| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 11:23:06
Though I am not a member of the "Gretzky Camp" (as I think most of you know), I thought that, given the onslaught of anti-Gretzky posts by Guest 5221 (Chooch?), it would be fair to raise another hopefully interesting hypothetical.
I know this can be worded in many ways, but this is what I've come up with.
If the Kings of the early '90s would have had two or three players of greater talent than they had (bringing them closer to the talent level of the '94 Rangers), would Gretzky have been able to lead that Kings team to the Stanley Cup (particularly in '93 obviously). |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 09:57:33
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
quote:
What is a definitive victory, anyway?
If Ottawa beats Anaheim 4 games to 3 and every game goes into triple overtime, who gets the Cup?
Well, in your example Ottawa scored 25% more than Anaheim...
The point about it being a definitive victory is this: You said no one who knows anything about hockey would pick anyone but Gretzky as the best all time. I showed you that half of the pundits who voted in that poll say otherwise. You are grasping at straws by asking what a definitive victory is.
quote:
Did Orr get 92 goals one year? Did Orr get 215 points one year? Did Orr set the record for career points? No, he did not.
Was Orr a forward with a personal bodyguard who played in the highest scoring era in the NHL  ?
quote:
Why are we even arguing? It's ridiculous.
What's ridiculous is the fact that you think the greatest all time is not debatable. It's understandable though, as you are not old enough to have seen Orr play. If it's so ridiculous, start a new thread and show me. I'm more than willing to show you it is completely debatable.
[quote]Is your nose stained dark or light brown?
No darker than your tongue
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
That was just gross.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 07:13:59
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
quote:
What is a definitive victory, anyway?
If Ottawa beats Anaheim 4 games to 3 and every game goes into triple overtime, who gets the Cup?
Well, in your example Ottawa scored 25% more than Anaheim...
The point about it being a definitive victory is this: You said no one who knows anything about hockey would pick anyone but Gretzky as the best all time. I showed you that half of the pundits who voted in that poll say otherwise. You are grasping at straws by asking what a definitive victory is.
quote:
Did Orr get 92 goals one year? Did Orr get 215 points one year? Did Orr set the record for career points? No, he did not.
Was Orr a forward with a personal bodyguard who played in the highest scoring era in the NHL ?
quote:
Why are we even arguing? It's ridiculous.
What's ridiculous is the fact that you think the greatest all time is not debatable. It's understandable though, as you are not old enough to have seen Orr play. If it's so ridiculous, start a new thread and show me. I'm more than willing to show you it is completely debatable.
[quote]Is your nose stained dark or light brown?
No darker than your tongue
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 21:17:06
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9911
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Guest 9995 (the artist formerly known as "Guest 1267") - You stole my playbook! But thanks for the tip of the hat. Yes, perhaps there is a method to the madness of this insane guy!
By the way, off topic but just wondering, who did people cheer for in that '93 final? Gretzky or the Canadian team? For me it was a nightmare final, as I certainly didn't want to see the Habs win, yet again, and didn't particularly want to see Wayne win, yet again, either.
(Artist formerly known as 9995 and 1267 before that)
No worries, Andyhack! As to your question.... In Canada, most people were probably going for the Habs, not because of the whole Gretzky vs. Gilmore thing, but because Canadians have to cheer for the Canadian team. (The only people in Canada who thought Kerry Fraser won the series for LA were in Ontario. It never ceases to amaze me how Leaf fans completely missed that Gretzky scored 5 points in the final 2 games of that series. Always much easier to blame it all on one high stick!)
I was cheering for LA.
I live in Canada but don't base my choices on the teams being from Canada.
I like Canadian players, and they are on every team. To me, I'm cheering for Ottawa not because they are based in Canada, but because they have more Canadians on the team. I'm cheering for Anaheim for the same reason.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 21:12:31
quote:
As for your insulting comments, the only reason I, and I suspect a few others on here haven't unloaded a barrage of verbal abuse on you is because we, unlike you, respect what this site is trying to do with the rules they have put in place. Perhaps you should read them again? This is a forum intended for civil debates.
Is your nose stained dark or light brown?
What is a definitive victory, anyway?
