| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Guest7883 |
Posted - 06/02/2007 : 03:32:07
I would take Messier because he was about winning which is what hockey is played for. Plus he was a team player and leader of the Oilers and Rangers...
Its pretty unanimous among those who watched both play. |
| 23 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Guest9995 |
Posted - 06/10/2007 : 18:59:10
(aka 9941) Andyhack, you pose an interesting argument. Perhaps Gretzky would have contributed just as well if he had scored less and prevented more goals. I think this would have been the case moreso during the LA years, however, as Jari Kurri (and pick any interchangable left winger) usually picked up the defensive slack on Gretzky's line. However, I really don't think Gretzky would have had quite the game breaking impact as he did if that were the case.
Part of Gretzky's game was to "disappear" into the flow of the game, something that required him play the offensive "lines", the offensive tracks, if you will, that make up the patterns and nuances of hockey. This required him to play the "high" game, as did Mario Lemieux for example. Among other things, this required him to be the last one out of the zone. (How many times did the puck go to Gretzky out of nowhere deep in the zone just when you thought it was about to leave the zone, resulting in either an assist or a goal? Too many to count.) This often made him appear to be cheating and being poor defensively to most hockey purists. However, Gretzky also knew who was being covered and who was left open. He picked his spots wisely, and knew when to "cheat". Without this aspect of his game, I'm not so sure he would have been as deceptive and thus as big of a game breaker.... He would have been another skilled hockey player who scored a point or sometimes two. He would have been a star, and probably would have been liked a lot more, but would he have been a player who redefined offensive hockey and turned it into an art form? I'm not so sure.
Interesting stuff.... |
| andyhack |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 21:12:20
9941 - No problem - I think I may have been responding to comments made in some other thread more than this one anyway - not sure if they were by you or some other numbered guest - get mixed up sometimes with you numbered guys.
Anyway, I wasn't suggesting that Wayne should have become a physical player. Actually, I wasn't really saying he should have done anything differently, but rather was just saying I value the Messier package more (I guess Willus values the Bobby Clarke package more).
But now that you have raised the point, I'll throw it out there a little further. Could Wayne have been an even greater, more effective player, AND retained all, or at least most, of his genius if he would have worked, even a little bit, on some other areas of his game? Let's put "physical play" out of our minds for this. Think more along the lines of the way guys like Yzerman and Middleton adjusted their games after starting out as purely offensive players. Or, going back a little further, think of a guy like Jean Ratelle who, by no means a "physical player", and certainly more offensive than defensive, was neverthless an effective positional "checker" in both ends of the ice - in the '72 Russia series he actually kind of served a defensive role despite being a 100 point scorer the previous NHL season.
You probably feel that such an effort to "round his game" wasn't necessary based on his incredible success. That may be true. We'll never know, cause we don't know what to compare his actual success to. But I am not talking about a drastic change in Wayne's game. I assume that, as a very smart guy, he would have found a way to sort of pick his spots to occasionally abandon his "offensive genius" game, to contribute more in some other areas. Personally, I don't think it would have been too harmful to his genius. Let's say the cost would have been 40 points offensively. 140,150, 160 points - still very very impressive - still gets the offensive job more than adequately done.
And then, who knows, he might make it to Number 1 even on the lists of those wildly insane non-Gretzky camp guys out there! 
|
| Guest9941 |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 07:35:05
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Well, Guest Gretzky41 sees Gretzky through different glasses than you and I do, Willus. I don't mind that he does - as my grandmother used to say, "that's what makes the world go round". After reading most of the posts on this site, I am starting to wonder if maybe Wayne makes the world go round though
But Secret Agent 9941's message seems to also be that our glasses are defective, or in any event, ineffective when it comes to really seeing the magic of Gretzky. I don't mind hearing that either actually, cause it is an interesting argument, and Wayne was indeed unique and crafty so his magic may be harder to see than the more obvious strong points of other great players. But here's the thing 9941-san, even if we go back and watch tape after tape of Wayne, and think about your point, and watch some more, and eventually come to a realization that your glasses are better than ours, still, all of us would ultimately be seeing basically one aspect of hockey and one aspect only, OFFENSE! More accurately, OFFENSE without physical play. No glasses are ever going to show anything other than that.
I think where we REALLY differ therefore is not in our abilities to see or not see Wayne's magic (actually both Willus and I do see it I think), but in our assessments of the value of that magic relative to the other aspects of hockey - a huge check, solid backchecking, a great defensive play, a physically intimidating presence and so on.
