| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Guest9949 |
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 19:19:59
The pass to Coffey in the 1985 finals...one of the most beautiful plays of all time. The pass at the end of the 2nd video to Kurri...just as d*** Irvin says..."A textbook example of eyes in the back of your head":
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DAssBSLl3Dc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lg-SrPVlA2E&mode=related&search= |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Guest9956 |
Posted - 08/27/2007 : 07:35:22
Not at all, Andyhack, not at all.... But can you imagine anyone saying that one man could stop the entire British Empire without even using a single gun? They would have been laughed off the face of the Earth. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 08/24/2007 : 13:32:18
Thanks for the kind words Willus! I fear I may have pissed off Guest 9949 though. Or maybe I convinced him and he has been busy writing what very well could be a bestseller, "Mahatma, JUST a revolutionary".
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 11:30:46
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
9949,
Ghandi was indeed a unique revolutionary, but what may surprise you is that, by all accounts, he was also a big Bruins fan . That makes him REALLY unique amongst revolutionaries (as most are Habs fans ).
But if your country needed one person to both lead its revolution and also become its political leader after the revolution, perhaps you would conclude that although Ghandi is a genius at the revolutionary aspect of the process, he MIGHT not be the absolute best man to take on the dual nature of the job. While it's true that his amazing "vision" and 'sense" when it comes to being a revolutionary might lead you to overlook his lack of political savvy, and choose him over other more "complete" candidates for the job, there just MIGHT be one or two other candidates whose complete package is just too impressive to pass up on for the genius of Ghandi's revolutionary skills. After all, genius or no genius, he is, basically, a revolutionary.
BUT, even if you choose Ghandi as your guy, the other candidates' strong abilities at BOTH the revolutionary game and the political game, should be given their due credit historically.
  
I was chuckling to myself as I read this. It is indeed an interesting parallel. Mostly though, I was laughing because after your last post in this thread I was going to say you would make a fine politician. I couldn't resist saying so after this post. Don't take offence. I don't mean it in a bad way, but you definitely know how to play the game. Ever so careful not to piss anyone off. Great stuff.
Me, I like to piss people off sometimes. You may have noticed.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 08/08/2007 : 19:16:20
Wow I am stunned, give me a second to recuperate…Oh its too late the pass is gone by me and I will never get that chance again, unless you are playing with a gifted athlete, then the chance may come by again…
I think timing is everything, if you have to think of what you are going to do (like me) then everything is at a high speed, if you react to what you know what is going to happen then you are Gretzky, Orr, Howe, Lemieux, the list goes on…That is why we are typing and they are playing…
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
| andyhack |
Posted - 08/08/2007 : 18:55:31
9949,
Ghandi was indeed a unique revolutionary, but what may surprise you is that, by all accounts, he was also a big Bruins fan. That makes him REALLY unique amongst revolutionaries (as most are Habs fans).
But if your country needed one person to both lead its revolution and also become its political leader after the revolution, perhaps you would conclude that although Ghandi is a genius at the revolutionary aspect of the process, he MIGHT not be the absolute best man to take on the dual nature of the job. While it's true that his amazing "vision" and 'sense" when it comes to being a revolutionary might lead you to overlook his lack of political savvy, and choose him over other more "complete" candidates for the job, there just MIGHT be one or two other candidates whose complete package is just too impressive to pass up on for the genius of Ghandi's revolutionary skills. After all, genius or no genius, he is, basically, a revolutionary.
BUT, even if you choose Ghandi as your guy, the other candidates' strong abilities at BOTH the revolutionary game and the political game, should be given their due credit historically.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 08/08/2007 : 08:39:14
Hey guest, I think you may hove gone a little too deep with the bend the game and vibrating molocules thing, but I totally agree in the fact that what made him great was the way he played the game.
And one thing that frustrates me is that people's assumption that Gretzky was a poor defensive player. He was not. He we responsible with the puck in his own end and slow down the rush in the neutral zone. Is that what a centre's should do defensively?? Just because he wasn't physical and didn't dig in the corners a lot does not make him a poor defensive player.
I believe that because he was so amazing offensively, it overshadowed everything else.
If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997. |
| Guest9949 |
Posted - 08/08/2007 : 02:49:42
Originally guest 9949 responding to Andyhack's last post...