If Ottawa beats Anaheim 4 games to 3 and every game goes into triple overtime, who gets the Cup?
Don't talk to me about who almost won, talk to me about who did win.
Don't talk to me about who could have beaten Gretzky's records if he had played here or with this guy or if he had played in 2000....I don't care. One guy holds the records, one guy wins the polls.
Who scored 92 goals in one season? Was that Messier? Lemieux? Lafleur? Orr? Did Orr get 92 goals one year? Did Orr get 215 points one year? Did Orr set the record for career points? No, he did not.
Why are we even arguing? It's ridiculous.
No andyhack, you are not insane. Probably not.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| Guest9911 |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 20:15:26
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Guest 9995 (the artist formerly known as "Guest 1267") - You stole my playbook! But thanks for the tip of the hat. Yes, perhaps there is a method to the madness of this insane guy!
By the way, off topic but just wondering, who did people cheer for in that '93 final? Gretzky or the Canadian team? For me it was a nightmare final, as I certainly didn't want to see the Habs win, yet again, and didn't particularly want to see Wayne win, yet again, either.
(Artist formerly known as 9995 and 1267 before that)
No worries, Andyhack! As to your question.... In Canada, most people were probably going for the Habs, not because of the whole Gretzky vs. Gilmore thing, but because Canadians have to cheer for the Canadian team. (The only people in Canada who thought Kerry Fraser won the series for LA were in Ontario. It never ceases to amaze me how Leaf fans completely missed that Gretzky scored 5 points in the final 2 games of that series. Always much easier to blame it all on one high stick!) |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 17:47:53
I am a Leafs fan, but I cheered for Montreal because L.A. did not deserve to be in the 93 final...Is Fraser on the Phoenix payroll this year??? Phoenix never made the playoffs this year, and Fraser did not either...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 17:18:44
Guest 9995 (the artist formerly known as "Guest 1267") - You stole my playbook! But thanks for the tip of the hat. Yes, perhaps there is a method to the madness of this insane guy!
By the way, off topic but just wondering, who did people cheer for in that '93 final? Gretzky or the Canadian team? For me it was a nightmare final, as I certainly didn't want to see the Habs win, yet again, and didn't particularly want to see Wayne win, yet again, either.
|
| Guest5221 |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 17:44:02
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
If you look at the roster for the 1992-93 LA. Kings, they had some talent on that team.
Er... 'some talent', but really not really very much... Couple decent players, couple plumbers with career years, ...
To win the West you didnt need much. Automaticly to Finals like the Blues of teh 60's. |
| tctitans |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 12:48:08
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
If you look at the roster for the 1992-93 LA. Kings, they had some talent on that team.
Er... 'some talent', but really not really very much... Couple decent players, couple plumbers with career years, ... |
| tctitans |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 12:39:01
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
ps. Willus, I dont agree with you regarding Gretzky's quote. It actually is quite profound - especially for our very young players out there
Well it is definitely a lesson in redundancy and illogical thought. Yes I get what he was trying to say, but it was said poorly.
In actual fact you cannot miss if you don't take a shot. Missing a shot requires the action of shooting. You don't miss the shots you don't take, but you do miss the opportunity to score if you don't shoot.
Perhaps he should have said - you will never score if you don't shoot, or - it's impossible to score if you don't take the shot.
I don't agree. Although what you propose is more straight-forward and to the point, it would never have been remember. LIke it or not, the real quote *has* been remember and has stuck around.. (some signatures around here are proof of that. ;)) |
| Guest9995 |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 11:58:08
(Previously Guest 1267)
Andyhack, I think I can see your purpose in this thread. Many of the pro Gretzky guys don't like hypotheticals since hypotheticals are the main basis for the Lemieux camp. Yet you have started a hypothetical thread which the pro Gretzky guys cannot resist, and thereby proving to them that hypotheticals are indeed useful....which, in turn, will give merit to the Lemieux side in the Lemieux vs. Gretzky arguments which inevitably follow! Nicely done.
