| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| willus3 |
Posted - 07/16/2007 : 18:42:19
If you ever wondered how bad Orr's knee was, here's an interesting look at it.
The technology advancements are incredible. Look at the size of those scars. Today they would be 1/2" or so not 5 or 6". It's a tragedy I tell you. His career was basically over at 27. It's still hard to watch that retirement announcement. It was tearing him apart to have to say it. People think Bourque's career numbers are impressive, and they are, but imagine if Orr had been able to play the same number of years. We don't even know if we saw Orr in his prime. Orr playing into the 80's. would have been something to see. The Norris trophy winners list would surely look different.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R07bkNod7Yk&mode=related&search=
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| 31 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Guest4794 |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 07:13:55
quote:
Originally posted by Gaint Robot
ok first off the whole stats thing can not be a factor, d-men get better with age, i think that in the 80's Orr would have gotten to 230 mark, he was that good, you have to remember that he played on one knee pretty much for the last two season, all through his career he had been plagued with bad knee's that the operation's of that time didn't really save him that much, if like i had said in the first post, he had been able to get the surgeries that players get now, he would have had less problem's, but again this is all a pipe dream, he was playing in the 70's so all this is, is me saying that it's what i think would have happened if we had had the technology that we have today, back then.
Sorry please give examples of D-men scoring more in the later years. The two top scoring defencemen of all time (Bourque and Coffey) peaked earlier in their career (production wise). Of the current top 3 defensemen (Nieds, Listrom and Pronger), none of them even comes close to the offensive production capability of Bourque, Coffey or Orr.
As for the surgery, the last 2 players of any skill (that quickly comes to mind) with major knee surgery is Yzerman and Bure. See how their production was affected by the injury and surgery. Orr was great, but even modern technology can't repair the damage and likely his production would never reach 150 points per season for 10 consecutive years after surgery. I'd give Bobby 3 to 4 consecutive season of over 150 points because he is that good. But 10 consecutive seasons? I don't think so. |
| Gaint Robot |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 18:19:06
ok first off the whole stats thing can not be a factor, d-men get better with age, i think that in the 80's Orr would have gotten to 230 mark, he was that good, you have to remember that he played on one knee pretty much for the last two season, all through his career he had been plagued with bad knee's that the operation's of that time didn't really save him that much, if like i had said in the first post, he had been able to get the surgeries that players get now, he would have had less problem's, but again this is all a pipe dream, he was playing in the 70's so all this is, is me saying that it's what i think would have happened if we had had the technology that we have today, back then. |
| Guest0832 |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 16:19:38
I bet you people anything if Orr played like gretzky he would have easily beaten his record. Orr did end to end rushes the great one stood at center and waited for a pass. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 12:58:03
Willus and Beans,
Thanks for welcoming me back.
As for Pistol Pete, he made it to one semi-final. Federer's French Open record already is significantly better. The fact that Federer succeeds at the French to a certian degree ironically highlights his ultimate failure to win there even more (but that's another point).
My main point is this, though. Agassi gets a lot of credit for winning all of the slams. And he should, no question. Federer gets knocked for not yet winning the French. And in a GOAT discussion, this should be noted, no question. BUT, and this is where the hypothetical comes in - put Roger's prime in the late 90s and he likely gets his French and splits some Wimbledons, US opens with Sampras, and still picks up a few Austrailan Opens too. He therefore wins on all surfaces and likely has a lot less doubters about his status historically then he does now (even with a couple of his Ws going to Pete maybe, winning a few on all the surfaces at the slams would have been very hard to argue with).
So in many of our discussions here about hockey, I think it is not only helpful to ask "what if" but it is also often very interesting to "imagine" as Sir Willus says (Sir is better than Lord these days it seems). Anyone here who says the only thing that matters is "what happened" or "what is" is, in my humbler than apple pie opinion, not opening themselves up to the full range of analytical tools which we have at our disposal. And in this case, Willus wasn't even really making an argument about anything, but just throwing something out for our imagination, and the good old "What if" still got shot down like Sonny Corleone on the causeway! |
| willus3 |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 12:30:50
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Thanks Guest, that was exactly my point. People can consider Orr the Greatest of All Time and I can respect that, but to say that anyone, regardless of defenseman or forward, would have had more points is off base.