Great analysis Andyhack. I totally respect your opinion, and I can see where you're coming from. In my opinion, I don't see so much of a law of diminishing returns in Gretzky's game as you do, as his playoff production often came in the form of OT wins, game winning goals, and many, many, many clutch performaces. And since it's the playoffs that count the most, I will take Gretzky's unique vision and hockey sense as an invaluable intangable that no other player was able to bring to the table...whereas the intangables that said "all around" hockey players bring are, once again, much more common to those afformentioned great players, and therefore not so unique.
You say that Gretzky wasn't unique in the sense that we can generally categorize him as a "purely offensive player". That¡s like saying that Ghandi wasn't unique because we can generally catergorize him as being a revolutionary. But we know he was, as it was the WAY he revolted (through passive resistence in his case) that was unique. In a similar sense, Gretzky cannot be categorized in gerneral terms unless we simply focus on his offensive production. It's not WHAT he did, it's HOW he did it. It's the way he became part of the time and space that shaped the patterns of a hockey game...almost like he was able to disappear inside or outside of the play (take your pick), and then reappear in a certain no man's land with a 2 on 1 or a 3 on 1 or a sudden stop...sometimes bending what seemed to be the physical perameters of a hockey game. It's the way he seemed to slow the game down in his head and literally control the opposing players around him in a manner which lent us to believe his molecules vibrated at the exact speed of a hockey game....a place that other players simply couldn't occupy with any consistency....whereas he could time and time again be in that place.
But even if we categorize him in terms of being a "purely offensive player", we must admit his offensive production was more than unique nonetheless in every single catergory. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 08/07/2007 : 18:38:37
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9940
Beans, poster 9949 here...
You make some great points in your post. I actually agree, though I didn't articulate it as nicely as you did. Here's the part that I was basing my post on:
"...it's hard to compare the differences between him (Gretzky) and like categories verses Trotier et al and like categories. The difference is just too staggaring."
In other words, Gretzky was the most unique great player of all time in that no one else played like him in terms of his vision. The difference between him and any other offensively gifted great player is just too great. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Whereas with Messier, Trotier, and Howe, it's apples to apples. Some of them may be greater overall players than the others, but they're all using the same variables as a basis of comparison. With Gretzky, no one else played that way. Not Lemieux, not Larionov. No one. And yes, the staggaring numbers were merely a symptom of that, not the cause. But they do point to something quite extraordinary, don't they? At a certain point, you just have to stop and scratch your head and admit just how unique his talent was.
9940 (formerly the guest known as 9949),
Although I'll acknowledge that Gretzky's offensive style was unique, I do think that it's fair to generally categorize him as a purely offensive player and, in that sense, he is not so unique. More or less, so were Lemieux, Dionne, Denis Savard, Hawerchuk, P. Stastny... One of the points that I've made in the past (which you probably disagreed with) is that with Gretzky's point production, the law of diminishing returns applies to a certain degree. Place any of those purely offensive players on the Oilers in Wayne's place and I say they do more than alright and get their share of Cups.
I know - we've been down this road before, so maybe we should agree to disagree on the point I just made. The real point of my earlier posts here was not to deny how unique Gretzky's talent was, but rather to argue that as we express our awe of Gretzky for his skills, vision, hockey sense, point production and so on, we should remember that all of these things were purely offensive. And therefore at some point in expressing our awe of him, especially to youngsters who didn't see him, I think we should add that there were an endless number of great players in history who were better overall players. Aside from the obvious ones like Trottier and Messier, here are just a few centres from yesteryear that quickly come to mind:
Stan Makita
Bobby Clarke
Daryll Sittler
Jacque Lemaire
Butch Goring
You see that not all of the above are superstars and that is part of my point. Butch Goring was a better overall hockey player than Wayne Gretzky (good overall player meaning someone who plays both offensively and defensively at a high level). Would I want Gretzky on my team more? Yes, for all of the reasons you have very eloquently set out in your previous posts. I'll take Wayne's unique vision, etc because it's just "too much" in that comparison. Does the question become a little trickier when comparing him to Bobby Clarke? Yeah probably, but for me (unlike Willus), I'd still go with Gretzky's unique talents. Next question, Trottier vs. Gretzky. For me that is a hell of a lot tougher, but even then, I'd take Gretzky (FOR A SO-CALLED INSANE GRETZKY HATER, I AM SURE SHOWING A LOT OF RESPECT FOR THIS GRETZKY GUY!). Next up, Messier... and as you know, that's where I draw the line.