PS. To the guy who said Gretzky didn't do anything against the Habs...You know he scored 4 points in game 1, causing Jaques Demers to have conniption fits during the post game press conference, right? |
| Guest9995 |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 11:57:08
EDIT:
Previously Guest 1267)
Andyhack, I think I can see your purpose in this thread. Many of the pro Gretzky guys don't like hypotheticals since hypotheticals are the main basis for the Lemieux camp. Yet you have started a hypothetical thread which the pro Gretzky guys cannot resist, and thereby proving to them that hypotheticals are indeed useful....which, in turn, will give merit to the Lemieux side in the Lemieux vs. Gretzky arguments which inevitably follow! Nicely done.
PS. To the guy who said Gretzky didn't do anything against the Habs...You know he scored 4 points in game 1, causing Jaques Demers to have conniption fits during the post game press conference, right? |
| Guest9995 |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 11:55:09
(Previously Guest 1267)
Andyhack, I think I can see your purpose in this thread. Many of the pro Gretzky guys don't like hypotheticals since hypotheticals are the main basis for the Lemieux camp. Yet you have started a hypothetical thread which the pro Gretzky guys cannot resist, and thereby proving to them that hypotheticals are indeed useful....which, in turn, will give merit to the Lemieux side in the Lemieux vs. Gretzky arguments which inevitably follow! Nicely done.
PS. Do the guy who said Gretzky didn't do anything against the Habs...You know he scored 4 points in game 1, causing Jaques Demers to have conniption fits during the post game press conference, right? |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 06:42:20
Good points Pucknuts. The major difference that year, aside from the call in Game 2, was Roy, and frankly also some good old-fashioned luck (I've said it before, and I'll say it again, God is a Habs fan).
In retrospect, I think I should have made this hypothetical a little bit more focused, such as a) what if they wouldn't have traded Coffey? or b) What if they would have had a better goalie than Kelly H (what if they would have had Curtis Joseph for example)?
Edit - I won't start more polls on this (so relax!), but I guess there are all types of other hypotheticals that Gretzky Camp members could try to use in their guy's defence. If Messier is traded to the Kings instead of Gretzky, do the '90 Oilers still win the Cup? If Gretzky is on that '94 Ranger team instead of Messier, do they still pull out the Jersey semi-final and the seven game final? All interesting hypothetcials that perhaps support Gretzky. Sometimes hypotheticals are just as fair (and fun) as facts I guess. |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 19:23:45
It seems to me to be quite obvious that if you take any team add better players that you will have a better team, but will that team win the Stanley Cup, not necessarily. When it comes to the playoffs you have to elevate your game to win, if you add better players you best hope that they will perform in the playoffs…
If you look at the roster for the 1992-93 LA. Kings, they had some talent on that team.
(I was going to list all the players, but you can look them up if you want)
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000401993.html
They were 5th in the league in goals for, but 21st in goals against (Ouch).
What would a post from me be without stats.
Regular season
Top 12 Forwards
LA. Kings 609 Pts (Gretzky only played 45 games)
Montreal 638 Pts
Top 6 Defense
LA. Kings 261 Pts (Coffey traded after 50 games)
Montreal 179 Pts
Playoffs
Top 12 Forwards
LA Kings 180
Montreal 135
Top 6 Defense
LA Kings 51 Pts (Without Coffey)
Montreal 38 Pts
Yes I think that with the addition of a goalie they may have done better.
But trading Paul Coffey away, now that was dumb…
They did not need better players they needed better management, Nick Beverley made one of the dumbest trades, I guess that is why he was not with the team the next season, and that is why they did not win the Cup in 1993...
Oh they did have some outside help on their team in "Kerry Fraser"...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 17:52:31
Insanely ugly! But my wife says she loves me nevertheless.
Gretzky before Messier? Chooch-san! ARE YOU INSANE?
|
| Guest5221 |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 17:33:46
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
I'm gonna give you an out on this, fly4apuckguy.
Let's try again. Read below and then answer the question.
I think Bobby Orr was the best hockey player who ever lived. I think Mark Messier was the best forward who ever lived. If I were building a team from scratch, I would want to take them before Gretzky (based on personal preference, yes, but also based on what I objectively think would be best for a team).
