schultz but how many knew that Larry handed him one of the most sound defeats of his career ![:o](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/shocked.png) Anyway the view of Markov being the best Habs d-man since Desjardins and moving up sounds about right to me.
|
|
|
Post by Vichab on Jan 27, 2003 1:19:45 GMT -5
No question Markov is on the right track. He can dominate a game by both his offensive and defensive skill which is what chelios was able to do. I don't think we would have won the '86 cup if chelios hadn't returned from an injury so he was well rested and able to log alot of ice time.
Markov reminds me more of Guy Lapointe who had all the skills and although he may not have been the best in any one area he was very good in passing, shooting, ragging the puck, hitting, quarting backing the point on the pp, tough in the corners, good speed,etc. He was the full package. In fact many who played on that greatest team ever say that the one player that hurt the most when he was out of the lineup was Pointu. I believe the win loss stats bear this out.
Desjardins was ok but was not a great hitter, had no mean streak, nor did he possess a great shot. Markov's is already better than eric ever had.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 27, 2003 1:32:45 GMT -5
I think there's a general consensus that Markov is on the right track, it's just hard to know how far he's come along. Will he plateau or keep on improving ?
At this point, I'd rate him in the Schneider-Desjardins grouping - guys who might be mentionned once or twice as guy who could become Norris candidates, but who essentially are a notch below.
But if Markov keeps on improving, who knows.
That being said, I don't think he'll reach true Norris potential, simply because of size - he'll never be truely able to contain elite big forwards IMO, and that will hold him back in most voters' opinions.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 27, 2003 9:00:07 GMT -5
When Markov broke into the league, former poster dd said that he hadn't seen a defenseman that good since Chelios, and that if Markov developed a little bit of a nasty streak, he would be as good, if not better than Chelios. Strong statement for what was a defensively suspect, enigmatic Russian rookie.
Looks like he was right. Good call.
Right now Markov isn't the best since Robinson, as I would rate Chelios, Desjardins, Weinrich and maybe a couple of others ahead of him. But that list will get smaller and smaller as the years go on...
|
|
|
Post by habernac on Jan 27, 2003 10:21:29 GMT -5
He won't be a big-bird type of dman, he just isn't big enough. The person who compared him to Lapointe coulde be close. I don't think he'll be as effective all-around as a Chelios, but he'll be better offensively.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 27, 2003 11:15:21 GMT -5
Right now Markov isn't the best since Robinson, as I would rate Chelios, Desjardins, Weinrich and maybe a couple of others ahead of him. But that list will get smaller and smaller as the years go on... Does Weinrich really belong in that group of names? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) I mean he was good for us..but that good6
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 27, 2003 11:49:57 GMT -5
Does Weinrich really belong in that group of names? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) I mean he was good for us..but that good6 Eric was a solid number 3 or 4 (but like Traverse, was asked to play above his head by the Habs). Markov is easily a 3 or 4 right now. Hell, I'd say he's making a good case for being number 2 on any club, the way he keeps ratcheting up the level of his game.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jan 27, 2003 11:53:03 GMT -5
I think there's a general consensus that Markov is on the right track, it's just hard to know how far he's come along. Will he plateau or keep on improving ? At this point, I'd rate him in the Schneider-Desjardins grouping - guys who might be mentionned once or twice as guy who could become Norris candidates, but who essentially are a notch below. But if Markov keeps on improving, who knows. That being said, I don't think he'll reach true Norris potential, simply because of size - he'll never be truely able to contain elite big forwards IMO, and that will hold him back in most voters' opinions. I think that's spot on. Markov is a nice player, but I don't think his offensive ceiling is a heck of a lot higher at this point. I think he'll get better in both zones, but he's not Norris trophy material and nowhere near as effective a player as Chris Chelios.
|
|
|
Post by BCHab on Jan 27, 2003 12:02:44 GMT -5
I don't think Weinrich should be included in that list of names. He wasn't in same league as Langway or Chelios. Weinrich is a solid defenseman to be sure but not elite. Markov is not one of the best but could be, maybe. He still makes plenty of mistakes, offensive acumen notwithstanding.
Talent wise, Malakhov takes it hands down. Too bad the guy never really felt like playing. I'd say Markov is a good player but it's far too early to make a comparison. I agree with Vichab in saying he reminds me of Guy Lapointe sometimes. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 27, 2003 12:29:01 GMT -5
Chelios: 6'1, 190lbs. Markov: 6', 208lbs. Edge Markov. The kid will likely still grow a bit heavier.
Production at age 24: Chelios 11-33-44, -5, 124pim. Markov 9-18-27, +10, 26pim in 51 games.
Of course it's tricky comparing players from different eras on different clubs. Chelios was way more impressive straight out of the gate, but then hit a rough patch around Andrei's age. However from that point on the Habs went on to have a solid club for a number of years.
Since it seems that the Habs are about to repeat that pattern now, a comparison may carry more objective weight over the next few years.
Skill? Both have tons.
Experience? Chelios.
Positional maturity? Chelios.
SOB attitude? Chelios.
Defensive game? Chelios.
Chelios is old enough to be Andrei's Dad. I say the kid picks up all the above in due time and at least equals the old man. It's certainly a tall order but I think he's up for it. The glass is half full.
He's just now started to lead all d-men on the club in terms of ice time. He's fourth on the club in scoring and +/-, and easily leads the d-men in both categories. He'll can only get better.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 27, 2003 13:54:25 GMT -5
Does Weinrich really belong in that group of names? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) I mean he was good for us..but that good6 Well, I took the question to mean who, at his best (consistantly) was better than Markov is right now. Weinrich logged a tonne of minutes for us, played the powerplay, killed penalties, and was our #1 defenseman, something Markov is only starting to do in the last few weeks. For sure, Markov will be the better player, but if you had to pick one guy to face Jaromir Jagr, one-on-one, with everything on the line, would you take the Weinrich who played for us just after he came over from Chicago, or the Markov of a month ago? I don't think they are that far apart. Markov will almost certainly have a better career than Weinrich, but right now, is he better than Weinrich was at his best?
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 27, 2003 13:56:18 GMT -5
Markov will almost certainly have a better career than Weinrich, but right now, is he better than Weinrich was at his best? I say yes. Although I am probably a little biased ;D
|
|