Main point - Gretzky was an amazing player but our awe for his offensive talents has, unfortunately, taken some attention away from some amazing two way players. I just think a guy like Trottier deserves a little of the space at the HHOF which currently honors Wayne's admittedly unbelievable offensive hockey ability. And I think you can feel this way even while stopping, scratching your head and admitting just how unique Wayne's talent was.
|
| Guest9940 |
Posted - 08/07/2007 : 17:25:09
Beans, poster 9949 here...
You make some great points in your post. I actually agree, though I didn't articulate it as nicely as you did. Here's the part that I was basing my post on:
"...it's hard to compare the differences between him (Gretzky) and like categories verses Trotier et al and like categories. The difference is just too staggaring."
In other words, Gretzky was the most unique great player of all time in that no one else played like him in terms of his vision. The difference between him and any other offensively gifted great player is just too great. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Whereas with Messier, Trotier, and Howe, it's apples to apples. Some of them may be greater overall players than the others, but they're all using the same variables as a basis of comparison. With Gretzky, no one else played that way. Not Lemieux, not Larionov. No one. And yes, the staggaring numbers were merely a symptom of that, not the cause. But they do point to something quite extraordinary, don't they? At a certain point, you just have to stop and scratch your head and admit just how unique his talent was. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 08/07/2007 : 11:17:06
This is the danger of Gretzky Fans. Once someone challenges the Great One, then the stats getting thrown out. Don't get me wrong, I am easily the biggest Gretzky Fan on this site. But what made him great was his vision and his work ethic, not the numbers he produced. The numbers are a symptom of how he played, but let's not use that as a crutch. The fact that he had such vision to play as well as he did being undersized, not physically gifted with speed, strength or power is what makes him the greatest(or one of the greatest to give credit to Willus/Andyhacks Orr argeument). The point that Andyhack is very vaild. There were players that had more complete games. Howe/Orr/Trottier come to mind. But Gretzky played the game as I doubt no one else ever will. That is the GOAT to me. There are foils to other greatest players. Messier was very much like Howe. Coffey was very much like Orr offensively speaking. Gretzky?? No one comes to mind that could play the game the same way. Not unlike Orr, who I doubt will ever have an equal.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane?? |
| Guest9948 |
Posted - 08/05/2007 : 20:09:58
My point is more that Gretzky's unique offensive trancendance of the game of hockey outweighs the overall packages of players like Messier and Trotier and Howe et al. I supposes domination like Gretzky's is so far beyond anyone else in every single category that it's hard to compare the differences between him and like categories verses Trotier et al and like categories. The difference is just too staggaring. 61 records. More assists than anyone else has points, yet still the most goals to boot. Highest points per game average while playing in over 500 games more than the 2nd best points per game holder (Lemieux). That last one is unreal. To have the highest points per game average over a 20 season career! Here's one for you... the 13 best highest assist seasons in history. How about 9 out of 10 of the highest points scoring seasons in history... the list goes on. 8 straight scoring titles by the time he was 26 years old. It's all a little too much. 50 goals in 39 games. 4 times over 70 goals, twice over 85. 163 assists...in ONE season! Take away all his goals, and he still wins the scoring title that year over Lemieux. And he stil had over 50 goals. One of four times he won the scoring title on his assists alone. All a little too much.... |
| andyhack |
Posted - 08/04/2007 : 20:41:39
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9949
[Other players may have been much better all around players than Gretzky. But I'd take that once in a lifetime vision and hockey sense over anything else that seems to be much more in common between the upper echelon of all around players.
I would take his incredible vision/hockey sense over MOST anything else too 9949-san. That's why Wayne skyrockets past those 99 plus better all-round hockey players in my book. I just draw the line at a couple of players, one of whom I'd say had as many, if not more, "once in a lifetime" gifts going for him than Gretzky (skating acceleration being the one that comes to mind first). And with Orr highlights, you see spectacular plays in all areas of the rink, on offense, on defense, and physically too.