I think Gretzky was an incredible offensive machine with probably the best vision of any hockey player ever. He was absolutely phenomenal, a one in a million player, and therefore the third best hockey player ever in my books.
Is Andyhack insane?
YES or NO
p.s. Ironically, Chooch will say "yes" for me giving Wayne the edge over Mario, amongst other things written up there
Hackhead, I dont think youre insane (ugly, maybe).
My all time top 10 sicn eI started watching in 1971 are:
1.Mario (no question the Greatest Ever - and I cant see what bias I would have not being from Pitts.)
2.Hasek - way more dominant than Roy and neevr given credit because of his being a furreener.
3.Jagr see above and did it in the East
4.Orr Unbel4ievable
5.Lafleur - 10 times the player Bure was, 10 times as exiting as anyone except maybe Orr and Mario. 10 times as complete as anyone - best passer in the league, best shot, fastest skater, best stickhandler, most clutch etc etc,
6.Bourque - should have win 18 Norris'
7.Trottier - most complete player along with Messier
8.Gretzky - big question mark is how he woudl have done on his own and in the East with tough checking
9.Messier - most complete player ever
10.Esposito - absolutely dominant household name in the early 70's.
|
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 14:35:10
I'm gonna give you an out on this, fly4apuckguy.
Let's try again. Read below and then answer the question.
I think Bobby Orr was the best hockey player who ever lived. I think Mark Messier was the best forward who ever lived. If I were building a team from scratch, I would want to take them before Gretzky (based on personal preference, yes, but also based on what I objectively think would be best for a team).
I think Gretzky was an incredible offensive machine with probably the best vision of any hockey player ever. He was absolutely phenomenal, a one in a million player, and therefore the third best hockey player ever in my books.
Is Andyhack insane?
YES or NO
p.s. Ironically, Chooch will say "yes" for me giving Wayne the edge over Mario, amongst other things written up there |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 14:29:13
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
Okay, I'm the rigid one.
Name one major hockey publication, hockey insider, ex-coach, or unbiased ex-player that would disagree with Gretzky being called the best player that ever lived.
Aside from Boston fans (Orr) and Pittsburgh fans (Lemieux) and a couple of dreamers in Montreal (Richard) and Detroit (Howe), no legitimate hockey source disagrees with me on this one.
I love all of those guys I listed above, but I am not dillusional, because I don't particularly cheer for any of those teams, including the Oilers.
With all due respect, the only people left in this world who disagree with Gretzky being called the best player of all time are the ones who were not around to watch him in his heyday. I'm old enough to have seen them all (except the Rocket). Even Lemieux and Orr have gone on record saying it's no contest.
As for the whining about my quote and me calling someone a donkey, people, it's a message board. Some of you need to go out and get some sun once in awhile.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz
Alright, how about The Hockey News. The 100 Greatest Players edition. Gretzky was voted number one, Orr number two. So right away you say well there you go. But dig a little deeper and see what the vote came to. They both received the same amount of first place votes at 18. The decision was made on second place voting and the difference was less than 1%. This was a collection of hockey pundits that voted and not just some random fans. Hardly a definitive victory for Gretzky. So half voted for Gretz and half for Orr. That pretty much blows you're first idiotic statement out of the water.
I am also not delusional as I am not a fan of any of the teams you mentioned either and I choose Orr.
You're next remedial statement about the only ones who say otherwise are the ones who weren't around to watch Gretzky in his heyday is completely false. In fact if you polled those that saw all of these guys play you would most likely find the majority choosing Orr. From everything I've read about people saying, that's how it would turn out. I saw them both and without hesitation I choose Orr. And BTW Orr has never gone on record as saying Gretzky is the best. He gave the nod to Howe and Lemieux.
As for your insulting comments, the only reason I, and I suspect a few others on here haven't unloaded a barrage of verbal abuse on you is because we, unlike you, respect what this site is trying to do with the rules they have put in place. Perhaps you should read them again? This is a forum intended for civil debates.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 14:12:34
First, I had no idea I was calling a 14 year old a friggin donkey. I assumed the people on this board were older. When I was 14, I was never indoors. I wouldn't purposely hurt a kid, man. I work with kids. If I upset you, kid, I'm sorry. But it proves my point that young people can't really judge the Great One. They often go by what their dad says, or some highlights they see, or posts where people say "if it wasn't for his linemates...".