Andyhack, great to have you back. Willus and I have been agreeing so much lately I am board. I need a little pot stirring! And I think you have forgotten about a guy named Sampras that battled Agassi on more than one occasion.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane??
I don't think Sampras ever made the finals at the French. He just didn't have a lot of success there. I could be wrong , I just don't remember it if he did. Clay wasn't his surface.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 12:14:30
Thanks Guest, that was exactly my point. People can consider Orr the Greatest of All Time and I can respect that, but to say that anyone, regardless of defenseman or forward, would have had more points is off base.
Andyhack, great to have you back. Willus and I have been agreeing so much lately I am board. I need a little pot stirring! And I think you have forgotten about a guy named Sampras that battled Agassi on more than one occasion.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane?? |
| Guest4794 |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 11:46:16
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
[Why anyone would compare the offensive stats of a defenseman to that of a forward is beyond me...
Because someone said Orr would beat Gretz's scoring record. Not taking anything away from Bobby (he was fantastic), but let's give Gretz's achievement some perspective before saying that this or that person could have broken it by if....
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 11:30:47
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4794
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Thanks Beans.
Another perspective as posted by another guest on Gretz's accomplishment in the Gretz vs Orr debate. A player must average 150 points per season for 20 seasons to beat Gretz's all time scoring record. Imagine that. Orr never broke the 150 points plateau.
In the last 20 years, name one player to score 150 or more points, let alone 10 consecutive seasons of 150 or more points. Remember there have been some great players to have graced the world of hockey the last 20 years., only 3 players have broken the 150 point barrier. Gretz, Mario and Yzerman. That's it (a couple of players came close). Mario and Gretz are the only players to do it more than once.
Crosby?? If he plays for 20 years, he is behind the pace by about 80 points in his first 2 years. I hope he can make it up.
Why anyone would compare the offensive stats of a defenseman to that of a forward is beyond me...
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| willus3 |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 11:29:31
Great to have you back Andy-san.
It's pretty quiet around here lately.
Wouldn't that have been something to see though. 3 of the top ten defenseman of all time on one team at the same time?
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| andyhack |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 11:13:33
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4794
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Imagine this now Beans. It could have been Orr, Park and Bourque. It is possible all three could have been on that team at once. The "big three" on Montreal would have been overshadowed I'm thinking.
Boston would not have had the 8th pick in 1979 if Orr was playing with them. They would be much lower down. Even so, if they did have that 8th pick, would they have chosen Bourque another defensemen when they already had Orr and Park?
AAAaahhh I love the what ifs, anything is possible in the what if scenarios. That's why what ifs are irrelevant. History and records is about IS not what if.
Here's one for you, what if Montreal gave Doug Wickenheiser a chance as a rookie and they weren't as stacked offensively as they were. DW wouldn't have been a dud and continued his torrid scoring pace from the Juniors. We'd be naming a trophy after him by now. Well it could happen in the what if world can't it? Hogwash.
Hmmmm, I leave for a couple of months, come back and the first thing I see is someone bashing my treasured hypotheticals again. Give them a break Mr. Guest 4794! The Orr hypothetical posed by Willus is a good one. The Wickenheiser hypothetical posed by you is a bad one. That simple.
Oh, and the draft pick which became Bourque came via a very smart trade by Sinden (traded a goaltender named Ron Grahame to the Kings for that pick). The Bruins finished with a very strong record in '78 so they wouldn't have had a high pick but for that trade. Would they have picked Bourque even with Park and Orr? I think it's quite possible actually, as even if Orr were healthier, the Bs maybe would have wanted a new guy to take over in the future. Sinden obviously loved defencemen.