But don't get me wrong. I can understand the awe you have for Gretzky. I too find many of the plays outstanding, and watching them reminds me of his offensive genius (and my younger days in the '80s )! I'm just saying I think Gretzky needs to be explained in a certain light to the 10 year old kid who walks into the HOF in Toronto and sees this huge display on Wayne, and not a whole lot on a guy like say Brian Trottier, one of the 99 plus better overall players in the history of the game than Gretzky (in Trottier's case, let's face it, WAY better overall). Your point, I think, is that there are many more Brians out there than Waynes. I agree to a degree, though my guess is that I think the Trottier packages are far less common than you do. Regardless of who's right on that point though, in my opinion any assessment of Wayne historically should be with the understanding that we are overlooking many aspects of the game of hockey in favor of our awe of his incredible OFFENSIVE hockey sense. Generally speaking, aside from maybe bumping him down a peg or two in a greatest ever debate, I don't think seeing Wayne in this light lessens his greatness, so much as it reminds us that our awe for him sometimes results in us forgetting the greatness of other better all-round hockey players.
|
| Guest9949 |
Posted - 08/04/2007 : 16:02:13
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9949
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
But it's a very nice pass, no question. And, it's passes like this that have Wayne ranked so highly on my list.
Which pass are you referring to?
I was referring to the last one on the second link which d*** Irvin was impressed with. It was pretty cool, I gotta admit. Hey, the guy made some very impressive plays. To say otherwise would be as absurd as saying that he was anywhere near as good an all-round player as the 99th best all-round player in the history of hockey.
Yeah. What is really cool about it is that Gretzky was faking turning with it just to kill the penalty.... like he was going to turn toward the bench and dump it in to kill some more time before heading off the ice to the bench. But then....he suddenly spins around as he's pretending to head to the bench, and somehow hits Kurri on the fly who was coming out of nowhere. I remember Gretzky saying in his autiobiography they used to score a ton of goals like that. Gretzky pretending to curl away back to the bench with the puck, and Kurri anticipating the pass on the rush. These two did not have to call for the puck. They knew each other on the ice like they were one.
The other play there earlier in the same video where Gretzky passes to Kurri on the 3 on 1...and Kurri passes it back to Gretzky who finesses it straight back to him, all in one motion, while they are moving at high speed... confusing the entire defense and goaltender for a spectacular goal...WOW.
Other players may have been much better all around players than Gretzky. But I'd take that once in a lifetime vision and hockey sense over anything else that seems to be much more in common between the upper echelon of all around players. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 08/04/2007 : 12:17:14
quote:
Originally posted by Guest5456
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
You may be right. It's hard to accurately judge because they played different positions.
But consider this: Orr won a couple scoring titles. He was playing defense and was putting up greater offensive numbers than the most productive forwards at the time. And they weren't slouches. This always blows my mind. So then, if had he played forward his primary focus would be to score. I think Gretzky's numbers probably wouldn't have looked all that impressive as you already would have seen Orr's huge numbers. Gretzky may not have even broken Orr's numbers. Who knows.
Based on your logic, if Orr was a forward and scored 200 points then it wouldn't be too impressive because he's a forward and no credit will be given for his ability.
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
So yes, you can point to Gretzky's numbers and say he's obviously more offensively talented then anyone else, but is it actually true? I don't know. I would actually say Lemieux is the most offensively talented player.
Actually Beans didn't say that he thought Gretz was more offensively talented than Lemieux. He said Gretz is more talented than Orr at every facet of offense save for skating speed and shot speed. Don't deflect Willus.
Hey if you ever sign up you should choose the id Nonsense. That's what this post is.
You're saying because I think Orr is the best that any other position but defense will get zero respect from me? Nonsense.
Beans last two sentences said something about comparing a couple of football players and it's like greatest to next greatest or something. So he referenced being the greatest at a position. So I simply stated that I believed Lemieux to be the best offensive talent. But you say I'm deflecting. Again, nonsense.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| andyhack |
Posted - 08/03/2007 : 19:55:47
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9949
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
But it's a very nice pass, no question. And, it's passes like this that have Wayne ranked so highly on my list.
Which pass are you referring to?