Now this is, of course, just my opinion, but personally, I think these other aspects of hockey are things that you can never have enough, things which are not subject to the law of diminishing returns. But offense, to a certain extent is subject to the law of diminishing returns in my opinion. 2-1 or 7-4, both amount to the same thing. 10-0 is best I guess.
Anyway, I know the counter argument to what I am saying - you can never have enough of a big goal at the right time. Yes, thats 's true and that's why I put Wayne above so many players who were better all-round players than him. And, yes, 200 plus points is other-worldly. You are right. And it is hard to understand! You are right again. But, even so, I'll still take a guy who can get say 100 to 130 points (very good offense) and who does 4 or 5 other things very effectively, some superbly.
I hope it wasn't my style of writing that caused you to be defensive. It was not my intention to have you believe you can't see properly through your glasses, and that I am the only one with said ability. I aplogize for that, as I was merely trying to express my way of seeing Gretzky's game.
Looks like we simply disagree on the importance of Gretzky's role and which has a higher degree of "diminishing returns - Gretzky's offensive over 20 seasons or physical play that would have cut his career (and thus his genius) in half or less. Fair enough. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 18:52:12
Well, Guest Gretzky41 sees Gretzky through different glasses than you and I do, Willus. I don't mind that he does - as my grandmother used to say, "that's what makes the world go round". After reading most of the posts on this site, I am starting to wonder if maybe Wayne makes the world go round though
But Secret Agent 9941's message seems to also be that our glasses are defective, or in any event, ineffective when it comes to really seeing the magic of Gretzky. I don't mind hearing that either actually, cause it is an interesting argument, and Wayne was indeed unique and crafty so his magic may be harder to see than the more obvious strong points of other great players. But here's the thing 9941-san, even if we go back and watch tape after tape of Wayne, and think about your point, and watch some more, and eventually come to a realization that your glasses are better than ours, still, all of us would ultimately be seeing basically one aspect of hockey and one aspect only, OFFENSE! More accurately, OFFENSE without physical play. No glasses are ever going to show anything other than that.
I think where we REALLY differ therefore is not in our abilities to see or not see Wayne's magic (actually both Willus and I do see it I think), but in our assessments of the value of that magic relative to the other aspects of hockey - a huge check, solid backchecking, a great defensive play, a physically intimidating presence and so on.
Now this is, of course, just my opinion, but personally, I think these other aspects of hockey are things that you can never have enough, things which are not subject to the law of diminishing returns. But offense, to a certain extent is subject to the law of diminishing returns in my opinion. 2-1 or 7-4, both amount to the same thing. 10-0 is best I guess.
Anyway, I know the counter argument to what I am saying - you can never have enough of a big goal at the right time. Yes, thats 's true and that's why I put Wayne above so many players who were better all-round players than him. And, yes, 200 plus points is other-worldly. You are right. And it is hard to understand! You are right again. But, even so, I'll still take a guy who can get say 100 to 130 points (very good offense) and who does 4 or 5 other things very effectively, some superbly.
|
| Guest9941 |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 17:35:52
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9941
I Relentless focus was his tool, above Orr's skating and keep away, beyond Howe and Messier's toughness, beyond the normal physical perameters of the game. And that's why so many couldn't understand the consistency of his name on the scoresheet.... and why Gretzky's game doesn't fit into the normal paradigm of "domination".
Andyhack, is this one of those Gretzky camp statements again that you and I love so much? 
If only we could try and see the points that people make, instead of blanketing them with statements like these, this site would be a lot more fun....
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 16:04:42
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9941
I Relentless focus was his tool, above Orr's skating and keep away, beyond Howe and Messier's toughness, beyond the normal physical perameters of the game. And that's why so many couldn't understand the consistency of his name on the scoresheet.... and why Gretzky's game doesn't fit into the normal paradigm of "domination".
Andyhack, is this one of those Gretzky camp statements again that you and I love so much?