Anyway, Guest 4794, hypotheticals are far from "hogwash". A good hypothetical contributes to any discussion, sports or otherwise. Just going by "the record book" in one's analysis often results in unfair conclusions. For example, in tennis, people go on about Federer not winning the French Open. To a certain point they definitely should, BUT it should also be noted that some guys who won the French Open along with the big W and US Open, like Agassi for example, never had anything close to an opponent like Nadal to face in the final.
So, if questions like, "what if Orr, Bourque and Park would have played together for the Bs" or "what if Federer had been playing in the late 90s - would he not have two, three four French Opens to his name then?" are hogwash, then get me a hog and get me some cleanser, cause I'm in! |
| Guest4794 |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 11:08:58
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Ok Robot, you have the right to your opinion. However, think in the fact that Orr played 647 reg season games and had 915 pts. In Gretzky's first 632 games, he had 1520 points. Gretzky had more assists than Orr had points. Orr would have had to play 2055 career games at his PPG production to tie Gretzky. That is 288 more games that Gordie Howe played. Is that reasonable?? Even if you were to say Orr could have had 2 ppg through the 80's, and never missed a single game, he would have ended up with a little more than 2500 points. That's 300 less than Gretzky, not 300 more.
Thanks Beans.
Another perspective as posted by another guest on Gretz's accomplishment in the Gretz vs Orr debate. A player must average 150 points per season for 20 seasons to beat Gretz's all time scoring record. Imagine that. Orr never broke the 150 points plateau.
In the last 20 years, name one player to score 150 or more points, let alone 10 consecutive seasons of 150 or more points. Remember there have been some great players to have graced the world of hockey the last 20 years., only 3 players have broken the 150 point barrier. Gretz, Mario and Yzerman. That's it (a couple of players came close). Mario and Gretz are the only players to do it more than once.
Crosby?? If he plays for 20 years, he is behind the pace by about 80 points in his first 2 years. I hope he can make it up. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 09:24:45
Ok Robot, you have the right to your opinion. However, think in the fact that Orr played 647 reg season games and had 915 pts. In Gretzky's first 632 games, he had 1520 points. Gretzky had more assists than Orr had points. Orr would have had to play 2055 career games at his PPG production to tie Gretzky. That is 288 more games that Gordie Howe played. Is that reasonable?? Even if you were to say Orr could have had 2 ppg through the 80's, and never missed a single game, he would have ended up with a little more than 2500 points. That's 300 less than Gretzky, not 300 more.
Many people try to speak statistically towards players beating Gretzky, and it's just not reasonable. As an opinion, it is not unreasonable to say Orr was a better player than Gretzky. I don't agree with that opinion, but it's not that far off base. But to say that any player could have match Gretzky statistically is just not reasonable to me. The only player that had a chance was Lemiuex. He got sick and had a bad back or he may have come close to Gretzky.
To think that Gretkzy is the all time scoring leader by almost 1000 points is phenomenal. If Gretzky only played 12 seasons he would still be the highest point total ever.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane?? |
| Gaint Robot |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 21:04:06
i've seen many of films of Orr and have seen alot of films of wayne plus i can remeber watching him play in 1990, i still think Orr was the best all round player, he would have beat wayne's record by atleast 300 pts, is that better Bean, it's my opnion that Orr was just Better, Gretzky was the best forward of all time by far, just or was the best Player. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 20:46:40
OK, let's not start your Pickup Hockey Career like this. Saying that Orr would beat Gretzky by a mile is like saying water isn't wet. Maybe he would have beat him, but by a mile?? Please. Realistic opinions will get you way more credibility and save you some online beatings.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane?? |
| Gaint Robot |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 20:39:29
that knee looks brutal, i wish he had been born now, we could see the what would actually have happened, even in today's game i think Orr would beat Gretzky's records by a mile. he was the best to ever play the game. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 14:16:22
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Mr. Willus I figured as much. I was just throwing that out there before one of the under 20's on this site jump in and say, "Yeah, and they should change the Calder Trophy to the Stastny Trophy because all the Stasty's won it or were nominated."