Second, I am Don Cherry's biggest fan, but I understand his limitations. The guy likes certain types of players, most of whom I also like. But just like he almost never likes a European, he was never a Gretzky fan, much like he is not really a Crosby fan. He gets a lot of mileage off of being controversial, much like IHC does on this message board.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 14:01:51
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
Okay, I'm the rigid one.
Name one major hockey publication, hockey insider, ex-coach, or unbiased ex-player that would disagree with Gretzky being called the best player that ever lived.
As for the whining about my quote and me calling someone a donkey, people, it's a message board. Some of you need to go out and get some sun once in awhile.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz
As we all know, one ex-coach would be Don Cherry. Obviously biased, yes, but on the other hand, not many have watched more hockey in the last 40 years, and of course he had a close view of Orr from the bench.
One prominent non-biased player may be Guy Lafleur (certain comments I have heard him make seem to indicate that he believes Orr was the best).
I am sure there are lots of ex-players and coaches from the '70s who would say Orr too.
As for getting sun, I got in a very nice share of cycling over the last few beautiful days in Toronto, thanks. To each his own, fly4apuckguy. If you are comfortable with calling 14 year old kids "friggin donkeys" and also comfortable with not being a big enough person to admit that you may have been a little harsh in that post of yours to Leafs fan 101 (who ultimately was just explaining why he was answering "yes" to the hypothetical being posed), I guess there is not much anyone can do about it.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 12:18:44
Fly, I'm on your side with this one. If you look back at my post, I may be the biggest Gretzky advocate on this site. I have just come to learn that many people on here were not old enough to see Prime Time Gretzky. I am 30 and I can't remember all of it. But I remember enough to agree with you.
However, as you missed a big part of the Greatest Player ever and Lemiuex vs. Gretzky debates over this season, I can understand some people's opinions. There is merit to question Bobby Orr and Mario Lemieux. In my opinion, the biggest reasons that there is merit to these points is the what if they were healthy and played as long as Gretzky factor. I still don't buy it though.
The thing that many people on here are siting are the countless posts that say something like, "Of course it's Gretzky, who ever things otherwise is an idiot." It's those posts without any substance that infuriate many people, including me. |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 11:57:55
Okay, I'm the rigid one.
Name one major hockey publication, hockey insider, ex-coach, or unbiased ex-player that would disagree with Gretzky being called the best player that ever lived.
Aside from Boston fans (Orr) and Pittsburgh fans (Lemieux) and a couple of dreamers in Montreal (Richard) and Detroit (Howe), no legitimate hockey source disagrees with me on this one.
I love all of those guys I listed above, but I am not dillusional, because I don't particularly cheer for any of those teams, including the Oilers.
With all due respect, the only people left in this world who disagree with Gretzky being called the best player of all time are the ones who were not around to watch him in his heyday. I'm old enough to have seen them all (except the Rocket). Even Lemieux and Orr have gone on record saying it's no contest.
As for the whining about my quote and me calling someone a donkey, people, it's a message board. Some of you need to go out and get some sun once in awhile.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 09:36:48
Andyhack, I strongly agree with your frustration towards those in the Gretzky Camp who say, "Looks at the Stats, Looks at the record book, he's the best ever and your are a moron if you think other wise." They make guys like me look bad. No different than the guys who say, "Look at all the even strength goals against, he always hung around centre ice, he couldn't win a Cup without Messier, he couldn't play defense, and he didn't fight." They make the Non Gretzky Camp look bad.
I only ask that you don't paint us all with the same brush. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 06:22:37
quote:
ps. Willus, I dont agree with you regarding Gretzky's quote. It actually is quite profound - especially for our very young players out there
Well it is definitely a lesson in redundancy and illogical thought. Yes I get what he was trying to say, but it was said poorly.
In actual fact you cannot miss if you don't take a shot. Missing a shot requires the action of shooting. You don't miss the shots you don't take, but you do miss the opportunity to score if you don't shoot.