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| chooch |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 15:39:49
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9941
I guess we perceive the word "domination" differently then. I can see why some people don't see Gretzky's game as having the potential to dominate, as his is a vision game based on those fragile inches that Andyhack so elequently stated. Gretzky's game is that of patience and manipulation, not so much of physical play and one on one deking or keep away (though he was very good at keep away, too). Gretzky was an opportunist....and this is where his relentlessness and focus could dominate a period, a game, or a series. Gretzky's will was his weapon. That's why in game #2, in the middle of the 5th period of the most intense hockey ever played, he was still creating chance after chance, while the rest of his teammates were losing stamina and focus. Relentless focus was his tool, above Orr's skating and keep away, beyond Howe and Messier's toughness, beyond the normal physical perameters of the game. And that's why so many couldn't understand the consistency of his name on the scoresheet.... and why Gretzky's game doesn't fit into the normal paradigm of "domination".
If Gretzky was more fit and backchecked, Canada wouldnt have needed OT. They needed Mario as their #1 centre but Sather/Eagleson wouldnt let that happen.
Dont bring up that vision thing - thats a crutch used to deflect from 99's on and off ice Protection.
I am Ogopogo's bodyguard |
| Guest9941 |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 15:15:16
I guess we perceive the word "domination" differently then. I can see why some people don't see Gretzky's game as having the potential to dominate, as his is a vision game based on those fragile inches that Andyhack so elequently stated. Gretzky's game is that of patience and manipulation, not so much of physical play and one on one deking or keep away (though he was very good at keep away, too). Gretzky was an opportunist....and this is where his relentlessness and focus could dominate a period, a game, or a series. Gretzky's will was his weapon. That's why in game #2, in the middle of the 5th period of the most intense hockey ever played, he was still creating chance after chance, while the rest of his teammates were losing stamina and focus. Relentless focus was his tool, above Orr's skating and keep away, beyond Howe and Messier's toughness, beyond the normal physical perameters of the game. And that's why so many couldn't understand the consistency of his name on the scoresheet.... and why Gretzky's game doesn't fit into the normal paradigm of "domination". |
| willus3 |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 07:05:00
I have to agree Andy. I think dominating is a poor choice of words for Gretzky's or anyone's play for that matter. When someone says dominating it conjures up visions of no one else on the ice being effective because that one player is completely in control of everything. There are very, very few guys i would say that it could be said they dominated in that way.
I think I would say Gretzky dominated the scoring sheet, but I can't say he dominated entire games. To do that I think you have to be able to do everything and Gretzky isn't that guy.
It was often said that Orr controlled games. This is true. He'd play half of the game or more and he pretty much dictated what happened when he was on the ice. Whether it was breaking up a rush, laying a big check, killing a penalty virtually on his own or rushing the puck up the ice for a goal.
If a player can dominate a game, that is the type a player it would have to be. If I hadn't seen Orr I would say that saying a guy can dominate a game is an exaggeration. It's fair to say Gretzky dominated the score sheet but not an entire game.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| andyhack |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 22:27:44
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9995
I've seen Gretzky dominate International tourmaments in a way that Messier has not come close to doing. The 1987 Canada Cup final 3 games vs. Russia comes to mind. Gretzky was all over the ice (his 9 points in 3 games were merely the result, not the cause). Gretzky shawn the brightest in the biggest games, in my opinion. Messier was a leader, but I always got the feeling it was Gretzky who could dominate from beginning to end. Once he took control of a game or a series, you got the feeling that no one could take it back. Messier has done it in certain games (game 7 vs. NJ in 1994 comes to mind), but not as consistenly and with such ferocity as Gretzky. If it had been Messier who left the Oilers in 1988, I could just as easily see them winning in 1989 and 90. If Messier had gone to LA, I really don't see him taking that team to the finals in 1993. Just my opinion of course.
I have a feeling many will disagree with me, but this idea of one player "dominating" a game is somewhat of a myth in my opinion. I agree players really "stand out" sometimes (more often for periods rather than games though - again Lafleur comes to mind in the third period of Game 7 - good time to stand out by the way - bad time for a Bruins fan ). But generally speaking I think the terminology, "dominate games" is more related to what seems like people's need to idolize players than to reality. One reason I think this way is simply that the result of any game is SO fragile, often depending on inches one way or the other. How can a game based on inches have been "dominated" by one player?
Look at '87 Canada Cup. You say Gretzky dominated. Yes, he played a great series, and arguably often "stood out", and maybe even arguably "dominated" for certain periods of time. BUT if something goes slightly adrift on the tying goal in Game 2, BY AN INCH EVEN, then Gretzky and the rest of Team Canada are losers. Would Gretzky still have been said to have "dominated" in defeat in that event. No way. More than likely, he would have been unjustly criticized for not coming through in the clutch when it REALLY mattered, blah, blah, blah. But, in my opinion, that B.S. is just the flip side of the "domination" B.S. Sorry, I know I am veering WAY off topic (long day and I feel bad for my Ottawa friends ) but I think your post was the straw which broke the camel's back for me about that expression.