Just doing a little bit of an early strike. Saves me time later.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane??
Understood Beans. Understood.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 14:15:17
Mr. Willus I figured as much. I was just throwing that out there before one of the under 20's on this site jump in and say, "Yeah, and they should change the Calder Trophy to the Stastny Trophy because all the Stasty's won it or were nominated."
Just doing a little bit of an early strike. Saves me time later.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane?? |
| willus3 |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 14:11:56
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I agree that there could be an award for Orr, but not the Norris. I would say a new award. The only reason is once the "brilliant" people at the NHL started renaming trophies, it wouldn't be long before they all changed. The Art Ross would become the Gretzky, the Vezina would become the Roy or Bordeur. The list goes on and on. Then, what happens if a guy like Crosby does leapfrog Gretzky? Highly unlike, but then do you change the award again?
And I like talking realistic what ifs. And Guest, if you don't like them, don't talk about them.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane??
Yeah, I didn't mean they should change it because I do like a little tradition. All I meant by that was the meaning of the Norris trophy is more fitting than say an offensive defenseman award because as I said Orr was much more than an offensive d-man. That award could be called the Pual Coffey award.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 11:54:40
I agree that there could be an award for Orr, but not the Norris. I would say a new award. The only reason is once the "brilliant" people at the NHL started renaming trophies, it wouldn't be long before they all changed. The Art Ross would become the Gretzky, the Vezina would become the Roy or Bordeur. The list goes on and on. Then, what happens if a guy like Crosby does leapfrog Gretzky? Highly unlike, but then do you change the award again?
And I like talking realistic what ifs. And Guest, if you don't like them, don't talk about them.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane?? |
| willus3 |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 09:40:10
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4794
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Imagine this now Beans. It could have been Orr, Park and Bourque. It is possible all three could have been on that team at once. The "big three" on Montreal would have been overshadowed I'm thinking.
quote:
Boston would not have had the 8th pick in 1979 if Orr was playing with them. They would be much lower down. Even so, if they did have that 8th pick, would they have chosen Bourque another defensemen when they already had Orr and Park?
That's why I said it would have been "possible".
quote:
AAAaahhh I love the what ifs, anything is possible in the what if scenarios. That's why what ifs are irrelevant. History and records is about IS not what if.
If you don't like what if scenarios why bother commenting then?
quote:
Here's one for you, what if Montreal gave Doug Wickenheiser a chance as a rookie and they weren't as stacked offensively as they were. DW wouldn't have been a dud and continued his torrid scoring pace from the Juniors. We'd be naming a trophy after him by now. Well it could happen in the what if world can't it? Hogwash.
Well, if you are giving this example then you have clearly thought about this what if scenario for DW. The trophy comment is obviously a sarcastic jab at my comment about renaming the Norris or Stastny's comment about naming a trophy after Orr. Naming an award after DW is absurd because we didn't see him do much in the NHL. Naming an award after Orr is not in the least bit absurd. We saw how great he was.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| Guest4794 |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 05:25:18
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Imagine this now Beans. It could have been Orr, Park and Bourque. It is possible all three could have been on that team at once. The "big three" on Montreal would have been overshadowed I'm thinking.
Boston would not have had the 8th pick in 1979 if Orr was playing with them. They would be much lower down. Even so, if they did have that 8th pick, would they have chosen Bourque another defensemen when they already had Orr and Park?
AAAaahhh I love the what ifs, anything is possible in the what if scenarios. That's why what ifs are irrelevant. History and records is about IS not what if.
Here's one for you, what if Montreal gave Doug Wickenheiser a chance as a rookie and they weren't as stacked offensively as they were. DW wouldn't have been a dud and continued his torrid scoring pace from the Juniors. We'd be naming a trophy after him by now. Well it could happen in the what if world can't it? Hogwash.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 15:25:41
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
How did I know it was Willus behind a Bobby Orr Forum!
Plus, think of him on Boston with Bourque and Orr on the back end. The Oilers actually would have had a challenge in the 80's.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane??