Perhaps he should have said - you will never score if you don't shoot, or - it's impossible to score if you don't take the shot.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| tctitans |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 23:09:53
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Last comment for the night. Look at what prompted this. Now I admit, if I am a Gretzky camp member, and I hear Leafs fan 101's comment, "Gretzky, although great, was nothing without proper linemates", I give the kid (he is 14 according to his info) a talk, as TC did with some stats and figures (my guess is that he just worded what he wanted to say incorrectly by the way). BUT, I'd also look at some of the redeeming things the kid said in his post about Gretzky, which, amongst other things, were that Gretzky was great and that Gretzky would have won the Cup with better teammates on the Kings. Now I don't know if this kid is really 14, but if he is, I kind of feel bad for the guy. I mean, particularly given the otherwise reasonable comments of his post, he didn't deserve to be called a "friggin' donkey" or be told that he typed "the dumbest thing ever".
I couldn't agree more. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 22:04:57
Last comment for the night. Look at what prompted this. Now I admit, if I am a Gretzky camp member, and I hear Leafs fan 101's comment, "Gretzky, although great, was nothing without proper linemates", I give the kid (he is 14 according to his info) a talk, as TC did with some stats and figures (my guess is that he just worded what he wanted to say incorrectly by the way). BUT, I'd also look at some of the redeeming things the kid said in his post about Gretzky, which, amongst other things, were that Gretzky was great and that Gretzky would have won the Cup with better teammates on the Kings. Now I don't know if this kid is really 14, but if he is, I kind of feel bad for the guy. I mean, particularly given the otherwise reasonable comments of his post, he didn't deserve to be called a "friggin' donkey" or be told that he typed "the dumbest thing ever". |
| tctitans |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 21:37:52
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
TC - you get my point though, I think. I am NOT saying "Gretzky would have been eaten up in the east' or "The NHL protected Gretzky from getting hit" or "Gretzky was way way overrated" ETC, ETC ETC. , and yet, I am "insane" for even considering that he may not be THE best. I think this sort of thinking is WAY more pre-dominant than the reverse - Orr or Lemieux supporters calling others "insane" for having a different opinion. Chooch is the exception to the rule in the Lemieux -Orr camps. fly4apuckguy is the rule, or at least close to the rule, in the Gretzky camp.
Anyway, kids out there, there IS a debate to be had about this. Don't pay attention to any elders who tell you that you are "insane" for thinking about alternatives to Gretzky as the best ever.
I completely agree with everything you said, except that I don't quite see it as 1-way lop-sided as you. I still agree that this mentality is more pre-dominant in the Gretzky camp than other camps thou. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 21:17:48
TC - you get my point though, I think. I am NOT saying "Gretzky would have been eaten up in the east' or "The NHL protected Gretzky from getting hit" or "Gretzky was way way overrated" ETC, ETC ETC. , and yet, I am "insane" for even considering that he may not be THE best. I think this sort of thinking is WAY more pre-dominant than the reverse - Orr or Lemieux supporters calling others "insane" for having a different opinion. Chooch is the exception to the rule in the Lemieux -Orr camps. fly4apuckguy is the rule, or at least close to the rule, in the Gretzky camp.
Anyway, kids out there, there IS a debate to be had about this. Don't pay attention to any elders who tell you that you are "insane" for thinking about alternatives to Gretzky as the best ever.
|
| tctitans |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 20:48:46
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
If there is still someone out there willing to tell me that Gretzky was not the greatest player of all time, I really feel bad for you. You are insane, and need to read the NHL record book. You also need to invest some time in ESPN Classics, the channel which will provide you with the knowledge you so desparately seek.
OK, the above is the proof guys. TC, Beans and others who have read my posts related to this topic over the last few months, THIS is what I am talking about.
As mentioned in previous posts, I think Gretzky is maybe the third or fourth best player ever. Third or fourth EVER! Major compliment!
And yet, for fly4apuckguy, that constitutes me as insane. I have no choice but to take that as a major compliment I guess, cause if the alternative is to be as rigid and inflexible in one's way of thinking as fly4apuckguy, then I want no part of sanity.