Pertaining to this topic though, I feel that the games where either Gretzky or Messier "dominated" are far far less than what we as fans think. The vast majority of the games they played together are simply games where both played great - Gretzky in his role, Messier in his roleS. And as you know all too well by now, in those types of games I put a little more value on what Messier was doing for the team than what Gretzky was doing.
Time to sleep and dream about some future Bruin "dominating" hockey games. Well a guy can dream anyway! |
| Guest9995 |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 16:10:51
I've seen Gretzky dominate International tourmaments in a way that Messier has not come close to doing. The 1987 Canada Cup final 3 games vs. Russia comes to mind. Gretzky was all over the ice (his 9 points in 3 games were merely the result, not the cause). Gretzky shawn the brightest in the biggest games, in my opinion. Messier was a leader, but I always got the feeling it was Gretzky who could dominate from beginning to end. Once he took control of a game or a series, you got the feeling that no one could take it back. Messier has done it in certain games (game 7 vs. NJ in 1994 comes to mind), but not as consistenly and with such ferocity as Gretzky. If it had been Messier who left the Oilers in 1988, I could just as easily see them winning in 1989 and 90. If Messier had gone to LA, I really don't see him taking that team to the finals in 1993. Just my opinion of course. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 12:37:38
Hey Andyhack, I can't disagree with really anything that you said. Those people out there that say Gretzky made Messier did not really watch them developing together through the 80's, in my opinion. I think that they both would have been a different players without each other, and I think that they both helped each other equally. As on person stated, the Oilers without either of them though the 80's didn't have as many Cups. Coffey, Anderson, Fuhr, and Kurri were along for the ride. You could argue that Wayne was in the spotlight but Messier ran the team. I could agree with that.
And in regards to a total package forward, I think you are dead on. Messier, Howe, and Potvin were, in my humble opinion, the best complete forwards ever to play. Not to take anything away from my opinions on Gretzky, but Messier was a far superior defensive player and a more intimidating physical force on the ice. I still put Gretzky ahead as his offensive abilities were so far ahead of anyone, it makes up for any average play that he had.
So I guess my point is that your judgement of Messier was not one bit overstated.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane?? |
| Guest7002 |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 03:19:04
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Mr. 4462 - who would you say were some of the forwards who were better all-round players than Messier? Let's leave defencemen out of it as maybe they should be dealt with separately like goaltenders. And leave Howe out of it too. Only players that reached their prime after 1970. The only one that I sometimes think could surpass him is Trottier actually. Also, I like Forsberg a lot but I give Messier the edge over him overall.
You never know though, I could be overrating him a tiny bit (but if I am, I don't think it is by too much). Actually, though he was highly skilled, I don't rate his pure skills, other than skating, incredibly highly, relative to say an offensive superstar like Lemieux, or even the next tier down in offensive skills, say a guy like Stevie Yzerman for example. I am rating his heart, physical play, leadership abilities and maybe most importantly, ability to intimidate by a certain intense presence, very highly. With Messier it's the combination that really impressed me.
But I am not blind to the fact that a fan's perceptions of a hockey player are partially based in part on the fans own viewing experiences. In my case, I happened to follow the Oilers Cup win in '84 quite closely - more so than usual for some reason (Messier was the guy that turned that series against the Isles around for the Oilers, and was very much the rightful winner of the Conn Smythe that year). In '90, my favorite player, Ray Bourque, had the best year of his career, and lost to Messier both for the Hart and of course in the final. Again, Messier was a force, and was all over the ice. Those things certainly affected my opinion on him. And, almost every Oiler game I saw on TV in the '80s, if not every game, even the ones where Gretzky was racking up points, Messier was bumping players left and right, backchecking well, always causing havoc on the forecheck, often making some very nice plays and always flying n his skates. AND in some of the scuffles he got in, you could sometimes see those EYES of his up close. The guy was scary! Yzerman, Sakic (who I am a huge fan of), Jacque Lemaire (amazing both ways) ...all terrific players - but they didn't scare you.
I had actually formed this opinion of mine on Messier even before he did what he did for the Rangers. And he has to get loads of credit there, talented team or not! They don't come close to the Cup without Messier.
