| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| nashvillepreds |
Posted - 11/20/2007 : 15:20:56
Which of these great Montreal Canadiens would you rather have on your team?
GO PREDATORS GO |
| 13 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Antroman |
Posted - 12/03/2007 : 16:40:36
Alex, as you already know it is so hard to compare superstars, especially superstars from entirely different eras. I probably suggested the Rocket because when I was very young a name like "The Rocket" was very impressive to a seven year old back in the early fifties. Just the word rocket was impressive back then. Richard was a dynamic individual who like The Flower played on some great teams and both were the biggest stars of their respective teams. The biggest thing about Richard was his fiery attitude to win at all costs. It was with him, get outta' my way or I'm going to kill you. Some people thought he meant it literally and when stick swinging was allot less frowned upon he was one of the best at it. Lafleur was the master of speed and deception and not at all like Richard in that the Flower would very rarely engage anybody in a battle even verbally. I think if you were to place each player in each others era then niether one would survive for very long. Richard would have got suspended out of the league and Lafleur by his own passive nature would have got beaten to death. Both were the greatest of Habs and you can't take that away from either one of them. I think I just went with The Rocket because he was my very first hockey hero. Psst! Don't let anybody know I said that?LOL |
| andyhack |
Posted - 12/02/2007 : 14:01:53
Here's that game again. I must be a masochist!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-941876188692115891&q=team%3Abruins+1979&total=49&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3
Anyway, with Danny Gallivan, Guy and the Flying Frenchmen, the Robinson-Savard-Lapointe trio, the Lunchpail Bruins, Don Cherry and the famous too many men on the ice penalty...it's a piece of history so any hockey fan who hasn't seen this should definitely take a look.
As for your post Alex, well, a lot of this depends on your own personal memories - where you were at a particular point in your life when a particular great player was doing amazing things. I was fifteen in May of '79 - probably pretty much the prime of my storied career as hockey fan . Who was I cheering for? You don't have to ask! Were things thrown at various times in the game? You don't have to ask! Was I forever left with an impression of that blonde guy on the Habs? You don't have to ask!!!! That is the subjective part of what I am saying, and I don't deny that it plays a part in my point of view at all.
But I DO think there is an objective argument to be made that Guy WAS indeed the type of player that you are referring to - who could have a major influence on a game - and did so in many games, not just the famous one that caused so much heartbreak for Bruin diehards such as that fifteen year old  .
In Guy's prime, I think the difference between the Wayne/Mario level in the "major influence on a game" category and the Guy level is FAR less than what is generally believed.
By the way, certainly Wayne had just as much, if not more, offensive support than Guy. Actually, definitely more when you think about the Coffey factor (and considering the presence of Messier on the other line to help wear down opposing teams' defences). The strength of those Habs teams was in their overall play - and in their defence in particular, especially in the '76 and '77 years. They had strong second and third line guys too but not a guy anywhere near as intimidating and forceful as Messier in those years. I'm not taking away anything from Wayne, but I do think that point is sometimes underestimated.
Anyway, I only mention Wayne because you mentioned him, and that kind of fell into my point. People look at Wayne and 200 points and automatically conclude - "oh, well he's on a way different level of greatness than Guy who was was getting just 130 points". I'm not saying Wayne doesn't belong ahead of Guy on people's GOAT lists. I'm just saying the difference in terms of level of greatness reached is less than what people believe.
Edit - Ahhh - I just watched parts of the game again - I need a drink! |
| Alex |
Posted - 12/02/2007 : 06:51:33
Andyhack, I'm gonna say 'Ignorance is bliss'
You have age over me, I'm sure. I welcome you to correct me where I'm wong. I didn't watch these guys play.
As I see it though,the game you mentioned -- that is one game. Of course, it was one of the most memorable and important ones in Habs history, but it was still one game.
Not that he didn't do that more than once. It's just that, when you think of guys who singlehandedly can make your team into a contender, Richard edges Lafleur in my mind. I'm talking about a leader at his best. I think it's safe to say that Richard had far less of a supporting cast .
Think of Lemieux. Think of Gretzky. And now, we're seeing it from Lecavalier. These guys DEFINE M.V.P. I just think Richard is a better fit under that description.