Hey hey Andyhack. I never argued once that there were not people like fly guy. Just like I never argued once that there were not people with his exact same mentality towards Lemieux. :)
People will have their opinions, some stronger than others, but it's hard to say they are right or wrong in highly subjective circumstances.
You try to get the Gretzky camp to admit that there is at least a debate. Others try to get the Lemieux camp to admit that there is at least a debate. And then there is you.. who like to include a few more players into the debate. :)
Diversity of thinking makes the world interesting.
-TC
ps. Willus, I dont agree with you regarding Gretzky's quote. It actually is quite profound - especially for our very young players out there |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 20:07:14
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
If there is still someone out there willing to tell me that Gretzky was not the greatest player of all time, I really feel bad for you. You are insane, and need to read the NHL record book. You also need to invest some time in ESPN Classics, the channel which will provide you with the knowledge you so desparately seek.
OK, the above is the proof guys. TC, Beans and others who have read my posts related to this topic over the last few months, THIS is what I am talking about.
As mentioned in previous posts, I think Gretzky is maybe the third or fourth best player ever. Third or fourth EVER! Major compliment!
And yet, for fly4apuckguy, that constitutes me as insane. I have no choice but to take that as a major compliment I guess, cause if the alternative is to be as rigid and inflexible in one's way of thinking as fly4apuckguy, then I want no part of sanity.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 20:04:00
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
If there is still someone out there willing to tell me that Gretzky was not the greatest player of all time, I really feel bad for you. You are insane, and need to read the NHL record book.
It is pointless arguing with people who make these statements.
EVERY PLAYER TO PUT ON LACES PLAYS WITH GOOD PLAYERS AT SOME POINT, you friggin' donkey! THEY ARE IN THE NH-bloody-L.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz
Nice post!
You now have zero credibility.
You are about to get roasted.
BTW your Gretzky quote is quite possibly one of least intelligent statements ever quoted. Yet all you Gretzky fans just gobble it up.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 19:39:23
If there is still someone out there willing to tell me that Gretzky was not the greatest player of all time, I really feel bad for you. You are insane, and need to read the NHL record book. You also need to invest some time in ESPN Classics, the channel which will provide you with the knowledge you so desparately seek.
Saying Gretzky was nothing without proper linemates is the dumbest thing ever typed.
It is pointless arguing with people who make these statements.
EVERY PLAYER TO PUT ON LACES PLAYS WITH GOOD PLAYERS AT SOME POINT, you friggin' donkey! THEY ARE IN THE NH-bloody-L.
What great player "slipped through the cracks" due to his lousy linemates??????????
Maybe Tie Domi would have broken Gretzky's records had he played with Kurri and Coffey, by your logic.
And here is a thought...maybe those guys (Kurri, Mess, Anderson, Coffey) were made better by the best player of all-time. Maybe it wasn't just a funny little coincidence that, like, seven superstars came off that one team. Maybe it wasn't just dumb luck. Maybe there was a common factor....wait for it.....
The Great One.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| tctitans |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 17:09:02
quote:
Originally posted by leafsfan_101
Gretzky, although great, was nothing without proper linemates. He had it in Edmonton but never in LA. Had he gotten someone better would he have done better and would the Kings have had one Cup to their resume...probably.
I'll just assume that you're a youngin and were there to watch Gretzky play in LA. :)
Gretzky was not 'nothing' without proper linemates.
Gretzky had 168/142/163pts in his first 3 seasons with L.A. and who did he have for 'proper' linemates? Practically noone. Gretz had a wet-behind-the-ears Robitaille, a grinding Tonelli, and an off an on Nicholls. You are right though that if he had someone better, he would have done better, and if the Kings had a little more depth then perhaps they might have won a cup.