As for if he were on another team, my guess is that he would have finished with less points yes, but not substantially less. He showed that on a less talented Oiler team in '90, on the Rangers in the early '90s and even as a semi-washed up 40 year old on the Rangers in 2000-2001, that he could still put up very good point totals (reasonable in '2000-2001 anyway). In my opinion, he would still have been regarded as a Hall of Fame legend, with very impressive numbers, even if he would never have been on the Oilers, and even if he would never have met Wayne Gretzky, AND, you know what, even if he would have played on the pitiful Leafs of the 80s.
very good points.
Messier was better than Gretzly as a comlete player and if he had wante dto score 3000 points like a lot of players he coudl have but his teammtes wouldnt have appreciated it.
Hanging at centre doesnt describe Messier but if he had I see 3000 points. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 21:01:27
Mr. 4462 - who would you say were some of the forwards who were better all-round players than Messier? Let's leave defencemen out of it as maybe they should be dealt with separately like goaltenders. And leave Howe out of it too. Only players that reached their prime after 1970. The only one that I sometimes think could surpass him is Trottier actually. Also, I like Forsberg a lot but I give Messier the edge over him overall.
You never know though, I could be overrating him a tiny bit (but if I am, I don't think it is by too much). Actually, though he was highly skilled, I don't rate his pure skills, other than skating, incredibly highly, relative to say an offensive superstar like Lemieux, or even the next tier down in offensive skills, say a guy like Stevie Yzerman for example. I am rating his heart, physical play, leadership abilities and maybe most importantly, ability to intimidate by a certain intense presence, very highly. With Messier it's the combination that really impressed me.
But I am not blind to the fact that a fan's perceptions of a hockey player are based in part on that fan's own viewing experiences. In my case, I happened to follow the Oilers Cup win in '84 quite closely - more so than usual for some reason (Messier was the guy that turned that series against the Isles around for the Oilers, and was very much the rightful winner of the Conn Smythe that year). In '90, my favorite player, Ray Bourque, had the best year of his career, and lost to Messier both for the Hart and of course in the final. Again, Messier was a force, and was all over the ice. Those things certainly affected my opinion on him. And, almost every Oiler game I saw on TV in the '80s, if not every game, even the ones where Gretzky was racking up points, Messier was bumping players left and right, backchecking well, always causing havoc on the forecheck, often making some very nice plays and always flying n his skates. AND in some of the scuffles he got in, you could sometimes see those EYES of his up close. The guy was scary! Yzerman, Sakic (who I am a huge fan of), Jacque Lemaire (amazing both ways) ...all terrific players - but they didn't scare you.
I had actually formed this opinion of mine on Messier even before he did what he did for the Rangers. And he has to get loads of credit there, talented team or not! They don't come close to the Cup without Messier.
As for if he were on another team, my guess is that he would have finished with less points yes, but not substantially less. He showed that on a less talented Oiler team in '90, on the Rangers in the early '90s and even as a semi-washed up 40 year old on the Rangers in 2000-2001, that he could still put up very good point totals (reasonable in '2000-2001 anyway). In my opinion, he would still have been regarded as a Hall of Fame legend, with very impressive numbers, even if he would never have been on the Oilers, and even if he would never have met Wayne Gretzky, AND, you know what, even if he would have played on the pitiful Leafs of the 80s. |
| Guest4462 |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 19:36:05
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
For me it would go like this:
Gretzky and Lemieux were the greatest offensive players I have ever seen.
Messier was the greatest overall player I have ever seen.
(cause I was just a little kid in Orr's big years, I don't feel like I really "saw" him - though I do have some vague memories thankfully)
Mr. Hack.. I think you highly overrate Messier's talent and abilities. It would be a very interesting case-study to go back in time and have another team draft Messier and see what happens... Of course we have our own opinions on what the results would be..
Messier isnt even in the top 10 of all-time best all-around players (IMNSHO of course!) |
| andyhack |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 14:25:41
For me it would go like this:
Gretzky and Lemieux were the greatest offensive players I have ever seen.
Messier was the greatest overall player I have ever seen.
(cause I was just a little kid in Orr's big years, I don't feel like I really "saw" him - though I do have some vague memories thankfully)
|
| Guest4462 |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 12:29:01
Messier was a great player....
Wayne was the greatest.... |
| Guest4644 |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 10:12:21
Messier vs Gretzky...
Can't compare them.