Kipper for Lundqvist? |
| andyhack |
Posted - 12/02/2007 : 06:37:51
quote:
Originally posted by Alex
The rest of these guys were remarkable players, but I don't think they could entirely change the game the way guys like Gretzky, Lemieux, and now Lecavalier are doing.
Alex - I'm not sure where now but somewhere on this site I posted the Habs-Bruins Game 7 which I am referring to. If you can, watch it, and tell me whether you you still think Guy couldn't entirely change a game. A PRETTY IMPORTANT ONE TOO!
In a way this is what I am getting at actually. Alex, you seem like a good guy, don't get me wrong. I just wonder if Guy has gotten lost in history a bit. |
| Alex |
Posted - 12/02/2007 : 06:24:06
This is hard, since I doubt a lot of us have seen every player on this list play.
There's no question that Richard is the poster boy for Habs greats
That being said, I don't think only he could single-handedly control a game the way Patrick Roy did. The rest of these guys were remarkable players, but I don't think they could entirely change the game the way guys like Gretzky, Lemieux, and now Lecavalier are doing.
Kipper for Lundqvist? |
| andyhack |
Posted - 12/02/2007 : 06:05:53
quote:
Originally posted by Antroman
My vote goes to "The Rocket". He was the best stick swinger I have ever seem. This guy put people in the seats. One of the most colorful and talented players ever.
Putting goalies aside for a second, I would take Guy (particularly if the score is 3-1 for Boston going into the third period of the 7th game - if you know what I mean!). Hold it a sec - no happy face there ------- [:(]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Antroman - I never saw the Rocket so can't really comment.
But I was a teenager whose first language was "NHL" back in the late '70s. That blonde guy leading the Habs attack then ('77, '78 and '79 in particular) left a very strong impression on moi!
I've mentioned this before but I sometimes think that the peak level that he reached is a little "underrated" historically. I think he may get knocked down a bit for being on such a great team. Also, he may be a bit of a victim of the "Gretzky effect" in terms of fan's perceptions of great players. What I mean is that people look at 200 points compared to 130 points and just automatically assume that the guy with 200 points reached SUCH a higher level of greatness.
Antroman (and other guys born prior to the 70s) - having seen Lafleur in his prime, what do you think? I'm thinking that if you picked the Rocket ahead of Guy, it says a hell of a lot about the Rocket!
- of course anyone can comment - but I am curious what the pre-70s guys think on this? Maybe I am clouded by being such a victim of Guy's greatness, who knows? |
| nashvillepreds |
Posted - 11/29/2007 : 14:16:05
Beliveau has no votes?
GO PREDATORS GO |
| Antroman |
Posted - 11/29/2007 : 14:14:57
My vote goes to "The Rocket". He was the best stick swinger I have ever seem. This guy put people in the seats. One of the most colorful and talented players ever. |
| Guest2918 |
Posted - 11/21/2007 : 12:38:26
Roy largely due to the fact I seen him play. It seemed every year In every round I cheered for the team playing against Roy. Almost ever year he was standing on his head in the playoffs pissing me off. Had I seen the other players do the same I might have voted differently |
| nashvillepreds |
Posted - 11/21/2007 : 09:12:18
He was added
GO PREDATORS GO |
| andyhack |
Posted - 11/21/2007 : 05:01:13
quote:
Originally posted by I HATE CROSBY
put Roy on the list!
he was the last legendary Canadian.
Sugar Ray over Hasek any day!
I agree. If Dryden is on the list, Roy should be there too. The Montreal teams which Roy led to the Cup were not anywhere near the teams that Dryden led to the Cup, especially in terms of quality defencemen. Even the upset '71 team that Dryden led was probably better than Roy's Montreal teams (but I'll give Dryden full marks for stopping the Orr-Espo Bruins that year).
My general assessment:
Dryden was a very good goalie on GREAT teams (arguably the greatest ever).
Roy was a GREAT goalie on good teams. |
| I HATE CROSBY |
Posted - 11/20/2007 : 15:56:44
put Roy on the list!
he was the last legendary Canadian.
Sugar Ray over Hasek any day! |
| PainTrain |
Posted - 11/20/2007 : 15:33:46
Elmer Lach. Well not literally but he should get more respect for what he did. He really helped Richard get those goals. But the best of all time would have to be Jean Believeau. |