I was referring to the last one on the second link which d*** Irvin was impressed with. It was pretty cool, I gotta admit. Hey, the guy made some very impressive plays. To say otherwise would be as absurd as saying that he was anywhere near as good an all-round player as the 99th best all-round player in the history of hockey. |
| Guest5456 |
Posted - 08/03/2007 : 19:39:08
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
You may be right. It's hard to accurately judge because they played different positions.
But consider this: Orr won a couple scoring titles. He was playing defense and was putting up greater offensive numbers than the most productive forwards at the time. And they weren't slouches. This always blows my mind. So then, if had he played forward his primary focus would be to score. I think Gretzky's numbers probably wouldn't have looked all that impressive as you already would have seen Orr's huge numbers. Gretzky may not have even broken Orr's numbers. Who knows.
Based on your logic, if Orr was a forward and scored 200 points then it wouldn't be too impressive because he's a forward and no credit will be given for his ability.
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
So yes, you can point to Gretzky's numbers and say he's obviously more offensively talented then anyone else, but is it actually true? I don't know. I would actually say Lemieux is the most offensively talented player.
Actually Beans didn't say that he thought Gretz was more offensively talented than Lemieux. He said Gretz is more talented than Orr at every facet of offense save for skating speed and shot speed. Don't deflect Willus. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 08/03/2007 : 15:48:52
quote:
Originally posted by PainTrain
Willus3 you are a funny man!!!!
When I heard that I was laughing so hard, not in a ''Oh Willus you're so stupid about that'' but in how you did a really good smart ass come back. I absolutely loved it!!!
No Sacrifice , No Victory!
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| willus3 |
Posted - 08/03/2007 : 15:43:25
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I must say this some what carefully as I don't want it to be misconstrued that I believe the Orr is inferior in any way. That being said, I believe that Gretzky was better at every offensive facit save shot speed and skating speed. Not saying that Orr was poor at these things at all, in fact he was one of the best ever offensive. But Gretzky transcended the offensive game. It's like comparing Marino and Montana. Greatest and almost Greatest, depends who you talk to .
Let's go Willus, we haven't had this fight in some time.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane??
You may be right. It's hard to accurately judge because they played different positions.
But consider this: Orr won a couple scoring titles. He was playing defense and was putting up greater offensive numbers than the most productive forwards at the time. And they weren't slouches. This always blows my mind. So then, had he played forward his primary focus would be to score. I think Gretzky's numbers probably wouldn't have looked all that impressive as you already would have seen Orr's huge numbers. Gretzky may not have even broken Orr's numbers. Who knows.
So yes, you can point to Gretzky's numbers and say he's obviously more offensively talented then anyone else, but is it actually true? I don't know. I would actually say Lemieux is the most offensively talented player.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| Guest9949 |
Posted - 08/03/2007 : 14:46:11
And who can forget this astonishing moment in OT in 1988... Went in and out so quickly, with such a loud "ping", Flames fans were hoping it hit the post...but no.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aXrX0BrPHlg&mode=related&search=
|
| Guest9949 |
Posted - 08/03/2007 : 14:29:39
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
But it's a very nice pass, no question. And, it's passes like this that have Wayne ranked so highly on my list.
Which pass are you referring to? |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 08/03/2007 : 07:11:36
I must say this some what carefully as I don't want it to be misconstrued that I believe the Orr is inferior in any way. That being said, I believe that Gretzky was better at every offensive facit save shot speed and skating speed. Not saying that Orr was poor at these things at all, in fact he was one of the best ever offensive. But Gretzky transcended the offensive game. It's like comparing Marino and Montana. Greatest and almost Greatest, depends who you talk to .
Let's go Willus, we haven't had this fight in some time.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane?? |
| willus3 |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 21:34:34
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
In all fairness, Willus, Bobby Orr never turned water into wine. A good New England chowdaaaa maybe, but not wine.
But it's a very nice pass, no question. And, it's passes like this that have Wayne ranked so highly on my list.
Did he do that in a bah after he drove there in his cah?
I love the New England accent.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| andyhack |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 21:01:26
In all fairness, Willus, Bobby Orr never turned water into wine. A good New England chowdaaaa maybe, but not wine.
But it's a very nice pass, no question. And, it's passes like this that have Wayne ranked so highly on my list. |
| PainTrain |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 20:06:11
quote:
Apparently in your world, Orr is the best at every single facet of the game of hockey. I also understand that he can cure the blind, turn water into wine and come back from the dead and saved the soul of the game called hockey.