Two different styles that both produced great results.
Oilers without Gretzky...don't produce as many cups
Oilers without Messier...don't produce as many cups.
Gretzky in LA vs Messier in NY...LA was a team low on talent that damn near got a cup with Gretzky.....NY was fairly talent rich when they got Messier...which put them over the top.
In my mind...either player is/was great. You could build a championship team around either or both of them.
|
| andyhack |
Posted - 06/02/2007 : 19:25:41
quote:
Originally posted by framer87
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Guest 0749. I'll fight for your right to give your opinion any day of the week, but I'll also say that, in my humble opinion, your opinion is just plain silly. Also, if you really think Messier "sucked ass", or was anything less than a great player, let alone one of the greatest players ever, perhaps you don't know too much about what makes a truly great hockey player.
What are some of the extremists in the Gretzky camp gonna come up with now? Messier leading Gretzky-less teams to the Cup in '90 and '94 should be credited more to Wayne cause of his influence on Mark? Again, and I'm being polite, silly.
Actually, your comment makes some of the over-the-top Gretzky criticisms on this site (which I don't agree with) look relatively okay.
Edit - Interesting also that Messier's best year point-wise was '89-90 - 45 Goals 84 Assists 129 Points - No Gretzky and No Coffey
True but could it not of helped that he probably saw a lot mroe ice time without Gretzky?
Well, yes, more than likely he got more ice time, but let's not hold that against him. He also topped the 100 point mark again in New York by the way. And he also topped it four times with Gretzky so he was at least pretty good point-wise even with the "reduced ice-time".
All of which is really a side point cause Messier's offensive skills/point production were only a part of his terrific package.
I am not a Messier fan by the way. But a tremendous player is a tremendous player (regardless of how you rank him vs. Wayne).
I don't blame Wayne for this, but do blame some of his fans and the media for overemphasizing offense and stats, but if there actually are people out there who really have come to the conclusion that "Wayne Gretzky made Mark Messier", then I think that, like Dionne not getting enough respect, is another unfortunate result of the Gretzky legacy.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/02/2007 : 18:21:51
I would give it to Gretzky in the 80's and Messier in the 90's. Messier because he had two Cups to Gretzky's zero.
However, not taking anything away from Messier in the 90's, the teams he played on had more talent than Gretzky's teams until he went to NY.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane?? |
| framer87 |
Posted - 06/02/2007 : 15:44:18
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Guest 0749. I'll fight for your right to give your opinion any day of the week, but I'll also say that, in my humble opinion, your opinion is just plain silly. Also, if you really think Messier "sucked ass", or was anything less than a great player, let alone one of the greatest players ever, perhaps you don't know too much about what makes a truly great hockey player.
What are some of the extremists in the Gretzky camp gonna come up with now? Messier leading Gretzky-less teams to the Cup in '90 and '94 should be credited more to Wayne cause of his influence on Mark? Again, and I'm being polite, silly.
Actually, your comment makes some of the over-the-top Gretzky criticisms on this site (which I don't agree with) look relatively okay.
Edit - Interesting also that Messier's best year point-wise was '89-90 - 45 Goals 84 Assists 129 Points - No Gretzky and No Coffey
True but could it not of helped that he probably saw a lot mroe ice time without Gretzky? |
| andyhack |
Posted - 06/02/2007 : 15:10:11
Guest 0749. I'll fight for your right to give your opinion any day of the week, but I'll also say that, in my humble opinion, your opinion is just plain silly. Also, if you really think Messier "sucked ass", or was anything less than a great player, let alone one of the greatest players ever, perhaps you don't know too much about what makes a truly great hockey player.
What are some of the extremists in the Gretzky camp gonna come up with now? Messier leading Gretzky-less teams to the Cup in '90 and '94 should be credited more to Wayne cause of his influence on Mark? Again, and I'm being polite, silly.
Actually, your comment makes some of the over-the-top Gretzky criticisms on this site (which I don't agree with) look relatively okay.
Edit - Interesting also that Messier's best year point-wise was '89-90 - 45 Goals 84 Assists 129 Points - No Gretzky and No Coffey |
| Guest0749 |
Posted - 06/02/2007 : 13:50:56
messier sucked ass, Gretzky was god, he also was the only reason messier beat howie's numbers, without Gretzky, messier would have gotten like 800-900 points in his career. yes i know they didn't play on the same line, but there is pp mins. |
|
|
