With the retirement of Eric Desjardins, there is a debate in Flyer fandom about where Rico ranks among Flyers defensemen of all time.
The majority opinion is that Desjardins ranks second, although there are some who would give the nod to five time NHL All-Star Jimmy Watson and a few who'd pick Brad "The Beast" McCrimmon.
No one would ever debate who belongs first. Mark Howe was unquestionably the Flyers best defenseman on all-time. I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why Howe is NOT a Hall of Fame player. He's in the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame but not the big one in Toronto.
The two main arguments are always "He never won a Stanley Cup" and "He never won a Norris Trophy." Neither one holds water.
Let's look at the Stanley Cup issue first. Howe's Flyers took the otherworldy Edmonton Oilers the full seven games in the 1987 Staney Cup Finals, and even scored first in Game 7 before losing 3-1 (it was 2-1 until late in the game).
Do you mean to tell me Howe's candidacy for the Hall is swayed by the outcome of a single close game?
Moreover, would you say Mike Gartner doesn't belong, because he never won a Cup? Would Ray Bourque, arguably the second greatest defenseman in hockey history, not be deserving if he had finished his career in Boston rather than helping put an already stacked Colorado team over the top?
I'm not arguing that Howe should be considered in the same light as Gartner or Bourque. What I am saying is that if you use Stanley Cup rings as the basis of determing someone's worthiness for the Hall, you have to do it consistently.
As for the Norris Trophy, Howe was eminently deserving of three Norris Trophies (he was also a top 3 finisher one year for the Hart Trophy) but voters couldn't ignore the fact Rod Langway was playing 35+ minutes a night of lights-out D, Paul Coffey had just scored 48 goals and 138 points or that Bourque had emerged as the most complete defenseman since Bobby Orr. As for the Hart Trophy, was Mark Howe (or anyone else) really going to beat out Wayne Gretzky in his prime?
In many ways, Howe in his prime was like Nicklas Lidström in his. Both supremely skilled and smooth -- excellent skaters, extremely intelligent two-way players, gentlemanly playing styles. The sublime pairing of Howe with McCrimmon in many ways was a precursor to the magnificent pairing of Lidström with Vladimir Konstantinov.
One partner was nasty to play against and a physical presence who was also positionally savvy and able to contribute some offense. The other was finesse-oriented and extremely skilled with and without the puck in all three zones. Coincidentally-- or not coincidentally-- Howe and McCrimmon were later teammates in Detroit with Lidström and Konstantinov just as the Red Wings were truly starting to gel as team.
How good were Howe and McCrimmon together? Consider this: In the 1985-86 season, Howe was a +85, McCrimmon a +83 and the next highest-rated Flyers defenseman (Brad Marsh) was even. The rest were minus-rated. While plus-minus stats can be deceptive, there's no deception in that.
How good was Howe by himself? Consider this: even during the Flyers lean years post 1987, when they slipped steadily to mediocrity and then started a miserable stretch of five years out of the playoffs, Howe singlehandedly made the team respectable when he played. When he was in the lineup, they were above .500 (and Howe, paired with Kjell Samuelsson, was a +22 for a 1989-90 team that missed the playoffs). When he was out with his back problems, they were a losing team.
How good was Mark Howe? He was a 40 goal, 100 point scorer as a forward (albeit in the WHA) who switched to defense mid-career and became a Norris Trophy caliber defenseman for the better part of a decade. If you combine Howe's offensive numbers from the WHA and NHL, he scored over 400 career goals; and that's despite all the time he missed with injuries, including the gruesome December 1980 injury where he was impaled by the spike underneath the goal post.
No less an authority than Scotty Bowman has said Howe was a more complete player than Coffey. Bowman has said the Red Wings brought in Howe late in his career -- despite the chronic back problems that limited him to part-time duty -- because he was still a winner through and through and could trust his defensive play.
Meanwhile Bowman, who clashed with Coffey in both Pittsburgh and Detroit, said
this of the three time Norris Trophy winner:
''He's not one of my favorites,'' said Bowman, referring to Coffey as a role player. ''A guy that can skate like he can, has all that talent, why can't he play defense?'... He's not as good on the power play as people think. The main thing he can do is carry the puck up the ice, but his work at the point isn't that great.''
Now, I don't necessarily agree with everything Bowman said. In his prime, Coffey was a game-breaking offensive player and I think he still would've been, although not to the same record-shattering extent, if he hadn't been surrounded by other Hall of Famers in Edmonton, Pittsburgh and Detroit. Coffey was a unique, special player who dwarfed Howe -- and arguably even Bourque -- when it came to sheer offensive prowess. No doubt about it. Paul Coffey is a slam-dunk Hall of Fame defenseman.
But when you take defense into account, too, I will argue to my dying day that Mark Howe was a more complete player and, therefore, somewhat more valuable to his teams than Paul Coffey. Edmonton would still likely have won multiple Cups in the Gretzky years without Paul Coffey. The Flyers wouldn't have had a sniff of two Finals and a trip to the 1989 conference finals (15 points in 19 games for Howe) without Mark Howe.
Even if you think I'm nuts for rating Howe about Coffey, can you possibly make a convincing argument for why Howe shouldn't be enshrined in Toronto? I don't think you can.
Philadelphia Flyers Blogger •NHL.com • 
Join the Discussion:
»