Just doing my part to spread the truth about who the greatest player of all time is.
Imagine this now Beans. It could have been Orr, Park and Bourque. It is possible all three could have been on that team at once. The "big three" on Montreal would have been overshadowed I'm thinking.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| willus3 |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 14:43:54
quote:
Originally posted by stastnysforever
I bet they'd have a bobby orr award fpr leading scoring defenseman, or maybe most assists, he could have been better than gretzky
avs are gonna win the cup this year
You could have that award but it would actually be an injustice to Orr. He was more than a high scoring defenseman. Possibly the Norris should be renamed the Orr trophy. It would be more fitting I think.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| willus3 |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 14:41:00
quote:
Originally posted by PainTrain
Here's a question to you Willus since you know so much about Orr.
Why didn't he play forward?
With that skating ability he could have maybe he put up more numbers.
Also, don't get hung up on numbers. Hockey is so much more than that. I hate to see people become blind to anything but stats. Stats are useful but not the whole story. 
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| willus3 |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 14:35:20
It's a funny thing Paintrain. I honestly believe people undervalue or underrate how good Orr was defensively. Most are so caught up in how good he was offensively that they generally overlook his defensive abilities and rate purely defensive specialists ahead of him in that area. Orr played defense different than the norm. It was more common to see him check guys going the same direction rather than him skating backwards. It wasn't always because he was catching them after he had pinched in or was on a rush, it was his style. I think some who witnessed it thought because it was different that it wasn't as effective. I think that's bunk. He was the most effective defenseman I've ever seen. He did whatever it took to win games. I think one of the greatest testaments to that was a Gerry Cheevers quote (Boston's Goalie). One year he said Orr should have won the Vezina he blocked so many shots.
So he was extremely effective defensively and then as an added bonus he won a few scoring title. To put that in perspective, imagine Lidstrom winning the scoring race next season. Unimaginable right?
If Orr did play forward i would guess he would have been Gainey-like defensively and Gretky-like offensively.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 09:00:28
Firstly, Orr was a defenseman. His offensive abilities were outstanding, but he was also one of the, if not the best defensive players in history. If you could have a guy that could get 100 points a year and be a stand out defenseman, why would you move him to forward.
And many do think that Orr was the most complete player to ever play the game. He was viewed as outstanding in every facit of the game. The onle knock you ever hear on him was his knees. So ya, he could have been the most complete hockey player in history.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane?? |
| SlowShot |
Posted - 07/17/2007 : 22:04:51
From what I see on youtube orr looks like the most complete player ever. He can start a end to end rush, pass, block shots, fight, hit and go in and out of any player
Pickup hockey pool |
| PainTrain |
Posted - 07/17/2007 : 20:16:35
Here's a question to you Willus since you know so much about Orr.
Why didn't he play forward?
With that skating ability he could have maybe he put up more numbers. |
| stastnysforever |
Posted - 07/17/2007 : 19:57:00
I bet they'd have a bobby orr award fpr leading scoring defenseman, or maybe most assists, he could have been better than gretzky
avs are gonna win the cup this year |
| PainTrain |
Posted - 07/16/2007 : 20:10:33
After watching all of those highlights one word says it all. Amazing! Abstoluteley amazing! I wish I would have seen him play, but everything he has done, his stats are unbelievable. That's one player if he could have played a whole NHL career, who knows what the NHL might be today. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/16/2007 : 19:25:04
How did I know it was Willus behind a Bobby Orr Forum!
And ya Willus, you are dead right. He stopped playing when most defensemen are hitting their prime. The vast majority of skilled defensemen did not come into their own until close to or after the age of 30. Thinking of his love and desire to play the game, if healthy it would have been totally reasonable for him to play into the late 80's. And ya, Bourque and Coffey would not have ever come close. Orr was putting up 80's numbers in the 70's. Plus, think of him on Boston with Bourque and Orr on the back end. The Oilers actually would have had a challenge in the 80's.
What could have been..........
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane?? |
|
|
