Hamilton Ricard, Mikkel Beck, Brian Deane immediately spring to mind.
Disagree with Beck personally.
People look at his stats and think 'he was decent' when compared to the current crop. But I think its easy to forget that we played a much more attacking game in those days and scored a lot more goals (we had the players around him to do it - Emerson, Hignett, Juninho, Merson etc, players we can only dream of now and I mean that even in reference to Higgy who'd walk into our side now).
But if you ever watch footage back of 96-99 era he was frustrating. Pretty slow, and a pretty poor touch. He *could* finish some of the time, but he missed a lot more chances than he scored, or just wasn't in the position in the first place (Rav was always a step ahead of him) and hence why we had to throw money at our promotion push in signing Ricard, Branca and Armstrong all at once. We easily might not have gone up had we persevered with Beck (despite this myth that Merson did it all by himself).
I honestly think Britt would have easily got similar amount of goals to Beck in that 97/98 team (don't forget he only just got into double figures despite playing most of the season).
That said, we've had a lot worse and he seems a thoroughly decent bloke. But he wasn't under appreciated.
Ricard was amazing one week and horrific the next. A little like Fabio Rochemback in that respect (different position). Deane was, comparatively speaking, nowhere near as good as some of our other strikers of the era.