Sounds about right...
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
[/quote]
Willus3 you are a funny man!!!!
When I heard that I was laughing so hard, not in a ''Oh Willus you're so stupid about that'' but in how you did a really good smart ass come back. I absolutely loved it!!!
No Sacrifice , No Victory! |
| willus3 |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 13:34:45
quote:
Originally posted by Guest8372
Hoping you would tell all of us.
I can't seem to think of any.(I can actually but you wouldn't be impressed I'm sure) Maybe you could say what you feel he was better at an I'll let you know if I agree or not.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| Guest8372 |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 11:48:17
Hoping you would tell all of us. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 11:12:57
quote:
Originally posted by Guest8372
I'm shocked that Willus admitted that Gretz is the greatest passer in history of the game of hockey. Let's see if he is willing to admit if Gretz was better than Orr at anything else :).
Such as?
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| Guest8372 |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 07:14:59
I'm shocked that Willus admitted that Gretz is the greatest passer in history of the game of hockey. Let's see if he is willing to admit if Gretz was better than Orr at anything else :).
Did you know that Orr can walk on water? Yup, so can all the hockey players too... |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 22:44:55
I thought it was pretty good! At least you had the ability to admit that Gretzky was the greatest passer in history.
Sometimes it's hard to read the sarcasm on this site. I have fallen into reading too much into a post as well.
I think maybe Puck is getting frustrated with the youth of this site talking about every player on TO's roster getting traded, and most of the "speculations" are completely rediculous.
I am getting a little edgy on here lately too.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane?? |
| willus3 |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 21:46:08
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
You drew first blood with "You must play with mutes"
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
You know what humour is right? It's all in fun...
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 21:43:53
You drew first blood with "You must play with mutes"
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 21:43:52
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Wow, not even sure if I should get involved with this. It's pretty funny as it is.
Willus, it seems you tend to discredit many things Gretzky has done. I don't blame you for it, but it is pretty easy to see in what you post.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane??
Well I just thought I'd stir something up. No one was commenting on the OP so a mixin' I went.
Beans, is it me or does Pucknuts seem a little crabby today? Yikes...
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| willus3 |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 21:40:02
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
Willus3
I hear someone calling you. its time for bed...Hypothetically...
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
Someone's a little teste today. And I'm not referring to your mood...
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 21:13:22
Wow, not even sure if I should get involved with this. It's pretty funny as it is.
Willus, it seems you tend to discredit many things Gretzky has done. I don't blame you for it, but it is pretty easy to see in what you post.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane?? |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 21:09:33
Willus3
I hear someone calling you. its time for bed...Hypothetically...
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 21:00:58
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
Willus3
I would love to have a battle of wits with you, but you have no ammunition...
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
Pucknuts,
1983 called, they want their joke back.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 20:48:51
Willus3
I would love to have a battle of wits with you, but you have no ammunition...
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 20:46:01
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
Actually I do not play with mutes, but like I said when you are a good player, and play with good players the chatter is minimal, you should give it a try...Obviously you have not or your comment would be different...
Skate, pass, or shoot no talk needed...
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
Correction: clairvoyant mutes...
I find it amusing what you have assumed.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| willus3 |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 20:43:51
quote:
Originally posted by Guest5456
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
C'mon give some credit to Gretz even if you don't like him. Is Gretzky the best passer of all time in your opinion?
Yes he is.
quote:
Sure in your opinion Orr could do it all. But try looking at Gretz's game with those same rose glasses that you do with Orr. Your opinion about Gretz is so skewed that you will not even allow yourself to permit for an iota of a second that Gretzky is better at something in the game of hockey than Orr (if not the GOAT).
Really?
quote:
Apparently in your world, Orr is the best at every single facet of the game of hockey. I also understand that he can cure the blind, turn water into wine and come back from the dead and saved the soul of the game called hockey.
Sounds about right...
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 20:14:13
Actually I do not play with mutes, but like I said when you are a good player, and play with good players the chatter is minimal, you should give it a try...Obviously you have not or your comment would be different...
Skate, pass, or shoot no talk needed...
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
|
|