Nicholls is an interesting case-study:
86-87: GP: 80, PTS: 81 (no Gretzky)
87-88: GP: 65, PTS: 78 (no Gretzky)
88-89: GP: 79, PTS: 150 (with Gretzky)
89-90: GP: 47, PTS: 75 (with Gretzky)
89-90: GP: 32, PTS: 37 (no Gretzky)
90-91: GP: 71, PTS: 73 (no Gretzky)
91-92: GP: 49, PTS: 49 (no Gretzky)
I think Bernie is pretty POed about being traded from the Kings in 89-90. ;) I can see him still visualizing all those points and dollar signs floating out the window.... |
| Habsfan92 |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 16:22:22
A Cup? Maybe, but not against the 1993 Montreal Canadiens |
| leafsfan_101 |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 16:18:52
The Kings have never really had depth in their franchises history. Marcel Dionne, another great, played for this team for a very long time and was deserving of a Cup he never got. But we'll talk about him another day.
Gretzky, although great, was nothing without proper linemates. He had it in Edmonton but never in LA. Had he gotten someone better would he have done better and would the Kings have had one Cup to their resume...probably. This was one thing that LA should have addressed that off-season and they would have had another quality shot. Biut they didn't.
When life gives you lemons throw them at the Ottawa Senators and their fans and hope it gets them in the eyes ;) |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 14:18:59
quote:
Originally posted by Guest1267
Even if you left the team as it was, they still had the potential to win the cup that year. They came within an illegal (Marty McSorley) stick to winning game 2 -- which would have put them up 2-0 in the series, a decided advantage. Moreover, games 3 and 4 both went to OT, let's not forget. The series was a lot closer to what the final number of games played indicate. Jaques Demers even admitted -- as he put it -- that Gretzky "toyed" with the Habs in game one, essentially skating circles around their D-men and defensive systems. Without Gretzky, the Kings would not have had any chance to even get passed the 1st round and 2nd rounds, when Gretzky single handedly dismantled both the Flames and Canucks. His 40 points that postseason may go down as the greatest playoff performance in the history of the NHL to not win the Conn Smyth trophy -- and definitely one the greatest playoff performances ever in the NHL. That slapshot over Patrick Roy's glove hand in game 3 that somehow went in and out before the blink of an eye -- creating the illusion that it hit the post, and causing Bob Cole to have conniption fits, "It hit the post! No it didn't, it went in! Patrick Roy couldn't get his arm up!" -- will forever be etched in my mind as the moment I saw a player make Patrick Roy look completely mortal.
This is an excellent post. You make some great points here. The series was very close. Three overtime wins for Montreal. Just a little more depth on the Kings would have made the difference.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| Guest1267 |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 12:28:29
Even if you left the team as it was, they still had the potential to win the cup that year. They came within an illegal (Marty McSorley) stick to winning game 2 -- which would have put them up 2-0 in the series, a decided advantage. Moreover, games 3 and 4 both went to OT, let's not forget. The series was a lot closer to what the final number of games played indicate. Jaques Demers even admitted -- as he put it -- that Gretzky "toyed" with the Habs in game one, essentially skating circles around their D-men and defensive systems. Without Gretzky, the Kings would not have had any chance to even get passed the 1st round and 2nd rounds, when Gretzky single handedly dismantled both the Flames and Canucks. His 40 points that postseason may go down as the greatest playoff performance in the history of the NHL to not win the Conn Smyth trophy -- and definitely one the greatest playoff performances ever in the NHL. That slapshot over Patrick Roy's glove hand in game 3 that somehow went in and out before the blink of an eye -- creating the illusion that it hit the post, and causing Bob Cole to have conniption fits, "It hit the post! No it didn't, it went in! Patrick Roy couldn't get his arm up!" -- will forever be etched in my mind as the moment I saw a player make Patrick Roy look completely mortal. |
| GOWINGS19 |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 11:51:54
man without gretzky i don't think this team even catches a glimpse of those playoffs
"I don’t need to score the goal. I need someone to start thinking about me and forgetting about scoring goals." -Vladmir Konstantinov |
| tctitans |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 10:07:22
A Hypothetical to discuss!! Right on!
This is the NHL, so there are no 'givens', but I think that if Gretz had a couple extra players for support, that the Kings could certainly have the potential to have won a cup. They had some decent players, but needed more. To go one step further, I would say that if Gretz wasnt there, they would have needed a heckuva lot more support to even make an attempt for the cup. To go even one more step further, you could replace Gretz with Mario and I'd still be saying the same things. |
|
|
